Actually the music that people listen to say a lot about them as individuals. The fact that JV listens to Beiber and seemingly enjoys it is a problem.


- LordHumungous

Man, if people were serious about him going to the Beiber concert....

I would have gone if someone gave me free tickets. I don't like him as a person, or ever listen to his music, but it would have been a spectacle to see. Plus, for JV's case meeting him and being backstage (and maybe even heading out on the town after), I think you'd be hard pressed to find a better guy to help clean up all the women throwing their vaginas at him.... maybe Leonardo DiCaprio.

Well when 4 outta 6 teams make the playoffs yes.
When only win 2 rounds yes.

As for debatable maybe but no D has won the scoring race since nor posted a +/- like he did nor made the the entire team better. Esposito n all others were be eficiaries of Orr n made Cherry who he is he is if u even like Grapes.

Gretzky came along after n changed hockey like only he could.

That all said no player did it all like Orr did.
Who can name any flaw or wekness in his his game?
- Nighthawk

Thats what I said, no one changed the game like he did. I would say Gretzky didnt even change it the way Orr did. I just have a tough time saying best ever when his competition was largely the tail-end of a few great careers and the beginning of a few

If Orr did not live in the day when knee cartilege was remove etc there would be ABSOLUTELY no debate about his greatness. Idc about era talk either.

Eg Coffey was only 1/2 an Orr n he wasn't too shabby.
Orr was tough n could fight when the game was truly rough n brutal.
He did it all.

Well when 4 outta 6 teams make the playoffs yes.
When only win 2 rounds yes.

As for debatable maybe but no D has won the scoring race since nor posted a +/- like he did nor made the the entire team better. Esposito n all others were be eficiaries of Orr n made Cherry who he is he is if u even like Grapes.

Gretzky came along after n changed hockey like only he could.

That all said no player did it all like Orr did.
Who can name any flaw or wekness in his his game?
- Nighthawk

How about the goalies he faced? the lack of competition/parity in the league in general at the time?

How about the goalies he faced? the lack of competition/parity in the league in general at the time?
- neem55

He changed hockey forever. Thats what separates the greats.
If u wanna blame the talent in the league thats not his doing.

He changed hockey forever. Thats what separates the greats.
If u wanna blame the talent in the league thats not his doing.
- Nighthawk

He did, but for greatest ever I honestly put Ovechkin ahead of him. In an era where scoring is down dramatically, the players are better, coaches smarter, goalies bigger and more athletic, this guy still scores an amazingly high rate of goals consistently. He wont break all-time records because of the era he plays, but he is really one of the greatest already

U want stats before the era of the Oilers sic scoring days

http://www.hockeydb.com/i...ats/pdisplay.php?pid=4085

Not in there is 124 +/- in one season. Like the stat or not do the math n see how that will never be touched nor anyone get within sniffing distance of.
Use Lidstrom as a comparison as one of the greatest in +/-.

He changed hockey forever. Thats what separates the greats.
If u wanna blame the talent in the league thats not his doing.
- Nighthawk

You're just ignoring the point. I think Orr was a generational talent. the best player of his generation of players, for sure. At some point level of competition and longevity of being able to be elite comes into mind. For me Gretzky was the best for longer, won more and was the better player because of the competition he faced. Orr in today's NHL doesn't dominate the way he did. There I said it, again. Bring on the pitchforks.

He did, but for greatest ever I honestly put Ovechkin ahead of him. In an era where scoring is down dramatically, the players are better, coaches smarter, goalies bigger and more athletic, this guy still scores an amazingly high rate of goals consistently. He wont break all-time records because of the era he plays, but he is really one of the greatest already
- WhiteLie

U make my point well. Orr in his era was ahead of everyone.
U cannot say Orr benefitted from all the inferiority of the era can u?

U want stats before the era of the Oilers sic scoring days

http://www.hockeydb.com/i...ats/pdisplay.php?pid=4085

Not in there is 124 +/- in one season. Like the stat or not do the math n see how that will never be touched nor anyone get within sniffing distance of.
Use Lidstrom as a comparison as one of the greatest in +/-.
- Nighthawk

Yes because the parity in the league was so bad that one team tended to dominate. It's not possible for players or teams to be that much better now, it's pretty straightforward.

U make my point well. Orr in his era was ahead of everyone.
U cannot say Orr benefitted from all the inferiority of the era can u?
- Nighthawk

Of course you can, just like you can say if you put OV in the same era he would score 70 per season.

U want stats before the era of the Oilers sic scoring days

http://www.hockeydb.com/i...ats/pdisplay.php?pid=4085

Not in there is 124 +/- in one season. Like the stat or not do the math n see how that will never be touched nor anyone get within sniffing distance of.
Use Lidstrom as a comparison as one of the greatest in +/-.
- Nighthawk

Yeah but that season the Vezina went to a rookie Tony Esposito, in a season where the western conference had only 1 team over .500, and a 40+ year old Howe still put up 71 points. The quality of competition was not great, the league expanded twice in Orr's career

You're just ignoring the point. I think Orr was a generational talent. the best player of his generation of players, for sure. At some point level of competition and longevity of being able to be elite comes into mind. For me Gretzky was the best for longer, won more and was the better player because of the competition he faced. Orr in today's NHL doesn't dominate the way he did. There I said it, again. Bring on the pitchforks.
- neem55

Orr didn't need Semenko in a much rougher n brutal style of the NHL.
Orr had his knees carved up before medicine could keep up to sports.
Not his fault medicine could end careers.

Yeah but that season the Vezina went to a rookie Tony Esposito, in a season where the western conference had only 1 team over .500, and a 40+ year old Howe still put up 71 points. The quality of competition was not great, the league expanded twice in Orr's career
- WhiteLie

Oh for sure the NHL was different back then but its not to discredit greatness.
FYI did u know Tony O was a Canuck before an NHLer?
20 SO's is still a record btw

U make my point well. Orr in his era was ahead of everyone.
U cannot say Orr benefitted from all the inferiority of the era can u?
- Nighthawk

Again, I agree with you on his impact. I really think he changed the game of hockey more than anyone ever. I think that is very hard to dispute. But if youre saying greatest player ever, thats where things change for me. Greatest ever means playing and beating the best. Most other eras have a few players that are sure HOFer's in their prime, I dont think Orr faced that. Most HOF's that he played against were either on their way out or on their way in but not prime

Of course you can, just like you can say if you put OV in the same era he would score 70 per season.
- neem55

Put him in the same equipment n sticks n against the same roughness n i bet it would be interesting.

I know there are many that love Orr. I think he was great but for the short time he played, it wasnt the best era of hockey, so to say he was best ever is a struggle for me when its more challenging to think of anyone else from that time period that could be in a discussion for best ever. Gretzky had to go up against, Roy/Brodeur two of the best goalies of all time for a large chunk of his career (though most of his damage was done prior), had to go up against Mario, Jagr, faced Messier, Hull guys that were sure thing HOF players in the middle of their careers, and while the defensemen werent the best, the competition was at least much greater and he rose to the top of them all. Today's NHL has Crosby, OV, Toews, up front, Weber, Keith, Doughty on defense and many great goalies. Competition-wise its not even close and these guys can all dominate
- WhiteLie

So guys like Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Howe to name just a few don't count as quality opposition?

Of course you can, just like you can say if you put OV in the same era he would score 70 per season.
- neem55

You could just as easily say give the old timers the training, diet and modern equipment and they'd still be dominant.

Anyone doing era comparisons give all the info n factors before I will agree on much.
I don't here the same anaolgies in the NFL or MLB or NBA but ppl can sure bring it up in the NHL. Why is that?

So guys like Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Howe to name just a few don't count as quality opposition?
- golfingsince

Only if ppl never saw n appreciated them in their days.
Howe at 52 was a physical specimen n retired for 2 yrs.
He came back to the WHA to protect his sons n was still a great player.
Nowadays ppl talk about Jagr but Howe was the 1st n still one of the greatest of all players ever n had no weaknesses. Ambidextrous also. Now who can claim that?
The Gordie Howe hattrick is a genuine cliche for a reason.

Now as for Orr being a generational talent how about more a talent for decades being more than a generation as is Gretzky n Lemieux.

The likes of those 3 have not been seen again.
I put Peter Forsberg in there also.

Anyone doing era comparisons give all the info n factors before I will agree on much.
I don't here the same anaolgies in the NFL or MLB or NBA but ppl can sure bring it up in the NHL. Why is that?
- Nighthawk

I've heard the same thing said about any sport. The best football players played in the 90's (Montana and Rice), there's not some internal NFL about some older player being better. In the NBA they've pretty much dismissed Chamberlain as the best ever despite his rediculous points-per-game because of the lack of competition, and instead consider MJ the best ever.

I am joining Thunda and Marwood on the patio for Margaritas

You could just as easily say give the old timers the training, diet and modern equipment and they'd still be dominant.
- golfingsince

The competition, as in the amount of skilled players in the league and the level of the "average" NHL player now, is so much better that I truly do not think they would be. It's one of those "what if" debates that really can never be settled I guess.

I've heard the same thing said about any sport. The best football players played in the 90's (Montana and Rice), there's not some internal NFL about some older player being better. In the NBA they've pretty much dismissed Chamberlain as the best ever despite his rediculous points-per-game because of the lack of competition, and instead consider MJ the best ever.
- neem55

Wilt the Stilt changed the game. The key was invented due to him.
Oscar Robertson to me was the greatest ever.
Even the great MJ never got close to averaging a seasons triple double.
Lew Alcindor had the unstoppable sky hook.

Measuring the true greats is dependent on what made them unique.