Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

280 Excellent

About Kruppstahl

  • Rank
    Third Liner

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lost somewhere In the bowels of the Aud

Recent Profile Visitors

313 profile views
  1. Right, like the kid who, a few drafts ago, couldn't complete a single pull-up despite being a top draft choice, or some of the tiny kids being selected last night. Hughes looks like I did as a sophomore in high school; he has the body of a child. Look at current Sabres; they aren't all big, fast, strong guys; you are being overly dramatic. And every player from the '80s wasn't a talentless sack of *****. The '80s Oilers teams (some of them at least) had Paul Coffey on the blue line. For those here too young to know him or to have watched his career, take my word for it, he could skate backwards.
  2. I'm guessing you are young. Maybe when you get older you're see this in a more complex way. Again, the issue here is not comparing the average player of today's game to the average player of the '80s. The modern player is better, faster, bigger, stronger. We're talking about taking the best players of former eras and putting them in today's game. If you think the best players of all time would not be able to compete against the floaters and mediocrities that fill modern NHL rosters, well, I disagree with you. Sure, *some* of the modern guys are big and *some* of them are fast. Some are both. Hockey is so much more than that. Years ago I talked with Theo Fleury in a bar after a Flames game in Buffalo. He was smoking along with goalie Mike Vernon and several other Flames players. On that night, I got Craig Berube's autograph on a napkin (!) which I still have! He was a big guy and had super long black hair and my buddies and I all thought he was the greatest. He was very nice and polite and signed autograph s for all of us. I digress. Theo Fleury was TINY and he was a smoker! So what....dude was one hell of a great hockey player and the 2020 Buffalo Sabres could really use him.
  3. This is entirely my point. The highlighted is wrong. "Training" probably makes up a tiny percentage of what a player does on the ice. I would assert the Gretzky of the '80s is the more or less the same player he would be now. As I said, put him in a time machine and bring him here just as he was. Maybe give him modern equipment. The skimpy stuff he wore would give him an advantage IMO nowadays anyway. He hardly wore anything. Certainly not the football armor the guys where now.
  4. I disagree with you. He would not be blown off every single shift. Do you think someone like Reinhart has some kind of elite size, strength, or speed? He has none of that. He gets by on smarts...and he's a tiny fraction of what #99 was. There is always recency bias when it comes to these types of discussions. I.E., what happened in the last 5 minutes is the best, anything that happened 40 years ago is terrible. It's like asking who the best 100 muscians of all time are; most people in 2019 are going to mention people they are familiar with, probably from the last 20 years. Folks they don't even know from 80 years ago aren't even mentioned, not because they aren't talented but because they aren't recent or known.
  5. You're over-thinking it. I think the idea is that you take #99 in 1987 and throw him in a time machine, and throw him on the ice today. If you want to give him today's skates, great. If he could do what he did with his equipment then and lumber (later aluminum) in his hands, he'll only be a lot better with modern equipment. I would not go so far as to say he needs modern training. Keep him as he was, but put him in today's game. A lot of folks laugh and respond by saying " Are you kidding, those guys were smoking back then!" So what? Mogilny smoked like a fiend. Didn't really slow him down, did it? If you can do it, you can do it, and 30 years of time doesn't change that. It would be like suggesting Willie Mays couldn't play baseball in 2019. Not only could he play, he'd be one of the best 5 guys in the league.
  6. Salary caps and free agency destroyed "team building" a long time ago.
  7. A while ago, Mike Schopp recounted on the air a conversation he had with Darcy Regier when Darcy was still GM. This was quite a few years ago when New Jersey (I think) was one of the powers in the league. Darcy asked Schopp: "Who do you think would win a Stanley Cup Final series between the (then current, league champion) Devils and an Oilers team from the '80s? I know the answer, and it's not Edmonton." Darcy's point was that the average talent level of the average NHL players has increased so much since the '80s that one of the greatest teams of all time, say the 1987 Oilers, would not even be good enough to take on the Devils or whatever modern team he was comparing them to at the time. Schopp mentioned this story to Rob Ray during one of his game-day segments. Rob vehemently disagreed. The next segment or 2 later, Rob mentioned talking to everyone he could find around the game at the time (current or former NHL players basically) including probably the coaching staff, scouts, etc., and asking them the same Darcy Regier question. He said no one agreed with Darcy. Everyone said the '80s Oilers win the series. I always found this to be a really interesting discussion. It is true the average player's talent level has increased since the 1980s, but those Oilers teams still had Messier and Gretzky on them, and that is IMO possibly 2 of the best 4 or 5 players ALL TIME. Suggesting that the "game moves too quickly" for Gretzky these days or similar is absurd. He would slow today's game right down to whatever pace he wanted to play at, and control the game at that speed, just as he did then. Messier is one of the absolute best all time players with size, strength, skill, and "compete" off the freaking chart. I really don't like hearing how today's group of players out-class some of the greatest players of all time. It's just not true. As an aside, it's funny that this hypothesis comes from Darcy Regier, who was a mediocre talent himself, never really able to crack the National league as a player, and not a very good GM either. Poor conclusion drawn from a poor talent. I'm curious what others think of this.
  8. Wouldn't call it "dumb" per se. Johnson is a solid prospect who might end up a strong #4 D Man or something like that; defensive defenseman, good player. But was this the best selection at that slot on this night? Is this really what the team needs most right now? There were several more splashy forwards still available and God knows we need help putting pucks in the net. Not really happy with the pick.
  9. Who's the woman in the Foote entourage? Sitting next to Cal? Lovely.
  10. Simon Holmstrom's sister (?) is cute.
  11. That thing was horrible, though it did fit him well, which is more than most can say.
  12. "Has some skill; maybe not high-end skill." LOL
  13. If you go aggressive and fail, you're gone. It's why these guys are so conservative. Tim Murray knows what I'm talking about.
  14. Kid's' mom looks like Barbara Streisand. LOL
  • Create New...