You are the GM. All time draft, Gretzky or McDavid
craig44
Posts: 11,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Who would you choose with the number one all time draft pick and why.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
To add, say they will be playing in the same era. either Gretzky today or McDavid in the 80s
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is a hard one knowing what Gretz did. I think McDavid has 0.1% more ability than Gretz, but Gretz played smart. It's like, do you draft Brady or Mahomes? Mahomes has more talent, but..................
I'd have to take Gretzky, ask again in 10 years.......
As great as they are at scoring, that GM will need another great all around player to win it all.
Gretzky won 4 Cups. They also had Mark Messier, who was on the 4 cups Gretzky won and then won another with Edmonton after Gretzky left. Then he won another with the 94 rangers.
The first in person hockey game I ever went to was a playoff game between the Blackhawks and Oilers at the old stadium. I was just amazed at how much Messier dominated that game. He seemed the strongest player on the ice and no one could take the puck from him. If there was a scrum along the boards, he would jump in and emerge with the puck.
Gretzky. No knock on McDavid, but Gretzky has more assists alone than anyone else even has points. That remains true to this day even with almost two decades of league changes designed to to make it a much more offensive and less violent game.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Gretzky was the greatest player in NHL history. Everyone else is competing for 2nd.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Remember Pavel Bure? He was going to shatter all of Gretzky's numbers.
Gretzky
There was a time when this thread would have gotten an immediate response that sidetracked the thread completely.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
In the 80s, I might take Gretzky. In today's game, McDavid for sure.
^^^^ Interesting take. which player had the greater skill set?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
to add, does this imply that Gretzky would struggle in modern hockey?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
McDavid
Greater skating skills, speed and stickhandling. He is capable of doing more himself.
99 was far more of a ice general and could play well with others and making them better as well.
Nearly the entire Oiler team is a HOFer. The second question is what time period do we place these 2 guys at?
If in the early 70's I would choose 99.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
He wouldnt, hed have the modern training and dominate. If anything hed have more points with the modern offensive game
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
I may be wrong, but as a comparison: Gretzky is Magic and McDavid is Jordan?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Good comparison, but with Magic scoring more points than Jordan.
Lemieux, Bure, Selanne, Karyia, Jagr, (just to name a few).........none of these guys could surpass Wayne, yet all, at one time or another were said to be more skilled.
People did argue for Lemieux and if it wasnt for injuries he could have ended up in the conversation. Jagr is boarderline at best for people saying more skilled and he fell off really hard before the age of 30, but no on was saying Bure/Selanne/Karyia belonged in the same discussion as Wayne
Fun fact Jagr is actually still playing pro in Europe
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Selanne scored 76 goals in his first season and Bure scored 60 each in his first 2 full seasons. Both players were very fast and YES they were both considered the next "Great One".
In 6 full seasons (until this year) McDavid hadn't scored even 50.
Way too early to start Gretzky comparisons, I can't see where anyone would look at the two and think McDavid was better.
When Wayne was a little boy his father would sit down with him and watch hockey games. He would get him to analyze the games. Situation after situation for 100's of hours he would go over where should the players be and how should they work together. Most experts agree that 99 could read the "ice" better than anyone in history. Years ago I remember watching a game. Gretzky passed the puck 1/2 rink along the boards past two defenders within inches and to an outstretched Messier. He somehow caught the puck from directly behind him an in for a goal. I said to my mom there, "only Gretzky could have made that pass and only Messier could have handled it like that." Nothing flashy. But totally jaw dropping. Gretzky's talent was nothing like McDavid's.
Wayno is Jabbar: McDavid is Jordan
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
More like Gretz was like Bird.........
Between cancer, Adam Graves, and a completely different style of officiating, Lemieux had tyre deck stacked against him - and still averaged just 0.04 points per game less than Gretzky. He was an incredible player.
Was certainly a more "complete" player.
i know just a shade more than absolutely nothing about hockey, but i've made it a point to watch some McDavid clips and to my eyeballs he looks like a maestro with a stick in his hands
like if you're an opposing goalie and he's got an unimpeded view of the net, you might as well blindfold yourself and puff on a cigarette
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
The only thing I’ve learned about hockey from this board is that if your team loses, it’s never the defensemens’ fault, it’s the best offensive players fault for not playing defense. It seems like being a defenseman in hockey would be great, you never get blamed for anything. 😗
btw i'm sitting here trying to talk hockey for the first time in my entire life and i'm getting distracted by the thick set of bars with a gargantuan keyhole
how am i supposed to give my .02 about Connor Orr and Wayne Lemieux if my thoughts are gravitating toward legal representation and a conjugal visit for joe b
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
you do understand that there are 3 forwards and 2 defensemen, at even strength (5 on 5) right? That would be a bit of a daunting task to expect 2 defensemen to cover 3 forwards, since you know, there would always be one open/uncovered forward in that scenario. You'd have a powerplay on every possession in your scenario. So if your forwards are covering their defensive assignments, then there are 2 layers of defense instead of one (which is often how it was pre-mid-90's). BTW it's the opposite, goalies are always the ones who get blamed for allowing goals...even if their collective defense hang them out to dry.
Sure, but this number of goals thing is way out of context. NHL scoring has changed for a variety of reasons as stated in various threads. Getting 57 as of now by McD is way above the competition in this era, and we will never know how he would have fared in the earlier much higher scoring eras..............
Gretzky led the league in points 8 straight years and 10 out of 12.
McDavid has led in 5 of the last 7.
As I stated, too early to make a fair comparison, but if you look at their first 7-8 seasons, Wayne is the much better scorer.
To match Gretzky's 12 year run, Connor will need to win the scoring title for the next 5 consecutive years.
That's disregarding number of goals and points and just looking at who was the dominant scorer.
I will accept the position of CEO at GM. Gretzky... McDavid... that is a GM question that can and should be resolved at a level below my pay grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Gretzky and I am a big McDavid fan and saw both play. McDavid needs to win The Cup without at least one would be a major blow to his career. He is only 26 and in his prime some I hope he wins more than 1 but I doubt 4 or more that would be a lot to ask in this day and age with so many teams.
Do I think anyone will pass Gretzky points total....never it would be 150 points for 19 straight years almost. Gretzky is the Babe Ruth of Hockey simple as that.
Will I be watching McDavid's career closely yes of course this guy is on another level but not on Gretzky's level.
Winning the Cup (or any championship) has absolutely nothing to do with being a better individual player.....in any team sport.
I don't agree no Cup means your career will always be marked by that in conversations. If Ovi never won 1 Cup OK he has over 800 goals but no Cup that is a big issue.
How can you even talk about someone been the best if they never win a championship just makes no sens at all.
McDavid is bigger, stronger, faster IMO.... this era is much more gifted all over the ice.... Gretzky and Lemieux were outrageously gifted above all else back then and took full advantage of it.... today G~Keepers are all 6-2 ~ 6-4 and make it so much harder to score with better technique and bigger padding...... athletes in general are just bigger stronger and faster in the NHL vs. back then and in most sports. I'd vote Mcdavid for this era.
the only reason McDavid is "bigger, stronger, faster" is because of modern nutrition/training techniques.
Had McDavid played 40 years ago, he would have been smaller, weaker and slower than he is now.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
A lot of people here agree with you and it baffles me.
It makes no sense to me at all to even consider (in team sports) championships when comparing players.
There have been numerous examples given of some all time greats who never won championships because they happened to play on poor teams. This is especially true back before players could play out their contracts and sign with a team of their choosing.
Ted Williams immediately comes to mind. He's regarded by many to be one of the top hitters of all time. How much better would you rank him had the Red Sox won the World Series they made it to? How about if they won 2 or 3?
DiMaggio was on the Yankee teams that beat the Sox in a lot of those years, was he better because his team finished in first place almost every year?
How about in basketball, where Kevin Garnett played for the horrible Minnesota Timberwolves? Possibly the worst franchise in all of professional sports. He had to move to another team to win a title.
It just makes no sense to think that one guy can win a championship if he plays with below average team mates.....to me.
If I could have one wish involving these discussions, it would be banning the "if my guy played in this era he would have been better, blah, blah blah" arguments.
McDavid is slightly bigger than Gretzky, maybe a little (or even a lot) faster than Wayne and he may even have a better shot. None of that proves anything.
To me, Wayne's scoring was dominant for a much longer time than Conner's............so far. McDavid will have to lead the league (or at least be right there with the best) for several more years before he can be compared fairly with Wayne.
If you want to talk about "bigger, stronger, faster" maybe Lindros was the best ever.
Do you disagree that had McDavid played 40 years ago he would have been "smaller, slower and weaker?" And likewise, Gretzky would have been Bigger, faster and stronger had he played today? Seems like simple biology.
Maybe I am not understanding your point?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The whole point of playing a sport is to win the championship. Personal stats come next in line.
I understand your point but to me no championship is a stain on a players legacy and a stain that does not go away.
Just how much different in size would McDavid be if he was born in Gretzky's year of birth, 1961? I started lifting weights in the early 1970's, so why couldn't he have done the same? I don't even know how much of a gym rat McDavid is.
Instead of 6'1" would he have been 5'9"? And Gretzky? Would he have been 6'3" and 210 and a faster skater if he was born in 1997?
McDavid might have been a work out fanatic back then, and Gretzky might not have been any better if he hit the weights more. He was a "finesse" player, not a grinder. I think "better" training helps average athletes much more than the special guys.
Most people here look at one thing (scoring) and decide who the best hockey player was. In this case they fall in love with McDavid and say "he would have been better than Gretzky if he played back then" or "Gretzky wouldn't be as great today as he was back then". Who knows?
Scoring, if that's all we are concerned with was higher then than it is now, but Gretzky AVERAGED 200 points a season for 6 straight years. Was it THAT much easier?
Let's assume the McDavid people say "yes", well then Connor has several years where he will need to dominate to be comparable to Wayne. Until then, I'll stick with Gretzky.
I think that great players would be great regardless of what era they played in. Many people think modern players are so much better than those from previous generations. that is mostly because they think they are bigger, stronger, faster, throw harder etc. I call bunk on that. Given the same nutrition/training, size/speed/strength etc would normalize. it just would. 100 years is far too short a time for evolution to make the human being a larger species (if you believe in such things)
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Depends. What if one of their mom's fell in love with Danny Devito?
It is a complex situation, with many factors. Evolution doesn't really come into play in that short of a period, but population growth is a big factor as well as more populations to draw from(that were once not viable to draw from). The average height of people is higher now than in 1920(both in athletics and in overall society).
In these debates what typically happens is that the young and old fans tend to go overboard in rating their generations against each other. There is a difference and it has gotten harder and more competitive over time, and the farther in time you go the bigger that difference is. The more people in the world the more freaks of nature athletes are born. It isn't evolution.
However, the differences are still subtle and I agree with you that Ruth and Jim Brown would be stars in today's respective games, but their stats would most definitely not look the same. Ruth would not be hitting .360 with 58 Home Runs and 176 RBI. Just wouldn't happen because of those several complex reasons. But he could certainly be a multi MVP winner etc, but with different looking numbers both raw and compared to his peers.
What has also happened recently with the richness of pro athletics is that some people do pick their mates with this in mind to increase their chances of stronger offspring to cash in on that. Obviously it isn't a guarantee but does increase your chances. It is a form of evolution and does add more competitive players to the mix
Another prevailing factor is the style of the game.
If I was told to take one of two MLB players back in time with me to play baseball in 1909 and I had to choose between Joey Gallo(when he was hitting 40 home runs), and Billy Hamilton who was not a very effective MLB player compared to Gallo. In MLB, if I plop Joey Gallo(when he was hitting 40 home runs still) into 1909, I may be better off with the modern day Billy Hamilton to take back with me who was inferior to Gallo, but his skill set would suit the league environment more.
But then again, Hamilton would not have been allowed to play due to the rules in place in 1909.
Size absolutely matters in all professional sports. If it didn't, then the size of the pro athletes would mirror the average sizes in all of society and they clearly don't.
The smaller guys with less muscle mass certainly are at a disadvantage, and the ones who do make it are few and far between. Jose Altuve is a rare bird but even he weighs 165 pounds. If he weighed 120 he wouldn't be there.
Anyone who plays against a group of X sized people and then has to play against a bigger X sized group of people(with elite athletic attributes), will have a harder time competing with them. How hard depends on a lot of factors. Some may have a harder time than others.
Assuming a guy being born in 1999 would automatically be bigger than if he was born in 1920(and assuming he had the same parents) isn't accurate regardless of nutrition. That dude would be the same size if he was born now or then. 1920 America was not Ethiopia. People ate.
But now he would have more people bigger to compete against(with naturally bigger muscle mass not trained mass) because there are simply more people to choose from and more people in the world to produce more bigger gifted athletes, and there are also sociological factors that allow for more competitive athlete pool now. That is independent of nutrition and training(both the science of the sport and body training)
That is not a knock on a 1930 athlete. Their mark on history is undeniable and much respected.
I'll speak to your point in the case of hockey where a lot of little guys who are really good get injured by bigger players who can barely skate and are just there to goon the better, smaller players.
There haven't been a whole lot of big hockey players that were great imo. Lemieux and Lindros come to mind, but a lot of the highly skilled guys are 6' and under.
@1948_Swell_Robinson
you mention that the size of people today compared to 1920 is overall larger. that is not debatable. you also mention, as did I, that evolution would not play any part in such a short time period. The difference is nutrition, prenatal care, childhood nutrition, healthcare, modern training techniques.
of course, McDavid would be smaller, slower and weaker had he been born in 1920. so would you and so would I. it certainly was not Ethiopia back then, but it was far far from today.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Really we will just never know how each player would have developed at different times. It is true that nutrition and athletic ability have improved together over time. The one thing I always liked about Gretzky when he played for the Oil, and hated him for it when he played elsewhere, is that he played so damn smart and that gave him an edge on everyone in combination with his incredible skill set. Like Brady, his edge was not being the most talented athletically, but being smart and executing.
McD is probably going to be the best of his generation if he stay healthy, but it will be hard for anyone to do what Gretz did...........
I must have missed something. Why are we mentioning 1920?
Gretzky was born in 1961.
All depends. Some have more genetic potential than others.
Just an example.
Gretzky played in the NHL in 1998 so the difference compared today is very minimal.
Your points about Gretzky's dominance are the best starting point.
One thing to consider about the stats of Gretzky is the teammate dynamic. He had great teammates that helped him accumulate points. His teammates even won a title just two years after he left.
Correct, and that genetic potential is met when modern nutrition and training methods are employed. that is why todays athletes are "bigger, faster, stronger"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I do want to make sure that I don't disagree that it is a component though. One of many components, but the sheer number of people to choose from in later generations is independent of that component.