Tsn: is Crosby the best penguin ever

[Dhockey16]

If Ovechkin played in the 1995-96 season, he would score over 200 points. Believe it or not.
IV

C'mon man..That's a silly thing to say. He might have approached or even reached 200 points around the same time Gretzky did, but certainly not in 1995-1996. If he played a full season, he'd probably be close to Jagr - who finished with 149 points in 82 games. I'd put him at 135. Crosby in that area as well. If you say Lemieux would score between 130-150 today, and Ovechkin hasn't broken 120... How can you say he'd outscore Mario by 40 points in 95-96? Yeah, hockey has evolved greatly over time...but not to the extent that you claim. What if Mario had access to the equipment, medical assistance, training etc. that players have today? What if Mario heeded advice from many and quit smoking earlier in his career? Evolution in hockey is a difficult topic, but to say that Ovechkin and Sid are better that Mario? It's just uneducated.

 

[KingJet*]

I'll say he is if he tops Lemieux's points before retirement, if he doesn't I'd say maybe 2nd-5th best.

 

[Boxscore]

If Ovechkin played in the 1995-96 season, he would score over 200 points. Believe it or not.

Stop with this nonsense, please. The "bottom end" of NHL talent improved since the 90s - the elite superstars and goalies have not. In fact, the elite players today (Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Sedin, Doughty, Thomas, Luongo, etc.) are definitely not as great as the elite players in the 90s (Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Chelios, Roy, Richter, Belfour, Hasek, etc.)

The main difference is the 3rd line and 4th line fringe players have improved (due to the current philosophy in the NHL). Players like Worrell, Twist, Antoski and Grimson have been replaced with players like Orr, Carkner, Shelley, Carcillo and Rupp.

As far as the goalies go, there is no goalie today that is as consistently dominant as Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Richter, etc. Tim Thomas is as close as you get to that. Luongo? Please, he can't sniff Patrick Roy or Dominik Hasek.

Someone made the point about Lidstrom being the best defenseman in the world today at the age of 41 - they are 100% correct. How is it that a 41-year old like Lidstrom can dominate this era, while he wasn't even close to being the top guy at his position in the 90s? Simple: the elite players today are NOT as great as they were then. Period.

You can say all you want about "players" getting faster and better, but the big difference is between the "average" 3rd or 4th liner - not the superstars. Henrik Sedin better than a prime Peter Forsberg?? Please put down the crack pipe. Evgeni Malkin better than Jaromir Jagr?? Stop. And, let's not even borderline on insanity with the Crosby is better than Mario junk. That's like saying a McDonald's Big Mac is better than Filet Mignon because the packaging and marketing is slicker.

Fans today are disillusioned because of YouTube and highlights and the NHL network and commercial campaigns splattered all over the place to convince people that Crosby is the best player in the history of hockey. But all it takes is a logical person to consider the REAL motivation behind this - the NHL is a business, and they need to improve their business by marketing their current stars. They cannot profit by telling fans how great Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Forsberg, Howe, Richard, Bossy and Beliveau WERE - most new fans could care less about what happened in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Now the NHL (and the media) force all this garbage down our throats about how Sidney damn Crosby is better than one of the top 5 players to ever lace on skates in the history of a sport that spans over 100 years? Come on now people, stop the madness.

Ovechkin scoring 200 points in 95-96 when Lemieux and Jagr scored 161 and 149?? This may be the craziest thing I've ever read on these forums, honestly. Ovechkin can't even score 150 today in an era where players can't even be touched for a second. How could he score 200 in an era where players could hold you, tackle you and hook you with sticks? During an era where he would have had to shoot on Patrick Roy, Dominik Hasek and Mike Richter a combined 12 times a year?

I guess judging by last year's stats, if Ovechkin were to score 200 points in 95-96 then Sedin would have scored 219 points in 95-96, shattering Gretzky's record?? Rotfl. Wow, you can't make this stuff up if you tried. While we're at it - Duncan Keith is better than Bobby Orr, right?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Crosby as captain of his team and overall performance both regular season and playoffs has distanced himself quite a bit from those players IMO, not a Gretzky like distance but a distance all the same.


i think soem people are missing IV's main point which is that teh overall play in the league ahs changed quite a bit, to pick certain players only at certain times and to say that it hasn't doesn't hold as much as the eye test.

Everyone should watch some games for the early 70's, mid 80, mid 90's and post lockout and then actually say that its a minimal difference.

Player production (where the talent pool comes from), equipment changes, rule changes, different coaching philosophies, training both in the NHL and elite teams that are built coming up in the minor system (somewhat similar to what the USSR did back in the day, although a free market version all contribute to make the game different from decade to decade even year to year in some cases.

No one is arguing against the speed of the game going up over all, nor is anyone arguing against the equipment improvements or that players train more efficiently today.
What's the cost of having all that speed on the 3rd and 4th lines though? The cost is that players with more creativity and better hands who are a little slower of foot can't crack the 3rd and 4th lines any more like they used to.
Now it's all about having the cheapest, fastest players that can kill penalties on those lines.

All that's being argued is that the players themselves have not magically become better playmakers or more accurate shooters than they were a 10-20 years ago.
If anything, with the way all these newer and stricter systems are crammed down their throats right from Junior, they have become less creative and worse playmakers.

Look at it this way...if you have 100 players, lets say only 50% will make it to the NHL. 50% of them are fast and 50% of them are offensively gifted, at the end of the day, by the averages, you are only left with 25 that are both fast and talented while the other 25 that make it are just fast because that's what teams want more than offensive talent on their bottom lines.
That leaves 25 that are offensively talented but slower of foot and 25 that are neither fast of offensively talented not making it.
For every cheap, fast player that is put on a roster, that leaves a more offensively talented but slower of foot player out.
Making the league faster overall but lowering its overall creativity.

The league doesn't get as fast as it is today, as quickly as it has without a cost. Eventually, it will even out as the more talented players will start putting a higher value on their skating at an earlier age but we're only 6 years into this "new" league and I don't believe we're going to see that balancing out for about 5-7 or so more years.
It takes about 10 years for the Junior and pre-Junior ranks to adjust to and then produce the players needed after big league changes.

 

[Big Phil]

InfiniteVision, was that more of a knee jerk reaction when you said Ovechkin would get 200 points if he played in 1995-'96? Just to clarify, Lemieux had 161 while missing 12 games. Even if he were to play those games he still only has 188 points. Jagr had 149. Sakic 120. Francis 119. Forsberg 116. Lindros 115.

The question here is has Ovechkin had a season as good as all of those players at that particular time in 1995-'96? Lindros and Forsberg, perhaps. Francis yes. Sakic I guess so. Jagr and Lemieux in 1996 vs. any season Ovechkin had? Nope, he's never reached that level.

Have we become so stubborn that even 1995-'96 isnt relevant to 2011 anymore? Did you see Lemieux during that season?

 

[overpass]

i think soem people are missingIV's main point which is that teh overall play in the league ahs changed quite a bit, to pick certain players only at certain times and to say that it hasn't doesn't hold as much as the eye test.

Everyone should watch some games for the early 70's, mid 80, mid 90's and post lockout and then actually say that its a minimal difference.

Player production (where the talent pool comes from), equipment changes, rule changes, different coaching philosophies, training both in the NHL and elite teams that are built coming up in the minor system (somewhat similar to what the USSR did back in the day, although a free market version all contribute to make the game different from decade to decade even year to year in some cases.

Nobody is missing Infinite Visions point. Of course the game has changed since 1996. It changes all the time. But it's not clear that changes to the game are relevant to the discussion of individual players.

The point that individual players are able to maintan a level of play and stay in the league over 15 years or more is far more relevant than changes in tactics, training, or equipment. All of those factors are external things to which hockey players, especially great hockey players, can adapt and have always adapted.

See the 1972 Summit Series. The high tempo, highly organized play of the USSR caught Canada by surprise in Game 1. It was something from another world of hockey. But Canada made a complete adjustment for Game 2, skating much shorter shifts, using 6 d-men, and playing a hard matchup game. Then the Soviets adjusted to that, and so it continued throughout the series. Similarly, Ovechkin in 1995 would find that any advantages he had would quickly disappear.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

Sid doesn't hold a candle to Lemieux.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu1Hq-13JcY

Do fans remember how strong Lemieux was with the puck?

Hell, Denis Savard was better than Crosby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

 

[livewell68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu1Hq-13JcY

Do fans remember how strong Lemieux was with the puck?

Hell, Denis Savard was better than Crosby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

It's not that they forgot, some weren't even Penguins fans during Lemieux's time or weren't even old enough to watch hockey.

 

[tacogeoff]

Sid doesn't hold a candle to Lemieux.

+1 agreed. Used to love watching him play.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Rome wasn't built in a day. I've stated more than 10 times now that I think Lemieux would be scoring between 130-150 points in today's league, if you don't think that's tearing it apart then that's your opinion I guess.

This is where you contradict yourself, however.

If Mario Lemieux is scoring 130-150 today. That is a clear notch above anyone right now.

So how can Ovechkin score over 200 in 95-96 when Lemieux didn't and wasn't on pace to?

 

[TasteofFlames]

Ultimately, I think Sid will be battling Jagr for #2 Pen of all time, which is more than respectable (15-25 all time). It's certainly possible that he could continue his upward trend and reach Mario's level, but Lemieux was so ****ing good, that I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Ultimately, I think Sid will be battling Jagr for #2 Pen of all time, which is more than respectable (15-25 all time). It's certainly possible that he could continue his upward trend and reach Mario's level, but Lemieux was so ****ing good, that I'll believe it when I see it.

Unfortunately it's not looking good for Sid atm. Apparently, he is still suffering headache's and there are some questions forming on whether he will be starting the season.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

This is where you contradict yourself, however.

If Mario Lemieux is scoring 130-150 today. That is a clear notch above anyone right now.

So how can Ovechkin score over 200 in 95-96 when Lemieux didn't and wasn't on pace to?

No it's not where I contradict myself, is Hardyvan really the only one who understands the main point I'm trying to make? I say that not to state that Ovechkin is better than Lemieux, but to get it through your heads that the league has evolved as a whole, significantly in every aspect since 1996... I don't even know how it's honestly argued. Watching the games it's more than obvious.

When I say Mario would be scoring between 130-150 points today, that's what I think he'd be doing had he been born in the late 80's and grew up with all the same training Crosby and Ovechkin had. I've seen Lemieux play tons of times, his talent was absolutely on another level than anyone elses, but when I say Ovechkin would score 200 points in 1996, that's not to show that I think Ovechkin is better than Lemieux, it's to show an example of how much the league has evolved since then.
Every single person I know of shares this same view, except for old timers on the history board (no surprise).

Lemieux exactly as he was, from any point in his career, would not be scoring more than Ovechkin, Crosby, or anyone today... and tons of others players are apparently close to Crosby and Ovechkin's level today as well, which brings us to the point of it being obviously harder to standout in today's league, not even considering the overall depth of teams, parity, salary cap, etc...

Man this is so odd to me because I actually don't know if you guys are just trying to defend Lemieux (I don't see the need to, he's my favourite player ever and he would more than likely be the best by a fair bit as I've stated, growing up with all the same advantages)

You are basically trying to tell me that the skill level of players has remained constant since 1996... I'll just my head, turn on a tv and ask myself why I'm even arguing it. I can watch any random game from the past 15 years and easily guess within 2 years of what year that game is from, without knowing. How can I do this if the league has remained constant as you try and claim?

Overpass: Of course Ovechkin would be using 95-96 equipment, you don't magically forget all the skills you've learned by using worse sticks, the new sticks just help reach a higher limit, and help everyone else get a bit better than they otherwise would have. People who don't think the league has drastically changed, or that it's not harder to standout today, are just stating so because they simply don't want to believe so. I take it most of the people on these boards believe in god, and not evolution (correct me if I'm wrong, and sorry if that's a touchy subject that may seem unrelated) but IMO it's not. Evolution is real, and there is no guarantess that Gretzky or Lemieux would be the best players today. If you're not open to that possibility then that's fine, but you're choosing not to analyze the skills of today's players properly IMO.

I asked my friend who was drafted to the OHL and finished 3rd in points in the same Midget AAA league as Stamkos and Del Zotto with 89 points (Stamkos had 160+ points, Del Zotto had 120+ points, who played on the same team) if he thought he would be the best player if he went back to the 80's, and he just smiled and gave me a , then I asked him if he thought he was better than Gretzky (I already knew the answer) and he said obviously not.

Does anyone else not understand my point yet. There's simply tons and tons more skilled players today and more and more people coming closer to the human limits you speak of, which makes for a much more competitive, much more skilled (not just bigger, faster, stronger) league, which makes it much harder to standout in!

With all your examples of players transcending eras, I agree that any if not most of the players in history would be one of the best players today, they just wouldn't standout as much, and therefore wouldn't be looked upon historically with as much recognition.

It's funny how as the league gets progressively better, everyone is closer to each other in stats, and less of the same players are finishing in the top 10-15 in any given year, I'm telling you all these are not coincidences.

Rob Schremp can't do anything in today's NHL, but in the 80's he'd skate circles around everyone without much problem. Look what he did in lower leagues, which are quite obviously more skilled than the NHL of the 80's... this just further establishes my point, and not yours.

Argue it some more if you wish I love reading what you've had to say, and I must admit you're all smart about the way you defend the idea that the league hasn't changed, but like I say, I turn on that television set, watch games from different eras, then question whether or not you're defending or truly believe what you're attempting to tell me. I think I know which is the truth.

Anyone not get the point yet? Or am I out to lunch and smoking something funny?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Anyone not get the point yet? Or am I out to lunch and smoking something funny?

Yes, you are out to lunch.. because enough players played long enough at a high level from the time of Lemieux to the post lockout to prove you wrong.

For example:

Jagr wasn't born in the 80s having all the magical advantages of being new when he scored 123 points post lockout (which stands up to anything the bionic supermen that you claim hockey play now have done). Birth date: 1972.

Joe Sakic scored 100 points at age 38 on a fading team in Colorado. Birth date: 1969.

Lemieux was better than both of them by a fair margin at his best. So unless you want to explain why the new post lockout rules would somehow slow Lemieux down while letting past their primes Jagr and Sakic still be among the best in the league... I think you're the one who needs to rethink what is going on.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rob Schremp

No it's not where I contradict myself, is Hardyvan really the only one who understands the main point I'm trying to make? I say that not to state that Ovechkin is better than Lemieux, but to get it through your heads that the league has evolved as a whole, significantly in every aspect since 1996... I don't even know how it's honestly argued. Watching the games it's more than obvious.

When I say Mario would be scoring between 130-150 points today, that's what I think he'd be doing had he been born in the late 80's and grew up with all the same training Crosby and Ovechkin had. I've seen Lemieux play tons of times, his talent was absolutely on another level than anyone elses, but when I say Ovechkin would score 200 points in 1996, that's not to show that I think Ovechkin is better than Lemieux, it's to show an example of how much the league has evolved since then.
Every single person I know of shares this same view, except for old timers on the history board (no surprise).

Lemieux exactly as he was, from any point in his career, would not be scoring more than Ovechkin, Crosby, or anyone today... and tons of others players are apparently close to Crosby and Ovechkin's level today as well, which brings us to the point of it being obviously harder to standout in today's league, not even considering the overall depth of teams, parity, salary cap, etc...

Man this is so odd to me because I actually don't know if you guys are just trying to defend Lemieux (I don't see the need to, he's my favourite player ever and he would more than likely be the best by a fair bit as I've stated, growing up with all the same advantages)

You are basically trying to tell me that the skill level of players has remained constant since 1996... I'll just my head, turn on a tv and ask myself why I'm even arguing it. I can watch any random game from the past 15 years and easily guess within 2 years of what year that game is from, without knowing. How can I do this if the league has remained constant as you try and claim?

Overpass: Of course Ovechkin would be using 95-96 equipment, you don't magically forget all the skills you've learned by using worse sticks, the new sticks just help reach a higher limit, and help everyone else get a bit better than they otherwise would have. People who don't think the league has drastically changed, or that it's not harder to standout today, are just stating so because they simply don't want to believe so. I take it most of the people on these boards believe in god, and not evolution (correct me if I'm wrong, and sorry if that's a touchy subject that may seem unrelated) but IMO it's not. Evolution is real, and there is no guarantess that Gretzky or Lemieux would be the best players today. If you're not open to that possibility then that's fine, but you're choosing not to analyze the skills of today's players properly IMO.

I asked my friend who was drafted to the OHL and finished 3rd in points in the same Midget AAA league as Stamkos and Del Zotto with 89 points (Stamkos had 160+ points, Del Zotto had 120+ points, who played on the same team) if he thought he would be the best player if he went back to the 80's, and he just smiled and gave me a , then I asked him if he thought he was better than Gretzky (I already knew the answer) and he said obviously not.

Does anyone else not understand my point yet. There's simply tons and tons more skilled players today and more and more people coming closer to the human limits you speak of, which makes for a much more competitive, much more skilled (not just bigger, faster, stronger) league, which makes it much harder to standout in!

With all your examples of players transcending eras, I agree that any if not most of the players in history would be one of the best players today, they just wouldn't standout as much, and therefore wouldn't be looked upon historically with as much recognition.

It's funny how as the league gets progressively better, everyone is closer to each other in stats, and less of the same players are finishing in the top 10-15 in any given year, I'm telling you all these are not coincidences.

Rob Schremp can't do anything in today's NHL, but in the 80's he'd skate circles around everyone without much problem. Look what he did in lower leagues, which are quite obviously more skilled than the NHL of the 80's... this just further establishes my point, and not yours.

Argue it some more if you wish I love reading what you've had to say, and I must admit you're all smart about the way you defend the idea that the league hasn't changed, but like I say, I turn on that television set, watch games from different eras, then question whether or not you're defending or truly believe what you're attempting to tell me. I think I know which is the truth.

Anyone not get the point yet? Or am I out to lunch and smoking something funny?

Rob Schremp. Every year or generation there are massive failures from Midget AAA or major Junior by the time they reach the NHL - Jason Bonsignore would be the start of a very long list yet I have yet to see anyone, until now, pretend that these failures would have enjoyed success in previous eras. For the most part when injuries are factored out these players were as good as they were ever going to be somewhere between the ages of 16 and 20. Regardless of era boy talent cannot compete with mature man talent. Never could, never will.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu1Hq-13JcY

Do fans remember how strong Lemieux was with the puck?

Hell, Denis Savard was better than Crosby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFEIsg8Q3k

Wrong.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yes, you are out to lunch.. because enough players played long enough at a high level from the time of Lemieux to the post lockout to prove you wrong.

For example:

Jagr wasn't born in the 80s having all the magical advantages of being new when he scored 123 points post lockout (which stands up to anything the bionic supermen that you claim hockey play now have done). Birth date: 1972.

Joe Sakic scored 100 points at age 38 on a fading team in Colorado. Birth date: 1969.

Lemieux was better than both of them by a fair margin at his best. So unless you want to explain why the new post lockout rules would somehow slow Lemieux down while letting past their primes Jagr and Sakic still be among the best in the league... I think you're the one who needs to rethink what is going on.

Wow did you fail to read literally more than half of what I typed, the point is not that these players could not play in the league today, or wouldn't still be the best, it just wouldn't be by as much...

I'm out to lunch? You're out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with a drug induced dessert to top it off.

Man, the league has changed, deal with it.

 

[livewell68]

Wow did you fail to read literally more than half of what I typed, the point is not that these players could not play in the league today, or wouldn't still be the best, it just wouldn't be by as much...

I'm out to lunch? You're out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with a drug induced dessert to top it off.

Man, the league has changed, deal with it.

You're avoiding actually answering his question.

You say they might still be the best but not by much. I think you fail to see the logic, a 34, 35 year old Jagr or a 38 year old Sakic are nowehere near as good as they were in their primes. They did however put up elite numbers that saw them finish 6th in scoring for Sakic at age 38 and 2nd and 8th (the 8th place finish was with a reconstructed shoulder) for Jagr at ages 34, 35. Clearly they were past their primes and past their days of dominance.

Funny how they still put up numbers similar to when they were younger and when scoring was lower and harder to come by. Anyone else would look at this and realize that something doesn't seem right. How can these players who had wear and tear, mileage on them and who were regressing athletically still put up impressive elite numbers in this new NHL if this new NHL was so much better than the post-lockout, Dead Puck Era one?

If Jagr and Lemieux were still in their 20's, in their primes and playing in the New NHL, they would completely destroy the competition in scoring. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Malkin... would be nowhere near them in the scoring race. Just look at 1995-96, Sakic had 120 Pts (3rd best) and this number is impressive but was nowhere near the numbers Jagr (149) or Lemieux (161) put up. If Lemieux and Jagr were still in their primes and playing right now, it would be the same type of results.

Lemieux would have 130-170 Pts and Jagr would have 120-150 Pts (their lows being much higher if they were healthy) while guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos would top off at 120 Pts and that would be their absolute best since Crosby only got 120 Pts once and Ovechkin's career high is 112 Pts.

Think about this; Sakic was among the list of superstars like Forsberg, Lindros, Selanne, Bure, Karyia but he never except for twice ever challenged Lemieux and Jagr for the scoring race, those seasons being 1995-96 and 2000-01 yet in the post-lockout era, while being a shell of his former self he still challenges players for the Art Ross.

If you don't think a healthy Lemieux or Jagr would run away with the Art Ross in this penalty friendly era then you really are out to lunch. Think of Crosby and Ovechkin's offensive skills combined and you had Jagr and Lemieux. Both were 6'3, 6'4 and both 225-245 lbs, both were almost near impossible to knock off the puck, both could skate with the best of them, their stickhandling is legendary and so is their passing and shooting.

They would put these young players ( no knock on them) to shame and that includes Crosby. Crosby would have been the Selanne, Lindros, Bure, Sakic, Karyia, Forsberg to Lemieux and Jagr.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Nobody is missing Infinite Visions point. Of course the game has changed since 1996. It changes all the time. But it's not clear that changes to the game are relevant to the discussion of individual players.

Yes, actually, everyone is missing my point... and I don't disagree with the fact that it's not clear the changes to the game are relevant to the discussion of individual players, but if people can't recognize the skill level of players (and hockey sense) of guys like David Krejci and Ales Hemsky, who are arguably not even considered top 40 players in this league, then why am I even arguing with people who think the skill hasn't drastically changed, making it harder for everyone to standout, once again not even considering less and less weak teams to pad stats on, salary cap, depth, parity, 6'4 goalies who cover the entire net and lack no athleticism, vision, anticipation, there's even tons of young goalies who can jump right into the league right now and be more than ready to play at the NHL level, which just further establishes my point that more and more players of all positions are getting closer to how could you can possibly get...

They say people lack hockey sense and have stone hands, man, are they watching the same league as I am, are they watching at all? There's fourth liners who I've seen make no look passes and score some pretty decent goals. This idea that the league is only bigger, faster, and stronger now is so wrong I can't rap my head around the fact that people actually believe this.

The point that individual players are able to maintan a level of play and stay in the league over 15 years or more is far more relevant than changes in tactics, training, or equipment. All of those factors are external things to which hockey players, especially great hockey players, can adapt and have always adapted.

I agree with everything you've said here... so I don't understand how you disagree with my maint point, not that you've clearly stated that you do, but it almost seems like it.

See the 1972 Summit Series. The high tempo, highly organized play of the USSR caught Canada by surprise in Game 1. It was something from another world of hockey. But Canada made a complete adjustment for Game 2, skating much shorter shifts, using 6 d-men, and playing a hard matchup game. Then the Soviets adjusted to that, and so it continued throughout the series. Similarly, Ovechkin in 1995 would find that any advantages he had would quickly disappear.

I'm sorry, but those are two completely different scenarios, the 1972 Canadians were not playing the 1987 Russian team, if they did, they would not be able to adjust, they would be completely owned. I've many hockey games in 1972, and I own the 1987 Canada Cup. I've watched those three final games of the Canada Cup 3 times over, and I've come to the conclusion (though it's not one I want to boast) that if Canada wasn't able to be so rough with them (they literally hauled them down on the ice tons of times and got away with so many obvious penalties), and had the teams switched goalies, the Russians would have won that series. Maybe not by much, but it was close enough as it was, and 3 of the most entertaing games I've seen in my life.

There seems to be this idea that I hate on old time hockey, but all my friends tell me I'm obsessed with past players, and the history of the game, which I am. You wouldn't believe how many old games I watch, how many history of hockey books I've read as early as I started playing hockey (1994), biographies of past players, (Bobby Hull, Eric Lindros, Ken Dryden, Mario Lemieux, etc...) I'm absolutely obsessed with hockey and my ability to analyze almost anything very precisely, is almost second to no one no matter what anyone here chooses to believe. I played rep hockey, I've played in competitive road hockey leagues, I play NHL games (3000 points in 1200 games, I'm basically the Gretzky of video game hockey, all you want about that one.)

My understanding of the game, statistics, and everything to do with hockey in general is top notch. I'm telling you that for a fact, I was a gifted student when I was younger, and was reading and spelling at grade seven and eight levels when I was in grade three, got high 80's in academic math and science all throughout highschool, I'm no fool, I lack no common sense. In fact, I have a strange way of knowing things, without looking too much into it, then when I do, I always seem to be right. I could do math in my head that teachers couldn't believe I didn't need to do the six steps involved in reaching the final answer, my Intelligence Quotient is 128, higher than most people I know,

The only reason I didn't get drafted to the OHL was because of my size, I'm 5'11 145... lol, I'm probably spouting off a bunch of personal information you guys really don't care about, or may not seem that relevant to you... but I'm sick of people treating my opinions as garbage, and acting as if I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

I'd bet my life I'd make a better hockey scout or analyst than almost anyone on these boards, that's something that I can't argue or try and prove, but I truly believe it.

Do you still not actually understand my main point? (I think you're closer to understanding it than most, If not, then I have nothing further to say. I think I've made myself perfectly clear on where I stand regarding this topic).

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yes, actually, everyone is missing my point... and I don't disagree with the fact that it's not clear the changes to the game are relevant to the discussion of individual players, but if people can't recognize the skill level of players (and hockey sense) of guys like David Krejci and Ales Hemsky, who are arguably not even considered top 40 players in this league, then why am I even arguing with people who think the skill hasn't drastically changed, making it harder for everyone to standout, once again not even considering less and less weak teams to pad stats on, salary cap, depth, parity, 6'4 goalies who cover the entire net and lack no athleticism, vision, anticipation, there's even tons of young goalies who can jump right into the league right now and be more than ready to play at the NHL level, which just further establishes my point that more and more players of all positions are getting closer to how could you can possibly get...

They say people lack hockey sense and have stone hands, man, are they watching the same league as I am, are they watching at all? There's fourth liners who I've seen make no look passes and score some pretty decent goals. This idea that the league is only bigger, faster, and stronger now is so wrong I can't rap my head around the fact that people actually believe this.




I agree with everything you've said here... so I don't understand how you disagree with my maint point, not that you've clearly stated that you do, but it almost seems like it.



I'm sorry, but those are two completely different scenarios, the 1972 Canadians were not playing the 1987 Russian team, if they did, they would not be able to adjust, they would be completely owned. I've many hockey games in 1972, and I own the 1987 Canada Cup. I've watched those three final games of the Canada Cup 3 times over, and I've come to the conclusion (though it's not one I want to boast) that if Canada wasn't able to be so rough with them (they literally hauled them down on the ice tons of times and got away with so many obvious penalties), and had the teams switched goalies, the Russians would have won that series. Maybe not by much, but it was close enough as it was, and 3 of the most entertaing games I've seen in my life.

There seems to be this idea that I hate on old time hockey, but all my friends tell me I'm obsessed with past players, and the history of the game, which I am. You wouldn't believe how many old games I watch, how many history of hockey books I've read as early as I started playing hockey (1994), biographies of past players, (Bobby Hull, Eric Lindros, Ken Dryden, Mario Lemieux, etc...) I'm absolutely obsessed with hockey and my ability to analyze almost anything very precisely, is almost second to no one no matter what anyone here chooses to believe. I played rep hockey, I've played in competitive road hockey leagues, I play NHL games (3000 points in 1200 games, I'm basically the Gretzky of video game hockey, all you want about that one.)

My understanding of the game, statistics, and everything to do with hockey in general is top notch. I'm telling you that for a fact, I was a gifted student when I was younger, and was reading and spelling at grade seven and eight levels when I was in grade three, got high 80's in academic math and science all throughout highschool, I'm no fool, I lack no common sense. In fact, I have a strange way of knowing things, without looking too much into it, then when I do, I always seem to be right. I could do math in my head that teachers couldn't believe I didn't need to do the six steps involved in reaching the final answer, my Intelligence Quotient is 128, higher than most people I know,

The only reason I didn't get drafted to the OHL was because of my size, I'm 5'11 145... lol, I'm probably spouting off a bunch of personal information you guys really don't care about, or may not seem that relevant to you... but I'm sick of people treating my opinions as garbage, and acting as if I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

I'd bet my life I'd make a better hockey scout or analyst than almost anyone on these boards, that's something that I can't argue or try and prove, but I truly believe it.

Do you still not actually understand my main point? (I think you're closer to understanding it than most, If not, then I have nothing further to say. I think I've made myself perfectly clear on where I stand regarding this topic).

I am also very smart and better than most of you. Please check out my post history if you want to be a much better person than you ever could have been without me.

EDIT: Also, I have a TON of friends (probably more than all of you combined) and they all say I know the most about hockey

 

[livewell68]

I am also very smart and better than most of you. Please check out my post history if you want to be a much better person than you ever could have been without me.

EDIT: Also, I have a TON of friends (probably more than all of you combined) and they all say I know the most about hockey

In all fairness to Infinite Vision, he's just simply giving his opinion and based on his knowlege of hockey, he is just as much entitled to his opinion as anyone else.

Some of the arguments he makes are very interesting and I don't think we should redicule him for providing his opinion. This is a public Hockey forum where people from all walks of life, gender and race come together to discuss various topics about hockey and other sports. I think it's immature to make fun of someone because they simply don't share the same opinion as the general public.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

In all fairness to Infinite Vision, he's just simply giving his opinion and based on his knowlege of hockey, he is just as much entitled to his opinion as anyone else.

Some of the arguments he makes are very interesting and I don't think we should redicule him for providing his opinion. This is a public Hockey forum where people from all walks of life, gender and race come together to discuss various topics about hockey and other sports. I think it's immature to make fun of someone because they simply don't share the same opinion as the general public.

Read it again, I'm not ridiculing him for providing his opinion

 

[livewell68]

Read it again, I'm not ridiculing him for providing his opinion

You're not directly but you're sarcism is quite obvious and it is a form of ridiculing what he wrote.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

You're not directly but you're sarcism is quite obvious and it is a form of ridiculing what he wrote.

That is not what I meant. I'm sure you can figure it out.


PS: With the sarcasm emoticon, I sure hope it was obvious...