edog37
Registered User
Did Mario ever win his team scoring title by 107pts?
Lemieux won his team's scoring titles by 89 & 84 points in '88 & '89. He was light years ahead of everyone else. Hell, he got Rob Brown 49 goals in '89...
Did Mario ever win his team scoring title by 107pts?
Lemieux won his team's scoring titles by 89 & 84 points in '88 & '89. He was light years ahead of everyone else. Hell, he got Rob Brown 49 goals in '89...
That argument is redundant and meaningless. It only states that the 80's Oilers were a incredibly well-built team, carried by many great players ans leaders. The Penguins needed a guy like Mario to put them over the top while the Oilers were a much more complete and well-balanced team.
You could see it that way. Lemieux turned a good team into a winning team. Gretzky turned a winning team into a dynasty.
Rob Brown, attitude aside, was a talented offensive player. Much more talent than Blair McDonald who Gretzky got 95pts in 1980. He was also much more talented offensively than Krushelninski who Gretzky got 45 goals in 87. Mario's coupe de grace in terms of getting something out of nothing would be Warren Young in 85, not Brown. With a better attitude, Brown should have been a star in the NHL.
PS. Gretzky won his team scoring titles by 107pts and 91 pts. and 70+ on a number of other occasions.
Lemieux carried his team to back-to-back Stanley Cup titles....Gretzky lost to an overachieving Montreal team....
he just wasn't the same player after he left Edmonton....
Right, but as it shown, the Oilers could have won (& did) after Gretzky left. They still had Messier. The Pens never won without Lemieux until Crosby came around...Gretzky was a great player (& yes, I saw him play), but no one dominated the game like Lemieux.
Do you really think the Oilers would have won all 4 Cups without Gretzky? MAYBE they win 1 or 2 of those. MAYBE.
they beat Philly twice, the Isles once & the Bruins. Yes, they definitely take 3 out of 4....
On the flip, do the Pens win back to back without Lemieux? They probably beat Minnesota, but Chicago probably takes us....
they beat Philly twice, the Isles once & the Bruins. Yes, they definitely take 3 out of 4....
On the flip, do the Pens win back to back without Lemieux? They probably beat Minnesota, but Chicago probably takes us....
Gretzky just wasn't the same player after he left Edmonton....
Right, but as it shown, the Oilers could have won (& did) after Gretzky left. They still had Messier. The Pens never won without Lemieux until Crosby came around...Gretzky was a great player (& yes, I saw him play), but no one dominated the game like Lemieux.
I would put him 20 -30 pts ahead of the big three we have now.I have no doubt if Gretzky was in his 20's right now, he'd be winning scoring titles. I don't think he'd be getting 200+ pts though. 130 to 160 pts would seem a reasonable estimate of what he could get. Keep in mind, an over the hill Gretzky, with a really bad back still got 90+ pts in the middle of the dead puck era at the age of 36 and 37 (at 37 he only finished 12pts out of first in the NHL against a peak Jagr).
Ridiculous goaltending equipment, and modern day defensive systems will prevent Gretzky like season from ever happening again unless the NHL does something extremely radical.
YA just a bit of talent to help along the way.Geez, guys like Recchi, Stevens, Murphy, Coffey, Francis, Jagr had absolutely nothing to do with the two cups. They were just standing around in awe of the Mario and let him do all the work
PS 86 Flames >>> 93 Isles
Those are some crazy numbers considering the players who were on the team over the years.PS. Gretzky won his team scoring titles by 107pts and 91 pts. and 70+ on a number of other occasions.
The remains of the Dynasty and a hot goalie won them the cup.Right, but as it shown, the Oilers could have won (& did) after Gretzky left. They still had Messier. The Pens never won without Lemieux until Crosby came around...Gretzky was a great player (& yes, I saw him play), but no one dominated the game like Lemieux.
The whole 'Edmonton won the Cup without Gretzky two years after he was traded" argument, with the not-so-subtle implication that they could've won all those Cups without him, is flawed.
Just to illustrate it:
Montreal won the Cup two years after Jean Beliveau retired.
Detroit won the Cup two years after Steve Yzerman retired.
San Francisco won the Super Bowl two years after Joe Montana left.
The Yankees won the World Series two years after Babe Ruth left.
In Bobby Orr's last full season with Boston, they lost in the first round. In the next four years, they made it to at least the semi-finals each time.
Were they all overrated?
they beat Philly twice, the Isles once & the Bruins. Yes, they definitely take 3 out of 4....
On the flip, do the Pens win back to back without Lemieux? They probably beat Minnesota, but Chicago probably takes us....
Thanks a lot for the props. I'd forgotten about this thread. It's true what you say that most people simply talk about Gretzky's statistics rather than what made it possible for him to have those statistics. You really had to watch Gretzky until around 1991 to appreciate him (maybe the playoffs of 1993 as well), as that's when he had the physical capacity to execute exactly what his mind was telling him to execute. But during those "prime" years, he would do things no one else would even think of doing. I remember watching him during the 1991 Canada Cup during a penalty kill against Sweden. He spent the first minute skating circles around center ice, back and forth between the opposing blue lines. No one could touch him. He'd skate into the offensive zone, and then back again past center, and back again to the offensive zone. The Swedish players were just watching him, befuddled almost, hoping he'd lose the puck. During another penalty kill, the puck was dumped into the Swedish zone, and Gretzky went in to forecheck, but actually got to the puck first. Without looking, he fed it out front, up the middle (which you're not supposed to do during a penalty kill), and it hit Larmer (I think it was), and he just rifled it in. 3 assists in one period for Gretzky. He could have had 8 assists that game. Later, he was behind the net for what must have been 45 seconds. Players going nuts in front, fans going nuts behind him, a country going nuts watching on TV, and no one could touch him! One man controlling the entire balance of a hockey game from his "office". Someone finally dislodged the net. But the excitement during those 45 seconds was intense. Even though a goal wasn't scored, I'd never seen anything like it in my life, nor will I probably ever see anything like it again.Bump on this thread.
I feel like Gretzky's accomplishments are understated and mostly based on statistics. There's a reason why they are what they are. I think OP captures this really well.
Dominating in 2012 is 115-130 points and that is what Gretzky would do.
Dominating in 2012 is 115-130 points and that is what Gretzky would do.
That's a reasonable assumption and probably doable, of course the most ardent Wayne fans will say 170 plus which seems very unlikely even in the best case scenario.