| Author |
 Topic  |
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:06:51
|
Poll Question:
If Wayne Gretzky is replaced by Marcel Dionne on the '80s Oilers, do they still win their 4 cups that decade?
|
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/25/2007 14:20:36
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:08:17
|
| For the purposes of this question, assume Gretzky is on the Kings of the '80s and all other things are equal. |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:21:17
|
Andy you are a s&*t disturber aren't you. That's why I love ya. 
I believe they very well could have. I think you would have seen Dionne's point totals increase as well.
But if Gretzky is on the Kings don't discount what that could do to the Oilers in the playoffs. He may have caused them to have a few fits.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/25/2007 14:21:53 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 14:37:57
|
| Yeah, I was thinking about killing Gretzky off for the purpose of this hypothetical but, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T HATE THE GUY, I have avoided the "cruel hypothetical" route. I would be interested in how people think about both scenarios though - a live Gretzky on a so-so Kings team occasionally battling Messier/Dionne's Oilers in the playoffs, or ...well lets keep him alive, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T HATE THE GUY, and just say he chose baseball over hockey. I like to keep gory death scenes out of my hypotheticals! |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/25/2007 14:38:55 |
|
|
|
chooch
Top Prospect
Afghanistan
60 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 17:58:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
If Wayne Gretzky is replaced by Marcel Dionne on the '80s Oilers, do they still win their 4 cups that decade?
I Said yes, but my real answer is that they woudl have won more. Look at it like this - they only had to win 1 real series to make the finals every year and Calgary wasnt always a good team.
The OIlers lost in G7 to Cowtown in 86 - why? 99 thats why. Can you see a top player letting them lose - that series was like Habs Bruins 79 and Lafleur just wouldnt let the Habs lose.
Dionne woudl have played out of the 2 slot. Messier woudl have ben the number 1 center and given the same ice time he woudl have won several Art Ross's and been a team plyer.
Yes a team player unlike 99 who was more concerned with records than Cups (see backchecking).
I am Ogopogo's bodyguard |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 18:36:53
|
The Oiler teams from the 80's would have won a couple of cups without Gretzky. At one time, with Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Messier, Fuhr, and Coffey they had 6 of the top 10 players in the world at the time. As many Cups, I don't think so. Like him or hate him, Gretzky was the focal point of the Oilers offense. Without him, the dimension of that team changes and they are not as big of an offensive threat. Still great, but not as great. It's like asking what Pittsburgh would have done in the early 90's without Mario. They were still a great team, but Mario made them amazing.
And I can't understand how a guy who was a pass first/shoot second player is not a team player? Gretzky was far from greedy and made everyone around him better. He was definately a team player, not only with the Oilers but everywhere he went.
And the 86 Oilers lost on a misplay of a rookie defenseman, not Gretzky. I guess 19 points in 10 games is a good reason why they lost??
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2007 : 20:10:11
|
Remember, we are not just taking Gretzky off the Oilers here. We are replacing him with one of the greatest players of all time. This poll wasn't meant to be as much about Gretzky as it was meant to be about Dionne. He is a guy that could have been regarded at least a step, if not two or three steps above where he is regarded now, but for a twist of fate in terms of the teams where he ended up. If you have answered that the Oilers wouldn't have won as many Cups, I hope you have considered the greatness of Dionne in doing so.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 17:33:40 |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 00:59:47
|
| LA would have won a cup or two instead. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 15:49:52
|
This is gonna be a long one as I am using it to help me through some pain from a visit to the dentist today.
Guest 4462 - Do you really believe that, with otherwise the same roster (minus Dionne who plays for the Oilers in this hypothetical), the Kings of those years would have won a Cup or two? Or were you joking? Hopefully you were joking. But just in case, I thought I'd look at that more closely and hope that in the meantime the Advil starts to set in.
Below are L.A.'s stats in the years of the '80s prior to Gretzky's arrival:
1987-88 30-42-8
1986-87 31-41-8
1985-86 23-49-8
1984-85 34-32-14
1983-84 23-44-13
1982-83 27-41-12
1981-82 24-41-15
1980-81 43-24-13
Interestingly, L.A.s best year by far was '80-81. Gretzky of course had an incredible year statistically that year with 164 points, but actually, Dionne was not too shabby at all with 135 points. So, in comparing the two, Gretzky is basically a slightly more amazing offensive force than Dionne. Does that get them the Cup that year? I don't think so. One reason I don't think so - even with the Oiler's nice run that year (upsetting the Habs in the first round ), they didn't really come close to a Cup, and though very young, that Oiler team likely had way more talent already than that relatively good Kings team.
I then think we can fast forward to Luc Robitaille's arrival on the Kings in '86-87 cause outside of one basically .500 year in 84-85, the Kings of the mid-80s were pretty dismal, and lets face it, likely beyond winning the Cup even if they had BOTH Gretzky AND Messier on their team! But in '86-87, Luc arrives so that team, with a solid Bernie Nicholls - a very accomplished player even without Wayne , Jimmy Carson as well as Taylor (though aging) and a few others did have some talent. But if we are going to say Gretzky would have led that Kings team to the Cup then don't we have to wonder why he didn't actually lead the probably somewhat better teams of the late 80s to the Cup? Don't get me wrong, he obviously deserves a lot of credit for the turn around in '88-89, but that team, though relatively successful, didn't really come all that close to a Cup. It seems to me that if we are going to say that Gretzky would have led the 86-87 or 87-88 Kings to the Cup we almost have to, ironically, elevate our opinions of the guys for whom Gretzky was ultimately traded (as they were not on the team in '88-89 so if the earlier teams would have won, their presence would probably have been a huge part of the reason).
All of the above is a long, complicated and confusing way (my teeth friggn hurt ) of saying that if you REALLY think Gretzky would have led the Kings of the '80s to a Cup or two, then I think you are making a typical Gretzky camp member error - elevating your admittedly amazing guy to heights that are just ridiculously too high.
p.s. Just to be fair too, put Bobby Orr, or put Mario Lemieux, or put Mark Messier on the Kings of the '80s (in Marcel's place), and they still ain't winning any Cups either. |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 16:08:17 |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:16:45
|
I have stayed away from even reading this thread because I generally dislike huge hypotheticals.However, although simple in its hypothesis, it has been very well thought out.
After first considering that a) the Oilers would have won 1 or 2 less cups and b) that Gretzky would have led the earlier LA team to a single cup, I have been convinced by andyhack's last (toothy) post that, no, LA would still be cup-free.
Well done andy. Solid hypothetical too, very original. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:50:03
|
Thanks Mr. Pickles. Just wondering where you think the Oilers would have dropped off with Dionne instead of Gretzky. And to Willus and others who saw Dionne play, do you think there are some areas where the Oilers might actually have improved with Dionne?
And Willus brought up a very good point. How many more points does Dionne get on that Oilers team? Would it not have been possible for him to have reached the 150 or 160 point mark, given that he was getting 135 on the far less talented Kings?
By the way, I am just doing this hypothetical because Marcel and Wayne were both centres, but probably a much more realistic hypothetical ( realistic hypothetical - that's kind of neat) would be to ask what would have happened with the Habs of the '70s if they had taken Dionne instead of Lafleur (which, as we know, was in fact the real choice at the time). Interestingly, and I have to think about why, as much as I am a Dionne supporter, and as much as I believe that overall the Habs dynasty was better than the Oilers dynasty, I personally find the "Dionne on the Habs" hypothetical a much trickier one than the Oilers one here.
Hmmm, does this mean I have to revise my list and put Lafleur ahead of Gretzky now? |
|
|
|
Guest4090
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:56:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
...an incredible year statistically that year with 164 points, but actually, Dionne was not too shabby at all with 135 points. So, in comparing the two, Gretzky is basically a slightly more amazing offensive force than Dionne.
That 'slightly more amazing' data of yours equates to over 20% more. That aint 'slight' in my books.... |
|
|
|
Guest5585
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 17:57:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Thanks Mr. Pickles. Just wondering where you think the Oilers would have dropped off with Dionne instead of Gretzky. And to Willus and others who saw Dionne play, do you think there are some areas where the Oilers might actually have improved with Dionne?
And Willus brought up a very good point. How many more points does Dionne get on that Oilers team? Would it not have been possible for him to have reached the 150 or 160 point mark, given that he was getting 135 on the far less talented Kings?
By the way, I am just doing this hypothetical because Marcel and Wayne were both centres, but probably a much more realistic hypothetical (realistic hypothetical - that's kind of neat) would be to ask what would have happened with the Habs of the '70s if they had taken Dionne instead of Lafleur (which, as we know, was in fact the real choice at the time). Interestingly, and I have to think about why, as much as I am a Dionne supporter, and as much as I believe that overall the Habs dynasty was better than the Oilers dynasty, I personally find the "Dionne on the Habs" hypothetical a much trickier one than the Oilers one here.
Hmmm, does this mean I have to revise my list and put Lafleur ahead of Gretzky now?
Lafleur is ahead of Gretzky on most knoweldgeable fans lists as well as hockey insiders.
Oh and Bean15 - Oilers lost in 86 becasue Gretzkky didnt backcheck and wasnt a team player. It wasnt a rookie dman who had the Oilers into a G7 situation.
Calgary was so good, an exhausted Habs team wiped them in 5 games.
|
|
|
|
Guest4090
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:01:52
|
I hate Gretzky.. I hate all hockey playin' wimps..
Gretzky was a wimp, but was still the most amazing offensive player in history. He would have certainly led an LA team to at least a cup.
In those days, yes, a single player could make that difference - however those days are long behind us now. Gretzky was a juggernaught offensively, but there was no focus on the rest of his game which is why I just cant respect him as an all-time great. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:14:55
|
Hey Choochie! I knew when I put that Lafleur comment out there I was likely going to take a bashing from both the Choochie side and the Gretzky camp member side. That puts me in a kind of interesting position actually. 
I will say this, and said it on my very first post on this site I believe, Guy Lafleur was a more exciting hockey player to watch than Wayne Gretzky. I'll go further this time actually, and say that contest is not even that close.
By the way, I think one of the reasons there is a distinction in the Habs hypothetical that makes it more difficult is just the fact Lafleur was a right winger and that Montreal team was strong enough up the middle.
But Chooch, what do you think, if it would have been Dionne instead of Lafleur, do the Habs still get the 4 Cups?
I must say that the fact that Messier was able to lead the Oilers to a Cup in '90 does affect my judgment on the Oilers hypothetical. I can "see" the Dionne hypothetcial becoming a reality more because of that (must really be ticking off some anti-hypothetical guys now). On the other hand, because the Habs never won a Cup without Guy ('86 was pretty well a different team) , I don't "see" that hypothetical as well. I know what some of you are thinking - "one too many Advil for that Bruin guy tonight" That may be right actually.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 19:35:38 |
|
|
|
Guest4090
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:28:27
|
LaFleur was a great player but he wasnt in Gretzy's league.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against homos, but it certainly takes of the manly-edge when I think of LaFleur.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:30:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
...an incredible year statistically that year with 164 points, but actually, Dionne was not too shabby at all with 135 points. So, in comparing the two, Gretzky is basically a slightly more amazing offensive force than Dionne.
That 'slightly more amazing' data of yours equates to over 20% more. That aint 'slight' in my books....
I think we have to factor in that Gretzky was on a more talented team (for example, Dionne didn't have a Coffey) so that would make the point differential less. But okay, I am willing to take "slightly" out if you like. Doesn't change the main point - the Oilers would still have gotten great offence from Dionne. |
|
|
|
Guest4090
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 18:37:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
...an incredible year statistically that year with 164 points, but actually, Dionne was not too shabby at all with 135 points. So, in comparing the two, Gretzky is basically a slightly more amazing offensive force than Dionne.
That 'slightly more amazing' data of yours equates to over 20% more. That aint 'slight' in my books....
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
I think we have to factor in that Gretzky was on a more talented team (for example, Dionne didn't have a Coffey) so that would make the point differential less. But okay, I am willing to take "slightly" out if you like. Doesn't change the main point - the Oilers would still have gotten great offence from Dionne.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:07:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
[/quote]
I think we all know why that was don't we...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:15:09
|
I disagree with a number of things being said on this thread now, but for now I just got one BIG question.
To those who answered "no, not even one", please explain the logic. If Messier leads the '90 Gretzkyless team to the Cup, you would think that at least one time (ONE time only even!), the Oilers would have won the Cup with BOTH Messier and Dionne.
Now I am no genius, some have even called me a "suineg" in my day , but something just doesn't add up to me here. Or is this again a sign of Gretzky fans taking things to a ridiculous degree? |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 19:16:33 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:52:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I disagree with a number of things being said on this thread now, but for now I just got one BIG question.
To those who answered "no, not even one", please explain the logic. If Messier leads the '90 Gretzkyless team to the Cup, you would think that at least one time (ONE time only even!), the Oilers would have won the Cup with BOTH Messier and Dionne.
Now I am no genius, some have even called me a "suineg" in my day , but something just doesn't add up to me here. Or is this again a sign of Gretzky fans taking things to a ridiculous degree?
You're definitely not the opposite of a genius Andy.
As for your question Hackhead, (sorry, ever since chooch called you that i keep wanting to call you that cause it made me laugh, no offense intended) I don't know if the Oilers could have or would have improved with Dionne but it definitely would have been a different team. First of all Dionne was a physical player. Very strong on the puck. Low centre of gravity helped him out there.
And secondly, Semenko would have either been relegated to fourth line duties or even the minors as there would have been no need for him. This would have allowed a higher producing winger to play on the line with Dionne and Kurri. And absolutely without a doubt Dionne scores more points than he did with LA. Dionne gets 5 maybe 6 Cups and his legend is cemented never to be questioned as it is now.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 19:56:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
Yes, we know why that was... the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
I think we all know why that was don't we...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote] |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 20:23:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
I don't disagree that Gretzky was an offensive genius but let's not overplay the "Semenko point". Gretzky still played an awful lot with offensive superstars, whether on the powerplay or not - certainly WAY more blessed than Dionne that way (no offence to Simmer and Taylor who were quite good, no doubt about it). But just having an incredibly offensive defenceman on his team like Coffey accounts for a hell of a lot in my opinion. Larry Murphy wasn't bad, yes, but he was gone from the Kings by the start of '83-84 anyway.
p.s. no problem Willushead - my name lends itself to all types of things in sports and with computers so I am more than used to it - most just call me Hack actually |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 20:25:41 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 20:25:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
Yes, we know why that was... the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
[/quote]
Or you could think about the fact that everyone else earned their space on the ice themselves...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:01:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
I don't disagree that Gretzky was an offensive genius but let's not overplay the "Semenko point". Gretzky still played an awful lot with offensive superstars, whether on the powerplay or not - certainly WAY more blessed than Dionne that way (no offence to Simmer and Taylor who were quite good, no doubt about it). But just having an incredibly offensive defenceman on his team like Coffey accounts for a hell of a lot in my opinion. Larry Murphy wasn't bad, yes, but he was gone from the Kings by the start of '83-84 anyway.
p.s. no problem Willushead - my name lends itself to all types of things in sports and with computers so I am more than used to it - most just call me Hack actually
Simmer and Taylor were a better ensemble than what Gretzky had. Gretzky would have had even more points than he did if he had a chance to play with them. |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:02:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
Yes, we know why that was... the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
Or you could think about the fact that everyone else earned their space on the ice themselves...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote]
So what? pointless. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:29:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
Yes, we know why that was... the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
Or you could think about the fact that everyone else earned their space on the ice themselves...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
So what? pointless.
[/quote]
Not surprising you can't see the point...
To paraphrase you in another thread - 'retard...'
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 21:31:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
[quote][i]
Simmer and Taylor were a better ensemble than what Gretzky had. Gretzky would have had even more points than he did if he had a chance to play with them.
4462guy - The Triple Crown Line was a good line but you are way overplaying this "Gretzky played so much with bums" point. Semenko never got more than 27 points in a season so when Gretzky was producing all those points he clearly was doing it with players other than Semenko. And Semenko was gone by the beginning of the '86 season, so there were still two Oiler Cup wins without Wayne playing on the same line as Semenko (I guess McSorely was his main protector in those years).
Maybe you'll mention Dave Lumley in earlier years. Yeah sure, he is obviously not anywhere nearly as good as Simmer or Taylor but just focusing on those type of guys misses the overall point, which is that there were certainly plenty of Gretzky plays with the likes of Kurri (probably better than Taylor, and certainly more suited to Gretzky than Taylor) and Coffey (WAY, WAY, WAY better than anything Dionne had), and also plenty of occasions where Gretzky found himself on the ice with tremendous players like Messier, Anderson, Tikkanen and others who were far better overall than what Dionne had on L.A.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/26/2007 21:58:41 |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 22:45:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4090
Remember too that Gretzky played 99% of his career with at most 1 talented linemate and sometimes none. Sure.. PP was a different story..
Yes, we know why that was... the point is, no matter the reasy WHY, it does put to even more light how much of a offensive genius he was.
Or you could think about the fact that everyone else earned their space on the ice themselves...
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
So what? pointless.
Not surprising you can't see the point...
To paraphrase you in another thread - 'retard...'
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
[/quote]
The only thing you got going for you Mr. Willkus is that you are obviously a complete loner and have loads of free time by yourself ot post in this hockey forum. You present yourself as a hockey knowledgable person, and then go and spout off with illogical arguments that are usually (not always) not well put together and extremely flawed.
I understand the point that you were trying to make, the problem is that point has no bearing on the conversation and and by itself is irrelevant. Unless you want to start a debate about Gretzky being a wimp or management forcing him to have protection and the ins and outs of that, then perhaps there is some relevance. But in all aspects of what has been discussed in this thread, you sound a little like Hooch when he pipes in with huge tangents that dont make much intelligent sense.
I will leave you and your thougths for good here, and will go back to my other forums where there is more mature dialogue and where *real* hockey knowledgable afficinados discuss real topics and issues at an intelligent and logical level. It's just wayyyy to frustrating trying to debate issues when parties dont have basic logic and reasoning. |
|
|
|
Guest4462
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 23:02:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
[i]
Simmer and Taylor were a better ensemble than what Gretzky had. Gretzky would have had even more points than he did if he had a chance to play with them.
4462guy - The Triple Crown Line was a good line but you are way overplaying this "Gretzky played so much with bums" point. Semenko never got more than 27 points in a season so when Gretzky was producing all those points he clearly was doing it with players other than Semenko.
Of all the people here Andy, you are one of the few that I would call hockey knowledgable and logic driven. You have your opinions and points of view but you also debate using logic and make your arguments based on thought-out reasoning.
As for the paragraph above, that was exactly my point. A 'bodyguard' was thrust upon Gretzky (Im not saying that he didnt reject it) and basically he was playing with only 3 other players for a big part of his career. That is exactly my point why I said it was evidence of how really offensively talented he was. His 3rd winger was almost always a very specific role-player and was not often included in the attack (there are always exceptions). He was producing all those points without Semenko, but that doesnt mean that Semenko (or the next role player in line) wasnt on the ice during the production. Gretzky often lead basically a 4-5 attack which 1 guy trying to take out an opposing player to make it a 4-4 attack.
quote:
And Semenko was gone by the beginning of the '86 season, so there were still two Oiler Cup wins without Wayne playing on the same line as Semenko (I guess McSorely was his main protector in those years).
Maybe you'll mention Dave Lumley in earlier years. Yeah sure, he is obviously not anywhere nearly as good as Simmer or Taylor but just
Sure.. Lumley... Gretzky almost made Blair McDonald a 50 goal scorer as well.. then there was of course Raimo Summanen who was specifically brought over to play with Gretz. Then Tikkanen in his earlier years, and .. and ...
[quote]
focusing on those type of guys misses the overall point, which is that there were certainly plenty of Gretzky plays with the likes of Kurri (probably better than Taylor, and certainly more suited to Gretzky than Taylor) and Coffey (WAY, WAY, WAY better than anything Dionne had), and also plenty of occasions where Gretzky found himself on the ice with tremendous players like Messier, Anderson, Tikkanen and others who were far better overall than what Dionne had on L.A.
Overall, the Oilers team was certainly more talented. And on the PP that was a killer. Looking at ESGF however, is an interest analysis since Dionne certainly had more ice-time with better players. |
|
|
|
99pickles
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
671 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 00:32:36
|
Quote by Guest4462 :
"The only thing you got going for you Mr. Willkus is that you are obviously a complete loner and have loads of free time by yourself to post in this hockey forum. You present yourself as a hockey knowledgable person, and then go and spout off with illogical arguments that are usually (not always) not well put together and extremely flawed. "
Strange how I was coming to this same realization only today. And this was a nice way of putting it too, guest.
Back on topic now...
The Little Beaver obviously would have scored more on the Oilers. But The 1-2 punch of Gretzky and Messier with two very different styles I believe is a factor that beleaguered opponents in the '80's. Imagine being brutalized by Messier on the second line ? After already being ran around by that first line? Maybe that was the real winning formula, the 2 completely different styles coming at you. Dionne, although not a hitter or physical player by any stretch of the imagination, was in fact a very short and stocky guy that protected the puck vey well and had that great eye and soft hands. Was he a better player than Gretz? Not the question. Would he have brought something to the Oilers that would have made them slightly better than they were with 99? I can't imagine what that extra thing would have been since he had similar skills and style as 99 (I said SIMILAR). The only way the Oilers win more cups with the Little Beaver is because he may have stayed on the Oil a couple years longer (his career would have lasted a couple years longer - his trade to the Rangers ended things quickly). However, would Gretzky have brought something extra to the Kings that Dionne didn't ? Yes, I believe so. He was more gifted in reading the play, better passer, better at making those around him better- and not by just racking up numbers either.
But, would that have been what brought LA their only cup? I have to say no because as a more seasoned player with a better cast around him than the 80's, Gretz still couldn't do it in the 90's. By that rationale alone I have to say no. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 06:40:17
|
Sunday morning thoughts:
1) Guys - some of the anti-Willus comments are unnecessary - almost better you stick with more over the top words like ''insane" , if you know what I mean. We all are creating too much time for this (in my case, I just happen to have a very understanding wife who likes her time on the computer for her things too - also, yesterday the computer was good therapy for me as I couldn't do anything else cause of my friggn teeth ).
2) Guest 4462 - I guess we agree to disagree on your last comment that "Dionne certainly had more ice-time with better players". My point is exactly the opposite, that overall, when you look at all the players on the ice during Gretzky's total ice time as an Oiler, and particularly who he was making his plays with, they were not only better than what Dionne had, but significantly better. The years where Coffey was in his prime - that was a like a hybrid winger. And, for the most part, Kurri was with Gretzky. There were certainly shifts where lines were juggled and guys like Messier and Anderson ended up playing with him too, and not only on the PP (or PK where he could be dangerous too as we know). And lets not discount the importance of that PP or PK production anyway.
And I think Pickman (well people call me Hackman) makes an EXCELLENT point about the Messier One-Two combination knockout. Having Messier on the other line (who you have to remember is, in my eyes, the greatest forward ever), was a HUGE benefit to Gretzky, a benefit which Dionne didn't have nearly to the same degree (though I won't deny that he did have some good guys on other lines - like Nicholls - Bernie should be paying me by now).
3) You guys ever see "Wall Street"? There is a line in there which goes something like this when Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is arguing with Gordon Gekko (Michal Douglas),
"How many yachts do you need to ski behind?"
For some reason this line keeps popping into my head in this discussion. At what point does a hockey player's offensive output kind of become like "yachts" which rich people ski behind? There is absolutely no denying that Dionne was one of the greatest offensive players ever. He, AND LAFLEUR, were very much "in the same league" as Gretzky in that area in my opinion. Were they as offensively productive? No, of course not. Was the difference "slight". Okay, maybe not. BUT, and this I think is the key question of this thread, was the difference "significant" in terms of value to their team? Call me an "insane loner" but, in my humble opinion, I don't think it was all that significant, and therefore I do believe that Marcel Dionne would have led the Edmonton Oilers to at least their 4 Stanley Cups of the 1980s.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 05/27/2007 06:42:10 |
|
|
|
chooch
Top Prospect
Afghanistan
60 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 07:29:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Sunday morning thoughts:
1) Guys - some of the anti-Willus comments are unnecessary - almost better you stick with more over the top words like ''insane" , if you know what I mean. We all are creating too much time for this (in my case, I just happen to have a very understanding wife who likes her time on the computer for her things too - also, yesterday the computer was good therapy for me as I couldn't do anything else cause of my friggn teeth).
2) Guest 4462 - I guess we agree to disagree on your last comment that "Dionne certainly had more ice-time with better players". My point is exactly the opposite, that overall, when you look at all the players on the ice during Gretzky's total ice time as an Oiler, and particularly who he was making his plays with, they were not only better than what Dionne had, but significantly better. The years where Coffey was in his prime - that was a like a hybrid winger. And, for the most part, Kurri was with Gretzky. There were certainly shifts where lines were juggled and guys like Messier and Anderson ended up playing with him too, and not only on the PP (or PK where he could be dangerous too as we know). And lets not discount the importance of that PP or PK production anyway.
And I think Pickman (well people call me Hackman) makes an EXCELLENT point about the Messier One-Two combination knockout. Having Messier on the other line (who you have to remember is, in my eyes, the greatest forward ever), was a HUGE benefit to Gretzky, a benefit which Dionne didn't have nearly to the same degree (though I won't deny that he did have some good guys on other lines - like Nicholls - Bernie should be paying me by now).
3) You guys ever see "Wall Street"? There is a line in there which goes something like this when Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is arguing with Gordon Gekko (Michal Douglas),
"How many yachts do you need to ski behind?"
For some reason this line keeps popping into my head in this discussion. At what point does a hockey player's offensive output kind of become like "yachts" which rich people ski behind? There is absolutely no denying that Dionne was one of the greatest offensive players ever. He, AND LAFLEUR, were very much "in the same league" as Gretzky in that area in my opinion. Were they as offensively productive? No, of course not. Was the difference "slight". Okay, maybe not. BUT, and this I think is the key question of this thread, was the difference "significant" in terms of value to their team? Call me an "insane loner" but, in my humble opinion, I don't think it was all that significant, and therefore I do believe that Marcel Dionne would have led the Edmonton Oilers to at least their 4 Stanley Cups of the 1980s.
Edmonton didnt have enough class for Lafleur to play with them.
as for guest 4462 - what other forums are you on? Hf boards? where they ban you if you say gretzky didnt backcheck....
and btw - no , Lemieux wasnt that bad defensively. He created chances and pace and didnt turn the puck over much.
I am Ogopogo's bodyguard |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 07:33:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
The only thing you got going for you Mr. Willkus is that you are obviously a complete loner and have loads of free time by yourself ot post in this hockey forum. You present yourself as a hockey knowledgable person, and then go and spout off with illogical arguments that are usually (not always) not well put together and extremely flawed.
Ouch.
I'd say this was a fairly ignorant thing to say. Maybe I'm disabled and this is one of the few things I am able to do?
[quote]
I understand the point that you were trying to make, the problem is that point has no bearing on the conversation and and by itself is irrelevant. Unless you want to start a debate about Gretzky being a wimp or management forcing him to have protection and the ins and outs of that, then perhaps there is some relevance.
Actually it has every relevance to the point you were making. You claimed Gretzky was that much more of a genius because he played with Semenko et al who were not so talented. I'm saying it's exactly why he was able to be that offensive genius. Semenko gave him the room he needed to do that.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
I´m also Cånädiön
Rookie
Sweden
217 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 08:52:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4462
quote:
The only thing you got going for you Mr. Willkus is that you are obviously a complete loner and have loads of free time by yourself ot post in this hockey forum. You present yourself as a hockey knowledgable person, and then go and spout off with illogical arguments that are usually (not always) not well put together and extremely flawed.
Ouch.
I'd say this was a fairly ignorant thing to say. Maybe I'm disabled and this is one of the few things I am able to do?
[quote]
I understand the point that you were trying to make, the problem is that point has no bearing on the conversation and and by itself is irrelevant. Unless you want to start a debate about Gretzky being a wimp or management forcing him to have protection and the ins and outs of that, then perhaps there is some relevance.
Actually it has every relevance to the point you were making. You claimed Gretzky was that much more of a genius because he played with Semenko et al who were not so talented. I'm saying it's exactly why he was able to be that offensive genius. Semenko gave him the room he needed to do that.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
Accipere quam facere praestat injuriam......respect.
(Time differance Pickuphockey-Sweden approx +9 hours 1min 5sek......so I can always blame it on Jetlag.) |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 16:04:29
|
Gretzky scored over a 1000 points more than Dionne in almost the same number of games. They aren't even comparable.
By many of the posts, it's as if Gretzky scored all of his points while being "along for the ride" so to speak. The truth is, Gretzky terrorized his opponents, espcially in the playoffs. He destroyed the Flyers in 1985 (47 points in only 18 playoff games) and the Bruins in 1988 with relentless ferocity (13 points in only 4 games). In the 1987 finals agaist Mike Keenan's Flyers, he took over game 6 single handedly, setting up 3 amazing goals in one period. He won games by himself in the playoffs. The Oilers would have not been the same without him.
Yes, they won in 1990, but what happend the year he was traded to LA? He beat the Oilers in their first playoff meeting, playing for one of the worst teams in the NHL in the previous year! And that was against the defending Stanley Cup Champions of which he won the Conn Smythe Trophy! It took the Oilers 2 years to figure out how to win without him.
Another point that hasn't been brought up is that without Gretzky, the Oilers would likely have never have learned to be as good as they became. Gretzky's skill and confidence made that team around him better, not just statistically, but in mental attitude and belief. Coffey for example would have been a good offensiver defensman without Gretzky, but not the record breaking superstar he became. There's no way Coffey would have scored 48 goals and 147 points witout Gretzky. Rogie Vachon who was GM of the Kings said that there were guys who didn't even know how good they were until Gretzky came to LA, and showed them how good they could be. Perhaps those 1990 Oilers would not have won a Cup if they had never played with and understood the greatest offensive mind ever to play the game. There's one to think about! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 16:14:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
There's no way Coffey would have scored 48 goals and 147 points witout Gretzky
I must have lost time again. When did this happen?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
Guest9995
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 16:19:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
There's no way Coffey would have scored 48 goals and 147 points witout Gretzky
I must have lost time again. When did this happen?
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
I'm sorry, I was off by 9 points. I stand corrected. 48 goals and 138 points. The argument remains the same, however. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 17:37:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9995
1. Gretzky scored over a 1000 points more than Dionne in almost the same number of games. They aren't even comparable.
2. By many of the posts, it's as if Gretzky scored all of his points while being "along for the ride" so to speak. The truth is, Gretzky terrorized his opponents, espcially in the playoffs. He destroyed the Flyers in 1985 (47 points in only 18 playoff games) and the Bruins in 1988 with relentless ferocity (13 points in only 4 games).
3.Another point that hasn't been brought up is that without Gretzky, the Oilers would likely have never have learned to be as good as they became. Gretzky's skill and confidence made that team around him better, not just statistically, but in mental attitude and belief.
Hi 9995 (interesting that your name has so many 9s in it by the way)
I put numbers by what I think were your three main points. Here's what came to mind while reading your post:
1. In terms of the points they scored in their careers, there is absolutely no debating that they aren't comparable. But bringing that point up shouldn't really affect the question at hand all that much in my opinion, and I would say that even if Gretzky's points were three times the total of Dionne's points. I just don't buy that points are the be all and end all of hockey. Having said that, if you want to talk points, about the only way to tarnish Dionne's incredible productivity is to bring up Gretzky. In a sense that is what this thread is all about. Thousands of points difference or no thousands of points difference, would it have ultimately mattered to that Oilers team in terms of the number of Cups they won in the '80s. I certainly can very well understand anyone who would say "yes it would matter" as you appear to be saying, but it IS a VERY debatable question I think. If you think otherwise I personally think you are shortchanging Dionne, and if part of Gretzky's legacy is that guys like Dionne get shortchanged, I think that is quite regretable.
2. I think this is an example of over-defensiveness that Gretzky guys often seem to have. I am NOT saying Wayne was along for any ride. I AM saying he was with awfully amazing players. He WAS! That's actually one thing we don't have to label as an "opinion". It's a fact. An acknowledgment of that fact does not tarnish Gretzky in the way you are talking about. It just puts a different light on his greatness than you are putting on it.
I certainly respect what Gretzky did to the Flyers. But I think if Dionne ever got the chance he would have been great and "terrorized" teams like the Flyers too. In fact, in the very first hockey pool I was ever in as a kid in junior high, I took Dionne (way too high actually) and he ended up having an amazing playoffs, losing in the quarters as I recall against none other than the Boston Bruins (he produced very nicely but it was stupid of me to take him so high).
As for '88 against the Bruins, I've mentioned this in another thread, but Gretzky's great play there has to be qualified a bit - that Bruin team was basically spent physically, and more importantly, emotionally. For them, the Cup was won after beating Montreal for the first time in like forever in one of the earlier rounds. The final in '90 was the one they were in (and could have been different maybe but for Ranford and friggn Peter Klima in the triple overtime in Game 1). Trust a Bruin fan on this point. Dionne would have gotten close to as many points against the Bruins as Gretzky did in '88.
3. This is a good point but I always wonder when people bring things like this up why they don't also acknowledge that Messier was an incredible leader by example too, and maybe, just maybe, had just as much an effect on Gretzky as Gretzky did on him (not to mention the other players on the team). I also think that you are dismissing what effect Dionne could have had on his teammates.
So overall 9995, I think one can basically agree with a lot of things you said but still, after giving Dionne his due credit, come to the conclusion that Marcel could have led those Oilers teams to their Stanley Cups.
Edit - Just looking at the playoffs, I think Messier was the big guy in their first Cup run in '84. As for '85 and '88, even though Gretzky was OUTSTANDING no question, they would have found a way to win anyway with Dionne - as I say, certainly the '88 final would have been no problem. The tough one for me is '87, especially the seven game final against the Flyers. That one would have been quite close with Dionne (as it was even with Gretzky). |
Edited by - andyhack on 05/27/2007 18:17:50 |
|
|
|
stastnysforever
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
301 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 18:29:59
|
I think the oilers were a good team, even without Gretzky ( the year after he left they won the cup ) but not so good that they would win every cup they did win, because L.A would be pretty tough to beat since they'd have gretzky during his prime, and the oilers would have lost a lot of their offense
what do Calgary and a tea bag have in common- they're both only good for one cup |
|
|
|
Guest0956
( )
|
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 19:57:56
|
Andyhack,
A very good, well thought out response as usual. You have at the very least convinced me to look more into Marcel Dionne and check out some of the old Kings games.
While I concede that I may have overlooked Dionne's abilities, I have to say that Gretzky was just so otherwordly in the playoffs that I cannot see any player -- Dionne or anyone else -- doing what Gretzky did. Gretzky literally took over games from start to finish when it mattered most... but he didn't just take over; he put on ridiculous displays of actualized determination, and somehow made it look easy. It was pure focus in the moment where hockey became a repetition of chance almost as frequent as basketball. There was always a 2 on 1 when Gretzky was on the ice. There was always a late man after a Gretzky curl. There was somehow always a man out front who no one could cover that Gretzky would somehow always find. It never failed. The more pressure, the more fool proof it became. The more offense he created, the more "lucky" we said he was. It was a strange and difficult thing to digest for most hockey purists...and remains so to this day.
I suppose that there has never been that type of hockey player before. Many people don't call Gretzky a "real" hockey player, and in a sense they're right. That's probably the biggest reason why I don't think Dionne (or anyone else) could have had the same impact on the team. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Oilers Hypothetical 
