View Single Post
10-28-2012, 12:10 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,592
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
Yes, it's all nice, but staying healthy is a skill. And Howe was a top player for 20+ years. And lets not forget that Howe also dominated his peers by the ridiculous margin during his peak. He was also by far the best player in the league during his best years. So it's not 100% clear that Orr and Lemieux had better peak. And even if they had, the difference is certainly not big enough to match extra 10 years of elite hockey that Howe has on them.
Exactly. I don't understand the argument that Orr and his 10 seasons overall were superior to Howe and his 26. Howe lapped the NHL in the early 1950s. We never really saw that dominance from another player until Gretzky. Orr might have been better at his peak than Howe, but it isn't by much and Howe has an entire decade after that of elite play. Most of use put Gretzky at #1. But to be honest, what I think should almost be as unanimous is Howe at #2.

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
Modern players only and basing it on how good they were in their primes not careers

Even if you ignore every player that played in the NHL prior to the 1980s (which is strange to do on a History board) that is still a weird list there. Also even if you base it on their primes. By your logic the first two are fine. But Pronger had a better prime than Lemieux and Jagr? Bure over Bourque? I assume that's Scott Stevens at #10 as well and while he's a lock cinch HHOFer he has no business on this list, not even by the standards you have.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote