edog37
Registered User
Lemieux won his team's scoring titles by 89 & 84 points in '88 & '89. He was light years ahead of everyone else. Hell, he got Rob Brown 49 goals in '89...
Why would Gretzky still dominate today? Here's the secret about Gretzky...
- Thread starter tazzy19
- Start date
Lemieux won his team's scoring titles by 89 & 84 points in '88 & '89. He was light years ahead of everyone else. Hell, he got Rob Brown 49 goals in '89...
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Rob Brown, attitude aside, was a talented offensive player. Much more talent than Blair McDonald who Gretzky got 95pts in 1980. He was also much more talented offensively than Krushelninski who Gretzky got 45 goals in 87. Mario's coupe de grace in terms of getting something out of nothing would be Warren Young in 85, not Brown. With a better attitude, Brown should have been a star in the NHL.
PS. Gretzky won his team scoring titles by 107pts and 91 pts. and 70+ on a number of other occasions.
edog37
Registered User
Right, but as it shown, the Oilers could have won (& did) after Gretzky left. They still had Messier. The Pens never won without Lemieux until Crosby came around...Gretzky was a great player (& yes, I saw him play), but no one dominated the game like Lemieux.
edog37
Registered User
Rob Brown couldn't skate at all, his only saving grace was his hands. And yes, Brown needed a better attitude which he eventually got later on in his career. I picked Brown over Young because Brown was so bad at his skating. Young was a journeyman, but at least he had size.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Ron Francis, Jaromir Jagr, Mark Recchi, Paul Coffey, Larry Murphy, Tom Barrasso... yeah, those Penguins Cup winners were just Mario and a bunch of bums.
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
Do you really think the Oilers would have won all 4 Cups without Gretzky? MAYBE they win 1 or 2 of those. MAYBE.
edog37
Registered User
they beat Philly twice, the Isles once & the Bruins. Yes, they definitely take 3 out of 4....
On the flip, do the Pens win back to back without Lemieux? They probably beat Minnesota, but Chicago probably takes us....
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
You are undervaluing both of these guys now. Are you really telling me that any team that won the Cup would still do so if you took away the Conn Smythe winner? Maybe you can think of a couple where there was no clear standout, but in Lemieux's and Gretzky's Conn Smythe years they were well ahead of everyone else.
You are also making the mistake of only looking at who these teams faced in the Finals. The whole playoffs need to be taken into consideration.
At the very least there's no way the Oilers win a series that went to 7 games without Gretzky. Two of their Cup years they had series that went to 7 games...in 84' against Calgary and in the 87' Finals against Philly. If those series were that close, then taking away the Oilers top player certainly would result in a loss. Just from that you're down to 2 out of 4. (Interestingly, neither of these were years that Gretzky won the Conn Smythe)
For the record, the Pens would have won ZERO Cups without Lemieux.
Last edited:
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Weztex
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2006
- 3,113
- 3,701
Tie Oilers won without Gretzky but I don't see how it takes anything away from him. Let's put it that way :
- The Penguins without Lemieux are deprived of 2 Stanley Cups.
- The Oilers without Gretzky are deprived of at least 2 Stanley Cups (in both Conn Smythe years).
Starting from there, I don't think anyone can claim that Lemieux carried his team more than Gretzky. The Oilers had players apt to carry the torch after Gretzky left. The Penguins didn't. It's should be a testament to those remaining players, not a knock on the one who left.
- The Penguins without Lemieux are deprived of 2 Stanley Cups.
- The Oilers without Gretzky are deprived of at least 2 Stanley Cups (in both Conn Smythe years).
Starting from there, I don't think anyone can claim that Lemieux carried his team more than Gretzky. The Oilers had players apt to carry the torch after Gretzky left. The Penguins didn't. It's should be a testament to those remaining players, not a knock on the one who left.
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
All I look at when the Gretzky compariason to modern players comes up is the percentage of points higher than the competition he put up. IN the 82-83 season he had 72 points higher than the runner-up, 196-124. IN 83-84 he had 205 to 126 for the runner-up. My math ability is pretty bad, but that is like 62% greater. In order for Crosby/Ovechkin et al. to make me believe they might be comparable or Gretzky or Lemieux, they would need to put up an equal percentage higher than their closest competition. Heck, Crosby didn't even beat out Sedin this year, and I never hear Sedin in the discussions with Gretzky. Crosby would need to put up like 181 points to Sedin's 112 in order to reach the kind of dominance of Gretzky.
Now, as to Crosby's playoff points, if he were to get to play the Flyers in the playoffs, he might break records, as I can attest as a Flyers fan that he would get at least 4 points per game in that short lived series of Pittsburgh dominance.
Now, as to Crosby's playoff points, if he were to get to play the Flyers in the playoffs, he might break records, as I can attest as a Flyers fan that he would get at least 4 points per game in that short lived series of Pittsburgh dominance.
Trottier
Very Random
And up to that point (1988) he was exponentially the most dominating offensive player to ever skate on this planet.
Look at that decade. Look at his body of work. It remains inconceivable.
It reasons that his play would ultimately decline.
You want to suggest he was surrounded by a legendary crew in Edmonton, no debate. Want to suggest that he benefitted from a great team? Of course. And they, many more times over, benefitted from him. That is EXACTLY how great players and great teams, work. (Including the Pens of '91-'92.)
Anyone want to imply Gretzky "leeched" off of that cast? Humor me some more.
***
I believe #66 is the greatest forward I've ever seen and the second greatest player behind Robert Gordon Orr. But I'm sorry. When it comes to #99 and trying to find ANY worts whatsoever...I do not go there. No way, no how. It's silly.
As others have mentioned, Lemieux had an amazing cast when he won his two cups. But he never took a poor team deep, like Gretzky did. You mentioned that the Kings lost to an over-achieving Habs team, but what were the Kings that year? They weren't exactly the President Trophy winners themselves.
Also, look at Lemieux's first years with the Pens. The team sucked. Sure Lemieux put up good numbers, but the team still sucked. It wasn't until they got a great cast to support him that the team actually started winning.
The Oilers sucked Gretzky's first couple years too, but they started their climb to the top relatively quickly, and usually with Gretzky leading the team by larger margins than Lemieux ever led his own by. Then when he went to the kings, they went from being one of the worst teams in the league - and a team that usually missed the playoffs despite being in a 21 team league where only the 5 worst teams didn't make the post season - to suddenly being the 4th best team in the league and dethroning the defending champion Oilers in the playoffs that very first season. You know... the same team that won the cup only 1 year later. He also led them to their cup finals in 93, putting up 40 points in the post season.
Here is link to a great thread on this board, discussing players and what % of team scoring they were a part of. The idea is to basically eliminate the "team advantage" idea.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=139741&highlight=most+points+mikita+gretzky+lafontaine
As you can see, Lemieux does quite well for himself too. But to say that Gretzky was only great because of his Oiler teammates, or that he "didn't do much" after leaving Edmonton are proven completely false.
charliolemieux
rsTmf
- Apr 1, 2010
- 9,715
- 53
I would put him 20 -30 pts ahead of the big three we have now.
YA just a bit of talent to help along the way.Geez, guys like Recchi, Stevens, Murphy, Coffey, Francis, Jagr had absolutely nothing to do with the two cups. They were just standing around in awe of the Mario and let him do all the work
PS 86 Flames >>> 93 Isles
Those are some crazy numbers considering the players who were on the team over the years.
The remains of the Dynasty and a hot goalie won them the cup.
I Distinctly remember that year because they were down 3-1 to Winnipeg in the first round.
Gretzky and Lemieux are the best the past 30 years has had to offer no question. As amazing as Mario was, he was a half step behind Gretzky when it came to "hockey sense" or whatever you want to call it. Players like Sakic, Dionne, LaFleur, Trottier and Yzerman were 2 steps behind.
SupremefartMachine
Registered User
Bump on this thread.
I feel like Gretzky's accomplishments are understated and mostly based on statistics. There's a reason why they are what they are. I think OP captures this really well.
I feel like Gretzky's accomplishments are understated and mostly based on statistics. There's a reason why they are what they are. I think OP captures this really well.
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,020
- 1,264
The whole 'Edmonton won the Cup without Gretzky two years after he was traded" argument, with the not-so-subtle implication that they could've won all those Cups without him, is flawed.
Just to illustrate it:
Montreal won the Cup two years after Jean Beliveau retired.
Detroit won the Cup two years after Steve Yzerman retired.
San Francisco won the Super Bowl two years after Joe Montana left.
The Yankees won the World Series two years after Babe Ruth left.
In Bobby Orr's last full season with Boston, they lost in the first round. In the next four years, they made it to at least the semi-finals each time.
Were they all overrated?
Just to illustrate it:
Montreal won the Cup two years after Jean Beliveau retired.
Detroit won the Cup two years after Steve Yzerman retired.
San Francisco won the Super Bowl two years after Joe Montana left.
The Yankees won the World Series two years after Babe Ruth left.
In Bobby Orr's last full season with Boston, they lost in the first round. In the next four years, they made it to at least the semi-finals each time.
Were they all overrated?
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
Exactly. I get into a debate with a friend of mine who is a hockey fan but thinks he knows more than he really does. I get sucked in every time. He uses the "Messier won two Cups after Gretzky, how did Gretzky do?" argument. It is but a very small piece of the puzzle to knowing who was really the superior player. It is commonly believed that the Oilers win probably 4 instead of 1 Cup after 1988 if they have Gretzky. Somewhere along the lines Lemieux starts winning and I think that is the only thing that stops the Oilers. Thanks Peter "I'd trade him again" Pocklington.
Here is my thought to the people who claim that Gretzky wouldn't dominate in the NHL today (who often never saw him play). Why is the burden of proof on Gretzky and his supporters rather than you? We SAW what Gretzky could do in the best league in the world in the 1980s and some of the 1990s. He led the NHL in points in two different decades. In the 1980s there was a 21 team league. They thought the exact same way the less enlightened think today. "Oh wow, Gretzky is doing this when the game is so fast and offensive in a 21 team league!" In 1985 the fastest we had ever seen the game...............was 1985. Same with today.
My question to the critics is what proof do you have that the stars of yesterday wouldn't be used to the same advantages of today as the average player? If we can agree that the Matt Cooke's of the world have gotten a bit stronger and faster then why in the world do we not think Gretzky would?
The Oilers take 3 out of 4 of those Cups without Gretzky? Hmmm. I don't think they do. They win no more than 2 Cups without Gretzky. Personally without Gretzky they don't beat the Isles in 1984. Yes, Messier won an often second guessed Conn Smythe, but it was Gretzky who in Game 5 ended the game before it even started with two first period goals. People forget just how integral that 5th game was for the Oilers in 1984. If they lose, they are going to NYI for Game 6 & 7. The series was structured that way in 1984 for a brief time and I believe a lot of it had to do with travelling (same thing happened for some west to east coast series in 1994). The Isles were very hungry and without that Gretzky dynamic maybe Messier isn't able to focus on stopping Trottier as much and HAS to be the go-to offensive guy. Can he match up against Trottier then? Who knows, but it isn't a lock.
1985? Hard to say. Gretzky and Coffey were the steamrollers that postseason. So was Kurri with 19 goals. I don't think those numbers are inflated that way without #99. 1987? It was a tight 7 game series and I personally think the Flyers of 1985 were better than the Flyers of 1987. So that being said, I think even without Gretzky the Oilers match up and succeed. 1988? Despite Gretzky's dominance I would say yes. There still wasn't a Bruin forward in Messier's class. Bourque would be the wild card since there is no Coffey to offset him though.
So by my count, the Oilers without Gretzky win in 1987, 1988 and again 1990. Nothing written in stone of course. But either way, this knife fight with "Lemieux elevated his teammates better, no Gretzky did" is a little silly. BOTH have direct evidence of making the players around them significantly better. If you lean one way, its Gretzky, but everyone from Warren Young to Rob Brown to Kevin Stevens was better with Mario.
Back to the clip that started all of this, I think it is also evidence as to why Gretzky is not a very good coach.
How do you teach that kind of thing to your players? Do you tell them to try and have a running clock in your head for when the guy is coming out of the box? Do you tell them to keep everyone on the ice and where they will be in 5-8 seconds in the back of your head, so that you can set up a 3 on 2 for a guy who is not even on the ice yet?
Or do you tell them to go with the sure play and dump that thing in?
The strategy Wayne Gretzky would run in his head for a hockey play is something there are maybe only 3 or 4 guys in the league could wrap their heads around. And it is not something that can be taught.
You can't teach guys to hold onto the puck and play keepaway for the 4 seconds it will take for everyone to get into position for the pass you are thinking about, which will go between two guys legs and land on the tape of the defenceman sneaking in from the point.
Whereas someone like Dave Tippett, you can see why he can teach players. It's because he had to LEARN how to be a professional hockey player and how to read plays.
Gretzky? He just DID it.
How do you teach that kind of thing to your players? Do you tell them to try and have a running clock in your head for when the guy is coming out of the box? Do you tell them to keep everyone on the ice and where they will be in 5-8 seconds in the back of your head, so that you can set up a 3 on 2 for a guy who is not even on the ice yet?
Or do you tell them to go with the sure play and dump that thing in?
The strategy Wayne Gretzky would run in his head for a hockey play is something there are maybe only 3 or 4 guys in the league could wrap their heads around. And it is not something that can be taught.
You can't teach guys to hold onto the puck and play keepaway for the 4 seconds it will take for everyone to get into position for the pass you are thinking about, which will go between two guys legs and land on the tape of the defenceman sneaking in from the point.
Whereas someone like Dave Tippett, you can see why he can teach players. It's because he had to LEARN how to be a professional hockey player and how to read plays.
Gretzky? He just DID it.
Sentinel
Registered User
Precisely. Great players hardly ever make great coaches, because many of the things that were natural to them, they just could not teach. Mikhailov, when coaching SKA St. Petersburg, simply could not understand how can a player be all alone in front of the net and not score. A great player can be a great motivator, a great presence, develop strategy, but tactics and little things are best taught by someone else.
Sentinel
Registered User
Precisely. Great players hardly ever make great coaches, because many of the things that were natural to them, they just could not teach. Mikhailov, when coaching SKA St. Petersburg, simply could not understand how can a player be all alone in front of the net and not score. A great player can be a great motivator, a great presence, develop strategy, but tactics and little things are best taught by someone else.
Thanks a lot for the props. I'd forgotten about this thread. It's true what you say that most people simply talk about Gretzky's statistics rather than what made it possible for him to have those statistics. You really had to watch Gretzky until around 1991 to appreciate him (maybe the playoffs of 1993 as well), as that's when he had the physical capacity to execute exactly what his mind was telling him to execute. But during those "prime" years, he would do things no one else would even think of doing. I remember watching him during the 1991 Canada Cup during a penalty kill against Sweden. He spent the first minute skating circles around center ice, back and forth between the opposing blue lines. No one could touch him. He'd skate into the offensive zone, and then back again past center, and back again to the offensive zone. The Swedish players were just watching him, befuddled almost, hoping he'd lose the puck. During another penalty kill, the puck was dumped into the Swedish zone, and Gretzky went in to forecheck, but actually got to the puck first. Without looking, he fed it out front, up the middle (which you're not supposed to do during a penalty kill), and it hit Larmer (I think it was), and he just rifled it in. 3 assists in one period for Gretzky. He could have had 8 assists that game. Later, he was behind the net for what must have been 45 seconds. Players going nuts in front, fans going nuts behind him, a country going nuts watching on TV, and no one could touch him! One man controlling the entire balance of a hockey game from his "office". Someone finally dislodged the net. But the excitement during those 45 seconds was intense. Even though a goal wasn't scored, I'd never seen anything like it in my life, nor will I probably ever see anything like it again.
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2012
- 1,696
- 2
That's a reasonable assumption and probably doable, of course the most ardent Wayne fans will say 170 plus which seems very unlikely even in the best case scenario.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,715
- 3,589
212 pts seemed pretty unlikely until Wayne did it. By the time he hit 215, or Mario hit 199, I think people had forgotten just what an astonishing accomplishment those numbers really were. His 163 assists is more POINTS than any other player has ever scored besides Lemieux. I think he could get at least 150 in today's league. Especially if he grew up in today's environment with modern training, nutrition, etc.
