HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Best Player to ever Play the game?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2013, 12:22 AM
  #126
VaporTrail
Registered Tanker
 
VaporTrail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Buffalo
Country: Ireland
Posts: 2,406
vCash: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanTitov View Post
Does anyone else beleive that current players are the best to ever play the game? for example Ovechkin is a better pure goal scorer than anyone to ever the game, if you took rocket richard and brought him to todays game ovechkin would smoke him. if you took ovechkin and played him in richards era ovechkin would smoke him. i think you could say that about all major sports. they superstars you are watching today are far better than anyone who has played before. Im just sick of current players being compared to players from the past and all the gretzky records. Take crosby and his skill set back 20 years and hes a 200-300 pts pre season guy
Actually think you're wrong here....I think Crosby would average 5 points a game 20 years ago...So he would be averaging over 400 points per season.

VaporTrail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:24 AM
  #127
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pronounced Anders View Post
I'd like one quote of where someone denied it was easier to score. No one has said that, they just say that the advantage is over-stated.

And the Butterfly did exist. It just wasn't used very much due to the pads.
Exactly. We have some posters on here who have played goal with the old equipment >>>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Today, it's all about playing the %'s and letting the puck hit you.
You used to have to make your own %'s so to speak. You used to have to be much more aggressive and come much further out of your net to get the same kind of % that today's goalies get butterflying at the top of their crease.

I hate reading posts talking about how much better today's goalie and today's "science" is.
That "new science" was only made possible by the new equipment.

You couldn't go into the 70's with today's "science" in that era equipment. You would get lit up like a X-mas tree sitting back in your crease and having at minimum 25% less blocking area.

Honestly, I wanna hear some more older goalies chime in. I KNOW they know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The weight reduction, lack of water retention, better shaped and better at holding that shape pads allowed for better stances and technical play.
Does buddy mention that at all?
You could not go down with anywhere near the frequency that goalies do today. You would be so dead by the third period and your pads would weigh even more by that point on top of it.
And honestly, how effective does anyone think the butterfly was when you covered at least 25% less net when you did it back then.
Guys like Tony O and Dan Bouchard were known as butterfly goalies but they used it maybe 30-40% of the time. They would barely qualify as hybrids in today's NHL heh.

As I said earlier, my style changed overnight with synthetic equipment.
I didn't just suddenly become good technically, I always knew my angles. I had to play the way my equipment would allow me to play.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:25 AM
  #128
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Continued >>>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Cant say I agree with a number of your assertions here RS, and I played goal through the 60's & early 70's, had I stuck it out pro from the mid 70's through 80's soooo.... For starters, Goalie Coaches have been around since, like, forever, though at the amateur levels sure enough, wasnt until the mid-60's that decent organizations & coaches starting using them. Usually the Uncle/Brother/Father or whatever of one of the players on your team who played Jr. or Pro helping out.... sortof like what Rhiessan does in Guelph Id imagine. At the Jr. levels, goaltenders received extensive coaching from the late 60's on; at the pro levels, from at least the early 70's onward, Bower for example in Toronto retained as a consultant amongst the many pretty much league wide. Hall worked with Esposito; Plante with Parent and so on. Was it as "intensive" as todays coaching? No, certainly not, as back then we didnt feel it was necessary to micromanage and frankly "over-coach" players.

Goalies (not all, but the elite) did indeed "challenge properly" through the 70's & 80's, to suggest otherwise is absurd. Thats what standups all about. What happened was that after the 72 Summit Series and much handwringing, the game changed from one of set patterns & lanes to one of constant cycling combined with equipment advances, skating skills, attention paid to off-ice conditioning & nutrition etc. The cycle game forced goaltenders back into their creases, relying more & more upon the Butterfly, used previously primarily on dekes, scrambles, screens. Goalies didnt "become smarter", they simply "adapted", and it wasnt until the mid to late 80's that the equipment they used altered much. Palmateer introduced the "cheater" to his catcher, an extra 3" pad & web jobby, many followed, but that was about it for several years.

What ceases to amaze (and disappoint) me about todays goalies is their inability to control rebounds, their propensity to drop early and on every shot, and most frustratingly of all, an inability to skate with any modicum of proficiency. I mean, why bother with skates at all? Its a joke, and a bad one. They cant play North South, just "slide" East West on their knee's. Not all of them, guys like Thomas, certainly Smith down in Phoenix, there are some terrific Goaltenders out there no mistake, but on the whole? Pretty lousy. They dont make "saves", they "block" the net, and again, beg to differ, size matters. Equipments gotten a tad smaller since 03'ish sure, but hey, youve gotta be 6'0"+++ to even be out there anymore, and I for one dont enjoy watching a whole lot of it. Trappers are grossly oversized; pads were insane but have begun to resemble what they were designed for in the first place instead of the inflatable landing pads passengers might like to land on when evacuating an airplane; your chest protectors / shoulder pads gotta be cut down to size; get rid of the curved goalie sticks (bad rebound control) and ya, start holding out that catcher like a "pizza box" (as you put it) again, and "challenge" the shooter to beat you on the glovehand.... instead, their down on their knees more often than a streetwalker working the Mont Parnesse.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:26 AM
  #129
McTankel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
McTankel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,009
vCash: 500
1.) Gretzky
2.) Lemeiux
3.) Orr
4.) Howe
5.) Messier

McTankel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:27 AM
  #130
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanTitov View Post
Does anyone else beleive that current players are the best to ever play the game? for example Ovechkin is a better pure goal scorer than anyone to ever the game, if you took rocket richard and brought him to todays game ovechkin would smoke him. if you took ovechkin and played him in richards era ovechkin would smoke him. i think you could say that about all major sports. they superstars you are watching today are far better than anyone who has played before. Im just sick of current players being compared to players from the past and all the gretzky records. Take crosby and his skill set back 20 years and hes a 200-300 pts pre season guy

Take Gretzky, give him Crosby's modern equipment and year-round training and then plunk him back down into the 80's era and he still scores +100 points more than Crosby.

Care to refute it?

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:29 AM
  #131
DearDiary
Registered User
 
DearDiary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,679
vCash: 50
Kovalchuks combined toolset of skill, leadership, personality, looks, physique, Heart, attitude, gamesense etc, makes him the best to ever play the game.

Anyone who argues against this without refuting my points is in denial or a troll.

Kovalchuk could break all the goal scoring records if he wasn't so unselfish. He cares more about winning, which is why he sacrifices his personal starts to do whatever it takes for his team to win.

Just looks at New Jersey's record when he's out, should have won the MVP, but too bad New Jersey missed the playoffs simply because he couldn't play because of injury

DearDiary is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:32 AM
  #132
Pontius Palat
Liam Neeson's mentor
 
Pontius Palat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Take Gretzky, give him Crosby's modern equipment and year-round training and then plunk him back down into the 80's era and he still scores +100 points more than Crosby.

Care to refute it?
Take Crosby, give him a dad like Walter Gretzky and he'll be as good as Gretzky. These hypothetical arguments are silly because you're essentially bringing players to equality in some respects but not others.

Pontius Palat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:33 AM
  #133
TopShelfYzerman
Gm 6 Double OT
 
TopShelfYzerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
I stubbornly refuse to believe that Gretzky would cut it today. First off, I'll help out anyone willing to argue with me right here by saying I'm a 17 year old with limited viewing experiences of old time hockey. But if you stick around I'd love to hear someone refute me. Make fun of me all you want from this poor start but hear me out:

Back in the day was NOTHING like today. Not even close. I openly laugh at anyone who says so. Goalies sucked, defenders sucked and forwards had all the time in the world. Every highlight video of all the old-time greats look foolishly unimpressive. You can call it better present day training, better coaching, better equipment, wider pool of players to choose from, or whatever else, but it's a simple fact that play back in the day does not hold a ****ing candle to today. Look at a Sidney Crosby highlight video, then look at a Bobby Orr or Gretzky highlight video in case you refuse to believe me.

The main reason for people claiming how guys like Gretzky could seamlessly slide into today's NHL is from his supreme hockey sense. Is this justified? Somewhat, but hockey sense only gets you so far. His size, skill, hands and speed barely compare to today's AHL players in my opinion and a great hockey sense doesn't bring him to the NHL. Guys like Gretzky could just get rubbed out along the boards and generally owned if big, tough guys from today take the body on him. How does anyone know how good Gretzky's vision would be in today's league though? The game is faster, more skilled and better defensively nowadays and I dunno if he'd thread passes as easily as he did back then.

I strongly agree that Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and whoever else was great for their time, but not compared with today's standard. One argument I hate is how "if you gave Gretzky today's coaching and training he'd be brilliant and school Crosby". This is most likely true, but what kind of useless, hypothetical argument is that? If Gretzky didn't have his dad molding him into something great then he would've been only average. If Bobby Orr never picked up a hockey stick then he'd suck at hockey. If Gordie Howe had asthma then he'd never cut it. History has been made; it's set in stone. You can hypothetically change anyone into a superstar by giving them imaginary coaching, equipment and training. If my dad was Walter Gretzky I'd be great at hockey. But he wasn't my dad. He was Gretzky's. Why do people like to wonder what he'd do with today's training but never wonder how good he'd be with a lazy, deadbeat dad? Either way, you're just making hypothetical, irrelevant situations. For that reason, I judge players by the ability they had. No benefits of the doubt or rubbish like that. On that basis, Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk and Stamkos pound every single great player from the 20th century down to the ground.

TLDR; Take a time machine and bring anyone (with their equipment) before 1990 into today's NHL and they will not make it. Therefore, Crosby beats them all. If you wanna give old timers an even footing by giving them current equipment then you should also give everyone Walter Gretzky as a dad to raise them into something brilliant. Also some better genetics. And two extra legs so they can skate faster. These are all equal, irrelevant hypotheticals to me.
Great players adjust, their hockey iq, ie gretzky could change if he needed to impose his will against a more physical opposition. Gretzky would still be the most dominant in this league and in my opinion of any era. I see your point about old timers bringing up hypotheticals and being seemlessly delusional in thinking when it comes to their favorite player from the 30s 50s 80s. and how they could compete if given the proper nutrition and training. The ones that bother me arent the ones that claim that though, its the ones that claim player x from the 60s would dominate today's player x into submission if they had the same settings. As if you can automatically assume they would be on par, which is a huge hypothetical in and of itself, then go beyond that claiming they are even better.
Videos show its a huge disparity skillwise across eras and just assuming they would be on par with todays players, given the same environment, is a huge leap.... They should stick with making that point first. I see will and 100% commitment from almost every NHL player. The compete level is through the roofs. Cant say the same back in the day, just slower and sluggish and perhaps alot is to do with training but is it all?

TopShelfYzerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:34 AM
  #134
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
Hasek>Gretzky, Orr, Mario, Howe, Hull etc

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:37 AM
  #135
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
Take Crosby, give him a dad like Walter Gretzky and he'll be as good as Gretzky. These hypothetical arguments are silly because you're essentially bringing players to equality in some respects but not others.
So what you're saying is Crosby would be a complete scrub without his hyper-modern equipment?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:38 AM
  #136
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,385
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
Gretzky had great longevity, and while his offence was still up to a pretty high standard, his two way game plummeted. His final two seasons he was a combined -34. He certainly had a good, long career, but I don't think he compares to Crosby & co.
He also played on a horrible team.

Gretzky at 35 was playing through a career ending injury, leading the league in assists, and all managing to do it on a terrible team.

And using plus-minus as an indication of two way play is preposterous. Crosby is not a better two way forward than Datsyuk.

The absolute talent in 1998 was arguably HIGHER than it is today. And it was in that era that Gretzky still was elite.

Let's look at it this way. How do you view guys like Selanne or Jagr? A prime Selanne was equal to a crippled old Gretzky. Selanne was elite in 1998 and was elite in 2011. If they league had improved so much wouldn't it make sense that Selanne's performance would noticeably decrease? And this is with a very noticeable drop in his speed and shot. He was physically weaker in 2011 than in 1998 by any decent standard, yet was still a 1.1 PPG player.

Or Nick Lidstrom. He won the Norris in 2001 and in 2011. If they league has improved so much wouldn't he be falling off the spectrum?

Or Brodeur. He couldn't win a Vezina against a prime Hasek or Roy, yet was able to win 4 again in 2003-2008 when they either retired or got old.


The fact is, the NHL of 2013 is not noticeably better than the NHL of 1998 and can very-well be argued to be weaker. Full-sized pads were instituted well before 1998, the butterfly was in full effect, and defensive systems were perfected. A crippled old Gretzky was still elite during this time period. If you took a time machine from 1985, brought Gretzky to today and gave him a summer of training he would lap the field again.

jigglysquishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:41 AM
  #137
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
These hypothetical arguments are silly because you're essentially bringing players to equality in some respects but not others.

Ya I 100% agree. And yet here we are in a thread that is based on exactly that ...

CanaFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 12:55 AM
  #138
Aceonfire
Las Vegas Aces
 
Aceonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,032
vCash: 500
I love how kids these days think 20+ year old hockey was soft...

Look up the Broad street bullies..

Oh whats that, 4 games for a head shot? Back then it was a hockey play..

Aceonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:30 AM
  #139
RastaRockett
Registered User
 
RastaRockett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Country: Kenya
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
I can't believe I just read what the OP posted. Ovechkin the greatest scorer of all time? Are you kidding me? Is he even the best scorer right now?

Gretzky dropped 90 pts when he was 37 years old in 1998; playing against guys who are still playing today...

Gretzky is easily greater than anybody today. Also, Jaromir Jagr is still a ****ing beast at 41 years old. Quit disrespecting people because they didn't play with carbon fiber half ounce super sticks and weightless skates.


Last edited by RastaRockett: 05-13-2013 at 01:36 AM.
RastaRockett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:10 AM
  #140
Tubby Tuke
Drafting my Overalls
 
Tubby Tuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceonfire View Post
I love how kids these days think 20+ year old hockey was soft...

Look up the Broad street bullies..

Oh whats that, 4 games for a head shot? Back then it was a hockey play..
The speed of the game, the physical ability of athletes has and always will increase over time.

You take a time capsule and get Bobby Orr to play against any team in the NHL today - he'd be picked apart and slaughtered.

What's so "I love how kids these days" about that?

Yeah it was tough - but lets get one thing straight - the 200 pounds of muscle flying down the ice who took powerskating lessons, wearing better equipment, eating better foods, exercising better is a lot more violent (not mentally but when they hit, when they fight - it's more violent, it's 'tougher') than the 200 pound player from the 1970s.

Tubby Tuke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:12 AM
  #141
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,807
vCash: 500
Amazing that a 37 year old just won the Art Ross against the bionic superheros of today.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:13 AM
  #142
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
 
Cursed Lemon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Cursed Lemon Send a message via MSN to Cursed Lemon Send a message via Yahoo to Cursed Lemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
Gretzky had great longevity, and while his offence was still up to a pretty high standard, his two way game plummeted. His final two seasons he was a combined -34. He certainly had a good, long career, but I don't think he compares to Crosby & co.
Are you kidding me?

There were THREE players on the 1999 New York squad that managed to pull positive. +6, +5, and +1.

Or are you unaware that the best players on a team are constantly fed the toughest matchups?

Cursed Lemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 02:26 AM
  #143
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Amazing that a 37 year old just won the Art Ross against the bionic superheros of today.
How long do you think the OP's argument would last in the History Section (assuming it didn't get taken down immediately )?


Last edited by Morgoth Bauglir: 05-13-2013 at 02:35 AM.
Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:21 AM
  #144
Follower of Yzlam
Believe the Yzerplan
 
Follower of Yzlam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Richmond, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,618
vCash: 1159
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Amazing that a 37 year old just won the Art Ross against the bionic superheros of today.
Imagine what he could have done in 2004!

Follower of Yzlam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 04:07 AM
  #145
wabwat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: pasadena, ca.
Posts: 6,676
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wabwat
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoekkoekPuffs View Post
I stubbornly refuse to believe that Gretzky would cut it today. First off, I'll help out anyone willing to argue with me right here by saying I'm a 17 year old with limited viewing experiences of old time hockey. But if you stick around I'd love to hear someone refute me. Make fun of me all you want from this poor start but hear me out:

Back in the day was NOTHING like today. Not even close. I openly laugh at anyone who says so. Goalies sucked, defenders sucked and forwards had all the time in the world. Every highlight video of all the old-time greats look foolishly unimpressive. You can call it better present day training, better coaching, better equipment, wider pool of players to choose from, or whatever else, but it's a simple fact that play back in the day does not hold a ****ing candle to today. Look at a Sidney Crosby highlight video, then look at a Bobby Orr or Gretzky highlight video in case you refuse to believe me.

The main reason for people claiming how guys like Gretzky could seamlessly slide into today's NHL is from his supreme hockey sense. Is this justified? Somewhat, but hockey sense only gets you so far. His size, skill, hands and speed barely compare to today's AHL players in my opinion and a great hockey sense doesn't bring him to the NHL. Guys like Gretzky could just get rubbed out along the boards and generally owned if big, tough guys from today take the body on him. How does anyone know how good Gretzky's vision would be in today's league though? The game is faster, more skilled and better defensively nowadays and I dunno if he'd thread passes as easily as he did back then.

I strongly agree that Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and whoever else was great for their time, but not compared with today's standard. One argument I hate is how "if you gave Gretzky today's coaching and training he'd be brilliant and school Crosby". This is most likely true, but what kind of useless, hypothetical argument is that? If Gretzky didn't have his dad molding him into something great then he would've been only average. If Bobby Orr never picked up a hockey stick then he'd suck at hockey. If Gordie Howe had asthma then he'd never cut it. History has been made; it's set in stone. You can hypothetically change anyone into a superstar by giving them imaginary coaching, equipment and training. If my dad was Walter Gretzky I'd be great at hockey. But he wasn't my dad. He was Gretzky's. Why do people like to wonder what he'd do with today's training but never wonder how good he'd be with a lazy, deadbeat dad? Either way, you're just making hypothetical, irrelevant situations. For that reason, I judge players by the ability they had. No benefits of the doubt or rubbish like that. On that basis, Crosby, Ovechkin, Datsyuk and Stamkos pound every single great player from the 20th century down to the ground.

TLDR; Take a time machine and bring anyone (with their equipment) before 1990 into today's NHL and they will not make it. Therefore, Crosby beats them all. If you wanna give old timers an even footing by giving them current equipment then you should also give everyone Walter Gretzky as a dad to raise them into something brilliant. Also some better genetics. And two extra legs so they can skate faster. These are all equal, irrelevant hypotheticals to me.
having Walter Gretzky for a father guaranteed Wayne nothin' and that was still better than what it guaranteed Brent or Keith.

Wayne Gretzky was a pretty damn good hockey player, dude.

wabwat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 04:08 AM
  #146
wabwat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: pasadena, ca.
Posts: 6,676
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to wabwat
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Amazing that a 37 year old just won the Art Ross against the bionic superheros of today.
he was who i immediately thought of when someone brought up Doug Gilmour.

wabwat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 04:57 AM
  #147
Bure All Day
Registered User
 
Bure All Day's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver Isl.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Howe
Beliveau

If Crosby was real lucky those five would let him sharpen their skates for them.
ummm... what?

Do you see Crosby walk around Islanders dmen like they're in Bantam house? He would go buy Beliveau like he wasn't even there...

Bure All Day is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 04:59 AM
  #148
Bure All Day
Registered User
 
Bure All Day's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver Isl.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Amazing that a 37 year old just won the Art Ross against the bionic superheros of today.
That it is, obviously he benefited from having Stamkos, but it's is remarkable..

Although, had Crosby been able to play 3 or 4 more games, the Art would've been his to lose, and if Ovi had played at the level he did for the 2nd half, St. Louis wouldn't have won.

Bure All Day is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 10:38 AM
  #149
Perfect_Drug
Registered User
 
Perfect_Drug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaporTrail View Post
Actually think you're wrong here....I think Crosby would average 5 points a game 20 years ago...So he would be averaging over 400 points per season.
For starters..

20 years ago, Scott Stevens would have ended Crosby's concussion-filled career. Unless Bryan Marchment took out his knees.

Ovechkin wouldn't be able to score nearly as many points with Derrian Hatcher holding him from the blueline, and relentlessly cross checking him.

If this were 40 years go, Gordie Howe would elbow them in the throat. Ron Hextall would 2-hand chop them if they scored on him, or Bobby Clark would break their ankle with a vicious slash.



Game isn't what it was 20 years ago guys.

Perfect_Drug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 10:43 AM
  #150
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bure All Day View Post
ummm... what?

Do you see Crosby walk around Islanders dmen like they're in Bantam house? He would go buy Beliveau like he wasn't even there...
Prove it.

Oh right, you can't. Looks like you've provided us with nothing by an ignorant opinion.

CarlWinslow 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 12:33 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.