Sabres Development Camp

[Stads]

Speaking of pictures from camp, here's an Eichel gallery (he looks really weird in some of them)

http://galleries.buffalonews.com/default.aspx?id=4525#/0

In the second picture, it looks like he's regretting the decision not to poop before coming out on the ice.

[WildCard]

Silly question for those going to the Scrimmage Friday: does anyone know which side Eichel will be shooting on twice? I know it's a long shot, but I thought I'd ask

[spndnchz]

In my 5 years of going to camp I've never seen these guys move so fast.

Silly question for those going to the Scrimmage Friday: does anyone know which side Eichel will be shooting on twice? I know it's a long shot, but I thought I'd ask

He's been on team 1 so my guess is home team shoot twice side.

[WildCard]

In my 5 years of going to camp I've never seen these guys move so fast.

 

He's been on team 1 so my guess is home team shoot twice side.

Awesome, thank you.

[darksabre]

Anyone have any thoughts on RIT alum Matt Garbowsky? Just curious how he looks at camp. 

[Doohicksie]

In the second picture, it looks like he's regretting the decision not to poop before coming out on the ice.

 

He's a mouth breather.  I suppose at that level of effort, they all are.

Anyone have any thoughts on RIT alum Matt Garbowsky? Just curious how he looks at camp. 

 

Not sure, but they interviewed him today.

http://video.sabres.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=831935&lang=en

[Huckleberry]

In the second picture, it looks like he's regretting the decision not to poop before coming out on the ice.

 

or the sugar free gummy bears started to kick in :p

[LGR4GM]

In my 5 years of going to camp I've never seen these guys move so fast.

 

He's been on team 1 so my guess is home team shoot twice side.

I wonder why that is?  Coaching forcing them too or has their strategy of drafting hard workers who can skate kicking in?

or the sugar free gummy bears started to kick in :P

"100% liquid, flammable liquid, NAPALM."

[nfreeman]

To keep it in the same era, how about Crosby v Toews......if you want to use Gretzky...more like Gretzky v Messier (after Gretzky traded to a different team, of course)

 

The problem there is that Gretzky was significantly better than Crosby -- and while Messier was better than Toews, the spread isn't as big as that between Gretzky and Crosby.

 

Also, although Toews plays with a tremendous amount of heart (and, hopefully, so will Eichel), neither approaches the raging bull that was Messier.

 

I have heard sober hockey people comparing McDavid to Gretzky.  If that's the case, then even if Eichel is as good as Toews, he won't come close to McDavid.

[Doohicksie]

I wonder why that is?  Coaching forcing them too or has their strategy of drafting hard workers who can skate kicking in?

 

Yes.

[LGR4GM]

Bill Hoppe discusses dev camp

http://news.wbfo.org/post/behind-bench-sabres-development-camp

[TrueBlueGED]

The problem there is that Gretzky was significantly better than Crosby -- and while Messier was better than Toews, the spread isn't as big as that between Gretzky and Crosby.

 

Also, although Toews plays with a tremendous amount of heart (and, hopefully, so will Eichel), neither approaches the raging bull that was Messier.

 

I have heard sober hockey people comparing McDavid to Gretzky. If that's the case, then even if Eichel is as good as Toews, he won't come close to McDavid.

Disagree. I know this is blasphemy, but if Crosby had played during the days of firewagon hockey and had a supporting cast like those Oilers teams, his career would look awfully similar to Gretzky's. Even playing most of his career in the new dead puck era, Crosby's scoring rates are top-5 all time.

[LGR4GM]

Disagree. I know this is blasphemy, but if Crosby had played during the days of firewagon hockey and had a supporting cast like those Oilers teams, his career would look awfully similar to Gretzky's. Even playing most of his career in the new dead puck era, Crosby's scoring rates are top-5 all time.

The actual question is would Gretzky put up Crosby numbers into today's NHL?  Defenders in the 80's are not equivalent to those of the 10's

[WildCard]

The intangible with Gretzky is that he changed the game. He was te first to truly utilize playing behind the net, and anytime a player has such a huge impact on how the game is played, regardless of the era, it lends weight to their status IMO

Edited July 8, 2015 by WildCard

[darksabre]

The actual question is would Gretzky put up Crosby numbers into today's NHL?  Defenders in the 80's are not equivalent to those of the 10's

 

Gretzky started with the most important thing: raw talent. If he had been developed in this era of hockey he'd have been subjected to the same training that guys like Crosby and McDavid have received, as well as been enabled by the modern equipment advances. I think once you factor that in, Gretzky doesn't lose quite so much shine to the argument that he came from an era where scoring was easy. 

[TrueBlueGED]

The intangible with Gretzky is that he changed the game. He was te first to truly utilize playing behind the net, and anytime a player has such a huge impact on how the game is played, regardless of the era, it lends weight to their status IMO

I don't disagree, but let's be honest: the primary reason Gretzky is universally considered the best ever is the individual numbers, bouyeed by an all-time great supporting cast helping him win Cups.

[nfreeman]

I don't disagree, but let's be honest: the primary reason Gretzky is universally considered the best ever is the individual numbers, bouyeed by an all-time great supporting cast helping him win Cups.

 

Yes, and his individual numbers included huge spreads between him and the rest of the league -- much greater than the spreads between Crosby (who, to be clear, I think is a great player) and his contemporaries.

[TrueBlueGED]

Yes, and his individual numbers included huge spreads between him and the rest of the league -- much greater than the spreads between Crosby (who, to be clear, I think is a great player) and his contemporaries.

This is the natural consequence of a league that encourages a style of play that suppresses talent. If you think Gretzky would rack up 120+ point seasons like clockwork in today's NHL I think you're living in fantasy land.

[shrader]

This is the natural consequence of a league that encourages a style of play that suppresses talent. If you think Gretzky would rack up 120+ point seasons like clockwork in today's NHL I think you're living in fantasy land.

 

I'd also be curious to see just how different the gap between Gretzky and the next couple guys was compared to Crosby today, percentage-wise, or even something more technical than that.  I'd mess around with it if I had the time.  I'm looking at this completely blind right now and have no good feel for how it would look.

 

Personally though, I hate all of these comparisons across eras.  There are way too many differences for it to have any meaning.  I'm at the point where I think that players can only be compared against others from their same time.  Everything else is just pointless speculation to me.

[Doohicksie]

So, what do you think about this Jack Eichel guy?  :angel:

[sicknfla]

So, what do you think about this Jack Eichel guy? :angel:

No doubt. We have waited a long time for this development camp. Don't care much about Gretzky and Crosby right now.

[WildCard]

This is the natural consequence of a league that encourages a style of play that suppresses talent. If you think Gretzky would rack up 120+ point seasons like clockwork in today's NHL I think you're living in fantasy land.

His point total isn't the point of contention though, it's the disparity in them relative to the rest of te league

[Doohicksie]

Anyone at camp today?

Whaz goin on?

[Taro T]

I'd also be curious to see just how different the gap between Gretzky and the next couple guys was compared to Crosby today, percentage-wise, or even something more technical than that.  I'd mess around with it if I had the time.  I'm looking at this completely blind right now and have no good feel for how it would look.

 

Personally though, I hate all of these comparisons across eras.  There are way too many differences for it to have any meaning.  I'm at the point where I think that players can only be compared against others from their same time.  Everything else is just pointless speculation to me.

As a "rookie" (1st NHL season, entered as an 18 year old) he tied for the league lead in points (137) with Dionne, 12 points ahead of Lafleur and 31 point ahead of #4 Perreault.

 

The next year, his 164 was 29 better than Dionne.

 

'81-'82, when he shattered the NHL record of 76 goals and the NA pro record of 77 goals with his 92 goals, (Bossy was 2nd that year with 64), he also became the 1st (and only) man (not named Gretzky) to break 200 points with 212. Bossy was runner-up that year with 147 points. His 120 assists were 11 more than his prior best of 109 and 18 more than some punk named Orr had managed several years earlier. Stastny was 2nd with 93 assists.

 

Anyone thinking Gretzky was a product of his linemates/ teammates, Anderson was 11th in league scoring with 105 and no other Euler was top 20.

 

'82-'83, Gretzky "slumped" to 196 points, but #2 that year was Stastny with 124. His 71 goals was only 5 more than Lanny McDonald's 66, but he had 125 assists (yes, 1 more assist than the Art Ross runner up had total points). (In fairness, there were 5 Eulers in the top 15 that year, but that didn't change the fact that he scored 50% more than anybody else in the league and the Euler's #2 scorer was still in 7th overall 90 points behind Gretzky.)

 

'83-'84, Gretzky was back over the 200 pt plateau at 205, 79 more than runner-up Coffee and 84 more than Goulet's 121. Once again scoring more than 50% more than #2; but missing by 8 having as many assists as #2 had points (118 vs 126). Had 87 goals when nobody else broke 60 (7 scored between 51 & 56).

 

'84-'85, he had 208 w/ 135 assists, Kurri had 135 points and Hawerchuk had 130. Gretzky led the league with 73 goals, Kurri had 71, and Bossy had 58. He was still getting 50% more points than anyone else.

 

'85-'86, he had a career best 215, again more than 50% better than the runner-up Lemieux (141). ONLY 52 goals, but an astounding 163 assists. (Yes, better than 2 assists per game.)

 

'86-'87, he slumped all the way to 183, but that was an even higher percentage of #2's 108.

 

In '87-'88, someone not named Gretzky finally won the Art Ross again. Lemieux's 168 topped his 149, which was 18 better than Denis Savard's 131. BTW, Wayne only played 64 games that year. Had he been healthy all year, the streak would have continued.

 

As good as Syd was/is, he's never dominated the way Gretzky did.

[nfreeman]

This is the natural consequence of a league that encourages a style of play that suppresses talent. If you think Gretzky would rack up 120+ point seasons like clockwork in today's NHL I think you're living in fantasy land.

I'd also be curious to see just how different the gap between Gretzky and the next couple guys was compared to Crosby today, percentage-wise, or even something more technical than that.  I'd mess around with it if I had the time.  I'm looking at this completely blind right now and have no good feel for how it would look.

 

Personally though, I hate all of these comparisons across eras.  There are way too many differences for it to have any meaning.  I'm at the point where I think that players can only be compared against others from their same time.  Everything else is just pointless speculation to me.

 

When Gretzky was at his peak, he outpaced his contemporaries by 50% to 80% -- ie he would score 200+ points and the 2nd-place guy would have around 130.

 

There's never been a hockey player remotely like him.

 

I'm not going to get into an unprovable argument about how many points Gretzky would put up today, but I will say that I take issue with the tendency to assume that the best player in any given mini-era (10 years or so) is in the ballpark with the GOAT.  LeBron isn't nearly as good as Jordan was, Tyson wasn't nearly as good as Ali was and Crosby sho' 'nuff isn't nearly as good as Gretzky was.