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, 11:52 PM
  #326
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadmanSJ View Post
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.

Except that it wasn't a level playing field. Not even close. Back in the day some players worked out some didn't. Some just lived off their natural talent. Some were just country strong. Most drank a bunch of beer. The NHL was a glorified beer league for the best hockey players in north america seeing as many had to get another job in the offseason. The disparity between players conditioning was all over the place.

The difference now is they all work out, they all have someone guiding them on nutrition and their offseason workout program, they are trained during the season on stationary bikes and in the weight room. Training is an advanced science now as far as getting them all in the best shape. So now they are all on a more level playing field now where the difference between 3rd liner and superstar isn't their conditioning or their physique. It's talent and to a certain degree passion. Skill beats hard work every time when skill works hard.

No one dominates in the NHL nowdays just on natural talent alone. All the superstars workout and are in great shape. Guys that aren;t in great physical shape get injured too easily in todays NHL.

Orr would be great today I'm sure but we'll never know if he would be lidstrom great because he'll never play against the level of competition that Lidtrom did. I have no doubt that a great 3rd line center in todays game would be one of the best players in the league back in Orr time period. Especially if it was anyone with speed and a little finishing ability. Jamie McGinn would score fifty against those goalies and that cupcake defensive play.

Not to mention that between Orr and Lidstrom, I take the guy who played 22 years.


Last edited by NWShark*: 08-25-2012 at 03:17 AM.
NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2012, 10:15 AM
  #327
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Orr would be great today I'm sure but we'll never know if he would be lidstrom great because he'll never play against the level of competition that Lidtrom did. I have no doubt that a great 3rd line center in todays game would be one of the best players in the league back in Orr time period. Especially if it was anyone with speed and a little finishing ability. Jamie McGinn would score fifty against those goalies and that cupcake defensive play.


No, just... no.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:16 AM
  #328
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post


No, just... no.
You can say help all you want. It's reality. Unless you don't understand the difference in levels of fitness from the 60s to the 90s. I can't believe this is so hard for some to realize. You understand that the fastest times in the olympics are pretty much all from people in recent history right? Players in the NHL have progressively gotten bigger, faster, and better conditioned. It's just common sense.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:40 AM
  #329
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Except that it wasn't a level playing field. Not even close. Back in the day some players worked out some didn't. Some just lived off their natural talent. Some were just country strong. Most drank a bunch of beer. The NHL was a glorified beer league for the best hockey players in north america seeing as many had to get another job in the offseason. The disparity between players conditioning was all over the place.

The difference now is they all work out, they all have someone guiding them on nutrition and their offseason workout program, they are trained during the season on stationary bikes and in the weight room. Training is an advanced science now as far as getting them all in the best shape. So now they are all on a more level playing field now where the difference between 3rd liner and superstar isn't their conditioning or their physique. It's talent and to a certain degree passion. Skill beats hard work every time when skill works hard.

No one dominates in the NHL nowdays just on natural talent alone. All the superstars workout and are in great shape. Guys that aren;t in great physical shape get injured too easily in todays NHL.

Orr would be great today I'm sure but we'll never know if he would be lidstrom great because he'll never play against the level of competition that Lidtrom did. I have no doubt that a great 3rd line center in todays game would be one of the best players in the league back in Orr time period. Especially if it was anyone with speed and a little finishing ability. Jamie McGinn would score fifty against those goalies and that cupcake defensive play.

Not to mention that between Orr and Lidstrom, I take the guy who played 22 years.
Why are you holding that against Orr?

And no way a great 3rd line center would be that good.

Look at hiow players who dominated in the 80s continued to dominate in the 90s. If the era's were so different, why were they able to stick in the league?

Lidstrom simply isn't Orr. Hell, Lidstrom in my book is 4th or 5th all time overall, behind Orr, Harvey, Bourque, and possibly Potvin.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 03:50 AM
  #330
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Why are you holding that against Orr?

And no way a great 3rd line center would be that good.

Look at hiow players who dominated in the 80s continued to dominate in the 90s. If the era's were so different, why were they able to stick in the league?

Lidstrom simply isn't Orr. Hell, Lidstrom in my book is 4th or 5th all time overall, behind Orr, Harvey, Bourque, and possibly Potvin.
I'm not holding it against Orr. Just saying we'll never know since he faced far inferior competition. Like I said, if Orr and Lidstrom are even remotely close I take the guy who played 22 years.

I didn't say just a 3rd line center. I said a good 3rd line center. Someone who is most likely a tweener 2nd liner. I think you start talking about a guy like Ovechkin or crosby playing back in Orrs time against those defenses and goalies and you're talking about goal records that even Gretzky may never touch.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 04:27 AM
  #331
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,960
vCash: 500
See this is the problem with you nwshark, you are sending todays players with todays technologies and saying it would be domination. But when you bring orr into the modern times you keep his training and technology the same as it was 40 years ago.

One thing about giving orr todays technology is those knee surgeries he had wouldn't limit his career as it did 40 years ago.

Another thing you send mcginn back to orrs time and he wouldnt even last 1 year in the pro's. He is just not tough enough to handle backing up his hitting style might in night out.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 04:29 AM
  #332
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
I'm not holding it against Orr. Just saying we'll never know since he faced far inferior competition. Like I said, if Orr and Lidstrom are even remotely close I take the guy who played 22 years.

I didn't say just a 3rd line center. I said a good 3rd line center. Someone who is most likely a tweener 2nd liner. I think you start talking about a guy like Ovechkin or crosby playing back in Orrs time against those defenses and goalies and you're talking about goal records that even Gretzky may never touch.
That is the thing; they are not even remotely close.

If Ovechkin and Crosby went back to that time, growing up in the 60s and 70s, without knowledge of modern-tactics and modern-equipment (you defintely are underestimating the impact modern equipment has on the game), they'd be stars, but would not set records.

Thing is, there were people in the past who worked out like Crosby and Ovechkin do. Bobby Hull for example was a fitness freak, yet he set no records.

Perlmutter is one of the best physicists today. If he went back in time, would he figure out the theory of relatively like Einstein?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 12:29 PM
  #333
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,855
vCash: 50
I had a dream we traded Pickles for Patrick Sharp.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 01:54 PM
  #334
Vertzedyek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Kuusamo
Country: Finland
Posts: 561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I had a dream we traded Pickles for Patrick Sharp.
Source?

Vertzedyek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 02:05 PM
  #335
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 16,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I had a dream we traded Pickles for Patrick Sharp.

Nighthock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 07:20 PM
  #336
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
That is the thing; they are not even remotely close.

If Ovechkin and Crosby went back to that time, growing up in the 60s and 70s, without knowledge of modern-tactics and modern-equipment (you defintely are underestimating the impact modern equipment has on the game), they'd be stars, but would not set records.

Thing is, there were people in the past who worked out like Crosby and Ovechkin do. Bobby Hull for example was a fitness freak, yet he set no records.

Perlmutter is one of the best physicists today. If he went back in time, would he figure out the theory of relatively like Einstein?
Intelligence is completely different that physical conditioning IMO so let's not go so far off track with this.

I'm strictly saying if Ovi and Crasbu played against that competition while still having the advantage of modern nutrition and training. That's the point. The modern game is so much more of a level playing field because pretty much all players train and have to worry about nutrition. Back then some did some didn't.

So what your saying is you don't know anything about Bobby hull... Bobby Hull is a HOFer who at one point was considered to have the hardest shot in the NHL? He was the first player to score more than 50 goals in a season. Sounds oddly like a record to me... He was a superstar in the 60s. If he was a gym rat then conditioning obviously It obviously helped him dominate.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:22 PM
  #337
joseph_kerr
Registered User
 
joseph_kerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
Intelligence is completely different that physical conditioning IMO so let's not go so far off track with this.

I'm strictly saying if Ovi and Crasbu played against that competition while still having the advantage of modern nutrition and training. That's the point. The modern game is so much more of a level playing field because pretty much all players train and have to worry about nutrition. Back then some did some didn't.

So what your saying is you don't know anything about Bobby hull... Bobby Hull is a HOFer who at one point was considered to have the hardest shot in the NHL? He was the first player to score more than 50 goals in a season. Sounds oddly like a record to me... He was a superstar in the 60s. If he was a gym rat then conditioning obviously It obviously helped him dominate.
I think he means that more in the sense of records that stand the test of time. Gretzky set records that weren't matched in his day, before his day or to this day. Orr is the same despite not having the longevity. Not a single other defenseman has won a single solitary scoring title before or after Orr. Bobby led the league in scoring twice. If or when another defenseman had or will win even just one scoring title Bobby might seem a little less special but until then he's the best.

joseph_kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 09:40 PM
  #338
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_kerr View Post
I think he means that more in the sense of records that stand the test of time. Gretzky set records that weren't matched in his day, before his day or to this day. Orr is the same despite not having the longevity. Not a single other defenseman has won a single solitary scoring title before or after Orr. Bobby led the league in scoring twice. If or when another defenseman had or will win even just one scoring title Bobby might seem a little less special but until then he's the best.
But but but if it happened before the 80's it doesnt count since they all sucked because of the technology and training available to them. Am i doing it right nwshark?

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:00 PM
  #339
joseph_kerr
Registered User
 
joseph_kerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
But but but if it happened before the 80's it doesnt count since they all sucked because of the technology and training available to them. Am i doing it right nwshark?
I think it's a valid concern, training and equipment are a great equalizer in any field, like the man said, God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal. It's like putting a 300W flashlight in a room full of candles, it's nothing but magic. But put that 300W flashlight in a dark room full of flashlights and it's not quite as remarkable. I even agree with the idea for the most part. I just believe there are those individuals that are outliers, that just don't influence the game but transform it. Guys like Gretzky and Orr weren't 300W flashlights, they were supernovas.

joseph_kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:12 PM
  #340
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,672
vCash: 500
As a lot of people have pointed out, Orr did not have the benefit of composite sticks, skate technology, medical technology, padding and materials, etc that all modern hockey players have access to.

He also did this in an era where Lidstrom's super passive behavior would simply not have been possible. Hockey was a lot rougher back then and I doubt Lidstrom would have been as effective then as he was now. It goes both ways.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:13 PM
  #341
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_kerr View Post
I think it's a valid concern, training and equipment are a great equalizer in any field, like the man said, God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal. It's like putting a 300W flashlight in a room full of candles, it's nothing but magic. But put that 300W flashlight in a dark room full of flashlights and it's not quite as remarkable. I even agree with the idea for the most part. I just believe there are those individuals that are outliers, that just don't influence the game but transform it. Guys like Gretzky and Orr weren't 300W flashlights, they were supernovas.
He also seems to think all talent is equal its not, if it was you wouldnt have crosby (barring injury, just dominating), you also wouldnt have lemeuix and gretzky well past there primes still putting up point per game averages in a totally different era then the one they gree up in.

Talent/skill trumps everything, meaning no matter what era, what technology, what traning you get the talent is still there. The only thing technology and traning does is hone the talents and skills to be better.

Also meaning if you were to give players of the past todays traning, todays technology, they would still be the best of the best.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 10:25 PM
  #342
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post

He also did this in an era where Lidstrom's super passive behavior would simply not have been possible. Hockey was a lot rougher back then and I doubt Lidstrom would have been as effective then as he was now. It goes both ways.
There is some idealization of yesteryear in this statement. Potvin followed Orr and was very aggressive yet the second dman on his team, Persson, was very much like Lidstrom. In fact, outside of Potvin their top 4 wasn't all that aggressive. It was possible to succeed back than as a non-aggressive player. Heck, their trigger Bossy took a rigid moral stand against fighting. And the three of them won 4 cups. There is a lot of overlooking of the variety of players that composed teams of that time.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2012, 11:46 PM
  #343
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
But but but if it happened before the 80's it doesnt count since they all sucked because of the technology and training available to them. Am i doing it right nwshark?
No they were great for their era. Trying to discount the huge advancements in training and nutrition and the simple fact that the players are also bigger on average is just willful ignorance no matter how much sarcasm you want to dress it up in.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 12:02 AM
  #344
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
He also seems to think all talent is equal its not, if it was you wouldnt have crosby (barring injury, just dominating), you also wouldnt have lemeuix and gretzky well past there primes still putting up point per game averages in a totally different era then the one they gree up in.

Talent/skill trumps everything, meaning no matter what era, what technology, what traning you get the talent is still there. The only thing technology and traning does is hone the talents and skills to be better.

Also meaning if you were to give players of the past todays traning, todays technology, they would still be the best of the best.
No I don't think all talent is equal. But I don't believe Orr stands out from the pack against modern day NHLers the way he did in his era. Between that and the fact he didn't play as long as Lidstrom I give Lidstrom the nod as my personal pick as best defensman ever. This is just my opinion and I've clearly stated why I believe it. I haven't heard a single cogent argument against it yet. Frankly there just isn't one because it's all subjective to a certain degree. Maybe Orr could have played 22 years with modern medicine, maybe he leads the NHL in scoring... I doubt it but who knows. I know he played in an era where there were way more variables and disparities from player to player. I know he never faced goalies like the ones in todays NHL. I think maybe he was someone built more like a modern player playing in an archaic era.

I have a cousin who at the age of 9 was ripped and looked like he had been working out for years, but he didn't. No one could figure out why. It was just how he was made. At 9 he could pretty much kick every other 9 year olds ass because of how strong and quick he was. That physical advantage carried over until the other boys hit puberty and could start taking advantage of weight training too...

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 12:10 AM
  #345
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_kerr View Post
I think it's a valid concern, training and equipment are a great equalizer in any field, like the man said, God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal. It's like putting a 300W flashlight in a room full of candles, it's nothing but magic. But put that 300W flashlight in a dark room full of flashlights and it's not quite as remarkable. I even agree with the idea for the most part. I just believe there are those individuals that are outliers, that just don't influence the game but transform it. Guys like Gretzky and Orr weren't 300W flashlights, they were supernovas.
I agree with the flashlight statement 100%. The one thing though is that Gretz advantage was his brain. He wasn't overly fast, or big or agile. He thought the game on an entirely different level. Orr on the other hand leaned more toward the side of physically dominating the players he played against. He was faster and more agile than most of the players. He was a smart player but he wasn't Gretz or Lemieux smart. He imposed his will with physical tools whereas Gretz out thought everyone.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 12:29 AM
  #346
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
No I don't think all talent is equal. But I don't believe Orr stands out from the pack against modern day NHLers the way he did in his era. Between that and the fact he didn't play as long as Lidstrom I give Lidstrom the nod as my personal pick as best defensman ever. This is just my opinion and I've clearly stated why I believe it. I haven't heard a single cogent argument against it yet. Frankly there just isn't one because it's all subjective to a certain degree. Maybe Orr could have played 22 years with modern medicine, maybe he leads the NHL in scoring... I doubt it but who knows. I know he played in an era where there were way more variables and disparities from player to player. I know he never faced goalies like the ones in todays NHL. I think maybe he was someone built more like a modern player playing in an archaic era.

I have a cousin who at the age of 9 was ripped and looked like he had been working out for years, but he didn't. No one could figure out why. It was just how he was made. At 9 he could pretty much kick every other 9 year olds ass because of how strong and quick he was. That physical advantage carried over until the other boys hit puberty and could start taking advantage of weight training too...
You completely discount the possibility of great talent back then. No one could be 'as great' in your mind because the competition was not 'as great'. You are basically saying it was impossible for anyone to have been the best unless they play in the modern NHL. That's ridiculous. Talent is talent, and there were players just as talented (or more talented) back then as today. We are not more evolved today or something, we are not more talented today.

If Crosby, or Lidstrom, had played in that era, would they be discounted today as well? How many points would Lidstrom need to post back then in order to still qualify as your #1? You are literally making it impossible in your mind that any player prior to the modern NHL to really count. Where does that stop? Is Crosby better than Gretzky too?

I find this entire discussion mind boggling. That anyone can actually believe that Bobby Orr deserves less respect because he played in a different decade... I have a hard time even comprehending someone can actually believe that crap.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:19 AM
  #347
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
You completely discount the possibility of great talent back then. No one could be 'as great' in your mind because the competition was not 'as great'. You are basically saying it was impossible for anyone to have been the best unless they play in the modern NHL. That's ridiculous. Talent is talent, and there were players just as talented (or more talented) back then as today. We are not more evolved today or something, we are not more talented today.

If Crosby, or Lidstrom, had played in that era, would they be discounted today as well? How many points would Lidstrom need to post back then in order to still qualify as your #1? You are literally making it impossible in your mind that any player prior to the modern NHL to really count. Where does that stop? Is Crosby better than Gretzky too?

I find this entire discussion mind boggling. That anyone can actually believe that Bobby Orr deserves less respect because he played in a different decade... I have a hard time even comprehending someone can actually believe that crap.
You need to read what I wrote. I don't discount it at all, I said you can't tell how truly great they are because of the level of competition. That's very different than what you claim I said.

As far as scoring points, for me it isnt just points. It's the players affect on how the game is played. I think people are in for huge shock at what happens to the redwings this year without Lidstrom.

As I said already, Gretz dominated his era more than any other athlete has ever dominated an era of sports and most of his records still stand and may not be broken until the NHL decodes to go 4 on 4 full time.

What's mind boggling is how freaked out some of you get and just fabricate things to get upset about. WHen the **** did I ever say he deserves LESS respect...? Oh yeah I didn't, you made that up... Try to stick to what I wrote instead of what you are fabricating in your mind to give your self a reason to be offended.

NWShark* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:25 AM
  #348
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
You completely discount the possibility of great talent back then. No one could be 'as great' in your mind because the competition was not 'as great'. You are basically saying it was impossible for anyone to have been the best unless they play in the modern NHL. That's ridiculous. Talent is talent, and there were players just as talented (or more talented) back then as today. We are not more evolved today or something, we are not more talented today.

If Crosby, or Lidstrom, had played in that era, would they be discounted today as well? How many points would Lidstrom need to post back then in order to still qualify as your #1? You are literally making it impossible in your mind that any player prior to the modern NHL to really count. Where does that stop? Is Crosby better than Gretzky too?

I find this entire discussion mind boggling. That anyone can actually believe that Bobby Orr deserves less respect because he played in a different decade... I have a hard time even comprehending someone can actually believe that crap.
Considering nwshark is basically the only fan in the entire world that would put lidstrom over orr, it is pretty telling just out of sync he is with the world if hockey. Orr isnt just named with the best of all time fir no reason. Most people put up orr as being the best player to ever play the game (that involves gretz an lemiuex)

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:30 AM
  #349
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
You completely discount the possibility of great talent back then. No one could be 'as great' in your mind because the competition was not 'as great'. You are basically saying it was impossible for anyone to have been the best unless they play in the modern NHL. That's ridiculous. Talent is talent, and there were players just as talented (or more talented) back then as today. We are not more evolved today or something, we are not more talented today.

If Crosby, or Lidstrom, had played in that era, would they be discounted today as well? How many points would Lidstrom need to post back then in order to still qualify as your #1? You are literally making it impossible in your mind that any player prior to the modern NHL to really count. Where does that stop? Is Crosby better than Gretzky too?

I find this entire discussion mind boggling. That anyone can actually believe that Bobby Orr deserves less respect because he played in a different decade... I have a hard time even comprehending someone can actually believe that crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWShark View Post
You need to read what I wrote. I don't discount it at all, I said you can't tell how truly great they are because of the level of competition. That's very different than what you claim I said.

As far as scoring points, for me it isnt just points. It's the players affect on how the game is played. I think people are in for huge shock at what happens to the redwings this year without Lidstrom.

As I said already, Gretz dominated his era more than any other athlete has ever dominated an era of sports and most of his records still stand and may not be broken until the NHL decodes to go 4 on 4 full time.

What's mind boggling is how freaked out some of you get and just fabricate things to get upset about. WHen the **** did I ever say he deserves LESS respect...? Oh yeah I didn't, you made that up... Try to stick to what I wrote instead of what you are fabricating in your mind to give your self a reason to be offended.
So you are saying orr didnt dominate his peers? My god are you clue less. He had the goal scoring record for 30+ years, he still has the assist record, he still has the points record. He still has the plus minus record. He still has the points record.

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-27-2012, 01:31 AM
  #350
NWShark*
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
See this is the problem with you nwshark, you are sending todays players with todays technologies and saying it would be domination. But when you bring orr into the modern times you keep his training and technology the same as it was 40 years ago.

One thing about giving orr todays technology is those knee surgeries he had wouldn't limit his career as it did 40 years ago.

Another thing you send mcginn back to orrs time and he wouldnt even last 1 year in the pro's. He is just not tough enough to handle backing up his hitting style might in night out.
I'm sorry but I never said Orr would not have modern training. With it I'm sure he would still be one of the top players to ever play. But a lot of great players back in the day were insanely slow and small. The gap between Orr and the average NHLer would be a lot less than it was when he was dominating. Considering he was great skater and was a Defensman converted from forward you could probably make the comparison that he would be a way more talented Burns type player or insert your own fast offense only puck rushing defensman for the analogy.

The knee surgery thing with Orr is debatable. He had articular cartilage damage and that's still pretty much un fixable. There are procedures that can minimize it temporarily but overall once it happens your going to be finished before too long. Yzerman had the same issue and had modern surgical methods and still was never the same.

McGinn is a big boy and has handled himself just fine in scraps. Guys back then would be out of the game if they got freight trained by McGinn. The average size of NHL players back then was 5' 10, 5'11 and 180 lbs was heavy. McGinn is 6'1" and 210 lbs. He would be huge to those guys and would most likely be stronger than most. Sure there are some that he would have trouble with but he would be one of the bigger faster players in that era if he went back as he is now.


Last edited by NWShark*: 08-27-2012 at 02:04 AM.
NWShark* 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 06:26 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.