Am I wrong about Messier?

[Randall Graves*]

In the Crosby/Malkin hype thread I said this

Even if Malkin or Crosby reach his totals...Messier had things that neither have, he was a physically dominant and intimidating pressence

the next guy basically said Malkin could meet or exceed Messiers intimidation and physical dominance factor.

Am I overrating Messier? I think he was the prototype PF in his prime and if you were building a modern day PF he would have many of Messier's attributes..

Click to read more...

 

[Birko19]

Messier back then is more like Joe Thornton today, has a physical edge but uses his skill more then he uses his physical side...

Thornton for example can play a power forward game, but he's not your typical power forward because he's more of a playmaker, this was probably the same with Messier...

As far as Malkin goes, I think he'll end up similar to a player like Mats Sundin, I don't see him being physical.

 

[espo*]

You're not wrong.Why on earth would any person think Malkin would meet or exceed Messiers physical and intimidating qualities.

The guy is a big,skilled player but he's no Gordie Howe out there and never will be.

Somehow this kid has taken on living legend status without playing a single game.Some posters are giving him the ability to be better in every skill aspect then anyone who has ever played the game and that's crazy,he isn't that good.

I know he's going to really good but when you see people going overboard attributing elite status about every part of the game to him you know it's getting out of hand. Even if he ends up being the best player in the game you can forget about him being the physical and intimidating presence(as far as taking the body and playing mean is concerned) Messier was in his prime,that's not his game.

 

[The Pucks]

Messier then like Thornton today? My god the fans in Edmonton should be rioting. That is a horrid comparison based maybe on stats, but not on playing style.

Messier was an intimidator, he would do anything to win, and usually did ..... both!. Messier was a big physical presence, strong like a bull and fast, but the thing that made him such a leader was his desire. The bigger the game, the more rabid he became. Very few fought the Moose in his prime. The thing with Messier was his style, unpredictable. One minute he threw a huge hit, the next he broke somebodys nose with his elbow in a scrum, the next he would blow a huge goober in a goalies eyes (ask Mr Roy about that).

Messier was as unique as Gretzky in a very different way.

 

[arrbez]

If Messier had retired in 1995 (after a good, long, 15 year career), he'd probably be a lot higher on the all-time lists. He spent almost a decade wittling away at his legacy.

I also have problems thinking of him in a good light, when my most recent memories are the Vancouver debacle, and hanging on way too long with the Rangers and stunting the team's growth.

 

[God Bless Canada]

If Messier had retired in 1995 (after a good, long, 15 year career), he'd probably be a lot higher on the all-time lists. He spent almost a decade wittling away at his legacy.

I also have problems thinking of him in a good light, when my most recent memories are the Vancouver debacle, and hanging on way too long with the Rangers and stunting the team's growth.

Actually, Messier finished second in Hart voting for the 1995-96 season. Many believed he played better than in his Hart winning seasons in 1990 and 1992. He was dominant. If not for injuries, he would have become one of the oldest players to reach 100 points.

As for the topic at hand: I loathe Mark Messier. But there's no question in my mind that he's the best combination of goal scoring and physical play in the last 30 years. He wasn't overly big (only 6'1", 205 according to his hockeydb.com profile), but he was incredibly strong. Not only was he a physical force, but he was incredibly strong on his skates. He had the speed to skate around opponents, he had the strength and the balance to skate over them, too. Messier's likely one of the best all-round skaters who ever lived.

I think very highly of Malkin. Until he signed, he was the best player outside of the NHL. But people are getting carried away. He is not a Messier-type. He doesn't have Messier's strength on his skates, leadership or physical mentality. (I do have some concerns with the way Marc Staal and Ryan Parent neutralized Malkin in the final of the WJC).

 

[mooseOAK*]

I still remember from years ago Wendel Clark lining Messier up for an open ice hit and ending up as road kill.

 

[arrbez]

I think very highly of Malkin. Until he signed, he was the best player outside of the NHL. But people are getting carried away. He is not a Messier-type. He doesn't have Messier's strength on his skates, leadership or physical mentality. (I do have some concerns with the way Marc Staal and Ryan Parent neutralized Malkin in the final of the WJC).

I think Ovechkin was similarly shut-down the year before, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that. However, he really doesn't strike me as a Messier type at all either.

 

[Big Phil]

If Malkin is anywhere near Messier as an allt iem great he shoudl be thankful. Messier is right there with Lafleur on the all time list. Most lists would have Messier 10-15 all time and they arent wrong. It bothered me too that Malkin was shut down and invisible in the final of the '06 WJC. Its true Ovechkin was in '05 as well but I dont remember Ovechkin making a comment that beating Canada is going to be "easy."

That said, Malkin is not as good as Crosby or Ovechkin and I dont think he will be. That doesnt mean he's not great, but before we put him with all time greats lets see him play first. Corsby and Ovechkin you cna already see how thier careers are going to likely go, so Malkin's next.

Keep in mind that a guy like Brule might surprisingly take the hardware away from Malkin at the end of the year when the Calder is announced.

 

[jamiebez]

Messier then like Thornton today? My god the fans in Edmonton should be rioting. That is a horrid comparison based maybe on stats, but not on playing style.

Messier was an intimidator, he would do anything to win, and usually did ..... both!. Messier was a big physical presence, strong like a bull and fast, but the thing that made him such a leader was his desire. The bigger the game, the more rabid he became. Very few fought the Moose in his prime. The thing with Messier was his style, unpredictable. One minute he threw a huge hit, the next he broke somebodys nose with his elbow in a scrum, the next he would blow a huge goober in a goalies eyes (ask Mr Roy about that).

Messier was as unique as Gretzky in a very different way.

I thought the exact same thing. Messier was a guy who would kill you to win. Absolutely fierce out there. There was many a team in the Campbell Conference in the 80s that was destroyed by the Messier/Anderson combo in the playoffs.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think Ovechkin was similarly shut-down the year before, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that. However, he really doesn't strike me as a Messier type at all either.

Here's the one difference: Ovechkin was playing against Dion Phaneuf, a veteran defenceman in his second WJC who was a few months older than Ovechkin. Phaneuf went on to have the best goal-scoring season by a rookie defenceman in two decades. I'll admit that I did have concerns about Ovechkin after that game, but he quickly erased in his first NHL game.

Malkin was shut down by two defencemen who were younger than him and in their first WJC. That shouldn't be. It was the first time Malkin had been challenged all tournament, and he wilted. Staal and Parent ate him alive. I'm still fully confident in Malkin's ability to be a franchise player in the NHL, but he looked lost in that gold medal game.

But yeah, Malkin isn't Messier. Not even close. Pop in a video of Messier circa 1984 with the Oilers. You'll see one of the most physically dominant players ever.

 

[Form and Substance]

Malkin is more like Beliveau I guess if you go by hearsay, graceful, and will eventually display a mean streak somewhere midway through his career.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

Here's the one difference: Ovechkin was playing against Dion Phaneuf, a veteran defenceman in his second WJC who was a few months older than Ovechkin. Phaneuf went on to have the best goal-scoring season by a rookie defenceman in two decades. I'll admit that I did have concerns about Ovechkin after that game, but he quickly erased in his first NHL game.

Malkin was shut down by two defencemen who were younger than him and in their first WJC. That shouldn't be. It was the first time Malkin had been challenged all tournament, and he wilted. Staal and Parent ate him alive. I'm still fully confident in Malkin's ability to be a franchise player in the NHL, but he looked lost in that gold medal game.

But yeah, Malkin isn't Messier. Not even close. Pop in a video of Messier circa 1984 with the Oilers. You'll see one of the most physically dominant players ever.

Perhaps you should give more credit to Staal and Parent. Two future NHL Dman who are really good in their own end. And it wasn't just those two. Canada was coached so well, they played as good as you can as a team, and were a machine defensively. Maybe Downie deserves the credit, but it was the whole team. Malkin getting shut down in one game is no big deal just as it wasn't for AO. One player can't beat one team.

 

[Trottier]

In the Crosby/Malkin hype thread I said this



the next guy basically said Malkin could meet or exceed Messiers intimidation and physical dominance factor.

Am I overrating Messier? I think he was the prototype PF in his prime and if you were building a modern day PF he would have many of Messier's attributes..

Rally, I read posts like the one you quoted here and simply shake my head.

The internet is a wonderful communications tool on a lot of levels. On the flipside, it allows people to share opinions on topics about which they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING without having to face the absurdity of their comments. Such is the case here.

I'd bet my life this latest genius wasn't even part of the universe at the time Messier was toiling for Edmonton.

No need to waste your time with this one. People get pissed off when I write it because it's true: you have an awful lot of "Born Yesterday, Everyday" types on HF. They know of nothing that happened before last week...and care not to learn about it. Yet they will pass judgement on it! And the result is that they inevitably diminish the careers and achievements of proven greats along the way...while prematurely (by decades) granting greatness and unearned comparisons upon unproven teenagers...in this case one yet to skate a shift in the NHL.

This was a great board not too long ago.

 

[shawnmullin]

If Messier had retired in 1995 (after a good, long, 15 year career), he'd probably be a lot higher on the all-time lists. He spent almost a decade wittling away at his legacy.

I also have problems thinking of him in a good light, when my most recent memories are the Vancouver debacle, and hanging on way too long with the Rangers and stunting the team's growth.

I don't buy that at all. Look, he wasn't on good teams from 96 or so on, but the man played at a high level until his mid-40s and made the Gordie Howe comparisons all the more valid.

 

[#66]

I'll pretty much say what I said in the Crosby/ Yzerman comparison thread. When players that haven't even played a game in the NHL get compared to all time greats it should be by style only. I see people placing Malkin and Crosby in the top 10 on all time lists already.

I've been watching Malkin for a while now and I'm really excited that he'll be a Penguin but give me a break. Posts like that are what made Crosby hated.

 

[chooch*]

Messier is right there with Lafleur on the all time list. Most lists would have Messier 10-15 all time and they arent wrong.

Easy on the Lafleur comparison, buddy. I dont recall Messier being the best player in the world for 6-7 years. I saw them all play and Messier isnt really on my Top 20 since 1971 list. Lafleur is #5. Messier was more reputation and willpower than absolute skill or domination on the ice. His 94 playoffs (and 84) were awesome but there was some magic missing. He was by no means a superstar. I see you bought into the hype (like the Canucks - 3 y 18 million? .

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

Messier is a fine man. When male pattern baldness started to rear its head, he gracefully went shaved with dignity. No need for the moose to sucker millions into rubbing phony hair tonics on their heads to keep himself in smoke money. THe Moose could sell potato chips with his glare. He is obviously too much of a man to be believable as a pitiful middle aged impotence sufferer, so lucky for him he played for teams that paid enough dough that he wouldn't have to sell his equipment and trophies on e-bay to get a sandwich and bottle of high test.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Messier back then is more like Joe Thornton today, has a physical edge but uses his skill more then he uses his physical side...

Thornton for example can play a power forward game, but he's not your typical power forward because he's more of a playmaker, this was probably the same with Messier...

As far as Malkin goes, I think he'll end up similar to a player like Mats Sundin, I don't see him being physical.

When I think of Messier I think of a guy who was a big game player, Thornton doesn't really pop into my mind that way. Messier in his Oiler days was an all around beast everytime I see one of those 'old school' Oilers games I am amazed at how good he really was. And yeah like Arbezz said his legacy is probably tainted a bit by some because of the last 7 or so years of his career but I think it's great that he loved to play.

Anyways I just wanted opinions from those that watched Mess on a regular basis, I am sure Malkin will be good, just not a guy that will score a hattrick and then punch you in the face after doing it.

 

[1996WC]

Thorton = Messier?

Find a tape (DVD?) of game 4 of the Oilers-Hawks '90 SF and see how one man can will a team to a victory.

Thorton is the softest "Big man" in the leauge today.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Easy on the Lafleur comparison, buddy. I dont recall Messier being the best player in the world for 6-7 years. I saw them all play and Messier isnt really on my Top 20 since 1971 list. Lafleur is #5. Messier was more reputation and willpower than absolute skill or domination on the ice. His 94 playoffs (and 84) were awesome but there was some magic missing. He was by no means a superstar. I see you bought into the hype (like the Canucks - 3 y 18 million? .

Not even in your TOP 20!??!

NOT a superstar?!?

Holy ****. Are you kidding? This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this board and there are many, many ridiculous posters here.

Sweet Jesus.

 

[CaptBrannigan]

Mark Messier wouldn't beat Chuck Norris in a fight, but it would be close. And that's a huge compliment for Messier.

I wish I could have seen him play in his prime, but there was enough left that I saw to understand why he is held in such high regard.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Easy on the Lafleur comparison, buddy. I dont recall Messier being the best player in the world for 6-7 years. I saw them all play and Messier isnt really on my Top 20 since 1971 list. Lafleur is #5. Messier was more reputation and willpower than absolute skill or domination on the ice. His 94 playoffs (and 84) were awesome but there was some magic missing. He was by no means a superstar. I see you bought into the hype (like the Canucks - 3 y 18 million? .

That's because you're knowledge of Western Conference hockey is less than a wet paper bag's.

Seriously, your list carries about as much weight as a one legged pack mule.

 

[Transported Upstater]

Not even in your TOP 20!??!

NOT a superstar?!?

Holy ****. Are you kidding? This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen on this board and there are many, many ridiculous posters here.

Sweet Jesus.

Wayne Gretzky is the #11th best player of all time!!!

 

[Trottier]

...I am sure Malkin will be good, just not a guy that will score a hattrick and then punch you in the face after doing it.

That's a great quote...and frankly, it summarizes Messier as succinctly as can done.

People talk about him living off of reputation much of the latter part of his career. Guess what? He carved out that reputation...by scoring, leading and winning...habitually!

The funny thing is, you talk about getting an opinion about the Malkin/Messier comparsion from those of us who saw #11 throughout his career. Actually, one need not have seen Messier play one shift to assess the comparison at this ridiculously early date and time:

It's preposterous.

Let's talk once Malkin accumulates several years' (let alone 24, like Messier!) worth of NHL accomplishments - individual and team. As the poster #66 suggested, you can compare styles. But to say he will be the next Messier, let alone the next 10 year NHL journeyman is a stretch before he steps on the ice produces. (In another thread, a couple of "Born Yesterdayers" talked casually about he and/or Crosby surpassing Messier's career offensive totals. Sure! No problem! Easy as pie! )

But again, we live in an age where "stardom" is granted liberally by the adoring masses, while actual accomplishment is an afterthought, if that.

Generation Paris Hilton.