Connor McDavid vs Guy Lafleur vs Howie Morenz

[tarheelhockey]

Just curious how this forum views McDavid relative to Lafleur and Morenz so far in his career, and how far off he might be from equaling or surpassing them in an all-time sense.

The stylistic similarity is obvious: all-time skating speed and dexterity, combined with an elite ability to handle and shoot the puck at those high speeds.

The contextual dis-similarity is also obvious: core players on great championship teams vs. core player on a perennial underdog/tire-fire franchise.

Obviously McDavid has a long way to go before we're talking about him in a top-10 or Big Four context. I would say Lafleur and Morenz are two of the most important guideposts as he travels that path, similar to how important it was when Ovechkin passed Mike Bossy and came into direct comparison with Bobby Hull.

FWIW, top-5 vsX seasons for each of them:

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Lafleur[/TD][TD]Morenz[/TD][TD]McDavid[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]128.3[/TD][TD]141.7[/TD][TD]141.9[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]117.9[/TD][TD]108.5[/TD][TD]113.6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]105.7[/TD][TD]96.4[/TD][TD]104.9[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]103.3[/TD][TD]94.2[/TD][TD]100.9[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]101.6[/TD][TD]94.1[/TD][TD]97.0[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

Lafleur had a run of about 6 years where he was Guy Lafleur and maybe 2 more where he was still relevant. Morenz had a run of 8-9 years where he was generally top dog, but some ups and downs within that timeframe. McDavid is entering his 7th season.

What does McDavid need to accomplish moving forward to catch and eclipse these two? Can it be done without great team success in the playoffs? Is there a point where longevity becomes a factor compared to two relatively short-career players?

 

[Nathaniel]

Right now lafleur is ahead but mcdavid with playoff success will pass him. And McDavid is better than morenz

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lafleur one of the greatest heroes ever, playing under the most intense pressure (arguably all-time, as the chosen Béliveau successor in the flames of the Montreal hell), who scored among the greatest goals in hockey history.

When McDavid does sometimes even remotely comparable in emotional content, then his name can be spoken in the same sentence as Guy Lafleur.

So no, in my eyes at least, it cannot be done without serious playoff success, or at least the sense that nothing more could be done, à la Karlsson in 2017 but multiple times.

 

[VanIslander]

I hate to say it but..

Best of 6
Vs.
Best of 32

A huge elephant in any room.

(Gordie Howe is still the greatest hockey player ever, but that is beside the point.)

 

[ESH]

McDavid’s first few seasons in the NHL are as good as anyone outside of the “big 4”.

The major hang-up this thread will be stuck on is McDavid’s lack of playoff success (especially compared to Lafleur), but I’m sure that he’ll find success with time.

 

[Rengorlex]

In the regular season, if McDavid repeats something close to last year (lets say, ~140 points and a clean award sweep) he would surpass Lafleur's resume. The latter had 6 seasons of high relevance, McDavid has 5 going for 6th and would have the better high end in that case. Either way, just doing what he has been doing and not having major injuries ruin his career he will surpass Lafleur in the RS pretty soon.


To surpass Lafleur overall he'd need a lot better playoff performances too, at least until the regular season gap becomes significantly larger. The Olympics are happening this year, so that's a big stage where McDavid can perform without a bad team excuse.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think McDavid is a good comparison for them in terms of regular season offensive peak. Lafleur has a tremendous playoff resume, while McDavid's is.... disappointing.

If McDavid pulls it off again this year, we're looking at 4 Art Ross, 3 Hart, and 2 more 2nd place point finishes.

Realistically, that puts him ahead of Jagr and Crosby for regular season. He already has a top 10 forward peak resume for regular season.

Playoff success will continue to dominate the discussion until McDavid does something worth remembering there.

The sky is the limit for McDavid. The two key questions will be: playoffs and repetition. Gretzky wasn't Gretzky because he hit 200 points once, but because he lead the league in points 10 times.

 

[The Panther]

Can't say I agree with the OP's take on things.

First of all, Edmonton a "tire fire" franchise? That's compared to which other Canadian franchises?

Stanley Cups in the past 40 years:
5 - Edmonton
2 - Montreal
1 - Calgary
0 - Toronto
0 - Vancouver
0 - Quebec
0 - Winnipeg
0 - Ottawa

Stanley Cup Finals in the past 40 years:
6 - Edmonton
4 - Montreal
3 - Vancouver
1 - Ottawa
0 - Toronto
0 - Winnipeg
0 - Quebec

Second, I would say that McDavid has already surpassed Lafleur as a player. Morenz? I'm not sure how to even begin evaluating players separated by a century.

I'm probably in the minority, but for me McDavid is already creeping into the top-10 players of all time, and if he has another dominant season this year, he'll be solidly in there.

(And no, I don't care about team accomplishments in the simplest sense when evaluating players!)

 

[tarheelhockey]

Can't say I agree with the OP's take on things.

First of all, Edmonton a "tire fire" franchise? That's compared to which other Canadian franchises?

Stanley Cups in the past 40 years:
5 - Edmonton
2 - Montreal
1 - Calgary
0 - Toronto
0 - Vancouver
0 - Quebec
0 - Winnipeg
0 - Ottawa

Stanley Cup Finals in the past 40 years:
6 - Edmonton
4 - Montreal
3 - Vancouver
1 - Ottawa
0 - Toronto
0 - Winnipeg
0 - Quebec

Second, I would say that McDavid has already surpassed Lafleur as a player. Morenz? I'm not sure how to even begin evaluating players separated by a century.

I'm probably in the minority, but for me McDavid is already creeping into the top-10 players of all time, and if he has another dominant season this year, he'll be solidly in there.

(And no, I don't care about team accomplishments in the simplest sense when evaluating players!)

I would think anyone who has followed the NHL over the past 15 years would know exactly what I mean by “tire fire franchise”. Cups from the 80s are totally irrelevant here.

 

[Overrated]

1970s were a very bad time for forwards in Canada. If there was a top15 forwards in the world rank for let's say 1975 the majority would be European. Laflauer is thus very overrated. Hull all the way up to about 35 was still the best forward in Canada.

McDavid is much better.

 

[jigglysquishy]

McDavid just finished his 6th NHL season. Here are some other forwards' point finishes after 6 seasons.

Gretzky - 1,1,1,1,1,1
Lemieux - 13, 2, 3, 1, 1, injured
Howe - 51, 15, 18, 3, 1, 1, 1
Jagr - 78, 56, 29, 9, 1, 2
Ovechkin - 3, 13, 1, 2, 2, 7
Crosby- 6, 1, injured, 3, 3, injured
McDavid- injured, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1
Lafleur- 28, 58, 47, 4, 1, 1

 

[The Panther]

I would think anyone who has followed the NHL over the past 15 years would know exactly what I mean by “tire fire franchise”. Cups from the 80s are totally irrelevant here.

There's a difference between "went through a 10-year period of losing" and "tire-fire franchise". Nearly every franchise has done something approaching (or matching) the former. The Oilers are certainly not the latter. As recently as, I think, 2010, Sports Illustrated listed the Oilers are the second-best (?) pro-sports franchise in North America, from a variety of perspectives. And the Oilers have been in the Cup Finals in the 2000s. And won the Stanley Cup in the 90s.

Anyway, in the McDavid era the team has made the playoffs three of the past five seasons, which has been a bit disappointing. I take your point, though, that it's very different from (actually, more like opposite to) Lafleur's team situation.

 

[The Panther]

McDavid just finished his 6th NHL season. Here are some other forwards' point finishes after 6 seasons.

Gretzky - 1,1,1,1,1,1
Lemieux - 13, 2, 3, 1, 1, injured
Howe - 51, 15, 18, 3, 1, 1, 1
Jagr - 78, 56, 29, 9, 1, 2
Ovechkin - 3, 13, 1, 2, 2, 7
Crosby- 6, 1, injured, 3, 3, injured
McDavid- injured, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1
Lafleur- 28, 58, 47, 4, 1, 1

Man, that is really something that McDavid was able to come in and be as strong as he was, as quickly, and especially in today's NHL where individuals consistently dominating is very difficult. It would have been interesting to see how he'd have fared as a rookie if not injured in mid-season. He already had 1.07 PPG in his rookie season, which would put him 3rd NHL, but of course that could have wavered up or down depending on factors.

 

[Sentinel]

Right now lafleur is ahead but mcdavid with playoff success will pass him. And McDavid is better than morenz

What "playoff success"?

Until McD does anything remotely resembling playoff success, he is not going to catch up to Lafleur.

 

[Professor What]

Right now, I'd say Morenz > Lafleur > McDavid. But I'd say three things about McDavid going forward. #1: At the rate he's going right now, if he keeps it up, it's going to be a much bigger question in just, say, two years as far as regular season play. He has every chance of turning that on its head. #2: As plenty of others have said, he's, I'll be generous, got room for growth in postseason play. Give him a couple of good playoff runs in the next couple of years, and he's upsetting things even more. #3: I really find it difficult to feel like I'm getting an accurate historical read on current players. It's a forest for the trees thing since we're in the middle of it. Guys at the end of a long career, like Jagr a couple of years ago, or guys that have set themselves apart long term, like Crosby and Ovechkin have done by now are a little different, but I think it's a bit early for me to feel like I can get a good read on what McDavid has actually accomplished so far. That said, the trajectory is rather astonishing. I can certainly see that much.

 

[The Panther]

What "playoff success"?

Until McD does anything remotely resembling playoff success, he is not going to catch up to Lafleur.

Well, he's got about 10 years to do so, so I think I'm safe in saying he'll have a good run or a Cup at some point. And even if he doesn't... Are we really going to straight-up going to compare playoff success of a guy drafted into Montreal in 1971 with the guy drafted into Edmonton in 2015?

Lafleur is deservedly a legend, but I'm 95% sure that if and Dionne had swapped places in the draft, so would their entire career playoff legacies.

Individuals don't have playoff success -- teams do.

 

[Sentinel]

Well, he's got about 10 years to do so, so I think I'm safe in saying he'll have a good run or a Cup at some point. And even if he doesn't... Are we really going to straight-up going to compare playoff success of a guy drafted into Montreal in 1971 with the guy drafted into Edmonton in 2015?

Lafleur is deservedly a legend, but I'm 95% sure that if and Dionne had swapped places in the draft, so would their entire career playoff legacies.

To quote Spartans: "if."

Yes, we really are "going to straight-up going to" compare them. Because that's what this thread is about. And this thread does not deal in futures either.

 

[The Panther]

To quote Spartans: "if."

Yes, we really are "going to straight-up going to" compare them. Because that's what this thread is about. And this thread does not deal in futures either.

People have different perspectives on this. The older I get, the less I'm inclined to attribute substantial team success (championships, say) to individual contributions.

The way I look at it, when evaluating individual players, you look at what they did within the context they were given. That is all. So, a "straight up" comparison between Lafleur's and McDavid's playoff success, at the same stage in their careers (McDavid now is like Lafleur in 1976 or something) is completely absurd.

The Oilers took 168 minutes to score a goal last spring, in the playoffs, when McDavid and Draisaitl both weren't on the ice. Do you think that EVER happened -- once -- in Lafleur's entire career?

Over the years, the stats prove conclusively that the Oilers are a good team when McDavid's on the ice, and a terrible team when he's not. He literally can do no more. He just received 100% of 1st-place Hart votes.

Playoff success of course can elevate a player's ranking to me, esp. when a player distinguishes himself by carrying a team to a couple of key wins or when he is the stand-out player in a series, or something like that.

Since McDavid has been just over 20 years old, he has scored 13 points in his measly 8 playoff games. 7 of those 8 games were lost by his team because they can't score when he's not on the ice.

So, sure, we should hold McDavid to the highest standards of other legendary players and note that he hasn't yet been the best player in a series win or whatever. But to suggest that it's fair to straight-up compare his team's playoff success with Lafleur's at the same age is, well, utterly absurd.

 

[BenchBrawl]

People have different perspectives on this. The older I get, the less I'm inclined to attribute substantial team success (championships, say) to individual contributions.

The way I look at it, when evaluating individual players, you look at what they did within the context they were given. That is all. So, a "straight up" comparison between Lafleur's and McDavid's playoff success, at the same stage in their careers (McDavid now is like Lafleur in 1976 or something) is completely absurd.

The Oilers took 168 minutes to score a goal last spring, in the playoffs, when McDavid and Draisaitl both weren't on the ice. Do you think that EVER happened -- once -- in Lafleur's entire career?

Over the years, the stats prove conclusively that the Oilers are a good team when McDavid's on the ice, and a terrible team when he's not. He literally can do no more. He just received 100% of 1st-place Hart votes.

Playoff success of course can elevate a player's ranking to me, esp. when a player distinguishes himself by carrying a team to a couple of key wins or when he is the stand-out player in a series, or something like that.

Since McDavid has been just over 20 years old, he has scored 13 points in his measly 8 playoff games. 7 of those 8 games were lost by his team because they can't score when he's not on the ice.

So, sure, we should hold McDavid to the highest standards of other legendary players and note that he hasn't yet been the best player in a series win or whatever. But to suggest that it's fair to straight-up compare his team's playoff success with Lafleur's at the same age is, well, utterly absurd.

If Karlsson can take that 2017 Ottawa team to the Conference Finals, a player of McDavid's caliber can do something equivalent in the next 10 years. If he doesn't, it's on him.

I agree he still has time though. Like you, I think comparing them at the same age is useless for the moment.

 

[MadLuke]

The Oilers took 168 minutes to score a goal last spring, in the playoffs, when McDavid and Draisaitl both weren't on the ice. Do you think that EVER happened -- once -- in Lafleur's entire career?

When not on the ice support is an important metric, not on the ice and not some other player not on the ice seem less precise without adding much.

The Oilers scored only 2 goals when McDavid was not on the ice those 4 games, is more telling.

But even on the ice McDavid was 6 GF, 7 GA, not a winning preposition either at EV he was 4GF-6GA (-2, 40% GF), the oilers without him on the ice at EV were 2GF-5GA (-3, 28% GF).

To take a very unfair example of Karlsson run above has he had much larger relative ice time obviously, the Senators scored only 15 goals in 19 games when he was not on the ice at EV they were 26-11 (+15, 70%) with Karlsson, 14GF-25GA (-11, 28% exactly like McDavid oilers) without.

Anyway those stats talk above are just strange when talking about that small of a sample size, so much luck involved specially when talking about a series with 3 overtime game in a row, certainly true that a lot of a dice role going on and a lot of judgement based on it.

 

[Buffalowing1988]

Lafleur one of the greatest heroes ever, playing under the most intense pressure (arguably all-time, as the chosen Béliveau successor in the flames of the Montreal hell), who scored among the greatest goals in hockey history.

When McDavid does sometimes even remotely comparable in emotional content, then his name can be spoken in the same sentence as Guy Lafleur.

So no, in my eyes at least, it cannot be done without serious playoff success, or at least the sense that nothing more could be done, à la Karlsson in 2017 but multiple times.

That feels very arbitrary to me...

I see what you mean and I do get it, but people have been moving the goal posts for McDavid lately and I don't think that's fair. He's tracking to be one of those all-time type guys and it's not too early to start recognizing it.

 

[The Panther]

When not on the ice support is an important metric, not on the ice and not some other player not on the ice seem less precise without adding much.

The Oilers scored only 2 goals when McDavid was not on the ice those 4 games, is more telling.

But even on the ice McDavid was 6 GF, 7 GA, not a winning preposition either at EV he was 4GF-6GA (-2, 40% GF), the oilers without him on the ice at EV were 2GF-5GA (-3, 28% GF).

TO take a very unfair example of Karlsson run above, the Senators scored only 15 goals in 19 games when he was not on the ice at EV they were 26-11 (+15, 70%) with Karlsson, 14GF-25GA (-11, 28% exactly like McDavid oilers) without.

Anyway those stats talk above are just strange when talking about that small of a sample size, so much luck involved specially when talking about a series with 3 overtime game in a row, certainly true that a lot of a dice role going on and a lot of judgement based on it.

Yes, that's correct -- it's too small of a sample size over the past two (or four) years to draw any conclusions about McDavid's playoff contributions. I hope that will change this next spring...

(About the goals-for/against thing, I wasn't talking about the playoffs last year; I was talking about the last several years of the team in general.)

 

[Albatros]

The Oilers took 168 minutes to score a goal last spring, in the playoffs, when McDavid and Draisaitl both weren't on the ice. Do you think that EVER happened -- once -- in Lafleur's entire career?

I think if you look at the late 1970s Habs teams you will find that they at times had surprisingly little secondary scoring. Of course they were still great teams and the Oilers are not, but in part it's on McDavid as the team leader (or at least nominal captain) to make it more than a sum of its parts instead of focusing on padding his own stats for half a year and then finding no answers when the going gets tough.

 

[BenchBrawl]

That feels very arbitrary to me...

I see what you mean and I do get it, but people have been moving the goal posts for McDavid lately and I don't think that's fair. He's tracking to be one of those all-time type guys and it's not too early to start recognizing it.

You say it's arbitrary, I say it's the only thing that really matters.

If you want a great legacy, perform when the emotional content is rich, because by definition that's the moment people care about, and other people are the one to control your legacy when it's all over. And what are we discussing here, if not legacies?

 

[MadLuke]

I think if you look at the late 1970s Habs teams you will find that they at times had surprisingly little secondary scoring. Of course they were still great teams and the Oilers are not, but in part it's on McDavid as the team leader (or at least nominal captain) to make it more than a sum of its parts instead of focusing on padding his own stats for half a year and then finding no answers when the going gets tough.

Not false, nothing too special past the first line here, scoring wise:

Scoring	Goals	Assists	Ice Time
Rk	Player	Age	Pos	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	EV	PP	SH	GW	EV	PP	SH	S	S%	TOI	ATOI
1	Guy Lafleur*	24	RW	13	7	10	17	10	2	7	0	0	3				46	15.2
2	Steve Shutt*	23	LW	13	7	8	15	9	2	4	3	0	0				33	21.2
3	Pete Mahovlich	29	C	13	4	8	12	5	24	2	2	0	1				27	14.8
4	Yvan Cournoyer*	32	RW	13	3	6	9	1	4	1	2	0	1				27	11.1
5	Serge Savard*	30	D	13	3	6	9	15	6	1	1	1	2				23	13.0
6	Guy Lapointe*	27	D	13	3	3	6	3	12	2	1	0	1				52	5.8
7	Jacques Lemaire*	30	C	13	3	3	6	5	2	1	1	1	1				36	8.3
8	Larry Robinson*	24	D	13	3	3	6	11	10	3	0	0	1				21	14.3
9	Yvon Lambert	25	LW	12	2	3	5	1	18	2	0	0	1				21	9.5
10	Jimmy Roberts	35	RW	13	3	1	4	5	2	2	0	1	0				17	17.6
11	Bob Gainey*	22	LW	13	1	3	4	4	20	1	0	0	0				34	2.9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

or the year after:

Scoring	Goals	Assists	Ice Time
Rk	Player	Age	Pos	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PIM	EV	PP	SH	GW	EV	PP	SH	S	S%	TOI	ATOI
1	Guy Lafleur*	25	RW	14	9	17	26	20	6	8	1	0	2				57	15.8
2	Jacques Lemaire*	31	C	14	7	12	19	12	6	6	1	0	3				38	18.4
3	Steve Shutt*	24	LW	14	8	10	18	18	2	6	2	0	3				39	20.5
4	Guy Lapointe*	28	D	12	3	9	12	8	4	2	1	0	0				48	6.3
5	Larry Robinson*	25	D	14	2	10	12	14	12	1	1	0	0				42	4.8
6	Pete Mahovlich	30	C	13	4	5	9	2	19	2	2	0	1				35	11.4
7	Serge Savard*	31	D	14	2	7	9	11	2	1	1	0	1				23	8.7
8	Murray Wilson	25	LW	14	1	6	7	0	14	1	0	0	0				9	11.1
9	Doug Jarvis	21	C	14	0	7	7	2	2	0	0	0	0				13	0.0
10	Yvon Lambert	26	LW	14	3	3	6	5	12	2	1	0	0				19	15.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Best support forward did not score 5 goals or 10 points in both playoff, the impact of that super devasting first line becoming just a normal good one for a playoff team (which they would have arguably become without Lafleur) could have been massive on their offensive output, we can look at the +/- outside the top 3 forward has well, quite regular if not low for a cup winner.