Would Lafleur have been considered the greatest more if..

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

I say no because his first three seasons he was barely top 6 forward, and in 1980 he got into a car accident. :banghead:

It's like saying Mario would have had (maybe) a better career than Wayne if it wasn't for illness/injuries/etc. Well, IMO durability is a factored in when I see the overall strength of a player.
:deadhorse

I say no because his first three seasons he was barely top 6 forward, and in 1980 he got into a car accident. :banghead:

It's like saying Mario would have had (maybe) a better career than Wayne if it wasn't for illness/injuries/etc. Well, IMO durability is a factored in when I see the overall strength of a player.
:deadhorse

Yeah I agree to that on a level yes.. but what if Lafleur hadn't been in the car accident? Because a car accident isnt part of the game then it shouldnt be considered in the durablity aspect of a player because a car accident is something that happenes outside the game right?

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

Alright. So "if he hadn't gotten in a car accident" may be a valid if, the same way Neely and Orr have legitimate speculation. But "If he had been better when he started" is ridiculous. At this point, we aren't just speculating about things beyond his control, you're speculating if he had been a better player at a young age. That's like me asking if St. Louis would be considered one of the best of his generation if he had broken in at 18 scoring like he did last year. An extreme example, but its the same idea. Even given an extreme what if scenario where his career plays out ideally you can't give him credit for being a better player than he was. The rest of it is absurd enough, but that's just ridiculous.

I don't disagree that Lafleur doesn't get enough credit, but your argument has more holes in it than Red Light Racicot.

i conisider him one of the greats anyways. You can add goals and points to any player and make them look better but I think of him better then messier. That is quite a compliment

Alright. So "if he hadn't gotten in a car accident" may be a valid if, the same way Neely and Orr have legitimate speculation. But "If he had been better when he started" is ridiculous. At this point, we aren't just speculating about things beyond his control, you're speculating if he had been a better player at a young age. That's like me asking if St. Louis would be considered one of the best of his generation if he had broken in at 18 scoring like he did last year. An extreme example, but its the same idea. Even given an extreme what if scenario where his career plays out ideally you can't give him credit for being a better player than he was. The rest of it is absurd enough, but that's just ridiculous.

I don't disagree that Lafleur doesn't get enough credit, but your argument has more holes in it than Red Light Racicot.

Yeah you're probably right but I just found it a little weird how someone who had dominated in his junior career only get 55 to 65 points then all of a sudden double that mark.

His last year with the remparts he had played 62 games, scored 130 goals and 79 assists for a total of 209 points.

Anyway, he's certainly top-10 all-time for hair-style. Especially without the helmet.... swoooooosh! Right up there with Jagr and Anson Carter with the Oilers.

Oh and even we leave his first 3 years points totals like that then he still would've gotten 796 goals and 1895 points throughout his career and been second on points and on goals ever had it not been for his car accident which slowed him down and forced him to retire. Because nowadays many hockey fans think " hey this player had less points then the other... so he was worse player then the other..

I love Lafleur and I put him on my ''personal favorites'' team on the Hockey's History board, but Wayne, Mario and Bobby are a step up, and always would be, even if Guy had a bit better luck and had a more consistent career (not to say he wasn't consistent).

His legacy is fine, and it does him justice. He'd have more points if his career started in '79 likes Wayne's, but he'd still be a clear step or two behind. His point totals are accurate, though, they leave nothing to be desired, really. Everyone knows how good he is.

If we're going to give him better standards, it's only fair to raise them for Wayne and Mario, and hence, raising the bar of greatness. Then those 2000 points you're theorizing wouldn't look as good as they do. Gretzky and Lemieux would get 3200 points each (or more!) if they had the same perfect luck and career that you're talking about here!

You're basically arguing whether or not Lafleur would have been considered one of the game's greatest if he had had a better career. He doesn't deserve the additional points for his earlier years because he wasn't developed as a player. And who knows what he would have done after 1980 had he not been hurt. He was a big smoker, so his game might have gone down the toilet prematurely anyway, like Dale Hawerchuk.

What if is a very strong word you know?

What if is a very strong word you know?

Exactly.

What if Wayne Gretzky had been given Mario's frame?

You just can't do this waht if thing, otherwise you need to do it for everyone else.

Because nowadays many hockey fans think " hey this player had less points then the other... so he was worse player then the other..

And your entire argument seems to be that if he had more points then it would prove he was a better player; not sure I'm seeing much difference between what your'e doing and what you accuse others of doing...

Sure. The same way the Dionne is always considered a top ten forward :rolleyes:

You're basically arguing whether or not Lafleur would have been considered one of the game's greatest if he had had a better career. He doesn't deserve the additional points for his earlier years because he wasn't developed as a player. And who knows what he would have done after 1980 had he not been hurt. He was a big smoker, so his game might have gone down the toilet prematurely anyway, like Dale Hawerchuk.

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey? Smoking doesnt affect everyone you know.. My dad has been smoking like 30 cigarettes a day for about 35 years and hes still in great shape and has NEVER had any health problems or anything. And what I'm saying is Lafleur was in a car accident but if he hadnt gotten that car accident he wouldve definately scored more points and not suddenly drop to 70 points after a 125 point season. And no this wasnt an injury that happened during a game and he didnt get any injuries afterward so if he hadnt been in the car acccident he would definately have scored more points... thus making him greater to a large variety of fans nowadays, the young fans especially who think that just because the other person had more points then him he was better. Oh and dont get me wrong I aint saying those fans are you guys.

Sure. The same way the Dionne is always considered a top ten forward :rolleyes:

Should be top 3, actually! ;)


Lafleur's legacy is fine. Yes, he may have slipped a little after his car accident, but he SHOULD have been fine the next season. He still only scored 27 goals that year. He was starting to lose a half-a-step, and that was always the thing that set him apart: his speed. He was never the greatest deker, but good enough when he had a head of steam. He just had a great shot off the wing, and speed to get there.

Plus that GREAT flowing hair!!!

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey? Smoking doesnt affect everyone you know.. My dad has been smoking like 30 cigarettes a day for about 35 years and hes still in great shape and has NEVER had any health problems or anything. .


THIS MAY BE THE DUMBEST QUESTION I HAVE EVER SEEN, AND I HAVE SEEN SOME DANDIES. IS IT THE SMOKING THAT KEEPS YOUR DAD IN GREAT SHAPE???. IF SO, TELL HIM TO GET OFF THOSE CRAVEN A MENTHOLS AND HEAD STRAIGHT TO THE UNFILTERED CAMELS, THEN MAYBE HE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE NEXT 9 OLYMPICS.

Use your head, the poster who wondered if it affected Lafleur's career is speculating that if his lungs weren't jet black, maybe the wheels would have fallen off a few years later. Yes, not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, but, yes, son, it will increase your chances. I used to smoke like a chimney, and while I was smart enough to quit before it killed me, I was never stupid enough to think it "didn't effect me" If you need further information, contact your local lung association.

What the hell does smoking have to do with playing hockey?

Are you from Mars or something?

Are you from Mars or something?

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!

Alright...lets settle down Mr. Kovalev...

Lafleur IS one of the greats. No one will ever take that away from him. What if Bobby Orr played 20 seasons. Hot damn. That would have sure been something. Damnit, what if Gordie Howe was still playing, he'd be pretty close to 2900 points eh?

Fact of that matter is, Mr. Lafleur is one THE most respected masters of hockey of all time, and will always be mentioned with the greats.

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!


My three year old understands this concept. Are you three yet???

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!
Smoking winds a person. Their lungs are no longer as healthy, and so they have a harder time keeping up with others in sports or any other physical activity for that example.

A good friend of mine, and I were both great long distance, and now he has went down hill, because his smoking habit won't let him finish off a mile let alone the 5 or 6, that we usually ran in the past. It's pretty sad when the guy that used to give you fits in the past, can't even maintain pace and be competitive anymore.

But is your friend healthy? Does he eat properly? Does he exercise at home? If he did then theres no way he cant run that much. And how old is he?

But is your friend healthy? Does he eat properly? Does he exercise at home? If he did then theres no way he cant run that much. And how old is he?

Ever heard of personnal abilities?

It's not because someone can run 10kms as a smoker while another one can only run 9Kms without smoking that it means smoking is a non-factor... Would the first one continue to keep his shape and stop smoking, he would probably run 15 kms easily 3 months after.

Lafleur was one of the best but what if he would have not smoking? Well maybe at the end of each swift on the ice, he would have add another extra gear that would have allow him to be even better.
______________________

And honestly to me, this question is a bit pointless. What IF Lafleur would have add extra points, would he be consider one of the Greatest??

-HE IS CONSIDER one of the best players to ever play the game...

______________________

Do the same exercice as you do with Lafleur with Lemieux. -Cancer- and so much back problems he was not even able to put on his skates for many years in his career and was still the best on the ice... = 4287 points??

Heres a list of the stats of Lafleur since he joined the league till the year he retired. Note I didnt list the stats for his last year. Ok now for the first 3 years as you see if Lafleur had played great right of the bat and tallied more points and if he hadnt gotten a car accident in 1980 which really slowed him down here are my predictions of how many more goals and assists he could've had.


1971-72 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 29 35 64- 20 more goals, 25 more assists
1972-73 Montreal Canadiens NHL 69 28 27 55- 20 more goals, 30 more assists
1973-74 Montreal Canadiens NHL 73 21 35 56- 30 more goals, 30 more assists
1974-75 Montreal Canadiens NHL 70 53 66 119
1975-76 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 69 125
1976-77 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 56 80 136
1977-78 Montreal Canadiens NHL 78 60 72 132
1978-79 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 52 77 129
1979-80 Montreal Canadiens NHL 74 50 75 125
1980-81 Montreal Canadiens NHL 51 27 43 70 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1981-82 Montreal Canadiens NHL 66 27 57 84 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1982-83 Montreal Canadiens NHL 68 27 49 76 - 20 more goals, 20 more assists
1983-84 Montreal Canadiens NHL 80 30 40 70 - 15 more goals, 20 more assists


145 more goals 165 more assists: 310 more points
1036 games: 668 goals, 883 assists:1551 points

Plus if he had not retired for 5 years, he would definately have gotten like 150 more goals and about 250 more assists.

That would make it about:
818 goals 1123 assists- 1951 points.

Plus his last 3 years, add about 100 more points and that would be about 2050 points!! Plus add the 48 more goals he scored that makes it 866 goals and 2051 points! He would've been considered as one of the best players ever more then now and maybe people would think that he was as great as Gretzky or Lemieux. I know that this would probably be the case for Bobby Orr as well as Lemieux but still what do you think?

No.Lafleur will always have a special place in my heart.
The first NHL game I remember watching, (i think it was game 7 of a montreal/toronto playoff tilt), Lafleur was by far the most exciting player on the ice.)
Instantly, I became a Habs fan and a Lafleur fan.
Lafleur is still easily my favorite player ever.
Still, one can't his career quickly ran into a wall. His allegedly started smoking two packs a day just to piss off Bowman. That, and the drinking, probably chopped off four or five all-star type years from his career.

The better comparison is with Mike Bossy. And while Bossy didn't have 1/10th of Lafleur's charisma, it's tough to argue against his numbers.

I prefer to remember Lafleur as the most exciting player ever. It's totally subjective. It's how I feel about it. Argue all day, but that ain't gonna change.

OK TELL ME HOW SMOKING COULD AFFECT SOMEONE THEN. IF LAFLEUR WAS STILL ABLE TO PUT UP 70 POINTS AFTER HIS ACCIDENT AND YOU CLAIMED THAT ITS SMOKING THAT MADE HIM SLOW DOWN THEN IF SMOKING COULD BE REALLY EFFECTING I DONT THINK HE WOULD BE ABLEO TO GET 70 POINTS. EXPLAIN THAT!

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/educational_materials/yuthfax1.htm

you're probably 11, so you haven't covered this in health class yet, but to highlight what's important here:

"Nicotine narrows your blood vessels and puts added strain on your heart.
Smoking can wreck lungs and reduce oxygen available for muscles used during sports.
Smokers suffer shortness of breath (gasp!) almost 3 times more often than nonsmokers.
Smokers run slower and can’t run as far, affecting overall athletic performance."

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/educational_materials/yuthfax1.htm

you're probably 11, so you haven't covered this in health class yet, but to highlight what's important here:

"Nicotine narrows your blood vessels and puts added strain on your heart.
Smoking can wreck lungs and reduce oxygen available for muscles used during sports.
Smokers suffer shortness of breath (gasp!) almost 3 times more often than nonsmokers.
Smokers run slower and can’t run as far, affecting overall athletic performance."

Yes BUT IT DOESNT AFFECT EVERYONE! You guys are telling me his numbers dropped because of his smoking the same year he was in the accident. What a coincidence!

Yes BUT IT DOESNT AFFECT EVERYONE! You guys are telling me his numbers dropped because of his smoking the same year he was in the accident. What a coincidence!

It's like I'm talking to a lead pipe here.

This is what I said originally:

"And who knows what he would have done after 1980 had he not been hurt. He was a big smoker, so his game might have gone down the toilet prematurely anyway, like Dale Hawerchuk."

This means that EVEN IF HE HADN'T BEEN HURT, that your FANBOY FANTASY NUMBERS PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. BECAUSE GUY LAFLEUR DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF AS WELL AS HE SHOULD HAVE

Yes BUT IT DOESNT AFFECT EVERYONE! You guys are telling me his numbers dropped because of his smoking the same year he was in the accident. What a coincidence!

Well, it doesn't always manifest in lung cancer or emphysema, but it does everything Stephen listed to everyone who smokes regularly.

Yes BUT IT DOESNT AFFECT EVERYONE! You guys are telling me his numbers dropped because of his smoking the same year he was in the accident. What a coincidence!

Sorry, you're right. The smoking and drinking never hurt the flower. If he hadn't gotten pasted and cut off half his ear in that car crash, he'd still be playing, probably scoring 200-210 points a year. Now go ask your dad if you can have a smoke. Don't forget to inhale. Hey, maybe he'll let you have a haul of his lysol/gin beverage, too. Oh, and that man on the moon thing, that's another big fib, too.>>

Listen, buddy. Guy's car accident caused minor injuries physically, but weighed on him mentally. He was never the same after it but it wasn't just the accident that derailed his career, it was Lemaire instituting a defense-first system, his diminished role on the team and the physical neglect catching up to him. Guy never took care of himself. Smoking can affect you playing hockey, everyone should know that. Just because he put up 100 pt. seasons doesn't mean jac because later, his skill and ability weren't enough to get him by because his health wasn't up to par. Although Guy made a comeback, he'd toned down the smoking and partying. Heck, it worked for one year on the lowly Nordiques as he was average almost a point per game (low 30s in points in 39 games not bad for an out-of-shape 38 year old at that point). But he was hurt because of his prior physical neglect and one time because not wearing a helmet caused some guy to break his jaw by planting him face first into the glass.

I think guys like Gainey and Robinson gave up smoking or how else would they have been so damn durable. Guy was never in good shape, preferring to smoke, eat poutine and hot dogs, drink gallons of coffee and alcohol and generally have a good time. But it restricted the greatness he could've reached. Make him in tip top shape and he certainly could have been like Lemieux. But to say IF not for his car accident, IF not for his slow start to his career, Guy would've had, in my estimation, 1900 pts. How do you even come up with the random numbers to add to his totals? Anyway, Mario never worked out and had a lousy diet, etc. And it caused his injuries to pile up. Only in the 90s did he turn it around and manage to keep going, because of his cancer and generally lousy back.

Now, he still is constantly injured but it's better than before and not because a lack of physical health. Father time hasn't helped. But he would be retired permanently due to the pain if not for his turnaround in shape that, if it came while he was in junior, might just have made him unstoppable and statistically the best. Heck, Gretz was luckier than Mario because although Mario had the better body for hockey, Gretz had the better smarts. He just knew how to keep healthy but he was never a workout freak and his back problems, starting with the Suter hit, only worsened due to this fact. He managed to hold on until 1999 but that's when the back troubles finally crippled his game, scoring 9 goals in 70 games. While Lemieux's injuries wre serious enough to keep him out of the lineup a lot, Gretzky was able to play through the pain more often and it slowly chipped away at his point toals every year. Give him a good Ranger supporting cast and great phyiscal shape and he's up there with Jagr in scoring races by 1999.

If not for the average shape he was in, he could've been like Messier or Howe, lasting and producing well into his late 30s. But in a more Gretzky like way because he has about as much natural (and developed) talent as those two combined. Likewise, even one of those guys probably kept in better shape double what Gretzky ever was in his career. Gretz couldn't keep up by the early 90s but his smarts and skills adapted to keep him effective. He never tried to play defense anyway, but not being able to keep up made the reason be because he couldn't, rather than he didn't want to like before. So scoring titles at age 38 for Wayne? Could've happened for sure.

So y'see it happened to the best of them. Granted, in Guy's prime (1978) he was with a reduced competition and 50% of the guys in the NHL were big smokers, big drinkers or both. That stat probably decreased every 13 years or so by 25% until now where it's maybe 1% smokers (Cigars every so often doesn't count obviously), and 5% big drinkers (lots of guys drink and party but about 5% probably are heavy drinkers/drunks). So to not be aware that drinking a lot and smoking reduces your ability to be a long-time, effective NHL star, is asinine. Injuries and personal problems can derail careers but with today's conditioning, there's no reason that if he wanted to, an NHL'er could play 20 years with a little luck and keeping in great shape. Guy had the former, but didn't do the latter in his 16 season career (you see, his enormous abilities made it that way but for his era, he could've made it all without a brief retirement period-he did so when he was just 33 and came back when he was 37).

Bryan Trottier did decline at his end due to the fact his abilities weren't so overpowering that he could live off of them forever, but he kept in good enough shape to last for 19 seasons, a very long time for guys who started their career in the 70s and were at their career's tail ends, at the lastest, when the 90s advent of condition. Trots had longevity when the average "lengthy career" took a guy till he was at least 30 considered a player's prime these days but a player's twilght time back then. I remember seeing a classic 1986 playoff game between St. Louis and Calgary with an ESPN feature about the Flames' "greybeards nearing their career's end" in McDonald at 34 and Risebrough at 32!! The average career could take a guy up to as old as 33 and no more, usually. With the expanded league and a raid for fresh, young talent that caused many a player to be out of work due to the younger, cheaper alternative (no one wanted a guy like 33 year old Steve Shutt after 84-85 with the Kings when they could have some junior star like Craig Simpson or Brian Bellows light the lamp instead).

This was the norm for the NHL from 1979 through to 1994. Trots was the exception, and there were other odd cases (guys had regular jobs in the NHL when they were 19-21 in these days) like Joe Mullen (78-97), Mike Gartner (78-98, one year as an 18 year old in the WHA), Robinson (72-92), Gainey (73-89), Mark Howe (73-95, a remarkable Howe trait of longevity was carried on by him through 6 years of WHA, and 16 years of NHL), Lanny McDonald (73-89) and Denis Potvin (73-88), who all could've played 22 years like Stevens, under today's training improvements. A lot has changed from Lafleur's time to now, but you can make the argument of "what if" for many guys. What if Bernie Nicholls' son's health issues hadn't derailed his focus in the early 90s; would he become a HOF calibre legend? And things like that.

You, Kovalev10, unfortunately used some pretty subjective "what if's" in Guy's case. I think with or without the accident, he'd have retired anyway and if not, he'd still have tailed off. Now, if the rumoured trade with Edmonton in 1984 that's been brought up recently was okay with Guy, he could've coasted by being Gretz's winger despite his diminishing skills (heck, he could've gone drinkin' with MacTavish and went driving... oh, bad combination!) and starting a sick dynasty with the Oil. And Habs fans loved the guy so much, they'd be cheering him to more amazing feats in Edmonton. As long as he didn't have to inflict woe on the Habs in a stanley cup final down the road. I mean, his final game in Montreal and 2nd final vs. Montreal and all-time, back in 1991. He scores and the Forum erupted in a 5-minute applause. His comeback in 1988 with the Rangers where he scores 2. I saw one of his pretty goals, stripping Desjardins or somebody, taking the puck Lafleur style and wristing it between Roy's pads. The crowd goes nuts like the Habs just scored, it was unbelievable!!! Heck, I'd be cheering. If Koivu came back one day if we ever let him go and scored on us in a regular season game, I'd be cheering too. Though, not on a Lafleur-like level of worship.

I followed the Habs during Lafleur's days and from memory...

He did take several years to "find himself" in the NHL. He went from Junior, where he finished with one of the greatest careers in history, to the NHL where he was "only" expected to replace Jean Beliveau, one of the all time greats. The expectations in those days in Montreal were the Cup and anything less was unacceptable. I remember Beliveau himself explaining what it was like to play in Mtl. To paraphrase, he'd score two goals, the Habs had won the game and he'd be skating off the ice happy when a fan would call out, "Beliveau, you should have had 4 goals".

Lafleur took a few years to adjust to the league and the pressure of playing in Montreal. He took off the helmet for year 4 and coincidence or not that was when his career took off.

He was not happy in Mtl his last few years with the team, playing a defensive style, and I believe asked to be traded...and was told that he would not be dealt under any circumstances, so he retired.

As far as what if's? If he had played for another team, maybe he'd have more points, maybe not. The pressure/expectations would have been different. Maybe he would not have felt the need to retire. It's all speculation though.

Bottom line he had a great career. And he will probably always be my favorite player.

So y'see it happened to the best of them. Granted, in Guy's prime (1978) he was with a reduced competition and 50% of the guys in the NHL were big smokers, big drinkers or both. That stat probably decreased every 13 years or so by 25% until now where it's maybe 1% smokers (Cigars every so often doesn't count obviously), and 5% big drinkers (lots of guys drink and party but about 5% probably are heavy drinkers/drunks). So to not be aware that drinking a lot and smoking reduces your ability to be a long-time, effective NHL star, is asinine. Injuries and personal problems can derail careers but with today's conditioning, there's no reason that if he wanted to, an NHL'er could play 20 years with a little luck and keeping in great shape. Guy had the former, but didn't do the latter in his 16 season career (you see, his enormous abilities made it that way but for his era, he could've made it all without a brief retirement period-he did so when he was just 33 and came back when he was 37).

So you're telling me Guy wouldn't have been so productive if he had played against better players?

So you're telling me Guy wouldn't have been so productive if he had played against better players?

you're clearly trolling now, give it a rest.

I don't know if anyone caught TSN's showing of 1976 Canada/Russia a few nights ago. I followed the 70's Habs closely but I admit to forgetting how dominant Lafleur could be. You could list a lot of reasons as to why he declined after his 9th year. Did he decline because Lemaire reigned in his creativity or did he decline,causing Lemaire to insist on a more structured game. Lemaire not being a dummy would have gladly accepted 50-60 goals if he thought Guy could have scored them. I think he lost whatever it was that pushes you to be the best. He wanted it, but just didn't have a gear to go to anymore. There were physical reasons but I've always thought he was burnt out. Don't forget they had won 4 in a row against great competition. Bowman kept the heat turned up pretty high. They played in a city that panicked 8 times in the year they lost 8 games. When Bowman left, a few guys exhaled and never quite got the edge again, Shutt included,maybe Lapointe also. During the 6 years that he dominated, he was the best.

I watched the Canada Cup game the other night. The player who impressed me the most in that game was Gilbert Perreault. What a stickhandler.

Alot of the Habs dynasty started to move on (Lemaire, Cournoyer, Dryden, Pollock Bowman) and others started to age (i.e. Savard and Lapointe). Same pressure to win though and I'm sure that took a toll on Lafleur.

this thread is hilarious, but anyways

to the original question

in 1979-1980 (before this all important car accident)

an 18 year old Wayne Gretzky, playing on a defacto expansion team scored 137 points

a 28 year old Guy Lafleur, playing on one of the deepest teams in NHL history scored 125 points

a teenage Gretzky outpaced Lafleur in the prime of his career

I think Lafleur is one of the top dozen players of all time. nothing wrong with that. I can't believe (and this coming from a diehard Flames fan) how many people seem intent on taking down Gretzky lately

What I find funny is the media induced top 10, 25, 100, etc. lists. Unless someone saw the NHL from it's earliest beginnings then they are unqualified to make such lists...and since that should comprise everyone, then no one is really qualified to compare Cyclone Taylor to recent vintage players.

I think we should appreciate players careers without the need to slot them into an arbitrary and completely debatable list.

What I find funny is the media induced top 10, 25, 100, etc. lists. Unless someone saw the NHL from it's earliest beginnings then they are unqualified to make such lists...and since that should comprise everyone, then no one is really qualified to compare Cyclone Taylor to recent vintage players.

I think we should appreciate players careers without the need to slot them into an arbitrary and completely debatable list. You got it right. You can't really compare players. How do you argue a Gretzky against an Orr. There purpose and responsibilies on the ice were totally different. It can be fun to compare generation to generation, but it gets invalid just for reasons of human growth,level of coaching,league wide style etc. When you are lucky enough to see an all time great in their prime, they are great in that moment. I saw Messier do things no other player could do as far as powre on skates. Lafleur and Gretzky could make passes that others wouldn't imagine. Orr played at a different level when healthy.Media outlets making lists get us to talk hockey but that's about it.

Chili, you mention Perreault, he was the best, or most exciting Jr. player I ever saw.I thought I was seeing Beliveau's reincarnation when I watched him in 69-70. He was always great to watch but never quite got to where I thought he would. Comparing him to Clarke is interesting from that era in that one was flashier, one made his team better.

lafleur isnt even the greatest canadien ever...

ever heard of the rocket????

I say no because his first three seasons he was barely top 6 forward, and in 1980 he got into a car accident. :banghead:

It's like saying Mario would have had (maybe) a better career than Wayne if it wasn't for illness/injuries/etc. Well, IMO durability is a factored in when I see the overall strength of a player.
:deadhorse


I remember reading an article that said Mario would have been the best player points wise if it wasn't for his cancer ordeal.

I'll stick to that, Mario is the best in my eyes and thats what i know.

this thread is hilarious, but anyways

to the original question

in 1979-1980 (before this all important car accident)

an 18 year old Wayne Gretzky, playing on a defacto expansion team scored 137 points

a 28 year old Guy Lafleur, playing on one of the deepest teams in NHL history scored 125 points

a teenage Gretzky outpaced Lafleur in the prime of his career

I think Lafleur is one of the top dozen players of all time. nothing wrong with that. I can't believe (and this coming from a diehard Flames fan) how many people seem intent on taking down Gretzky lately


Look at the other scoring leaders when Gretz first started out, the NHL was a joke. U can score from ur own end at least 2 times a game.

lafleur isnt even the greatest canadien ever...

ever heard of the rocket????

So, go ahead, compare them. You are in rarified air when you look at the greatest Habs ever. Go thru Harvey to Beliveau to the Rocket to Lafleur and arguements can be made. Like Chili said, you can argue Morenz and Joliat for that matter, doesn't mean there's a right answer.

Look at the other scoring leaders when Gretz first started out, the NHL was a joke. U can score from ur own end at least 2 times a game.
um thanks. Lafleur was playing at the same time, no?

I watched hockey regularly then. the NHL was more diluted then it is now, and scoring was obviously way up, but it doesn't matter. Gretzky as a scorer was so much better than anyone else (including elite players like Lafleur, Dionne and Perreault who were 10 years his senior) it wasn't even funny

Chili, you mention Perreault, he was the best, or most exciting Jr. player I ever saw.I thought I was seeing Beliveau's reincarnation when I watched him in 69-70. He was always great to watch but never quite got to where I thought he would. Comparing him to Clarke is interesting from that era in that one was flashier, one made his team better.

I'll admit a bias in that Perreault was my favorite player growing up, but clearly he made his team better too....by 1975 he had an expansion team in the cup finals

he wasn't as effective as his peers (Clarke, Trottier) at leading his team to the big prize, but the bulk of Perreault's prime (say 75-83) was spent in the shadow of those great Hab and Isles teams

I do agree with you, there were holes in his game that make him a step down from the true elites of his era...but the post-expansion Sabres were a very very good team for along time, with him as their best player

I'll admit a bias in that Perreault was my favorite player growing up, but clearly he made his team better too....by 1975 he had an expansion team in the cup finals

he wasn't as effective as his peers (Clarke, Trottier) at leading his team to the big prize, but the bulk of Perreault's prime (say 75-83) was spent in the shadow of those great Hab and Isles teams

I do agree with you, there were holes in his game that make him a step down from the true elites of his era...but the post-expansion Sabres were a very very good team for along time, with him as their best player
I don't know what in his game I could criticize other than the Sabres were a pretty good team that you would think would have won one. Being their best player, I guess part of that falls on him. If you swapped Clarke and Perreault would the 2 teams history be different ? Impossible question, but it goes to the discussion of lists, the situation a player is in,goes a long way in determining his legend. Gretzky would have been great if Hartford had bought him from Skalbania, but who knows how it would have turned out.

this thread is hilarious, but anyways

to the original question

in 1979-1980 (before this all important car accident)

an 18 year old Wayne Gretzky, playing on a defacto expansion team scored 137 points

a 28 year old Guy Lafleur, playing on one of the deepest teams in NHL history scored 125 points

a teenage Gretzky outpaced Lafleur in the prime of his career

I think Lafleur is one of the top dozen players of all time. nothing wrong with that. I can't believe (and this coming from a diehard Flames fan) how many people seem intent on taking down Gretzky lately
Got to agree with you. An 18 year old Gretzky, had 1 more point than Lafleur's career best 136pts. I love Lafleur, but they just weren't on the same planet offensively. Lafleur was a funner player to watch, but was nowhere near the offensive talent.

Got to agree with you. An 18 year old Gretzky, had 1 more point than Lafleur's career best 136pts. I love Lafleur, but they just weren't on the same planet offensively. Lafleur was a funner player to watch, but was nowhere near the offensive talent.

Ya but dont forget Gretzky was soo much younger when he entered the NHL then Lafleur was at that time. Gretzky was about 17-18 and Lafleur was about 28-29 so theres a 10 year difference so you can't judge it like that.

Ya but dont forget Gretzky was soo much younger when he entered the NHL then Lafleur was at that time. Gretzky was about 17-18 and Lafleur was about 28-29 so theres a 10 year difference so you can't judge it like that.

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

Huh, do you think that 18 year olds are typically in their prime and 28 year olds are in their declining years? He was pointing out that in his FIRST YEAR, 19 YEAR old gretzky scored more than Lafleurs career BEST. Explain, please why that is a moot point, because it seems pretty relevant to the majority of us.

um thanks. Lafleur was playing at the same time, no?

I watched hockey regularly then. the NHL was more diluted then it is now, and scoring was obviously way up, but it doesn't matter. Gretzky as a scorer was so much better than anyone else (including elite players like Lafleur, Dionne and Perreault who were 10 years his senior) it wasn't even funny


What about the fact that he had a goon playing on his line so no one would touch him.

Who can't score if they have that much space during those days?

I'll stick with Mario, yeah he is a big guy at 6'4'', but 6' isn't small either. If Gretz had no goon on his line, i'd like to see how his back and body would have held up.

No arguments that Gretzky is awesome unselfish player, but you have to realize that he had alot of guys watching his back on his own line, guys that would never be on a top line on any other team like Semenko.

What about the fact that he had a goon playing on his line so no one would touch him.

Who can't score if they have that much space during those days?

I'll stick with Mario, yeah he is a big guy at 6'4'', but 6' isn't small either. If Gretz had no goon on his line, i'd like to see how his back and body would have held up.

No arguments that Gretzky is awesome unselfish player, but you have to realize that he had alot of guys watching his back on his own line, guys that would never be on a top line on any other team like Semenko.

Are you insane? If Gretz had had a real SCORER on his line instead of Cementhead, his scoring totals would have been 200 points higher! Dave Cementhead couldn't put the puck in the ocean off of a short pier! Had Gretzky had the kind of help Lafleur had (Steve Shutt-HOF'er, Lamaire-HOF'er, etc.) in his early years, he would have scored at least 200 more points n his career, and probably 70 more goals, which would put him at around 950 career goals. Mario doesn't even have 700, and he's getting close to Gretz in games played. His PPG has gone below Gretzky's (again) after his last few HORRIBLE seasons after retirement.

What about the fact that he had a goon playing on his line so no one would touch him.

So, did that help his offensive totals, or hurt them? Semenko was notorious for blowing fantastic scoring chances.

Who can't score if they have that much space during those days?

Gretzky would win scoring titles by 50-100 points... so the answer is only him.

I'll stick with Mario, yeah he is a big guy at 6'4'', but 6' isn't small either. If Gretz had no goon on his line, i'd like to see how his back and body would have held up.

The fact is, that wasn't the case. He's scored well over 1000 more career points than Lemieux, played in more seasons, and didn't miss nearly as many games.

All these ifs and buts are wonderful, but in reality they are garbage. Gretzky's back was fine (until the Suter cross-check), and even after it he still had 8 NHL seasons, 7 of which were highly productive.

No arguments that Gretzky is awesome unselfish player, but you have to realize that he had alot of guys watching his back on his own line, guys that would never be on a top line on any other team like Semenko.

You are acting as if Semenko was on his line for 10 years...

Tikkanen and Kurri routinely patrolled the wings with Gretzky in his last few years in Edmonton.

His linemates in L.A. didn't really invoke the fear of God in other players either.

Are you insane? If Gretz had had a real SCORER on his line instead of Cementhead, his scoring totals would have been 200 points higher! Dave Cementhead couldn't put the puck in the ocean off of a short pier! Had Gretzky had the kind of help Lafleur had (Steve Shutt-HOF'er, Lamaire-HOF'er, etc.) in his early years, he would have scored at least 200 more points n his career, and probably 70 more goals, which would put him at around 950 career goals. Mario doesn't even have 700, and he's getting close to Gretz in games played. His PPG has gone below Gretzky's (again) after his last few HORRIBLE seasons after retirement.

WTF? Mario hasnt even played 900 games and hes getting close to gretzky who played about 1500 games? What an idiot! And Shutt benefited from Lafleur ok Lafleur didnt benefit from Shutt. Oh and Lemaire was a lot older then Lafleur was when Lafleur was in his prime so he wasnt exactly a great player that many people put him out to be at that time.

WTF? Mario hasnt even played 900 games and hes getting close to gretzky who played about 1500 games? What an idiot! And Shutt benefited from Lafleur ok Lafleur didnt benefit from Shutt. Oh and Lemaire was a lot older then Lafleur was when Lafleur was in his prime so he wasnt exactly a great player that many people put him out to be at that time.

Lemaire developed into one of the best two way players in the game (in the mold of Modano, Yzerman,etc.). He retired right after winning the cup and having the best playoffs of his career. He was a great player, imo.

WTF? Mario hasnt even played 900 games and hes getting close to gretzky who played about 1500 games? What an idiot! And Shutt benefited from Lafleur ok Lafleur didnt benefit from Shutt. Oh and Lemaire was a lot older then Lafleur was when Lafleur was in his prime so he wasnt exactly a great player that many people put him out to be at that time.

:lol

Man... getting close is not a word you should when describing the difference between Gretz and Lemiuex in terms of scoring goals... they are 211 apart, meaning Lemeiux would have to play 4 more seasons of 50goal/year hockey...

It isn't going to happen. If Lemeiux were to get close to Gretzky, his GP number would go up a lot higher to!

WTF? Mario hasnt even played 900 games and hes getting close to gretzky who played about 1500 games? What an idiot! And Shutt benefited from Lafleur ok Lafleur didnt benefit from Shutt. Oh and Lemaire was a lot older then Lafleur was when Lafleur was in his prime so he wasnt exactly a great player that many people put him out to be at that time.

It's not nice to call someone an idiot for expressing his opinion. If you can arbitrarily state who was and wasn't a good player to suit your argument, it's probably time to put this thread out of its misery.

If you can arbitrarily state who was and wasn't a good player to suit your argument, it's probably time to put this thread out of its misery.


It's misery? How about our misery?

What "if's" are pointless.

WTF? Mario hasnt even played 900 games and hes getting close to gretzky who played about 1500 games? What an idiot! And Shutt benefited from Lafleur ok Lafleur didnt benefit from Shutt. Oh and Lemaire was a lot older then Lafleur was when Lafleur was in his prime so he wasnt exactly a great player that many people put him out to be at that time.

Actually, Shutt did help Lafleur quite a bit. Lafleur liked to leave the zone without the puck, a practice that coaches hate these days. Shutt stayed on th eboards took the safe outlet pass and head manned it to the center or a streaking Lafleur.The chemistry between the 2 helped both. Lafleur was a great passer and Shutt was a great finisher. In Lafleur's first 3 years, he bounced around on differnt lines, played some center. He played first first few breakout years with Peter Mahovlich. Peter hung onto th epuck a bit, but was a fine player nonetheless. Esp. underrated as a 2 way player and corner man. When Lemaire came into the league he was a pure shooter, somewhat like Richer. He bounced around from LW to ctr. until he eventually settled in between Lafleur and Shutt for their final years together. His last few years were the best he played. Chili's comparison is bang on, he was a tremendous 2 way player who understood the game as well as anyone.Strange actually, because he was considered quite a soft player early in his career. Gainey got the talk as the premier defensive player though Lemaire consistently controlled play and allowed Bowman to use them against offensive lines.

LaFleur was the best forward in the league from the mid to very late 70's, not too shabby, and what set him apart was his production in big games and late in those big games, a real go to guy. Those days Montreal RULED, and he was thier centerpiece. The habs would come here to Philly into the old Spectrum and during the pre-game skate would start going around their end of the ice, blue line to behind the net fast, faster, fastest.....amazing to watch all those BIG Montreal players moving that fast as a team, INTIMIDATING!
There are too many what-ifs.....Wat if Orr had two healthy knees?, what if Parent hadn't had neck surgery or that injured eye?, How about Mario's health challenges? They had their times, judge them on that., that's all there is. :)