Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[GMR]

So now we are taking about goal scoring titles or just scoring titles? Pick one and stick with it please.

Your all about era yet don’t even mention how Richards hart came at one of the weakest points in professional hockey. Why isn’t that being mentioned yet everything else about that era seems to tickle your fancy? He also lost Harts and Hart voting to his own teammates multiple times.

Leading the league in scoring more times than anyone? That isn’t enough? Having more high end goal seasons? Having more goals? Being a better goal scorer? How exactly is Richard the better goal scorer? Because the Goalies were more HOF worthy?

And Ovechkin has by far been the Caps best playoff performer. The difference is Richards was surrounded by HOFers. Ovechkin didn’t benefit from a dynasty, he still has great playoff numbers and playoff success regardless. Richards playoff resume shouldn’t be the deciding factor while Ovechkins regular season resume is far superior.

Well, we all seem to agree those same teammates are some of the best players in NHL history. Having other superstars on the team makes it easier to win Cups. Not necessarily easier to win more Art Ross or Hart trophies. There's only one puck to go around. Ovechkin has insane shot totals every season and basically floats around the rest of the game. Capitals players don't seem to mind because he's a terrific goal scorer and a popular guy. That style works in winning games in the regular season and padding his stats. Not all teams can put up with that, though. Put Crosby or Malkin on Ovechkin's team and he likely has to share a Hart trophy or Art Ross trophy with other players too. I doubt he'd have as many SOG if he had another great winger on his line or a center who liked to shoot more.

 

[newfy]

No one was saying there weren’t elite all time goaltenders during Richards days, only that there are more of them, and they are highly advanced. Much like defensemen overall are better.

Not gonna get involved in this argument as a whole but I dont think this part of your post is entirely right. Yeah there is more great goalies now but theyre spread out over 31 teams instead of 6. Do you think any teams back then had a goaltending combo as pathetic as Bernier/Howard to go against some nights? Or Martin Jones/Dell? Dubnyk/Stalock etc... Back then guys were going against Sawchuk, Bower, Plante, Turk Broda every single night.

Now I'm not saying necessarily that your point is wrong but I see this idea that more better goalies now means that its overall better in that position. People never seem to take that into account discussing the old days of hockey. People talk about how theres moreEuropeans but not how theres 25 more goaltending positions to fill.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Read my post above. You could use this same argument to knock any player who played on a dynasty team. Ovechkin has played on a pretty good team the last 10 years. There is no comparable to the 50's Habs and never will be in the modern era.

It’s not about knocking a player. It’s about how contradicting you are. You are more than willing to use the amount of HOF talent to suggest that Richards competition was greater compared to Ovechkin.....but then your willing to use 8 cups and 1 while ignoring the amount of HOF talent that those Canadiens teams had.

If Ovechkins achievements aren’t as impressive because he doesn’t have a lot of big names to his era, then why isn’t his cup more impressive given how little big names he had on that team and quite frankly no for sure HOFers outside of him?

You can’t deny Richards greatly benefiting from playing with all time greats, especially on his own line. All while Ovechkin, although has had good line mates, has produced with not even close to the amount of talent surrounding him.

Ovechkin has not played with six top 100 players. How many players have in the last 25 years? That said, the Capitals have surrounded him with lots of all stars and great players. There's a reason they've been one of the top teams in the league for over a decade. He's their best player, but far from their only good player. Let's not make it sound like he's playing for the Oilers all this time. He's had Backstrom feeding him pucks for years. He's had teammates willing to let him lead the league in shots every season. He's had great offensive defensemen like Green and now Carlson. Kuznetsov was amazing during their Cup run. He's had goalies that have at least had good regular seasons (not always in the playoffs). The Capitals are loaded. No they don't have Plante, Harvey, and Beliveau, but why criticize Richard for that? How many dynasty players weren't surrounded by Hall of Famers? Like I said, Richard wasn't leaching off anybody.

Are you seriously suggesting that those Cap teams are on the same level as those Habs teams? Really? Your reaching and you know it.

 

[GMR]

Not gonna get involved in this argument as a whole but I dont think this part of your post is entirely right. Yeah there is more great goalies now but theyre spread out over 31 teams instead of 6. Do you think any teams back then had a goaltending combo as pathetic as Bernier/Howard to go against some nights? Or Martin Jones/Dell? Dubnyk/Stalock etc... Back then guys were going against Sawchuk, Bower, Plante, Turk Broda every single night.

Now I'm not saying necessarily that your point is wrong but I see this idea that more better goalies now means that its overall better in that position. People never seem to take that into account discussing the old days of hockey. People talk about how theres moreEuropeans but not how theres 25 more goaltending positions to fill.

The Europeans argument makes more sense in the 70's and 80's than it does for the prior eras. How many great Europeans were there in the 40's and 50's who were being held back from playing in the NHL? Not too many. Whereas, the 70's and 80's had plenty of Europeans who would have made that league even more competitive. Especially when you consider how bad some of the expansion teams were during the 70's.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Well, we all seem to agree those same teammates are some of the best players in NHL history. Having other superstars on the team makes it easier to win Cups. Not necessarily easier to win more Art Ross or Hart trophies. There's only one puck to go around. Ovechkin has insane shot totals every season and basically floats around the rest of the game. Capitals players don't seem to mind because he's a terrific goal scorer and a popular guy. That style works in winning games in the regular season and padding his stats. Not all teams can put up with that, though. Put Crosby or Malkin on Ovechkin's team and he likely has to share a Hart trophy or Art Ross trophy with other players too. I doubt he'd have as many SOG if he had another great winger on his line or a center who liked to shoot more.

The fact that you have to proclaim Ovechkin has a floater who just shoots a lot only shows your bias on the subject. You have to now attack his style in order to have An argument at all.

But playing with All time greats doesn’t pad ones stats though, right? The style has been proven to work in the playoffs. See his cup and smythe that you continue to ignore.

It sure is easier to win more cups with more talent around you, and with less teams to face and when the talent pool isn’t so deep with overall weaker goaltending and defenses, but hey.....all that apparently doesn’t seem to matter.

 

[GMR]

It’s not about knocking a player. It’s about how contradicting you are. You are more than willing to use the amount of HOF talent to suggest that Richards competition was greater compared to Ovechkin.....but then your willing to use 8 cups and 1 while ignoring the amount of HOF talent that those Canadiens teams had.

If Ovechkins achievements aren’t as impressive because he doesn’t have a lot of big names to his era, then why isn’t his cup more impressive given how little big names he had on that team and quite frankly no for sure HOFers outside of him?

You can’t deny Richards greatly benefiting from playing with all time greats, especially on his own line. All while Ovechkin, although has had good line mates, has produced with not even close to the amount of talent surrounding him.

Are you seriously suggesting that those Cap teams are on the same level as those Habs teams? Really? Your reaching and you know it.

Huh? I specifically stated they aren't comparable. The paragraph you just quoted even says that in several places. You better read it again.

Regarding the Capitals Cup win, Ovechkin's run was impressive. However, it was long overdue for the team. The Capitals finally got the right goaltending in the playoffs and found a center in Kuznetsov who played on the same level as a Crosby or Malkin during that playoff run. They always missed that depth at center in prior years. Ovechkin was very good in those playoffs but he was never the main problem preventing the Capitals from winning it previously. I've already said several times that he's been a good playoff performer.

Also, having an All-star team in a smaller league doesn't make it easier to win Cups when there's several dynasty teams. Detroit and Montreal hogged all the Cups in the 50's. There were many great players that decade who didn't sniff that kind of success. Bobby Hull only won a single Cup in the 60's and 70's despite playing on some good teams in his career.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Not gonna get involved in this argument as a whole but I dont think this part of your post is entirely right. Yeah there is more great goalies now but theyre spread out over 31 teams instead of 6. Do you think any teams back then had a goaltending combo as pathetic as Bernier/Howard to go against some nights? Or Martin Jones/Dell? Dubnyk/Stalock etc... Back then guys were going against Sawchuk, Bower, Plante, Turk Broda every single night.

Now I'm not saying necessarily that your point is wrong but I see this idea that more better goalies now means that its overall better in that position. People never seem to take that into account discussing the old days of hockey. People talk about how theres moreEuropeans but not how theres 25 more goaltending positions to fill.

Sure, it’s a good point. Although the average goalie is still significantly better these days, and with better defenses and systems, it’s much harder to score now a days than in Richards time. Not just that, but Richards was surrounded with a lot of offense and had all time greats on his own line. That’s going to make anything easier for any player.

Those original 6 teams were practically All Star teams. I can safely admit that they’re weren’t weak or products of a “weaker” era. Only that given the advances in not just style, but technique and physicality....Ovechkin doesn’t have a lot of the benefits that Richards had, and that isn’t a knock on Richard. I don’t see tearing one player down to make another player appear superior works, both are amazing and Richards was one of the first of his kind, but I still feel Ovechkin is the superior player based on era alone.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Huh? I specifically stated they aren't comparable. The paragraph you just quoted even says that in several places. You better read it again.

Regarding the Capitals Cup win, Ovechkin's run was impressive. However, it was long overdue for the team. The Capitals finally got the right goaltending in the playoffs and found a center in Kuznetsov who played on the same level as a Crosby or Malkin during that playoff run. They always missed that depth at center in prior years. Ovechkin was very good in those playoffs but he was never the main problem preventing the Capitals from winning it previously. I've already said several times that he's been a good playoff performer.

Harder to win a cup with 30 teams rather than 6. You say it’s “long overdue” but they did get beat 3 times by Pitt, who would eventually win the whole thing. It’s harder in this era of playoffs, because every team has a chance. The Habs won a cup with Richards playing just 3 games in his later years. Again, context isn’t your strongest when arguing.

Ok, then what’s your point? You admit that Richards had more to work with in terms of talent, yet combat that with “But Ovechkins cup was long overdue.” So he should have won more? That’s the thing about this era, it’s incredibly hard to win more than one. Pitt was the first team in almost 20 years to repeat, only 2 other teams have won more than 1 since 2004. Again, context.

 

[Ms Maggie]

Not when you have one of the most talented team a year after year. Those Habs teams were some of the best of the decade. Sure other teams had a lot of talent, while Montreal just ran through everyone. I understand the talent being so high though and a lot of those teams were pratically full All Star caliber Talent. I just feel the competition was less based on the number of teams and the pool of talent alone.

Wasn't challenging yr conclusion. Just a math geek!

 

[GMR]

Harder to win a cup with 30 teams rather than 6. You say it’s “long overdue” but they did get beat 3 times by Pitt, who would eventually win the whole thing. It’s harder in this era of playoffs, because every team has a chance. The Habs won a cup with Richards playing just 3 games in his later years. Again, context isn’t your strongest when arguing.

Ok, then what’s your point? You admit that Richards had more to work with in terms of talent, yet combat that with “But Ovechkins cup was long overdue.” So he should have won more? That’s the thing about this era, it’s incredibly hard to win more than one. Pitt was the first team in almost 20 years to repeat, only 2 other teams have won more than 1 since 2004. Again, context.

I never brought up Stanley Cup wins. You did. I merely brought up Richard's individual playoff performances. You seem to be harping on the same thing over and over, which I never intended to mention. You keep arguing with yourself on that point. I realize it's hard to discuss Richard without talking about the Stanley Cups, but that seems to be your problem. I have Hull ranked ahead of Ovechkin too, and he barely sniffed one Cup. That doesn't matter to me as much as others when comparing players. The Capitals' Cup was long overdue. They were a good team for many years. It's not Ovechkin's fault. He had some underwhelming playoffs but was good for the most part.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Wasn't challenging yr conclusion. Just a math geek!

Sorry if I make off strong, didn’t mean to

I never brought up Stanley Cup wins. You did. I merely brought up Richard's individual playoff performances. You seem to be harping on the same thing over and over, which I never intended to mention. You keep arguing with yourself on that point. I realize it's hard to discuss Richard without talking about the Stanley Cups, but that seems to be your problem. I have Hull ranked ahead of Ovechkin too, and he barely sniffed one Cup. That doesn't matter to me as much as others when comparing players. The Capitals' Cup was long overdue. They were a good team for many years. It's not Ovechkin's fault. He had some underwhelming playoffs but was good for the most part.

You brought up earlier that he has 8 Stanley cups with good playoff production. Their playoff production is actually very similar. 126 points in 132 games with a .95 PPG with an astounding 82 goals. Ovechkin has 126 points in 128 games with 65 goals and a .98 PPG. So they have very similar stats, of course Richards 82 goals is hard to ignore and probably the one thing he has over Ovechkin, but regardless it’s still close between them playoff wise.

Again, “long overdue” doesn’t mean anything in this discussion and is merely your opinion. Whether you feel they should or shouldn’t have won before is irrelevant. Yes they did have some good teams, but nothing compared to any of those Canadien teams, let’s just make that clear.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The Capitals' Cup was long overdue. They were a good team for many years.

Looking at their regular season record it's easy to assume that, but it's not actually true. The Capitals never had a legitimate blue line until Orpik and Niskanen arrived in Ovie's 10th season.

The Caps also never really had a very good coach until Trotz. Boudreau has been out-coached in almost every playoff series he's ever been involved in. Adam Oates was le bad and hasn't had a sniff of a head coaching opportunity since.

 

[Iapyi]

You say his style is to simple and almost to obvious, yet it’s been one of the most successful of all time. So what’s your point? You talk like it hasn’t gotten him anywhere or anything...

lol, you don't get to put words in my mouth.

You say he has the most well rounded and complete game in the history of the sport.

You say his game transcends the play of any other player in history.

You say he is the best defensive player in history.

You say he plays the best positional hockey ever and that he is never out of position.

You say he never floats and doesn't ever cheat towards the offensive end.

See how this works?

As I was saying to a friend last night when we were hockey talking it is not so much the style of game that he plays it's that his fanboys don't admit his strengths and weaknesses and pretend that they can argue about his game like he is the perfect player. Why don't you guys just be objective and admit the truth?

I state what he is good at and what he isn't good at, you and your ilk talk like he has no weaknesses. It's asinine.

 

[Neutrinos]

They should be compared to their peers. The problem is Ovechkin has no peers in today's era at wing. Part of that is due to his greatness. You also have to acknowledge that Richard played in an era with the best winger ever in Howe.

Why do you believe Richard was overrated?

Howe may be the greatest winger ever, but I don't agree with him being anointed as the best ever

 

[Neutrinos]

Players should be compared by their performance vs peers. OV was better than Richard, who is 1 of the most overrated players ever.

George Mikan lead the NBA in scoring 3 times

That's more than LeBron, Kobe, Shaq, Dirk, Duncan, Wade, McGrady, Olajuwon

Does that mean Mikan was a better scorer than all of them?

 

[Neutrinos]

Not gonna get involved in this argument as a whole but I dont think this part of your post is entirely right. Yeah there is more great goalies now but theyre spread out over 31 teams instead of 6. Do you think any teams back then had a goaltending combo as pathetic as Bernier/Howard to go against some nights? Or Martin Jones/Dell? Dubnyk/Stalock etc... Back then guys were going against Sawchuk, Bower, Plante, Turk Broda every single night.

Now I'm not saying necessarily that your point is wrong but I see this idea that more better goalies now means that its overall better in that position. People never seem to take that into account discussing the old days of hockey. People talk about how theres moreEuropeans but not how theres 25 more goaltending positions to fill.

It's not just about Europeans coming into the league, but Americans as well

Also, Canada's population is more than 4 times what it was 100 years ago

There are way more hockey players today than there were during the 50's and 60's

 

[AssaultPK]

LOL at the people who say "NO" even if he breaks the goal record.

You guys are bias and are on glue.

Any person ranked #1 in goals of ALL TIME especially in an era of LESS scoring is easily top 10. Give me a break.

 

[TheAngryHank]

LOL at the people who say "NO" even if he breaks the goal record.

You guys are bias and are on glue.

Any person ranked #1 in goals of ALL TIME especially in an era of LESS scoring is easily top 10. Give me a break.

He breaks waynes record he is superglued in 5th place.

 

[GreatGonzo]

lol, you don't get to put words in my mouth.

You say he has the most well rounded and complete game in the history of the sport.

You say his game transcends the play of any other player in history.

You say he is the best defensive player in history.

You say he plays the best positional hockey ever and that he is never out of position.

You say he never floats and doesn't ever cheat towards the offensive end.

See how this works?

As I was saying to a friend last night when we were hockey talking it is not so much the style of game that he plays it's that his fanboys don't admit his strengths and weaknesses and pretend that they can argue about his game like he is the perfect player. Why don't you guys just be objective and admit the truth?

I state what he is good at and what he isn't good at, you and your ilk talk like he has no weaknesses. It's asinine.

So because we say he’s arguably the best and most dominant goal scorer, instead a one trick pony that is a defensive liability. Your whole idea is there’s no grey, but either or.

I mean, I’m not the one saying his style is to simple and doesn’t do much....and yet look at him now.

When have you stated that he’s the most dominant goal scorer? I didn’t see it, all I saw was you saying his style was to simple and predictable...

 

[Iapyi]

So because we say he’s arguably the best and most dominant goal scorer, instead a one trick pony that is a defensive liability. Your whole idea is there’s no grey, but either or.

I mean, I’m not the one saying his style is to simple and doesn’t do much....and yet look at him now.

When have you stated that he’s the most dominant goal scorer? I didn’t see it, all I saw was you saying his style was to simple and predictable...

Show me a post where I said his style was simple and predictable. Good luck.

What is predictable is your patented bait and trap tactic of falsely accusing other posters of saying something they haven't said. You like to rely on logical fallacies instead of just having a rational and honest discussion. I see you post like this all the time.

Toodleoo.

 

[Boxscore]

he already is. If he beats Gretzky's record, there won't be the "Big 4" anymore, there will be "Big 5"

This, exactly.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Show me a post where I said his style was simple and predictable. Good luck.

What is predictable is your patented bait and trap tactic of falsely accusing other posters of saying something they haven't said. You like to rely on logical fallacies instead of just having a rational and honest discussion. I see you post like this all the time.

Toodleoo.

I did get you confused with another poster, you did say this though...

Naw, there are plenty who see past the sizzle and recognize he is very limited as a hockey player, dude has a great shot though.

so what is limited about his game then? Since beyond the “sizzle” he seems like he doesn’t have much, yet has accomplished all he has with his “limited” skill.

Wow no need to get so angry. The floor is yours, go ahead and say what you Have to say

 

[Iapyi]

I did get you confused with another poster, you did say this though...

so what is limited about his game then? Since beyond the “sizzle” he seems like he doesn’t have much, yet has accomplished all he has with his “limited” skill.

Wow no need to get so angry. The floor is yours, go ahead and say what you Have to say

1. Awww. The "Great" one has admitted his confusion. Baby steps but a start.

2. Who's angry? Certainly not me.

You think he has a perfectly well rounded game and is a Selke candidate. Not everyone agrees with you, deal with it. You can't bulldoze your way through every discussion using the logical fallacies that is your bread and butter. Toodleoo.

 

[GMR]

Sorry if I make off strong, didn’t mean to

You brought up earlier that he has 8 Stanley cups with good playoff production. Their playoff production is actually very similar. 126 points in 132 games with a .95 PPG with an astounding 82 goals. Ovechkin has 126 points in 128 games with 65 goals and a .98 PPG. So they have very similar stats, of course Richards 82 goals is hard to ignore and probably the one thing he has over Ovechkin, but regardless it’s still close between them playoff wise.

Again, “long overdue” doesn’t mean anything in this discussion and is merely your opinion. Whether you feel they should or shouldn’t have won before is irrelevant. Yes they did have some good teams, but nothing compared to any of those Canadien teams, let’s just make that clear.

It's not close between them playoff wise. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, Richard, much like Ovechkin, is often in the discussion for greatest goal scorer ever. However, Ovechkin is never in the discussion as one of the best playoff performers ever. Not even close. I've never heard anyone argue that. He's been good in the playoffs, but he has peers that I would say have been better. I would rank Crosby, Zetterberg, Malkin, Kane, Keith, and maybe Toews as all being better playoff performers among his contemporaries. Richard is regarded as one of the very best playoff performers for any era. So it's not close.

 

[newfy]

It's not just about Europeans coming into the league, but Americans as well

Also, Canada's population is more than 4 times what it was 100 years ago

There are way more hockey players today than there were during the 50's and 60's

Check Canadas hockey enrollment numbers these days, I think you would be surprised at what you see. If I remember correctly the raw total has been going down and as a percentage its even lower than that now. Not sure if this is really relevant to the 1950s discussion but I think from the 70s or 80s. I dont have time to look right now so I could be completely wrong but its something to look into. Female hockey in Canada is growing, males not so much.

There were Americans playing in the NHL way back as well. 4 of the O6 teams are USA based, they had American players. But just for an exercise to see how stacked the league would be, go make 6 rosters of the best Canadians and mix in a few Americans with the teams right now. They'll be absolutely stacked. I dont think people realise how much 31 teams dilutes the talent plus the KHL is an attractive draw for good Europeans as well.