2019 NHL Draft

[Tondas]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

Things change in 40 years. 

Would Gretzky (of yesteryear) not be drafted first in this years draft?

[North Buffalo]

OK maybe I was off being disappointed in pic 31 given the run on D in the second... wow

[Kruppstahl]

3 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Would Gretzky (of yesteryear) not be drafted first in this years draft?

A while ago, Mike Schopp recounted on the air a conversation he had with Darcy Regier when Darcy was still GM.

This was quite a few years ago when New Jersey (I think) was one of the powers in the league.  Darcy asked Schopp: "Who do you think would win a Stanley Cup Final series between the (then current, league champion) Devils and an Oilers team from the '80s?  I know the answer, and it's not Edmonton."

Darcy's point was that the average talent level of the average NHL players has increased so much since the '80s that one of the greatest teams of all time, say the 1987 Oilers, would not even be good enough to take on the Devils or whatever modern team he was comparing them to at the time.

Schopp mentioned this story to Rob Ray during one of his game-day segments.  Rob vehemently disagreed.

The next segment or 2 later, Rob mentioned talking to everyone he could find around the game at the time (current or former NHL players basically) including probably the coaching staff, scouts, etc., and asking them the same Darcy Regier question.

He said no one agreed with Darcy.  Everyone said the '80s Oilers win the series. 

I always found this to be a really interesting discussion.

It is true the average player's talent level has increased since the 1980s, but those  Oilers teams still had Messier and Gretzky on them, and that is IMO possibly 2 of the best 4 or 5 players ALL TIME.  

Suggesting that the "game moves too quickly" for Gretzky these days or similar is absurd.  He would slow today's game right down to whatever pace he wanted to play at, and control the game at that speed, just as he did then.

Messier is one of the absolute best all time players with size, strength, skill, and "compete" off the freaking chart.

I really don't like hearing how today's group of players out-class some of the greatest players of all time.  It's just not true. 

As an aside, it's funny that this hypothesis comes from Darcy Regier, who was a mediocre talent himself, never really able to crack the National league as a player, and not a very good GM either.  Poor conclusion drawn from a poor talent.

I'm curious what others think of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bobs0108]

We took a Goalie Erik Portillo

[Claude Balls]

1 minute ago, bobs0108 said:

We took a Goalie Erik Portillo

A 6'6" goalie no less. Wonder if Murray had a say in this pick.

[bobs0108]

And PK Suban to the Devils they are going to be good this year

[Tondas]

6 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

A while ago, Mike Schopp recounted on the air a conversation he had with Darcy Regier when Darcy was still GM.

This was quite a few years ago when New Jersey (I think) was one of the powers in the league.  Darcy asked Schopp: "Who do you think would win a Stanley Cup Final series between the (then current, league champion) Devils and an Oilers team from the '80s?  I know the answer, and it's not Edmonton."

Darcy's point was that the average talent level of the average NHL players has increased so much since the '80s that one of the greatest teams of all time, say the 1987 Oilers, would not even be good enough to take on the Devils or whatever modern team he was comparing them to at the time.

Schopp mentioned this story to Rob Ray during one of his game-day segments.  Rob vehemently disagreed.

The next segment or 2 later, Rob mentioned talking to everyone he could find around the game at the time (current or former NHL players basically) including probably the coaching staff, scouts, etc., and asking them the same Darcy Regier question.

He said no one agreed with Darcy.  Everyone said the '80s Oilers win the series. 

I always found this to be a really interesting discussion.

It is true the average player's talent level has increased since the 1980s, but those  Oilers teams still had Messier and Gretzky on them, and that is IMO possibly 2 of the best 4 or 5 players ALL TIME.  

Suggesting that the "game moves too quickly" for Gretzky these days or similar is absurd.  He would slow today's game right down to whatever pace he wanted to play at, and control the game at that speed, just as he did then.

Messier is one of the absolute best all time players with size, strength, skill, and "compete" off the freaking chart.

I really don't like hearing how today's group of players out-class some of the greatest players of all time.  It's just not true. 

As an aside, it's funny that this hypothesis comes from Darcy Regier, who was a mediocre talent himself, never really able to crack the National league as a player, and not a very good GM either.  Poor conclusion drawn from a poor talent.

I'm curious what others think of this.

Generational talent is generational talent.  To Rob Ray's assessment, I would say, "No, you're right."

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

A while ago, Mike Schopp recounted on the air a conversation he had with Darcy Regier when Darcy was still GM.

This was quite a few years ago when New Jersey (I think) was one of the powers in the league.  Darcy asked Schopp: "Who do you think would win a Stanley Cup Final series between the (then current, league champion) Devils and an Oilers team from the '80s?  I know the answer, and it's not Edmonton."

Darcy's point was that the average talent level of the average NHL players has increased so much since the '80s that one of the greatest teams of all time, say the 1987 Oilers, would not even be good enough to take on the Devils or whatever modern team he was comparing them to at the time.

Schopp mentioned this story to Rob Ray during one of his game-day segments.  Rob vehemently disagreed.

The next segment or 2 later, Rob mentioned talking to everyone he could find around the game at the time (current or former NHL players basically) including probably the coaching staff, scouts, etc., and asking them the same Darcy Regier question.

He said no one agreed with Darcy.  Everyone said the '80s Oilers win the series. 

I always found this to be a really interesting discussion.

It is true the average player's talent level has increased since the 1980s, but those  Oilers teams still had Messier and Gretzky on them, and that is IMO possibly 2 of the best 4 or 5 players ALL TIME.  

Suggesting that the "game moves too quickly" for Gretzky these days or similar is absurd.  He would slow today's game right down to whatever pace he wanted to play at, and control the game at that speed, just as he did then.

Messier is one of the absolute best all time players with size, strength, skill, and "compete" off the freaking chart.

I really don't like hearing how today's group of players out-class some of the greatest players of all time.  It's just not true. 

As an aside, it's funny that this hypothesis comes from Darcy Regier, who was a mediocre talent himself, never really able to crack the National league as a player, and not a very good GM either.  Poor conclusion drawn from a poor talent.

I'm curious what others think of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These comparisons are useless if you don't establish some rules first.

Are we taking the 1987 Oilers as they were in 1987, or are we taking them as they would be in, say, 2003?

What I'm saying is, do the 1987 Oilers get to have the same equipment as the 2003 team they're playing against? Do they get to have the same training? Do they get the same development? Does Grant Fuhr play a hybrid style instead of stand up? 

[Tondas]

2 minutes ago, Claude Balls said:

A 6'6" goalie no less. Wonder if Murray had a say in this pick.

[Kruppstahl]

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

These comparisons are useless if you don't establish some rules first.

Are we taking the 1987 Oilers as they were in 1987, or are we taking them as they would be in, say, 2003?

What I'm saying is, do the 1987 Oilers get to have the same equipment as the 2003 team they're playing against? Do they get to have the same training? Do they get the same development? Does Grant Fuhr play a hybrid style instead of stand up? 

You're over-thinking it.  I think the idea is that you take #99 in 1987 and throw him in a time machine, and throw him on the ice today. If you want to give him today's skates, great.

If he could do what he did with his equipment then and lumber (later aluminum) in his hands, he'll only be a lot better with modern equipment. 

I would not go so far as to say he needs modern training.  Keep him as he was, but put him in today's game.

A lot of folks laugh and respond by saying " Are you kidding, those guys were smoking back then!"

So what?  Mogilny smoked like a fiend.  Didn't really slow him down, did it?  

If you can do it, you can do it, and 30 years of time doesn't change that.

It would be like suggesting Willie Mays couldn't play baseball in 2019.   Not only could he play, he'd be one of the best 5 guys in the league.

 

 

 

[Randall Flagg]

6 minutes ago, darksabre said:

These comparisons are useless if you don't establish some rules first.

Are we taking the 1987 Oilers as they were in 1987, or are we taking them as they would be in, say, 2003?

What I'm saying is, do the 1987 Oilers get to have the same equipment as the 2003 team they're playing against? Do they get to have the same training? Do they get the same development? Does Grant Fuhr play a hybrid style instead of stand up? 

That's where I am. Gretzky being teleported to here would have his doors blown off by Ovechkin or McDavid every single shift. 

But Gretzky would still be the greatest hockey player to ever live if he was born in 1997 and the only thing that changed was training, nutrition, and equipment. He'd likely control the league today similarly to the way he did then. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Hoss]

We get a new poster names @Dr. Who and all of a sudden everyone wants to talk about time travel.

[Kruppstahl]

Just now, Randall Flagg said:

That's where I am. Gretzky being teleported to here would have his doors blown off of him by Ovechkin or McDavid every single shift. 

But Gretzky would still be the greatest hockey player to ever live if he was born in 1997 and the only thing that changed was training, nutrition, and equipment. He'd likely control the league today similarly to the way he did then. 

I disagree with you.  He would not be blown off every single shift.  Do you think someone like Reinhart has some kind of elite size, strength, or speed?  He has none of that.  He gets by on smarts...and he's a tiny fraction of what #99 was.

There is always recency bias when it comes to these types of discussions.  I.E., what happened in the last 5 minutes is the best, anything that happened 40 years ago is terrible.

It's like asking who the best 100 muscians of all time are; most people in 2019 are going to mention people they are familiar with, probably from the last 20 years.  Folks they don't even know from 80 years ago aren't even mentioned, not because they aren't talented but because they aren't recent or known.

 

 

 

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

You're over-thinking it.  I think the idea is that you take #99 in 1987 and throw him in a time machine, and throw him on the ice today. If you want to give him today's skates, great.

If he could do what he did with his equipment then and lumber (later aluminum) in his hands, he'll only be a lot better with modern equipment. 

I would not go so far as to say he needs modern training.  Keep him as he was, but put him in today's game.

A lot of folks laugh and respond by saying " Are you kidding, those guys were smoking back then!"

So what?  Mogilny smoked like a fiend.  Didn't really slow him down, did it?  

If you can do it, you can do it, and 30 years of time doesn't change that.

It would be like suggesting Willie Mays couldn't play baseball in 2019.   Not only could he play, he'd be one of the best 5 guys in the league.

 

 

 

I'm not over thinking it at all. You have to set rules to make these comparisons make sense.

Flagg has it right. If you're taking 1987 Gretzky and putting him on the ice in his 1987 gear with his 1987 training and 1987 coaching, I bet he gets owned. 

But if you take Gretzky, have him born in 1985, drafted in 2003, and in the NHL that coming season, yeah he's going to be amazing. 

Have Gretzky born in 2000, drafted in 2018, he's going to be the best player in the world.

[Randall Flagg]

6 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

I disagree with you.  He would not be blown off every single shift.  Do you think someone like Reinhart has some kind of elite size, strength, or speed?  He has none of that.  He gets by on smarts...and he's a tiny fraction of what #99 was.

There is always recency bias when it comes to these types of discussions.  I.E., what happened in the last 5 minutes is the best, anything that happened 40 years ago is terrible.

It's like asking who the best 100 muscians of all time are; most people in 2019 are going to mention people they are familiar with, probably from the last 20 years.  Folks they don't even know from 80 years ago aren't even mentioned, not because they aren't talented but because they aren't recent or known.

 

 

 

Your two examples, music and baseball, are not comparable to the transformation the NHL has undergone from the late 80s to now. Those things were far more developed far earlier than the NHL. 

I don't think that replacing Ovie's or McDavid's training and skill development with what Gretzky had, and putting them into the 80s, would have let them surpass Gretzky - it goes both ways. They would be good, but not the best in the league, because of Wayne and Lemieux standing above everyone else. 

But when I watch old footage of day-to-day NHL hockey, and see guys barely capable of skating backwards, and how slow the skating was, and what their bodies looked like with the habits they had back then, I just don't see how someone as finely tuned as McDavid, with the skating and hands (let's be real here - nobody focused half as much on their stickhandling as that kid did growing up, and McDavid himself has led to a mini stick-handling revolution* in the NHL with the kids who grew up following him from 2013-now) not being able to take the puck from anyone on the planet back then at any time they wanted, including the great one. 

And 2007-2010 Ovechkin being plunked down in the 80's? That would have been the most astounding thing any sport has ever witnessed. 

 

*Seriously, it's not being talked about yet, but in 20 years it will be a well-known phenomenon - the McDavid effect. It's changing the NHL for the better. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Kruppstahl]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I'm not over thinking it at all. You have to set rules to make these comparisons make sense.

Flagg has it right. If you're taking 1987 Gretzky and putting him on the ice in his 1987 gear with his 1987 training and 1987 coaching, I bet he gets owned. 

But if you take Gretzky, have him born in 1985, drafted in 2003, and in the NHL that coming season, yeah he's going to be amazing. 

Have Gretzky born in 2000, drafted in 2018, he's going to be the best player in the world.

This is entirely my point.  The highlighted is wrong.

"Training" probably makes up a tiny percentage of what a player does on the ice.

I would assert the Gretzky of the '80s is the more or less the same player he would be now.  As I said, put him in a time machine and bring him here just as he was.  Maybe give him modern equipment.

The skimpy stuff he wore would give him an advantage IMO nowadays anyway.

He hardly wore anything.  Certainly not the football armor the guys where now.

 

[Sabel79]

1 minute ago, Kruppstahl said:

"Training" probably makes up a tiny percentage of what a player does on the ice.

No, it's a majority of what they do, year-round.  Players today are light-years ahead of 30 years ago in terms of size, speed, strength and dedication to maintaining all of the above.  Mid 80's 90 pound bench-press Gretzky gets plowed over if he shows up today as he was then.  

[Kruppstahl]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Your two examples, music and baseball, are not comparable to the transformation the NHL has undergone from the late 80s to now. Those things were far more developed far earlier than the NHL. 

I don't think that replacing Ovie's or McDavid's training and skill development with what Gretzky had, and putting them into the 80s, would have let them surpass Gretzky - it goes both ways. They would be good, but not the best in the league, because of Wayne and Lemieux standing above everyone else. 

But when I watch old footage of day-to-day NHL hockey, and see guys barely capable of skating backwards, and how slow the skating was, and what their bodies looked like with the habits they had back then, I just don't see how someone as finely tuned as McDavid, with the skating and hands (let's be real here - nobody focused half as much on their stickhandling as that kid did growing up, and McDavid himself has led to a mini stick-handling revolution in the NHL with the kids who grew up following him from 2013-now) not being able to take the puck from anyone on the planet back then at any time they wanted, including the great one. 

And 2007-2010 Ovechkin being plunked down in the 80's? That would have been the most astounding thing any sport has ever witnessed. 

I'm guessing you are young.

Maybe when you get older you're see this in a more complex way.

Again, the issue here is not comparing the average player of today's game to the average player of the '80s.  The modern player is better, faster, bigger, stronger.

We're talking about taking the best players of former eras and putting them in today's game.

If you think the best players of all time would not be able to compete against the floaters and mediocrities that fill modern NHL rosters, well, I disagree with you. 

Sure, *some* of the modern guys are big and *some* of them are fast.  Some are both. 

Hockey is so much more than that.

Years ago I talked with Theo Fleury in a bar after a Flames game in Buffalo.  He was smoking along with goalie Mike Vernon and several other Flames players.  On that night, I got Craig Berube's autograph on a napkin (!) which I still have!   He was a big guy and had super long black hair and my buddies and I all thought he was the greatest.  He was very nice and polite and signed autograph s for all of us.

I digress.  Theo Fleury was TINY and he was a smoker!  So what....dude was one hell of a great hockey player and the 2020 Buffalo Sabres could really use him.

 

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

4 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

No, it's a majority of what they do, year-round.  Players today are light-years ahead of 30 years ago in terms of size, speed, strength and dedication to maintaining all of the above.  Mid 80's 90 pound bench-press Gretzky gets plowed over if he shows up today as he was then.  

Right, like the kid who, a few drafts ago, couldn't complete a single pull-up despite being a top draft choice, or some of the tiny kids being selected last night.  Hughes looks like I did as a sophomore in high school; he has the body of a child.

Look at current Sabres; they aren't all big, fast, strong guys; you are being overly dramatic.

And every player from the '80s wasn't a talentless sack of *****.

The '80s Oilers teams (some of them at least) had Paul Coffey on the blue line.

For those here too young to know him or to have watched his career, take my word for it, he could skate backwards.

 

 

[darksabre]

9 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

This is entirely my point.  The highlighted is wrong.

"Training" probably makes up a tiny percentage of what a player does on the ice.

I would assert the Gretzky of the '80s is the more or less the same player he would be now.  As I said, put him in a time machine and bring him here just as he was.  Maybe give him modern equipment.

The skimpy stuff he wore would give him an advantage IMO nowadays anyway.

He hardly wore anything.  Certainly not the football armor the guys where now.

 

Yeah, I think you're wrong. Someone like Chara would cripple Gretzky. The modern NHL is a so much different than it was during Gretzky's era. He'd ***** a brick. 

[Randall Flagg]

Just now, Kruppstahl said:

I'm guessing you are young.

Maybe when you get older you're see this in a more complex way.

Again, the issue here is not comparing the average player of today's game to the average player of the '80s.  The modern player is better, faster, bigger, stronger.

We're talking about taking the best players of former eras and putting them in today's game.

If you think the best players of all time would not be able to compete against the floaters and mediocrities that fill modern NHL rosters, well, I disagree with you. 

Sure, *some* of the modern guys are big and *some* of them are fast.  Some are both. 

Hockey is so much more than that.

Ah, now I'm convinced. Great job bringing substance to back your contention.

If you don't give the best players the training and the time to do things like develop their stickhandling, their quick-twitch snap shots that can pick corners while being smothered by three guys who can do physically what maybe ten players in the eighties were capable of (the freakish farmers mainly), they won't be able to keep up, because the game is fundamentally different. Gliding at 13 miles per hour and having 10 seconds to wind up an unscreened slapshot that beats the goalie from 25 feet out, as they slip and fall on their ass, is just something that doesn't happen anymore. You need the decade of skill development to even have a chance to make it. I know twelve guys I grew up with who can stickhandle better than Gretzky and they've never even played organized hockey. 

All we're saying is, if you don't give the old player this same decade to develop skills in ways that simply didn't happen and weren't prioritized because they weren't needed to beat said goalies and defensemen, they will be at a severe disadvantage. 

And if you do give it to them, they'll stay the greatest. 
 

[North Buffalo]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Yeah, I think you're wrong. Someone like Chara would cripple Gretzky. The modern NHL is a so much different than it was during Gretzky's era. He'd ***** a brick. 

Maybe, but that old Oil team had its protectors including McSorely

[North Buffalo]

Chara would have had his legs broken let alone his jaw

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Maybe, but that old Oil team had its protectors including McSorely

McSorely would get caved in. 

There's only one guy from NHL history who I think could survive being dropped into a modern game and it's Gordie Howe because he was a freak of nature. Even then they'd have to put him on the 4th line because Johan Larsson would have a better shot.

[North Buffalo]

Just now, darksabre said:

McSorely would get caved in. 

There's only one guy from NHL history who I think could survive being dropped into a modern game and it's Gordie Howe because he was a freak of nature. Even then they'd have to put him on the 4th line because Johan Larsson would have a better shot.

Really, Schoeney would have one punched Chara, those guys knew how to fight... even many of the skilled ones.  Perrault did well in his one fight... Scott Stevens would have killed Chara and the list goes on.  The old Isles had a few too that could and would lay the lumber.