Messier vs Yzerman - Better Hockey Player (Career)

[Machinehead]

I happened to be discussing the best centers of their generation and Wayne and Mario are obviously top 2.

I feel 3rd is a much tougher call.

I don't want who had the better career terms of success/hardware. I want you to tell me who -taking their careers as a whole- was a better hockey player.

Click to read more...

 

[Plural]

Messier was a terrible POS. And he was also vastly better player than Yzerman.

 

[Khomutov]

Yzerman

 

[Voodoo Child]

Stevie was great, elite forward who learned all areas of the game to near perfection...but Mark Messier guaranteed victory and then came out and got a hat trick in the third period when the team was down in the ECF and later won the Cup.

Can't in good faith vote against that degree of ballsiness and boss moveage, unless it's between him and Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and so on.

 

[Canada Drai]

For me, easily Messier. Didn't see him play so I'll go off my own opinions about both players and statistics.

 

[NhlFan84]

Stevie was great, elite forward who learned all areas of the game to near perfection...but Mark Messier guaranteed victory and then came out and got a hat trick in the third period when the team was down in the ECF and later won the Cup.

Can't in good faith vote against that degree of ballsiness and boss moveage, unless it's between him and Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and so on.

You're basing your decision on a guarantee?

 

[bobholly39]

Messier very easily

Much better playoffs.
Better regular seasons too

I dont get the Yzerman votes.

 

[SotasicA]

I feel Yzerman was more skilled. He was a better skater, a better playmaker, but... a seven game series starts tomorrow and I need to pick between a prime Yzerman and a prime Messier to center my top line... I'm going to have to go with the Moose. I love a star player who plays with an edge. Messier played to win hockey games, period. His competitiveness was through the roof, he was tough and he topped that off with incredible skill and all-around playing ability. He could score and pass, and lead the charge no matter what went on in the ice. Great defensive player, great faceoff-taker, great matchup guy.

Yzerman was also a leader, but a more reserved one. He didn't have the same fire in his eyes. I think head-to-head, Messier would take the matchup. Both were super close skill-wise, so small things matter. Yzerman also peaked offensively while he sucked as a defensive and a team player. His overall game improved immensely in the mid-90's, but I was always confused which Yzerman was the real one. Or which was the peak. I feel maybe the defensive apt Yzerman was the better one to have.

Most importantly, Yzerman also played for the Wings, so f*** him. I was never going to vote for him regardless.

 

[bert]

Messier was a terrible POS. And he was also vastly better player than Yzerman.

Not.even.close

 

[ole ole]

Mess was the total package. Def the better player,better career also.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Their early careers were too different, I think, to really compare them well enough. Messier was a 2nd-line center on a dynasty straight out of the gate, while Yzerman was the team's lone bright spot for years.

Both of them still proved they could game in the playoffs outside of their prime, with Yzerman in '98 (his 15th year) and '02, and Messier in '94. Both were defensive stalwarts, both were ferocious competitors. Messier's Hart in '90 was huge. Yzerman had a higher but shorter offensive prime, and was a better goal-scorer. Both players had six top-10 points finishes.

Messier's playoff resume is impossible to ignore, it's one of the best if not THE best of the non-big 4, but Yzerman isn't a slouch there given his career trajectory (and the team's trajectory). Otherwise, Messier's longevity is a big part of his legacy, and while Yzerman remained competitive for quite a while into his back-9, Messier was just a better player for longer.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I would give Yzerman the peak/prime by a hair with Messier for Consistency and playoffs....although Yzerman was a great playoff performer, he just wasn’t in a dynasty early on like Messier was.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Their early careers were too different, I think, to really compare them well enough. Messier was a 2nd-line center on a dynasty straight out of the gate, while Yzerman was the team's lone bright spot for years.

Both of them still proved they could game in the playoffs outside of their prime, with Yzerman in '98 (his 15th year) and '02, and Messier in '94. Both were defensive stalwarts, both were ferocious competitors. Messier's Hart in '90 was huge. Yzerman had a higher but shorter offensive prime, and was a better goal-scorer. Both players had six top-10 points finishes.

Messier's playoff resume is impossible to ignore, it's one of the best if not THE best of the non-big 4, but Yzerman isn't a slouch there given his career trajectory (and the team's trajectory). Otherwise, Messier's longevity is a big part of his legacy, and while Yzerman remained competitive for quite a while into his back-9, Messier was just a better player for longer.

I'll go with this.

 

[GoGoSens]

Messier was just way better than Yzerman.

 

[Regal]

I'm actually a little surprised by the votes. I thought Yzerman would have a decent lead on these boards. Not because I think he was better, but because he was the better player more recently, is far more likeable, and I figured Messier had started getting the Toews-treatment, where people start underrating him in response to the media's obsession about being a "winner" and having lots of intangibles.

 

[newfy]

I'm a wings fan, but you have to vote Messier here.

I will however say that if Yzerman is in Edmonton to start his career and Messier was taking over the dead wings, Yzerman would probably be viewed as better like Messier is here, and that he actually could've made that Edmonton dynasty better than Messier did. Yzerman didnt have support until after his offensive peak and injuries had taken a toll on him. If 155 point Yzerman got to play in Edmonton with Gretzky, he wouldve been putting up ridiculous numbers

 

[CherryToke]

Yzerman by a lot. Messier was a glorified cheap shot artist that had the benefit of playing on stacked teams.

Most of his awards are undeserving. 84 Conn Smythe is an absolute joke..

And the Mark Messier Leadership Award is obviously a farce.

 

[McFlash97]

Yzerman by a lot. Messier was a glorified cheap shot artist that had the benefit of playing on stacked teams.

Most of his awards are undeserving. 84 Conn Smythe is an absolute joke..

And the Mark Messier Leadership Award is obviously a farce.

one of these in every thread.

 

[streitz]

Yzerman was substantially more skilled, most people here will vote Messier because they hear guys on sportsnet talk about his leadership.


The only things Messier has over Yzerman is his physicality. Yzerman was faster, better shot, better playmaker, better defensively, better hands, better hockey sense. Playoff wise Messier was fortunate(he was still excellent in the playoffs) but fortunate to rack up numbers playing on the best offensive machine of all time during his prime.

During Yzerman's prime the wings primary offensive weapons aside from himself were Probert and Gerard Gallant.

 

[streitz]

Great defensive player, great faceoff-taker, great matchup

Yzerman was literally better at all those things, lol.

 

[Regal]

I'm a wings fan, but you have to vote Messier here.

I will however say that if Yzerman is in Edmonton to start his career and Messier was taking over the dead wings, Yzerman would probably be viewed as better like Messier is here, and that he actually could've made that Edmonton dynasty better than Messier did. Yzerman didnt have support until after his offensive peak and injuries had taken a toll on him. If 155 point Yzerman got to play in Edmonton with Gretzky, he wouldve been putting up ridiculous numbers

I'm not so sure. Playing behind Gretzky on the dynasty also meant less minutes and less offensive situations. The Oilers regularly were low on PP opportunities as well, likely due to the refs playing to the score, and Messier wasn't as important in the setup as he would be on another team. Yzerman had less help but also got to play huge minutes and have everything go through him. I think it largely balances out.

 

[wetcoast]

Messier was a terrible POS. And he was also vastly better player than Yzerman.

I agree with the first part but not the second.

To me it's a bit of a coin flip but I took Yzerman.

For the record the HOH section on these boards had Moose 6th and Yzerman 13th in their top 60 centers of all time.

 

[Regal]

Yzerman was substantially more skilled, most people here will vote Messier because they hear guys on sportsnet talk about his leadership.


The only things Messier has over Yzerman is his physicality. Yzerman was faster, better shot, better playmaker, better defensively, better hands, better hockey sense. Playoff wise Messier was fortunate(he was still excellent in the playoffs) but fortunate to rack up numbers playing on the best offensive machine of all time during his prime.

During Yzerman's prime the wings primary offensive weapons aside from himself were Probert and Gerard Gallant.

Yzerman was never simultaneously better offensively and defensively. And while he was a little better offensively at his best, Messier spent more years producing at that level

 

[streitz]

Yzerman was never simultaneously better offensively and defensively. And while he was a little better offensively at his best, Messier spent more years producing at that level

Again I watched the games, I don't listen to guys on sportsnets and base my opinions off make belief rumors.


Yzerman was solid on D in the 80's, there was a period of like 4 years where the wings double shifted him as their 1st and 3rd line shutdown center because they had no one else aside from Oates(who was a later bloomer).

 

[streitz]

I'm not so sure. Playing behind Gretzky on the dynasty also meant less minutes and less offensive situations.

1. Messier was on the first pp unit with Gretz
2. Messier played against weaker competition because of Gretzky
3. The oilers 3rd and 4th lines were essentially purely defensive unlike the 90's wings for example who ran Yzerman-Feds-Larianov down the middle. Even the Grind line with Draper and CO produced substantially more offense then Mactavish and whoever he had with him. So no, if anything it helped his stats.