HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Off-season Armchair GM Thread Part IX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2012, 02:29 AM
  #301
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
This is the Wilt Chamberlin vs. Jordan debate. It's different. One was more dominant against lesser competition the other was tremendous against very good competition.

For my money Lidstrom is the greatest Hockey player of all time.
No, it's Gretz. It will always be Gretz. He didn't just dominate he dominated at such a ridiculous level that it made it seem like everyone else was a peewee player. No other player dominated their era of any sport the way Gretz did.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:35 AM
  #302
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
wrong wrong wrong, theres this unknown guy named bobby orr that even in his 12 years did more then lidstrom did in his 20+ years.

8 norris trophy's
art ross winner 2 times
hart trophy winner
conn smyth
lester b pearson
Yeah I know. I'm old enough to have actually seen him play so don't try and tout Orr like he's some under appreciated nobody. Sorry, the modern NHL is much faster, much bigger and way better defensively with way better goaltending. For my money it's lidstrom. Orr is a close second due to how much he dominated his era but Lidstrom is still 1st in my book. You're welcome to disagree, but you aint changing my mind.

To be honest though if I could have any Defensman from any era it would be Pronger from the edmonton and anahiem years. Absolutely the most dominating presence on ice that I've ever seen in person.


Last edited by NWShark*: 08-24-2012 at 03:56 AM.
NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:40 AM
  #303
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatrick Marleau View Post
Couture is not anywhere as good as Marleau defensively and isn't a better passer either. Marleau is a better center than Couture will ever be. I think Marleau is actually better as a center IMO.
Marleau is not a better center. If he was he'd be playing center and Couture would be on the wing. Marleau is an elite winger though considering he's one the highest goal scoring wingers in the western conference over the past 4 or 5 years.


Last edited by NWShark*: 08-24-2012 at 03:51 AM.
NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:43 AM
  #304
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
This comments make me wonder if you appreciate and factor in that the 80's and 90's were part of the clutch-and-grab era, and also had the two line pass rule in effect.

Of course skating looks better now without that stuff in the NHL anymore.
I'm sorry but the 80s were definelty NOT part of the clutch and grab era. Not even close. That was pickup hockey with little to no defense and goalies with almost no pads and apparently no reflexes.

The clutch and grab started primarily with the NJ devil and lemaire in 92-93. Even the year before when the Kings went to the final was more wide open than that. From there it was all down hill as all the teams with less talent started emulating the trap from the devils.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:48 AM
  #305
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
How many of Gretzky's goals were slapshots on breakaways? Seriously, he scored countless goals like that. You can't score like that now. Why? .. because the goalies actually have some ability these days and aren't just Canadians that aren't good enough to play forward or D.

I know clutch and grab all too well. Players like Derien Hatcher made a career out of that garbage and shouldn't have even been in the NHL. I think it's safe to say he wouldn't be near any roster now. He's an example of how poor some of the players were then.
Derian Hatcher would easily be a 1s pair defenseman now just like he was when he captained the Stars to a cup. He was a good skater especially for his size, excellent defensively and was incredibly mean on the ice. He was like a much better version of Murray or maybe a less talented Chara.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:55 AM
  #306
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,396
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
Ok, I'll acknowledge your strength of competition argument that you think is so golden. It's great that he faces that competition and does well in the regular season but that still doesn't take back the 2 times he looked like junior hockey player in the playoffs versus the wings. Also, it's a little early Coutures career for this comparison but I'm sure he'll start facing the top guys too... and I bet he doesn't ***** himself defensively in the playoffs.
I'm sorry, so we're allowed to bring up the two crappy Wings series (when in reality, only one of them was crappy considering he scored 2 of the game-winners in the other one), but we can't bring up the Avs series that he's kicked ass in? Or the Nashville series? Or the two WCF series in which he's scored at over a point per game pace? Yeah, it's inexcusable that he was that ****** in the 2011 Wings series. As he's my favorite player, I was pissed more than anybody about his **** play. ****, I broke my damn hand over game 5.

Patty's one of those guys who has severe matchup issues. He needs to ****ing address them, I get that. But while he's very bad against the Wings, for example, he has other teams that he lights up. It's not like he can do anything to completely compensate for ******** the bed in the 2011 Wings series or hell even this past springs performance. But the fact that he has been awesome in other series kinda defeats the argument that he's bad in the playoffs. It's just becomes noticeable that he has matchup issues when he's playing the same team for 7 games.

And yeah, it's inexcusable to me that he's 33 (almost) and still has matchup issues. But it also explains why he's so hot and cold in the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
The thing is... my idea of defensive play is obviously different than yours. Things like not passing it directly to the other team and being tough on loose pucks go a long way towards being good defensively.
Marleau really isn't one for egregious turnovers in my experience, but obviously I have no proof of that. It's all objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
Couture is a fighter and hard to win the puck from, despite his size and lack of speed (which isn't that bad and getting better it seems).
As is this. I don't know what you mean by "fighter". Neither Couture nor Marleau have anything special in the puck-protection department. the difference to me is that Couture will crumple is someone attacks him from behind, whereas Marleau can take it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
Size, physicality, and being able to take a hit??? What does any of that have to do with being good defensively. What's the point of having size if you won't go anywhere near the boards or loose pucks? Couture will dive in head first if he has to and just engaging gives you a better chance than none. Also if Marleau is so tough and good at taking hits why does everyone keep saying he's playing hurt the last few pathetic playoff performances of his?
For the bolded, nothing. I never said it did. I'm just saying that those things in addition to superior defensive play, make Marleau a better player than Couture.

No one's saying he was hurt for any playoff except the Anaheim series, in which, oh yeah, he scored the only two game-winning goals of the series.

And this will come as a surprise to you, but considering Marleau has had to function as the first forechecker and puck carrier the past year, he's had to be the first one in the zone fighting for loose pucks and things. And considering his line's possession stats, I'm going to guess that he was pretty successful at it.

Couture will dive in head first? Yeah, that's a great way to get a concussion and then really **** the team over.

I'll buy that Couture is better offensively than Marleau (at this point in their respective careers) if someone really wanted to sell me on it. But Couture having more heart than Marleau is a new one. When has Couture ever shown more emotion? Buck-toothed smiles? Does that really make an influence on what you think of the player?

Anyway, you obviously don't want to discuss this with me, and honestly I don't either. But the plain answer is that Couture is an inferior player to Marleau, and that's all there is too it. Two years from now, we'll talk. Maybe (I'd say probably) Couture's better by then. But what it comes down to is that he's not #1C (on a contender) material, and you won't convince me otherwise. I hope I'm wrong, but if anything year upon years of being a fan of this team has taught me, it's never to get too hopeful.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 02:58 AM
  #307
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 32,016
vCash: 500
Who ****ing cares..by the middle of the year everyone will want so and so traded and the team blown up anyway.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:01 AM
  #308
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
No, he's equal parts playmaker and sniper, and he's more of a shoot-first player. That doesn't preclude him from making nice passes, but those passes don't make him a playmaker (I'm starting to question whether you define the term "playmaker" correctly, because 'playmaker=/=passer'.)
You need to look at his junior and ahl stats... most seasons he had more assists than goals by a wide margin. One in particular he was 26-52... looks like a Joe Thaw-un stat sheet to me... His on ice vision is definitely above average from some of the plays he's made. I think overall he's a more creative passer than Marleau but yes Marleau is the more naturally physically gifted player.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:04 AM
  #309
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 11,357
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
No, it's Gretz. It will always be Gretz. He didn't just dominate he dominated at such a ridiculous level that it made it seem like everyone else was a peewee player. No other player dominated their era of any sport the way Gretz did.
Nah I look at like this if you had a 1v1 against the top tier players of all time at every position who would win?

Gretzkey vs Lemieux
Hasek vs Roy
Orr vs Bourque/Harvery

Guarantee you Gretzkey wouldn't win that battle.

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:06 AM
  #310
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post

You can poke at Marleau for many things that I'll overlook, but defensive play is not one of them.
Agree 100%. I still remember the year the sharks beat the Avs the first time in the playoffs and they kept sending out Marleau to defend Forsberg who at the time was for my money the best player in the game. Marleau and Hannan had Forsberg so pissed off at the end of that series he was taking swings at them. Marleau learned to be defensively responsible under Sutter and from being a teammate with Ricci so he will most likely always be better than Couture.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:11 AM
  #311
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Was there supposed to be a sarcasm smiley on the end of this? Lemieux struggled to put up a decent season? If you're not kidding you better go look at his stats. When he came back he dominated as he's always done. His last healthy season he scored 91 points.
Yeah, there was supposed to be a sarcasm smiley. Should be obvious from my other posts in this very thread

The year he came back, with his back still bad, his heart not the best, having not played NHL-hockey for years...and he gets 76 points in 43 games...on a fairly so-so team.

Yet people say that the all-time greats weren't that; so what, Lemieux would only get 120 points today? ********.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:47 AM
  #312
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt Macklin View Post
Nah I look at like this if you had a 1v1 against the top tier players of all time at every position who would win?

Gretzkey vs Lemieux
Hasek vs Roy
Orr vs Bourque/Harvery

Guarantee you Gretzkey wouldn't win that battle.
Sorry but that's a guarantee you just can't make or prove. You're just speculating.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:50 AM
  #313
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Yeah, there was supposed to be a sarcasm smiley. Should be obvious from my other posts in this very thread

The year he came back, with his back still bad, his heart not the best, having not played NHL-hockey for years...and he gets 76 points in 43 games...on a fairly so-so team.

Yet people say that the all-time greats weren't that; so what, Lemieux would only get 120 points today? ********.
Ah.. cool. Glad to hear there's some sanity in this thread... I think there has to be some consideration given for differences in the eras. I mean in the 60s, 70s, and 80s the goalies on average were frickin awful and no one clutched and grabbed like the did in the 90's those guys just freewheeled in the offensive zone like pickup roller hockey.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 04:33 AM
  #314
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 11,357
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Sorry but that's a guarantee you just can't make or prove. You're just speculating.
THIS WHOLE ****ING BOARD IS PURE SPECULATION.

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 05:45 AM
  #315
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,145
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Yeah I know. I'm old enough to have actually seen him play so don't try and tout Orr like he's some under appreciated nobody. Sorry, the modern NHL is much faster, much bigger and way better defensively with way better goaltending. For my money it's lidstrom. Orr is a close second due to how much he dominated his era but Lidstrom is still 1st in my book. You're welcome to disagree, but you aint changing my mind.

To be honest though if I could have any Defensman from any era it would be Pronger from the edmonton and anahiem years. Absolutely the most dominating presence on ice that I've ever seen in person.
The new age hockey vs old age hockey argument is such a bogus reasoning. Lidstrom never dominated the league offensively or defensively like orr did. Orr wasn't just better the the other defensemen in the league. He was also much better then the forwards in the league.

The exact same things you say make lidstroms career better can be used for orr also, orr never had the ability to have sticks that even 10 year olds can use and have a hard shot with. Orr never had paper light skates, orr never had the science breakthroughs in training, orr never had hockey equipment that would keep sweat off of (meaning his equipment became even heavier as the game progressed). Orr never had the ability to train 365 days a year (had other jobs other then hockey). Orr also played in a much tougher and meaner time, where fighting was just as important as skating and shooting.

All we really can judge them on is how they compared to there peers, orr dominated his while lidstrom was just a bit better then his (and only after 2000, after bourque, mccinnis, iafrate and the likes retired)

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 05:51 AM
  #316
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
The new age hockey vs old age hockey argument is such a bogus reasoning. Lidstrom never dominated the league offensively or defensively like orr did. Orr wasn't just better the the other defensemen in the league. He was also much better then the forwards in the league.

The exact same things you say make lidstroms career better can be used for orr also, orr never had the ability to have sticks that even 10 year olds can use and have a hard shot with. Orr never had paper light skates, orr never had the science breakthroughs in training, orr never had hockey equipment that would keep sweat off of (meaning his equipment became even heavier as the game progressed). Orr never had the ability to train 365 days a year (had other jobs other then hockey). Orr also played in a much tougher and meaner time, where fighting was just as important as skating and shooting.

All we really can judge them on is how they compared to there peers, orr dominated his while lidstrom was just a bit better then his (and only after 2000, after bourque, mccinnis, iafrate and the likes retired)

Like I said, you can disagree, I don't care. You'll never convince me you're right.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:02 AM
  #317
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Like I said, you can disagree, I don't care. You'll never convince me you're right.
That's fine, while I find it pretty closed minded (I would never say 'you can't convince me' of something so debateable). The fact is, Orr is considered the greatest defensemen to ever play the game by the VAST majority of the hockey world, for a reason.

On the Couture defensively argument. I already proved he saw significantly inferior competition, so with that in mind:

PlayerGiveawaysTakeawaysHitsBlocksDef Start %GA on/60+- on/60Corsi Rel
Marleau4538843345.5%2.46.588.1
Couture3661427643.8%2.12.2110.6

It's pretty close actually, Patty didn't have one of his better defensive seasons. He did face quite a bit harder competition than Couture though, and thus was clearly more trusted by the coaches. It's tough to judge since Couture does not get to spend a lot of time on the ice against elite players.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:41 AM
  #318
Falco5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt Macklin View Post
Nah I look at like this if you had a 1v1 against the top tier players of all time at every position who would win?

Gretzkey vs Lemieux
Hasek vs Roy
Orr vs Bourque/Harvery

Guarantee you Gretzkey wouldn't win that battle.
While Gretzkey vs Lemieux is the closest of the three Gretzkey still pwns.

Falco5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 10:50 AM
  #319
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Yeah I know. I'm old enough to have actually seen him play so don't try and tout Orr like he's some under appreciated nobody. Sorry, the modern NHL is much faster, much bigger and way better defensively with way better goaltending. For my money it's lidstrom. Orr is a close second due to how much he dominated his era but Lidstrom is still 1st in my book. You're welcome to disagree, but you aint changing my mind.

To be honest though if I could have any Defensman from any era it would be Pronger from the edmonton and anahiem years. Absolutely the most dominating presence on ice that I've ever seen in person.
Thanks for making the point about the timing of the introduction clutch and grab. You can also talk about the timing of the introduction of athleticism into the league. It was the tail end of the Orr era. Three teams emphasized training starting in the early 70s, the Habs, Isles and Flyers. Look at who won cups over that decade and the outset of the following decade. It was also the time that paychecks became large enough to enable players to devote themselves full time to hockey.

I won't make any points about Orr, but his teammate, Espo, had to be one of the least athletic of the players of his day.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:12 PM
  #320
MadmanSJ
Know Your Onion!
 
MadmanSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 1,317
vCash: 500
Yeah but it was a level playing field at the time Orr played as well. It wasn't like he was given the technology and training standards of today's technologies while playing a buncha untrained slugs several decades ago which allowed him to utterly dominate them. They all had equal access to what was available to them at the time. If he was a part of today's game, he would have had the training at a much earlier age that kids these days are being raised with and would be a lot better than he even was then.

MB's point about him being in today's game and raising the level of his play is legitimate. How much so, or even being able to compare these athletes from different era's is impossible. The gap between him and the competition would likely narrow significantly because we just don't see players a complete head and shoulders above the competition anymore with the parity that has been achieved. The competition has raised their game. The only thing we know for certain was who the best was at the time they played.

MadmanSJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 03:16 PM
  #321
MadmanSJ
Know Your Onion!
 
MadmanSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 1,317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
The new age hockey vs old age hockey argument is such a bogus reasoning. Lidstrom never dominated the league offensively or defensively like orr did. Orr wasn't just better the the other defensemen in the league. He was also much better then the forwards in the league.

The exact same things you say make lidstroms career better can be used for orr also, orr never had the ability to have sticks that even 10 year olds can use and have a hard shot with. Orr never had paper light skates, orr never had the science breakthroughs in training, orr never had hockey equipment that would keep sweat off of (meaning his equipment became even heavier as the game progressed). Orr never had the ability to train 365 days a year (had other jobs other then hockey). Orr also played in a much tougher and meaner time, where fighting was just as important as skating and shooting.

All we really can judge them on is how they compared to there peers, orr dominated his while lidstrom was just a bit better then his (and only after 2000, after bourque, mccinnis, iafrate and the likes retired)
Ha I didn't even read this. I pretty much just parroted what you said. I just came back to this thread seeing the same discussion going on and skipped over.

Mah bad.

MadmanSJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 06:29 PM
  #322
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,078
vCash: 500
How about we stop arguing about who was better and just agree they are top tier, cream of the crop, best defensemen of all time. Why worry about which one was better. Lidstrom's basically always controlled the game when he was on the ice and Orr dominated.

It's kind of the problem arguing about who was the best of all time, every player had different styles. Apples to oranges even if they do play the same position.

New argument, 12 years of pure domination or 22 years of top tier play.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 07:18 PM
  #323
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
 
CrazedZooChimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,758
vCash: 1875
Send a message via AIM to CrazedZooChimp
Man, I haven't been in the offseason GM thread in awhile. Are we getting Lidstrom out of retirement or something?

CrazedZooChimp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:14 PM
  #324
sharski
Registered User
 
sharski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
Man, I haven't been in the offseason GM thread in awhile. Are we getting Lidstrom out of retirement or something?
no, but we're getting Stuart back, which is pretty much just as good (and none of you can convince me otherwise)

sharski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2012, 09:48 PM
  #325
VP and GM
Havlat is gone!
 
VP and GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at home
Country: United States
Posts: 5,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
Man, I haven't been in the offseason GM thread in awhile. Are we getting Lidstrom out of retirement or something?
close, it's Bobby Orr.

VP and GM 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 11:35 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.