All-Time Team

[MXD]

You can take me however you want, they were great players yes. I just think there were better.

There were better right wingers than Howe and Richard??!?!?!?!?!

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

There were better right wingers than Howe and Richard??!?!?!?!?!

Chill with the Right Winger thing, Kharlamov was left wing, I realize that. I do however think that Bobby Hull was better than the Rocket, and I think Kharlamov edges Howe.
Think what you, but I've got my opinion.

 

[MXD]

Chill with the Right Winger thing, Kharlamov was left wing, I realize that. I do however think that Bobby Hull was better than the Rocket, and I think Kharlamov edges Howe.
Think what you, but I've got my opinion.

Well, Hull was better than the Rocket if you completely disregard playoffs (nothing against Hull in the playoffs, but the Rocket was just much better), and I see much more arguments for having Boris Mikhailov ahead of Valeri Kharlamov than for having Kharlamov ahead of Howe, so...

 

[Leafs Forever]

Chill with the Right Winger thing, Kharlamov was left wing, I realize that. I do however think that Bobby Hull was better than the Rocket, and I think Kharlamov edges Howe.
Think what you, but I've got my opinion.

And this is based off of..what exactly?

The only two players who should be argued over Howe are Gretzky and Orr. MAYBE Lemieux (and a big maybe- I wouldn't do it). That's it.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

Well, Hull was better than the Rocket if you completely disregard playoffs (nothing against Hull in the playoffs, but the Rocket was just much better), and I see much more arguments for having Boris Mikhailov ahead of Valeri Kharlamov than for having Kharlamov ahead of Howe, so...

I try to be open to people's opinions as much as I can, but thats truly ignorant. People think Mikhailov was great because they saw him in Miracle. In fact, Petrov and Maltsev are better than him. Anatoli Firsov as well, and probably Makarov and Larionov!
Kharlamov is regarded as the best Soviet of all time. (Insert argument for Tretiak) I still hold that Kharlamov was better.

 

[Rzeznik]

I try to be open to people's opinions as much as I can, but thats truly ignorant. People think Mikhailov was great because they saw him in Miracle. In fact, Petrov and Maltsev are better than him. Anatoli Firsov as well, and probably Makarov and Larionov!
Kharlamov is regarded as the best Soviet of all time. (Insert argument for Tretiak) I still hold that Kharlamov was better.

Stats, please. Why do you think Kharlamov was better than these players? Why is he the best Soviet ever? It's easy to make a bold statement such as Kharlamov is better than Howe, which is IMO absolutely ludicrous, but if you aren't going to back it up with facts and figures, then your already weak statement is going to look much weaker.

I like this one a lot.

Although I think Ted Lindsay is way overrated and I'd like to find a way to get Mike Bossy in there.

Thanks. While I do believe Lindsay a little bit more credit than he is due around here sometimes, I just can't justify putting him any lower than the 2nd best left winger of all-time. As for Boss, I usually flip-flop between him and Jagr for the 4th best RW, depending on my mood I suppose. Decided to go career over peak for this one, but you can't go wrong with either one.

 

[Boxscore]

Any, Any, Any all-time which doesn't include Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe at 1st and 2nd RW spot (any order, and it might depend with whom they're playing) fails miserably.

Especially if the concept is star power - in such a case, Richard should be, at worst, the 2nd pick, with only Gretzky having a claim at being ahead of him.

Based on star power, absolutely. If I were making a team where the biggest stars where main criteria, Maurice would be the top RW.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

Stats, please. Why do you think Kharlamov was better than these players? Why is he the best Soviet ever? It's easy to make a bold statement such as Kharlamov is better than Howe, which is IMO absolutely ludicrous, but if you aren't going to back it up with facts and figures, then your already weak statement is going to look much weaker.

I said Kharlamov was a better player.
There is no question, Howe's stats defeat Kharlamov's by a longshot, but Kharlamov died when he was 33 and rounding out his prime years. Howe played into his 50's..
I am a historical hockey buff. I watch old games a lot It may sound like a cop-out, but watch the man play. His skill, speed, quickness, quick release, hands, and decision making is so far ahead everyone else it's unbelievable.
Gordie Howe played in 6 team league with no European influence and as a guess, probably somewhere around 80% Canadian. Kharlamov played in the 70's right around the time the NHL manned up and decided to play the Soviets. He dazzled NHL analysts and players, if it weren't for his unfortunate place of birth, I honestly believe he would be regarded in the same as Hull, Howe, and Richard in terms of wingers.

 

[Rzeznik]

I said Kharlamov was a better player.
There is no question, Howe's stats defeat Kharlamov's by a longshot, but Kharlamov died when he was 33 and rounding out his prime years. Howe played into his 50's..
I am a historical hockey buff. I watch old games a lot It may sound like a cop-out, but watch the man play. His skill, speed, quickness, quick release, hands, and decision making is so far ahead everyone else it's unbelievable.
Gordie Howe played in 6 team league with no European influence and as a guess, probably somewhere around 80% Canadian. Kharlamov played in the 70's right around the time the NHL manned up and decided to play the Soviets. He dazzled NHL analysts and players, if it weren't for his unfortunate place of birth, I honestly believe he would be regarded in the same as Hull, Howe, and Richard in terms of wingers.

As both Leafs forever and I stated in the top-100 thread, the 6 team argument is a very, very weak one that has been put to rest. There are no other players, European or otherwise, that would've taken Howes awards and accolades, so please stop using that as an excuse. Howe played the best players, a lot more consistantly in fact, than Kharlamov.

You're also treating everyone here like they aren't also "historical hockey buffs" who watch "old games a lot". Many of us have seen Kharlamov play and know what he was capable of with the puck. The man was a wizard, don't get me wrong and I believe could have been very successful in the NHL. However, maybe you should watch Howe play, since you're such a hockey buff. Trust me when I say that he was just as far ahead of everyone else as Kharlamov was, to an even greater extent in fact. He also had stiffer competition, as I've pointed out a few times now.

You really don't have a leg to stand on here. Fact of the matter is, no, Kharlamov was not a better play than Howe. It's not even close.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I said Kharlamov was a better player.
There is no question, Howe's stats defeat Kharlamov's by a longshot, but Kharlamov died when he was 33 and rounding out his prime years. Howe played into his 50's..
I am a historical hockey buff. I watch old games a lot It may sound like a cop-out, but watch the man play. His skill, speed, quickness, quick release, hands, and decision making is so far ahead everyone else it's unbelievable.
Gordie Howe played in 6 team league with no European influence and as a guess, probably somewhere around 80% Canadian. Kharlamov played in the 70's right around the time the NHL manned up and decided to play the Soviets. He dazzled NHL analysts and players, if it weren't for his unfortunate place of birth, I honestly believe he would be regarded in the same as Hull, Howe, and Richard in terms of wingers.

So wait..playing longer and accomplishing more is a bad thing now?

Yes, Khlaramov had a short career, but we aren't going to give him extra value for things he didn't actually do.

And Howe's skill, all-around dominance, and longevity was so ahead of everyone else it's unbelivavable.

The 6 team league would have minimal effect. All the best NA players were in the league at the time. There were only a handful of Europeans in the 60s that could even had a chance at getting top-10 scoring spots in the NHL at the time.

And Gordie Howe's skills and longevity dazzled everbody too. There's a reason he's Gretzky's hero.

Perhaps he would be if he was born in Canada- but fact is, he wasn't, and we are not going to speculate to try and give him more value as if he was.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

You know what, sometimes you lose an argument. I gave it what I could boys, job well done.

 

[Boxscore]

I said Kharlamov was a better player.
There is no question, Howe's stats defeat Kharlamov's by a longshot, but Kharlamov died when he was 33 and rounding out his prime years. Howe played into his 50's..
I am a historical hockey buff. I watch old games a lot It may sound like a cop-out, but watch the man play. His skill, speed, quickness, quick release, hands, and decision making is so far ahead everyone else it's unbelievable.
Gordie Howe played in 6 team league with no European influence and as a guess, probably somewhere around 80% Canadian. Kharlamov played in the 70's right around the time the NHL manned up and decided to play the Soviets. He dazzled NHL analysts and players, if it weren't for his unfortunate place of birth, I honestly believe he would be regarded in the same as Hull, Howe, and Richard in terms of wingers.

You make a good point. But it is always difficult when comparing an International player like Kharlamov with an all-time NHL great like Howe. It all comes down to personal preference, despite what we all say. Other than Orr and Gretzky, there is an argument or case to be made for why any player is/or is not on an all-time team.

I will say this, Kharlamov is most comparable to Maurice Richard because of the iconic status they had. They both were symbols of greatness for a complete culture. They both had to fight adversity and were more to their people than just hockey players. They both also played the game with great speed. They both had great passion.

The difference between the two is mental makeup, IMO. Richard was one of the most courageous players of all-time, and he had a toughness that Kharlamov didn't have. Clarke would never have broke Richard's ankle with a slash... and even if he attempted to, Maurice, with his fractured foot and all, would have two-handed Clarke across the face with his stick. The Rocket was a warrior.

That said, Kharlamov had a wonderful panache about him, like Orr or Lafleur perhaps. He was explosive but elegant... like Gilbert Perreault but stronger and more powerful. I agree with you, Kharlamov was absolutely amazing. A debate could be made either way.

I don't think it's fair to penalize anyone for playing in the environment they were chose to play in. Kharlamov was a player under the Soviet program, and at the time had no choice. He should not be penalized because he did not have a chance to play in the NHL.

 

[Rzeznik]

You know what, sometimes you lose an argument. I gave it what I could boys, job well done.

You should really try and read some old threads and arguments on the History board and try to learn, because just from reading some of the very intelligent posters on this board, as well as participating in the All-time draft, I have gained more knowledge than I could've imagined. You'll learn the way things work around here in no time.

 

[Leafs Forever]

You make a good point. But it is always difficult when comparing an International player like Kharlamov with an all-time NHL great like Howe. It all comes down to personal preference, despite what we all say. Other than Orr and Gretzky, there is an argument or case to be made for what any player is/or is not on an all-time team.

I will say this, Kharlamov is most comparable to Maurice Richard because of the iconic status they had. They both were symbols of greatness for a complete culture. They both had to fight adversity and were more to their people than just hockey players. They both also played the game with great speed. They both had great passion.

The difference between the two is mental makeup, IMO. Richard was one of the most courageous players of all-time, and he had a toughness that Kharlamov didn't have. Clarke would never have broke Richard's ankle with a slash... and even if he attempted to, Maurice, with his fractured foot and all, would have two-handed Clarke across the face with his stick. The Rocket was a warrior.

That said, Kharlamov had a wonderful panache about him, like Orr or Lafleur perhaps. He was explosive but elegant... like Gilbert Perreault but stronger and more powerful. I agree with you, Kharlamov was absolutely amazing. A debate could be made either way.

I don't think it's fair to penalize anyone for playing in the environment they were chose to play in. Kharlamov was a player under the Soviet program, and at the time had no choice. He should not be penalized because he did not have a chance to play in the NHL.

Howe is in Orr and Gretzky's class, without a doubt. One shouldn't bat an eyelash if he is ranked on anyone's all-time list ahead. His length of dominance is amazing. The only player who should be on first line RW on an all-time team is Gordie Howe. 21 NHL post-season NHL AST's at RW, and he did go against Maurice Richard for many years, is insane in any era. 6 harts (3 more than Orr), 6 art rosses

I agree with the Richard comparison- but one thing you forget to mention, very important point- folk-hero status. Both were tremendous heroes of their people, but it may somewhat cause them to become overrated by their people.

I'm not sure what debate you're referring to at the end, but there is no debate between Khlarmov and Gordie Howe. It isn't close.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3577150

For those of you who haven't seen it....
It makes me giggle

 

[Boxscore]

Howe is in Orr and Gretzky's class, without a doubt. One shouldn't bat an eyelash if he is ranked on anyone's all-time list ahead. His length of dominance is amazing. The only player who should be on first line RW on an all-time team is Gordie Howe. 21 NHL post-season NHL AST's at RW, and he did go against Maurice Richard for many years, is insane in any era. 6 harts (3 more than Orr), 6 art rosses

I agree with the Richard comparison- but one thing you forget to mention, very important point- folk-hero status. Both were tremendous heroes of their people, but it may somewhat cause them to become overrated by their people.

I'm not sure what debate you're referring to at the end, but there is no debate between Khlarmov and Gordie Howe. It isn't close.

Leafs, well, I guess I will say that I am torn on Howe. If you notice, I did select him for my all-time team over the likes of Richard, Kharlamov, Jagr, Lafleur, etc.

But I can see why some could be chosen over Howe when making an all-time team, depending on the criteria. If we are looking to make a team based on accomplishment, stats and career success, then Howe is tops on any list. He accomplished an insane amount throughout his career, because he was super talented and extremely durable. But, his longevity certainly played a part in his ultimate success. That should never be held against him, but it does raise some questions, like "What if Mario Lemieux were as durable as Howe and played as many games?"

If someone is creating an all-time team, based around a fictitious scenario that a 7-game series were to be played tomorrow with these players (which is what I did as an example), I could see how some would regard certain players over Howe, considering their "peak" for a given year or couple of years. Or perhaps raw skill.

Howe was super skilled - a very good skater, awesome shot, good passer, etc. but what made him better than many was his size and physical dominance. If someone is looking to fill a line with a finesse player with elite playmaking skills or skating ability, a good argument could be made for Kharlamov or Ovechkin, based on that criteria. Especially if looking at a peak sample.

I mean, if you were to evaluate Howe by taking his best one year ever, not his career body of work. Evaluate Howe for a single season, pick any one season - say 1952-53, where Gordie set a career high in goals with 49 in 70 games. Looking at his talent set and production for that year alone, is it fair to say that Mario Lemieux of 1988-89 or 1992-93 was a better player? I guess that is debatable, but if we are comparing these players "at their best", Mario was bigger than Gordie, blew his stats out of the water, and had better raw skill than Howe. Mr. Hockey had the edge in checking, board battles and physical play. Depends on what type of player you like, no?

I mean, could one even make a case for Alexander Ovechkin being more dominant of a player (based on his play this season vs. Gordie Howe of just 1952-53?) Not sure. But if a 7 game tournament were to begin tomorrow, what players accomplished over a 25+ season career means very little, compared to what they were capable of when they were at their very best, even if for a year. I guess that is my point.

All of that said, Gordie made my 2nd line.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Chill with the Right Winger thing, Kharlamov was left wing, I realize that. I do however think that Bobby Hull was better than the Rocket, and I think Kharlamov edges Howe.
Think what you, but I've got my opinion.

I am among the biggest Kharlamov supporters on this website. I loved watching him play and think he was the greatest Russian to lace them up thus far(Although Ovechkin is on pace to take that title). But Kharlamov is on the Lafleur/Bossy/Trottier/Clarke level, not the Howe/Hull level.

Gordie Howe is almost universally hailed above the tier 2 Hull/Richard/Beliveau/Shore/Harvey/Bourque/Morenz group of players, instead grouped as one of the big 4 of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux and Kharlamov is not even in that tier 2 class.

Gordie Howe's prime years were on the Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level, while his longevity was unheard of.

If you rate Kharlamov that high, can I ask how high you rate Tretiak? Fetisov? Firsov? Makarov? Mikhailov?

While I do rank Kharlamov #1 among Soviets, you will find strong arguments against him even being their #1 player.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

I am among the biggest Kharlamov supporters on this website. I loved watching him play and think he was the greatest Russian to lace them up thus far(Although Ovechkin is on pace to take that title). But Kharlamov is on the Lafleur/Bossy/Trottier/Clarke level, not the Howe/Hull level.

Gordie Howe is almost universally hailed above the tier 2 Hull/Richard/Beliveau/Shore/Harvey/Bourque/Morenz group of players, instead grouped as one of the big 4 of Gretzky/Orr/Howe/Lemieux and Kharlamov is not even in that tier 2 class.

Gordie Howe's prime years were on the Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr level, while his longevity was unheard of.

If you rate Kharlamov that high, can I ask how high you rate Tretiak? Fetisov? Firsov? Makarov? Mikhailov?

While I do rank Kharlamov #1 among Soviets, you will find strong arguments against him even being their #1 player.

I've said it before, I don't want to get myself into trouble with Tretiak, because I believe he is the greatest goalie of all time as well as the greatest Soviet.
My argument was not that Kharlamov was in the 1st tier. My argument was that Howe was in the 2nd as I believe Kharlamov is.
In addition, only an argument for Fetisov and Firsov can be made. Mikhailov and Makarov were good but not great,

 

[Dark Shadows]

I've said it before, I don't want to get myself into trouble with Tretiak, because I believe he is the greatest goalie of all time as well as the greatest Soviet.
My argument was not that Kharlamov was in the 1st tier. My argument was that Howe was in the 2nd as I believe Kharlamov is.
In addition, only an argument for Fetisov and Firsov can be made. Mikhailov and Makarov were good but not great,

Well, we can agree to disagree then

Welcome to the forum BTW.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

Well, we can agree to disagree then

Welcome to the forum BTW.

Thank you : )

 

[Leafs Forever]

Leafs, well, I guess I will say that I am torn on Howe. If you notice, I did select him for my all-time team over the likes of Richard, Kharlamov, Jagr, Lafleur, etc.

That's good.

But I can see why some could be chosen over Howe when making an all-time team, depending on the criteria. If we are looking to make a team based on accomplishment, stats and career success, then Howe is tops on any list. He accomplished an insane amount throughout his career, because he was super talented and extremely durable. But, his longevity certainly played a part in his ultimate success. That should never be held against him, but it does raise some questions, like "What if Mario Lemieux were as durable as Howe and played as many games?"

I don't value players on "What-ifs". What if Eric Lindros had learned to keep his head up? What if Alexander Daigle lived up to his hype? What if I decided to play hockey and pour my life into it- what if I am actually really good at hockey, can I get put on an all-time team? You can see why "What-ifs" are not something to evaluate or rank players in an all-time sense.

Besides this, Howe's peak gets buried in his longevity, when in reality it was very good- as good if not better than Lemieux's. Here's a link to HO's post comparing their peak years:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=8191211&postcount=52

If someone is creating an all-time team, based around a fictitious scenario that a 7-game series were to be played tomorrow with these players (which is what I did as an example), I could see how some would regard certain players over Howe, considering their "peak" for a given year or couple of years. Or perhaps raw skill.

If you value Lemieux's peak over these supposed players, which you and most probably do, same should go for Howe. Howe had tremendous raw skill too- people just have the guys you are referring to more fresh in their minds.

Howe was super skilled - a very good skater, awesome shot, good passer, etc. but what made him better than many was his size and physical dominance. If someone is looking to fill a line with a finesse player with elite playmaking skills or skating ability, a good argument could be made for Kharlamov or Ovechkin, based on that criteria. Especially if looking at a peak sample.

Howe was a better playmaker than either Khlarmov or Ovechkin- it's not really close in that regards in my mind. As far as finesse goes, I'm going to come right out and say- why? Look at it this way- the best C and LW of all-time, to most, are Gretzky and Hull, and thus they should be top liners. It makes sense too; Gretzky best playmaker ever, Hull propbably best goalscorer ever. Who goes on RW? Well, ideally, someone who brings someone neither of them bring- fantastic intangibles and physical ability. Insert Gordie Howe. On an all-time team, I do not see what line is better than Hull-Gretzky-Howe.

I mean, if you were to evaluate Howe by taking his best one year ever, not his career body of work. Evaluate Howe for a single season, pick any one season - say 1952-53, where Gordie set a career high in goals with 49 in 70 games. Looking at his talent set and production for that year alone, is it fair to say that Mario Lemieux of 1988-89 or 1992-93 was a better player? I guess that is debatable, but if we are comparing these players "at their best", Mario was bigger than Gordie, blew his stats out of the water, and had better raw skill than Howe. Mr. Hockey had the edge in checking, board battles and physical play. Depends on what type of player you like, no?

"Bigger"? Keep in mind that size has slowly increased over the years, and despite his size, there is little doubt who was the tougher, more physical, and more power-forward type guy- and that was Gordie.

"Blew his stats out of the water"? Do you mean raw totals? That's just era. Gordie Howe played in much lower scoring times than Lemieux.

"Better raw skill than Howe"? I haven't really watched either, but based on their peak results, it seems somewhat debatable there- particularly when you factor in intangibles.

But besides this, your comparison to Lemieux is kind of misleading. Lemieux is really a good gap ahead of any forward not named Gretzky and Howe, and as such, does not really speak for the rest of the forwards people seem to want to rank ahead of Howe, who don't come nearly as close.

I mean, could one even make a case for Alexander Ovechkin being more dominant of a player (based on his play this season vs. Gordie Howe of just 1952-53?) Not sure. But if a 7 game tournament were to begin tomorrow, what players accomplished over a 25+ season career means very little, compared to what they were capable of when they were at their very best, even if for a year. I guess that is my point.

No, I don't think he is, factoring defensive play, more time missed, and looking at Howe's better peak. As for your hypothetrical scenario, it highly depends on how we evaluate players in the tournament. But fact is, Howe's peak DOES rank amongst the very best, all things considered- he just has the amazing longevity to go with it that so many other players do not.

All of that said, Gordie made my 2nd line.

He should be on your first. He and Kurri aren't even close, and the chemistry thing doesn't make the advantage up- plus the line lacks physicality. And Howe and Gretzky did, if I recall correctly, play together in a WHA all-star game once, and were quite succesful, for what it's worth.

 

[KingJoyal]

Poor Gordie Howe. Because he played so long ago, and so little of his heyday is on film, there is a tendency to shrug him off as just a guy who put up big numbers because he played so long. There's also the fact that the numbers he put up, in the original six era, look pitiful in comparison to some of the numbers seen after the arrival of the expansion teams and the WHA. A guy who never once scored 50 goals in a season, and only once hit the 100 point mark, is not going to impress hockey fans in 2010.

What hockey fans in 2010 should know about Gordie Howe is the fact that in his prime he was the best player in the NHL. Maurice Richard admitted as much. He won the Art Ross trophy four years straight, five times in eight seasons, and six times altogether. He led the league in goals five times, and in assists three times. He was the top point producer in the playoffs six times.

Howe's career numbers are the result of performing at an all-star level for so long. He finished in the top ten in points for 20 straight seasons. That fact is simply incredible.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

That's good.



I don't value players on "What-ifs". What if Eric Lindros had learned to keep his head up? What if Alexander Daigle lived up to his hype? What if I decided to play hockey and pour my life into it- what if I am actually really good at hockey, can I get put on an all-time team? You can see why "What-ifs" are not something to evaluate or rank players in an all-time sense.

Besides this, Howe's peak gets buried in his longevity, when in reality it was very good- as good if not better than Lemieux's. Here's a link to HO's post comparing their peak years:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=8191211&postcount=52



If you value Lemieux's peak over these supposed players, which you and most probably do, same should go for Howe. Howe had tremendous raw skill too- people just have the guys you are referring to more fresh in their minds.



Howe was a better playmaker than either Khlarmov or Ovechkin- it's not really close in that regards in my mind. As far as finesse goes, I'm going to come right out and say- why? Look at it this way- the best C and LW of all-time, to most, are Gretzky and Hull, and thus they should be top liners. It makes sense too; Gretzky best playmaker ever, Hull propbably best goalscorer ever. Who goes on RW? Well, ideally, someone who brings someone neither of them bring- fantastic intangibles and physical ability. Insert Gordie Howe. On an all-time team, I do not see what line is better than Hull-Gretzky-Howe.



"Bigger"? Keep in mind that size has slowly increased over the years, and despite his size, there is little doubt who was the tougher, more physical, and more power-forward type guy- and that was Gordie.

"Blew his stats out of the water"? Do you mean raw totals? That's just era. Gordie Howe played in much lower scoring times than Lemieux.

"Better raw skill than Howe"? I haven't really watched either, but based on their peak results, it seems somewhat debatable there- particularly when you factor in intangibles.

But besides this, your comparison to Lemieux is kind of misleading. Lemieux is really a good gap ahead of any forward not named Gretzky and Howe, and as such, does not really speak for the rest of the forwards people seem to want to rank ahead of Howe, who don't come nearly as close.



No, I don't think he is, factoring defensive play, more time missed, and looking at Howe's better peak. As for your hypothetrical scenario, it highly depends on how we evaluate players in the tournament. But fact is, Howe's peak DOES rank amongst the very best, all things considered- he just has the amazing longevity to go with it that so many other players do not.



He should be on your first. He and Kurri aren't even close, and the chemistry thing doesn't make the advantage up- plus the line lacks physicality. And Howe and Gretzky did, if I recall correctly, play together in a WHA all-star game once, and were quite succesful, for what it's worth.

LeafsForever, do you think we could see your team?
(Like legit question, I actually wanna see it.)

 

[VanIslander]

Check out the All-Time Draft: http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=181

It's not just 1950s and later hockey.

 

[MXD]

I try to be open to people's opinions as much as I can, but thats truly ignorant. People think Mikhailov was great because they saw him in Miracle. In fact, Petrov and Maltsev are better than him. Anatoli Firsov as well, and probably Makarov and Larionov!
Kharlamov is regarded as the best Soviet of all time. (Insert argument for Tretiak) I still hold that Kharlamov was better.

Use other arguments, I haven't even watched the movie.