Would Lafleur have been considered the greatest more if..

[KOVALEV10*]

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

Click to read more...

 

[J-D]

I say no because his first three seasons he was barely top 6 forward, and in 1980 he got into a car accident.

It's like saying Mario would have had (maybe) a better career than Wayne if it wasn't for illness/injuries/etc. Well, IMO durability is a factored in when I see the overall strength of a player.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

I say no because his first three seasons he was barely top 6 forward, and in 1980 he got into a car accident.

It's like saying Mario would have had (maybe) a better career than Wayne if it wasn't for illness/injuries/etc. Well, IMO durability is a factored in when I see the overall strength of a player.

Yeah I agree to that on a level yes.. but what if Lafleur hadn't been in the car accident? Because a car accident isnt part of the game then it shouldnt be considered in the durablity aspect of a player because a car accident is something that happenes outside the game right?

 

[Superfluous U]

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

Alright. So "if he hadn't gotten in a car accident" may be a valid if, the same way Neely and Orr have legitimate speculation. But "If he had been better when he started" is ridiculous. At this point, we aren't just speculating about things beyond his control, you're speculating if he had been a better player at a young age. That's like me asking if St. Louis would be considered one of the best of his generation if he had broken in at 18 scoring like he did last year. An extreme example, but its the same idea. Even given an extreme what if scenario where his career plays out ideally you can't give him credit for being a better player than he was. The rest of it is absurd enough, but that's just ridiculous.

I don't disagree that Lafleur doesn't get enough credit, but your argument has more holes in it than Red Light Racicot.

 

[McDeepika]

i conisider him one of the greats anyways. You can add goals and points to any player and make them look better but I think of him better then messier. That is quite a compliment

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Alright. So "if he hadn't gotten in a car accident" may be a valid if, the same way Neely and Orr have legitimate speculation. But "If he had been better when he started" is ridiculous. At this point, we aren't just speculating about things beyond his control, you're speculating if he had been a better player at a young age. That's like me asking if St. Louis would be considered one of the best of his generation if he had broken in at 18 scoring like he did last year. An extreme example, but its the same idea. Even given an extreme what if scenario where his career plays out ideally you can't give him credit for being a better player than he was. The rest of it is absurd enough, but that's just ridiculous.

I don't disagree that Lafleur doesn't get enough credit, but your argument has more holes in it than Red Light Racicot.

Yeah you're probably right but I just found it a little weird how someone who had dominated in his junior career only get 55 to 65 points then all of a sudden double that mark.

His last year with the remparts he had played 62 games, scored 130 goals and 79 assists for a total of 209 points.

 

[J-D]

Anyway, he's certainly top-10 all-time for hair-style. Especially without the helmet.... swoooooosh! Right up there with Jagr and Anson Carter with the Oilers.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Oh and even we leave his first 3 years points totals like that then he still would've gotten 796 goals and 1895 points throughout his career and been second on points and on goals ever had it not been for his car accident which slowed him down and forced him to retire. Because nowadays many hockey fans think " hey this player had less points then the other... so he was worse player then the other..

 

[revolverjgw]

I love Lafleur and I put him on my ''personal favorites'' team on the Hockey's History board, but Wayne, Mario and Bobby are a step up, and always would be, even if Guy had a bit better luck and had a more consistent career (not to say he wasn't consistent).

His legacy is fine, and it does him justice. He'd have more points if his career started in '79 likes Wayne's, but he'd still be a clear step or two behind. His point totals are accurate, though, they leave nothing to be desired, really. Everyone knows how good he is.

If we're going to give him better standards, it's only fair to raise them for Wayne and Mario, and hence, raising the bar of greatness. Then those 2000 points you're theorizing wouldn't look as good as they do. Gretzky and Lemieux would get 3200 points each (or more!) if they had the same perfect luck and career that you're talking about here!

 

[Stephen]

You're basically arguing whether or not Lafleur would have been considered one of the game's greatest if he had had a better career. He doesn't deserve the additional points for his earlier years because he wasn't developed as a player. And who knows what he would have done after 1980 had he not been hurt. He was a big smoker, so his game might have gone down the toilet prematurely anyway, like Dale Hawerchuk.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

What if is a very strong word you know?

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

What if is a very strong word you know?

Exactly.

What if Wayne Gretzky had been given Mario's frame?

You just can't do this waht if thing, otherwise you need to do it for everyone else.

 

[Skylab]

Because nowadays many hockey fans think " hey this player had less points then the other... so he was worse player then the other..

And your entire argument seems to be that if he had more points then it would prove he was a better player; not sure I'm seeing much difference between what your'e doing and what you accuse others of doing...

 

[Legionnaire]

Sure. The same way the Dionne is always considered a top ten forward

 

[KOVALEV10*]

You're basically arguing whether or not Lafleur would have been considered one of the game's greatest if he had had a better career. He doesn't deserve the additional points for his earlier years because he wasn't developed as a player. And who knows what he would have done after 1980 had he not been hurt. He was a big smoker, so his game might have gone down the toilet prematurely anyway, like Dale Hawerchuk.

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey? Smoking doesnt affect everyone you know.. My dad has been smoking like 30 cigarettes a day for about 35 years and hes still in great shape and has NEVER had any health problems or anything. And what I'm saying is Lafleur was in a car accident but if he hadnt gotten that car accident he wouldve definately scored more points and not suddenly drop to 70 points after a 125 point season. And no this wasnt an injury that happened during a game and he didnt get any injuries afterward so if he hadnt been in the car acccident he would definately have scored more points... thus making him greater to a large variety of fans nowadays, the young fans especially who think that just because the other person had more points then him he was better. Oh and dont get me wrong I aint saying those fans are you guys.

 

[jiggs 10]

Sure. The same way the Dionne is always considered a top ten forward

Should be top 3, actually!


Lafleur's legacy is fine. Yes, he may have slipped a little after his car accident, but he SHOULD have been fine the next season. He still only scored 27 goals that year. He was starting to lose a half-a-step, and that was always the thing that set him apart: his speed. He was never the greatest deker, but good enough when he had a head of steam. He just had a great shot off the wing, and speed to get there.

Plus that GREAT flowing hair!!!

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey? Smoking doesnt affect everyone you know.. My dad has been smoking like 30 cigarettes a day for about 35 years and hes still in great shape and has NEVER had any health problems or anything. .

THIS MAY BE THE DUMBEST QUESTION I HAVE EVER SEEN, AND I HAVE SEEN SOME DANDIES. IS IT THE SMOKING THAT KEEPS YOUR DAD IN GREAT SHAPE???. IF SO, TELL HIM TO GET OFF THOSE CRAVEN A MENTHOLS AND HEAD STRAIGHT TO THE UNFILTERED CAMELS, THEN MAYBE HE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT 9 OLYMPICS.

Use your head, the poster who wondered if it affected Lafleur's career is speculating that if his lungs weren't jet black, maybe the wheels would have fallen off a few years later. Yes, not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, but, yes, son, it will increase your chances. I used to smoke like a chimney, and while I was smart enough to quit before it killed me, I was never stupid enough to think it "didn't effect me" If you need further information, contact your local lung association.

 

[Stephen]

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey?

Are you from Mars or something?

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Are you from Mars or something?

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!

 

[mymkovski]

Alright...lets settle down Mr. Kovalev...

Lafleur IS one of the greats. No one will ever take that away from him. What if Bobby Orr played 20 seasons. Hot damn. That would have sure been something. Damnit, what if Gordie Howe was still playing, he'd be pretty close to 2900 points eh?

Fact of that matter is, Mr. Lafleur is one THE most respected masters of hockey of all time, and will always be mentioned with the greats.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!

My three year old understands this concept. Are you three yet???

 

[Oiltalk]

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!

Smoking winds a person. Their lungs are no longer as healthy, and so they have a harder time keeping up with others in sports or any other physical activity for that example.

A good friend of mine, and I were both great long distance, and now he has went down hill, because his smoking habit won't let him finish off a mile let alone the 5 or 6, that we usually ran in the past. It's pretty sad when the guy that used to give you fits in the past, can't even maintain pace and be competitive anymore.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

But is your friend healthy? Does he eat properly? Does he exercise at home? If he did then theres no way he cant run that much. And how old is he?

 

[Anksun]

But is your friend healthy? Does he eat properly? Does he exercise at home? If he did then theres no way he cant run that much. And how old is he?

Ever heard of personnal abilities?

It's not because someone can run 10kms as a smoker while another one can only run 9Kms without smoking that it means smoking is a non-factor... Would the first one continue to keep his shape and stop smoking, he would probably run 15 kms easily 3 months after.

Lafleur was one of the best but what if he would have not smoking? Well maybe at the end of each swift on the ice, he would have add another extra gear that would have allow him to be even better.
______________________

And honestly to me, this question is a bit pointless. What IF Lafleur would have add extra points, would he be consider one of the Greatest??

-HE IS CONSIDER one of the best players to ever play the game...

______________________

Do the same exercice as you do with Lafleur with Lemieux. -Cancer- and so much back problems he was not even able to put on his skates for many years in his career and was still the best on the ice... = 4287 points??

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

No.Lafleur will always have a special place in my heart.
The first NHL game I remember watching, (i think it was game 7 of a montreal/toronto playoff tilt), Lafleur was by far the most exciting player on the ice.)
Instantly, I became a Habs fan and a Lafleur fan.
Lafleur is still easily my favorite player ever.
Still, one can't his career quickly ran into a wall. His allegedly started smoking two packs a day just to piss off Bowman. That, and the drinking, probably chopped off four or five all-star type years from his career.

The better comparison is with Mike Bossy. And while Bossy didn't have 1/10th of Lafleur's charisma, it's tough to argue against his numbers.

I prefer to remember Lafleur as the most exciting player ever. It's totally subjective. It's how I feel about it. Argue all day, but that ain't gonna change.