Nah. Malkin joined the worst team in the league and turned them into a powerhouse within 3 years. Sure they also added or had some support like Crosby and Letang that made them better overall, but Malkin was absolutely key to their team success. Without him the Penguins don't win three cups, probably not even one. Every ring is also his personal achievement.
If McDavid can't be in Mario's tier, then Mario can't be in Wayne's tier.
Lemieux already had is Draisaitl, Jagr.. Mcdavid is Jagr prime. Jagr had 5 scoring title in a row in dead puck era without Mario on a terrible Penguin's team
Ovi is not in that Jagr Tier. Ovi is notch below.
The question of better player and better career are completely different. The thread title is clearly asking the former. To me personally, comparing career accolades is a wholly uninteresting exercise.
Ok cool, thanks for your opinion @bambamcam4ever. Telling me what's interesting to you is greatly appreciated.
Yes, it would be stupid to say otherwise. If someone scored 430 points a season for 56 straight years they'd place above all 3. Does that answer your question?
Yes, Brendan Gallagher’s age 33-40 seasons will leave no debate about this
I dunno, see u may have people that will think he will rightfully place above them and alot of people who will disagree with it completely. one of the reasons why Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux and Howe are the top 4 is because everyone agrees with it. until 90-100% people are on board then sure. like I said is it even possible for someone to rank above Orr or Lemieux?
I see big things, 93 goals from Gallagher next season
Your question was, verbatim, "is it even possible for someone to place above Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux." Now you're talking about subjectivity. Yes, it's possible for someone to rank above them.
the gap is so big that it's next to impossible though. so again, is it really even possible for someone to rank above them?
There will never be the same kind of gap, dominance of peers, because the competition is so much better. It’s like track and field where runners are now winning by nanoseconds while in the past the gap was a couple of seconds.
Mcdavid literally just won by 40 points over the next non oiler last year at 26 years old. Guys train more, but I'd bet there are less young people playing hockey these days and the league has 32 teams compared to 24 or 26 in the early 90s. And if they expand again soon it waters down the field even more.
Less players than early 90s? I’d say hockey has more kids playing in Europe and America fewer Canadians.
I mean McDavid most likely doesn’t break Gretz’s record of 10 Rosses, but 7 or 8 is very much within reach.
I mean in the theoretical situation where McDavid does all that he'd probably rank better since he actually did as opposed to not doing it.
Maybe on pure raw talent but production and results is and has to be part of the equation so no not really.
It takes time for greatness to be placed into context and then to evolve into legendary status. Back when I started watching hockey, the consensus all-time greatest were Rocket Richard, Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Doug Harvey, Bobby Orr... a few others I'm forgetting. Nobody could imagine a new guy muscling his way ahead of these legends.
