Orr Vs Gretzky

[BraveCanadian]

In Orr's and the Bruins best season in 70/71 the Seals were the worst team allowing 320 goals and that's hardly being scored on in droves compared to 80's teams. Only 2 other teams were even above 300 goals against.
That's 3 teams out of 14 just above 300.

Yes, I know that average scoring in the 80s was higher.. I'm not debating it.

The thing I am challenging is this idea that the other teams were playing "defense first" and "grinding out games" in the 70s.

The notion that 5 out of 14 teams in 71 allowing 290 goals or above while playing 78 games. were playing "defense first" and "grinding".

If you are allowing close to 4 goals or more a game while playing a defensive grinding style either you suck at it or the guys pounding you for 4+ goals a night are in a different league than you... maybe some of both.

By comparison the 85/86 season which was Gretzky's best season and the Oilers second best, the worst team was Detroit at a whopping 415 goals against, another 4 teams between 372 and 389 and 7 more between 302 and 349.
That's 12 out of 21 teams above 300, most of them well above.

Average goals against in 70/71 244 per team (5 teams worse than the league average)
Average goals against in 85/86 317 per team (7 teams worse than the league average)

Again, I'm not debating that average scoring was higher in the 80s.

Just that the parity between the best teams in the 70s and the rest of the league was worse than between the best teams in the 80s and the rest of the league.

 

[quasi1981]

You can make that argument for the 70/71 Bruins but then it fails miserably for the 74/75 Bruins who were only 5th overall and only 3rd in scoring in an 18 team league.
This btw, was Orr's second best year and second Art Ross.

By comparison inf Gretzky's top seasons, his Oilers from 81/82 to 86/87 finished first 3 times and second 3 times while being #1 in scoring every single year by ridiculous amounts.

There is no way you can honestly say that Orr's Bruins in his best seasons were as far ahead of Greztky's Oilers in his best seasons...no way dude.

Why do you say such things that Orr was so inferior to gretz? As a defenseman, his teams scored an amazing amount of points, on par with the Oilers, and the Bs were led by a player who was far better offensively than anyone on his team. I will say it once again to ignorant ears I am sure. Orr, if he had played center, his natural position as a kid, he would be every bit as great offensively as Gretzky ever was, even if Orr didn't score as many points, he never cared about stats and winning scoring titles. he would have been unreal around the net being as great as anybody ever has. I promise you if Orr logged nearly as much time hanging out around the net as Gretz did, there would be no contest. Orr's ability to be the best offensive player no matter where on the ice he was. Taking the puck out from behind his net with 3 skaters chasing him was not a great defensive play, but an offensive one. He played both ways all over the ice, and had every offensive skill Gretz had, plus skating, size, toughness, gave his all every game, and was close to Gretz in scoring per game in a far less offensive league at the time. Many say here that Orr only had 2/3 the time on offense that Gretz had, and I say he had less time, not even close, around the net as Orr had to rush down and around or cut in front of the net, take a quick shot or make a quick pass and go right back to the point or on defense. No comparison.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Why do you say such things that Orr was so inferior to gretz? As a defenseman, his teams scored an amazing amount of points, on par with the Oilers, and the Bs were led by a player who was far better offensively than anyone on his team. I will say it once again to ignorant ears I am sure. Orr, if he had played center, his natural position as a kid, he would be every bit as great offensively as Gretzky ever was, even if Orr didn't score as many points, he never cared about stats and winning scoring titles. he would have been unreal around the net being as great as anybody ever has. I promise you if Orr logged nearly as much time hanging out around the net as Gretz did, there would be no contest. Orr's ability to be the best offensive player no matter where on the ice he was. Taking the puck out from behind his net with 3 skaters chasing him was not a great defensive play, but an offensive one. He played both ways all over the ice, and had every offensive skill Gretz had, plus skating, size, toughness, gave his all every game, and was close to Gretz in scoring per game in a far less offensive league at the time. Many say here that Orr only had 2/3 the time on offense that Gretz had, and I say he had less time, not even close, around the net as Orr had to rush down and around or cut in front of the net, take a quick shot or make a quick pass and go right back to the point or on defense. No comparison.

Dude.....seriously, you need to read more thoroughly.
This is the third time you have gone at me and accused me of putting Orr down and this is the second time that I'm having to point out that I'm one of the biggest Orr supporters in this thread.

 

[quasi1981]

Do you have any real arguements? Or is it all speculative nonsense? If, If, and more ifs. Give it up. The guy with more assist than anyone in the history of the game points is undeniably the most gifted offensive talent the league has ever seen and likely will be forever.

If you wanna argue Orr is a better because of the 2way game, go for it, but for offense alone. It isn't even close.

Those last comments about Orr not being close to Orr offensively were absurd, and the fact the G man scored so many points than anyone else makes him the best is even more ridiculous.

I will say it again. I would bet all I have that if you could measure the time the two players spent from the place they drop the puck in the circle inside the offensive end, and in behind the net, I would say Gretzky spent at least 80% more time down deep in the zone, where Orr had to come on down inside and make a very quick play and get back to the point and ready for defense, or play the point. With that amount of time that Gretzky had down there Orr would have been beyond unbeatable.

The more I hear from Gretzky fans about his scoring, scoring, scoring, and more scoring, and the little time Orr had to score himself when he had the puck down deep the offensive zone, the more I realize how much greater Orr was.

Thanks for backing me and my Orr buddy's!! Your argument simply backs everything I have been saying.

Thanks

 

[quasi1981]

You're giving Gretzky credit for the one-timer?

Seriously, Gretzky certainly had a huge impact, but Orr revolutionized the game. It's why Beliveau devoted an entire chapter in his biography to Orr. Orr brought an entire new dimension to the game, making it faster and more entertaining. Forty-plus years later, and Dmen who move the puck, join the attack, QB the powerplay etc. are still essentials for any team.

Gretzky was a great salesman for hockey. Never been anyone better. Not only was he setting all those scoring records, he was very media-friendly, and came along at the right time (with cable TV, expanded coverage through TSN, ESPN, etc.).

Orr lacked Gretzky's media savvy; he was shy and uncomfortable being the centre of attention. But his on-ice performance led to an explosion in the popularity of hockey in America, particularly in New England. More and more kids started playing. Bobby Carpenter (from Massachussetts) was drafted 3rd overall in '81. That was previously unheard of. Call it the Bobby Orr effect.

Like Gretzky, Orr had a huge effect on attendence:


And as far as bigger salaries go, Orr paved the way for that more than anybody else:

RustE - Most of those were little trick shots, and I saw Orr fall to the ice facing the other goal, and slide his stick along ice and find the puck, and put it right on the player in front of the net's stick and he passed it for a goal. Orr could have done those tricks, but he played hockey, and Orr was "The Specialist" no matter where he was and what he was doing, and that is why 5 Orr's beats 5 anybody anywhere anytime.

 

[quasi1981]

Keep on trying. All these hypotheticals aren't helping your cause.

You are being ignorant, Orr was a center in his younger day, and he was so great, that his coach at 11 & 12, Bucko McDonald, and ex NHL defenseman, felt that Orr's charge up ice was so amazing, he would be unreal as a defenseman.

Your arguments are ridiculous. Orr would have eaten Gretzky for breakfast if he had played center, something the Bruins had to spend a lot of time on before they finally brought him up.

You no nothing of Orr's abilities, and all you know is offensive stats, whoopy!! Stats are for losers and you my friend with your know it all attitude, know nothing about hockey or team sports by all your stat jiving.

Orr spent 20% of his time deep in the offensive zone that Gretzky spent, at least, so if Orr was a center in the 80's you don't think he would have averaged another 1/2 a point a game, being able to hang down around the net for 1-2 minutes at a time. He would have smashed Gretzky's records if he chose, but he was so humble and played his best against the best, and the little one played his worse against the best from what I am hearing.

 

[quasi1981]

You are being ignorant, Orr was a center in his younger day, and he was so great, that his coach at 11 & 12, Bucko McDonald, and ex NHL defenseman, felt that Orr's charge up ice was so amazing, he would be unreal as a defenseman.

Your arguments are ridiculous. Orr would have eaten Gretzky for breakfast if he had played center, something the Bruins had to spend a lot of time on before they finally brought him up.

You no nothing of Orr's abilities, and all you know is offensive stats, whoopy!! Stats are for losers and you my friend with your know it all attitude, know nothing about hockey or team sports by all your stat jiving.

Orr spent 20% or less of the time Gretzky spent deep in the offensive zone that Gretzky spent, at least, so if Orr was a center in the 80's you don't think he would have averaged another 1/2 a point a game, being able to hang down around the net for 1-2 minutes at a time as the Gman did? He would have smashed Gretzky's records if he chose, but he was so humble and played his best against the best, and the little one played his worse against the best from what I am hearing.

So keep on with all your stats if it makes you happy. Orr is the 4th leading scorer of all time and as a defenseman even. And you don't believe he was skilled enough to score at will? Come on dude!

 

[quasi1981]

Dude stop please.

Dude, why? You don't have a leg to stand on, and you know it. It isn't hypothetical that Orr would have been a GREAT center at all. He was a center and the B's had to think long and hard to decide which position, Defense or CENTER, did you hear that , CENTER that Orr would have played and his skill level, his vision on the ice, his skating, stickhandling, shot selection etc were superior. He had an A game in all aspects, especially offense.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

You are being ignorant, Orr was a center in his younger day, and he was so great, that his coach at 11 & 12, Bucko McDonald, and ex NHL defenseman, felt that Orr's charge up ice was so amazing, he would be unreal as a defenseman.

Your arguments are ridiculous. Orr would have eaten Gretzky for breakfast if he had played center, something the Bruins had to spend a lot of time on before they finally brought him up.

You no nothing of Orr's abilities, and all you know is offensive stats, whoopy!! Stats are for losers and you my friend with your know it all attitude, know nothing about hockey or team sports by all your stat jiving.

Orr spent 20% of his time deep in the offensive zone that Gretzky spent, at least, so if Orr was a center in the 80's you don't think he would have averaged another 1/2 a point a game, being able to hang down around the net for 1-2 minutes at a time. He would have smashed Gretzky's records if he chose, but he was so humble and played his best against the best, and the little one played his worse against the best from what I am hearing.

Once again, he didn't. End of story.

 

[quasi1981]

If "the only thing that held Orr back from producing numbers closer to Gretzky was the position he played," then why isn't the fact that Orr's position is a large part of what made him a "superior 2-way player?"

Da! No matter where Orr plays, what position he played, it didn't matter. He was still a great two way player because he played a great two way game. He would have forechecked all over the place and his backchecking also would have been great. Orr could do anything, and his own goalie said he should have won the Vezina trophy, he made so many saves.

He played both ways all over the ice, and the B's had to think long and hard to bring him up as center or defenseman. Very few Orr fans talk so much of his stats which were off the charts, but his play everywhere on the ice no matter the what the situation was unreal. he was a specialist at everything, he would be an ALL PRO, the best at his position at all 5 positions if he played each one for a year at a time. he had all the tools for all the positions, even as a bully beating up on people, or a forechecker, just a passer, or scorer, it didn't matter, his game just wasn't a complete game, his complete game was an allstar at anything he did no matter how small. So if he played all the positions at once, he could protect Bobby the scorer, be the one who digs the puck out of the corners for Bobby the passer, play the point as a defensive defenseman for Bobby the offensive point man who rushes the puck, and all the talents in all the playerw would have been interchangeable at any moment on the ice.

None of you Gretzky fans can even begin to see this. All of us acknowledge Wayne's offense and specialties, but Orr could do very similar things, only doing it his way, and just as spectacular, while at the same time he's helping everyone else out in so many ways.

 

[quasi1981]

Gretzky definitely has the edge in playoffs. No argument there. IMO, Gretzky and Roy are the two best playoff performers of all time.

Bull Crap!!

Dryden won 6 cups as a goalie, a great clutch goalie, and don't bring up goals given up per game. It is absolutely not the point. Dryden was unbeatable in the clutch, and his team wasn't all that great. Not all the great players were from one era, the modern era. There were some great players in the past.

 

[quasi1981]

Yes, I know that average scoring in the 80s was higher.. I'm not debating it.

The thing I am challenging is this idea that the other teams were playing "defense first" and "grinding out games" in the 70s.

The notion that 5 out of 14 teams in 71 allowing 290 goals or above while playing 78 games. were playing "defense first" and "grinding".

If you are allowing close to 4 goals or more a game while playing a defensive grinding style either you suck at it or the guys pounding you for 4+ goals a night are in a different league than you... maybe some of both.



Again, I'm not debating that average scoring was higher in the 80s.

Just that the parity between the best teams in the 70s and the rest of the league was worse than between the best teams in the 80s and the rest of the league.

get over the stats, they are so meaningless in general, and have nothing to do with who was a great player. Barry bonds hit the most homers ever, what does it mean, and for now forget the roids, it is just that having a great offensive season stat wise doesn't make one a great player. it is a team game and the team that plays the best, including the best player has the best chance at winning, and Gretzky was perfect for his time. no one played defense, in fact everyone forgot what defense meant back then, lol

It is just meaningless. I have learned a lot about Orr from many posts, the way he played and different things I may have forgotten, but the thing is everyone tells how he played, and all I know about Gretzky is his stats. Explain him to your grand kids and they would say what???? It shouldn't be such a big part of the discussion.

 

[McRpro]

Bull Crap!!

Dryden won 6 cups as a goalie, a great clutch goalie, and don't bring up goals given up per game. It is absolutely not the point. Dryden was unbeatable in the clutch, and his team wasn't all that great. Not all the great players were from one era, the modern era. There were some great players in the past.

Ya those Habs teams of the 70's sure weren't that great.

 

[McRpro]

get over the stats, they are so meaningless in general, and have nothing to do with who was a great player. Barry bonds hit the most homers ever, what does it mean, and for now forget the roids, it is just that having a great offensive season stat wise doesn't make one a great player. it is a team game and the team that plays the best, including the best player has the best chance at winning, and Gretzky was perfect for his time. no one played defense, in fact everyone forgot what defense meant back then, lol

It is just meaningless. I have learned a lot about Orr from many posts, the way he played and different things I may have forgotten, but the thing is everyone tells how he played, and all I know about Gretzky is his stats. Explain him to your grand kids and they would say what???? It shouldn't be such a big part of the discussion.

So why did the Hockey News name Gretzky as the top player of all time? I'll take the ex players, coaches etc opinion over your obvious biased opinion any day.

 

[bleeney]

Yes, but was Gretzky's shredding of the Habs and Orr's shutdown in 73 in those stats?

Or is the whole argument that a 5 time finalist was able to slow Gretzky down?

With Orr only having played 74 games it is really hard to compare because that is a pretty short playoff career compared to a guy who played 208 games.

By your own admission he had an off series in 73.. that is at least one series in 74 games so we can expect even if Gretzky were playing just as well he would have close to 3 of those instances based on his games played.

Please, I'll ask you again: Re-read my post.

I said:

But the fact remains that Gretzky feasted against lesser teams, and sometimes, when he faced the very best, there was a marked difference in his production compared to when he played teams like the Kings or North Stars. I'm not saying every great team was able to slow him down like that (he shredded the Habs in '81, with 11 points in 3 games). But it did happen. Particularly against the NYI

Please notice, I said "sometimes" there was a drop in production against great defensive teams, particularly the NYI. I made a point of specifically including his shredding of the Habs as an example of him dominating against a top defensive team.

As for Orr not being dominant in '73, I did mentioned that as the lone exception, along with some very valid reasons:

The only time Orr was really contained was in the '72-73 playoffs against the Rangers, when he had 2 points in 5 games. But that year was an off year for Orr and for the Bruins in general. They'd lost a quarter of their team to the WHA and through the expansion draft. Espo blew his knee out early in game two and was lost for the playoffs. And Orr was not 100% either. Those such as myself who watched him during this time could not help but notice that he was not the same player after his major knee surgery in '72. It not only kept him out of the series against the Russians, it hampered him all year long:
"Before the 1972-72 season began, Orr had an operation on one of his bad knees. He returned for the 1972-73 campaign a slower skater than before..."Like many Orr-watchers, Park noticed the change in Bobby's style. And once again, he couldn't keep his mouth shut. "Last year," he said, "when Bobby hit our blueline he was accelerating. Now he's just moving regularly when he hits the line. What that means is that we-the defensemen-can angle Orr against the boards because he does not have the spurt to go around us."
-from Hockey's Greatest Rivalries by Stan Fischler; pg 57

As you can see, I did list his stats for that series. In fact, I said that it was the only time he was ever really contained. I didn't include it in the Orr vs. great teams/HOF goalies table because:
*the heart of his team was thoroughly decimated by defections and injuries (Espo, Cheevers, Sanderson, Westfall, Green, McKenzie), and
*Orr himself was far from healthy

But even if I did include his numbers from that series, it would still mean that in the playoffs, Orr produced at the same level against powerhouse defensive teams, with HOF goalies, even when he was playing hurt and his best teammates were gone, as he did against the weak teams (1.28gpg).

That's a far cry from Gretzky running up huge point totals agains weaker teams, only to be shut down by a great defensive team with a HOF goalie, in the same playoff year:

*In the '83 playoffs, he had a combined 12G, 26A for 38Pts in 16 games (2.375 ppg) against the Jets, Flames and Hawks. Against Billy Smith and the NYI in the finals, he had 0G, 4A for 4Pts (1.0 ppg).
*In the '84 playoffs, he had a combined 9G, 20A, for 29Pts in 14 games (2.07 ppg) against the Jets, Flames and North Stars. Against Billy Smith and the NYI in the finals, he had 4G, 2A in 5 games (1.25 ppg).
*In the '85 playoffs, against the Kings, Jets and Hawks, he had a combined 10G, 26A for 36Pts in 13 games (2.77 ppg). Against Lindbergh and the Flyers, he had an unreal 7G, 4A for 11Pts in just 5 games (2.2 ppg)

 

[shazariahl]

get over the stats, they are so meaningless in general, and have nothing to do with who was a great player. Barry bonds hit the most homers ever, what does it mean, and for now forget the roids, it is just that having a great offensive season stat wise doesn't make one a great player. it is a team game and the team that plays the best, including the best player has the best chance at winning, and Gretzky was perfect for his time. no one played defense, in fact everyone forgot what defense meant back then, lol

It is just meaningless. I have learned a lot about Orr from many posts, the way he played and different things I may have forgotten, but the thing is everyone tells how he played, and all I know about Gretzky is his stats. Explain him to your grand kids and they would say what???? It shouldn't be such a big part of the discussion.

You make it sound like Gretzky had 1 really great year where he set a few records. He had a ton of great years, where he set every record imaginable. There's a huge difference.

As for your Barry Bonds example, its a different sport, and his records are no where near what Gretzky's are. If Bonds hit more HR than anyone else had HR+Hits combined, then you might have something, just like Gretzky has more assists than anyone else has points.

And people like me have talked about things other than stats. You've just constantly ignored our posts and ranted on with 5 or 6 straight posts of your own covering the same ground you've already covered. This used to be an interesting debate, but there's been nothing new in 10 pages.

 

[VMBM]

Stats are for losers

1898159th time?

BTW, I bet it was conceived by some player who scored <10 points/season...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hard to argue with a guy when he's busy arguing with himself like in post #880

 

[seventieslord]

Ya those Habs teams of the 70's sure weren't that great.

ROFL - that might be the funniest thing I have ever read in this section.

 

[bleeney]

So why did the Hockey News name Gretzky as the top player of all time? I'll take the ex players, coaches etc opinion over your obvious biased opinion any day.

Are you aware of how close that poll was?

Gretzky: 2,726 voting points
Orr had: 2,713 voting points
Howe: 2,681 points

Both Orr and Gretzky had 18 first-place votes (out of a possible 50). The difference between Orr and Gretzky came down to just 13 points, a difference of less than half of one per cent.

And speaking of biased opinions, there was one member of that panel who, I believe, let his personal dislike of Orr cloud his judgement and lose all objectivity: Stan Fischler.

Even though I obviously disagree, I understand why some pick Gretzky or Howe over Orr. Likewise, most Gretzky fans would disagree, but understand why some would pick Orr or Howe over Gretzky. But if someone were to submit a top five list, and not even have Gretzky on it, most of us would be stunned.

But Fischler did that to Orr? And here's why:

In 1969 he wrote Bobby Orr and the Big Bad Bruins, which is practically a work of adoration towards Orr. The inside cover reads:
THE BIG BAD BRUINS-Led by the Greatest Ever.
He goes on to praise Orr as the greatest thing since sliced bread, comparing him favourably to Howe, Shore, Harvey, Richard. It's a fantastic book, one that I have read several times.

But Orr took offense to his name being used without his permission, and confronted Fischler. At one point he actually contemplated a lawsuit (it may sound petty, but Orr was an Eagleson client, at a time when players were just beginning to realise their rights and the money that could be made through endorsements). Fischler was shocked. This was unheard of at the time, and was the beginning of a long feud between Orr and Fischler, one that to my knowledge has never ended. Almost immediately Fischler became highly critical of Orr, to the point of being ridiculous. How ridiculous?

In his book All-Time Book of Hockey Lists, on pg 71-72 he lists "The 100 Best Players of All Time". He had Gretzky ranked third, behind Howe and Lemieux. Okay. But unbelievably, he ranked Orr #14! He went from fawning over Orr like a smitten schoolgirl, calling him the "greatest ever", to dropping him all the way down to 14th. This was a feud, and it looks like Fischler got the last shot in.

As I said, he lost all objectivity when it came to Bobby Orr, and it had nothing to do with Orr as a player. It was personal. Not including Orr in his top five cost Orr votes.

Can you say margin of victory?

 

[reckoning]

But the fact remains that Gretzky feasted against lesser teams, and sometimes, when he faced the very best, there was a marked difference in his production compared to when he played teams like the Kings or North Stars. I'm not saying every great team was able to slow him down like that (he shredded the Habs in '81, with 11 points in 3 games). But it did happen. Particularly against the NYI

The problem is that you're selectively choosing examples instead of looking at everything.You keep bringing up Gretzky's stats against the Islanders in '83, while conveniently ignoring the 10 points in 6 games he had against them in the '81 series. That gives him overall 21 points in 15 playoff games against the Islanders. Did anyone else produce better against the Islanders in their dynasty years?

Yes, Gretzky was shut down by the Islanders in '83. Happens to everybody. Orr was shut down by Montreal in '68 and '69 (also conveniently not brought up by you). Lemieux and Jagr were shut down by Florida in '96. Bossy and Trottier were shut down by the Rangers in '79.

If there's a player who never had a playoff series when his production slipped, I'd love to know who he was.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

get over the stats, they are so meaningless in general, and have nothing to do with who was a great player. Barry bonds hit the most homers ever, what does it mean, and for now forget the roids, it is just that having a great offensive season stat wise doesn't make one a great player. it is a team game and the team that plays the best, including the best player has the best chance at winning, and Gretzky was perfect for his time. no one played defense, in fact everyone forgot what defense meant back then, lol

It is just meaningless. I have learned a lot about Orr from many posts, the way he played and different things I may have forgotten, but the thing is everyone tells how he played, and all I know about Gretzky is his stats. Explain him to your grand kids and they would say what???? It shouldn't be such a big part of the discussion.

Another bad argument. Bonds is one of the, if not the very best ball players ever.

 

[jkrx]

The problem is that you're selectively choosing examples instead of looking at everything.You keep bringing up Gretzky's stats against the Islanders in '83, while conveniently ignoring the 10 points in 6 games he had against them in the '81 series. That gives him overall 21 points in 15 playoff games against the Islanders. Did anyone else produce better against the Islanders in their dynasty years?

Yes, Gretzky was shut down by the Islanders in '83. Happens to everybody. Orr was shut down by Montreal in '68 and '69 (also conveniently not brought up by you). Lemieux and Jagr were shut down by Florida in '96. Bossy and Trottier were shut down by the Rangers in '79.

If there's a player who never had a playoff series when his production slipped, I'd love to know who he was.

He also fails to mention how good Gretzky were against great teams both for Canada and in the NHL. Both Gretzky and Orr (and Howe) were remarkable and both gets the "scored on weaker teams"-arguement used against them. Whos better basically comes down to personal taste. I prefer Howe but would never argue a guy taking Orr or Gretzky or both above him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

But even if I did include his numbers from that series, it would still mean that in the playoffs, Orr produced at the same level against powerhouse defensive teams, with HOF goalies, even when he was playing hurt and his best teammates were gone, as he did against the weak teams (1.28gpg).

I thought you weren't cherrypicking? Also the "powerhouses" that Orr faced pale in comparison to the early 80's Isles.

As another person mentioned.. what about Wayne's 10 points in 6 games against the Isles in 81?

Wayne's playoff record is pretty much unquestionably the best a player could be, unfortunately for your argument.

Yes in 83 he and the Oilers got schooled but they got stronger as they went in 84 and really started having their way with the Isles by the last three games of 84.
Honestly

 

[Dark Shadows]

I thought you weren't cherrypicking? Also the "powerhouses" that Orr faced pale in comparison to the early 80's Isles.

As another person mentioned.. what about Wayne's 10 points in 6 games against the Isles in 81?

Wayne's playoff record is pretty much unquestionably the best a player could be, unfortunately for your argument.

Yes in 83 he and the Oilers got schooled but they got stronger as they went in 84 and really started having their way with the Isles by the last three games of 84.
Honestly

My argument was not regarding playoffs. It was regular season scoring totals. And I did the entire years of Orr vs the best teams and Orr vs the worst teams, and not surprisingly, Orr's stats were favorable against the best teams. Especially given how he was known for taking it easy on expansion teams.

I personally see him scoring in the range of 160-170 in the 80's.

The Oilers "Having their way" with the Isles is a bit off. Ill just cut and paste the post I made when comparing these two teams.

Isles in 7.


Let's not be silly.

I really do not feel like getting into a heated discussion today, but the Isles the Oiler beat for their first cup were far removed from their greatness the past year. And when I say far removed, I know it is only a year's difference, but you need to take into context the Isles players who were close to retirement by this point, as well as the fact that most of their main cast was hurt.

Trottier was hobbled for a season and a half starting in Jan 1984 by a knee injury which required arthroscopic surgery to the point that they were barely using him as a first line player. Potvin by the time the playoffs rolled around was playing at half capacity due to injuries and for that matter most of their defense squad was off and on. Persson and Langevin both had shoulder injuries and thus, were missing games and ineffectual while there, while Morrow had knee problems that year(Surgery) and was ineffectual. Bourne and Nystrom, 2 of their most solid secondary scorers were both out with knee injuries and Brent Sutter, another solid scorer just had surgery for an infection and tendon damage due to it of all things, as well as buggering his knee in the playoffs, was injured and toughed it out, as was Tonelli, with yet another shoulder injury(And he had missed time right before the playoffs with a sprained knee, and was not 100% to begin with). Sutter and Tonelli were the best checking line players on the team and solid scorers to boot.

Goring was set to retire at this point, no longer effective.

Their whole team was walking wounded.

I understand you want to give the Oilers props, but let's not imply that the Isles team was even remotely close to their best, Okay? Thanks