at what point in sports do we hold the lack of durability against great players?

and its not like i am saying stevie or marty arent great players

but they are second tier when it comes to orr, gretz and mario

and its not like i am saying stevie or marty arent great players

but they are second tier when it comes to orr, gretz and mario

They basically replaced Niedermayer and Stevens's minutes with Martin and Lukowich after the lockout. Of course the team isn't going to be as successful. He still led the NHL in wins three times after losing two Hall Of Fame defensemen.

Spoiler: show

may disagree at the answer.

It's the Sandy Koufax discussion.

I agree Mario is one of the top 2 or 3 most talented players of all time, especially offensively (I will not, however, classify him as a good defensive player). His amazing offensive abilities more than make up for his defense. But guys like Yzerman and Sakic had value to their teams in 400-600 more games then Mario did to his team. And I'm not talking accumulator guys like Ronnie Francis or Mark Recchi- I'm talking about players that were at one point or another in that same "Top 3-5 players in the game" discussion.

Same debate with Orr and Lidstrom really. by the time it's all said and done, Lidstrom will have played about a thousand more games than Orr. THOUSAND. Orr was absolutely dominant for a short period, where as guys like Lidstrom, and Bourque were important fixtures and provided value to their teams for nearly 20 years. Which would you say is the better player? The guy that absolutely awesome for 5 years? Or the guy that is one of the best in the league for 20?

at what point in sports do we hold the lack of durability against great players?

I've always had kind of a soft spot for high-peak guys who's careers were derailed by injuries like Orr, Neely, Koufax, etc. Not sure why. I think lack of durability comes into play with most players, but there's a certain level where it almost doesn't matter any more. Lemieux's production makes up for any difference in games played between him and guys like Yzerman and Sakic. Overall, they're stats are pretty close... but Lemieux was just so unbelievably dominant.

I've always had kind of a soft spot for high-peak guys who's careers were derailed by injuries like Orr, Neely, Koufax, etc. Not sure why. I think lack of durability comes into play with most players, but there's a certain level where it almost doesn't matter any more. Lemieux's production makes up for any difference in games played between him and guys like Yzerman and Sakic. Overall, they're stats are pretty close... but Lemieux was just so unbelievably dominant.

If you have the option of Lemieux for 60-65 games a season for 15 years or Yzerman/Sakic for 80 games a season for 20 years, who do you take?

Will you be in favor of Sidney Crosby being considered a HOFer after he announces his retirement this summer?

i thought you were a lawyer?

Will you be in favor of Sidney Crosby being considered a HOFer after he announces his retirement this summer?

I pretty much expected to answer "No" pretty easily, but I'm actually not too sure. If it happened, Cam Neely would probably be the best comparison and Crosby has him beat in almost every individual and team category...

Yeah but Neely played 13 seasons.

even though Crosby's had only seven seasons (really six, but Neely really only has 11 ) they've been possibly the most dominant first seven seasons in the NHL that anyone has ever had.

Ok, what?