Jagr or Orr?

chooch*

Guest
Sit on my couch Chooch ? Let's talk, let's get to the bottom of this. You worshipped Guy Lafleur as a youngster. I don't blame you, he was a great player. I alos enjoyed watching him from his first game when they played him at C beteen Yvan and Frank, until the bitter end. He played with a flair like no other.

So, you feel strongly about him. Strongly enough that others who are fans of other players, often players who they were privileged to grow up watching, must be ridiculed. If someone loved Yzerman, you must call him Izzerman or decide Bossy, the great pure scorer, must be dismissed as one dimensional. Never mind the Isles season ticket holders who saw him develop from the skinny kid up from the Laval Nationals to a tremendous winger playing on a historic line. Yes, you must attack them because in being a fan of these players, they are somehow disrespecting Guy.

Now, it's getting to be tough sledding. Is it a feeling of being faithful to Lafleur's legacy, or more a sad need to be right ?

You seem resentful of McSorley and Semenko believing that they should devote themselves to making Wayne Gretzky's time on the ice as pleasant as possible. Imagine the 2 of them spending time hopelessly devoted to someone else. You know, like you and Guy.

The way I see it, admittedly, a disjointed and unsupportable view, Bobby Orr played a game different than the others on the ice. Not for long enough, but still, no one was like him. Mario,like Orr, could separate himself from everyone else, his combination of skill and size made him close to ustoppable. Gretzky couldn't match the skill for skill attributes that the others did,but with his incredible vision and understanding of the game, he accomplished more than either. The game is decided by the total of goals and no one created or scored more. You could easily choose any of those 3 as your greatest and wouldn't be wrong. Jagr's another wonderful player. You see him weave around checkers,power around a d man, and tuck the puck into an open side. Gretzky couldn't make that play, never. He would find a way though, and find it more often.

Yes, I know, western conference, weak, no checking, whooping it up after an empty net goal, bodyguards, maximizing your net worth by trading on the good name you've made for yourself, the cad, and today's latest, the born in January thing, [planned parenthood I'm sure, Walter you genetic engineeer you]

You don't really believe this stuff do you ? It's tired schtick isn't it ? What's your motivation ? Just curious, my wife's watching Ghost Whisperer and I had nothing else to do.

yeah. my wifes bathing teh 1 year old. ...guess I get tired of hearing Yammy Jagr all the time; what about if I said Yammy Orr?

How does that feel?

How about if Wayne had to play hockey in a small steel town in Northern Russia at 18 and start a family there and Walter could see him every 6 years or so?

Kind of like what Jagr faced.
 

Roger's Pancreas*

Guest
yeah. my wifes bathing teh 1 year old. ...guess I get tired of hearing Yammy Jagr all the time; what about if I said Yammy Orr?

How does that feel?

How about if Wayne had to play hockey in a small steel town in Northern Russia at 18 and start a family there and Walter could see him every 6 years or so?

Kind of like what Jagr faced.

There are plenty of NHL players who had tough lives. It doesn't make them a better hockey player for having persevered through the obstacles life presents them. If that were the case, Steve Downie would be a lock for HHOF by his twenty first birth day.
 

KariyaIsGod*

Guest
yeah. my wifes bathing teh 1 year old. ...guess I get tired of hearing Yammy Jagr all the time; what about if I said Yammy Orr?

How does that feel?

How about if Wayne had to play hockey in a small steel town in Northern Russia at 18 and start a family there and Walter could see him every 6 years or so?

Kind of like what Jagr faced.

This is you.. :cry:
 

espo*

Guest
I watched a couple of vintage games of the oilers playing a couple of weeks back and you should have seen the **** Gretzky was doing,it was incredible.The plays he was thinking up and completing for goals either by himself or the fortunate recipient of his plays was just mind boggling.The guy was just so much a step ahead and so creative it's hard to grasp and explain in words.He scored points everywhere and at such astounding clips that he made a mockery of the record books and if anyone can watch him playing at his peak and see the stuff he was pulling off and still not think he's at the very least one of the top 3 players who has ever laced them up then i don't know what to say.I can't begin to fathom where a person could think that but if that's what they think then so be it i guess.

The guy was a prodigy.From the time he was a kid it was clear he was special.Everyone always kept saying he was'nt real and time and time again he kept proving them wrong.16 year old runt playing in the top junior tournament in the world............ripped it apart (was semenko on that team?) 19 year old skinny teen in the nhl.........led the league in points.And he just kept setting the bar higher and higher from then on in terms of offensive production whether it was the NHL or international tourneys.He scored in whatever place he played like no-one else. And yet there are still those naysayers out there today after he's gone saying......"it was'nt real"

Cmon.
 

mcphee

Registered User
Feb 6, 2003
19,101
8
Visit site
I watched a couple of vintage games of the oilers playing a couple of weeks back and you should have seen the **** Gretzky was doing,it was incredible.The plays he was thinking up and completing for goals either by himself or the fortunate recipient of his plays was just mind boggling.The guy was just so much a step ahead and so creative it's hard to grasp and explain in words.He scored points everywhere and at such astounding clips that he made a mockery of the record books and if anyone can watch him playing at his peak and see the stuff he was pulling off and still not think he's at the very least one of the top 3 players who has ever laced them up then i don't know what to say.I can't begin to fathom where a person could think that but if that's what they think then so be it i guess.

The guy was a prodigy.From the time he was a kid it was clear he was special.Everyone always kept saying he was'nt real and time and time again he kept proving them wrong.16 year old runt playing in the top junior tournament in the world............ripped it apart (was semenko on that team?) 19 year old skinny teen in the nhl.........led the league in points.And he just kept setting the bar higher and higher from then on in terms of offensive production whether it was the NHL or international tourneys.He scored in whatever place he played like no-one else. And yet there are still those naysayers out there today after he's gone saying......"it was'nt real"

Cmon.
When we compare players the trap I see quite often is when we compare skill to skill. Harder shot, better passer, faster skater etc.. These are all critical aspects but don't always make up the best player. When you watch, you know. Sometimes it takes a few years to get over the fact that they trounced your team, but when you can watch objectively, you know. I had a grade 5 schoolyard arguement in which I claimed that Bobby hull wasn't great because he wasn't a good defensive player. I'm thinking he must have put 3 behind Charlie Hodge the previous Saturday.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
When we compare players the trap I see quite often is when we compare skill to skill. Harder shot, better passer, faster skater etc.. These are all critical aspects but don't always make up the best player. When you watch, you know. Sometimes it takes a few years to get over the fact that they trounced your team, but when you can watch objectively, you know. I had a grade 5 schoolyard arguement in which I claimed that Bobby hull wasn't great because he wasn't a good defensive player. I'm thinking he must have put 3 behind Charlie Hodge the previous Saturday.

Exactly.

I see many people on these boards say that Gretzky or some other dominant player wasn't that great because he didn't play great defensive hockey. Honestly, who cares? When you are capable of scoring 200 points per season why would you waste your time and hurt your team by trying to be Bob Gainey.

You focus on your strengths and that is what helps your team win. Why on earth would Georges Laraque try to score 50 goals? He would be hurting his team if he tried to play outside his role. Would the Oilers have been better off with Gretzky back checking like he was Guy Carbonneau? Not a chance. Should Rod Langway have tried to be like Paul Coffey? If he didn't want to win two Norris trophies that would have been a strategy to attempt - that was Coffey's style, not Langway's.

People looking for the "complete" player are just fooling themselves into thinking that is THE standard. No, that is just one style of play. Who cares what a player's style is, the bottom line is how much does that player contribute to the team' success. If you don't like their style, that is irrelevant.

So called "one dimensional" players are extremely valuable to the success of a team. When I hear about Bobby Hull or Wayne Gretzky or some other legend of the game being overrated because he wasn't a "complete" player I just have to laugh. People who say that have a misunderstanding about how the game of hockey is played.

Your preference of style does not dictate the quality of a player.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
People looking for the "complete" player are just fooling themselves into thinking that is THE standard. No, that is just one style of play. Who cares what a player's style is, the bottom line is how much does that player contribute to the team' success. If you don't like their style, that is irrelevant.

But, what about Eddie Shore? Arguably the best defensive d-man of all time, and, the best offensive d-man of his era, debateably best offensive d-man until Kelly. Isn't a player like Shore a cut above the rest when they can be the best in all aspects of the game?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
But, what about Eddie Shore? Arguably the best defensive d-man of all time, and, the best offensive d-man of his era, debateably best offensive d-man until Kelly. Isn't a player like Shore a cut above the rest when they can be the best in all aspects of the game?

Let's quantify what I am saying so that it might make a little more sense.

If Shore is 100% on the defensive aspect of the game and, historically speaking, 70% on the offensive aspect, should that rate ahead of Orr who might be 100% offense and 75% on defense?

That all being said, I have Shore ranked as the 2nd greatest defenseman of all time.

A player like Gretzky might receive 150% for his offensive abilities and only 50% for his defense, making him the greatest of all time.

Don't take my percentage estimations too seriously, the point I am trying to make is that some players are so good offensively they are wasting their talents playing defense and others are so good defensively they would waste their talents playing offense.

Being good at both aspects of the game is great but, it isn't necessarily the be all, end all.

Gretzky's offense is greater than any other player's offense and defense combined and that is why he is the greatest player of all time.

I hope that rambling made some sense.
 

Dave is a killer

Dave's a Mess
Oct 17, 2002
26,507
18
Cumming GA
what's the saying in New England? ... Jesus Saves ... but Orr picks up the rebound and scores ? ...

1) Orr
2) Lemieux/Gretzky
3) Gretzky/Lemieux
4) Howe
5) Hull
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Let's quantify what I am saying so that it might make a little more sense.

If Shore is 100% on the defensive aspect of the game and, historically speaking, 70% on the offensive aspect, should that rate ahead of Orr who might be 100% offense and 75% on defense?

That all being said, I have Shore ranked as the 2nd greatest defenseman of all time.

A player like Gretzky might receive 150% for his offensive abilities and only 50% for his defense, making him the greatest of all time.

Don't take my percentage estimations too seriously, the point I am trying to make is that some players are so good offensively they are wasting their talents playing defense and others are so good defensively they would waste their talents playing offense.

Being good at both aspects of the game is great but, it isn't necessarily the be all, end all.

Gretzky's offense is greater than any other player's offense and defense combined and that is why he is the greatest player of all time.

I hope that rambling made some sense.

People underrate the Oilers and Gretzky defensively. Watch the playoffs especially in 1987 and 1988 and Gretzky is making all kinds of great defensive plays. He isn't Guy Carboneau or Bob Gainey but he is making very Smart plays that are excellent defensively. Gretzky was almost surely the smartest hockey player ever. He knew what to do to win and most of the time that was focussing on scoring goals. In the playoffs, especially in hard fought series against great teams he also played very well defensively. He used his 2 linemates Tikkanen and Kurri in such a way as that the line was excellent defensively and offensively.

Jaromir Jagr gets a bad wrap too. He was always a great player and while he is certainly not Fedorov or Sakic in terms of a 2 way game nor was he a useless player defensively. Jagr also had many great playoffs after the Cup winning years early in his career. He may not have won another cup but he helped take an average Pittsburgh team pretty deep into the playoffs both with and without Mario. Jagr is hardly a playoff disappearing act. Maybe his playoffs don't highlight his career but nor do they in any way detract from it.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,985
Exactly.

I see many people on these boards say that Gretzky or some other dominant player wasn't that great because he didn't play great defensive hockey. Honestly, who cares? When you are capable of scoring 200 points per season why would you waste your time and hurt your team by trying to be Bob Gainey.

You focus on your strengths and that is what helps your team win. Why on earth would Georges Laraque try to score 50 goals? He would be hurting his team if he tried to play outside his role. Would the Oilers have been better off with Gretzky back checking like he was Guy Carbonneau? Not a chance. Should Rod Langway have tried to be like Paul Coffey? If he didn't want to win two Norris trophies that would have been a strategy to attempt - that was Coffey's style, not Langway's.

People looking for the "complete" player are just fooling themselves into thinking that is THE standard. No, that is just one style of play. Who cares what a player's style is, the bottom line is how much does that player contribute to the team' success. If you don't like their style, that is irrelevant.

So called "one dimensional" players are extremely valuable to the success of a team. When I hear about Bobby Hull or Wayne Gretzky or some other legend of the game being overrated because he wasn't a "complete" player I just have to laugh. People who say that have a misunderstanding about how the game of hockey is played.

Your preference of style does not dictate the quality of a player.

This relates to the concept of "opportunity cost" which is common in economics and finance. Opportunity cost is the value of next-best option you have to give up, to pursue another opportunity. For example, the opportunity cost of getting an MBA is missing a year of work at whatever rate your salary is. It has a lot of applications in hockey.

It suggests that hockey players should specialize in areas in which they have the greatest advantage over the competition. Rod Langway is a great defensive defenseman. It would be stupid to make him a play a wide-open, end-to-end rushing kind of game for two reasons. First, he lacked the skills necessary to play offensively, so he wouldn't score anyway. Second, and more importantly, by shifting his style to offense, he'd have to sacrifice the strongest aspect of his game: defense! You can't get something for nothing. Given a player's level of play (whether it's extremely high with Orr or extremely low with, say, Belak) you can't get more of one thing without giving up something else!

Gretzky routinely scored 200 points and provided (at best) average defense. If you asked him to trade away some of his offense for defense, he'd have to do this by making more conservative passes, spending less time in "Gretzky's office", attempting fewer breakaways and leading fewer odd-man rushes. Clearly, this conservative style would help the Oilers save a few goals per year, but at what cost? You'd be asking Gretzky to give up the best and most dangerous parts of his offensive game. You might make Gretzky better defensively by 10 or even 20 goals per year, but he'd probably score 75 fewer points. So, Gretzky has just become a more complete player, but he's also become a significantly worse player.

It makes much more sense to let Gretzky score 200 points per year and get some good defensive players like Lowe or Huddy to provide some balance, rather than asking Gretzky to only 100 points per year while being marginally better defensively.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying players should become all-offense or all-defense. Being well-rounded works when you have both significant offensive skill and the physical strength and defensive mindset to be effective in both zones (Orr, Shore, Howe, Clarke, Trottier, etc). But when your skills clearly lie in one particular aspect, you should specialize in it.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Gretzky routinely scored 200 points and provided (at best) average defense. If you asked him to trade away some of his offense for defense, he'd have to do this by making more conservative passes, spending less time in "Gretzky's office", attempting fewer breakaways and leading fewer odd-man rushes. Clearly, this conservative style would help the Oilers save a few goals per year, but at what cost? You'd be asking Gretzky to give up the best and most dangerous parts of his offensive game. You might make Gretzky better defensively by 10 or even 20 goals per year, but he'd probably score 75 fewer points. So, Gretzky has just become a more complete player, but he's also become a significantly worse player.
.

Very well said.
 

Little Nilan

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
8,209
0
Praha
Exactly.

I see many people on these boards say that Gretzky or some other dominant player wasn't that great because he didn't play great defensive hockey. Honestly, who cares? When you are capable of scoring 200 points per season why would you waste your time and hurt your team by trying to be Bob Gainey.

You focus on your strengths and that is what helps your team win. Why on earth would Georges Laraque try to score 50 goals? He would be hurting his team if he tried to play outside his role. Would the Oilers have been better off with Gretzky back checking like he was Guy Carbonneau? Not a chance. Should Rod Langway have tried to be like Paul Coffey? If he didn't want to win two Norris trophies that would have been a strategy to attempt - that was Coffey's style, not Langway's.

People looking for the "complete" player are just fooling themselves into thinking that is THE standard. No, that is just one style of play. Who cares what a player's style is, the bottom line is how much does that player contribute to the team' success. If you don't like their style, that is irrelevant.

So called "one dimensional" players are extremely valuable to the success of a team. When I hear about Bobby Hull or Wayne Gretzky or some other legend of the game being overrated because he wasn't a "complete" player I just have to laugh. People who say that have a misunderstanding about how the game of hockey is played.

Your preference of style does not dictate the quality of a player.
Very good post. I always thought about the notions of two types of players: those what stop you from losing and those that make you win.
 

espo*

Guest
When we compare players the trap I see quite often is when we compare skill to skill. Harder shot, better passer, faster skater etc.. These are all critical aspects but don't always make up the best player. When you watch, you know. Sometimes it takes a few years to get over the fact that they trounced your team, but when you can watch objectively, you know. I had a grade 5 schoolyard arguement in which I claimed that Bobby hull wasn't great because he wasn't a good defensive player. I'm thinking he must have put 3 behind Charlie Hodge the previous Saturday.

LOL.Good post. I agree 110%

I'm with you, i see the player and what he is made of my watching the guy play.Stats and skill sets come into it for sure but there is nothing like actually watching the persons game over and over through the years against the competition to allow me to gauge what he's really made of.And When it comes to Gretzky, seeing is definately believeing.

I was far from crazy over Gretzky when i was young,but of course he was constantly stinging my beloved Habs. He's probably the consistently greatest player i've watched in my lifetime.
 

sorace88*

Guest
ORR hands down, I would go so far as to say orr was the greatest player in NHL history because he played 10 season but only 8 healthy 2 were riddled with injury wereas gretzky played 17 or whatever.
 

Todd Shishler

Registered User
Jul 9, 2006
70
0
WHen Toe was playing I knew one day guys like you would point to his stats and trophies.

Dude he had the easiset career of any athlete in history...he was protected by guys on and off the ice; the oilers were in the easiest division in league history and waltzed to the finals every year playing AHL level teams. The first time they won the cup they played the islanders who had been hammered by the habs...Oilers had a 9 day layoff - think that didnt help? I could go on....

I dont care how many goals he scored as a 10 year old, every nhler forward scored in bunches as a kid. Born in Jan he was the biggest kid on the ice until he was 15.

EVer see a slashing call against him?

I just know you were born yesterday...I dont hate a guy who I have in my top 20...only fanatics would think that


You seriously don't know much about hockey do you? Waltzed through the easiest division in hockey, :shakehead :shakehead I hate the Flames more than most people here but even I have to give them credit, they had tremendous teams in last half of the 80's, in fact they usually finished higher in the standings than the Oilers. It was generally considered that these were 2 of the best teams in hockey at the time, to say that the Oilers waltzed through AHL competition just shows you actually have no clue what you're talking about, although you had already proven that when you ranked Gretzky at #12.

As for the original topic of this thread, Orr(when healthy)>Jagr, in any era.
 

1971

Registered User
Dec 1, 2006
95
0
British Columbia
Originally Posted by chooch
WHen Toe was playing I knew one day guys like you would point to his stats and trophies.

Dude he had the easiset career of any athlete in history...he was protected by guys on and off the ice; the oilers were in the easiest division in league history and waltzed to the finals every year playing AHL level teams. The first time they won the cup they played the islanders who had been hammered by the habs...Oilers had a 9 day layoff - think that didnt help? I could go on....

I dont care how many goals he scored as a 10 year old, every nhler forward scored in bunches as a kid. Born in Jan he was the biggest kid on the ice until he was 15.

EVer see a slashing call against him?

Actually Gretz was the smallest kid on the ice because he didnt play against his own age group, he played against 13 or 14 year olds when he was 9 and dominated to the point where the parents of all the other teams in Ontario would scream insults at him. Imagine a 40 year old man throwing things at a 9 year old because that 9 year old detroyed his 14 year old kids hockey team. He played in the OHL when he was 14 and that is amazing considering most dont make it till they're almost 17, he played pro hockey at 17 in the WHA.

The Smythe division wasn't the best, but it still had the Calgary Flames who IMO were a worthy team against Edmonton. As for the Islanders in 84', what do you expect from a team that had won 4 straight cups and were in their 5th straight final. They were a tired hockey team with no gas left. The Oilers would have won that series with or with out the 9 day break. It was their destiny to win that Stanley Cup.
 

Czech Your Math

I am lizard king
Jan 25, 2006
5,169
303
bohemia
Actually Gretz was the smallest kid on the ice because he didnt play against his own age group, he played against 13 or 14 year olds when he was 9 and dominated to the point where the parents of all the other teams in Ontario would scream insults at him. Imagine a 40 year old man throwing things at a 9 year old because that 9 year old detroyed his 14 year old kids hockey team. He played in the OHL when he was 14 and that is amazing considering most dont make it till they're almost 17, he played pro hockey at 17 in the WHA.

Another reason he was the smallest kid is that he's not particularly big or strong for a hockey player, making his accomplishments (and durability) all the more astounding. Compared to a player like Lemieux or Jagr, he is a skeleton.

I think it would be more surprising if one of the best hockey players ever didn't dominate from an early age.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Just thought of something. Jagr played in the Eastern Conference during a four year period where the Eastern Conference managed one Stanley Cup Finals win over the Western Conference. Not only that, Jagr was never even able to lead his team over these weak teams that were unfit to compete against the Colorado and Detroit teams that were going to war in the conference finals. Clearly that puts a huge black mark on his accomplishments.
 

Czech Your Math

I am lizard king
Jan 25, 2006
5,169
303
bohemia
Just thought of something. Jagr played in the Eastern Conference during a four year period where the Eastern Conference managed one Stanley Cup Finals win over the Western Conference. Not only that, Jagr was never even able to lead his team over these weak teams that were unfit to compete against the Colorado and Detroit teams that were going to war in the conference finals. Clearly that puts a huge black mark on his accomplishments.

While Jagr wasn't the "leader" of the Pens' 2 Cups, he was a big part of them, especially the second one. He did rather well for a 19-20 year old:

90/91- Jagr's OT goal in game 2 vs. Devils ties series 1-1 going back to NJ. This is a Penguin team that has won 1 playoff series since Lemieux enterd the league, and still has to win the last two games of the series vs. NJ to win 4 games to 3.
Jagr becomes the youngest player to score in SCF and sets record for assists in SCF by a rookie. Obviously the Lemieux/Stevens/Recchi line drives the team, but Jagr's 13 playoff points aren't far behind Francis and Mullen (17 each), who are veteran HOF-caliber players.

91/92- Jagr has 11 goals and 24 points in the playoffs, including 4 GWG (one OT). His goal in SCF, when he skated through most of Chicago's team and tied the game helped give the Pens win the game and give them important momentum. His 24 points were "only" 4th on the team, but also 4th among all players in playoffs and not far behind teammates Stevens (28) and Francis (27).

I'm not sure exactly what period you are referring to when the West won 3/4 Cups, since the West won 5/6 (Colorado/Detroit 2 each) from 1996 to 2001. I presume it's the 1998-2001 period, when Lemieux missed over 3 seasons before returning.

Penguins' leaders in playoff games for different periods (in order, selected totals):

1990-1993 (2 Cups & President's Trophy; lost to NYI in 2nd round 7th game OT)
-----------
G- Barrasso
D- Murphy (56), Ulf Samuelsson (53), Phil Bourque (45), Stanton, G. Roberts, Jennings, Taglianetti, Kjell Samuelsson (27), Paek, Coffey, Ramsey
F- Stevens (45), Francis, Jagr, Loney, Trottier (44), Lemieux (38), Errey, Jiri Hrdina, Mullen (31), Recchi (24), McEachern, Scott Young, Tocchet

1995 & 1998-2000 (playoffs in which Lemieux did not play, won 3/4 first rounds)
------------------
G- Barrasso (19), Wreggett (11), Tugnutt (11)
D- Slegr (29), Werenka (19), Kevin Hatcher, Kasparaitis (16), Dollas (13), Andrusak, Murphy, Laukannen, Boughner, Jonsson, Kjell Samuelsson, Tamer (10)
F- Jagr (38), Moran, Rob Brown, Wright, Straka, Lang (29), Barnaby, Jan Hrdina, Kovalev (21), Kip Miller (13), Kesa, Errey, Mullen, Sandstrom, Robitaille, Francis, Beranek, Titov, McEachern, Morozov, Falloon

1995-2001 (Starts with first season Lemieux missed; 2 ECF, won 5/7 first rounds)
-----------
G- Barrasso (29), Wreggett (25), Hedberg (18), Tugnutt (11)
D- Kasparaitis (38), Leroux (33), Tamer, Boughner, Laukannen, Slegr, Jonsson (27), K. Hatcher, Wilkinson, Werenka, Ference, Zubov (18), Daigneault, Mironov, Dollas
F- Jagr (77), Moran (61), Straka (48), Lang, Lemieux (41), Jan Hrdina, Francis (34), Miller, Rob Brown, Wright, Beranek, Morozov, Stevens (29), Barnaby (24), Corbet, Nedved, Dziedzic, Kovalev (21), Wayne Primeau, Smolinski, Glen Murray, Roche

Especially glaring is the lack of defense on the later Penguin teams. The '96 Pens lost Francis to injury right before the ECF and ran into a hot goalie in Beezer. The '01 Pens couldn't overcome Jagr's injuries in ECF, although they still would have had their hands full with defending champ NJ, who lost SCF in 7 games.

Without Lemieux:
- 1995: lost in 2nd round to NJ (who swept Detroit in SCF)
- 1998: lost in 1st round
- 1999: beat #1 seed NJ in 1st round (featuring Jagr's heroics while playing with badly injured hamstring), before losing two OT games and series 4-2 to Toronto.
- 2000: beat #2 seed Caps in 1st round, before losing two OT games and series 4-2 to Philadelphia (who lost to eventual champ NJ in ECF, despite 3-1 lead in series).

Of course, I'm sure Gordie Howe or Wayne Gretzky or Mark Messier would have led most of those mid-late '90s Penguin teams (and early '00s Caps, mid-'00s Rangers) to Stanley Cups, but Jagr is merely a mortal.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->