And people think Lemieux is finished... [Archive]

Shaner

Sep 27th, 2005, 11:31 PM

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=137872

Super Mario had himself a 4 point night in a win over Columbus.
Also, his points weren't lame assists. He had one goal and three very nice assists. He was instrumental in many offensive rushes and set up many of his teammates with scoring chances.

He is far from finished and I've been saying it for the past few years. Yes, he has injury problems but he has had those his entire career. If he stays healthy, he'll win the art ross trophy. I'll put money on that with anyone on this board.

Headhunter

Sep 27th, 2005, 11:43 PM

Mario can go a few more years; if he had been healthy his whole career, he'd be 1A to Wayne Gretzky.

Hell, he's probably 1A anyways...

Hulkster

Sep 27th, 2005, 11:55 PM

who's Lemieux? :cheesygri

I never thought he was washed up.

Rometiklan

Sep 28th, 2005, 12:21 AM

I got Lemieux in my main pool. People were avoiding him like the plague for some reason. I drafted him pretty late with my 4th pick. Even when I took him that late, people were saying I was crazy for drafting him. I just hope his health holds up so I can collect my money at the end of the season. :D

Headhunter

Sep 28th, 2005, 12:44 AM

I drafted him pretty late with my 4th pick. Even when I took him that late, people were saying I was crazy for drafting him.
That's rediculous, he has to be a top 5 non-goalie player...

frogeee

Sep 28th, 2005, 01:13 AM

He'll probably only play 50-60 games, but still finish in among the league leaders in points. Easy money...

j3fan

Sep 28th, 2005, 01:29 AM

Mario can go a few more years; if he had been healthy his whole career, he'd be 1A to Wayne Gretzky.

Hell, he's probably 1A anyways...

Lemieux is a lot better than Gretzky IMHO....

gilboman

Sep 28th, 2005, 01:34 AM

Mario can go a few more years; if he had been healthy his whole career, he'd be 1A to Wayne Gretzky.

Hell, he's probably 1A anyways...

well you know what? he wasn't healthy his whole career. in sports its not what ifs..its what happened. he was not nearly as productive as gretzky was period.

nobody cares about the brett lindros or says what if eric lindros didnt have those concussions... its what ultimately happened that matters.

but i still believe Mario Lemieux is one of the greatest players to play the game when he is healthy. but ultimately his achievements fall way short of gretzky. and in the end, its achievements that matter.

mallik

Sep 28th, 2005, 01:46 AM

well you know what? he wasn't healthy his whole career. in sports its not what ifs..its what happened. he was not nearly as productive as gretzky was period.

nobody cares about the brett lindros or says what if eric lindros didnt have those concussions... its what ultimately happened that matters.

but i still believe Mario Lemieux is one of the greatest players to play the game when he is healthy. but ultimately his achievements fall way short of gretzky. and in the end, its achievements that matter.

Why do people use the ifs and buts argument. Maybe Bobby Clarke should jump in this thread and say that nobody told Lemieux to get cancer.

When Lemieux was playing, he was just as productive, if not more. Obviously he can't be as productive when he's not playing.

nfnx

Sep 28th, 2005, 02:05 AM

the guy had cancer. nothing to do w/ concussions recieved during the game...it was fate

ppg he is right up there w/ gretzky. also keep in mind lemieux woulda had most points 2 years ago if he didnt sit out the second half of the season... thats pretty impressive for a old guy playin in a modern time where goals werent as easy to come by as they were during gretzky's time.

j3fan

Sep 28th, 2005, 02:52 AM

well you know what? he wasn't healthy his whole career. in sports its not what ifs..its what happened. he was not nearly as productive as gretzky was period.

so are you saying mark messier is better than lemieux??? cuz messier scored more points than lemieux.

If you look at the points per game, lemieux and gretzky are about identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_statistical_leaders

mallik

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:07 AM

so are you saying mark messier is better than lemieux??? cuz messier scored more points than lemieux.

If you look at the points per game, lemieux and gretzky are about identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_statistical_leaders

Wow, just looking at the number of games Lemieux played compared to everyone around him on the list, that's amazing. Bossy is another one that would be right up there if he had played longer.

gilboman

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:14 AM

so are you saying mark messier is better than lemieux??? cuz messier scored more points than lemieux.

If you look at the points per game, lemieux and gretzky are about identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_statistical_leaders

better as in more productive? YES.. better as in deserving of more credit due? YES. Better as in better player when both were healthy ?? NO.

but Messier managed to play a lot more games than Mario.

points per game is less importnat than overall points though. meaningless if both got around same PPG but one played in 2x as many games for example

would you say a player with say 2ppg but played in only 100game is due the same credit as a player who had 1.8ppg but played in 500games?

I would hope not.

gilboman

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:15 AM

the guy had cancer. nothing to do w/ concussions recieved during the game...it was fate

:lol: :lol: :lol:

its also fate that eric lindros got so many concussions and/or that he was more suspectible to them.

mallik

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:21 AM

better as in more productive? YES.. better as in deserving of more credit due? YES. Better as in better player when both were healthy ?? NO.

but Messier managed to play a lot more games than Mario.

points per game is less importnat than overall points though. meaningless if both got around same PPG but one played in 2x as many games for example

would you say a player with say 2ppg but played in only 100game is due the same credit as a player who had 1.8ppg but played in 500games?

I would hope not.

Yeah, but Lemieux didn't only play in 100 games like a flash in the pan. He played in enough games to prove how great he is. Anytime he put some semblance of a season together, he pretty much dominated. People are even saying this year, at the age of 40, that if Lemieux plays even 2/3 of the season, he should win the Art Ross.

Would you say Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the greatest basketball player?

j3fan

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:33 AM

better as in more productive? YES..
But isn't productivity defined as the amount of output created (in nhl terms, this would be goals/assists) produced per unit input used (in nhl terms, this would be #of games).

That is why in the work force when you say this employee is more productive than that employee actually indicates that this employee produces more than that employee in the same amount of time.

better as in deserving of more credit due? YES.
well, you also forgot about supporting players...who did messier have? umm, let me see...Gretzky, Jarri Kurri, Paul Coffey...and who did lemieux have???
But Messier managed to play a lot more games than Mario.
And Messier had a much better supporting cast....

points per game is less importnat than overall points though. meaningless if both got around same PPG but one played in 2x as many games for example
would you say a player with say 2ppg but played in only 100game is due the same credit as a player who had 1.8ppg but played in 500games?
Yes, it would be very impressive for someone to score 2ppg in 100 games. Very few people can reach that plateau. The only people who ever reached 2 ppg in a season were Lemieux and Gretzky and noone else. That is why it would be very impressive since only two nhlers have accomplished such a feat.

If it is not so impressive, then why are they keeping track of how many players scored 50 goals in less than 50 games. Gretzky done it 3 times, Lemieux done it a few times, and Bret hull done it twice and that is all. It is very impressive if hardly anyone else can accomplish that feat such as 50 goals in less than 50 games. Messier never accomplished that feat.

gilboman

Sep 28th, 2005, 03:53 AM

Yeah, but Lemieux didn't only play in 100 games like a flash in the pan. He played in enough games to prove how great he is. Anytime he put some semblance of a season together, he pretty much dominated. People are even saying this year, at the age of 40, that if Lemieux plays even 2/3 of the season, he should win the Art Ross.

Would you say Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the greatest basketball player?

Lemieux played in a lot less games than Gretzky or messier thats for sure.

yes mario was great when he could play. but the point is, he couldnt play a lot of times when others did. one can argue its a lot easier to keep production up when you play in every other game or even less.

i'm glad you mention resemblence of a season... others play for the full season, mario only managed to play in parts of the season for a big part of his latter career. he is no doubt a great player, but the stats speak for themselves.

nfnx

Sep 28th, 2005, 04:37 AM

a few seasons ago lemieux was in contention for the art ross... he was actually leading before he took time off.... his team was dead last and had no one on it to help him but he was still scoring and setting goals up.

its one thing to dominate during the early 90s. but lemieux continued his dominance right into the modern game wehre goals were not as easy to come by as gretzky kinda faded off even while he played for the rangers, a star studded team. dont get me wrong, gretzky still did great averaging a ppg, but lemieux was doin 1.5 or almost 2 on a farm team.

Headhunter

Sep 28th, 2005, 10:50 AM

its one thing to dominate during the early 90s. but lemieux continued his dominance right into the modern game where goals were not as easy to come by as gretzky kinda faded off even while he played for the rangers, a star studded team. dont get me wrong, gretzky still did great averaging a ppg, but lemieux was doin 1.5 or almost 2 on a farm team.
Gretzky never had the time off that Lemieux had; though Super Mario obviously went through a rough battle with cancer, he didn't have the hockey level of constant wear-and-tear.

It was pretty rediculous to see Lemieux making temporary stars out of guys like Morozov, though.

j3fan

Sep 28th, 2005, 11:35 AM

Montague

Sep 28th, 2005, 11:57 AM

mallik

Sep 28th, 2005, 12:05 PM

Lemieux played in a lot less games than Gretzky or messier thats for sure.

yes mario was great when he could play. but the point is, he couldnt play a lot of times when others did. one can argue its a lot easier to keep production up when you play in every other game or even less.

i'm glad you mention resemblence of a season... others play for the full season, mario only managed to play in parts of the season for a big part of his latter career. he is no doubt a great player, but the stats speak for themselves.

Yeah, but it's not like Lemieux wasn't playing because he didn't feel like it, like Ricky Williams for example. He wasn't playing because of injuries. You say Lemieux didn't have the hockey level of constant wear and tear, I disagree. His back was so bad he couldn't even tie his own skates, yet he still managed to carry the Penguins to two Stanley Cups. He missed a quarter of a season due to cancer, came back, and still easily won the scoring title.

I think it's easier to keep production up when playing at a high level throughout the whole season, as opposed to missing stretches of games throughout the season. He still managed to win scoring titles as well while not playing a whole season.

Just look at the players around him on the all time scoring list. He has played far less games than pretty much anybody there. Are you saying if those players had played in fewer games, their scoring totals would be higher?

Carpe Diem

Sep 28th, 2005, 12:08 PM

Lemieux is a lot better than Gretzky IMHO....

Werd! :cool:

stealth

Sep 28th, 2005, 07:07 PM

Gretzky never had the time off that Lemieux had; though Super Mario obviously went through a rough battle with cancer, he didn't have the hockey level of constant wear-and-tear.

It was pretty rediculous to see Lemieux making temporary stars out of guys like Morozov, though.

Good point. People in this thread are talkling as if CANCER was the biggest prob. with Lemieux's career. IMO, its his recurring back problems that get in his way just when it looks like he may be able ot get things going again.

If only he carried himself "safely" like a primadonna the way Gretz did, instead of using his size to mix it up, he may have had a career more reflective of his potential. He was the working mans hockey star.

nfnx

Sep 29th, 2005, 03:13 AM

well we can have this fight all night....

no real answer... in my personal opinion, i go with lemieux, then gretzky.

yah lemieux makes everyone play better around him... really cant wait to see him and crosby work it up... although they may not play together this season...

Headhunter

Sep 29th, 2005, 11:30 AM

and kevin steven as well....
He had real talent; it was his self destructive lifestyle that did him in...

IMO, its his recurring back problems that get in his way just when it looks like he may be able to get things going again.
That's a problem as well, which the extended rests partially alleviated.

If only he carried himself "safely" like a primadonna the way Gretz did, instead of using his size to mix it up, he may have had a career more reflective of his potential. He was the working mans hockey star.
I can't fault Gretzky for that; he did what was best for his team, which was produce points and stay out of harm's way.

stealth

Sep 30th, 2005, 12:23 PM

He had real talent; it was his self destructive lifestyle that did him in...

That's a problem as well, which the extended rests partially alleviated.

I can't fault Gretzky for that; he did what was best for his team, which was produce points and stay out of harm's way.

Wasnt faulting Gretz for it as well. Its smart and mature to realize your role to a team and play within it. I meant that Lemieux prob. would have gotten more games in if he did as well.

yayawhoo2003

Sep 30th, 2005, 12:36 PM

Leimiuex would have been the all time points leader if not for injury...but you could also say similar to Orr, Bossy, Remember Time Kerr etc.

Gretzky also got slowed big time by the hit from Gary Suter. If it werent for that hit wayne would have scored at least another 400-500 points for sure.

Montague

Sep 30th, 2005, 12:47 PM

Gretzky also got slowed big time by the hit from Gary Suter. If it werent for that hit wayne would have scored at least another 400-500 points for sure.
Suter also pretty much did the SAME damage to Paul Kariya.

Remember Paul putting up those allstar type number before the cheapshot late hit [same kind of cheapshot late hit he put on Gretzky]?

Hate bringing this up alot put here is a loser who took out two great players with zero repercusions.

So much for the "Gretzky Rule" [ie cannot hit him]. ;)

moose3833

Oct 1st, 2005, 11:09 PM

poedua

Oct 2nd, 2005, 08:42 AM

Orr > Lemieux

Course it is all a matter of personal opinion since they both played in different eras.

I'd have to agree ...Orr was the greatest ' overall hockey player ' of all time .....hands down ......IMHO.

But, borrowing an idea from an old thread, if you could only field 5 skaters on a team .....would you want 5 Marios' or 5 Wayne's on that team ?

And who'd win if they the teams played each other ?

Headhunter

Oct 2nd, 2005, 10:30 AM

Orr was the best in terms of a complete game, but Gretzky/Lemieux are the only ones who should be considered "the greatest ever" (non-goalie, of course).

poedua

Oct 2nd, 2005, 02:48 PM

Orr was the best in terms of a complete game, but Gretzky/Lemieux are the only ones who should be considered "the greatest ever" (non-goalie, of course).

Like you say, if you consider pure offensive ability, - no question - Wayne or Mario would be clearly be in the running for the greatest forward. But if the ability to score ( win a scoring championship, as well as the ability to play defense ( best defensemen trophies ), as well as the ability to fight, the ability to check and take a check and to block shots is considered - all of which Orr did - I still think Orr would edge them both out as the greatest player that ever played the game - at worst, I suppose it would be a 3 way tie !

nfnx

Oct 2nd, 2005, 10:55 PM

"Lemieux had two goals and nine assists in four exhibition games."

amazing. this guy will have the most points if he only plays half the season

nfnx

Oct 2nd, 2005, 10:56 PM

not to mention hes 40 and stiill producing like this.... definately not done.

Shaner

Oct 2nd, 2005, 11:00 PM

Pure, natural talent doesn't die with age.
That's why Lemieux is a better player than Gretzky.
He's definitely more talented, that's for sure.

Chookman

Oct 3rd, 2005, 07:32 AM

I feel Lemieux had more dimensions to his game which allowed him to play at a high level longer. He's big and strong which allows him to deal head-on with physical play better than Gretzky. It's because of this that he always gets those highlight goals with 3 guys hanging all over him.

As someone who grew up in the Gretzky era, I would narrowly take Gretzky over Lemieux prior to age 28 and Lemieux wins hands down after the prime years. I remember about 5 years ago, a top GM was asked, "What player is the best in the game today?" He responded that the best player wasn't even playing and was sitting in the owner's box - Mario Lemieux.

numb555

Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:33 AM

In terms of Talent, I would give Lemieux a slight edge over Gretzky. But in terms of overall player(skills, durability, hockey sense) Gretzky has a huge advantage over Lemieux. Also, dont' forget that Lemieux turn players like Rob Brown who is above average at best, into perennial All-Star and 50 goal scorer. That is what i call special.

I would rate 1)Gretz 2a) Lemieux 2b) Orr , as my all time greatest.