Listen, buddy. Guy's car accident caused minor injuries physically, but weighed on him mentally. He was never the same after it but it wasn't just the accident that derailed his career, it was Lemaire instituting a defense-first system, his diminished role on the team and the physical neglect catching up to him. Guy never took care of himself. Smoking can affect you playing hockey, everyone should know that. Just because he put up 100 pt. seasons doesn't mean jac because later, his skill and ability weren't enough to get him by because his health wasn't up to par. Although Guy made a comeback, he'd toned down the smoking and partying. Heck, it worked for one year on the lowly Nordiques as he was average almost a point per game (low 30s in points in 39 games not bad for an out-of-shape 38 year old at that point). But he was hurt because of his prior physical neglect and one time because not wearing a helmet caused some guy to break his jaw by planting him face first into the glass.
I think guys like Gainey and Robinson gave up smoking or how else would they have been so damn durable. Guy was never in good shape, preferring to smoke, eat poutine and hot dogs, drink gallons of coffee and alcohol and generally have a good time. But it restricted the greatness he could've reached. Make him in tip top shape and he certainly could have been like Lemieux. But to say IF not for his car accident, IF not for his slow start to his career, Guy would've had, in my estimation, 1900 pts. How do you even come up with the random numbers to add to his totals? Anyway, Mario never worked out and had a lousy diet, etc. And it caused his injuries to pile up. Only in the 90s did he turn it around and manage to keep going, because of his cancer and generally lousy back.
Now, he still is constantly injured but it's better than before and not because a lack of physical health. Father time hasn't helped. But he would be retired permanently due to the pain if not for his turnaround in shape that, if it came while he was in junior, might just have made him unstoppable and statistically the best. Heck, Gretz was luckier than Mario because although Mario had the better body for hockey, Gretz had the better smarts. He just knew how to keep healthy but he was never a workout freak and his back problems, starting with the Suter hit, only worsened due to this fact. He managed to hold on until 1999 but that's when the back troubles finally crippled his game, scoring 9 goals in 70 games. While Lemieux's injuries wre serious enough to keep him out of the lineup a lot, Gretzky was able to play through the pain more often and it slowly chipped away at his point toals every year. Give him a good Ranger supporting cast and great phyiscal shape and he's up there with Jagr in scoring races by 1999.
If not for the average shape he was in, he could've been like Messier or Howe, lasting and producing well into his late 30s. But in a more Gretzky like way because he has about as much natural (and developed) talent as those two combined. Likewise, even one of those guys probably kept in better shape double what Gretzky ever was in his career. Gretz couldn't keep up by the early 90s but his smarts and skills adapted to keep him effective. He never tried to play defense anyway, but not being able to keep up made the reason be because he couldn't, rather than he didn't want to like before. So scoring titles at age 38 for Wayne? Could've happened for sure.
So y'see it happened to the best of them. Granted, in Guy's prime (1978) he was with a reduced competition and 50% of the guys in the NHL were big smokers, big drinkers or both. That stat probably decreased every 13 years or so by 25% until now where it's maybe 1% smokers (Cigars every so often doesn't count obviously), and 5% big drinkers (lots of guys drink and party but about 5% probably are heavy drinkers/drunks). So to not be aware that drinking a lot and smoking reduces your ability to be a long-time, effective NHL star, is asinine. Injuries and personal problems can derail careers but with today's conditioning, there's no reason that if he wanted to, an NHL'er could play 20 years with a little luck and keeping in great shape. Guy had the former, but didn't do the latter in his 16 season career (you see, his enormous abilities made it that way but for his era, he could've made it all without a brief retirement period-he did so when he was just 33 and came back when he was 37).
Bryan Trottier did decline at his end due to the fact his abilities weren't so overpowering that he could live off of them forever, but he kept in good enough shape to last for 19 seasons, a very long time for guys who started their career in the 70s and were at their career's tail ends, at the lastest, when the 90s advent of condition. Trots had longevity when the average "lengthy career" took a guy till he was at least 30 considered a player's prime these days but a player's twilght time back then. I remember seeing a classic 1986 playoff game between St. Louis and Calgary with an ESPN feature about the Flames' "greybeards nearing their career's end" in McDonald at 34 and Risebrough at 32!! The average career could take a guy up to as old as 33 and no more, usually. With the expanded league and a raid for fresh, young talent that caused many a player to be out of work due to the younger, cheaper alternative (no one wanted a guy like 33 year old Steve Shutt after 84-85 with the Kings when they could have some junior star like Craig Simpson or Brian Bellows light the lamp instead).
This was the norm for the NHL from 1979 through to 1994. Trots was the exception, and there were other odd cases (guys had regular jobs in the NHL when they were 19-21 in these days) like Joe Mullen (78-97), Mike Gartner (78-98, one year as an 18 year old in the WHA), Robinson (72-92), Gainey (73-89), Mark Howe (73-95, a remarkable Howe trait of longevity was carried on by him through 6 years of WHA, and 16 years of NHL), Lanny McDonald (73-89) and Denis Potvin (73-88), who all could've played 22 years like Stevens, under today's training improvements. A lot has changed from Lafleur's time to now, but you can make the argument of "what if" for many guys. What if Bernie Nicholls' son's health issues hadn't derailed his focus in the early 90s; would he become a HOF calibre legend? And things like that.
You, Kovalev10, unfortunately used some pretty subjective "what if's" in Guy's case. I think with or without the accident, he'd have retired anyway and if not, he'd still have tailed off. Now, if the rumoured trade with Edmonton in 1984 that's been brought up recently was okay with Guy, he could've coasted by being Gretz's winger despite his diminishing skills (heck, he could've gone drinkin' with MacTavish and went driving... oh, bad combination!) and starting a sick dynasty with the Oil. And Habs fans loved the guy so much, they'd be cheering him to more amazing feats in Edmonton. As long as he didn't have to inflict woe on the Habs in a stanley cup final down the road. I mean, his final game in Montreal and 2nd final vs. Montreal and all-time, back in 1991. He scores and the Forum erupted in a 5-minute applause. His comeback in 1988 with the Rangers where he scores 2. I saw one of his pretty goals, stripping Desjardins or somebody, taking the puck Lafleur style and wristing it between Roy's pads. The crowd goes nuts like the Habs just scored, it was unbelievable!!! Heck, I'd be cheering. If Koivu came back one day if we ever let him go and scored on us in a regular season game, I'd be cheering too. Though, not on a Lafleur-like level of worship.
