Tsn: is Crosby the best penguin ever

[Killion]

Do these hypothetical games occur with the old team equipment?.

In my world they do. Tube skates. Wooden sticks. Pop Kenesky pads. Center ice red-line. No rink-board advertising. Gas & candle lighting. Welcoming the modern players we'd have Mozarts Requim for the Masses in D Minor being played on the Wurlitzer; 100's of Gregorian Monks in the rafters chanting "Omen ave Santini" in Latin throughout the game; the ships Bell brought up from the deck of the Titanic ringing its note of utter & abject hopelessness every time Morenz or M.Richard stuffed one in; Cleghorn or Horton sending another one of your Modern PrettyBoy's to the infirmary, unconscious, scraped up off the ice with a putty knife & hauled away on a sheet of plywood.......

 

[Hardyvan123]

In my world they do. Tube skates. Wooden sticks. Pop Kenesky pads. Center ice red-line. No rink-board advertising. Gas & candle lighting. Welcoming the modern players we'd have Mozarts Requim for the Masses in D Minor being played on the Wurlitzer; 100's of Gregorian Monks in the rafters chanting "Omen ave Santini" in Latin throughout the game; the ships Bell brought up from the deck of the Titanic ringing its note of utter & abject hopelessness every time Morenz or M.Richard stuffed one in; Cleghorn or Horton sending another one of your Modern PrettyBoy's to the infirmary, unconscious, scraped up off the ice with a putty knife & hauled away on a sheet of plywood.......

Let's get back to the roots of hockey and have no boards period.

Sounds like a good bottle of wine to me.

 

[Epsilon]

No it's not, I've watched the 87 Canada Cup over and over, and I'm telling you a good OHL team would beat them in a hockey game, never mind an AHL team. Like you say to others, find yourself and AHL game from this past few years, then go and watch any games from the late 80's, the 87 Canada Cup specifically if you have access to it.

Once again the point is not that these guys are more talented, but that the league has drastically changed in overall skill level and I know an AHL team would kill an NHL team from 1994, the New York rangers vs. any AHL team. Their skill level would simply be more of a factor than their natural talent in a head to head game due to gradual changes over time.

I'm not sure which is dumber, this post (particularly the line about an OHL team beating the 87 Canada Cup team), or that one from the 2010 Olympics where some moron on HF was claiming Canada's women's team could beat a KHL or SEL team.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yes so we keep hearing and yet it never seems to be defined in any way.
Qualify it. Quantify it.

The game(players abilities) has ebbs and flows in different areas and at disparate times. Some aspects improve while some regress.

well lets see the NHL now takes players from Europe and the United states so even if you think that the Canadian talent pool hasn't changed and it has greatly then the "quality of player is better."

The fact that you even asked that question seems to indicate that you don't want to look at seriously.

But don't listen to me go look at some tapes from the 30.,40,50,60, 70, 80,90,00 and tell me that the overall game isn't more advanced.

Paul Reinhart, a pretty skilled guy in his day, recently at a prospects camp said that every player there could have made an NHL team in the time period he played in and that's a 20-30 year gap or so but I'm probably wasting my time even typing this as you seem to have made up your mind already.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Let's take a look at the 1958-60 Habs who had a young Ab McDonald - 5/6 years out of Midget and seasoned in the AHL, 6'3", 190-195 LBS. He was their weakest player who was benched for the 1960 playoffs in favour of much smaller and better players.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mcdonab01.html

Now lets look at a few Midget AAA players from recent years. Some of the better ones from Quebec - Danick Paquette, Guillaume Latendresse(rated second behind Crosby in the Q draft), Torrey Mitchell. They were easily top two on their midget team and in instances went to National Championships. Do you realistically see a Torrey Mitchell leading a team of lesser players and playing center against a team centered by Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Ralph Backstrom, Phil Goyette? Remember the other two/three centers would be weaker than Torrey Mitchell. Do you see a Guillaume Latendresse, an average skater, rarely in shape as a midget/junior playing LW against M. Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Claude Provost. Danick Paquette is trying to hold a regular ECHL job so we are looking at the 2,000 range overall talent. As NHLers how do Latendresse and Mitchell look against Nick Lidstrom in his early forties? Well they would look much worse against a prime Harvey. Then project the depth centers and wingers and factor in the we are looking at kids with baby fat and kid strength playing against adults capable of playing against men with the strength of a prime Gordie Howe 14-21 times a year.

I will actually take a step back from the actual AAA midget teams today as most 16 year olds play in the W,Q or O compared to years past. the better players in AAA are the 15 year olds and that would be too much age to give up.

I will take the recent Canadian under 18 team that went to the Ivan Hlinka tourney recently.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not fair. Not sporting. God forbid a decent AHL/IHL team circa 50's-60's decided not to pull their punches & went all out; forget the ambulance brigade, just back in the hearse's.....



Then perhaps like me you are sorely underwhelmed & un-impressed with the modern game & its players beyond the top 400 or so?. This "same-ness" & lack of quality we see displayed nightly is surely the very definition of banality is it not?....

And yep, spoken like the true Old Fogey I be young un's...

The 2011 Binghampton team wouldn't be intimidated by any 50-60's AHL., IHL team that you can bring forward. Have a close look at their lineup and size not to mention that their skating and systems would be far superior.

Nice try though.

I do agree with the banality beyond the top 400 guys or so but that's not a lack of talent but rather coaching philosophies of playing not to lose rather than scoring the most goals to win. There are lots of skilled players in minor roles and outside of the NHL in recent times.

 

[Boxscore]

Did someone REALLY say that an OHL team today could beat the 1987 Team Canada team? Really? Really? REALLY?? Has to be a joke... a joke that's not that funny.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Significant

I will actually take a step back from the actual AAA midget teams today as most 16 year olds play in the W,Q or O compared to years past. the better players in AAA are the 15 year olds and that would be too much age to give up.

I will take the recent Canadian under 18 team that went to the Ivan Hlinka tourney recently.

No significant difference in the result. You cannot play a teenaged team against NHL elite game proven fully mature professionals and come close to winning. The kids still have baby fat and kid strength.

Look at how overmatched they are in the four major sports if there is only one or two per team.Baseball rarely sees teenage phenoms, basketball almost all washed out and the draft rules were changed, football almost never. Teenagers rarely have the strength to play with men.

Yes the Crosbys, Stamkos etc play but they are surrounded by physically mature adult teammates. An under 18 team from today against physically mature men would get destroyed even if you go back 50-60 years. Look at Bobby Hull's numbers as a stud 18 year old or Stan Mikita as a typical smallish teenager in the NHL.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mikitst01.html

Look at the Team Canada under 18 Ivan Hlinka roster:

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/172031/la_id/1.htm

At least 15, are 190 lbs or less, one goalie weighs less than Charlie Hodge, who BTW was an Olympic quality rower. About five are Henri Richard size without adult mature strength.

The kids would be destroyed especially if the pros took a no prisoners approach.

 

[Killion]

The 2011 Binghampton team wouldn't be intimidated by any 50-60's AHL., IHL team that you can bring forward. Have a close look at their lineup and size not to mention that their skating and systems would be far superior...... I do agree with the banality beyond the top 400 guys or so but that's not a lack of talent but rather coaching philosophies of playing not to lose rather than scoring the most goals to win. There are lots of skilled players in minor roles and outside of the NHL in recent times.

I was actually replying to the op's suggestion that the circa 2011 Binghampton AHL team would annihilate the 1958 Montreal Canadiens (gee, I wonder why he picked that team out of the basket? ) SC wining team. Just why so provocative a comparison should be made I really dont know, because its hardly a game worth playing, as is the suggestion that an OHL, WHL, QMJHL or Midget AAA Team of frikin All Stars would stand a snowballs against a buried deep in the minors minor league team let alone any NHL squad of the last 70 odd years..... and ya, over-coaching, the regimentation of the game, costs etc have all lead to a homogenization & sameness, however, I think the games managed to turn that corner, and clearly things are getting better in terms of letting the creative fly, have fun once again....

 

[Killion]

Did someone REALLY say that an OHL team today could beat the 1987 Team Canada team? Really? Really? REALLY?? Has to be a joke... a joke that's not that funny.

Yup. And more Gustafsson, much much more....

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Ok, I'm waving the white flag and waiting for a mod to stop this nonsense now.. I normally don't think they should intervene but this is pants on head Pejorative Slured now.

Yeah.. some kids from the OHL today would beat '87 Team Canada.

That's fine, and they're not just kids, there's people up up to 21 years of age in the OHL, many bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled than that 87 Canada Cup team. Do I need to post clips? I don't think I will just for the sake of your argument being a feasible one, because if I post them everyone will know the truth, if they don't already. Quit giving yourself a headache.

Dude...c'mon!

Dale Hawerchuk, Mark Messier, Mike Gartner, Glenn Anderson, Kevin Dineen, Michel Goulet, Brent Sutter, Rick Tocchet, Brian Propp, Doug Gilmour, Claude Lemieux, Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, Doug Crossman, Craig Hartsburg, Normand Rochefort, James Patrick, Raymond Bourque, Larry Murphy, Paul Coffey, Ron Hextall, Kelly Hrudey, Grant Fuhr.

Most of these players only retired in the last 10-13 years.
I would put the line of Gretzky/Lemieux/Hawerchuk up against any 3 players in the entire NHL right now.
I would also put Gilmour, Sutter and C. Lemieux out to shut down any 3 players you want to truck out there from the NHL right now.
Ray Bourque, Murphy and Coffey in their primes....gimme a break man. Bourque alone in his prime would play half the game and make your OHLer's look like the kids they are.
What are these OHL players going to do, outskate Gartner, Coffey, Propp, Meesier, Mario and Anderson in their primes...yea right.
My god, Fedorov couldn't even outskate Gartner when Mike was closing in on 40.
Are these OHL players going to be tougher than Tocchet and Messier....HAHAHAHAHA!
Your OHL goalie kids might be better trained than Hextall and Fuhr were but they will not even come close to out battling them.

I don't care what you think you're seeing, that '87 CC team would dominate most NHL teams today.

So you don't believe in evolution? That's alright, not everyone does.

Do these hypothetical games occur with the old team equipment? I ask because I'd imagine the speed of the newer teams would slow down considerably when they are only protected by small pieces of leather. Hell, I doubt they'd last after the first blocked shot when they aren't dressed like RoboCop as they are today.

Of course they would be using old equipment, you could give them even worse equipment and it wouldn't mater much. I've seen guys play shinny with broken wooden sticks from years ago, also using their wrong hand, and they're still stickhandling and shooting better than I can believe. As I said, you don't magically get better with new equipment, it happens over time, and helps you reach a higher limit of how skilled you can be, but you still have to learn it (as I've stated many times before, not that the old players couldn't, I know they would, but my point is the league has gotten so overall skilled, so much less time and space, so much more of the net is covered, it's literally not an opinion, it's a fact)

If Craig MacTavish was diving on the ice blocking shots in 1996 with no helmet, then how the hell would these players have any problem with it? Answer - They wouldn't, infact shot blocking is one of the things that has improved a lot, and the overall shots they would be facing would be on average not as hard... so yeah your opinion makes no sense to me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Like. From i=0 to infinity: Sum("HA") about sums this up.





Nevermind. Obvious troll is obvious.

Obvious denial is obvious.

How on Earth can you state that an unfalsifiable claim is a fact?

Hint: You can't

I think I can. Choose to believe what you wish, I could careless.

A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history, and make implications that Guy Lafleur wouldn't be able to crack an NHL roster today.

In this forum, the history of the sport is to be respected.

Why do you think that's in the stickied thread? Because it's obvious that hockey gets better, not just the game but individual players, but it's disrespectful to state so... the reason I do is because people are seriously arguing that it hasn't changed, infact hockey of all sports has improved the most of all sports in the past 20 years, I'm 100% sure of that. You can say it's due to training, equipment, or whatever else, but why or how it's changed dooesn't matter, the fact is it has!

 

[Infinite Vision*]

My first reaction is to say "Let's wait another 10 years or so, see what kind of dominant performances we see in the next decade, and get some perspective."

But that's a bit of a cop out, so here goes. I don't think there's a turning point around 1997 where it got more difficult to dominate. I think:

1. The league probably did improve in quality quite a bit between, say, 1980 and 1995. That's what I see when I watch old games. Also, a lot of guys were washing out of the league in their late 20s/early 30s and very few players played past 35 during those years, suggesting that many players had trouble adjusting to the increase in the level of play. The European/American talent invasion and increased stability since the rapid 60s/70s expansion would help explain this. Although I think the level of play suffered from expansion up to the early 80s, so in a way the level of play was just catching up to where it should have been. Overall, I don't think the improvement was as steep as you seemed to, but it was definitely there.

2. A lot of star players who should have been dominating scoring leaderboards in the late 90s/early 00s struggled with injuries, depressing scoring leaders and creating the perception that it was harder to dominate. Possibly the clutch-and-grab style of play and defensive systems had an effect here too, it's hard to say.

3. The level of play/talent pool actually declined a little in the year after the lockout, with Europeans going back to Europe, players losing their shape/edge, etc. Young guys who played in the AHL (and maybe Europe, not sure) during the lockout gain an edge, as do some older players who take the time to get healthy and get in shape, but overall I think the quality declined. I think the first two years, at least, after the lockout were consolidation years where the league was adjusting to the new style of play and was still recovering from the negative effects of the lockout. See Crosby scoring 120 points as a clearly inferior player to the Sidney Crosby of 2010, Sakic scoring 100 points at age 38, Thornton scoring 125 points, Selanne playing like it was 1993 again, etc. Overall, I don't think the level of play improved at all or that it became harder to score from, say, 1997 to 2007.

4. I think that the level of play has clearly improved in the past three or four years. As you said, a lot of good young talent has entered the league. And everyone has adjusted to the new style of play now, right down to the minors and junior leagues. But I don't think that improvement extends back to 1997 in a straight line. Not at all.

Will that mean it's harder for players to stand out in scoring? Maybe. I'll go back to what I said at the start - wait and see. Sorry.

I'm actually surprised by how much I agree with everything you said there... that's almost exactly the type of response I was looking for. Man I wish more people here could debate like you.

Well, Im sorry if you felt I was disrespecting your opinion with my laughter IV, however, Im afraid I'll just have to beg to differ. Im not "just defending old players", nor am I looking through the past wearing rose colored glasses. Of course if you watch grainy black & white film & TV coverage of the 50's & early 60's, you'll see a slower, far more plodding & in many ways far less creative "product" in comparison to the 80's, let alone the 90's or 00's. Players are of course larger, better conditioned, superior skaters & much much faster, but heres where we seem to part ways; I dont perceive players individual skills being on par with a smaller/leaner NHL of the 06 era, which really only lasted at its peak for maybe 10-11yrs from the mid-50's to 67. The minors as well, from the WHL, the old QPHL, the EHL, CHL, IHL & AHL etc were also all superior as a result of their being less jobs available at the top rung.

Comparably, you seem to be stating unequivocally that you believe the Binghampton AHL franchise of 10-11 would beat the 94 SC winning Rangers; that a AAA Midget Major team would beat the 58 Habs based on your objective research in watching game footage from the various era's. Well, Im afraid its just not quite that simple. Theres' a whole host of intangible's that would negate a AAA Midgets' or Binghamptons' slam dunk superiority live & in-person against Beliveau or Messier & Company, pounding your AAA Midgets' & farm team into Smithereens before the first period was even 3 minutes old. Any advantage in speed would be neutralized & nullified with the body, and tell ya what, Id hate to be a 16yr old staring into the maws of a circa 1958 NHL'r; while the Rangers of 93-94 would quite literally clobber Binghampton into barely hanging on much past the first period provided they were running all cylinders.

Now, if you put together a team of todays AHL All Stars & had them play the 94 Rangers?. Game-on. If you put together a team of todays top 24 players in the NHL & had them play the same, lets say from 1985?. Game on, too close to call. But the 70's, 60's or 50's?. Absolutely I believe todays top 24 NHL/AHL players would beat the top 24 from those decades. I think when you boil it all down, were not so far off in agreeing with one another on that point, just the methodology in how we arrive at the same station.

Hey, this is also a better response than I thought I'd get from you, I agree with about half of what you said, which is good enough. I don't think there's a whole lot that everyone in this section is not aware of, but we all obviously lean our opinions more towards the time's we're brought up in. You know what, I'll leave this discussion be for now and everyone is fair to believe what they want, I've stated what I believe, and it's no surprise two of the more intelligent posters on these boards actually gave me some intelligent respones without stupid insults.



Back to the topic of the thread, Lemieux is the best penguin ever, but it doesn't mean he'd be dominating todays NHL like he did in the past, though I'm open to the possibility he may have.

I sure hope Crosby turns out to be alright, that would be such a horrible loss to the game, and I still don't think a lot of the older folks on these boards realize just how good Crosby is.

To the rest of the people telling me my opinions are crap, same to you.

 

[Killion]

Back to the topic of the thread, Lemieux is the best penguin ever, but it doesn't mean he'd be dominating todays NHL like he did in the past, though I'm open to the possibility he may have. I sure hope Crosby turns out to be alright, that would be such a horrible loss to the game, and I still don't think a lot of the older folks on these boards realize just how good Crosby is.

I'm quite sure Mario Lemieux would be the same dominant player today as he was yesteryear, likely excelled beyond belief had he started his career after the rule changes & lockout, and for sure, "Best Penguin" and one of the "Best Ever" players period. Crosby of course is a different animal altogether, and I for one do indeed realize just how good he is and more disconcertingly how much more he could become provided he's able to return in full form from what tragically could be a career ending & or inhibiting injury. We've seen quite a few players cut down in their prime from concussions and so ya, what a blow to the Pens & the game in general if he's unable to return & compete, picking up on the same path of upward ascent that his career was clearly on. Then theres Jagr; I feel sorry for the guy, over-shadowed by Lemieux and the "Next One" in Syd. Whats interesting about the Penguins thereafter, if we remove these 3 from the "Best Ever", theres just a ton a excellent players that follow, many who granted didnt have there best years in Pittsburgh but who none the less contributed much. Barrasso, Coffey, Hextall, Bathgate, just on & on... Some interesting players as well, including Jimmy Rutherford & Glen Sather.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No significant difference in the result. You cannot play a teenaged team against NHL elite game proven fully mature professionals and come close to winning. The kids still have baby fat and kid strength.

Look at how overmatched they are in the four major sports if there is only one or two per team.Baseball rarely sees teenage phenoms, basketball almost all washed out and the draft rules were changed, football almost never. Teenagers rarely have the strength to play with men.

Yes the Crosbys, Stamkos etc play but they are surrounded by physically mature adult teammates. An under 18 team from today against physically mature men would get destroyed even if you go back 50-60 years. Look at Bobby Hull's numbers as a stud 18 year old or Stan Mikita as a typical smallish teenager in the NHL.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mikitst01.html

Look at the Team Canada under 18 Ivan Hlinka roster:

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/172031/la_id/1.htm


At least 15, are 190 lbs or less, one goalie weighs less than Charlie Hodge, who BTW was an Olympic quality rower. About five are Henri Richard size without adult mature strength.

The kids would be destroyed especially if the pros took a no prisoners approach.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1958.html

I know that you are referring to the U18 crowd but look closely at the Habs squad from 58 the same thing applies.

I'm sorry but 53 years later this U18 team is faster and plays a better system and would compete with that Habs team no matter how goonish that Hab team would try to play.

The game has advanced that much in 53 years and to try to make teenage comps of Mikita and Hull at the current time of 58 and somehow translate that to todays U18 team is just plain baffling IMO and shows that you are missing the point brought up.

Man has this thread gone off the rails or what?

Sounds like Sid isn't 100% which is a shame as he is the best player in the world today.

 

[overpass]

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1958.html

I know that you are referring to the U18 crowd but look closely at the Habs squad from 58 the same thing applies.

I'm sorry but 53 years later this U18 team is faster and plays a better system and would compete with that Habs team no matter how goonish that Hab team would try to play.

The game has advanced that much in 53 years and to try to make teenage comps of Mikita and Hull at the current time of 58 and somehow translate that to todays U18 team is just plain baffling IMO and shows that you are missing the point brought up.

Man has this thread gone off the rails or what?

Sounds like Sid isn't 100% which is a shame as he is the best player in the world today.

17 year olds are still 17 years old.

The fundamental things apply
As time goes by

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So you don't believe in evolution? That's alright, not everyone does.

Sure, over tens of thousands to millions of years.

Edit: In before someone comes back talking about rapidly evolving bacteria, heh.

 

[seventieslord]

Edit: In before someone comes back talking about rapidly evolving bacteria, heh.

Nice.

I only came in here because I saw overpass posted.

 

[alanschu]

That's fine, and they're not just kids, there's people up up to 21 years of age in the OHL, many bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled than that 87 Canada Cup team. Do I need to post clips? I don't think I will just for the sake of your argument being a feasible one, because if I post them everyone will know the truth, if they don't already. Quit giving yourself a headache.

Please post them. Preferably of the OHL team beating them for that matter. Since it's so obvious. Also, the 21 year olds in the Major Junior leagues are typically the poor players that aren't good enough to advance beyond that stage. Outliers aside, they're the ones not good enough to make the NHL or even AHL.

Seriously, stating you won't post them to prevent everyone else from seeing the truth only undermines your position. You know you have no leg to stand on. You certainly aren't willing to put in the leg work to substantiate your absurd claims.

So you don't believe in evolution? That's alright, not everyone does.

If you're talking about biological evolution, then you may believe in it but you certainly don't understand it. Biological evolution has exceptionally little to do with the improved physical capabilities of athletes today. It's way, way, way too short term of a scale. Where improvements have been made are training (marginal), and nutrition (significant). But this gap does very little for top players. What it does is improve the lower tier players. The top players are still the top players. More on this at the end of this post.

Athletes have not improved in recent years because of evolution. This is a fact (hey this is fun).

The evolution argument is a red herring, and intellectually dishonest.

If Craig MacTavish was diving on the ice blocking shots in 1996 with no helmet, then how the hell would these players have any problem with it? Answer - They wouldn't, infact shot blocking is one of the things that has improved a lot, and the overall shots they would be facing would be on average not as hard... so yeah your opinion makes no sense to me.

Current day OHLers do not shoot the puck as hard as 1987 Hall of Famers. Some might. The ones with a chance at actually playing in the big leagues. Most will play out the rest of their careers and then get real jobs afterwards because they just flat out do not have the skill. They would certainly get rag dolled playing against the Soviet team.

Craig MacTavish was blocking shots like a maniac because he had the mental fortitude to do so. This is still the primary requirement for making this defensive play. Mentality and desire to win has not increased through evolutionary means in the past couple of decades.

Obvious denial is obvious.

No, just a scientist that actually has respect for the scientific method. Your post, is frankly, stupid. The OHL team will have no where near the physicality to match a team of adult veterans that have been playing for years. It's why my old, fat, washed out teachers could still beat us in basketball even though we could run laps around them. Our bodies weren't as physically mature yet as 16 year olds. There is still so much to learn and it's why, throughout history, very few teenagers crack NHL rosters and achieve early success.

I think I can. Choose to believe what you wish, I could careless.

If you think you can, then you're thinking wrong. No self-respecting intellect would ever claim that an unfalsifiable opinion is a fact. What you've demonstrated is that you're incapable of actually differentiating between fact and opinion. And that, sir, is a fact. I'll be nice though, and give you the option of either admitting you have no self-respect, or are not an intellectual person. What I find particularly ironic is that someone with the name Infinite Vision has demonstrated how myopic their perspective actually is. If you're curious why people are being crass, it's because you keep regurgitating your opinion on something that cannot possibly be proven and unabashedly stating that it's a fact.

A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history, and make implications that Guy Lafleur wouldn't be able to crack an NHL roster today.

In this forum, the history of the sport is to be respected.

Why do you think that's in the stickied thread? Because it's obvious that hockey gets better, not just the game but individual players, but it's disrespectful to state so... the reason I do is because people are seriously arguing that it hasn't changed, infact hockey of all sports has improved the most of all sports in the past 20 years, I'm 100% sure of that. You can say it's due to training, equipment, or whatever else, but why or how it's changed dooesn't matter, the fact is it has!

Emphasis mine: I'll just point out that not only were many of the members of the 1987 Canadian Men's Hockey team still active NHL players 20 years ago... they were still good ones. For several years in many cases.

An old battered, oft-injured, and recently out of retirement Mario Lemieux came into the league and was immediately the league leader in goals per game, assists per game, and points per game. As a 37 year old he was still top 10 in points (2nd in points per game). This is the same guy that had such serious issues with his health that he couldn't even tie is skates at earlier points in his career.

Going back just a few years (1997) he was still crunching the opposition. In 1998 a 37 year old Wayne Gretzky still led the league in assists and was 3rd in the the league in points. This is also a Gretzky that had had his back ravaged by Gary Suter almost a decade earlier, but was still able to compete at an elite level.

Dave Andreychuk (not even an elite player from the 80s or 90s) was still able to be a solid player into the twilight of his career, leading his team to a Stanley Cup as a 40 year old captain.

Mark Messier was still putting up 60 point seasons as a 40 year old less than a decade from now.

Finally, that is stickied because any person making the absurd claim that Guy Lafleur wouldn't be able to crack an NHL roster today is stupid and myopic.


I'll finish this up by stating that I full on believe that pretty much any NHL team today would likely be competitive to older teams. In large part due to the improvements for depth players. People like Crosby, Datsyuk, and so forth are not better than the top players of yesteryear. The third and fourth line, as well as goalies, have made significant improvements. The best team from today probably beats a 1950s team, but I think you criminally understate just how effing good the Canadian and Soviet teams were in 1987.

Bobby Orr is still gonna whoop ass in today's hockey because he wasn't someone that was held back physically, and has an exceptional mind for the game. Gretzky was held back physically and still absolutely ragdolled the rest of the league because he thought the game like no one else. That said, he still possessed fantastic skills (which is very different than pure physical attributes like speed and strength).

I'm a strong believer in the rule of 10000 hours, and Gretzky lapped that several times, and I firmly believe that if he were an 18 year old today, he'd still be a fantastic player. Possibly even better all around because it'd probably be a physically better player too. But even with his physical limitations, it doesn't matter when he can read and react to the play in ways that even many of today's top players never could.


The league is stronger in my opinion. But I do not make the mistake of equating the improvement among 3rd and 4th liners linearly to the top players in the league. It's a fallacy to do so.

And the 1987 Canada Cup team is a team stacked with talent, and physical forces. It's completely wrong, and just flat out arrogantly disrespectful to the Soviet Team too for that matter, to state that a team of kids, most of whom never get a lick at professional hockey, let alone the NHL. Especially when just taking a quick look at the 1987 roster, I can name off 16 players from that team that would be NHLers today.

Hawerchuk
Messier*
Gartner
Anderson
Goulet
Sutter
Tocchet
C. Lemieux
M. Lemieux*
Gretzky*
Bourque*
Murphy
Coffey
Hextall*
Fuhr
Hrudey


No OHL team has 16 NHL quality players on it. Players with asterisks are probably players that are still exceptional and among the top players in the game today too. I'll be nice and even give you Fuhr and Hrudey... and cut it down to 14 players.

 

[Sens Rule]

They are MIDGET hockey players!!!!! They aren't even adults!!! And you think they would have a size and strength advantage vs freaking men? Jean freaking Beliveau was as big as pretty much a big player today!!! It was moronic. Defending it is furtherly moronic.

1987 was not a zillion freaking years ago!!! There is little real difference between now and then. Seriously a prime Mario and Gretzky... They win any 7 game series vs any 2011 NHL team 9 times out of 10.

I watched the 1987 Canada Cup... I watched 80's hockey and today's hockey. It is not that different. The level of play of the AVERAGE player is better... So freaking what? It is not magnitudes better. Lidstrom just one a Norris trophy at 40... He competed with Paul freaking Coffey For the Norris when he was a teammate.

Give your head a shake. Talking like 1987 is 1937?!?!?

you know this how?

aside from the fact that the best AAA midget team today would be larger and faster and play a more systematic game I have no idea how you can say hands down that the 58 Habs would wins hands down. And by a dramatic margin as well then to anyone who might quibble you want to call them moronic?

Even the most nostaglic guy would have to admit that the game has evolved a bit in the 53 years since that 58 team.

the 87 Team Canada, which comprised the best players in the NHL and a present day AHL team comp was ill advised though IMO.

The 87 Devils and 11 Binghamton Senators would be arguable though. the 24 year spread is quite a bit. The devils would be giving up a ton of size, not sure their defense would be able to hold up in a 7 game series.

Maybe you should go watch some games and then compare tapes of the 58 Habs, which there isn't a lot of I know and then come back and call people morons.

What's next a critique of how silly the main boards are?

Seriously, everyone has there opinion but how about backing it up a little bit and looking at any comps seriously and with an open mind.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Part of me thinks IV is just a troll when he posts things like "the OHL today > the 1987 Canada Cup team" and he's laughing his ass off at all the angry multi-paragraph responses.

But his posts themselves are so long and full of pseudo-facts that they really don't sound like troll posts. If he was just trolling for reactions, I don't know whether to be impressed by how serious he sounds in his posts or saddened by how much effort he seems to put into them.

 

[Sens Rule]

The CURRENT 1987 Canada Cup winning Canadian team would beat any OHL team... I mean NOW... As old timers... In their late 40's to mid 50's...

You are ridiculous!!!! And hilarious!!!! You realize the level of difference between the OHL and NHL right? It is HUGE!!!!

No it's not, I've watched the 87 Canada Cup over and over, and I'm telling you a good OHL team would beat them in a hockey game, never mind an AHL team. Like you say to others, find yourself and AHL game from this past few years, then go and watch any games from the late 80's, the 87 Canada Cup specifically if you have access to it.

Once again the point is not that these guys are more talented, but that the league has drastically changed in overall skill level and I know an AHL team would kill an NHL team from 1994, the New York rangers vs. any AHL team. Their skill level would simply be more of a factor than their natural talent in a head to head game due to gradual changes over time.

 

[Sens Rule]

How old are you? I'm 36 and you make me feel like a senior!!!! Oh how things have changed in 10-20 years!!!!

Note: human beings do not evolve at the pace of computer processors!!!!

I suggest watching some LIVE games... I saw bingo Sens at scotiabank place this year along with a bunch of NHL games.. And 67's games... There is no way that a junior team could compete with any NHL team ever!!! AHL hockey is fast strong players playing robotic systems...

You really have succeeded in manufacturing the worst argument in HFboards history... 1987 Canada cup team would lose to an OHL team of today!!!! It would be like 20-1.... Maybe more... The OHL team would get 10 shots on goal and Canada would get like 80 or something... It would be like Canada vs Japan in women's hockey... Two teams not even remotely close.

No it's not, I've watched the 87 Canada Cup over and over, and I'm telling you a good OHL team would beat them in a hockey game, never mind an AHL team. Like you say to others, find yourself and AHL game from this past few years, then go and watch any games from the late 80's, the 87 Canada Cup specifically if you have access to it.

Once again the point is not that these guys are more talented, but that the league has drastically changed in overall skill level and I know an AHL team would kill an NHL team from 1994, the New York rangers vs. any AHL team. Their skill level would simply be more of a factor than their natural talent in a head to head game due to gradual changes over time.

 

[Sens Rule]

Ironically the AHL sens best offensive player and the best one in the entire AHL... A former CHL player of the year... Is both to small and too slow to make the NHL... Corey Locke. Is that ironic? Or is it just me?

The 2011 Binghampton team wouldn't be intimidated by any 50-60's AHL., IHL team that you can bring forward. Have a close look at their lineup and size not to mention that their skating and systems would be far superior.

Nice try though.

I do agree with the banality beyond the top 400 guys or so but that's not a lack of talent but rather coaching philosophies of playing not to lose rather than scoring the most goals to win. There are lots of skilled players in minor roles and outside of the NHL in recent times.

 

[Epsilon]

Many sports aficionados regard the long jump as the single greatest measure of athletic ability. And yet the world record in that event was set in 1991, the previous record (and still second-best mark ever) was set in 1968, and the years of the top 10 jumps in history are

1991, 1968, 1991, 1987, 1988, 1994, 2009, 2008, 1995, 2007

If the sport of long jumping has not progressed over this time frame, why on earth should anyone be expected to believe a team of teenagers could beat the best players from twenty five years ago?

 

[plusandminus]

Many sports aficionados regard the long jump as the single greatest measure of athletic ability. And yet the world record in that event was set in 1991, the previous record (and still second-best mark ever) was set in 1968, and the years of the top 10 jumps in history are

1991, 1968, 1991, 1987, 1988, 1994, 2009, 2008, 1995, 2007

If the sport of long jumping has not progressed over this time frame, why on earth should anyone be expected to believe a team of teenagers could beat the best players from twenty five years ago?

But if you look at other sports, including most other track and field disciplines, you'll get completely other results. In many of the disciplines, new records are being set quite often. Also, doping should be considered, as many experts even think the records from the e.g. 1980s should be deleted due to the heavy doping during those years. Most disciplines progress (likely due to things like better training methods, equipment, food, and better circumstances in regard to better surface (to run on, skate on, etc), etc.)