Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by mymerlincat, Feb 10, 2019 at 10:41 PM.
The stacked 92 team didn't miss a beat when he was out for 25% of their run with a broken hand
I don’t see how Gretzky is underrated, even here.
He’s the greatest to ever play the game, very few think otherwise. I prefer Mario, but I can’t argue that Wayne wasn’t better.
And international team success.
More 28+ players have won the Art Ross than 25 and under in the past 40 years, by a lot.
Lol okay. 25-28 is your peak. The only thing that's been shown is Gretzky/Lemieux and Crosby/Ovechkin scored more earlier in their career when scoring throughout the league was quite a bit higher, except in Ovechkin's case he wasn't the same after 25 but still easily the best goal scorer. Gretzky won the Art Ross in 90, 91 then again in 94. The season he left Edmonton just so happened to be the season age caught up with him at 27? I don't buy it.
Someone already did a study on here a flyers fan and the general peak ages for point production (adjusted accordingly for era) among elite players was 25-29, 25-26 for goal scorers and 28-29 for playmakers which not surprisingly falls right in line with our athletic peak. Gretzky scored less because he went to a worse team, there's no harm in getting beat by Lemieux in one of his top 2 seasons.
I hope he takes some responsibility for the current state of the Oilers, too, then.
It's a shame the over 40 HF'ers are blinded by nostalgia.
Well, Brent just wasn't that great of a hockey player. His brother on the other hand....oh boy!
I would argue that it is the best athletes that would master any era, Gretzky didn't necessarily have the extraordinary athleticism to do that and thus his greatness is somewhat dependent on his era.
Jagr, Coffey, Francis, Steevens, Murphy, Tocchet, Mullen, Rechi... yeah poor Lemieux
Hes underrated? Hes the consensus best player of all time. Personally, I think Orr is but I'll admit I wasnt around when he played and injuries killed his career. We could argue all day but at worst, hes the 2nd best player in hockey history.
I'm sure you would. That being said, I'd have to give him the edge over Roy as well - he is the GOAT imo. Although I really don't think you could go wrong with either. Look what Roy did in '93 specifically; 10 straight overtime wins; that is unreal.
he is the greatest of all time, but I am guessing because he did not win anything after he played on those dominant Oilers teams in the mid 80s (especially seeing how the Oilers won 1 without him) and he didn't have any physicality in his game it "hurts" his legacy, but yea he is still the greatest of all time by a long shot
I still think he's overrated. I take Orr over,Gretzky and Fuhr together.
It's sad that people actually believe this....
I'd think where this is relevant is what they started with. Edmonton had little in Gretzky's rookie season but from year 2 on he was joined by Messier, Kurri, Anderson, and Coffey. Lemieux on the other hand played with plugs and journeyman for the first portion of his career, not getting someone elite to play with until Coffee joined the team 4 years into his career and not seeing that all-star cast you're talking about until his 7th year. In the time it took Pittsburgh to build a good team around Lemieux Gretzky already had over 1300 points, maybe a 400 point lead on Lemieux, and multiple Cups.
I'm not really entering this as an argument that Lemieux is better than Gretzky (or looking at it in more detail maybe I am) just saying it most certainly had an effect that Lemieux spent his first 6 seasons carrying career journeymen like Warren Young and Rob Brown while Gretzky had the core Messier/Kurri/Anderson/Coffey group with him from year 2 forward, these being the best years of his career.
If you can spend a few bucks, order DVD's of the 3 game Canada Cup final in 1987. Gretzky and Lemieux were team-mates and played on the same line in game 2, all games were decided by a 6-5 score, all games were come from behind victories and IIRC, two of the 3 games were decided in OT. In the opinion of many (including myself), this was the best hockey ever played.
Not at all. 99 and 66 were both incredible players, I feel fortunate to have saw them both play for their entire careers, they were both a treat to watch, they were both better than anyone that has played the game since, they were most certainly on the same tier and the only thing sad is that so many people seem to be upset by the very idea that some people think 66 was as good as 99. I'm a Leaf fan so I have zero bias here and I can tell you that they were both equally amazing. Totally different as players but equally amazing.
Well, he would get better equipment to use. And when watching him late in his career when he wasn't physically the same, in a different era, he was still really good.
Are you referring to Keith Gretzky?
Cause otherwise, WTH are you talking about?
He is without question the GOAT.
we're seeing this again with Gretzky 2.0
This. He did squat in St. Louis, was mediocre in Rangers and fairly good in L.A.. And as said previously, goalies had an .840 or so save percentage back then, no? So he was shooting against AHL level goaltending today. Yes, yes, he was supremely intelligent across eras. Get off my lawn, I prefer Guy Carbonneau.
The notion that Gretzky is underrated is ridiculous. It's feels like the majority of people almost consider him some untouchable god, that you can't even compare any other player to without being an idiot.
Pretty sure every hockey fan I've had a serious conversation with has Gretzky as #1 by default so I don't really know where this perspective is coming from. Do you think that a young Wayne Gretzky entering the league is going to score 2800+ points? No, obviously not. But he proved throughout his career that he was head and shoulders above the rest, with a very small handful of players ever rivaling his dominance.
I think Wayne Gretzky was the greatest playmaker that ever lived. I think Mario Lemieux was the greatest goal scorer that ever played. Bobby Orr was the greatest defenseman. I don't think you'll ever have a modern player so clearly stand out as unequivocally the greatest to supplant Gretzky on the top of the mountain, and that's a testament to the quality of players in the league today. It's OK to have different eras, and to measure greatness by the relative standard of your peers. ...which is what makes Gretzky so undeniably great.
Separate names with a comma.