What would peak Ovechkin look like in the 80's?

Riddum

Registered User
Nov 5, 2008
5,951
2,003
Montreal
He would destroy.

This thread makes no sense whatsoever. We all agree that Lemieux and Gretzky are lightyears ahead of Ovi and it's not even close, what makes you think he would destroy that era?

A prime Jagr easily destroys Ovi So if we teleported Prime Jagr to the 80s, he's be better than Gretzky too?

It seems like he would also be teleported with his current equipment.
 

habs2731

Registered User
Apr 7, 2015
141
0
This thread makes no sense whatsoever. We all agree that Lemieux and Gretzky are lightyears ahead of Ovi and it's not even close, what makes you think he would destroy that era?

A prime Jagr easily destroys Ovi So if we teleported Prime Jagr to the 80s, he's be better than Gretzky too?

It seems like he would also be teleported with his current equipment.

This is starting to turn into time travel, getting kind of weird.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,593
12,655
Toronto
This thread makes no sense whatsoever. We all agree that Lemieux and Gretzky are lightyears ahead of Ovi and it's not even close, what makes you think he would destroy that era?

A prime Jagr easily destroys Ovi So if we teleported Prime Jagr to the 80s, he's be better than Gretzky too?

It seems like he would also be teleported with his current equipment.

The difference is that Ovechkin skates much faster and has a harder shot. He might not be as good relative to his peers, but he is more gifted physically.

The 80s had crappy defensive systems and swiss cheese goalies.

If Ovechkin can blast the puck past the huge and technically sound goalkeepers such as Lundqvist or Price, he'd feast upon those small and upright goalkeepers. The butterfly technique forever changed hockey.
 

Samuel Culper III

Mr. Woodhull...
Jan 15, 2007
13,144
1,099
Texas
He'd likely score on every shift. I'm serious.

I honestly think this is true. Irrelevant but true. If he had a time machine he would destroy every scoring record we have. He's so big, so strong, so fast, so physical and has such a lethal shot. He would score on every shift.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
I honestly think this is true. Irrelevant but true. If he had a time machine he would destroy every scoring record we have. He's so big, so strong, so fast, so physical and has such a lethal shot. He would score on every shift.

Yea, no. Again, he's not superhuman
 

Samuel Culper III

Mr. Woodhull...
Jan 15, 2007
13,144
1,099
Texas
The difference is that Ovechkin skates much faster and has a harder shot. He might not be as good relative to his peers, but he is more gifted physically.

The 80s had crappy defensive systems and swiss cheese goalies.

If Ovechkin can blast the puck past the huge and technically sound goalkeepers such as Lundqvist or Price, he'd feast upon those small and upright goalkeepers. The butterfly technique forever changed hockey.

Exactly. Ovechkin would simply be a bull in a China shop. How many times did Lemieux, Gretzky or Jagr lead the league in hits while also leading in scoring? Ovechkin's speed, physicality and shot are ahead of them all and, really, he wouldn't need much more to dominate. It's not like he's a slouch in the other areas.
 

Samuel Culper III

Mr. Woodhull...
Jan 15, 2007
13,144
1,099
Texas
Yea, no. Again, he's not superhuman

He actually IS kind of super human. He is an absolutely dominant scorer in an era where goaltending and defensive systems are exponentially more stifling than ever, and it's almost ENTIRELY due to his physical gifts, which are nearly super human. To be as fast and athletic as he is at his size is absolutely unique and outstanding.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,593
12,655
Toronto
Yea, no. Again, he's not superhuman

Brett Hull scored 86 goals. His shot is on par with Ovechkin's, but he is much smaller. Imagine if Brett Hull was 6'3 230 lbs. He'd get a few more goals by being hard to stop physically.

Ovechkin is not the only one that would destroy the league in the 80s. Imagine Pavel Bure flying past those clueless defenders. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't score more.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
He actually IS kind of super human. He is an absolutely dominant scorer in an era where goaltending and defensive systems are exponentially more stifling than ever, and it's almost ENTIRELY due to his physical gifts, which are nearly super human. To be as fast and athletic as he is at his size is absolutely unique and outstanding.

He's an incredible physical package no doubt. But there were lots of great players in that era that were still great in the 90s playing against guys who were still great against Ovechkin. The game has bettered over time, for sure and Ovechkin would certainly be able to take advantage of it. But he's not playing against peewees here. There were guys then who could skate faster. There were guys who were close in size. There were more talented stick handlers. And no one's scoring close to a goal a shift. He's not going to just walk through a team and score. And he's going to be reliant on his own team of lesser players to get him the puck. His shot would be insanely dangerous, especially if he was allowed to have the same sticks as today. But he still has to be able to get that shot off in scoring position. And as different as the goaltending was then, you also have to remember that his shot is arguably more dangerous relative to his peers today than it would be then. Now, it takes the perfect shot usually in order to beat goaltenders, whereas back then, it wasn't the case. Guys like Lemieux and Gretzky didn't have to wire it past the goalies like Ovechkin can, but they knew how to put it where they weren't. And they still only scored a little over a goal a game at their best. I could see Ovechkin maybe beating Gretzky's record and even taking a shot at 100. But every shift? He couldn't do that in the ECHL
 

billybudd

Registered User
Feb 1, 2012
22,049
2,249
What would peak Ovechkin look like in the 80's stats wise in the height of the oilers days (without Gretzky)?

Keep in mind he would be playing close to 30mintues a game with double the amount of powerplays. Interested in hearing stats and reasoning behind it please - Thank You!

If he brings his 2015 stick with him, he's looking at 100 goals a year in an 80 game season. Maybe more.

Understand, though, that if he ran around finishing checks like he does, he'd be getting jumped more or less constantly. And not just by the Brandon Dubinsky types of that era, but by roided up, cocaine fueled killers who couldn't feel pain. Good chance a lot of d would go after his knees at the line as well after the first time he hit them late on the forecheck. A knee injury was a career changer back then and everyone seemed to have a long, long memory.

In other words, if he didn't drop that physical edge, he wouldn't get close to 80 games a year.
 

MastuhNinks

Registered User
Apr 30, 2011
6,203
6
The Iron Throne
I'm sure he'd still have a prolific wrist shot but we still have to remember that wood sticks would have an impact on his shot.

Brett Hull scored 86 goals. His shot is on par with Ovechkin's, but he is much smaller. Imagine if Brett Hull was 6'3 230 lbs. He'd get a few more goals by being hard to stop physically.

Ovechkin is not the only one that would destroy the league in the 80s. Imagine Pavel Bure flying past those clueless defenders. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't score more.
Yeah, Pavel Bure would get to play against bums like Stevens, Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Chelios as opposed to the far superior defensemen of the 90s he had to play against. :sarcasm:
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,593
12,655
Toronto
I'm sure he'd still have a prolific wrist shot but we still have to remember that wood sticks would have an impact on his shot.

Yeah, Pavel Bure would get to play against bums like Stevens, Bourque, Coffey, MacInnis, Chelios as opposed to the far superior defensemen of the 90s he had to play against. :sarcasm:

It's not the quality of the top end Dmen that changed. The 80s had a much bigger disparity in talent than the 90s or the early 2000s in which Bure played.

3rd pairing Dmen have gotten much better over the years.
 

seekritdude

Registered User
May 3, 2009
201
24
www.facebook.com
Do you not realize there are far less penalties being called today than there was 20-25 years ago? Also, you think players seemed faster back then? Not too sure what you're watching, lol.

ya go watch some games from like 20-25 years ago. Even with all the hooking and grabbing back then, theres dudes with bursts of speed out of no where going between guys, scoring goals whatever. The game is not the same as it was now. Games do not have the same flow as they use to. Which again is funny because youd think with how ya training etc is different now a days, and with less hooking and grabbing it would be teh complete opposite but it doesnt seem that way to me. Maybe dudes are stronger now a days, but faster/more agile/more skillfull? Thats pretty debateable id say. Only argument id see against this is perhaps the skill gap between good and "bad" players so it was more likely to be burned.
 

Lebowski

El Duderino
Dec 5, 2010
17,585
5,218
He would tear the competition apart and hold the record for most goals in a season, possibly for the most points as well.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
their logic is that goalies are vastly superior today and defenseman were not as good either. Ovechkin in his peak probably wouldn't score on every other shot but I could see him scoring 5 or 6 every game no problem
That's not the logic I was referring to. I'm referring to the illogical conclusion that because I don't think Ovechkin would score on 50% of his shots* when teleported to the 1980s that I therefore must be "in love with the 80s". Not logical.


*On which point, you agree with me
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
Let's put a little perspective on this (absurd, sci-fi) topic, and then I'll let it go.

The thesis of this thread is a self-congratulatory "The-NHL-I-watch-today-has-the-best-players-EVER!". My thesis would be that the NHL changes over time, and that the entire approach/style of the game changes; but I wouldn't argue that one era's players are better than another's. (Slightly off-topic: another point I'll always argue until I'm blue in the face, which some of you surely agree with, is that the only player vs. player comparison that makes any sense or is at all relevant is when a player is compared to his peers. Therefore, I'm not arsed whatsoever whether Stamkos has a better slapshot than Gordie Howe because it's irrelevant. The only relevant issue is that Gordie Howe dominated his era more than Stamkos his [so far]. But I'm getting off topic.)

Back to the 80s/90s issues. Let's consider a few factors before we anoint Ovechkin as the player who would score 150 goals a season in the 80s.

The top point scorer of the 1980s was Wayne Gretzky. The top point scorer of the 1990s was... Wayne Gretzky. Consider the 1997-98 season, when Gretzky was 10 years past his prime, a year from retirement, playing for a no-talent losing team that wasn't even challenging for the playoffs and was one of the lowest-scoring teams, and finished 3rd in NHL scoring with 90 points at the onset of the 'dead-puck era'. In fact, the Rangers scored only 197 goals (fewer than 26 teams this season), which means Gretzky got a point on 46% of their goals, which is about the same ratio he was having in Edmonton in the mid-80s.

Compare the top point-scorers that year (player-age at season's end in parentheses):
Jagr (26) 102/228 = 45%
Forsberg (24) 91/231 = 39%
Gretzky (37) 90/197 = 46%
Bure (27) 90/224 = 40%

So, to review: Ten years past his prime, Gretzky matched or outscored Jagr (still playing today), Forsberg, and Bure... not to mention other no-name bums like Selanne, Sundin, and Lindros. What's more, every team these guys played for had a better record (and scored more goals) than the Rangers, excepting Bure whose Canucks were just as bad as the Rangers (but scored more goals). And this was a Gretzky who was a shell of his former self, no longer going to the front of the net, winning races to loose pucks, or challenging defenders.

So, there's that. Next, consider that during his 7-year prime Gretzky outscored the 2nd-best scorer in the NHL by 71%. In one season, he won the scoring title on January 7th.


So, considering these two factors -- (1) that 10-years-past-his-prime Gretzky was matching prime Jagr, Selanne, Forsberg, and Bure in the late 90s -- just 6 years before Ovechkin was drafted -- and (2) that young Gretzky dominated his peers offensively by a margin that no player before or since can even begin to approach by half, do we really think that Ovechkin in the 80s, with a wooden stick and 80s' equipment to match everybody else and little-to-no protection from goons by the referees, would score twice as many goals as Gretzky in 1984? Let's just say I have my doubts.


In any case, these kind of sci-fi topics are nuts. I consider players' greatness and importance only relative to their peers. Ovechkin is the greatest goal-scorer of his era (well, in the regular season anyway), no doubt about it. This indeed puts him high in the upper echelon of greatest goal scorers in history. But his dominance over his peers isn't as impressive as several players in history, yet. We'll see how he does in his 30s. Looking forward to finding out!
 

Lennu32

Registered User
Oct 4, 2011
1,210
38
My point was that Hull, while not the fastest guy, had uncanny ability to almost never miss scoring spot. It was like he wasn't on the ice at all until you saw him ripping a slap shot from the upper end of the circle.

Ovechkin is massively faster than Hull.

Brett Hull was born to score. Some people just have that special feeling for something. Brett wasn't fastest, physical, nor did have the hardest shot, still was one of the best scorers ever.

Good sniper knows where he has to be and when. Brett's one timer was also pretty damn good. :nod:
 

chauron

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
2,285
1,114
He would absolutely destroy, assuming that he'd stay healthy.

Depends on what team he'd play in, but 100+ goals per season, with 50+ assists sounds like it. Especially if he'd play for the Oilers ....
 

jw2

Registered User
Jun 13, 2012
7,081
430
Boston
Brett Hull scored 86 goals. His shot is on par with Ovechkin's, but he is much smaller. Imagine if Brett Hull was 6'3 230 lbs. He'd get a few more goals by being hard to stop physically.

Ovechkin is not the only one that would destroy the league in the 80s. Imagine Pavel Bure flying past those clueless defenders. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't score more.

He'd probably being taking runs at people instead of getting in scoring position.

Imagine Hull with a composite stick and unlimited curve in his prime. And defenders can't hook or move him without being penalized. 194 goal seasons.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,593
12,655
Toronto
He'd probably being taking runs at people instead of getting in scoring position.

Imagine Hull with a composite stick and unlimited curve in his prime. And defenders can't hook or move him without being penalized. 194 goal seasons.

Sure, but Hull didn't have two people covering him at all times with one other person ready to dive in front of his shot to block it. Ovechkin is the single forward who receives the most attention from opposing coaches and defensive systems because of how dangerous he is.

Defensemen throughout the league talk about shutting down Ovi, but none of them can shut him down. They can only limit the damage he causes to their team. I remember, in the last few games of the season, Subban said that he had Ovechkin's "cut to the middle" move figured out, right before a Caps-Habs game.

The next day, he burns Subban with the same move he said he had figured how to stop.

 

canadianguy77

Registered User
Apr 20, 2006
20,431
10,370
Sure, but Hull didn't have two people covering him at all times with one other person ready to dive in front of his shot to block it.Ovechkin is the single forward who receives the most attention from opposing coaches and defensive systems because of how dangerous he is.

Defensemen throughout the league talk about shutting down Ovi, but none of them can shut him down. They can only limit the damage he causes to their team. I remember, in the last few games of the season, Subban said that he had Ovechkin's "cut to the middle" move figured out, right before a Caps-Habs game.

The next day, he burns Subban with the same move he said he had figured how to stop.



Dude you really need to watch more teams play if you seriously think that he's the only player who gets double teamed.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,593
12,655
Toronto
Dude you really need to watch more teams play if you seriously think that he's the only player who gets double teamed.

Of course, he is not the only one. However, I'm pretty sure he is the only player in the league for which opposing teams always have a guy stuck on for the PK. It creates a 4 on 3 PP on the right side.
 

Lebowski

El Duderino
Dec 5, 2010
17,585
5,218
Of course, he is not the only one. However, I'm pretty sure he is the only player in the league for which opposing teams always have a guy stuck on for the PK. It creates a 4 on 3 PP on the right side.

Stamkos and Subban come to mind.

Any PP that relies heavily on a single player for his shot will be closely covered. Ovechkin isn't unique in that regard.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->