adam oates or pat laftontaine?

[canucks4ever]

Who was better?

Click to read more...

 

[FissionFire]

La La La La La La La La La Fon Taine

 

[Slapshooter]

Hmmm...Oates is a better playmaker and a faceoff-man, LaFontaine is a far better skater and a goal scorer. Pat LaFontaine was easily more exciting to watch, but he was also an injury prone. Oates might have an edge in the defensive play, but I'm not sure.

 

[GarretJoseph*]

wow really close...

adam oates made the players around him so much better.... lafontaine was imo a better skilled player but really didn't imo elevate the players around him... still though i'd give it to lafontaine by a nose.

 

[Big Phil]

Tough one, two different sets of skills. Call it a draw

 

[steevy]

I don't think it's fair to say Lafontaine didn't make players better.He certainly made Mogilny better!He had a rep as a one man guy with the Isles but it wasn't his fault.They gave him guy like Alan Kerr and Randy Wood for petes sake!As a Ranger fan I never understood why they always gave the better wingers to Brent Sutter(Mikko Makela,Pat Flatley,David Volek even Derek King)they seemed to deprive Lafontaine and he thrived anyway.I think the GM Bill Torrey really disliked him for some reason.Oates was a better distributing center but Lafontaine was the far better goal scorer,I would want either centering my top line...

 

[Up the Irons]

Lafontaine.

 

[yada]

Both very good players but I take oates since he stayed more healthy. I think its a close call but you can't produce if you're not on the ice.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It is pretty close but I give the nod to Oates. He was dominant for a longer time than was Lafontaine.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

It is pretty close but I give the nod to Oates. He was dominant for a longer time than was Lafontaine.

I don'think Oates was ever dominant, but his longevity was certainly impressive. Oates was very good for a long time, but Lafontaine easily had the better prime. This question depends on what you value most. Lafontaine was more likely to win you a cup while Oates was more likely to be a contributor to other elite players.

 

[Breakaway23*]

Wow two almost incredibly different, but great players.

Oates was probably the better overall player. Great Defensively, great on faceoffs, and more of the set-up kind of center.

LaFontaine was more of the speedster game-breaker.

LaFontaine and Mogilny did some wonderous things together because their footspeed was so close.

Who's better? Hmm, that's a tough one, both are great but I'll go with Lafontaine only because he's one of my all-time favorites.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don'think Oates was ever dominant, but his longevity was certainly impressive. Oates was very good for a long time, but Lafontaine easily had the better prime. This question depends on what you value most. Lafontaine was more likely to win you a cup while Oates was more likely to be a contributor to other elite players.

Oates finished top 3 in scoring 3 times and top 3 in assists 7 times. I also have him as the third greatest playmaker of all time. That is dominant.

Pat Lafontaine finished top 3 in scoring once and top 3 in assists once. Neither man was top 3 in goal scoring.

Oates had a better peak and was great for a longer time. I think preferring Lafontaine is more of a style choice.

 

[revolverjgw]

I'd take Oates, I'm biased towards playmakers. This guy made good players look elite and great players look unstoppable. Among forwards, arguably only Gretzky and Lemieux did more to enhance their teammates. And you could count on that every year.

 

[AM]

Oates by a mile.

 

[Made Dan]

Lafontaine but it was tough

 

[BruiseBros]

I'd take Lafontaine. Very biased, Patty is one of my all-time favorites.

 

[Bobo420]

People tend to forget Oates centered Brett Hull when both were in their prime. Lafontaine had Mogilny for one breakthrough year, otherwise he's never had the caliber of support Oates had.

Not taking anything away from Oates, he's a hall of famer in my eyes, but Lafontaine was better IMO.

 

[tony d]

Pat Lafontaine

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Oates finished top 3 in scoring 3 times and top 3 in assists 7 times. I also have him as the third greatest playmaker of all time. That is dominant.

Pat Lafontaine finished top 3 in scoring once and top 3 in assists once. Neither man was top 3 in goal scoring.

Oates had a better peak and was great for a longer time. I think preferring Lafontaine is more of a style choice.

Not really, Lafontaine was always missing large chunks of the season. In his only full season he scored 148 points. Lafontaine probably would have won the socring title in 1992 if he wasn't limited to just 57 games. I don't think Oates was ever really considered to be a dominating force. He put up some gaudy numbers for sure, and is one of the best playmakers of all time, but Lafontaine totally controlled the ice.