Ovechkin top 10 player of all time?

[Dingo]

“Follow his lead.” Ok Daver.....sweet agenda.

I guess they followed Crosby’s lead in the ‘09 finals where he was a no show, but Malkin carried the load. Same with his performance in 2016, where he was a liability for the most part and had trouble producing. Seems like it’s easier to win when you have other players around you that can play at that level.

Cups are won by talent, not leadership. It’s such an old and flawed logic and it’s getting ridiculous. Leadership never got the cup raised.

no no, all the guys who played hockey all their lives didnt know what it took to win at hockey until someone special showed them.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

Mike Bossy is a top 10 all time player.

He was impressive. Too bad for his short career because of injuries.

Ken Dryden is in my personal top ten but he only played 9 or 10 seasons.

Ovi- Top 10 if he passes Gretzky's goal total.

 

[Hank Plank]

How about this, every player is top 10. Done.

 

[GreatGonzo]

no no, all the guys who played hockey all their lives didnt know what it took to win at hockey until someone special showed them.

What are you talking about? He’s suggesting that the team “finally” followed his lead, which lead to them actually winning in the post season. It’s a ridiculous narrative.

Ovechkin didn’t just suddenly become a good playoff performer and leader...did Crosby suddenly decide to be a “better” leader after they won in 2016, after 6 years since their last cup win. It takes toning, confidence, luck, and talent. There is a reason why it’s one of the hardest championships to win in any major sport.

 

[SuperHockeyFanSN]

Easily.

There is no argument against him, any of the guys over him have a chance of breaking any of Gretzky's records? No. Ok, then they're not over him.

Locks are Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Howe....that's it, beyond that there is absolutely no way you can say someone is a lock over him and if you can't, it's a matter of debate and personally, I'll side with the guy that basically 100% would've broken Gretzky's goal scoring record were it not for the two lockouts he faced.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Only Penguins fans, and also the actual voters?

Okay.

It's usually not wise to argue with clear Pens haters, Sid won, that's the end of that. People here like to move goal posts a ton.

Ovy if he continues to produce, yeah maybe top 10-15th. The issue I would have is the goals per game in regards to the other "greats" he's being thrown into, since he has the 1 cup and a few Rockets, there's a lot that would need to be taken into account, but the guy is a legend, no doubt. I'm sure someone will have an issue with this too.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Easily.

There is no argument against him, any of the guys over him have a chance of breaking any of Gretzky's records? No. Ok, then they're not over him.

Locks are Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Howe....that's it, beyond that there is absolutely no way you can say someone is a lock over him and if you can't, it's a matter of debate and personally, I'll side with the guy that basically 100% would've broken Gretzky's goal scoring record were it not for the two lockouts he faced.

If we went by Gpg and games played, Lemieux, Bure, and Bossy would have, yes. All 3 had careers cut short by injuries, unfortunately.

 

[SuperHockeyFanSN]

If we went by Gpg and games played, Lemieux, Bure, and Bossy would have, yes. All 3 had careers cut short by injuries, unfortunately.

Unfortunate for them, are we going to hold it against Ovie he's not made of glass?

 

[bobholly39]

I'm 100% certain you are wrong.

There is zero evidence to support your opinion. In roughly 20 peak seasons combined between those three guys, none of them ever achieved what you assert they could, even though the NHL had fewer teams and was weaker back then. It simply doesn't stand to reason.

Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr never won a cup without a far stronger team around them (massive understatement) than what Ovie had in the 2007-2010 Capitals. Gretzky's supporting cast was so good they won one without him. Those Capitals teams had zero other hall of famers on them (or maybe 1 fringe guy if you count Backstrom), bad coaching, terrible blue liners, and bad goaltending. Offense was never the problem.

We're looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. At some point - arguing back and forth over this becomes an exercise in futility.

But just to clarify - Lemieux hit his peak around 1988. Within 5 years, he had 2 cups and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.
Gretzky hit his peak around 81 or 82 - by 84 and 85 he had 2 cups and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.
Orr hit his peak around 1970 - by 1972 he had 2 cups, and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.

Those players peaking at that time made their team, and their teammates, so much better. Messier, Kurri, Esposito, Jagr....all fantastic players in their own right, very talented. Playing alongside with the peak of those guys helped them become even better, and produce more, and gain a ton of experience that helped them a lot as they continued their career after.

So you saying none of them never achieved what I assert they could simply comes down to interpreting things differently - because to me all 3 achieved exactly what I said.
And i'd say - dump any of those 3 players on any team ever during their 4-6 year peak window - and odds are they manage to win at least 1 cup (Oilers were quite good, they won 4. A weaker roster maybe doesn't win 4 - but with Gretzky peaking, i'm convinced he'd win at least 1).

Caps were a good roster in the 2010s. 100% any of those 3 players (even if you swap them out for Ovi) bring them to 1 cup each.
I even think that if you put either Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux on current version of Red Wings, and allow them 4-6 years of peak - they'd win a cup each at least in that timeframe (assuming of course Yzerman doesn't try to completely sabotage the roster, but instead does ok moves to surround them, within reason).

Finally - before you get defensive - I repeat this isn't meant as a criticism of Ovechkin. I just value Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux's peak ridiculously high - quite higher than any other players ever.

“Follow his lead.” Ok Daver.....sweet agenda.

I guess they followed Crosby’s lead in the ‘09 finals where he was a no show, but Malkin carried the load. Same with his performance in 2016, where he was a liability for the most part and had trouble producing. Seems like it’s easier to win when you have other players around you that can play at that level.

Cups are won by talent, not leadership. It’s such an old and flawed logic and it’s getting ridiculous. Leadership never got the cup raised.

Leadership counts, 100%. In fact - it probably counts a lot. A helluva lot more than you probably realize. Everytime you talk to players or coaches or gms about it - they 100% support this claim. It doesn't mean that if you give the greatest captain in the world to the Wings this year, they make the playoffs and win the cup. But having strong leadership can absolutely help a good to great team actually succeed in winning, vs falling short.

Now how much credit you want to actually give Crosby in that respect (and it should be some credit, since by all accounts/reports he does very good here) is subjective. I'm sure Malkin and others help. Conversely - no one really knows how good or not a leader Ovi is (i'm sure he's really good too). So how much of a plus to Crosby's resume you want to count leadership for is up to you - but trying to claim it counts for nothing, or almost nothing, is simply a horrible stance.

Finally - he won the smythe in 2016. All these ridiculous over exaggerations are dumb. "where he was a liability for the most part". lol? There were a few deserving Conn Smythe winners that year - Crosby was one of them. Reputation certainly helped him - Kessel, Letang, Murray could have been worthy winners too (Couture maybe - but it takes a lot to win in a losing cause, not sure it would be fitting). Just because Crosby was one of a few possible winners and you maybe would have preferred another one it doesn't make "him a liability for the most part". Give me a break...

Hey look, the myth that OV played on a good team is still out there lol. Anyone check the GA of those early caps teams?

08: 17th
09: 20th
10: 17th
11: 4th
12: 19th
13: 16th
14: 22nd
15: 6th
16: 2nd
17: 1st

From 08-14, with the exception of 1 random fluke season, caps were always in the bottom half of GA. Those teams had no 2C, garbage D, garbage goaltending (until Holtby showed up at the end of 11/12), 2 idiots as coaches (Oates and Hunter, neither of whom has gotten an NHL HC job since). Not sure how anyone still thinks those were good teams. They had 2-3 great forwards, that doesn't make a great team.

Ov has played on very strong teams most of his career. Different recipes to make different teams good. Look at the Caps overall regular season rankings in those seasons. Weren't they first, or close to first, many times?

Maybe you could say they weren't constructed or coached right to win in the playoffs, or whatever else. But he's played on good teams majority of his career. Not sure why some people get so defensive about that.

 

[Hatfield]

Easily.

There is no argument against him, any of the guys over him have a chance of breaking any of Gretzky's records? No. Ok, then they're not over him.

Locks are Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Howe....that's it, beyond that there is absolutely no way you can say someone is a lock over him and if you can't, it's a matter of debate and personally, I'll side with the guy that basically 100% would've broken Gretzky's goal scoring record were it not for the two lockouts he faced.

The problem is that after those 4, there are about 20 players who can be reasonably argued as being #5-10: Hull, Hasek, Roy, Beliveau, Richard, Messier, Harvey, Esposito, Mikita, Lidstrom, Jagr, Bourque, Sakic, Ovechkin, Crosby and a few others I’m blanking on.

I’ve always had Bobby Hull as #5, and he’s probably Ovechkin’s closest comparable on the list. Now that Ovechkin has kinda surpassed him in many ways, it makes me wonder...

 

[edog37]

It’s the comparison that everyone is making. Your comparing Ovechkins playoffs to the top 10, and saying it isn’t a enough....well saying Crosby’s playoffs is the deciding factor overall to him him top ten. Ok, do you believe Hasek, Hull, and Bourque are top 10 players?

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Granted I did put Crosby in the situation that Ovechkin is in. Let’s say he doesn’t have a lot of goals, but tons of assists. Has lead the league in assists more times than anyone, and could break the all time assists record. And this is without a big goal tally. You would still see that as worthy of a top 10 spot? I just feel anyone who breaks that kind of record for ALL TIME deserves a spot. It’s an all time record, not something to shrug off. When you have more goals than anyone in NHL history, your up there regardless.

The point was that breaking the goal scoring total is just as amazing and special. But many still treat it like it wouldn’t be enough. It’s a record that was seen as I breakable. I mean the closest is Howe at 93....the next is Jagr where Gretzky has 123 more, and it took Jagr and Howe playing into his 40s to get to those achievements.

Im just saying. Breaking that record, along with everything else he has achieved. I don’t see how anyone could say he isn’t.




No. Talent, skill, career.....Backstrom isn’t close. And I mean it isn’t even a contest. You got caught and now your trying to save face, But please continue fighting the good fight.

Caught exposing you for certain.....

 

[Fantomas]

Everyone will have their own opinion on a top 10 list, I am just looking at the all time points leaders , OV is ranked 37th overall right now , he needs 321 points to tie Phil Esposito for 10th all time scorer . OV needs 1606 more Points to tie Gretzky.

1.	Wayne Gretzky*	1979-99	2857
2.	Jaromir Jagr	1990-18	1921
3.	Mark Messier*	1979-04	1887
4.	Gordie Howe*	1946-80	1850
5.	Ron Francis*	1981-04	1798
6.	Marcel Dionne*	1971-89	1771
7.	Steve Yzerman*	1983-06	1755
8.	Mario Lemieux*	1984-06	1723
9.	Joe Sakic*	1988-09	1641
10.	Phil Esposito*	1963-81	1590

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

37 A Ovechkin 2000-05 1269

What's the point of this exactly? You want to find Maurice Richard on this list for me?

 

[GreatGonzo]

Caught exposing you for certain.....

“For certain”

We're looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. At some point - arguing back and forth over this becomes an exercise in futility.

But just to clarify - Lemieux hit his peak around 1988. Within 5 years, he had 2 cups and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.
Gretzky hit his peak around 81 or 82 - by 84 and 85 he had 2 cups and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.
Orr hit his peak around 1970 - by 1972 he had 2 cups, and 2 of the best smythe performances of all time.

Those players peaking at that time made their team, and their teammates, so much better. Messier, Kurri, Esposito, Jagr....all fantastic players in their own right, very talented. Playing alongside with the peak of those guys helped them become even better, and produce more, and gain a ton of experience that helped them a lot as they continued their career after.

So you saying none of them never achieved what I assert they could simply comes down to interpreting things differently - because to me all 3 achieved exactly what I said.
And i'd say - dump any of those 3 players on any team ever during their 4-6 year peak window - and odds are they manage to win at least 1 cup (Oilers were quite good, they won 4. A weaker roster maybe doesn't win 4 - but with Gretzky peaking, i'm convinced he'd win at least 1).

Caps were a good roster in the 2010s. 100% any of those 3 players (even if you swap them out for Ovi) bring them to 1 cup each.
I even think that if you put either Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux on current version of Red Wings, and allow them 4-6 years of peak - they'd win a cup each at least in that timeframe (assuming of course Yzerman doesn't try to completely sabotage the roster, but instead does ok moves to surround them, within reason).

Finally - before you get defensive - I repeat this isn't meant as a criticism of Ovechkin. I just value Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux's peak ridiculously high - quite higher than any other players ever.



Leadership counts, 100%. In fact - it probably counts a lot. A helluva lot more than you probably realize. Everytime you talk to players or coaches or gms about it - they 100% support this claim. It doesn't mean that if you give the greatest captain in the world to the Wings this year, they make the playoffs and win the cup. But having strong leadership can absolutely help a good to great team actually succeed in winning, vs falling short.

Now how much credit you want to actually give Crosby in that respect (and it should be some credit, since by all accounts/reports he does very good here) is subjective. I'm sure Malkin and others help. Conversely - no one really knows how good or not a leader Ovi is (i'm sure he's really good too). So how much of a plus to Crosby's resume you want to count leadership for is up to you - but trying to claim it counts for nothing, or almost nothing, is simply a horrible stance.

Finally - he won the smythe in 2016. All these ridiculous over exaggerations are dumb. "where he was a liability for the most part". lol? There were a few deserving Conn Smythe winners that year - Crosby was one of them. Reputation certainly helped him - Kessel, Letang, Murray could have been worthy winners too (Couture maybe - but it takes a lot to win in a losing cause, not sure it would be fitting). Just because Crosby was one of a few possible winners and you maybe would have preferred another one it doesn't make "him a liability for the most part". Give me a break...



Ov has played on very strong teams most of his career. Different recipes to make different teams good. Look at the Caps overall regular season rankings in those seasons. Weren't they first, or close to first, many times?

Maybe you could say they weren't constructed or coached right to win in the playoffs, or whatever else. But he's played on good teams majority of his career. Not sure why some people get so defensive about that.

No, leadership doesn’t count at all. It’s a phantom trait that many love to talk about like a skill set or something that can be measured or made to make someone look better/worst.

Of course their needs to be confidence in your captain, and the captain is always greatly respected and look upon to lead whether it’s by example, or with words or what have you. There needs to be that function and sense of togetherness. The thing your leaving out is a majority of the time, the best players are the captains. Leadership has never been the decider for winning or losing, talent has. Of course leadership is important, but it has never been the difference between winning and losing, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise because again, it can’t be measured or proven.

I’ve never taken anything away from Crosby as a leader, only that his leadership has never been the deciding factor when his team has won, much like Ovechkins “lack of” leadership hasn’t been the difference when the caps have lost. Both are highly skilled players and that’s what they bring to a winning formula.

I mean was Toews a better leader than Crosby from 2010-15? Because that’s your logic. That leadership is such a deciding factor, that Somehow lost his abilities to lead, and the Pens didn’t have any playoff success.....

It takes more than one “leader” to win a cup, and it’s more than a letter on the jersey. It takes others stepping up and rising to the occasion. Toews was the captain, but your going to say that Keith or Kane never showed leadership? Malkin showed leadership, Kuzy showed leadership. Leadership isn’t just boxed into one individual, and it certainly takes more than a C to win. Unless you think Andreychuk being the bottom line captain for Tampa was such a huge factor in them winning....

Well my liability comment is for the ones who love to suggest that he won it based off his “two way” play, which is fictional as can be. Second, in the end Kessels line drove the offense more and decided more games than Crosby’s did. Look no further than the second round, Crosby was a no show and his team still won in 6 games. Crosby also went scoreless in the finals with only 4 assists in 6 games. Just because no one “stood out” more than the others doesn’t mean Crosby was the nost deserving, he just stood out more for voters being the first liner, captain, and big name. Kessel, Murray, even Letang. All these guys have very good argument for being better, but they aren’t Sidney Crosby. He now has possibly the weakest Smythe in recent history, and that’s not some big time news, it’s been talked about countless times.

Sakic, Yzerman, Potvin, Stevens....all these guys were captains, but what they contributed to their cup wins was far more than “leadership”, they also happen to be the best players during their eras. They also had a lot of other talent and other players capable of being leaders. Notice how the players that are considered the best leaders ever also were a part of some stacked teams? Not a coincidence...

 

[Frank Garrett]

You must be a Mike Gartner super fan. How can your opinion be taken seriously on this issue when you suggest Gartner is just on the outside of the top 10.

Mike Gartner had one lone season of over 100 points while playing during his prime during the 80s. He was never once top 3 in All Star voting, one season in the top 10 in points where he was 10th, one season where he was top 5 in goals. His 93 playoff points looks ok except for the fact that it game in 122 playoff games.

He looked like Rick Rude though. What a sexy moustache.

 

[shtorm2005]

Maybe you could say they weren't constructed or coached right to win in the playoffs, or whatever else. But he's played on good teams majority of his career. Not sure why some people get so defensive about that.

How a team can be good if they don't play well in playoffs? You're assuming playoffs is same thing as regular season? Because you're using regular season data to predict playoffs outcome. How often it worked? Look at Kings, they steamrolled everyone on the way to the Cup twice, while being average in regular season. Top regular season teams that lose in 1st-2nd round aren't good teams, they're average.

 

[General Fanager]

to me he isnt even close.......

Thats because the thread says hockey player and AO is a scoring phenom but doesnt do much else very well. He has gotten better at the game overall and won a cup so there is points for that but to me its still a no....

as for scoring....Ive never seen one better and Ive seen most of the greats going back to the 60s........

 

[Nemesis Prime]

I'd say he is sitting comfortably in the fifth spot behind the usual suspects.

 

[Weztex]

He's certainly in the discussion but anyone saying that it's definitive is seriously sleeping on some guys.

After the big four, anyone in Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, Shore, Hasek, Roy, Crosby, Bourque, Lidstrom, Jagr and Mikita could be put ahead of him depending on what you value the most. Saying that he's 100% in is a bit much.

 

[bobholly39]

How a team can be good if they don't play well in playoffs? You're assuming playoffs is same thing as regular season? Because you're using regular season data to predict playoffs outcome. How often it worked? Look at Kings, they steamrolled everyone on the way to the Cup twice, while being average in regular season. Top regular season teams that lose in 1st-2nd round aren't good teams, they're average.

2009 - 4th in NHL, 1st in division
2010 - President's trophy, 1st in NHL (8 points more than anyone else, 18 more points than anyone in the east)
2011 - 2nd in NHL, 1st in conference/division
2012 - 15th in NHL (think this was Ovi's worst season)
2013 - 10th in NHL, 1st in division
2014 - Missed playoffs, 17th in NHL
2015- 9th in NHL, 2nd in division
2016 - President's trophy (11 points more than any other team, 16 points more than anyone in east)
2017 - President's trophy (7 more points than anyone else)

They had a bit of a bad run from 2012 to 2014 - but aside from that, Washington has absolutely had great teams during this stretch. Why is anyone even arguing this? Great teams - who for the most part massively underachieved in the playoffs. The 2016 and 2010 president's trophy seem to be very strong too, with big leads over 2nd place, even moreso vs 2nd place in the east.

So - anyone whose looking at Ovechkin's playoff record and arguing "he had bad teams" is out to lunch. He didn't - he had great teams, that often underachieved.

Notice nowhere in my post did I say "and therefore it's Ovechkin's fault". It's a team sport, I get it. His team underachieved. In general, he has a strong playoff record, with a few off years. Still - when looking at his team's playoff success, anyone arguing he didn't play on "strong teams" is simply being disingenuous. He played on very strong teams.

Also - not every strong team wins the cup, or manages to achieve playoff success. It doesn't mean they weren't a good team - it just means they're a good team who underachieved.

 

[shtorm2005]

2009 - 4th in NHL, 1st in division
2010 - President's trophy, 1st in NHL (8 points more than anyone else, 18 more points than anyone in the east)
2011 - 2nd in NHL, 1st in conference/division
2012 - 15th in NHL (think this was Ovi's worst season)
2013 - 10th in NHL, 1st in division
2014 - Missed playoffs, 17th in NHL
2015- 9th in NHL, 2nd in division
2016 - President's trophy (11 points more than any other team, 16 points more than anyone in east)
2017 - President's trophy (7 more points than anyone else)

They had a bit of a bad run from 2012 to 2014 - but aside from that, Washington has absolutely had great teams during this stretch. Why is anyone even arguing this? Great teams - who for the most part massively underachieved in the playoffs. The 2016 and 2010 president's trophy seem to be very strong too, with big leads over 2nd place, even moreso vs 2nd place in the east.

So - anyone whose looking at Ovechkin's playoff record and arguing "he had bad teams" is out to lunch. He didn't - he had great teams, that often underachieved.

Notice nowhere in my post did I say "and therefore it's Ovechkin's fault". It's a team sport, I get it. His team underachieved. In general, he has a strong playoff record, with a few off years. Still - when looking at his team's playoff success, anyone arguing he didn't play on "strong teams" is simply being disingenuous. He played on very strong teams.

Also - not every strong team wins the cup, or manages to achieve playoff success. It doesn't mean they weren't a good team - it just means they're a good team who underachieved.

Let's just agree that those teams were talented, but, to me, it's not enough to be great. Great teams have talent, good working ethic and good coaching.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Bossy was a more gifted goal scorer. A true sniper

He absolutely was not.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He absolutely was not.

I am going to do a comprehensive comparison between Bossy and Ovechkin someday. This Bossy nonsense is absurd. Dude would be a 35-40 goal guy in today's NHL.

Bossy doesn't belong in these discussions. Ratios are hard for some people I guess?

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Ya the 80s Oilers were also a horrible team when looking at GA.

What a misleading way to look at things.

Too bad the standings aren't available eh?

You can't seriously be comparing those Oilers to those Caps teams. You can overcome GA totals like those year after year with 8 HOF's on your team...

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Biggest reputation award in modern Smythe history. My god, the man didn't even score a goal in the Caps series and totaled 2 points as secondaries.

 

[wetcoast]

You can't seriously be comparing those Oilers to those Caps teams. You can overcome GA totals like those year after year with 8 HOF's on your team...

I wasn't comparing the 2 teams it was that the metric of GA was a really poor one at best and disingenuous at worst.

The OP was trying to make the point that the Capitals somehow weren't a good team when in fact they finished higher in the standings in 8 of the 10 years the OP had stated and often by quite a decent margin.