NHL is back

[Volourn]

No one compares to Mess when it comes to leadership. There's a reason why he's pretty much considered the best leader ever in sports not just in hockey.

 

Lemiuex coming back time in time out from injury/cancer does not prove leadership. All it proves is that he's a cripple who doesn't get the hint. For example, Lemiuex will play like 40 games this year, then he'll likely sit out the rest with ana ching back.

 

As for whose more popular between Gretz and Mess in Edmonton; I truly don't care. Edmonton fans are the foolish ones. As for leadership on Edmonton, all I gotta point out a simple fcat - who on MVP of the play-offs during Edmonton's first SC? Who won more cups in Edmonton between the two, and in their career? 'Nough said.

 

LONG LIVE THE MOOSE!

 

Gretz is a one dimensional player - albeit a great one - but Mess is the total package. The only thing he didn't do was goaltend and I'm sure if he wanted to hre'd be great at that too.

 

 

[alanschu]

Gretzky was as one-dimensional as Michael Jordan.

 

Messier the greatest leader in sports history?

[Volourn]

Nonsense. Jordan was a very good defensive player. And, he was also a solid leader. It's no wonder that someone like Rodman was on his behaviour while in Chicago.

 

And, yes, the Moose is the best leader in all of sports. This is a factual fact.

 

 

[alanschu]

Gretzky's defensive capabilities were overshadowed by his offensive capabilities.

 

I have old Playoff games on tape (thanks NHL TV for showing classic games), and Gretzky is fighting it out in the corners of his own end for the puck too. He wanted to win, and would do anything for it.

 

 

It's no wonder that someone like Rodman was on his behaviour while in Chicago.

 

Too bad Moose couldn't get Jagr and the rest of talent-laden New York to actually play together.

[Volourn]

I said he was the best leader. I never said he was god. :D

[alanschu]

Well, MJ could control Rodman. I wouldn't consider Jagr and the likes to be nearly as much of a nuisance as him.

 

 

I declare Jordan bestest leader of all timeses.

[Volourn]

Great leaders don't abandon their team to go play another sport that they suck at it and then come back with their tail between their legs when they realize they aren't good enough for that sport.

 

The difference is is that Rodman wanted to be in Chicago; Jagr was/is in NY only for the money. Besdies, the Rangers have the worst GM/coach ever.

 

'Nough said.

[alanschu]

Why can't a person, when the challenge and excitement of a sport leaves him, go try a different one?

 

 

Tsk tsk.

 

The fact that he was able to come back, and in the first full year lead his team to a record 72 wins is proof enough for me

[Volourn]

That proves his greatness; not his leadership. He didn't elad them to that record, he played them to that record.

[mkreku]

He didn't elad them to that record, he played them to that record.

And just what do you think "lead" means? Jordan led by example.

[Volourn]

Then, Jagr is a leader.

 

Then Kovalev is a leader.

 

Then Sosa is a leader.

 

Then Vince Carter is a leader.

 

Just because you are a good player does not make you a good leader.

 

That said, i feel Jordan is a great leader; but not as great a one as Mss is. Why? NOBODY is.

 

Moose is THE leader.

[alanschu]

Jordan actually wasn't a very good leader until later in his career anyways.

 

He himself has admitted that his experiences while playing baseball made helped put things into perspective as he was no longer the absolute dominating force in the game. He was able to relate more with the role players on his teams.

 

Prior to his first retirement, Jordan's competitiveness was so extreme it actually cost his team victories. It was less of a concern after they won their first championship, but the Detroit Pistons used this to their advantage. They'd work up Jordan into a competitive frenzy that he'd try to win the game by himself. Sure he'd score 54 points, but the rest of the team was effectively neutralized and Detroit would win.

 

It wasn't until right before he retired that I started to see quality leadership out of Michael, and his time away from the sport definitely made him a much better leader.

 

He was always a lead by example man, but he was very, very critical of teammates, particularly in practice. He pretty much single-handedly pushed Brad Sellers right out of his pro career. His time away from the sport made him a much better verbal leader as well. It wasn't until right before he retired (1993 finals) that I really started to see his motivation start kicking in. During slumps he was much more outspoken in time outs, encouraging his teammates to keep their heads, and how they're all in this together and if they all keep their heads together they'd make it through this.

 

In the final game the team was struggling in the 4th quarter offensively, and it was affecting their confidence on the defensive end as well. During a time out, he told his guys that they didn't have to worry about scoring anymore. Just bring it together on defense, and they'd win the game. If they needed to score, he'd take care of it. He assured his team that if they just focused on the defense, they'd win the championship. His teammates rallied around him (which was unusual in and of itself), locked it down offensively, and let him have free reign offensively to start the comeback. There was a marked improvement in the confidence of the team as a whole, and it culminated perfectly when John Paxson cashed a three pointer with 4 seconds left to go ahead by one. Horace Grant blocked Kevin Johnsons attempt to score and the rest it history.

 

However, the game before Jordan seemed miffed at his teammates for their inability to score, and when B.J. Armstrong tried to congratulate Jordan for scoring on an impressive drive to get a three-point play, he sort of shrugged him off. His actions were very confusing to his teammates.

 

After the break from the game, Jordan's critical appraisals of his teammates had gone away. The only time he got on a player's case is if he felt the player was dogging it, but not because of lack of talent. His motivation had also expanded beyond verbal lashings too. His time away from the game only made him a better player in the end.

 

 

Besides, all Messier did was play them to the Conn Smythe in 84. Gretzky still lead them

[Volourn]

Gretzky couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag. Mess led the Rangers to their first cup in 50 years. He got ROBBED of MVP of play-offs that year. ROBBED. Leetch may had a couple of points more; but he was not the MVP.

 

Mess should ahve won MVp every season he played in except the last 7 years where he failed to do his job, and couldn't dela with the horrible managing of the Rangers and the rookiedom of the Canucks at the time though he did show Naslund the way.

[alanschu]

Messier's greatness is attributable to Gretzky, just as Gretzky's greatness is attributable to Messier.

 

 

See if you can find Boys on the Bus.

[Volourn]

How many cups did Gretz win w/o Mess? How many did Mess win without Gretz? If you know the answer to that, and I'm sure you do, the game is over.

 

It says a lot when Mess' best offensive year was without Gretz. It also says a lot that mess won MVP in the Oilers' first Sc run even though Gretz had like double the points I believe in was also, and still is the Overrated One.

[alanschu]

It says a lot? How so?

 

Scottie Pippen had career years in points when Jordan had retired.

 

 

When Gretzky isn't the one putting the puck in the net, it makes sense for Messier to get more points. He didn't play on the same line as Gretzky, so he wouldn't have benefitted from having Gretzky get points.

 

When you become the big dog, you're going to produce more offensively. It doesn't say "a lot." It says very little.

 

To state the the championship in New York was due exclusively to Messier is a bit silly. I mean, having MacTavish go 100% in faceoffs in the final game didn't mean anything.

 

And after all, Leetch was the MVP of Playoffs. How many Conn Smythe's did Messier win without Gretzky?

 

 

Furthermore, how easier was it to develop a talent like Messier when you have a guy that can put 200 points up in a season. Jeez, go watch some of the old games, since it's clear you haven't.

 

Messier was an excellent leader, but so was Gretzky.

[Volourn]

Nowhere near Mess' level. period. This is undisputable or is by those who know sports.

[alanschu]

You're right. It is disputable by those who know sports.

[Hurlshort]

Messier vs. Gretzky is a silly argument, because they were both awesome leaders.

 

Don't you remember Gretzky leading the Kings to the Stanley Cup finals? They didn't have the talent that Messier's Rangers did, but they still got there and Gretzky led the way. He elevated a lot of young guys to play awesome hockey. They didn't win, but they never would have gotten close without him.

 

Messier had a ton of talent on his cup run team. NY shelled out big cash to win that Stanley Cup, and it still took 7 games to beat a much less talented Vancouver. Speaking of which, what happened to Pavel Bure?

 

Scott Stevens is a real leader. If anybody messed with his team, he killed them.

[Delta Truth]

This debate of a great leader can go on and on !!!! Messier was a great leader but he wasn't a miracle worker either!! Just look at his not so pleasant run in Vancouver if we all remember....

 

Well I personally feel Mess "The Moose" was a great leader perhaps "perhaps one of the greatest in Hockey but it is impossible to say of all time cause how can you compare this generation with legends of the past Stan mikita, Phil Esposito,Darryl Sittler, Mike Bossy , just to name a few those were great leaders during their time aswell and I'm sure in the 40, 50,60's etc.. there were other great leaders.

 

I think it would be fair to say he was one of the greatest of the last 2 decades in hockey and nothing more....

 

Furthermore you can't compare leaders of different sports it just doesn't work

[Delta Truth]

And just too post the latest hockey news:

 

Peter Bondra close to signing a one-year deal with Atlanta Thrashers

 

was a great goal scorer in his peak.. but still has good speed and could score 25 goals..

[mkreku]

was a great goal scorer in his peak.. but still has good speed and could score 25 goals..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bondra could score 25 goals.. I always wonder about comments like this. With the new rules (to open up the game) and the decreased size of goalie equipment, how can anyone tell if 25 goals is the limit for Bondra? For all we know it could be that Bondra scores 40 goals this season and the Richard trophy winner scores 60. At least that's what I hope will happen..

[Hurlshort]

I don't really think scoring is going to take off. I think it will increase with the home run passes, but goalies are still better than they have ever been. Right now the NHL has a wealth of outstanding goalies, and even with smaller gear and not being able to play the puck as much, they are still going to dominate many games.

 

I also worry about the enforcement of obstuction, hooking, and holding. They've been trying to cut down on this for years, and every year you get a ton of penalties for the first 15 games of the season, but eventually the refs and the league let up. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

So I think 25 goals is a decent amount.

[Delta Truth]

I wasn't saying that 25 goals would be his limit .. However UNTIL the new rules are actually enforced the key is POTENTIALLY scoring 30 ,40 , 50 ,or even 60 goals. Although I really can't seeing him scoring more than 30 cause he is on the tail end of his career. Perhaps a Kovalchuk I could see scoring 60 if he does indeed stay and play in Atlanta..

 

Its hard to say how Bondra is going to do when he was in Washington scoring all those goals he played on the top line with Juneau as his centre.. If he signs in Atlanta it depends on what line he will play on and what side he is naturally a right winger , and it showed in Ottawa he plays better on the right then the left ..

 

I like Bondra he is especially deadly on the powerplay and has a cool nickname

"special agent" hehe

[Delta Truth]

I don't really think scoring is going to take off. I think it will increase with the home run passes, but goalies are still better than they have ever been. Right now the NHL has a wealth of outstanding goalies, and even with smaller gear and not being able to play the puck as much, they are still going to dominate many games.

 

I also worry about the enforcement of obstuction, hooking, and holding. They've been trying to cut down on this for years, and every year you get a ton of penalties for the first 15 games of the season, but eventually the refs and the league let up. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

So I think 25 goals is a decent amount.

 

Hurlshot that's a good point all this spectulation about more goals is all up in the air at this moment.. I hope these rules need to more goals but the refs have never been consistent at calling anything..

 

We have to see it to believe it