HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Hockey Talk by Country > Sweden

Lidstrom vs. Orr

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2011, 03:44 PM
  #26
Pentothal
Listen with one ear
 
Pentothal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: It's not even close
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,908
vCash: 500
I would also have Orr ahead of any other defenseman, but I think no matter how good a future player is, no one will be allowed to be regarded as better than Gretzky or Orr because of nostalgia and the changes made to the game (specifically goaltending/scoring).

Pentothal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 05:22 PM
  #27
Samsquanch
Creep
 
Samsquanch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Big Nickel
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
Would anyone ever say Lidstrom was better than Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, etc.?


Agree with everything you've said, but this point has to stick. Anyone here seriously think Lids was better then #66 or #99?

Because a quite a few people believe #4 was better/more dominant, and these are smart hockey people were talking about here.

Lidstrom is spectacular, number two in my books, but to compare him to Orr (or to put him ahead ) is such an injustice to one of the top 3 guys to ever lace up the skates.

Samsquanch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 05:29 PM
  #28
Samsquanch
Creep
 
Samsquanch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Big Nickel
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentothal View Post
I would also have Orr ahead of any other defenseman, but I think no matter how good a future player is, no one will be allowed to be regarded as better than Gretzky or Orr because of nostalgia and the changes made to the game (specifically goaltending/scoring).
Lemieux was better..

Definetely not impossible for someone to jump into that category of player. Stats ok, no one is going to argue that Gretz's records will be broken, but we've seen a more dominant player since him (#66), its not too hard to imagine it happening again imo.

Samsquanch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 05:35 PM
  #29
Dosing
Registered User
 
Dosing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ivösjön
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pentothal View Post
I would also have Orr ahead of any other defenseman, but I think no matter how good a future player is, no one will be allowed to be regarded as better than Gretzky or Orr because of nostalgia and the changes made to the game (specifically goaltending/scoring).
this

There may be lots of players thats been better

Dosing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 07:41 AM
  #30
Lugaid
Hajlajtreelmål!
 
Lugaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Göteborg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Lugaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
With respect, Lidstrom is not on Orr's level because no defenseman is (or has been) on Orr's level in the history of hockey so far. That is not an insult to Lidstrom, it's the truth. Orr redefined the entire defense position, dominated everyone in his era (not just defensemen) and is regarded by many hockey historians as the greatest PLAYER to ever play the game. Could the same be said about Lidstrom? Would anyone ever say Lidstrom was better than Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, etc.?



I disagree. Orr played in a era where there were 12 teams and the players were a lot more physical and mean. Lidstrom never had to take the physical abuse Orr did on a nightly basis. Lidstrom never had to play on two bad knees without medical advances to cure him. In fact, I think Lidstrom gets all the credit he deserves. A fan started a thread comparing him to Orr - that alone proves how much credit Nick Lidstrom gets (and deserves) in hockey circles. Lidstrom is one of the true greats, don't get me wrong, but Orr was just simply better.
Orr wouldn't have been able to play the way he did in todays hockey anyway, and comparing injuries is just irrelevant, playing in the league for as long as Nick has with as few injuries as he has just goes to show what a remarkable physique he has; not that he's been soft.

I'm not saying Lidström is better than Orr, but I do think that a lot of the players of past generations rides comfortably on the wings of nostalgia, if you look at hockey back then and how slow it is compared to todays game, and how much work it requires to be an elite player today, to me it's mind boggling how some people can seriously think that if they warped those players into todays NHL, Orr for example would still win an Art Ross, more or less.

Lugaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:09 PM
  #31
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lugaid View Post
Orr wouldn't have been able to play the way he did in todays hockey anyway, and comparing injuries is just irrelevant, playing in the league for as long as Nick has with as few injuries as he has just goes to show what a remarkable physique he has; not that he's been soft.

I'm not saying Lidström is better than Orr, but I do think that a lot of the players of past generations rides comfortably on the wings of nostalgia, if you look at hockey back then and how slow it is compared to todays game, and how much work it requires to be an elite player today, to me it's mind boggling how some people can seriously think that if they warped those players into todays NHL, Orr for example would still win an Art Ross, more or less.
Lugaid. Let me ask you a question: Which movie is regarded as the better movie - the original Star Wars or Transformers 2? Which band was better - the Beatles or Blink 182? Who was the better baseball player - Babe Ruth or Ryan Howard?

My point being - Nostalgia has very little to do with determining how great Bobby Orr was, the same way a movie made back in 1976 is better than a movie made in 2008, even though the advances in special effects, film quality, sound quality, editing and movie theaters are better today.

When you compare Bobby Orr to Nicklas Lidstrom - you cannot fairly "pluck" Bobby Orr out of 1972 and mysteriously "drop him" into the 2010 NHL without factoring in that he would have all of the same benefits modern players today have. Orr would be using better skates, better 1-piece, state-of-the-art sticks, lighter equipment. He would also have been trained better over the years and would have the luxury of medical technology which would help his knees - and thus his overall performance.

It's the same thing as my movie comparisons. It's like saying, "Transformers 2 was better than Star Wars because Transformers had the luxury of using advanced digital CGI effects and Stars Wars used model prop space ships back in the 70s that didn't look as good." Of course if Star Wars were made from scratch today, it would have the equal benefits of advanced CGI and technology that Transformers 2 had - making it even better than it was in the 70s.

The bottom line is - greatness is greatness. Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer and it doesn't matter that it was back in the day. Many music aficionados consider Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitarist of all-time - is it just because he is "nostaglic"? Or is it because he was amazing?

If anything, I honestly feel that modern athletes get the advantage over past-era athletes because they are current, relevant and have the benefit of media outlets like YouTube that capitalize their amazing highlights. Many of us never had the chance to witness all of the amazing things Bobby Orr did because there was no way to promote it to the masses - there was no ESPN, no NHL Network, no email, no YouTube - but every day we turn on TV or go online and see highlight packages of Pavel Datsyuk. IMO, modern athletes have a clear perceptual advantage because they are "top of mind".


Last edited by Boxscore: 05-25-2011 at 10:27 PM.
Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 06:58 AM
  #32
Hanji
Registered User
 
Hanji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
If anything, I honestly feel that modern athletes get the advantage over past-era athletes because they are current, relevant and have the benefit of media outlets like YouTube that capitalize their amazing highlights. Many of us never had the chance to witness all of the amazing things Bobby Orr did because there was no way to promote it to the masses - there was no ESPN, no NHL Network, no email, no YouTube - but every day we turn on TV or go online and see highlight packages of Pavel Datsyuk. IMO, modern athletes have a clear perceptual advantage because they are "top of mind".

Just the opposite.

With today's media, every player mistake is on record for all to see.

Go and youtube the all-time great players (especially pre-1970s), it's nothing but glorification videos.
Today's fans don't see instances where past greats are beaten or make mistakes.

In fact, I recall (3 years ago maybe) someone posting a link to a full 1970s Bruins playoff game. Yes Orr was very impressive but he also had 2 ridiculous giveaways in the offensive zone; something I haven't seen Lidstrom ever do.
Yet, hearing what people say about Orr + the limited video of him, you'd think Orr turning the puck over like that was impossible.

Hanji is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 07:11 AM
  #33
Lugaid
Hajlajtreelmål!
 
Lugaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Göteborg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Lugaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
My point being - Nostalgia has very little to do with determining how great Bobby Orr was, the same way a movie made back in 1976 is better than a movie made in 2008, even though the advances in special effects, film quality, sound quality, editing and movie theaters are better today.
To me you basically proved my point, you mentioned a classic movie, player, band, with the nostalgia glasses on, and unfairly compared them to todays "equivalents". I guess choosing Inception, The Dark Knight, U2 or whatever wouldn't have been comfortable enough. To me it's pretty apparent that you've already made up your mind, there never has or never will be anyone in the history of this sport who comes close to Bobby Orr, because he was Bobby Orr. That's what's ridiculous in my book, todays players get very little credit in all-time lists, and that's what frustrates me, since the game is clearly on a different level today than it was in 1940-1970 or what have you.

Quote:
When you compare Bobby Orr to Nicklas Lidstrom - you cannot fairly "pluck" Bobby Orr out of 1972 and mysteriously "drop him" into the 2010 NHL without factoring in that he would have all of the same benefits modern players today have. Orr would be using better skates, better 1-piece, state-of-the-art sticks, lighter equipment. He would also have been trained better over the years and would have the luxury of medical technology which would help his knees - and thus his overall performance.
Sure, but that also means that Orr would have to face much more superior goaltenders and most likely adapt his game to the state of the current game, and I wonder if he would have been able to maintain what he did back then in such a scenario. In any case, it's pretty irrelevant because again; you can't compare eras like that.


Quote:
The bottom line is - greatness is greatness. Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer and it doesn't matter that it was back in the day. Many music aficionados consider Jimi Hendrix the greatest guitarist of all-time - is it just because he is "nostaglic"? Or is it because he was amazing?
It depends on your perspective, really. Ponder that Yngwie Malmsteen, Eddie Van Halen or Jimmy Page would have come before Hendrix, would Hendrix really be celebrated as much as he is today? It's just food for thought and not really relevant, once again, but how we view history and compare it with today largely depends on our perspective, but you always have to try to see it both ways. I am by no means depriving Jimi Hendrix or Bobby Orr, as this is about, of their greatness. They are true legends that largely helped shape the way that both music and hockey is seen today, and they should always be remembered and aknowledged for that. But comparing them to todays equivalents is by no means fair or relevant to either side, really.

To me, obviously, a far better comparison for Lidström would be to compare him to Ray Bourque, since they actually played in the NHL in similar areas, and their careers even intertwined. To me, Lidström and Bourque are around on the same level of each other, and that makes them the two best defensemen of the past 20 years to me. What comes before that, or to insert them in a larger, all-time perspective, doesn't really matter to me since I'd rather seperate the eras they played in.

Lugaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 11:04 AM
  #34
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
I agree with you about Lidstrom vs. Bourque - and, yes, they were the 2 greatest defensemen in the last 20 years without a doubt.

Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 12:32 PM
  #35
Nordic*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tellus
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Nostalgia clouds everyones minds.

It seems like hockey is the only sport where the athletes and the game itself isn't getting better.

Put Orr against the players of today and he wouldn't look dominant at all. Put Lidstrom against the players from the 60s to 70s and Lidstrom would look much, much more dominant.

Nordic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 01:17 PM
  #36
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordic View Post
Nostalgia clouds everyones minds.

It seems like hockey is the only sport where the athletes and the game itself isn't getting better.

Put Orr against the players of today and he wouldn't look dominant at all. Put Lidstrom against the players from the 60s to 70s and Lidstrom would look much, much more dominant.
You are missing the mark entirely here. Past vs. Present era players need to be compared to the peers of their era and valued based on their dominance and impact on their sport when they each played. It is completely off-base to even justify putting Nicklas Lidstrom into a time machine and plopping him onto the ice in 1970. It would be like putting Will Farrell into that same time machine, dropping him back into 1915 and saying he is funnier than Charlie Chaplin. Of course that's not factoring in the advances in comedy and cinema over the last 85+ years. Of course Orr and Chaplin are a main part of the reason and inspiration that Lidstrom and Farrell are even who they are today. But that also gets lost in these kind of debates.

But I guess newer is always better right? In that case, let's just get it over with and say Crosby is better than Gretzky, Ovechkin is greater than Lemieux, Luongo is better than Sawchuk, Lidstrom is better than Orr and U2 is better than the Beatles. If it was all about "Nostalgia" then people would be saying Brad Park, Pierre Pilote and Guy Lapointe were all better than Lidstrom - which I have never heard anyone say (at least in the last 12 years). The "nostalgia" argument is worthless when talking about the greatest ever - Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, etc.

Going strictly by your example of "dropping Lidstrom back in Orr's day" - lets relate it to Swedish defensemen. Borje Salming was one of the greatest DMEN Sweden ever produced. Now, theoretically, you might be able to take Oliver Ekman-Larsson RIGHT NOW and drop back into 1974. Give him the benefit of close to 40 years worth of game advances, coaching, systems, and training. Oh, and make sure he has his state-of-the-art skates, light equipment and hi-tech composite stick. Take him as is and drop him into Maple Leaf Gardens in 1974 and I'm sure he would stand out quite a bit. At first glance - many might even say, "wow, this future player is even better than Borje Salming." But, I ask, is Ekman-Larsson really greater than Borje Salming? It's kind of like taking a 2011 Honda Accord and lining it up next to a 1956 Chevy in 1956. Wouldn't people be more impressed with the 2011 Honda?? But is that a fair comparison?


Last edited by Boxscore: 05-30-2011 at 01:30 PM.
Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 01:32 PM
  #37
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nordic View Post
It seems like hockey is the only sport where the athletes and the game itself isn't getting better.
It's the opposite frankly. I never hear any baseball fans saying Ryan Howard and Albert Poujos are greater than Babe Ruth. I don't hear basketball fans saying Kobe and Lebron are better all-time than Jordan. Only in hockey do you hear modern fans say Lidstrom is better than Orr and Crosby is better than Gretzky.

Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 01:46 PM
  #38
His Beardliness
#SireBabcock
 
His Beardliness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,006
vCash: 1125
Bolt > Johnson

Messi > Maradona

Lidström > Orr

Three simple facts.

His Beardliness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 04:26 PM
  #39
Dosing
Registered User
 
Dosing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ivösjön
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by His Beardliness View Post
Messi > Maradona
.
ok ok, easy now =P

And gustaffson when comparing two players you dont have to look at their own peers it's not that hard to look how they differ from each other in terms of skill, speed etc. And to compare boths attributes to the opposite guys league.

Dosing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 05:24 PM
  #40
Boxscore
pre-Dead Puck Era
 
Boxscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 1985-94
Posts: 4,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smookie View Post
it's not that hard to look how they differ from each other in terms of skill, speed etc.
Sure it is. Because the training, especially to improve speed and technique in skating, is a lot better in 2010 than it was in 1970. And, if you've ever skated on both (old, flimsy, leather-booted skates and new, lighter, state-on-the-art Bauer Vapors) you would know that modern skates are incredibly more efficient and easier to skate with and control. Not to mention that back in the day players used equipment that would collect sweat and weigh more than the light and comfortable padding that is used today. Also, did you ever play hockey with both a wooden, straight, heavy stick vs. a new, light, composite, top-of-the-line stick? I have - and the feeling is night and day different. So to say that Lidstrom would be "as great as he is now" playing under the circumstances and with the equipment of 1970 is just not realistic.

Boxscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2011, 06:12 AM
  #41
Dosing
Registered User
 
Dosing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ivösjön
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
Sure it is. Because the training, especially to improve speed and technique in skating, is a lot better in 2010 than it was in 1970. And, if you've ever skated on both (old, flimsy, leather-booted skates and new, lighter, state-on-the-art Bauer Vapors) you would know that modern skates are incredibly more efficient and easier to skate with and control. Not to mention that back in the day players used equipment that would collect sweat and weigh more than the light and comfortable padding that is used today. Also, did you ever play hockey with both a wooden, straight, heavy stick vs. a new, light, composite, top-of-the-line stick? I have - and the feeling is night and day different. So to say that Lidstrom would be "as great as he is now" playing under the circumstances and with the equipment of 1970 is just not realistic.
Well it's irrelevant how their training was since you compare the endresult, i agree with you that the heavy equipment could weigh in, but ive played with the old and new sticks and it's not exactly a and ö. And didnt lidstrom play with wooden1 for the majority of his career?

Dosing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2011, 07:10 PM
  #42
Lugaid
Hajlajtreelmål!
 
Lugaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Göteborg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Lugaid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustafsson View Post
It's the opposite frankly. I never hear any baseball fans saying Ryan Howard and Albert Poujos are greater than Babe Ruth. I don't hear basketball fans saying Kobe and Lebron are better all-time than Jordan. Only in hockey do you hear modern fans say Lidstrom is better than Orr and Crosby is better than Gretzky.
I doubt you're listening that intently then, I'm pretty sure you'll hear the same around every sport, however, and this might be a generalization, there are some canadians who will never ever ever accept that anyone comes close to "THE GREAT SONS OF CANADA", because they are almost patriotic symbols by now (and with some right they should be). We just don't think of our old players like that in Sweden on the same scale, putting Sven Tumba, Roland Stoltz etc. up on a pedistal that noone will ever reach (not saying they were as good as Orr, just that they have the same legend tag). The only ones who are gonna have that impact are possibly Peter Forsberg and Mats Sundin (in the national team at least), they were always at the right place at the right times, and noone remembers that they too declined to come to the WC's sometimes; they only remember the good memories, which, as already posted in this thread, might be the case also for Orr (see the post about the ridiculous giveaways).

Maybe it also has to do with the development of the sports, to me, out of those three sports (save for baseball, I don't watch that at all), I think it's fair to say that hockey has developed a whole lot, quality wise, since the "old days".


Last edited by Lugaid: 06-02-2011 at 04:14 AM.
Lugaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2011, 02:53 PM
  #43
Jocke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,015
vCash: 500
We all know players were way, way better in the past. Nostalgia, anyone?

Jocke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 06:42 AM
  #44
nudie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 413
vCash: 500
The big question however should be the quality of the league Orr played in. Since the expansion doubled the amount of teams, and Orr (on the few videos I've seen) seemed to round the other players like they were cones, it's seems like a legit assumption that the quality of the league wasn't the greatest. The less talented players in the NHL before the expansion were obviously better than the less talented players after. Orr was however unquestionably the player of his generation and probably the best defender of all time.

and btw as it really that more physical before as the guy earlier in this thread claimed. Without the xxl pads and helmets, a guy like Orr that draw alot attention be slaughtered out there?

nudie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2011, 11:32 AM
  #45
Ivan13
Avs/Habs fan
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by nudie View Post
The big question however should be the quality of the league Orr played in. Since the expansion doubled the amount of teams, and Orr (on the few videos I've seen) seemed to round the other players like they were cones, it's seems like a legit assumption that the quality of the league wasn't the greatest. The less talented players in the NHL before the expansion were obviously better than the less talented players after. Orr was however unquestionably the player of his generation and probably the best defender of all time.

and btw as it really that more physical before as the guy earlier in this thread claimed. Without the xxl pads and helmets, a guy like Orr that draw alot attention be slaughtered out there?
Well by some notable hockey experts he (Orr) was not only the best defender of all time, but also the best player that ever played (in the NHL, since we'll never know how would old Russians, Swedes, Finns, Czechs, and other european players do). His skating was something to behold for that period in time. And to answer your question, yes it was far more physical game before, other players tried to take out his knees more than once, and that in the end led to his premature career ending. I have some tapes of him at home, and you can see that he was as far ahead of his time, as for example Doug Harvey was earlier.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 02:32 AM
  #46
InGusWeTrust
hockey.tk
 
InGusWeTrust's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 643
vCash: 542
I think they are tied.

InGusWeTrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 08:51 AM
  #47
LiveeviL
No unique points
 
LiveeviL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Jämtland, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,370
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to LiveeviL
Orr might have been more talented, I do not know and it is hard to decide. But professional athlete training is MILES by MILES better now than even in the 80's, further back the training was very much a joke in every sport.

Lidström of his days would beat the Orr of his days, that is a given thing. But an Orr contemporary with Lidström might sure be a better player than Lidström was/is.

LiveeviL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 10:46 AM
  #48
AngryBoss
Registered User
 
AngryBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveeviL View Post
Orr might have been more talented, I do not know and it is hard to decide. But professional athlete training is MILES by MILES better now than even in the 80's, further back the training was very much a joke in every sport.

Lidström of his days would beat the Orr of his days, that is a given thing. But an Orr contemporary with Lidström might sure be a better player than Lidström was/is.
Absolutely. Heck, Colton Orr is more talented than the MVP of the 1927 season.

But whenever someone asks these questions its who was more dominant in their era.
Orr is the best defenseman who ever lived and I think he's most likely the greatest player who ever laced them up.

Lidstrom is awesome, no doubt. But he's not nearly as dominant offensively as Orr was.
Orr could flat-out take over a game.
Lidstrom doesn't have that ability. He'll shut down the best offensive stars, but no team was ever worried he'd pick apart their defense with an offensive rush.

Two different era's to be sure, but even if the NHL was as offensive-minded in Lidstrom's prime, as it was in the 70's, Lidstrom still wouldn't have ever been seen as an offensive threat like Orr was.

AngryBoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 12:39 PM
  #49
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBoss View Post
Heck, Colton Orr is more talented than the MVP of the 1927 season.
More talented? Sure you meant to say that and not "better trained" or something similar?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-19-2011, 12:48 PM
  #50
AngryBoss
Registered User
 
AngryBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
More talented? Sure you meant to say that and not "better trained" or something similar?
Semantics. But I figure most know what I'm talking about.
If Colton Orr and the MVP of the 1927 playoffs were to step on the ice, Orr would be faster, stronger, a better passer, etc in comparison.

Just like the Hart Trophy winner of 2112 would be light years better than Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin.

Evolution baby.

AngryBoss 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 05:01 PM.

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.