Orr Vs Gretzky
- Thread starter orrisGod
- Start date
- Status
Well, I didn't have time to read through all the posts, but I wanted to add in what I think on this subect...
In my opinion, Orr was the best player to ever play in his prime. However, he didn't play for long enough to be known as the best player to ever play. Gordie Howe wasn't that great at all in his prime compared with Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux. However, the reason he is mentioned with those players is because he is probably the best example of longevity. I think when looking at the best player of all time, you have to look at both who was better in their prime, and who was able to keep it up over a long period. Orr was better in his prime. However, Gretzky's longevity is waaayyy more impressive than Orr's. Therefore, when I speak of the best player of all time, I have to speak of Gretzky. I know that Orr fans say that if Orr hadn't been injured, he would have been even better than Gretzky over that period. However, that is, in my opinion, just an excuse. The fact is that he did get injured, and that he did not have any sort of longevity. If Gordie Howe had been blessed with the ability of Bobby Orr, he would be the best player of all time... if Bobby Orr had been blessed with the durability of Gordie Howe, he would be the best player of all time. It doesn't really matter what could have happened. What happened is what matters, and what happened, unfortunately, is that Orr had bad knees, and he couldn't play a full career. So, I have to give the nod to Gretzky.
In my opinion, Orr was the best player to ever play in his prime. However, he didn't play for long enough to be known as the best player to ever play. Gordie Howe wasn't that great at all in his prime compared with Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux. However, the reason he is mentioned with those players is because he is probably the best example of longevity. I think when looking at the best player of all time, you have to look at both who was better in their prime, and who was able to keep it up over a long period. Orr was better in his prime. However, Gretzky's longevity is waaayyy more impressive than Orr's. Therefore, when I speak of the best player of all time, I have to speak of Gretzky. I know that Orr fans say that if Orr hadn't been injured, he would have been even better than Gretzky over that period. However, that is, in my opinion, just an excuse. The fact is that he did get injured, and that he did not have any sort of longevity. If Gordie Howe had been blessed with the ability of Bobby Orr, he would be the best player of all time... if Bobby Orr had been blessed with the durability of Gordie Howe, he would be the best player of all time. It doesn't really matter what could have happened. What happened is what matters, and what happened, unfortunately, is that Orr had bad knees, and he couldn't play a full career. So, I have to give the nod to Gretzky.
bruinforstanley
Registered User
Thank you for not having to have me explain the "Gretzky couldn't hold Orr's jock" statement.
And for those of you who may laugh at the "I've seen people weeping...." line, it's absolutely true. Watching Gretzky was a treat, a wow factor, cool. However, watching Orr was magical. It was awe-inspiring. It was unchartered. It was true, all-around greatness.
Again, taking nothing away from Gretzky, who is without a doubt the greatest offensive player in NHL history, as an overall player, Gretzky was only a quarter of the player Orr was.
bruinforstanley
Registered User
Orr = 657 career games played
Coffey = 1409 career games played
Orr = 1.39 PPG career
Coffey = 1.09 PPG career
Orr's career +/- = +597
Coffey's career +/- = +300
Coffey only scored 126 more goals in his career (396) than Orr (270) did. Yet, Coffey played 752 more games than Orr.
Please don't ever mention Coffey in the same sentence as Orr.
Talk about an insult.
Please don't compare Orr and Coffey.
Stonefly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2007
- 1,032
- 3
Orr = 657 career games played
Coffey = 1409 career games played
Orr = 1.39 PPG career
Coffey = 1.09 PPG career
Orr's career +/- = +597
Coffey's career +/- = +300
Coffey only scored 126 more goals in his career (396) than Orr (270) did. Yet, Coffey played 752 more games than Orr.
Please don't ever mention Coffey in the same sentence as Orr.
Talk about an insult.
Please don't compare Orr and Coffey.
Amen brother!!
Morris Wanchuk
.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0-9Wi713o
watch the penalty kill half was through.. he kills it himself
gretzky was not a force behind the red line. Bobby was a force all over the rink
watch the penalty kill half was through.. he kills it himself
gretzky was not a force behind the red line. Bobby was a force all over the rink
how come this video cuts out after 5 secs - its been doing it for the last 5 days. Is it happening to everyone else?
BTY....Orr is God
That's right, Howe wasn't so great. He only won six Art Ross Trophies and six Hart Trophies during hockey's golden era. 20 straight years in the top five in scoring. 12 times a first team all-star and nine times a second team all-star. (And at a time in which three of the other top 10 RWs of all time - Richard, Geoffrion and Bathgate - were his competition.
He dominated the game in a way in which no forward has ever dominated it. Need the big goal? He scored it. Need a great pass to a teammate? He'll make it. Need a big hit to change the momentum of the game? He'll get it. Need a guy who can win a battle in the corners? He'll do it.
I believe there was one year, very early 50s, when Howe was the only NHL regular over a point per game. I don't really care for stats, I think stats are a small part of the game, but that's unbelievable.
Give Howe an 80-game schedule, a chance at playing against a non-HHOF goalie four out of five nights, and a chance to use Red Kelly in the offence, and he scores 150-175 points several times in his career.
Gordie Howe is the best all-round forward of all-time.
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,022
- 1,268
If Gordie Howe would've retired at the age of 30, he would've had 5 scoring titles, 4 Stanley Cups and 4 MVPs on his resume. That very much puts him on the same level as Gretz/Orr/Lemieux. Howe's longevity isn't what defined his greatness, it just added to it.
I didn't say that Howe wasn't great... I am saying he belongs in that group. It's incredible to me that a guy could spend twenty straight years in the top five in scoring. What I said is that he wasn't as dominant in his prime, which he wasn't. He won scoring titles, but they were by 10 or 15 points. If that is dominant then add Jagr to the list... he's won five scoring titles or so as well. Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr were all head and shoulders above everybody. Howe was the best, but he was more the best in the way Jagr was the best in the late 90s... not in the way Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr were the best. However, I do believe that Howe's longevity is what makes him one of the best of all time. He was so great for so long that it is too difficult to ignore him. If he had finished at age 30 he would be remembered as a great player, but he would not be remembered as one of the greatest of all time. If Jagr were to continue on to play out his career the way that Howe played in his later years, then I believe that Jagr would likely get some recognition amongst the top four. However, that is very doubtful as nobody has been able to match what Howe did in his twighlight. So, just as it would have been with Howe if he'd have quit early, Jagr will be remembered as great, but will not be in the conversation when talking about the best of all-time.
Jarome, I suggest you take a close look at the 1949-50 through 1952-53 scoring leaders then re-post your thoughts.
Again, as reck stated earlier, if Howe had retired at 30, he'd have five Art Ross Trophies, four Hart Trophies and four Stanley Cups. Jagr at 30 did not have four Hart Trophies nor four Stanley Cups.
Not to mention the fact that Gordie Howe had six first-team all-star selections and three second-team all-star selections by the time he was 30. (And in five of his first-team all-star seasons, his competition was Rocket Richard).
I don't care how much he won his scoring titles by. Keep in mind the various factors that kept scoring low during the Original Six. And, keep in mind that it was a 70-game season. The shorter the season, generally the smaller the spread.
Gordie at his peak was a better player than Mario at his peak. And I'll say he was a better hockey player than Gretzky at his peak.
okay, well, I guess I'm not gonna win this one... I don't really want to spend too much time talking about how bad Gordie Howe is because that isn't what I believe at all. I think he's amazing, and I wish that we had more players like him around today. The reason that he is known as one of the greatest isn't really a big deal to me... I don't believe most people would be willing to place him with the other three if not for his longevity, but that doesn't matter. He was still one of the greatest of all time, and I don't want to get the reputation of being the guy who argues that Howe isn't one of the greatest of all time because I believe he is.
This thread is many shades of awesome.
Here's an interesting anecdote. I grew up a Michael Jordan fan, and watched him play the game. I have hours and hours of Chicago Bulls games on tapes. And when someone suggested to me that LeBron James might become a better player than Michael Jordan was, I vehemently disagreed, and wouldn't hear any of it.
Anyways, continue on.
Here's an interesting anecdote. I grew up a Michael Jordan fan, and watched him play the game. I have hours and hours of Chicago Bulls games on tapes. And when someone suggested to me that LeBron James might become a better player than Michael Jordan was, I vehemently disagreed, and wouldn't hear any of it.
Anyways, continue on.
Orr = 657 career games played
Coffey = 1409 career games played
Orr = 1.39 PPG career
Coffey = 1.09 PPG career
Orr's career +/- = +597
Coffey's career +/- = +300
Coffey only scored 126 more goals in his career (396) than Orr (270) did. Yet, Coffey played 752 more games than Orr.
Please don't ever mention Coffey in the same sentence as Orr.
Talk about an insult.
Please don't compare Orr and Coffey.
I never once mentioned their PPG over their careers or compared the overall games of Orr or Coffey. Because I know it both instances it is Orr by a wide margin.
Someone else brought up Orr's single season records and by how much he had beaten the previous record as compared to Gretzky's breaking of previous single season records and by how much.
I said Coffey had beaten one and come closer to the other two than anyone did to Gretzky's
Please don't take part of what i say and turn around into something else like you did here.
bruinforstanley
Registered User
This kind of **** is exactly what I am talking about.
Ok, explain to me how Gretzky is anywhere near Orr, as a complete player.
Yeah, stats are stats, but they don't gauge the completeness of a player.
Again, as a PLAYER, please explain how Gretzky could be better than Orr.
bruinforstanley
Registered User
I never once mentioned their PPG over their careers or compared the overall games of Orr or Coffey. Because I know it both instances it is Orr by a wide margin.
Someone else brought up Orr's single season records and by how much he had beaten the previous record as compared to Gretzky's breaking of previous single season records and by how much.
I said Coffey had beaten one and come closer to the other two than anyone did to Gretzky's
Please don't take part of what i say and turn around into something else like you did here.
My apologies.
My response wasn't a personal attack against you. It was more sarcasm than anything.
Why, because Gretzky loses? Actually it illustrates the key point as to why Gretzky will never be considered as good Orr:
1. Because Gretzky lacked physical presence in a physical and sometimes violent game.
2. Because hockey is a generalist game, where everyone must play both offence and defence. Clearly Gretzky has huge a downside on defence when compared to Orr.
As I have said earlier, we can also put 1 of Orr and 1 Gretzky on otherwise equal teams. Same result IMHO.
Last edited:
After watching the old Oilers playoff runs that CBC showed back in the day, I think Gretzky's defensive play is underrated. Maybe it was just a playoffs thing, but there were numerous occasions that he was the first forward back on defense backchecking. I think it's just that his offense so overshadowed it, people make that assumption.
Since I mentioned him earlier (and followed basketball more closely back in the day), Michael Jordan was seen as only an offensive player when he first entered the NBA, because he was such an offensive force. Nobody noticed that he was a tenacious defender as well (even in spite of decent stats in defensive categories). If you watch highlight reels of many of his fast breaks, it looks like he was someone that tended to cherry pick for the outlet pass. In reality, his mental abilities enabled him to be an exceptional transition player. He'd recognize that a turnover or rebound was about to go to his team, and explode out in transition before the opposition could react. The fact that he was very fast certainly didn't hurt. It wasn't until he won the Defensive Player of the Year award in 1988 that critics began to acknowledge his defensive prowess.
I'm not saying Wayne Gretzky was a phenomenal defensive player, but I wouldn't be surprised if his defensive play is under appreciated.
Since I mentioned him earlier (and followed basketball more closely back in the day), Michael Jordan was seen as only an offensive player when he first entered the NBA, because he was such an offensive force. Nobody noticed that he was a tenacious defender as well (even in spite of decent stats in defensive categories). If you watch highlight reels of many of his fast breaks, it looks like he was someone that tended to cherry pick for the outlet pass. In reality, his mental abilities enabled him to be an exceptional transition player. He'd recognize that a turnover or rebound was about to go to his team, and explode out in transition before the opposition could react. The fact that he was very fast certainly didn't hurt. It wasn't until he won the Defensive Player of the Year award in 1988 that critics began to acknowledge his defensive prowess.
I'm not saying Wayne Gretzky was a phenomenal defensive player, but I wouldn't be surprised if his defensive play is under appreciated.
Please explain how being a complete player is the same thing as being great.
Yeah, completeness is completeness but that doesn't guage the greatness of a player.
Let's say that, compared to every player in NHL history that Orr is an 85/100 offensively. Compared to every player in NHL history he might be a 70/100 defensively.
So, Gretzky would be the top offensive player, give him a 100/100 for offense. Defensively, Gretzky was very underrated as one poster pointed out, let's give Gretzky a 60/100 for all the time he spent penalty killing and playing well in his own zone.
Orr ends up 155/200 and Gretzky ends up 160/200. Heck, skew the numbers however you like, how can Orr be 4X the player Gretzky is?
Now, if you consider the position Orr plays, defensive hockey is critical. For a forward, you only become a defensive specialist if you don't have the talent to score.
The point I am trying to make is, if you are capable of scoring 200 points, trying to be Bob Gainey is a waste of time. Gretzky is such an amazing athlete that he could have been as good as Gainey defensively, if he wanted/needed to be. He was so good, he didn't need to be a Gainey.
Being a "complete" player is soooooo overrated. Who cares if you can throw a huge hit, if you are scoring 90 goals? Why the heck would I want a guy fighting when he is turning Mike Krushelnyski into a 43 goal scorer with his passing?
Bryan Trottier is viewed as a "complete" player. Is he greater than Gretzky? Messier was as well. How about Yzerman?
Being complete has nothing to do with greatness. You have been listening to too much Don Cherry.
I agree with everything you said in your post, but I take issue with this. I think that being a complete will give someone the edge when two similar offensive players.
EDIT: Upon further thought, you may be saying that you don't have to be a complete player to be a great player, which is absolutely right.
Hockey is not a generalist game where everyone must be good in both offense and defense. The players that must do that are the ones without the talent to score.
Do you honestly think that Guy Carbonneau or Bob Gainey wanted to be defensive specialists? Heck no. They scored plenty in juniors and they wanted to score in the NHL. When they realized that they couldn't make it in the NHL as scorers, they changed their game so that they could stay in the league.
Great scorers score, other players figure out another way to stay in the game (defensive play, fighting etc.).
Orr had to be "complete" because he was a defenseman. You can't be a Gretzky when your primary job is to protect the goalie.
Being complete is not THE hallmark of a great player. It is one style of play not THE style of play. Many people buy into Don Cherry's BS and get confused.
Think of it like baseball. When Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs, I didn't hear anyone gripe about his lack of base stealing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
