HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

L'antichambre

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2008, 06:26 PM
  #51
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,307
vCash: 500
I was saying this to posters and I kept hearing "Gagnon was a good journalist". The guy is a little elitist **** that thinks he's God's gift to the press even though he never laced the skates. We have a lot of those in the Montreal media.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 11-06-2008 at 07:17 PM.
Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2008, 10:47 PM
  #52
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
L'antichambre better not invite Bertrand Raymond too often, because I'm not gonna be a fan...

Not a whole lot of people either...

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 11:33 AM
  #53
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HamrlikTheStud View Post
L'antichambre better not invite Bertrand Raymond too often, because I'm not gonna be a fan...

Not a whole lot of people either...
They better not invite Guy Lafleur either.
Wow is that guy a moron. The guy was a great hockey player, but seriously, he doesn't know much about today's game.

He actually said he would resign Kovalev, Tanguay, Komisarek, LANG, and then Koivu. Why Koivu last?..Mr.Lafleur doesn't need to give out reasons, he just said it's the way he sees it.

He also said, if the Habs's plans were to get Lang for 1year, then it doesn't make any sense they went after him He said if that were the case, they should have let one of our youngsters play instead. This when he called our team a bunch of 4th liners last year, now he wants to see youngsters??
Not only do we not have any youngster ready to be a 3rd center, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with going to get a 3rd line center for a year to increase the depth.

Le Baron was sitting next to Guy and when they strated talking about Contracts, he said today guy's are making millions for scoring 20-25G while playing 20Min. Then he pointed to Lafleur and said HE scored 50G avg 16Min/GP. Lafleur would look like crap if he played in today's league without taking better care of himself during the season.
The guy used to smoke cigarettes between periods sometimes, that's how much the game has changed. Got luck doing that today.

The guy is a fool, he shouldn't even be invited to any show after making such a dumb statement last year. The fact we finished first really made it even more funny.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 11:47 AM
  #54
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
They better not invite Guy Lafleur either.
Wow is that guy a moron. The guy was a great hockey player, but seriously, he doesn't know much about today's game.

He actually said he would resign Kovalev, Tanguay, Komisarek, LANG, and then Koivu. Why Koivu last?..Mr.Lafleur doesn't need to give out reasons, he just said it's the way he sees it.

He also said, if the Habs's plans were to get Lang for 1year, then it doesn't make any sense they went after him He said if that were the case, they should have let one of our youngsters play instead. This when he called our team a bunch of 4th liners last year, now he wants to see youngsters??
Not only do we not have any youngster ready to be a 3rd center, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with going to get a 3rd line center for a year to increase the depth.

Le Baron was sitting next to Guy and when they strated talking about Contracts, he said today guy's are making millions for scoring 20-25G while playing 20Min. Then he pointed to Lafleur and said HE scored 50G avg 16Min/GP. Lafleur would look like crap if he played in today's league without taking better care of himself during the season.
The guy used to smoke cigarettes between periods sometimes, that's how much the game has changed. Got luck doing that today.

The guy is a fool, he shouldn't even be invited to any show after making such a dumb statement last year. The fact we finished first really made it even more funny.
Bashing Guy Lafleur as a player ?? Just because "he could not do it nowadays" ?? That must be a new low. Who's next ? the Rocket ?

Are his analysis bad - definetely. But he was one of the best players in the history of the NHL for god's sake. I've been in Quebec only since 2000 but I still heard of him back in the middle of nowhere where I was wantching hockey games as a teenager on the Russian televeision channel.

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 11:56 AM
  #55
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
They better not invite Guy Lafleur either.
Wow is that guy a moron. The guy was a great hockey player, but seriously, he doesn't know much about today's game.

He actually said he would resign Kovalev, Tanguay, Komisarek, LANG, and then Koivu. Why Koivu last?..Mr.Lafleur doesn't need to give out reasons, he just said it's the way he sees it.

He also said, if the Habs's plans were to get Lang for 1year, then it doesn't make any sense they went after him He said if that were the case, they should have let one of our youngsters play instead. This when he called our team a bunch of 4th liners last year, now he wants to see youngsters??
Not only do we not have any youngster ready to be a 3rd center, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with going to get a 3rd line center for a year to increase the depth.

Le Baron was sitting next to Guy and when they strated talking about Contracts, he said today guy's are making millions for scoring 20-25G while playing 20Min. Then he pointed to Lafleur and said HE scored 50G avg 16Min/GP. Lafleur would look like crap if he played in today's league without taking better care of himself during the season.
The guy used to smoke cigarettes between periods sometimes, that's how much the game has changed. Got luck doing that today.

The guy is a fool, he shouldn't even be invited to any show after making such a dumb statement last year. The fact we finished first really made it even more funny.


You seem to get offended by idle conversation very easily. As for calling the man a fool, well, it's easy, ain't it ?

Greatness is just that, and Lafleur was as one of the best to ever lace them up. Imagine, let it sink in, of all th eplayers that have ever put on an NHL sweater, he's amongst the top 10-12.

Yet you feel the need to go, 'well he smoked y'know'. If my head wasn't so ponderous, I'd be shaking it.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:02 PM
  #56
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
Bashing Guy Lafleur as a player ?? Just because "he could not do it nowadays" ?? That must be a new low. Who's next ? the Rocket ?

Are his analysis bad - definetely. But he was one of the best players in the history of the NHL for god's sake. I've been in Quebec only since 2000 but I still heard of him back in the middle of nowhere where I was wantching hockey games as a teenager on the Russian televeision channel.
I didn't bash Lafleur as a player out of gratuity.

I said, Le Baron was comparing him saying he scored 50G while avg 16min of icetime, when today's players are talking millions after scoring 25G avg 20min of icetime.
Now that's an unfair comparison seeing as the game/players/rules/equipment has changed a lot.

That's why I said, Lafleur couldn't even keep up with today's players. Today's players are machines, they are extremely fit. Lafleur used to smoke cigs between periods. You do the math, it ain't that hard.

Lafleur was one of the greatest of HIS era. Same with the Rocket, etc..When we try to compare them with today's players like Le Baron did, it just doesn't make any sense.

Who's better?..The Rocket or Gretzky?..Beliveau or Lemieux?..Plante or Roy??..You just can't answer these questions.
So comparing the pts Lafleur had back in the days to the pts some players get today is completely dumb.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:11 PM
  #57
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I didn't bash Lafleur as a player out of gratuity.

I said, Le Baron was comparing him saying he scored 50G while avg 16min of icetime, when today's players are talking millions after scoring 25G avg 20min of icetime.
Now that's an unfair comparison seeing as the game/players/rules/equipment has changed a lot.

That's why I said, Lafleur couldn't even keep up with today's players. Today's players are machines, they are extremely fit. Lafleur used to smoke cigs between periods. You do the math, it ain't that hard.

Lafleur was one of the greatest of HIS era. Same with the Rocket, etc..When we try to compare them with today's players like Le Baron did, it just doesn't make any sense.

Who's better?..The Rocket or Gretzky?..Beliveau or Lemieux?..Plante or Roy??..You just can't answer these questions.
So comparing the pts Lafleur had back in the days to the pts some players get today is completely dumb.
I don't think it's too hard to project. When you compare era to era, you have to pro rate available training techniques, the larger bodies, advances in equipement, rules etc.

They were talking about how/why Lafleur played as low as 16 minutes at times, and there were a few answers, they usually had leads and Bowman would roll all lines to get everyone into it, as well as to keep the players united in being pissed off at him. When a fan says that Lafleur was better than Kovalev, he's doing so in relative terms.

Many still maintain that Jim Brown was the finest football player that ever lived. The fact that Brown never faced a 300 lb lineman is irrelevant.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:11 PM
  #58
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
You seem to get offended by idle conversation very easily. As for calling the man a fool, well, it's easy, ain't it ?

Greatness is just that, and Lafleur was as one of the best to ever lace them up. Imagine, let it sink in, of all th eplayers that have ever put on an NHL sweater, he's amongst the top 10-12.

Yet you feel the need to go, 'well he smoked y'know'. If my head wasn't so ponderous, I'd be shaking it.
Like I said, I couldn't care less if he smoked. The guy could shoot up if he wanted too, that wasn't the point I was making.

He's one of the greatest, no doubt about it.

I just find it extremely dumb when people try to compare players playing 30years ago to today's players.
We're talking about how much the game has changed just since the lockout. With Lafleur we're talking about 30years..

If Lafleur was playing today, he would have to do things very differently then back then.

Let's just take the Gretzky era, not Lafleur. This guy scored 92G 212Pts in one season. Now, he was the great one, no doubt.
But do you think any player in today's league is going to be able to ever beat that??..Is it because they're worse players??...I doubt it.

The game has changed, Lafleur was amazing, but it was in his era.
Comparing him to today's players is just dumb.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:17 PM
  #59
Newhabfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montreal
Posts: 2,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I didn't bash Lafleur as a player out of gratuity.

I said, Le Baron was comparing him saying he scored 50G while avg 16min of icetime, when today's players are talking millions after scoring 25G avg 20min of icetime.
Now that's an unfair comparison seeing as the game/players/rules/equipment has changed a lot.

That's why I said, Lafleur couldn't even keep up with today's players. Today's players are machines, they are extremely fit. Lafleur used to smoke cigs between periods. You do the math, it ain't that hard.

Lafleur was one of the greatest of HIS era. Same with the Rocket, etc..When we try to compare them with today's players like Le Baron did, it just doesn't make any sense.

Who's better?..The Rocket or Gretzky?..Beliveau or Lemieux?..Plante or Roy??..You just can't answer these questions.
So comparing the pts Lafleur had back in the days to the pts some players get today is completely dumb.
To follow you on your reasoning, players that earn millions today, after 40 pts seasons deserve those millions more that Guy Lafleur, because their job is harder ?

There is only one way to compare athletes from different moments - you compare the impact they had on their sport. There are players today that earn more in one year than Lafleur in his career and that have 1/1000th of the Impact Lafleur had in his time. That does sound as somehow injust.

Newhabfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:22 PM
  #60
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I don't think it's too hard to project. When you compare era to era, you have to pro rate available training techniques, the larger bodies, advances in equipement, rules etc.

They were talking about how/why Lafleur played as low as 16 minutes at times, and there were a few answers, they usually had leads and Bowman would roll all lines to get everyone into it, as well as to keep the players united in being pissed off at him. When a fan says that Lafleur was better than Kovalev, he's doing so in relative terms.

Many still maintain that Jim Brown was the finest football player that ever lived. The fact that Brown never faced a 300 lb lineman is irrelevant.
That's where I disagree.

I would agree if it were little changes, but seeing as how the game changed so much, I don't think relativity has much of a bargain here.

I feel that putting the word ''era'' whenever you want to say this guy or that guy was the best is important because the game has changed so much.

Scoring 50Goals today >>>>>>>> Scoring 50G 30years ago, which is what I found dumb about Le Baron's statement because he was trying to pass it off as if it was the same thing.

So when Le Baron is saying Gui scored 50G compared to players that score 25G today, I feel that's an unfair comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newhabfan View Post
To follow you on your reasoning, players that earn millions today, after 40 pts seasons deserve those millions more that Guy Lafleur, because their job is harder ?

There is only one way to compare athletes from different moments - you compare the impact they had on their sport. There are players today that earn more in one year than Lafleur in his career and that have 1/1000th of the Impact Lafleur had in his time. That does sound as somehow injust.
What?..

I've been saying from the beginning you can't compare different Eras. Now you're saying that by my reasoning you can compare salaries made between eras???...

First of all, the league back in the days wasn't as rich nor as big as it is today. Major TV deals, publicities, sponsors, PR campaign, etc..
It has absolutely nothing to do with back in the days.

Second, the economy back then was also not the same as it is today. The value of One Dollar was not the same.
You might not remember this because you've only been here for 8years. But there was a time when you could go buy a can of pepsi for a dime.

So comparing salaries is also not possible, as a lot of factors come into place.

Today's minimum salary is 450K. That's just the way it is now. Does this mean I feel 4th liners deserve more than Lafleur?..Am I trying to say Aaron Downey is better than Lafleur because he's playing in the NHL today??..I still don't know how you got to that reasoning.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 11-07-2008 at 02:15 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:38 PM
  #61
goldglove
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 774
vCash: 500
is it me or carey price would be playing hockey in africa if he allowed half the "highlights" goal lafleur scored in his career.

goldglove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:51 PM
  #62
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldglove View Post
is it me or carey price would be playing hockey in africa if he allowed half the "highlights" goal lafleur scored in his career.
I'm not sure if they have a league there.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 12:55 PM
  #63
Ape Clutch
Registered User
 
Ape Clutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: Haiti
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Ape Clutch Send a message via Yahoo to Ape Clutch
Players make millions today because they are the biggest part of the entertainment that is Hockey

They have to be compensated for it in a fair way. Players should have been making more back in Lafleur's day. They weren't. We can't change the past, but we can right wrongs in the present.

Also this is the same reason why players make so much more then the average citizen.

You see the values we have in society today have us spending more money on entertainment then on things like education etc... this is why entertainers make more then a Teacher, whereas a Teacher is more important to a society then an Entertainer.

Why do Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's etc. make so much money? It is because of the value society places in their jobs. That's the way it is.

Ape Clutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 01:02 PM
  #64
CoupeStanley
Registered User
 
CoupeStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nicolet
Country: Martinique
Posts: 2,542
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CoupeStanley
How much do you think genetics really changed in 30 years? I understand your point if you're trying to compare Howie Morenz to Marian Gaborik, it's more than pointless.

But Guy Lafleur? Let's look at a player like Ray Bourque. He started his career the last year Guy scored 50th and well, he didn't look to outdated in the 2000-2001 season, did he?

Messier? Gretzky? There's many guys with carreer that crossed the Lafleur prime and the dead puck era and they didn't look from another planet.

Personally, I like to compare Lafleur carreer with a guy like Jagr. I have them really close in my all-time list.

Guy Lafleur in todays game would score 50 goal a year and be one of the most exciting player in the league.

CoupeStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 01:04 PM
  #65
deandebean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gatineau, cālisse
Country: uriname
Posts: 9,045
vCash: 500
Guy Lafleur was more in shape than any other player. Even if he smoked. The guy never broke a sweat. In fact, they had physical tests done to him and the tests revealed that he was the pro athlete with the best cardio system in the world, equal to Bjorn Borg.

Truly, the guy never broke a sweat. He was a freak of a human, and if you ever meet him in person, take a look at his shape, even at his age. I would drool if I was that fit looking. He's a specimen.

And if he played today, he would still produce. Because he DID produce when he came back in the late 80's. Even when he was much, much older and had lost a step. I could just imagine how good he would be with today's teachings. He would be a monster a la Ovetchkin, no doubt in my mind. He was THAT good.

Guy was strong on the puck, a fast skater and had a mean mofo shot. All that is needed today to succeed. It wouldn't be much different.

deandebean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 01:07 PM
  #66
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
Guy Lafleur was more in shape than any other player. Even if he smoked. The guy never broke a sweat. In fact, they had physical tests done to him and the tests revealed that he was the pro athlete with the best cardio system in the world, equal to Bjorn Borg.

Truly, the guy never broke a sweat. He was a freak of a human, and if you ever meet him in person, take a look at his shape, even at his age. I would drool if I was that fit looking. He's a specimen.
And if he played today, he would still produce. Because he DID produce when he came back in the late 80's. Even when he was much, much older and had lost a step. I could just imagine how good he would be with today's teachings. He would be a monster a la Ovetchkin, no doubt in my mind. He was THAT good.

Guy was strong on the puck, a fast skater and had a mean mofo shot. All that is needed today to succeed. It wouldn't be much different.
Expand on these feelings D. There are players that transcend generations. Guys that you are priviliged to say, 'I saw him play' and Guy is one of them, Like Orr,Gretz,Lemieux,Beliveau,Howe,Hull, some guys rise above.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 02:10 PM
  #67
Beakermania*
 
Beakermania*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kingston or Hamilton
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ape Clutch View Post
Players make millions today because they are the biggest part of the entertainment that is Hockey

They have to be compensated for it in a fair way. Players should have been making more back in Lafleur's day. They weren't. We can't change the past, but we can right wrongs in the present.

Also this is the same reason why players make so much more then the average citizen.

You see the values we have in society today have us spending more money on entertainment then on things like education etc... this is why entertainers make more then a Teacher, whereas a Teacher is more important to a society then an Entertainer.

Why do Doctors, Lawyers, CEO's etc. make so much money? It is because of the value society places in their jobs. That's the way it is.
Anytime someone complains about how much a hockey player makes... i always like to say... when you can get 21,000 people to pay money to watch you work... and millions to watch you on TV, well then we can talk about how many million you are worth.

Beakermania* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 02:19 PM
  #68
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1UP View Post
dude, when it's that bad it needs a double facepalm.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg double.jpg‎ (10.5 KB, 11 views)

ChemiseBleuHonnete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 02:43 PM
  #69
Team_Spirit
Gangsta Pleks
 
Team_Spirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,547
vCash: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealistic View Post
Yes he was, and George was like whaaat?! Have you ever fought in your life?! Pretty funny moment, Gagnon was quiet after.
At least he had to balls to tell him what a lot of reporters/tv guys have been saying, i have more respect for him now..

Team_Spirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 04:30 PM
  #70
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 25,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
Guy Lafleur was more in shape than any other player. Even if he smoked. The guy never broke a sweat. In fact, they had physical tests done to him and the tests revealed that he was the pro athlete with the best cardio system in the world, equal to Bjorn Borg.

Truly, the guy never broke a sweat. He was a freak of a human, and if you ever meet him in person, take a look at his shape, even at his age. I would drool if I was that fit looking. He's a specimen.

And if he played today, he would still produce. Because he DID produce when he came back in the late 80's. Even when he was much, much older and had lost a step. I could just imagine how good he would be with today's teachings. He would be a monster a la Ovetchkin, no doubt in my mind. He was THAT good.

Guy was strong on the puck, a fast skater and had a mean mofo shot. All that is needed today to succeed. It wouldn't be much different.
I see him quite often actually because he opened his restaurant next to my place. I don't know about your shape, but he ain't no specimen. No superhero here.

The fact that he would still produce is irrelevant. I never tried to deny other wise. I said he wouldn't be able to keep up, but if he adapted to today's regiment, then I don't see why he wouldn't.
As good as Ovechkin?..maybe, maybe not, it's useless to even talk about this as we'll never know.
But what if we do it the other way around, what if the Ovechkin of today went back in the old days, how many pts do you think he'd net??

My point was to compare a player that nets 25G to Guy who scored 50G is dumb. Trying to mix players from different eras just doesn't work.
Why not compare everybody to Gretzky's 92G 200Pts+ while we're at it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoupeStanley View Post
How much do you think genetics really changed in 30 years? I understand your point if you're trying to compare Howie Morenz to Marian Gaborik, it's more than pointless.

But Guy Lafleur? Let's look at a player like Ray Bourque. He started his career the last year Guy scored 50th and well, he didn't look to outdated in the 2000-2001 season, did he?

Messier? Gretzky? There's many guys with carreer that crossed the Lafleur prime and the dead puck era and they didn't look from another planet.

Personally, I like to compare Lafleur carreer with a guy like Jagr. I have them really close in my all-time list.

Guy Lafleur in todays game would score 50 goal a year and be one of the most exciting player in the league.
Well, what do you think?..
Bourque scored 90pts+ four times in his career.. When's the last time you saw a Dman do that?..
Gretzky had 200pts+..Messier was one of the best all times.

Gretzky would have never been able to put up such numbers in today's game. His puny physique, the instigator rule out, so nobody to protect him as much as he was back in the days.

Not only has genetics changed, athletes have to be extremely careful about their health, but the rules have changed. Note that all the players you've mentioned have all stopped playing before the lockout. It's at that time that the game really changed a lot. The red line no longer exists, the game is faster, the guys are bigger and stronger. Goalies are excellent, they're not a rare commodity in the league anymore. Pretty much every team has a solid #1 Goalie.
They prone offense with all the penalties being called.

It's just not the same, so comparing eras just don't work.


Last edited by Habs10Habs: 11-07-2008 at 05:45 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 07:06 PM
  #71
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I see him quite often actually because he opened his restaurant next to my place. I don't know about your shape, but he ain't no specimen. No superhero here.

The fact that he would still produce is irrelevant. I never tried to deny other wise. I said he wouldn't be able to keep up, but if he adapted to today's regiment, then I don't see why he wouldn't.
As good as Ovechkin?..maybe, maybe not, it's useless to even talk about this as we'll never know.
But what if we do it the other way around, what if the Ovechkin of today went back in the old days, how many pts do you think he'd net??

My point was to compare a player that nets 25G to Guy who scored 50G is dumb. Trying to mix players from different eras just doesn't work.
Why not compare everybody to Gretzky's 92G 200Pts+ while we're at it.



Well, what do you think?..
Bourque scored 90pts+ four times in his career.. When's the last time you saw a Dman do that?..
Gretzky had 200pts+..Messier was one of the best all times.

Gretzky would have never been able to put up such numbers in today's game. His puny physique, the instigator rule out, so nobody to protect him as much as he was back in the days.

Not only has genetics changed, athletes have to be extremely careful about their health, but the rules have changed. Note that all the players you've mentioned have all stopped playing before the lockout. It's at that time that the game really changed a lot. The red line no longer exists, the game is faster, the guys are bigger and stronger. Goalies are excellent, they're not a rare commodity in the league anymore. Pretty much every team has a solid #1 Goalie.
They prone offense with all the penalties being called.

It's just not the same, so comparing eras just don't work.
There are some very intelligent posters on The History Board that have various formulas that allows comparisons from generation to generation. It measures the average offense in particular generations, how dominant you were compared to the competition to gauge relevancy of certain records, it's actually quite detailled. I like to read the various conclusions but I don't debate whether Red Kelly was a better d man than Lidstrom a whole lot.

Some intelligent people have put some effort into this. Surely you don't think you simply know better than all of them ?

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 09:57 PM
  #72
Rscorpio
Epic Meal Time!
 
Rscorpio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Santiago, Chile
Country: Chile
Posts: 2,842
vCash: 500
OMG Dave Ferme ta yeuleeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Rscorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 10:17 PM
  #73
24 And Counting*
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Deux-Montagnes
Country: Canada
Posts: 102
vCash: 500
Dave Morissette is like the idiot from Encan Vehicule Grenon... he thinks the louder he speaks the better it is...

st*u Morissette, st*u

24 And Counting* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 10:27 PM
  #74
HamrlikTheStud*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,810
vCash: 500
Did Brassard look THAT great tonight? I don't know... I didn't especially notice him tonight before his SO goal...

HamrlikTheStud* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2008, 10:35 PM
  #75
goalchenyuk
Registered User
 
goalchenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: montreal
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 8,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
They better not invite Guy Lafleur either.
Wow is that guy a moron. The guy was a great hockey player, but seriously, he doesn't know much about today's game.

He actually said he would resign Kovalev, Tanguay, Komisarek, LANG, and then Koivu. Why Koivu last?..Mr.Lafleur doesn't need to give out reasons, he just said it's the way he sees it.

He also said, if the Habs's plans were to get Lang for 1year, then it doesn't make any sense they went after him He said if that were the case, they should have let one of our youngsters play instead.


Okay , so Lafleur is a moron and doesn't know much about moden hockey , because he didn't put the player in the same order as they were on your list ?

goalchenyuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.