Orr Vs Gretzky

[Ogopogo*]

Defencemen just weren't allowed to jump up into the rush until Orr arrived. Orr's arrival completely changed the game. It added a new dimension to the sport, and gave players a shot at the show who normally wouldn't have had a chance, certainly not on the blue line. Coffey would have had to play forward. Housley would have had to play forward. A guy like Sandis Ozolinsch would have likely never cracked the NHL.

I would have loved to have seen the numbers that guys like Horton, Harvey, Pilote, Kelly and Gadsby would have put up had they played at a time when defencemen were encouraged to join the rush. They had skill and great offensive instincts. But back then, they truly were defencemen.

Shore played during the most defensive era in NHL history. Him and King Clancy were excellent offensive defencemen. Jumping into the play was encouraged a little more in the late 20s and throughout the 30s, but not as much as it has been since Orr entered the league.

I think rushing defensemen are discouraged now as much as they ever have been. Only the truly brilliant (Orr and Coffey) are given the green light to carry the puck end to end whenever they feel the need.

Players like Housley, Ozolinsh and others would have been in this league whether Orr played or not. Those players were talented.

 

[orrisGod]

What a load of BS.

pure b.s.? heres an excerpt bostons sunday globe:
Edmonton policeman laid down the law to Laidlaw

Tom Laidlaw, the defenseman-turned-agent, is among the many who would like to see the NHL dial back on the rules and penalties that govern fighting and aggressive play in general. Way back when, recalled Laidlaw, the players did a pretty good job of policing the rough stuff themselves.

For example, said Laidlaw, there was the night in Edmonton when, working the blue line for the Rangers, he put a decent hit on the untouchable Wayne Gretzky.

"So the whistle blows, and the place is almost dead silent," recalled Laidlaw. "It was always that way in Canadian rinks -- no music blaring or Jumbotron blasting. Just silent. And there's [Oilers coach] Glen Sather, standing up on the bench, and he points right at me on the ice.

"And for everyone to hear -- me, the Ranger bench, the Oiler bench, and the whole crowd -- he yells out, 'Laidlaw, you are going home in a [expletive] body bag.' Kinda got my attention, you know?"

As a follow-up to the promise, Sather rolled Gretzky's policeman, Dave Semenko, over the boards. Heavy of foot and heavier of hand, Semenko made a living just being around as No. 99's space-maker.

"Here comes Semenko," said Laidlaw. "And I mean, boy, he's got that wild look in his eye, and his hair is all over the place, like he just came in from the bush, you know? I'm figuring, 'Oh boy, this is trouble.'

"He comes up to me and says, 'Tommy, are you going to be doing that to Gretz anymore?' I mean, like I say, everyone is watching this. I think for a second, and I know this sounds chicken, but I said, 'You know, Dave, I don't think so. Think I'm all set, thanks.' "

And the game played on. Without incident, said Laidlaw.

 

[revolverjgw]

What is stupid is to not recognize what is as obvious to anyone who has seen both that Gretzky as a complete hockey player could not carry Orr's jockstrap.It is also obvious that you never saw Orr play live or on television or you would be lying. Gretzky was a passing,scoring machine on a team with offense to burn.The man did not backcheck,forecheck,bodycheck or defend himself.These are dimensions of hockey.He had a bodyguard for crying out loud.Hockey has many facets of which scoring may be the greatest but it is only 1.In my opinion,having observed both many times,Orr was better in every respect,easily!Let me remove the opinion and offer it up as fact! If Gretzky could claim the Selke along with the Art Ross that would be a start.

Congratulations, you missed my point entirely.

 

[BNHL]

There were 2 points made in your post and one was the point of calling the argument stupid and I addressed that.I know that people who use the word stupid would never use it on themselves since they are so intelligent.This thread is all speculation, for fun, and stupid has no place here.People that use the word stupid are usually threatened or egomaniacal and the use of the word here is out of line.So congratulations to you, for in 2 consecutive posts you have succeeded in only 2 things,being sarcastic and insulting.Orr was better, and by a country mile and the Bruins would have never been Cup winners without him as the Oilers were without Gretzky.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think rushing defensemen are discouraged now as much as they ever have been. Only the truly brilliant (Orr and Coffey) are given the green light to carry the puck end to end whenever they feel the need.

Players like Housley, Ozolinsh and others would have been in this league whether Orr played or not. Those players were talented.

I see defencemen pinch all the time. I watched JM Liles score a beautiful goal right before he got hurt. I watch Scott Niedermayer and Nik Lidstrom carry the puck deep into the offensive zone. There is a much greater encouragement for defencemen to be involved in the offence now compared with 45 years ago, when they were shackled. Obviously the Jason Smith's and the Willie Mitchell's of the world - top-notch defensive defencemen but not impact players on offence - aren't going to pinch or think offence very much. But the top offensive defencemen will get involved in the play.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
Remember Gary Suter cross-checking Gretzky into the boards? I remember many players being used to "shadow" Gretzky - perhaps the best example being Esa Tikkanen when Gretzky was in LA. Tikk hooked, slashed and did all the other stuff.

What rule was changed to protect Gretzky? The only rule change I know of that was made in response to Gretzky and the Oilers was to keep playing 5 on 5 when there were coincidental minor penalties - the Oilers were GREAT 4 on 4. The rule was to slow Gretzky and the Oilers down

In the games I saw, compared to what Tikkanen normally did, he was very kind to Gretzky. Much less dirty stick work.

Where did I say the rules were changed to protect Gretzky? This is the second time you have inferred I said something which I clearly didn't. Please stop.

By the way, I notice you aren't arguing the fact that Gretzky brought a huge amount of revenue to the NHL. That is of course the main reason he was protected. Just how much? Well, Bill McCreary never played in the NHL again after he nailed Gretzky at the blue line.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
Being complete is overrated. My point is, if you are scoring 200 points per season, why on earth would you waste your time grinding? Would a brain surgeon empty bed pans? There are players with no skill that can muck and grind, Gretzky had the talent to score like nobody else so, that was his role.

Thank you Ogopogo...I couldn't agree more: clearly Gretzky was a role player, whereas Orr could do it all.

How is being a complete hockey player overrated? Last time I checked, the ice had both an Offensive and a Defensive zone. The little Orr lacked in the offensive zone when compared to Gretzky he more than made up for in the Defensive zone. Thats why a team of Orrs would crush a team of Gretzkys. Clearly a team of Lemieuxs or Howes would also (in the case of Howe, literally) crush a team of Gretzkys. Like it or not, hockey is a physical and violent game, and Gretzky completely lacked a physical presence on the ice, and thus can never be considered the best player of all time by the large majority of those who saw Orr play.

 

[BNHL]

Thank you Ogopogo...I couldn't agree more: clearly Gretzky was a role player, whereas Orr could do it all.

How is being a complete hockey player overrated? Last time I checked, the ice had both an Offensive and a Defensive zone. The little Orr lacked in the offensive zone when compared to Gretzky he more than made up for in the Defensive zone. Thats why a team of Orrs would crush a team of Gretzkys. Clearly a team of Lemieuxs or Howes would also (in the case of Howe, literally) crush a team of Gretzkys. Like it or not, hockey is a physical and violent game, and Gretzky completely lacked a physical presence on the ice, and thus can never be considered the best player of all time by the large majority of those who saw Orr play.

How about if Orr only expended his energy playing from red line to boards in the offensive zone? How about if he was not the primary penalty killer?Instead of playing 30 minutes a game,he could have played 40,all even strength or with the man advantage. How about if he only averaged 35 PIM a year instead of 110 PIM? How about never sacrificing his body to make game saving saves? I venture to say that those 130+ point seasons would have been 250 but that 's Gretzky not Orr!

 

[revolverjgw]

There were 2 points made in your post and one was the point of calling the argument stupid and I addressed that.I know that people who use the word stupid would never use it on themselves since they are so intelligent.This thread is all speculation, for fun, and stupid has no place here.People that use the word stupid are usually threatened or egomaniacal and the use of the word here is out of line.So congratulations to you, for in 2 consecutive posts you have succeeded in only 2 things,being sarcastic and insulting.Orr was better, and by a country mile and the Bruins would have never been Cup winners without him as the Oilers were without Gretzky.

You didn't do a satisfactory job of addressing my main point at all, just went on another ''Orr is God and way better than Gretz'' rant, which I never argued against and never even touched on.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Thank you Ogopogo...I couldn't agree more: clearly Gretzky was a role player, whereas Orr could do it all.

How is being a complete hockey player overrated? Last time I checked, the ice had both an Offensive and a Defensive zone. The little Orr lacked in the offensive zone when compared to Gretzky he more than made up for in the Defensive zone. Thats why a team of Orrs would crush a team of Gretzkys. Clearly a team of Lemieuxs or Howes would also (in the case of Howe, literally) crush a team of Gretzkys. Like it or not, hockey is a physical and violent game, and Gretzky completely lacked a physical presence on the ice, and thus can never be considered the best player of all time by the large majority of those who saw Orr play.

You must be young.

How do you win a hockey game? Do they count the most blocked shots? How about the most hits? Actually, IIRC, it is the most goals scored.

So, for a forward, the most important aspect of hockey is goals scored. If you aren't good enough to score then try to do something else that will keep you in the league - like blocking shots or grinding. If you are the best player in the world at the most important aspect of the game, why on earth would you waste your time and talent by dropping the gloves.

People such as yourself are completely confused about the game. Don Cherry put in in your head that it is better to grind than score. Kirk Muller is superior to Sidney Crosby. Know what? Cherry is wrong. Cherry couldn't score so he had to be a grinder and he despises great talent because players with talent have it "easier" than did Cherry.

You have completely missed the point and I think that you will never get it. That is OK, you are entitled to live in your world of make believe.

 

[reckoning]

pure b.s.? heres an excerpt bostons sunday globe:
Edmonton policeman laid down the law to Laidlaw

Tom Laidlaw, the defenseman-turned-agent, is among the many who would like to see the NHL dial back on the rules and penalties that govern fighting and aggressive play in general. Way back when, recalled Laidlaw, the players did a pretty good job of policing the rough stuff themselves.

For example, said Laidlaw, there was the night in Edmonton when, working the blue line for the Rangers, he put a decent hit on the untouchable Wayne Gretzky.

"So the whistle blows, and the place is almost dead silent," recalled Laidlaw. "It was always that way in Canadian rinks -- no music blaring or Jumbotron blasting. Just silent. And there's [Oilers coach] Glen Sather, standing up on the bench, and he points right at me on the ice.

"And for everyone to hear -- me, the Ranger bench, the Oiler bench, and the whole crowd -- he yells out, 'Laidlaw, you are going home in a [expletive] body bag.' Kinda got my attention, you know?"

As a follow-up to the promise, Sather rolled Gretzky's policeman, Dave Semenko, over the boards. Heavy of foot and heavier of hand, Semenko made a living just being around as No. 99's space-maker.

"Here comes Semenko," said Laidlaw. "And I mean, boy, he's got that wild look in his eye, and his hair is all over the place, like he just came in from the bush, you know? I'm figuring, 'Oh boy, this is trouble.'

"He comes up to me and says, 'Tommy, are you going to be doing that to Gretz anymore?' I mean, like I say, everyone is watching this. I think for a second, and I know this sounds chicken, but I said, 'You know, Dave, I don't think so. Think I'm all set, thanks.' "

And the game played on. Without incident, said Laidlaw.

Wow! What an earth-shattering story! A coach sends out an enforcer to deal with a player who hit their top star. That must be the only time in hockey history that ever happened. This totally discredits everything Gretzky accomplished over his career.

Do you happen to recall the time when the Bruins tried to kill Pat Quinn after he hit Orr? Don Cherry loves to tell the story about how his Bruin players told the rest of the league that they weren't allowed to lay a hand on Jean Ratelle; if somebody did then Wensink or Jonathan would deal with him. In the book Gross Misconduct, Brian Spencer clearly states that his job with the Sabres was "to protect Gil Perreault." There used to simply be a code that players respected.

By the way, I notice you aren't arguing the fact that Gretzky brought a huge amount of revenue to the NHL. That is of course the main reason he was protected. Just how much? Well, Bill McCreary never played in the NHL again after he nailed Gretzky at the blue line.

Ooooh the conspiracy! Of course we could bring up that Gary Suter played until age 37, or that Neal Broten had an on-ice altercation with Gretzky early in the 80s yet went on to play over 1000 NHL games.

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of players in NHL history had a cup of coffe with the big team, then went back to the minors for the rest of their career? In McCreary's 12 game stint, he had a grand total of 1 point (and was -6). For a forward, that lack of production won't keep you around for long.

Gretzky's scoring titles didn't immediately translate into gigantic pay raises for the rest of the players in the league. It`s an idiotic argument that they were all intentionally saying before games "Gretzky is bringing in a lot of revenue so let's let him score as much as he wants." If it's true, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an ex-player (out of the 1000s who played against Gretzky) who has gone on the record saying that. As far as conspiracy theories go, this one ranks up there with the moon landing being a hoax and Courtney Love murdering Kurt Cobain.

The Russians were never able to lay any hard hits on Gretzky during those Canada Cups. I guess they were in on it to

 

[Wetcoaster]

IMHO the all-time rankings are:

1 Orr
1b Howe
1c Gretzky

I watched Howe from the late 1950's and saw both Orr and Gretzky during their entire careers.

 

[Wetcoaster]

You must be young.

How do you win a hockey game? Do they count the most blocked shots? How about the most hits? Actually, If I recall correctly, it is the most goals scored.

So, for a forward, the most important aspect of hockey is goals scored. If you aren't good enough to score then try to do something else that will keep you in the league - like blocking shots or grinding. If you are the best player in the world at the most important aspect of the game, why on earth would you waste your time and talent by dropping the gloves.

People such as yourself are completely confused about the game. Don Cherry put in in your head that it is better to grind than score. Kirk Muller is superior to Sidney Crosby. Know what? Cherry is wrong. Cherry couldn't score so he had to be a grinder and he despises great talent because players with talent have it "easier" than did Cherry.

You have completely missed the point and I think that you will never get it. That is OK, you are entitled to live in your world of make believe.

I am not young having watched the NHL from the late 1950's.

Both Orr and Howe whom I peg as the two greatest players in NHL history could score, play defense and really throw 'em. What talent were they wasting?

 

[BNHL]

You do realize that Orr was a defenseman, right?

Your post shows a lack of understanding on how a hockey team is built and a lack of understanding on the correct way to utilize talent.

Keep ranting and raving, I am sure it makes sense to you.

A defenseman who led the league in scoring,who pursued the puck,fought and fought through checks and whose team did not and could not win a cup without him.I see you are from Edmonton and probably late 30 ish which means you were a boy when Gretzky was playing and not even alive during Orr's era.I have a lack of understanding about how a team is built as do most NHL organizations who fail to contend year after year.Getting back to the point,if we cannot speculate or opine or fantasize about the subject then how can you even contribute to this thread.You are right that Gretzky is the greatest of all time because he scored the most points and imagining a contest of Orrs vs Gretzky is stupid.You're right,we're wrong.Edmonton won without Gretzky.Edmonton would have won with Orr but would Boston have won with Gretzky?C'mon you can do it,contribute,open your mind,we know you and you alone know, so shine the light,cmon,please. I promise I will no longer respond as I have been humbled in the cyber presence of true hockey genius.Thank you.

 

[ilovehockey]

Whats with all this stuff about Gretzky not forchecking.
I remember hearing the greatest coach of all time Scotty Bowman say Gretzky was the best forchecker he ever saw. Gretzky did it a different way then anyone else. He caused alot of turnovers. The reason why Gretzky was the best wasn't because he was the fastest or strongest. It's not what you have but what you do, and If 5 Bobby Orr's played 5 Gretzky's like how some of you were saying, and how how Gretzky would never touch the puck. If he could do that to Gretzky then no other player would have ever touch the puck when he was playing.
It is close though but you also have to remember if Bobby Orr would of came in the league at the same time as Gretzky he never would of won the scoring title.

 

[Stonefly]

I had this argument in another forum and completely destroyed the pro Gretzky camp. The only point they have to support their claim are the stats and records Gretzky put up. Woopiddydooo!!!
Orr put up some pretty ridiculous numbers as well.

The best way to sum it up though is this:
The most accomplished player - Gretzky
The most skilled and talented - Orr

As for Ogo's complete player argument, yes players have talents in certain areas and roles to play. But complete players are special.
They are not common. Orr was the most uncommon of all.
He wasn't just complete. He was the best at every aspect that makes up a complete player, ergo, he was the best to ever play the game.

 

[Wetcoaster]

I had this argument in another forum and completely destroyed the pro Gretzky camp. The only point they have to support their claim are the stats and records Gretzky put up. Woopiddydooo!!!
Orr put up some pretty ridiculous numbers as well.

The best way to sum it up though is this:
The most accomplished player - Gretzky
The most skilled and talented - Orr

As for Ogo's complete player argument, yes players have talents in certain areas and roles to play. But complete players are special.
They are not common. Orr was the most uncommon of all.
He wasn't just complete. He was the best at every aspect that makes up a complete player, ergo, he was the best to ever play the game.

You would have to put howe in that same category.

During his prime he would often play 45+ minutes a game and it was not uncommon that he would be triple shifted. He reportedly had an absolutely phenomenal oxygen uptake and recovery rate.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

talk about blown credibility. eddie shore was not an offensive defenseman. his game was intimidation and fear. he punished his opponents. he was not a offensive force.neither was harvey. he was a solid 2 way defenseman , norris trophy winner.

You are so wrong. Eddie Shore was one of the most exciting players during his time. His skating was second to none and and was allways atops the point scoring lead for defenceman.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Regardless of whether or not Orr is better, this argument is what's laughable. It's pure fantasy and could never possibly happen, not even worth speculating about. I bet 5 Howes would beat 5 Gretzkys, but I certainly wouldn't take Howe over Gretzky.

Why not? Because in REALITY, superstars like these guys played with mere mortals and one of their best achievements was to make them better and carry them places... this applies more to playmaking centers than most kinds of players. Gretzky didn't play with 4 other clones of himself, he played with wingers (and d-men) of varying skill who all played very different roles. How Gretzky interacted with THEM, the Jari Kurris and the Mike Krushelynskis and the Vitali Yachmenevs and what he did with what he had to work with is what defined his greatness, not how Gretzky would interact with 4 other Gretzkys. What is this, create-a-player mode in NHL 2007 for PS2?

I can't speak for Orr and how much he improved his teammates or d-partners or whatever, way before my time, but Gretzky was better than anyone I've seen at using his teammates, and his linemates were not Wayne Gretzkys. For most of the time I was watching him, his linemates tended to be very average (or below average) players. So stop using that stupid argument.

Haven't heard anyone put it better than this. Well said.

You can't base who was better by who would win with 4 other clones of himself: the game of hockey is all about playing with teammates.

Thus, I personally believe Gretzky was the greatest NHL player of all time, although I do not disagree that Orr had more physical skills. I just don't think that it's as relevent as everyone is making it out to be.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
You must be young.

How do you win a hockey game? Do they count the most blocked shots? How about the most hits? Actually, If I recall correctly, it is the most goals scored.

So, for a forward, the most important aspect of hockey is goals scored. If you aren't good enough to score then try to do something else that will keep you in the league - like blocking shots or grinding. If you are the best player in the world at the most important aspect of the game, why on earth would you waste your time and talent by dropping the gloves.

People such as yourself are completely confused about the game. Don Cherry put in in your head that it is better to grind than score. Kirk Muller is superior to Sidney Crosby. Know what? Cherry is wrong. Cherry couldn't score so he had to be a grinder and he despises great talent because players with talent have it "easier" than did Cherry.

You have completely missed the point and I think that you will never get it. That is OK, you are entitled to live in your world of make believe.

Not young...tho i wish i was

Never once said Gretzky should drop his gloves. Just said there is a defensive zone. By the way, that zone is just as important as the offensive zone. You might have noticed that as hockey has matured the importance of good defence is being recognized by more and more coaches.

You say I'm confused? The best you can do to support Gretzksy is insult me?

Why would I listen to Don Cherry? I've seen Howe, Orr, Lemiuex and Gretzky all play in their prime. The best was Orr (Though I hate to admit it as Howe has been and always will be my favorite player).

You say I live in a world of make believe? Again, instead of countering my arguements, you have to insult me? Come on man, you can do better than that!

 

[mrhockey193195]

Not young...tho i wish i was

Never once said Gretzky should drop his gloves. Just said there is a defensive zone. By the way, that zone is just as important as the offensive zone. You might have noticed that as hockey has matured the importance of good defence is being recognized by more and more coaches.

You say I'm confused? The best you can do to support Gretzksy is insult me?

Why would I listen to Don Cherry? I've seen Howe, Orr, Lemiuex and Gretzky all play in their prime. The best was Orr (Though I hate to admit it as Howe has been and always will be my favorite player).

You say I live in a world of make believe? Again, instead of countering my arguements, you have to insult me? Come on man, you can do better than that!

I really don't recall Lemieux playing all that hard in his own zone....at least not more than gretzky.

 

[Ogopogo*]

pure b.s.? heres an excerpt bostons sunday globe:
Edmonton policeman laid down the law to Laidlaw

Tom Laidlaw, the defenseman-turned-agent, is among the many who would like to see the NHL dial back on the rules and penalties that govern fighting and aggressive play in general. Way back when, recalled Laidlaw, the players did a pretty good job of policing the rough stuff themselves.

For example, said Laidlaw, there was the night in Edmonton when, working the blue line for the Rangers, he put a decent hit on the untouchable Wayne Gretzky.

"So the whistle blows, and the place is almost dead silent," recalled Laidlaw. "It was always that way in Canadian rinks -- no music blaring or Jumbotron blasting. Just silent. And there's [Oilers coach] Glen Sather, standing up on the bench, and he points right at me on the ice.

"And for everyone to hear -- me, the Ranger bench, the Oiler bench, and the whole crowd -- he yells out, 'Laidlaw, you are going home in a [expletive] body bag.' Kinda got my attention, you know?"

As a follow-up to the promise, Sather rolled Gretzky's policeman, Dave Semenko, over the boards. Heavy of foot and heavier of hand, Semenko made a living just being around as No. 99's space-maker.

"Here comes Semenko," said Laidlaw. "And I mean, boy, he's got that wild look in his eye, and his hair is all over the place, like he just came in from the bush, you know? I'm figuring, 'Oh boy, this is trouble.'

"He comes up to me and says, 'Tommy, are you going to be doing that to Gretz anymore?' I mean, like I say, everyone is watching this. I think for a second, and I know this sounds chicken, but I said, 'You know, Dave, I don't think so. Think I'm all set, thanks.' "

And the game played on. Without incident, said Laidlaw.

Are you trying to be serious?

I don't think I have ever heard of a team not doing this in response to a star player being hit. And, the ones that don't respond in this way get ripped to shreds in the media.

As for the Bill McCreary hit, I think the conversation went something like this:

"Bill, that was a nice hit on pretty boy Gretzky but, honestly, other than that you haven't shown me enough to keep you here. We're sending you back down"

You honestly believe he was blackballed by the league because of that hit? LMAO

 

[Ogopogo*]

Not young...tho i wish i was

Never once said Gretzky should drop his gloves. Just said there is a defensive zone. By the way, that zone is just as important as the offensive zone. You might have noticed that as hockey has matured the importance of good defence is being recognized by more and more coaches.

You say I'm confused? The best you can do to support Gretzksy is insult me?

Why would I listen to Don Cherry? I've seen Howe, Orr, Lemiuex and Gretzky all play in their prime. The best was Orr (Though I hate to admit it as Howe has been and always will be my favorite player).

You say I live in a world of make believe? Again, instead of countering my arguements, you have to insult me? Come on man, you can do better than that!

It's unfortunate that you never saw Gretzky play. If you did you would have seen him kill penalties and be very responsible defensively.

If Orr was so much greater than Gretzky, why could he only lead his team to 2 Stanley Cups when Gretzky led his team to 4?

 

[notmynhl]

Originally Posted by revolverjgw
Regardless of whether or not Orr is better, this argument is what's laughable. It's pure fantasy and could never possibly happen, not even worth speculating about. I bet 5 Howes would beat 5 Gretzkys, but I certainly wouldn't take Howe over Gretzky.

Why not? Because in REALITY, superstars like these guys played with mere mortals and one of their best achievements was to make them better and carry them places... this applies more to playmaking centers than most kinds of players. Gretzky didn't play with 4 other clones of himself, he played with wingers (and d-men) of varying skill who all played very different roles. How Gretzky interacted with THEM, the Jari Kurris and the Mike Krushelynskis and the Vitali Yachmenevs and what he did with what he had to work with is what defined his greatness, not how Gretzky would interact with 4 other Gretzkys. What is this, create-a-player mode in NHL 2007 for PS2?

I can't speak for Orr and how much he improved his teammates or d-partners or whatever, way before my time, but Gretzky was better than anyone I've seen at using his teammates, and his linemates were not Wayne Gretzkys. For most of the time I was watching him, his linemates tended to be very average (or below average) players. So stop using that stupid argument.

Revolverjgw (and Ogopogo too), here is another way of looking at it, although it works out to be exactly the same as a team of Orrs vs. a team of Gretzkys.

Take two identical teams, put Gretzky on one(your team), Orr on the other(my team). Every time you put Gretzky on the ice, I put Orr on the ice. When the puck is in my zone, I tell Orr to cover him, so Gretzky is essentially neuteralized. When the puck is in your zone, Gretzky can't cover Orr and Orr runs rampant. Woot! I win!

The same applies if I had Howe on my team. Put Howe on Gretzky in my zone ... Gretzky neutralized. Gretzky can't stop Howe in your end...Howe shoots...HE SCORES!!!!...I win again.

In both cases I win by by building my team around players other Gretzky, so it clearly makes more sense to build your team around either of these two players than Gretzky. (Personally I'm pretty confident the same would happen with Lemiuex.)

 

[Ogopogo*]

Revolverjgw (and Ogopogo too), here is another way of looking at it, although it works out to be exactly the same as a team of Orrs vs. a team of Gretzkys.

Take two identical teams, put Gretzky on one(your team), Orr on the other(my team). Every time you put Gretzky on the ice, I put Orr on the ice. When the puck is in my zone, I tell Orr to cover him, so Gretzky is essentially neuteralized. When the puck is in your zone, Gretzky can't cover Orr and Orr runs rampant. Woot! I win!

The same applies if I had Howe on my team. Put Howe on Gretzky in my zone ... Gretzky neutralized. Gretzky can't stop Howe in your end...Howe shoots...HE SCORES!!!!...I win again.

In both cases I win by by building my team around players other Gretzky, so it clearly makes more sense to build your team around either of these two players than Gretzky. (Personally I'm pretty confident the same would happen with Lemiuex.)

Gretzky won 4 cups, Orr won 2.

Orr couldn't neutralize Gretzky any more than Potvin, Robinson or Stevens could.