ScottM Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Absolutely, but my point was that during his best years, Gretzky's "supporting cast" was even stronger than Lemieux's -- and that's really saying something. But in any event, even if the Penguins were equal in talent to the Oilers, there's still the issue of the drop in league scoring. Lemieux didn't get his best years in when goal scoring was at its peak. He just missed it. Gretzky's prime was in hockey's highest scoring era. I don't know what to make of Orr. He was before my time. That's true to a degree, but I have to disagree somewhat. When you look at the goals per game stats for each season, the real decline comes after the 1992-93 season. Lemieux had nine seasons under his belt by that time. As I said earlier, I believe the 1987-88 season is the point at which Lemieux overtook Gretzky as the best active player. When he did, he did it with a bang, with 70 and 85 goal seasons back to back. He certainly had his fair share of big seasons in the "high-scoring era." After the 1993-94 season, you see a lot of seasons during which Lemieux missed a lot of games. If I were going to make the argument for Lemieux, that's where I'd make it. I'd point out that if not for the injuries and cancer, his numbers would have been even bigger. That said, the 1995-96 season for Lemiuex stands out very much with 69 goals and 161 points. It sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other post 1993-94 seasons put up by the whole league. But that's really the only season I'd say that about. Anyway, my point is that while Lemieux did have some of his prime after the high-flying era, it's not as much as people might think, and he was boosted by it as well. Btw, Orr was before my time too, but from the studying I've done, I'm sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Thanks for that little bit of film JOe, it brought a tear to my eyes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 One other tangible fact that you may want to toss in there was all of the health issues that Mario went though and still put up his numbers on the ice. I remember the year that he was making a run at the consecutive points in a game streak where they had to have someone else tie his skates for him due to all the disc issues in his back. In the end his streak ended on a game where he couldn't make it through the second period due to the pain. This led up to the first of two surgeries on his back(one of which caused an infection that threatened his career). Add to that the whole cancer thing, and it puts a different perspective on what he was able to do for his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 @nossagog I agree.. but imagine Gretzky with Marios size? Or Orr with his knees? Lindros with his brain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 @nossagog I agree.. but imagine Gretzky with Marios size? Or Orr with his knees? Lindros with his brainWell I can see your argument with Orr or Lindros, as their careers were affected by injuries as well. But tossing in Wayne due to his size? I don't get that. Gretzky's size, and therefore his speed and maneuverability was part of what made him great. Its a stretch, I can go full argumentum absurdum and say, "Hey just think of Matt Cooke if he had Gretzky's scoring ability". Just doesn't stick. The point that I was making was that his play could not meet his potential based on physical injuries that limited his effectiveness to something less, possible much less, than his abilities should have allowed. You can make the argument for players with injuries too, but to change the physical characteristics, I don't think you can go that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 @nossagog How about Gretzky with Popeyes arms then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nossagog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 @nossagog How about Gretzky with Popeyes arms then? You wanted 500 Gordie Howe Hat Tricks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Gretzky's size, and therefore his speed and maneuverability was part of what made him great. I don't think Gretzky was a elite speedburner.....but he rarely got caught from behind on a breakaway. He willed himself to pull away, if that makes any sense....but there were lots of guys with way more speed than Wayne. He was more elusive and deceptive than out and out fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 So, his (Lidstrom's) opinion makes it so? Better defensemen than him? In no particular order: OrrParkCoffeeNeidermierBourqueHarveyPotvinDoughty - and many, many more. All better than Lidstrom. Wayne Gretzky was the greatest player, ever, by a country mile. No one even comes close. Not Mario, not anybody. For future reference - the second best all-time - was the Rocket. Just IMHO of course... No well informed hockey fan would actually believe that Niedermayer is even in the same tier as Lidstrom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.