| Author |
 Topic  |
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:23:06
|
Poll Question:
Though I am not a member of the "Gretzky Camp" (as I think most of you know), I thought that, given the onslaught of anti-Gretzky posts by Guest 5221 (Chooch?), it would be fair to raise another hopefully interesting hypothetical.
I know this can be worded in many ways, but this is what I've come up with.
If the Kings of the early '90s would have had two or three players of greater talent than they had (bringing them closer to the talent level of the '94 Rangers), would Gretzky have been able to lead that Kings team to the Stanley Cup (particularly in '93 obviously).
|
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/06/2007 11:23:52
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:25:25
|
| Or "IF the Kings had played in the East and had to go through real teams in the playoffs instead of crap to get to the Finals, would Wayne have retired by 1990?" |
 |
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:27:40
|
What do you mean by "onslaught" of anti Wayne posts, hackhead?
Who is this chooch fellow? Wasnt he banned from HF Boards becasue the Gretzyites couldnt answer the call and got the internet bodyguards to take care of him/her? |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:30:00
|
I think you may be right about Chooch (and you may be Chooch). either way you are entertaining.
Hackhead - I have to say, that's a new one. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 11:34:55
|
The word "onslaught" was not said in a critical way. I just thought it was funny that when I woke up today there were like three or four posts from you all knocking Gretzky bigtime. You are nothing if not an agitator. The Sean Avery of Pickup Hockey - 5221Head!
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 12:24:46
|
I voted yes. A few more talented guys could very well have made the difference. In all honesty, LA had no business being in the finals in 93. I give full credit to Gretzky for getting them there. He elevated his play in the Leafs/Kings series and thats what got LA to the finals.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 14:04:56
|
I voted yes as well. Thinking of the powerhouse Penguins on the early 90's, having talent like Recchi, Cullen, Coffey, Stevens, Jagr, Murphy, Brown, Francis,Tocchet, and Lemiex. That is an amazing line up. Gretzky had Robitaille, Sanstrom, Granato, with Blake and Robinson on defense. And Kelly Hrudy never was a good goalie!
Gretzky getting the Kings there in 93 was a huge feat. That Montreal team they ran into was pretty talented as well. Damphousse, Muller, Bellows, Savard, Carbonneau, with a very good defense and one of the top play-off goalies of all time. |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 19:40:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I voted yes as well. Thinking of the powerhouse Penguins on the early 90's, having talent like Recchi, Cullen, Coffey, Stevens, Jagr, Murphy, Brown, Francis,Tocchet, and Lemiex. That is an amazing line up. Gretzky had Robitaille, Sanstrom, Granato, with Blake and Robinson on defense. And Kelly Hrudy never was a good goalie!
Gretzky getting the Kings there in 93 was a huge feat. That Montreal team they ran into was pretty talented as well. Damphousse, Muller, Bellows, Savard, Carbonneau, with a very good defense and one of the top play-off goalies of all time.
Don;t make me laugh. That Habs team was very average - witness the 10 OT games they won in the playoffs and the 96 point season they had.
Yet they made gretzky and the Kings look like amatuers.
The Playoffs were very skewed to advantage the West teams from 1980 onwards. Part of the WHA pact. The Oilers had to beat 2 expansion teams every year to make the Finals (oops forgot the powerhouse Hawks with Bannerman in Nets).
Think of what Mario had to do each year in the playoffs - Scott Stevens, the Habs, Rangers, Bruins, flyers etc etc, every year, each series. |
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 21:00:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest5221
Or "IF the Kings had played in the East and had to go through real teams in the playoffs instead of crap to get to the Finals, would Wayne have retired by 1990?"
I thought you wanted to talk facts...that may be the biggest what if/hypothetical reply of the post...even if it is sarcastic
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
Edited by - GOWINGS19 on 05/06/2007 21:02:14 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 09:46:45
|
First of all, your facts are a little bit off. Montreal had 102 points in the 92-93 season, which was good for 5th in the league. That's a bit better than an average team. And that was 14 points ahead of Gretzky's Kings.
Secondly, that Montreal team did have to play some tough match ups to get to the finals, I agree with that. But how is a team with 4-1000+ career point scorers, and the best play-off goalie in history an "average" team??
And the play offs have been set up for the West to have an advantage since 1980?? Between 1980 and 2006 there have been 14 winners from the East and 12 from the West. How does your theory stand up to that??
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 10:07:22
|
A Hypothetical to discuss!! Right on! 
This is the NHL, so there are no 'givens', but I think that if Gretz had a couple extra players for support, that the Kings could certainly have the potential to have won a cup. They had some decent players, but needed more. To go one step further, I would say that if Gretz wasnt there, they would have needed a heckuva lot more support to even make an attempt for the cup. To go even one more step further, you could replace Gretz with Mario and I'd still be saying the same things.  |
|
|
|
GOWINGS19
Rookie
USA
232 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 11:51:54
|
man without gretzky i don't think this team even catches a glimpse of those playoffs
"I don’t need to score the goal. I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals." -Vladmir Konstantinov |
|
|
|
Guest1267
( )
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 12:28:29
|
| Even if you left the team as it was, they still had the potential to win the cup that year. They came within an illegal (Marty McSorley) stick to winning game 2 -- which would have put them up 2-0 in the series, a decided advantage. Moreover, games 3 and 4 both went to OT, let's not forget. The series was a lot closer to what the final number of games played indicate. Jaques Demers even admitted -- as he put it -- that Gretzky "toyed" with the Habs in game one, essentially skating circles around their D-men and defensive systems. Without Gretzky, the Kings would not have had any chance to even get passed the 1st round and 2nd rounds, when Gretzky single handedly dismantled both the Flames and Canucks. His 40 points that postseason may go down as the greatest playoff performance in the history of the NHL to not win the Conn Smyth trophy -- and definitely one the greatest playoff performances ever in the NHL. That slapshot over Patrick Roy's glove hand in game 3 that somehow went in and out before the blink of an eye -- creating the illusion that it hit the post, and causing Bob Cole to have conniption fits, "It hit the post! No it didn't, it went in! Patrick Roy couldn't get his arm up!" -- will forever be etched in my mind as the moment I saw a player make Patrick Roy look completely mortal. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 14:18:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest1267
Even if you left the team as it was, they still had the potential to win the cup that year. They came within an illegal (Marty McSorley) stick to winning game 2 -- which would have put them up 2-0 in the series, a decided advantage. Moreover, games 3 and 4 both went to OT, let's not forget. The series was a lot closer to what the final number of games played indicate. Jaques Demers even admitted -- as he put it -- that Gretzky "toyed" with the Habs in game one, essentially skating circles around their D-men and defensive systems. Without Gretzky, the Kings would not have had any chance to even get passed the 1st round and 2nd rounds, when Gretzky single handedly dismantled both the Flames and Canucks. His 40 points that postseason may go down as the greatest playoff performance in the history of the NHL to not win the Conn Smyth trophy -- and definitely one the greatest playoff performances ever in the NHL. That slapshot over Patrick Roy's glove hand in game 3 that somehow went in and out before the blink of an eye -- creating the illusion that it hit the post, and causing Bob Cole to have conniption fits, "It hit the post! No it didn't, it went in! Patrick Roy couldn't get his arm up!" -- will forever be etched in my mind as the moment I saw a player make Patrick Roy look completely mortal.
This is an excellent post. You make some great points here. The series was very close. Three overtime wins for Montreal. Just a little more depth on the Kings would have made the difference.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 16:18:52
|
The Kings have never really had depth in their franchises history. Marcel Dionne, another great, played for this team for a very long time and was deserving of a Cup he never got. But we'll talk about him another day.
Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates. He had it in Edmonton but never in LA. Had he gotten someone better would he have done better and would the Kings have had one Cup to their resume...probably. This was one thing that LA should have addressed that off-season and they would have had another quality shot. Biut they didn't.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
|
|
|
Habsfan92
Top Prospect
15 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 16:22:22
|
| A Cup? Maybe, but not against the 1993 Montreal Canadiens |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 17:09:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates. He had it in Edmonton but never in LA. Had he gotten someone better would he have done better and would the Kings have had one Cup to their resume...probably.
I'll just assume that you're a youngin and were there to watch Gretzky play in LA. :)
Gretzky was not 'nothing' without proper linemates.
Gretzky had 168/142/163pts in his first 3 seasons with L.A. and who did he have for 'proper' linemates? Practically noone. Gretz had a wet-behind-the-ears Robitaille, a grinding Tonelli, and an off an on Nicholls. You are right though that if he had someone better, he would have done better, and if the Kings had a little more depth then perhaps they might have won a cup.
Nicholls is an interesting case-study:
86-87: GP: 80, PTS: 81 (no Gretzky)
87-88: GP: 65, PTS: 78 (no Gretzky)
88-89: GP: 79, PTS: 150 (with Gretzky)
89-90: GP: 47, PTS: 75 (with Gretzky)
89-90: GP: 32, PTS: 37 (no Gretzky)
90-91: GP: 71, PTS: 73 (no Gretzky)
91-92: GP: 49, PTS: 49 (no Gretzky)
I think Bernie is pretty POed about being traded from the Kings in 89-90. ;) I can see him still visualizing all those points and dollar signs floating out the window.... |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 19:39:23
|
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
Saying Gretzky was nothing without proper linemates is the dumbest thing ever typed.
It is pointless arguing with people who make these statements.
EVERY PLAYER TO PUT ON LACES PLAYS WITH GOOD PLAYERS AT SOME POINT, you friggin' donkey! THEY ARE IN THE NH-bloody-L.
What great player "slipped through the cracks" due to his lousy linemates??????????
Maybe Tie Domi would have broken Gretzky's records had he played with Kurri and Coffey, by your logic.
And here is a thought...maybe those guys (Kurri, Mess, Anderson, Coffey) were made better by the best player of all-time. Maybe it wasn't just a funny little coincidence that, like, seven superstars came off that one team. Maybe it wasn't just dumb luck. Maybe there was a common factor....wait for it.....
The Great One.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:04:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book.
It is pointless arguing with people who make these statements.
EVERY PLAYER TO PUT ON LACES PLAYS WITH GOOD PLAYERS AT SOME POINT, you friggin' donkey! THEY ARE IN THE NH-bloody-L.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Nice post!
You now have zero credibility.
You are about to get roasted.
BTW your Gretzky quote is quite possibly one of least intelligent statements ever quoted. Yet all you Gretzky fans just gobble it up.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/07/2007 20:07:34 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:07:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
OK, the above is the proof guys. TC, Beans and others who have read my posts related to this topic over the last few months, THIS is what I am talking about.
As mentioned in previous posts, I think Gretzky is maybe the third or fourth best player ever. Third or fourth EVER! Major compliment!
And yet, for fly4apuckguy, that constitutes me as insane. I have no choice but to take that as a major compliment I guess, cause if the alternative is to be as rigid and inflexible in one's way of thinking as fly4apuckguy, then I want no part of sanity.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 20:48:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
If there is still someone out there willing to tell me that Gretzky was not the greatest player of all time, I really feel bad for you. You are insane, and need to read the NHL record book. You also need to invest some time in ESPN Classics, the channel which will provide you with the knowledge you so desparately seek.
OK, the above is the proof guys. TC, Beans and others who have read my posts related to this topic over the last few months, THIS is what I am talking about.
As mentioned in previous posts, I think Gretzky is maybe the third or fourth best player ever. Third or fourth EVER! Major compliment!
And yet, for fly4apuckguy, that constitutes me as insane. I have no choice but to take that as a major compliment I guess, cause if the alternative is to be as rigid and inflexible in one's way of thinking as fly4apuckguy, then I want no part of sanity.
Hey hey Andyhack. I never argued once that there were not people like fly guy. Just like I never argued once that there were not people with his exact same mentality towards Lemieux. :)
People will have their opinions, some stronger than others, but it's hard to say they are right or wrong in highly subjective circumstances.
You try to get the Gretzky camp to admit that there is at least a debate. Others try to get the Lemieux camp to admit that there is at least a debate. And then there is you.. who like to include a few more players into the debate. :)
Diversity of thinking makes the world interesting.
-TC
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:17:48
|
TC - you get my point though, I think. I am NOT saying "Gretzky would have been eaten up in the east' or "The NHL protected Gretzky from getting hit" or "Gretzky was way way overrated" ETC, ETC ETC. , and yet, I am "insane" for even considering that he may not be THE best. I think this sort of thinking is WAY more pre-dominant than the reverse - Orr or Lemieux supporters calling others "insane" for having a different opinion. Chooch is the exception to the rule in the Lemieux -Orr camps. fly4apuckguy is the rule, or at least close to the rule, in the Gretzky camp.
Anyway, kids out there, there IS a debate to be had about this. Don't pay attention to any elders who tell you that you are "insane" for thinking about alternatives to Gretzky as the best ever.
|
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 21:37:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
TC - you get my point though, I think. I am NOT saying "Gretzky would have been eaten up in the east' or "The NHL protected Gretzky from getting hit" or "Gretzky was way way overrated" ETC, ETC ETC. , and yet, I am "insane" for even considering that he may not be THE best. I think this sort of thinking is WAY more pre-dominant than the reverse - Orr or Lemieux supporters calling others "insane" for having a different opinion. Chooch is the exception to the rule in the Lemieux -Orr camps. fly4apuckguy is the rule, or at least close to the rule, in the Gretzky camp.
Anyway, kids out there, there IS a debate to be had about this. Don't pay attention to any elders who tell you that you are "insane" for thinking about alternatives to Gretzky as the best ever.
I completely agree with everything you said, except that I don't quite see it as 1-way lop-sided as you. I still agree that this mentality is more pre-dominant in the Gretzky camp than other camps thou. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 22:04:57
|
| Last comment for the night. Look at what prompted this. Now I admit, if I am a Gretzky camp member, and I hear Leafs fan 101's comment, "Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates", I give the kid (he is 14 according to his info) a talk, as TC did with some stats and figures (my guess is that he just worded what he wanted to say incorrectly by the way). BUT, I'd also look at some of the redeeming things the kid said in his post about Gretzky, which, amongst other things, were that Gretzky was great and that Gretzky would have won the Cup with better teammates on the Kings. Now I don't know if this kid is really 14, but if he is, I kind of feel bad for the guy. I mean, particularly given the otherwise reasonable comments of his post, he didn't deserve to be called a "friggin' donkey" or be told that he typed "the dumbest thing ever". |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/07/2007 22:18:27 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 23:09:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Last comment for the night. Look at what prompted this. Now I admit, if I am a Gretzky camp member, and I hear Leafs fan 101's comment, "Gretzky, although great, was nothing without proper linemates", I give the kid (he is 14 according to his info) a talk, as TC did with some stats and figures (my guess is that he just worded what he wanted to say incorrectly by the way). BUT, I'd also look at some of the redeeming things the kid said in his post about Gretzky, which, amongst other things, were that Gretzky was great and that Gretzky would have won the Cup with better teammates on the Kings. Now I don't know if this kid is really 14, but if he is, I kind of feel bad for the guy. I mean, particularly given the otherwise reasonable comments of his post, he didn't deserve to be called a "friggin' donkey" or be told that he typed "the dumbest thing ever".
I couldn't agree more. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 06:22:37
|
quote:
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there
Well it is definitely a lesson in redundancy and illogical thought. Yes I get what he was trying to say, but it was said poorly.
In actual fact you cannot miss if you don't take a shot. Missing a shot requires the action of shooting. You don't miss the shots you don't take, but you do miss the opportunity to score if you don't shoot.
Perhaps he should have said - you will never score if you don't shoot, or - it's impossible to score if you don't take the shot.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 09:36:48
|
Andyhack, I strongly agree with your frustration towards those in the Gretzky Camp who say, "Looks at the Stats, Looks at the record book, he's the best ever and your are a moron if you think other wise." They make guys like me look bad. No different than the guys who say, "Look at all the even strength goals against, he always hung around centre ice, he couldn't win a Cup without Messier, he couldn't play defense, and he didn't fight." They make the Non Gretzky Camp look bad.
I only ask that you don't paint us all with the same brush. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 11:57:55
|
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
Aside from Boston fans (Orr) and Pittsburgh fans (Lemieux) and a couple of dreamers in Montreal (Richard) and Detroit (Howe), no legitimate hockey source disagrees with me on this one.
I love all of those guys I listed above, but I am not dillusional, because I don't particularly cheer for any of those teams, including the Oilers.
With all due respect, the only people left in this world who disagree with Gretzky being called the best player of all time are the ones who were not around to watch him in his heyday. I'm old enough to have seen them all (except the Rocket). Even Lemieux and Orr have gone on record saying it's no contest.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 12:18:44
|
Fly, I'm on your side with this one. If you look back at my post, I may be the biggest Gretzky advocate on this site. I have just come to learn that many people on here were not old enough to see Prime Time Gretzky. I am 30 and I can't remember all of it. But I remember enough to agree with you.
However, as you missed a big part of the Greatest Player ever and Lemiuex vs. Gretzky debates over this season, I can understand some people's opinions. There is merit to question Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux. In my opinion, the biggest reasons that there is merit to these points is the what if they were healthy and played as long as Gretzky factor. I still don't buy it though.
The thing that many people on here are siting are the countless posts that say something like, "Of course it's Gretzky, who ever things otherwise is an idiot." It's those posts without any substance that infuriate many people, including me. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:01:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
As we all know, one ex-coach would be Don Cherry. Obviously biased, yes, but on the other hand, not many have watched more hockey in the last 40 years, and of course he had a close view of Orr from the bench.
One prominent non-biased player may be Guy Lafleur (certain comments I have heard him make seem to indicate that he believes Orr was the best).
I am sure there are lots of ex-players and coaches from the '70s who would say Orr too.
As for getting sun, I got in a very nice share of cycling over the last few beautiful days in Toronto, thanks. To each his own, fly4apuckguy. If you are comfortable with calling 14 year old kids "friggin donkeys" and also comfortable with not being a big enough person to admit that you may have been a little harsh in that post of yours to Leafs fan 101 (who ultimately was just explaining why he was answering "yes" to the hypothetical being posed), I guess there is not much anyone can do about it.
|
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:12:34
|
First, I had no idea I was calling a 14 year old a friggin donkey. I assumed the people on this board were older. When I was 14, I was never indoors. I wouldn't purposely hurt a kid, man. I work with kids. If I upset you, kid, I'm sorry. But it proves my point that young people can't really judge the Great One. They often go by what their dad says, or some highlights they see, or posts where people say "if it wasn't for his linemates...".
Second, I am Don Cherry's biggest fan, but I understand his limitations. The guy likes certain types of players, most of whom I also like. But just like he almost never likes a European, he was never a Gretzky fan, much like he is not really a Crosby fan. He gets a lot of mileage off of being controversial, much like IHC does on this message board.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:29:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
Okay, I'm the rigid one.
Name one major hockey publication, hockey insider, ex-coach, or unbiased ex-player that would disagree with Gretzky being called the best player that ever lived.
Aside from Boston fans (Orr) and Pittsburgh fans (Lemieux) and a couple of dreamers in Montreal (Richard) and Detroit (Howe), no legitimate hockey source disagrees with me on this one.
I love all of those guys I listed above, but I am not dillusional, because I don't particularly cheer for any of those teams, including the Oilers.
With all due respect, the only people left in this world who disagree with Gretzky being called the best player of all time are the ones who were not around to watch him in his heyday. I'm old enough to have seen them all (except the Rocket). Even Lemieux and Orr have gone on record saying it's no contest.
As for the whining about my quote and me calling someone a donkey, people, it's a message board. Some of you need to go out and get some sun once in awhile.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Gretz
Alright, how about The Hockey News. The 100 Greatest Players edition. Gretzky was voted number one, Orr number two. So right away you say well there you go. But dig a little deeper and see what the vote came to. They both received the same amount of first place votes at 18. The decision was made on second place voting and the difference was less than 1%. This was a collection of hockey pundits that voted and not just some random fans. Hardly a definitive victory for Gretzky. So half voted for Gretz and half for Orr. That pretty much blows you're first idiotic statement out of the water.
I am also not delusional as I am not a fan of any of the teams you mentioned either and I choose Orr.
You're next remedial statement about the only ones who say otherwise are the ones who weren't around to watch Gretzky in his heyday is completely false. In fact if you polled those that saw all of these guys play you would most likely find the majority choosing Orr. From everything I've read about people saying, that's how it would turn out. I saw them both and without hesitation I choose Orr. And BTW Orr has never gone on record as saying Gretzky is the best. He gave the nod to Howe and Lemieux.
As for your insulting comments, the only reason I, and I suspect a few others on here haven't unloaded a barrage of verbal abuse on you is because we, unlike you, respect what this site is trying to do with the rules they have put in place. Perhaps you should read them again? This is a forum intended for civil debates.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/08/2007 14:49:37 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 14:35:10
|
I'm gonna give you an out on this, fly4apuckguy.
Let's try again. Read below and then answer the question.
I think Bobby Orr was the best hockey player who ever lived. I think Mark Messier was the best forward who ever lived. If I were building a team from scratch, I would want to take them before Gretzky (based on personal preference, yes, but also based on what I objectively think would be best for a team).
I think Gretzky was an incredible offensive machine with probably the best vision of any hockey player ever. He was absolutely phenomenal, a one in a million player, and therefore the third best hockey player ever in my books.
Is Andyhack insane?
YES or NO
p.s. Ironically, Chooch will say "yes" for me giving Wayne the edge over Mario, amongst other things written up there |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/08/2007 14:37:52 |
|
|
|
Guest5221
( )
|
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 17:33:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I'm gonna give you an out on this, fly4apuckguy.
Let's try again. Read below and then answer the question.
I think Bobby Orr was the best hockey player who ever lived. I think Mark Messier was the best forward who ever lived. If I were building a team from scratch, I would want to take them before Gretzky (based on personal preference, yes, but also based on what I objectively think would be best for a team).
I think Gretzky was an incredible offensive machine with probably the best vision of any hockey player ever. He was absolutely phenomenal, a one in a million player, and therefore the third best hockey player ever in my books.
Is Andyhack insane?
YES or NO
p.s. Ironically, Chooch will say "yes" for me giving Wayne the edge over Mario, amongst other things written up there
Hackhead, I dont think youre insane (ugly, maybe).
My all time top 10 sicn eI started watching in 1971 are:
1.Mario (no question the Greatest Ever - and I cant see what bias I would have not being from Pitts.)
2.Hasek - way more dominant than Roy and neevr given credit because of his being a furreener.
3.Jagr see above and did it in the East
4.Orr Unbel4ievable
5.Lafleur - 10 times the player Bure was, 10 times as exiting as anyone except maybe Orr and Mario. 10 times as complete as anyone - best passer in the league, best shot, fastest skater, best stickhandler, most clutch etc etc,
6.Bourque - should have win 18 Norris'
7.Trottier - most complete player along with Messier
8.Gretzky - big question mark is how he woudl have done on his own and in the East with tough checking
9.Messier - most complete player ever
10.Esposito - absolutely dominant household name in the early 70's.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 17:52:31
|
Insanely ugly! But my wife says she loves me nevertheless.
Gretzky before Messier? Chooch-san! ARE YOU INSANE?
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2007 : 19:23:45
|
It seems to me to be quite obvious that if you take any team add better players that you will have a better team, but will that team win the Stanley Cup, not necessarily. When it comes to the playoffs you have to elevate your game to win, if you add better players you best hope that they will perform in the playoffs…
If you look at the roster for the 1992-93 LA. Kings, they had some talent on that team.
(I was going to list all the players, but you can look them up if you want)
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000401993.html
They were 5th in the league in goals for, but 21st in goals against (Ouch).
What would a post from me be without stats.
Regular season
Top 12 Forwards
LA. Kings 609 Pts (Gretzky only played 45 games)
Montreal 638 Pts
Top 6 Defense
LA. Kings 261 Pts (Coffey traded after 50 games)
Montreal 179 Pts
Playoffs
Top 12 Forwards
LA Kings 180
Montreal 135
Top 6 Defense
LA Kings 51 Pts (Without Coffey)
Montreal 38 Pts
Yes I think that with the addition of a goalie they may have done better.
But trading Paul Coffey away, now that was dumb…
They did not need better players they needed better management, Nick Beverley made one of the dumbest trades, I guess that is why he was not with the team the next season, and that is why they did not win the Cup in 1993...
Oh they did have some outside help on their team in "Kerry Fraser"...
Lead, follow, or get out of the way... |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 05/08/2007 19:25:16 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 06:42:20
|
Good points Pucknuts. The major difference that year, aside from the call in Game 2, was Roy, and frankly also some good old-fashioned luck (I've said it before, and I'll say it again, God is a Habs fan).
In retrospect, I think I should have made this hypothetical a little bit more focused, such as a) what if they wouldn't have traded Coffey? or b) What if they would have had a better goalie than Kelly H (what if they would have had Curtis Joseph for example)?
Edit - I won't start more polls on this (so relax!), but I guess there are all types of other hypotheticals that Gretzky Camp members could try to use in their guy's defence. If Messier is traded to the Kings instead of Gretzky, do the '90 Oilers still win the Cup? If Gretzky is on that '94 Ranger team instead of Messier, do they still pull out the Jersey semi-final and the seven game final? All interesting hypothetcials that perhaps support Gretzky. Sometimes hypotheticals are just as fair (and fun) as facts I guess. |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/09/2007 07:34:59 |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:55:09
|
(Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. Do the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:57:08
|
EDIT:
Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. To the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 11:58:08
|
(Previously Guest 1267)
Andyhack, I think I can see your purpose in this thread. Many of the pro Gretzky guys don't like hypotheticals since hypotheticals are the main basis for the Lemieux camp. Yet you have started a hypothetical thread which the pro Gretzky guys cannot resist, and thereby proving to them that hypotheticals are indeed useful....which, in turn, will give merit to the Lemieux side in the Lemieux vs. Gretzky arguments which inevitably follow! Nicely done.
PS. To the guy who said Gretzky didn't do anything against the Habs...You know he scored 4 points in game 1, causing Jaques Demers to have conniption fits during the post game press conference, right? |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 12:39:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
ps. Willus, I dont agree with you regarding Gretzky's quote. It actually is quite profound - especially for our very young players out there
Well it is definitely a lesson in redundancy and illogical thought. Yes I get what he was trying to say, but it was said poorly.
In actual fact you cannot miss if you don't take a shot. Missing a shot requires the action of shooting. You don't miss the shots you don't take, but you do miss the opportunity to score if you don't shoot.
Perhaps he should have said - you will never score if you don't shoot, or - it's impossible to score if you don't take the shot.
I don't agree. Although what you propose is more straight-forward and to the point, it would never have been remember. LIke it or not, the real quote *has* been remember and has stuck around.. (some signatures around here are proof of that. ;)) |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
