If Wayne Gretzky were a defenceman...

[Stonefly]

That is stupid. Gretzky was a tremendous hockey player. If he played defence he would always be focussed on offence. The best defence is a good offence. Always has been and always will be.

If Gretzky had played defence he would have won a ton of Norris trophies and Hart trophies and Ross trophies and many people would say he sucked on defence and was really a fourth forward. Kind of like they do with Coffey. Except I guess they would have had to say he was the 5th forward!!!!

Gretzky played hockey to win hockey games. He would do whatever was needed to win a hockey game. He was not a scorer that did not care about defence.

If in 1984 or 1985 Gretzky was a defenceman you would see him play a completely unique style of defence that was massively successful. And it would not involve him hitting or checking anyone with much regularity, but it would involve the other team not having the puck much and with the Oilers scoring a boat load of goals.

Take off your blinders.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No one missed your point Oingo boingo, you're just deluded.

I am so glad the fountain of wisdom could join us!

 

[85highlander]

You could insert Bobby Orr into any of the non-goalie positions and he would be dominant right away because of the overall skill set he possessed. I don't think the same could be said about Gretzky. Perhaps three of the five (either forward and obviously center), but no way would he be dominant on defense -- he could play the position, but do you think he would even be among the "average" d-men, given the lack of his physical game?

 

[pitseleh]

You could insert Bobby Orr into any of the non-goalie positions and he would be dominant right away because of the overall skill set he possessed. I don't think the same could be said about Gretzky. Perhaps three of the five (either forward and obviously center), but no way would he be dominant on defense -- he could play the position, but do you think he would even be among the "average" d-men, given the lack of his physical game?

I think that's probably a general thing with defensemen versus forwards though. I'd be more comfortable moving Harvey, Shore, Coffey, or Pilote (and obviously Kelly did make the switch) to forward expecting them to succeed than moving Lemieux, Beliveau, Richard or Howe back to defense right away.

 

[Injektilo]

If Gretzky had been a defender he wouldn't have made the NHL.

 

[Weztex]

If Gretzky had been a defender he wouldn't have made the NHL.

And how do you know that?

 

[shawnmullin]

You could insert Bobby Orr into any of the non-goalie positions and he would be dominant right away because of the overall skill set he possessed. I don't think the same could be said about Gretzky. Perhaps three of the five (either forward and obviously center), but no way would he be dominant on defense -- he could play the position, but do you think he would even be among the "average" d-men, given the lack of his physical game?

This is so ridiculous. Not every player have every element of a good player at their position. Not every D is physical. There have been D who played well based on anticipation, quick thinking, strong passing, puck control and other factors that Gretzky was better at than anyone else in the world.

I think Orr would make an EASIER transition to forward than Gretz would to D. However, there's no reason to believe that Gretz wouldn't have lit it up as an outstanding offensive D that would thrive when partnered with a stay at home guy.

 

[Sens Rule]

You could insert Bobby Orr into any of the non-goalie positions and he would be dominant right away because of the overall skill set he possessed. I don't think the same could be said about Gretzky. Perhaps three of the five (either forward and obviously center), but no way would he be dominant on defense -- he could play the position, but do you think he would even be among the "average" d-men, given the lack of his physical game?

But Gretzky saw the ice like no one ever, ever had. His lack of physical play would have made him not atsgreat on defence as he was at forward, but he still would have been a great D-Man. I'd say better than Coffey, and Langway and Bourque and Chelios were in the same era. Because he was unbelievably smart and in the 80's and early 90's his physical skills were out of this world. He might not skate as fast as MArio or Orr or Hull but Gretzky had fantastic skills.

Gretzky would have completely remade the position of defence for himself. He would not push the guy out of the slot because if he played defence the guy in the slot would become far less important. And whoever paired with Gretzky on Defence would end up doing any of the dirty work that needs to be done.

Defence is so much about positioning. Look at Chelios he is still outstanding as his physical skills diminish because he knows where to be all the time. Gretzky would have been the best positional D-Man ever, and do it in such a way as to not have to be overtly physical about it.

You needed to watch Gretzky play in the mid-80's to understand how great he was. Everything was used to advantage, the boards, another players skates.

You never know, Gretzky on defence could have happened because Wayne might have chosen to play defence just for the sheer challenge of doing it.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I think this question speaks to the common assertion often thrown around that five Orrs would dominate five of anyone else based upon the completeness of his game and his overall hockey sense --

Personally I think one Orr with four other schmucks might not fair too bad against any other five either...

I would love to see five Howe's play five Orr's. Gordie did drop back and play some defense in his career.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If Gretzky had been a defender he wouldn't have made the NHL.

Your confusing thesis intrigues me. Tell me more!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You realize the NHL is a check league,especially for defenseman.

A good point! I can vividly remember all of those big bodychecks that Sandis Ozolinsh laid out over his career. Or Norm MacIver. You think of those guys, and it's bodycheck after bodycheck after bodycheck.

 

[Wooty]

The other athlete discussion is very true.
If Kobe was brought up as an hockey player, he would probably be leading the NHL in scoring and be one of the meanest players out there. The dude is 6'6" built like a rock and super athletic.

Wayne Gretzky's ability to play ice hockey means he would be an outstanding defensemen. Hockey is a game played by talented players who are avoiding the slugs who hit.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

a lot of the arguments made by posters saying no way Gretzky could play D were a lot of the same arguments people made before Gretzky entered the NHL as a forward.

 

[BNHL]

A good point! I can vividly remember all of those big bodychecks that Sandis Ozolinsh laid out over his career. Or Norm MacIver. You think of those guys, and it's bodycheck after bodycheck after bodycheck.

I know.

 

[Injektilo]

And how do you know that?

i can see alternate universes. remember the show Sliders? Gretzky was an eight time Cy Young winner one place i visited.

 

[Injektilo]

Your confusing thesis intrigues me. Tell me more!

eh, i'm just throwing that out there. he certainly may have, moreso in that era i guess. I just don't know that his career path would have followed the same way if he'd been a defenceman in developmental years.

 

[SomeDude]

Could Gretzky microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

[slade]

gretzky would have had the same vision quarterbacking the PP let alone entire games...

i dont think he would be any less great.

 

[BNHL]

A good point! I can vividly remember all of those big bodychecks that Sandis Ozolinsh laid out over his career. Or Norm MacIver. You think of those guys, and it's bodycheck after bodycheck after bodycheck.

BTW,I was talking about getting checked as well, without Semenko as a defense partner.

 

[DCHockeyFan]

If Gretzky was a defenseman, he'd be 7'9" tall and average 300 points before the all-star break.

 

[BNHL]

If Gretzky was a defenseman, he'd be 7'9" tall and average 300 points before the all-star break.

If he was that good on D they'd use the same strategy they used on Orr and Bourque,keep throwing the puck in his corner and punish him over and over. I don't think he could withstand it.

 

[Snap Wilson]

I think Ogopogo meant that great athletes could have done a lot of sport but those guys you mentioned never trained in anything elase than the sport thes succeed. David Beckham in a great athlete and if he started dribbling at 3, he could have had the physical abilities to compete in professional basketball. 20 years of training in one sport is why those athlete succeed in it. I tend to agree with him.

Sorry, that's a silly argument that only carries weight because you can't prove the contrary. I won't comment on Beckham, but Tiger practicing jump shots wouldn't give him either height or foot speed. Hard to imagine him winning MVPs in the NBA without either of those things.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Sorry, that's a silly argument that only carries weight because you can't prove the contrary. I won't comment on Beckham, but Tiger practicing jump shots wouldn't give him either height or foot speed. Hard to itmagine him winning MVPs in the NBA without either of those things.

You are missing the point.

A person who is a great athlete chooses their sport. They then become great at that sport, no matter what it is.

If Gretzky loved Tennis, he would have dominated it. If Pele was a baseball fanatic he would have been better than Willie Mays.

Don't get side tracked by "Gretzky was only 6'0" so he could NEVER have played basketball". That is not the point. The point is, great athletes dominate their sport of choice.

 

[85highlander]

Don't get side tracked by "Gretzky was only 6'0" so he could NEVER have played basketball". That is not the point. The point is, great athletes dominate their sport of choice.

But Gretzky was only 6'0'' ... and of the Anglo/Saxon variety...seriously, how good of a basketball player could he have been? You are saying he could dominate because he was a great athelete?

He was certainly the best in the world as a centerman in hockey, but you are saying not only would he have been the best as a defenceman, but he also would excel in the NBA as a barely 6' white dude? Allen Iverson he is not....

Am I hearing/processing this correctly?

 

[DCHockeyFan]

If Pele was a baseball fanatic he would have been better than Willie Mays.

That might be a bit of a stretch