AO/SC remind me of.....

[DarkStar50 679]

Since there has been lots of opinions on AO and SC, I thought of who they remind me of and why they are two such different players. Anybody who remembers hockey in the 80s or has seen video may or may not agree but I think its pretty easy. AO plays the game like a young Mark Messier and SC plays the game like a young Wayne Gretzky. I watched the 80s Oilers start as a bunch of kids on the bus in 79-80 and then rise to dominance by 84. The young Messier is the same as AO: strong as a bull, top end speed, wicked wrist shot, drive to the net no matter the price to pay, and will gladly leave his calling card on your body with a thundering check. This is the way Messier played for the Oilers in his younger days. There was no stopping him. This style of play lead to his becoming the amazing leader and player he was. AO has all these tools and attitude on ice, as well. It is a shame he has no supporting cast to help him. JD mentioned he has about 120 shots on goal and the next closest player on the Caps has about 40. AO is doing it by himself. I just see a resemblance to a young Messier in AO. As for SC, well the 99 comparisons are pretty obvious. I don't think he will reach Gretzky type numbers(no one ever will IMO) but the 99 style is all there. The smooth moves, the behind the back pass, the lateral line across the top of the blueline to buy time with the puck, the button hook spinnerama, the ability to show up at the right time are all there in SC. SC probably watched 1000 hours of old Gretzky video to learn and pattern himself after Gretzky(what Canadian kid didn't?). SC was given the natural ability and talent has been developed to take his game to that level. When Gretzky joined the NHL, they said he was too small, too slow, and too light to make it at the NHL level. Whoever "they" were, they were wrong. Again, SC may not come close to 99 numbers, but the style of play is very similar. These are just random thoughts on an interesting comparison between two new NHL players who are two totally different hockey players.

[headonaswivel 1]

On the Mess/AO comparison I think you are dead on. But Sid has elements that Gretz didn't. They definately share the same incredible vision and ability to break down the play and scan all options.

But, Sid is much more tenacious with the puck in the corners and out working players on the cycle. In that respect he plays a game similar to Foppa. You wouldn't see Gretz with his back to a guy overpowering him down low. He would hover and snake in and out. This kid just dives right in. Also, he has an expolsiveness Gretz lacked.

Not disagreeing so much as pointing other things out.

It'll be interesting to see this pens team with Malkin on it....

[McCabe24 0]

I always thought Crosby played like Peter Forsberg as well.

[DarkStar50 679]

Yeah, Crosby does have a bit more JAM than Gretz did. I like the Forsberg comparison, too.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Was Messier really "that" good? I don't doubt it, I just always picture him as a bum. I know he was good in Edmonton and NYR, but never thought of him among the "elites" to be honest. I always thought Gretz, Lemieux, Yzerman, Gilmour (hey, I'm a Leaf fan), Oates were above him. I always thought it was his leadership which made him great, moreso than his play. I was very young in '94 though and have just recently started watching more of other teams.

[DarkStar50 679]

My key verb is "unstoppable." The man possessed a desire and will to win that was amazing. Look up intensity in the NHL dictionary and there is Mark Messier. I saw him in the Canucks dressing room back in late 90s. He is not a big ,big guy but on skates he was a bull. Think Jarome Iginla with even another notch of intensity. Mess would fly into the zone on the off wing and let go that wrong foot wrister to the far side and score. He was hell on wheels on the PK, too. I watched him in Cup Finals vs Bruins, early 90s after Gretz had left. I was in the 4th row and I would watch him away from the play and puck. The stuff he did to opposing players was sadistic. He made you pay every time he was on the ice. He was way above Oates. Yzerman and Gilmopur did not bring the physical presence to the ice that Messier did. And , BTW, I only consider him an Edmonton Oiler. He was not a True Blue NYR IMO, even though he did win the Cup in 94 by putting the team on his back vs Devils game 6.

[ryno 0]

Was Messier really "that" good? I don't doubt it, I just always picture him as a bum. I know he was good in Edmonton and NYR, but never thought of him among the "elites" to be honest. I always thought Gretz, Lemieux, Yzerman, Gilmour (hey, I'm a Leaf fan), Oates were above him. I always thought it was his leadership which made him great, moreso than his play. I was very young in '94 though and have just recently started watching more of other teams.

To answer that simply...yes, Messier was that good. Unfortunatley I thing he hung on a little too long. Late in his career he was no where near the player he once was, which is understandable. I think we are seeing the same thing happen to Lemieux now. Don't get me wrong Mario is one of my all time favorite players to watch, and I'd still take him on my team over about 90% of the players in the league. However to this point in the season he just seems a step behind. I don't think he has the wheels left to dominate in the "new" NHL the way he once did.

[Chadd 916]

Ok, now Sid is BETTER than Gretz? The kid is good but he doesn't control the tempo like Wayne did. Sid plays well but he isn't anywhere close to Gretz and he isn't that physical. He's a great player but these comparisons are getting a little crazy.

Mess in his prime was as good as any other power forward in the history of the NHL.

[DarkStar50 679]

Ok, now Sid is BETTER than Gretz? The kid is good but he doesn't control the tempo like Wayne did. Sid plays well but he isn't anywhere close to Gretz and he isn't that physical. He's a great player but these comparisons are getting a little crazy.

Mess in his prime was as good as any other power forward in the history of the NHL.

Slow down soldier! I didn't say SC was "BETTER" than Gretz. I am making a comparison between their styles of play. This is not about who is better. There are traits that SC has that are undoubtedly learned influences from 99. I mentioned a few. I remember 99 in 79, 80 on. The 79-80 Gretz was not night in night out on fire. He still had an NHL learning curve, the same as SC. I am looking at SC as a 20 game NHL player and what I see based on the start does bear similarities to 99, in terms of potential as well. Gretz did not throw a body check in his entire NHL career and never was hit in his entire career as much as SC has been. The kid is taking lumps and bumps that Gretz never had to put up with. As I said on another thread, Gretz stayed away from getting hit by thinking ahead of the play. NHL skaters were slower in 80s than todays players. Gretz had more time and space as well as the ability to create time and space with the puck. SC has to read and react in the second it took you to read this sentence. That is the high speed of NHL 2005, not NHL 1985. The speed of NHL 2005 is so fast that no player in todays game can "control the tempo" the way Gretz did in the 80s. NHL 2005 is not about controlling the tempo, it is about making the play at the highest, fastest speed possible. As I watch the games now, the ability to make the high speed transition game is the single most important asset a team can add to their arsenal. I have noticed the last 2 weeks that cycling the puck down low has come back to the NEWNHL after it was missing the first 2 weeks of the year. I still find cycling the puck the most boring, mindless style of play to watch in the attack zone. I used to go crazy watching the 03-04 Leafs with Sundin and Mogilny cycling the puck down low on the wall. Two of the most talented players in the league were reduced to banging it off the wall!! That was such a waste of ability. Well, the guys are back on their bikes again when they try to sustain puck control in the attack zone.

[beaucoup_fish 0]

I don't doubt nor deny the fact that the Moose was a great player and the best leader in hockey, but just to stir the pot, the number of games does play a factor in the number of points you rack up (granted, his last 5-6 years of play have significantly dropped his career ppg clip)...how else can you explain Dale Hunter as a member of the 1000 point club?

[DarkStar50 679]

On that note: Pat Verbeek scored 500 goals. Is he worthy of Hall of Fame on his 500+ goal career? Sticking around to play takes talent, avoid injuries, and great teammates but Beeker in HOF? I won't vote him in.

[headonaswivel 1]

Now we are getting into a complete different discussion that I'd like to chucka couple pennies into.

The HOF is at times a joke. Pure numbers can get a guy in now. Pat Lafontaine was a great player, but HOF member??

Pat Verbeek?? Does that mean Dino Chickarellllli gets in cause he rattled off 600+? Lets throw Basil MaCrae in the mix then.

I still believe it should be reserved for true elite players, guys that made a difference in hockey. There are a hell of a lot of damn good players in the hall, but my thoughts are that it should be for the great, not the good.

[ryno 0]

Now we are getting into a complete different discussion that I'd like to chucka couple pennies into.

The HOF is at times a joke. Pure numbers can get a guy in now. Pat Lafontaine was a great player, but HOF member??

Pat Verbeek?? Does that mean Dino Chickarellllli gets in cause he rattled off 600+? Lets throw Basil MaCrae in the mix then.

I still believe it should be reserved for true elite players, guys that made a difference in hockey. There are a hell of a lot of damn good players in the hall, but my thoughts are that it should be for the great, not the good.

Might as well put McRae in, hell Clark Gillies is in.

[beaucoup_fish 0]

Does that mean Dino Chickarellllli gets in cause he rattled off 600+?

The numbers produced by longevity rears its head again...

[beaucoup_fish 0]

I am kind of saddened at the lack of respect Messier gets in some MB's.

It really stumps me, honestly. You look at the epitomal winner and leader, its him. Someone who backed up every word on the ice. Who would bleed his teams colors. And who was a hell of a player. He played all facets of the game brilliantly.

I never understood. His last 5 or so years even tarnished it for me a little, but not all that much. I mean, his first 20 were everything you can ask in a player.

In fact, if you build around one player in their prime, a smart hockey person would pick Messier more times then not.

Well said...

[headonaswivel 1]

The speed of NHL 2005 is so fast that no player in todays game can "control the tempo" the way Gretz did in the 80s. NHL 2005 is not about controlling the tempo, it is about making the play at the highest, fastest speed possible. As I watch the games now, the ability to make the high speed transition game is the single most important asset a team can add to their arsenal.

That was a point I meant to hit on. Todays game is so damn fast it is just rediculous. One of my buddies is in his rookie year with the Hawks. In the Dub he was a high scorer, in the A he put up decent numbers. So by no means is he a plumber.

I tease him now and again about not scoring on some chances, or other little things, knowing full well that he can. But he says the game is just so damn fast out there now, even compared to the few games he played 2 years ago in a call up or last year in the A. It's just so fast that the tempo is dictated mostly by the ebb and flow of the game, and not really ever by any one player.

[DarkStar50 679]

Might as well put McRae in, hell Clark Gillies is in.

Clark Gillies and Cam Neely are two players from the same mold, believe it or not. Gillies was actually a prototype for Neely. We know what they brought to the game: respect, size, ability to play it anyway you wanted, and they could both score. Gillies could light the lamp but with Mike Bossy(best pure goal scorer in NHL during late 70s/early80s:check the #s) scoring 50+ for seven straight seasons on his wing, he wasn't going to get the career goal totals of Cam Neely.

Clark Gillies 958 games 319 goals, 378 assists = 697 points, 1023 PIM

playoffs 164 games 47 goals, 47 assists = 94 points, 287 PIM

Cam Neely 726 games 395 goals, 299 points =694 points, 1241 PIM

playoffs 93 games 57 goals, 32 assists = 89 points, 168 PIM

Interesting career stats for both players. Just wanted to check the numbers.

[DarkStar50 679]

Theo,

Wow! the Big E as a HOF. This thread could get curiouser and curiouser!

[ryno 0]

Might as well put McRae in, hell Clark Gillies is in.

Clark Gillies and Cam Neely are two players from the same mold, believe it or not. Gillies was actually a prototype for Neely. We know what they brought to the game: respect, size, ability to play it anyway you wanted, and they could both score. Gillies could light the lamp but with Mike Bossy(best pure goal scorer in NHL during late 70s/early80s:check the #s) scoring 50+ for seven straight seasons on his wing, he wasn't going to get the career goal totals of Cam Neely.

Clark Gillies 958 games 319 goals, 378 assists = 697 points, 1023 PIM

playoffs 164 games 47 goals, 47 assists = 94 points, 287 PIM

Cam Neely 726 games 395 goals, 299 points =694 points, 1241 PIM

playoffs 93 games 57 goals, 32 assists = 89 points, 168 PIM

Interesting career stats for both players. Just wanted to check the numbers.

Still not convinced that Jethro is worthy of the HOF. A good player in his day, yes, but not HOF worthy, and I liked the guy.

Most goals he scored in one season, 38. Most assists he had in one season, 56. Most points ever in one season, 91. All this during the highest scoring period of the NHL. He had 3-4 solid years, most years he was a marginal star player at best. But let's go with your argument about him being the prototype power forward. To go along with his less than stellar numbers for his era, the guy never racked up more than 99 penalty minutes in any given season.

Give Neely 3 more seasons (nearly how many more games Gillies played than Neely) in his prime and I'm sure the comparison is looking much less favorable. Anyway that's it from me, I've gotten far enough off topic from the AO/SC debate as it is.