Sabres Development Camp

[beerme1]

The problem there is that Gretzky was significantly better than Crosby

I have heard sober hockey people comparing McDavid to Gretzky.

 

 

McDavid is better than Gretzky.

 

 

 

 

Drops mic. Seeks shelter.

[3putt]

Any word on a possible stream of the scrimmage?  I thought they streamed it last year.

[Hoss]

Any word on a possible stream of the scrimmage? I thought they streamed it last year.

Team said that won't be streaming it this year as of this morning but that could change.

[wjag]

As a "rookie" (1st NHL season, entered as an 18 year old) he tied for the league lead in points (137) with Dionne, 12 points ahead of Lafleur and 31 point ahead of #4 Perreault.

 

The next year, his 164 was 29 better than Dionne.

 

'81-'82, when he shattered the NHL record of 76 goals and the NA pro record of 77 goals with his 92 goals, (Bossy was 2nd that year with 64), he also became the 1st (and only) man (not named Gretzky) to break 200 points with 212. Bossy was runner-up that year with 147 points. His 120 assists were 11 more than his prior best of 109 and 18 more than some punk named Orr had managed several years earlier. Stastny was 2nd with 93 assists.

 

Anyone thinking Gretzky was a product of his linemates/ teammates, Anderson was 11th in league scoring with 105 and no other Euler was top 20.

 

'82-'83, Gretzky "slumped" to 196 points, but #2 that year was Stastny with 124. His 71 goals was only 5 more than Lanny McDonald's 66, but he had 125 assists (yes, 1 more assist than the Art Ross runner up had total points). (In fairness, there were 5 Eulers in the top 15 that year, but that didn't change the fact that he scored 50% more than anybody else in the league and the Euler's #2 scorer was still in 7th overall 90 points behind Gretzky.)

 

'83-'84, Gretzky was back over the 200 pt plateau at 205, 79 more than runner-up Coffee and 84 more than Goulet's 121. Once again scoring more than 50% more than #2; but missing by 8 having as many assists as #2 had points (118 vs 126). Had 87 goals when nobody else broke 60 (7 scored between 51 & 56).

 

'84-'85, he had 208 w/ 135 assists, Kurri had 135 points and Hawerchuk had 130. Gretzky led the league with 73 goals, Kurri had 71, and Bossy had 58. He was still getting 50% more points than anyone else.

 

'85-'86, he had a career best 215, again more than 50% better than the runner-up Lemieux (141). ONLY 52 goals, but an astounding 163 assists. (Yes, better than 2 assists per game.)

 

'86-'87, he slumped all the way to 183, but that was an even higher percentage of #2's 108.

 

In '87-'88, someone not named Gretzky finally won the Art Ross again. Lemieux's 168 topped his 149, which was 18 better than Denis Savard's 131. BTW, Wayne only played 64 games that year. Had he been healthy all year, the streak would have continued.

 

As good as Syd was/is, he's never dominated the way Gretzky did.

 

 

Damn those are some gaudy stats.  I watched him play and still I had forgotten how good he really was.

[TrueBlueGED]

His point total isn't the point of contention though, it's the disparity in them relative to the rest of te league

You can't have one without the other. If the argument is Gretzky could maintain his percentage lead over the next highest scorer in today's game, then his total points would have had to be in the 130 range last year. I don't think he would do that regularly in today's game.

When Gretzky was at his peak, he outpaced his contemporaries by 50% to 80% -- ie he would score 200+ points and the 2nd-place guy would have around 130.

 

There's never been a hockey player remotely like him.

 

I'm not going to get into an unprovable argument about how many points Gretzky would put up today, but I will say that I take issue with the tendency to assume that the best player in any given mini-era (10 years or so) is in the ballpark with the GOAT. LeBron isn't nearly as good as Jordan was, Tyson wasn't nearly as good as Ali was and Crosby sho' 'nuff isn't nearly as good as Gretzky was.

I take issue with the idea that the best are untouchable simply because they've been regarded as such for an extended period of time. Sometimes it feels like any challenge to the all-timers is taken as sacrilege and rejected without thought.

[Trettioåtta]

You can't have one without the other. If the argument is Gretzky could maintain his percentage lead over the next highest scorer in today's game, then his total points would have had to be in the 130 range last year. I don't think he would do that regularly in today's game.

 

I take issue with the idea that the best are untouchable simply because they've been regarded as such for an extended period of time. Sometimes it feels like any challenge to the all-timers is taken as sacrilege and rejected without thought.

 

Is there another sport where, statistically speaking, the regarded number 1 is so much better than the number 2?

[TrueBlueGED]

As a "rookie" (1st NHL season, entered as an 18 year old) he tied for the league lead in points (137) with Dionne, 12 points ahead of Lafleur and 31 point ahead of #4 Perreault.

 

The next year, his 164 was 29 better than Dionne.

 

'81-'82, when he shattered the NHL record of 76 goals and the NA pro record of 77 goals with his 92 goals, (Bossy was 2nd that year with 64), he also became the 1st (and only) man (not named Gretzky) to break 200 points with 212. Bossy was runner-up that year with 147 points. His 120 assists were 11 more than his prior best of 109 and 18 more than some punk named Orr had managed several years earlier. Stastny was 2nd with 93 assists.

 

Anyone thinking Gretzky was a product of his linemates/ teammates, Anderson was 11th in league scoring with 105 and no other Euler was top 20.

 

'82-'83, Gretzky "slumped" to 196 points, but #2 that year was Stastny with 124. His 71 goals was only 5 more than Lanny McDonald's 66, but he had 125 assists (yes, 1 more assist than the Art Ross runner up had total points). (In fairness, there were 5 Eulers in the top 15 that year, but that didn't change the fact that he scored 50% more than anybody else in the league and the Euler's #2 scorer was still in 7th overall 90 points behind Gretzky.)

 

'83-'84, Gretzky was back over the 200 pt plateau at 205, 79 more than runner-up Coffee and 84 more than Goulet's 121. Once again scoring more than 50% more than #2; but missing by 8 having as many assists as #2 had points (118 vs 126). Had 87 goals when nobody else broke 60 (7 scored between 51 & 56).

 

'84-'85, he had 208 w/ 135 assists, Kurri had 135 points and Hawerchuk had 130. Gretzky led the league with 73 goals, Kurri had 71, and Bossy had 58. He was still getting 50% more points than anyone else.

 

'85-'86, he had a career best 215, again more than 50% better than the runner-up Lemieux (141). ONLY 52 goals, but an astounding 163 assists. (Yes, better than 2 assists per game.)

 

'86-'87, he slumped all the way to 183, but that was an even higher percentage of #2's 108.

 

In '87-'88, someone not named Gretzky finally won the Art Ross again. Lemieux's 168 topped his 149, which was 18 better than Denis Savard's 131. BTW, Wayne only played 64 games that year. Had he been healthy all year, the streak would have continued.

 

As good as Syd was/is, he's never dominated the way Gretzky did.

I simply don't believe dominance to that degree is possible in today's game. Gretzky very well still may do better than Crosby has done, but the days of scoring 50-70% more points than second place are over IMO.

[Hoss]

I take issue with the idea that the best are untouchable simply because they've been regarded as such for an extended period of time. Sometimes it feels like any challenge to the all-timers is taken as sacrilege and rejected without thought.

I agree with this a ton. I don't believe Jordan is the untouchable force many think he is. However, I do think Gretzky is. Statistically there isn't anybody that you even look at and think "almost." I think it's silly to talk Gretzky when a kid hasn't played a game yet. Give it a few years before you consider that conversation.

[TrueBlueGED]

Is there another sport where, statistically speaking, the regarded number 1 is so much better than the number 2?

Off the cuff, I'll say no.

[dudacek]

I simply don't believe dominance to that degree is possible in today's game. Gretzky very well still may do better than Crosby has done, but the days of scoring 50-70% more points than second place are over IMO.

 

Glad Taro did all the work for me.

Those days are over because there is no one as clearly dominant as Gretzky.

[585Buffalo]

Speaking of pictures from camp, here's an Eichel gallery (he looks really weird in some of them)

http://galleries.buffalonews.com/default.aspx?id=4525#/0

 

Hahaha he sure doesn't have the face of a savior of the franchise... Does he?

[Taro T]

I simply don't believe dominance to that degree is possible in today's game. Gretzky very well still may do better than Crosby has done, but the days of scoring 50-70% more points than second place are over IMO.

Approaching 70% - yeah, if anything close to that happens again in my lifeftime, I'd be shocked.

 

But until Crosby got 104 to Getzlaf's 87, you probably wouldn't have expected somebody to come within a whisker of being 20% ahead of the pack today.

 

Wouldn't want any money on it, especially with McDavid and Eichel both coming in the league together, but I would not be shocked to see somebody dominate the competition by 30-40%. 50%, it's not likely, but remotely possible. I could absolutely see Gretzky ending up around 120 regularly in today's game. Nobody has ever seen the game like he did.

 

Btw, not making ANY prediction on where McDavid and Eichel top out. But they're still young enough and there's enough variance in how their paths will go, that they could end up very special.

[That Aud Smell]

It is fairly impossible to compare Gretzky to Crosby, just by way of an example.

 

I've said it many times around here: When you watch highlights from the late 70s and well into the 80s, it's astonishing how un-athletic the d-men generally appear, and how lightly equipped the goalies are. So many things have changed.

 

I still take the view that 99 was/is the greatest. 

Nobody has ever seen the game like [99] did.

 

I think this is right.

[Doohickie]

STOP POSTING ABOUT GRETZKY

 

This is a thread about development camp.  You wanna talk about who was the greatest, start a new thread!

[drnkirishone]

So who is the greatest ever at a sabres development camp?

[LGR4GM]

So who is the greatest ever at a sabres development camp?

Jack Eichel.

 

 

Keep seeing reports that Reinhart is looking very good as well.  Any updates from people?

[WildCard]

STOP POSTING ABOUT GRETZKY

 

This is a thread about development camp.  You wanna talk about who was the greatest, start a new thread!

To be fair I had to sift through a page of domestic issues in the Bill's thread as well. It happens

[wjag]

STOP POSTING ABOUT GRETZKY

 

This is a thread about development camp.  You wanna talk about who was the greatest, start a new thread!

 

 

So who is the greatest ever at a sabres development camp?

 

 

I might be mis-remembering things, but I don't think GRETZKY was ever in Sabres Development Camp.  Maybe others remember.

[shrader]

Approaching 70% - yeah, if anything close to that happens again in my lifeftime, I'd be shocked.

 

But until Crosby got 104 to Getzlaf's 87, you probably wouldn't have expected somebody to come within a whisker of being 20% ahead of the pack today.

 

Wouldn't want any money on it, especially with McDavid and Eichel both coming in the league together, but I would not be shocked to see somebody dominate the competition by 30-40%. 50%, it's not likely, but remotely possible. I could absolutely see Gretzky ending up around 120 regularly in today's game. Nobody has ever seen the game like he did.

 

Btw, not making ANY prediction on where McDavid and Eichel top out. But they're still young enough and there's enough variance in how their paths will go, that they could end up very special.

 

You won't find anyone who is more in awe of Gretzky's number than me.  No one will ever be able to convince me that he wasn't the greatest of all time (whatever that means).  But I do think that the best players of today are facing a much more balanced field of contemporaries than Wayne ever did.  There are more good hockey players today than there were back then.  What's going to make this McEichel thing so special (if they pan out) is that they came in together and will forever be compared (again, if they pan out).  Gretzky didn't really have that.  Hopefully this thing winds up being like if Gretzky and Lemieux were the same exact age and had entered the league together (and stayed healthy).  It would be a great time for the game of hockey.

I might be mis-remembering things, but I don't think GRETZKY was ever in Sabres Development Camp.  Maybe others remember.

 

Did they have development camps back then?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2034

[Eleven]

You won't find anyone who is more in awe of Gretzky's number than me.  No one will ever be able to convince me that he wasn't the greatest of all time (whatever that means).  But I do think that the best players of today are facing a much more balanced field of contemporaries than Wayne ever did.  There are more good hockey players today than there were back then.  What's going to make this McEichel thing so special (if they pan out) is that they came in together and will forever be compared (again, if they pan out).  Gretzky didn't really have that.  Hopefully this thing winds up being like if Gretzky and Lemieux were the same exact age and had entered the league together (and stayed healthy).  It would be a great time for the game of hockey.

 

Did they have development camps back then?

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2034

 

Partially to ###### with Neuvirth's Glove with further derailleur of this thread, and partially out of curiosity, how many "wrong" brothers have the Sabres had?

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of Gretzky, Primeau, and Niedermayer.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Eleven

[WildCard]

Partially to ###### with Neuvirth's Glove with further derailleur of this thread, and partially out of curiosity, how many "wrong" brothers have the Sabres had?

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of Gretzky, Primeau, and Niedermayer.

Foligno 

[Eleven]

Foligno 

 

Definitely.  Within seconds, too.

[Taro T]

Partially to ###### with Neuvirth's Glove with further derailleur of this thread, and partially out of curiosity, how many "wrong" brothers have the Sabres had?

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of Gretzky, Primeau, and Niedermayer.

Dryden immediately springs to mind.

[shrader]

Partially to ###### with Neuvirth's Glove with further derailleur of this thread, and partially out of curiosity, how many "wrong" brothers have the Sabres had?

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of Gretzky, Primeau, and Niedermayer.

 

There's a whole clan of Biegas that have gone through Harvard.  Ours probably won't wind up as the best of a group of mediocre pros.  Then there was Andrew Orpik.

 

Can we branch off to crappy offspring?  Dylan Hunter springs to mind.  (Paging LGR) Hopefully Reinhart rescues us from this one.

 

 

edit:  Oh, and the lesser Pandolfo brother, Mike.

Edited July 8, 2015 by shrader

[dudacek]

I hear Reinhart was passing like Gretzky in line rushes today.

And had similar upper-body strength and skating ability.