Orr Vs Gretzky

[Lowetide]

Gretzky was the best player in history within a narrow (and extremely important) view. Once he got the puck at the Yellow Pages sign you were in trouble.

Orr was a complete player who had few limitations beyond his imagination and injury. He had an impact when he had the puck and could play the game effectively in defense as well.

I'd take Orr any day, and that's no shot at 99.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
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

er...didn't we already discuss how elusive Gretzky is. How could a common AHL player with no skill have possibly hit Gretzky? So either McCreary had some skill or Gretzky was hittable. You can't have it both ways.

Regardless, obviously every marginal player in the league took note of what happened to McCreary. These are your generally players who stay in league because of their grit...because they are grinders and hitters. Are you are honestly going to tell me that if you were one of these marginal players and had the chance to devastate Gretzky you would? Sure you would, if you wanted to take a chance (not for sure, but certainly a chance) on spending the rest of your career in the minors riding buses.

 

[Ogopogo*]

er...didn't we already discuss how elusive Gretzky is. How could a common AHL player with no skill have possibly hit Gretzky? So either McCreary had some skill or Gretzky was hittable. You can't have it both ways.

Regardless, obviously every marginal player in the league took note of what happened to McCreary. These are your generally players who stay in league because of their grit...because they are grinders and hitters. Are you are honestly going to tell me that if you were one of these marginal players and had the chance to devastate Gretzky you would? Sure you would, if you wanted to take a chance (not for sure, but certainly a chance) on spending the rest of your career in the minors riding buses.

I guess the 1969 moon landing was fake too? You believe in too many conspiracy theories.

Any player that suits up in the NHL can have a great shift. Any player can appear to be the best player in the world for 45 seconds. What separates the truly great from the truly mediocre is doing that over and over again.

Ever notice that the 3 stars is different every night? How can that be?

Any player can have one great shift, one great period or even one great game. Is Darryl Sittler the greatest player in the history of the NHL? He had 10 points one night. What about Bill Mosienko? He had 3 goals on one shift.

McCreary had one good shift and that was it for his NHL career.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
Gretzky won 4 cups, Orr won 2.

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

I say my team with Orr beats your team with Gretzky and your only arguement is to put Orr on par with Potvin, Robinson and Stevens? Granted they are all HHOF defencemen, and great players in their own right, but it would be same as me putting Gretzky on par with Bossy or Hull...surely you agree that's laughable.

Ok, I'll try another approach: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Is anyone seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

The Oilers were able to win a cup without Gretzky, the Bruins were not able to win a cup without Orr. The Oilers were argueably one of the best teams of all time (though I would go with the Habs.). I don't think anyone would claim either of the cup winning Bruins teams were the best team of all time.

Besides, if you go with the number of Cups won, then I'm pretty sure Henri Richard becomes the best player of all time.

 

[notmynhl]

Ogopogo:
I guess the 1969 moon landing was fake too? You believe in too many conspiracy theories.

Any player that suits up in the NHL can have a great shift. Any player can appear to be the best player in the world for 45 seconds. What separates the truly great from the truly mediocre is doing that over and over again.

Ever notice that the 3 stars is different every night? How can that be?

Any player can have one great shift, one great period or even one great game. Is Darryl Sittler the greatest player in the history of the NHL? He had 10 points one night. What about Bill Mosienko? He had 3 goals on one shift.

McCreary had one good shift and that was it for his NHL career.

Ogopogo, please answer the question: After seeing what happened to McCreary, if you were a borderline player in the NHL(ie a hitter and grinder), and you had a chance to lay a devastating hit on Gretzky, would you do it and take a chance (not for sure, but certainly a chance) on going back to the minors for the rest of your career?

 

[Ogopogo*]

I say my team with Orr beats your team with Gretzky and your only arguement is to put Orr on par with Potvin, Robinson and Stevens? Granted they are all HHOF defencemen, and great players in their own right, but it would be same as me putting Gretzky on par with Bossy or Hull...surely you agree that's laughable.

Ok, I'll try another approach: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Is anyone seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

The Oilers were able to win a cup without Gretzky, the Bruins were not able to win a cup without Orr. The Oilers were argueably one of the best teams of all time (though I would go with the Habs.). I don't think anyone would claim either of the cup winning Bruins teams were the best team of all time.

Besides, if you go with the number of Cups won, then I'm pretty sure Henri Richard becomes the best player of all time.

Are you trying to say that Orr was better defensively than Potvin, Robinson, Stevens and Langway for that matter?

Orr won Norrises primarily because of his offense. He was not the best defensive defenseman of all time. He was good but not the best. For the strictly defensive aspect of the game, I think Langway and Stevens were definitely better.

That all being said, no defenseman could shut down Gretzky. He burned every team he played against and he would have burned Orr as well.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogopogo, please answer the question: After seeing what happened to McCreary, if you were a borderline player in the NHL(ie a hitter and grinder), and you had a chance to lay a devastating hit on Gretzky, would you do it and take a chance (not for sure, but certainly a chance) on going back to the minors for the rest of your career?

Honestly, I think that is a stupid assumption based on what happened with Bill McCreary.

Every time I have ever seen a player throw a huge - clean - hit, the coach and management of that team LOVES it. This was true when I played, this is true when I watch.

To be honest, if I was a player I would be more worried about ruining my NHL career by NOT hitting the guy.

Believing that a player will be buried in the minors because of hitting Gretzky is as dumb as believing the moon landing was faked.

 

[notmynhl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by notmynhl
I say my team with Orr beats your team with Gretzky and your only arguement is to put Orr on par with Potvin, Robinson and Stevens? Granted they are all HHOF defencemen, and great players in their own right, but it would be same as me putting Gretzky on par with Bossy or Hull...surely you agree that's laughable.

Ok, I'll try another approach: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Is anyone seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

The Oilers were able to win a cup without Gretzky, the Bruins were not able to win a cup without Orr. The Oilers were argueably one of the best teams of all time (though I would go with the Habs.). I don't think anyone would claim either of the cup winning Bruins teams were the best team of all time.

Besides, if you go with the number of Cups won, then I'm pretty sure Henri Richard becomes the best player of all time.

Are you trying to say that Orr was better defensively than Potvin, Robinson, Stevens and Langway for that matter?

Orr won Norrises primarily because of his offense. He was not the best defensive defenseman of all time. He was good but not the best. For the strictly defensive aspect of the game, I think Langway and Stevens were definitely better.

That all being said, no defenseman could shut down Gretzky. He burned every team he played against and he would have burned Orr as well.

Once again Ogopogo, you didn't answer my question: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Are you seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

For the record, I will definitely say that Orr was better defensively than any of the defencemen you named. He was easily as strong, had far better vision, played as well positionally, was a far better skater, and was far better with his stick than any of the defencemen you mentioned. Granted Orr took far more chances, but those chances often paid huge dividends. Simply put, if Orr was assigned to shut down Gretzky, he would be far more effective than any of the defencemen you named.

 

[notmynhl]

notmynhl:
Ogopogo, please answer the question: After seeing what happened to McCreary, if you were a borderline player in the NHL(ie a hitter and grinder), and you had a chance to lay a devastating hit on Gretzky, would you do it and take a chance (not for sure, but certainly a chance) on going back to the minors for the rest of your career?

Ogopogo:
Honestly, I think that is a stupid assumption based on what happened with Bill McCreary.

Every time I have ever seen a player throw a huge - clean - hit, the coach and management of that team LOVES it. This was true when I played, this is true when I watch.

To be honest, if I was a player I would be more worried about ruining my NHL career by NOT hitting the guy.

Believing that a player will be buried in the minors because of hitting Gretzky is as dumb as believing the moon landing was faked.

Just to be clear, I have never said that a player will be buried in the minors because of hitting Gretzky. Toronto sure didn't give much love to McCreary after he nailed Gretzky, so perhaps you capitalizing of LOVES was a bit extreme? Clearly we disagree on how a marginal NHL player might percieve the situation, and I will leave it at that.

 

[Rorschach]

I guess this is the thread to let Orr fans rant since the majority of hockey fans label Gretzky as the greatest. I can't really label either since I only saw Gretzky play and only later in his career in LA.

I do remember some how that Bernie Nicholls got a crazy 150 points in a season, 70 goals and 80 assists, because Gretzky kept getting triple-teamed. Even when he didn't have the puck, he made his teammates better!

Seriously though, do any of us on this board know hockey so well to be able to gauge these two once-a-generation players and compare them? I always say, the only people who are fit to measure a person's true talent are those who are equal or greater in the same talent. We as fans feel we can measure most players' talents because we have so many other players past and present to whom we can closely compare and gauge their talents.

For example, people can only claim that Sidney Crosby is the next Gretzky only because there was a Gretzky. But who can say that Bobby Orr was the next "crazy-generational-past-defensman" or that Wayne Gretzky was the next "crazy-generational-past-forward?" The same goes for Gordie Howe as well.

All I know is, these players had different situations to fill on their respective teams and they both played in different eras. You can't really compare the two situations and certainly we can't truly measure what either of these players were fully capable of.

Also, who knows what Lemieux could have done with no cancer and no back problems? Maybe he would have topped both of these players. Point is, you can't count "what if's" and you can't compare two quantities that you can't measure.

- Ror

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Once again Ogopogo, you didn't answer my question: If Orr is more successful at shutting down Gretzky than Gretzky is at shutting down Orr, I win. Are you seriously going to argue that Gretzky is going to be more successful at shutting down Orr than Orr is at shutting down Gretzky?

For the record, I will definitely say that Orr was better defensively than any of the defencemen you named. He was easily as strong, had far better vision, played as well positionally, was a far better skater, and was far better with his stick than any of the defencemen you mentioned. Granted Orr took far more chances, but those chances often paid huge dividends. Simply put, if Orr was assigned to shut down Gretzky, he would be far more effective than any of the defencemen you named.

No, he'd have to prove that the gap between Orr's defence and Gretzky's defence is less than the gap between Orr's offence and Gretzky's offence.

Remember. At their best, Gretzky scored about 50 more goals and 70 more points than Orr. So to have a greater effect than Gretzky, Orr would have to prevent 50-70 more goals than Gretzky.

I'd be curious to see if old school defencemen would be able to shut down Gretzky, Shore or Seibert would not have feared Semenko or suspension, could they have made Gretzky second guess himself? Could they think quickly enough to out do him? For that matter, could Orr think quickly enough? He could move quickly enough, but he never had the sense to know when to slow down, when to not take the hit.

 

[ShooterMcGavin*]

Gretzky > Orr. Stats and Stanley Cups speak for themselfs.

 

[BNHL]

Are you trying to say that Orr was better defensively than Potvin, Robinson, Stevens and Langway for that matter?

Orr won Norrises primarily because of his offense. He was not the best defensive defenseman of all time. He was good but not the best. For the strictly defensive aspect of the game, I think Langway and Stevens were definitely better.

That all being said, no defenseman could shut down Gretzky. He burned every team he played against and he would have burned Orr as well.

You simply never saw him play with that remark.As Gerry Cheevers once said "Orr should have won the Vezina as well".

 

[04' hockey]

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?

Lets see.....

Gretzky------------21 seasons-----------4 Cups-------19%

Orr-----------------9 seasons------------2 Cups-------21% !

hhmmm.......

 

[BNHL]

1969-70-71-72 Bruins in the HOF Orr-Espo-Bucyk-Cheevers

Gretzky Era Oilers in the HOF-Gretz-Fuhr-Coffey-Kurri-////(*Messier)-(**Anderson)

*Not yet I know
**498 goals probably misses out

Orr,being a defenseman,playing ever other shift,played with 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th liners regularly with primary defensive responsibilities.
Gretzky as the top forward probably played mostly with 1st liners and primary offensive responsibilities and as far as I can tell no defensive responsibilities.

 

[notmynhl]

Nalyd Psycho:
No, he'd have to prove that the gap between Orr's defence and Gretzky's defence is less than the gap between Orr's offence and Gretzky's offence.

Remember. At their best, Gretzky scored about 50 more goals and 70 more points than Orr. So to have a greater effect than Gretzky, Orr would have to prevent 50-70 more goals than Gretzky.

Hmmm...I thought I was essentially saying that Psycho. Anyways, considering Orr's offensive abilities, personally I think its a slam dunk that Orr is going to come out on top in this confrontation. If there's doubt, go back to the 5 Gretzky's playing 5 Orr's...no contest in my mind where the bigger gap lies.

 

[cgb]

I just read all 100 posts so I have a few things.

1 Any argument saying 'it's not even close' in either Gretzky's or Orr's favour should be discredited.

2 The five Orr's vs. five Gretzky's argument is borderline stupid (note the argument, not the arguer)

3. People say Orr changed the game and I don't disagree. But the defensive side of hockey became a lot more prevalent in the early 90s and hit it's peak not long after. Has anyone ever considered that is because the new coaches like Lemaire and Robinson for example looked at what Gretzky did in the 80s, they thought 'we can't beat a guy like this offensively, maybe I should become a good defensive coach' All of a sudden defensive coaches were all the rage. I think Gretzky, at least in part, could be credited with changing the game that way.

4 They were different players for a variety of reasons (era, teams played with, body size and obviously position, etc.) and they both played to their strengths. Orr was able to (maybe had to) play and all-around game, say a 50/50 offense and defense split. And he was one of the best at it.
Gretzky on the other hand played an 80/20 split. The argument of why would he grind/ fight/ hit is bang on. He had his strength and did it like no one else before, during or since.

If I had to choose one it would go like this: While Orr is rightfully commended for his overall game, I think the way gretzky dominated offensively makes him the greater player. Though it's close

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Hmmm...I thought I was essentially saying that Psycho. Anyways, considering Orr's offensive abilities, personally I think its a slam dunk that Orr is going to come out on top in this confrontation. If there's doubt, go back to the 5 Gretzky's playing 5 Orr's...no contest in my mind where the bigger gap lies.

I'm not sure 5 Gretzky's is so bad, with his vision, he could play defence if he chose to. And Orr would likely be playing catch-up to Gretzky.

 

[04' hockey]

I'm not sure 5 Gretzky's is so bad, with his vision, he could play defence if he chose to. And Orr would likely be playing catch-up to Gretzky.

Orr may have been the greatest "do all of it at top speed" player ever!

Next attempt?

 

[CharaIsAFreak86]

I personally think it's astounding that many people (including myself) consider Orr to be the greatest player of all time even though he only played 9 seasons. That's saying something. If he was able to play in top form well into his 30s, it would be his records that Gretzky was breaking in the 1990s and not Gordie Howe's. And I don't understand why people are throwing the complete play argument out the window. Gretzky was not a complete player, but he was simply too good offensively for any other skills where he might be deficient to even matter. In the discussion of the better overall player, you have to go with Orr because he not only joined the rush but led it the majority of the time, and if he wasn't able to score he was able to use his skating ability to get back on defense. He wasn't the best ever at shutting forwards down, but he is certainly close. He also played a very physical game, which sets him far apart from Gretzky. Gretzky didn't have to be physical because 1. he had guys protecting him and doing the physicality for him, and 2. much of the time he knew what defenders were going to do anyway. I'll say Orr is the better overall player, but it's still very close. It's a 1 and 1a thing for me.

 

[BNHL]

I personally think it's astounding that many people (including myself) consider Orr to be the greatest player of all time even though he only played 9 seasons. That's saying something. If he was able to play in top form well into his 30s, it would be his records that Gretzky was breaking in the 1990s and not Gordie Howe's. And I don't understand why people are throwing the complete play argument out the window. Gretzky was not a complete player, but he was simply too good offensively for any other skills where he might be deficient to even matter. In the discussion of the better overall player, you have to go with Orr because he not only joined the rush but led it the majority of the time, and if he wasn't able to score he was able to use his skating ability to get back on defense. He wasn't the best ever at shutting forwards down, but he is certainly close. He also played a very physical game, which sets him far apart from Gretzky. Gretzky didn't have to be physical because 1. he had guys protecting him and doing the physicality for him, and 2. much of the time he knew what defenders were going to do anyway. I'll say Orr is the better overall player, but it's still very close. It's a 1 and 1a thing for me.

I hate the 1A and 1B thing.I think the Oilers built a team around Gretzky to exploit his obvious offensive genius.They defended him like parents and got him the puck like he'd die without it.Orr,on the other hand had no team built around his weaknesses to benefit his strengths,he had no weaknesses.Orr on the 80s Oilers without Gretzky would have been frightening. Gretzky on the Big Bad Bruins would have been frightened!

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

5 Hextalls would beat 5 Orrs.

 

[BNHL]

5 Hextalls would beat 5 Orrs.

.......to the Donut shop!

 

[Wooty]

You guys put a lot of thought into it but I will take a random stab at it.

Orr was the better palyer
Gretzky was better at what mattered, making goals faster then the other team

 

[BNHL]

After the Rangers had lost in the finals in six game to Boston, in which Orr scored seven goals, Rod Gilbert said, "Hockey is a team game, right? One man is not supposed to beat a whole team."