Argument looking for answers

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Steve Yzerman. You cant discount him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think people simply confuse players who play defensively responsible and players who are strong defensively.
There is a difference.

 

[Sens Rule]

I think people simply confuse players who play defensively responsible and players who are strong defensively.
There is a difference.

Crosby is both.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Watching the Sens get crushed by Crosby in the playoffs last season, Crosby has a massive two way game. Crosby made the most important play in the series coming across from the boards to block a shot that was the turning point in the series. That was a defensive play that could only have been made by a player with superb anticipation of what was happening.

Crosby is right now a great 2-way force. Crosby keeps getting better in every aspect of the game. He has gone from average on faceoffs to among the best in the NHL. He has developed goal scoring. He has become a better and better defensive player each season.

I think over the next few seasons he gets even better in his 2-way game so he is in fact among the elites like Trottier and Clarke and Forsberg in this aspect of the game. He has not always been this good and he may not be there yet but I think he will be soon or he will be close to as good as the very best.

Rarely has a young player been able to keep improving at EVERYTHING season over season. Crosby is certainly very special.

I have to agree here and add something else in that Crosby is still only 23 years old and I can count on one hand the amount of players that have had his impact both ways by the age of 21 and in reality it includes only 2 other guys and Gretzky is rarely mentioned as a complete player.

He is on the fast track to being one of the top 5 players ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He is on the fast track to being one of the top 5 players ever.

It's possible, but he's hardly "on the fast track" to be universally considered better than Beliveau, Hull, Richard... or Ovechkin. It's certainly within the realistic realm of possibility, however.

 

[Big Phil]

It's possible, but he's hardly "on the fast track" to be universally considered better than Beliveau, Hull, Richard... or Ovechkin. It's certainly within the realistic realm of possibility, however.

Agree on that count for sure. It would surprise no one if Crosby ends up being the 5th best ever but that's a tall, tall order and will take a remarkably healthy and long career with insane peak value. Whether he can crack the top 4 remains to be seen. It will be difficult to see whether he can have the same career value as the top 4. Maybe Orr possibly

 

[Charlie McAdaddy]

It's not "easy." Depending on the factors you consider, it is a two man contest between Orr and Howe.

As for the OP, Lemieux was far better than Crosby offensively, but Crosby is more "complete" than Mario was, especially as a young player. Unless you are just talking about a complete offensive game, then Mario probably is #1 all-time.

well it's all opinion, and IMHO it is "easy". He was both the best offensive and defensive player in the league for pretty much his entire career.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Crosby is both.

I disagree, I honestly think you need to watch some Detroit games, watch Dats closely and then come back here and say that Sid's D is on the same level.
Sorry but there's a more than noticeable gap between the two.

 

[Scott1980]

I disagree, I honestly think you need to watch some Detroit games, watch Dats closely and then come back here and say that Sid's D is on the same level.
Sorry but there's a more than noticeable gap between the two.

Sid D IS getting better. Lets wait till he's around 32 and compare. Sid is getting to Dat's level, though.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's possible, but he's hardly "on the fast track" to be universally considered better than Beliveau, Hull, Richard... or Ovechkin. It's certainly within the realistic realm of possibility, however.

I'm curious as to why he isn't on the "fast track" as I put it.

Bobby Orr only had 4 more full season after Crosby's 6th season this year at age 23.

Crosby is 2 years younger than AO and they are both entering their 6th season and it's reasonable to expect that Crosby will finish with 2 more prime years than AO and is already considered the better, more complete player so far between the 2.

Quite simply only 2 players have the pedigree and accomplishment that Crosby has so far by the age of 23, Orr and Gretzky.

Barring injuries, I'm pretty comfortable putting him on the fast track to the top 5.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sid D IS getting better. Lets wait till he's around 32 and compare. Sid is getting to Dat's level, though.

Oh agreed, he certainly doesn't shirk his defensive responsibilities and he honestly does appear to be getting better.

The OP however, was about him being "The most complete player in history" which is a pretty ridiculous statement.
He isn't even the most complete player in the league right now.

As has been pointed out, this could change as Sid's career progresses and he moves up the list but certainly not right now.
That being said, I still don't believe he could ever be in the same class as Orr. Sorry but that's 40 years and counting of no one even being close to Orr's level on both sides of the puck.

 

[pappyline]

I'm curious as to why he isn't on the "fast track" as I put it.

Bobby Orr only had 4 more full season after Crosby's 6th season this year at age 23.

Crosby is 2 years younger than AO and they are both entering their 6th season and it's reasonable to expect that Crosby will finish with 2 more prime years than AO and is already considered the better, more complete player so far between the 2.

Quite simply only 2 players have the pedigree and accomplishment that Crosby has so far by the age of 23, Orr and Gretzky.

Barring injuries, I'm pretty comfortable putting him on the fast track to the top 5.

He would have to beat out Bobby Hull for #5 and it is interesting to compare their first 5 years since they were both 23 going into year 6. Hull started off slower with 2 quiet years but after 5 years-Hull had 2 AR's to Crosby's one, Hull had 2 Richard's to Crosby's one. Both had 2 first AS selections. Crosby has a Hart & Hull didn't but the Hart wasn't a best player award in Hull's day. Visually for sure Hull was the superior player. I give the edge to Hull and he certainly had a great career afterward. I think you are jumping the gun on Sid.

 

[Big Phil]

Quite simply only 2 players have the pedigree and accomplishment that Crosby has so far by the age of 23, Orr and Gretzky.

Agree pretty much with you except I have to say this..........Mario. His first 5 seasons still beat out Crosby's IMO, even though Mario only had the one playoff year

 

[Hardyvan123]

Agree pretty much with you except I have to say this..........Mario. His first 5 seasons still beat out Crosby's IMO, even though Mario only had the one playoff year

Mario has definitely been better stat wise but I'll give a slight edge to Crosby's playoff success and 2way play when comparing their 1st 5 years in the league. I can see a guy taking Mario, Wayne or Bobby though but there is no else else in the discussion up to the age of 22.

 

[shazariahl]

I would agree that Crosby is a more complete player than Lemieux. But he isn't a better player. Completeness is great, but it is often overrated. Hockey is a team sport, and as such you have others to compensate for where you are weak. When a player is as offensively talented as Lemieux or Gretzky, expecting them to block shots and fight is like asking a spinal surgeon to mop the floor after an opperation. Lemieux wasn't great defensively, but he far outshone Crosby offensively. If Crosby was consistantly winning scoring championships like Lemieux, maybe I'd care that he is better defensively, but he doesn't tower above his competition to the same degree that Lemieux did.

Some people mentioned Howe, who is an excellent choice. He dominated offensively to a degree only surpassed by Gretzky and possibly Lemieux (if you remove Gretzky from the equation, then certainly Lemieux) while playing a tough, physical game and being sound defensively (from all accounts, since I never got to watch him play until he was in the WHA). Orr, Trottier, and many others mentioned above were certainly more "complete" as well.

 

[pappyline]

Mario has definitely been better stat wise but I'll give a slight edge to Crosby's playoff success and 2way play when comparing their 1st 5 years in the league. I can see a guy taking Mario, Wayne or Bobby though but there is no else else in the discussion up to the age of 22.

If you are looking only at a player's first 5 years, Bobby Hull is certainly is in the discussion. What has Crosby accomplished in his first 5 years that would put him ahead of Hull?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you are looking only at a player's first 5 years, Bobby Hull is certainly is in the discussion. What has Crosby accomplished in his first 5 years that would put him ahead of Hull?

Wow, I didn't realize that Bobby Hull got started so young. That was really rare in the O6 days, correct?

I'm too young to see Hull play, but just from a statistical standpoint, I think Crosby has had the better start. Hull has 2 Art Rosses in his first 5 years (winning the goals title both years), but he was out of the Top 10 in points the other 3 times. Was Hull seen as an up and down player at that point in his career? He didn't consistently challenge for the scoring title until 63-64, his 7th year in the league (after which he was Top 6 in points for 6 straight years and won 5 of 6 goal scoring titles).

Crosby only has 1 Art Ross, but was Top 6 in points in 4 of 5 seasons, and Top 6 in points per game every season of his career so far.

 

[Steelhead16]

As much as I have never liked him Messier was far better than Crosby at least at this stage of his career. Crosby's book is far from written yet but the best ever is beyond a stretch. I would start a team with Clarke, Howe, Orr, Sakic or Yzerman as well before Crosby. The game is different now though so comparing apples for apples is probably impossible.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As much as I have never liked him Messier was far better than Crosby at least at this stage of his career. Crosby's book is far from written yet but the best ever is beyond a stretch. I would start a team with Clarke, Howe, Orr, Sakic or Yzerman as well before Crosby. The game is different now though so comparing apples for apples is probably impossible.

Messier, really? I always thought of him as a guy who actually peaked relatively late, around the age of 26.

Before then, he was never higher than 7th in points or points-per-game. Crosby has been 6th or better in points-per-game every season of his career.

I realize that Messier was a nastier, more complete player even at a young age, but how can he be "far better" if he's that far behind Crosby in offense?

 

[pappyline]

Wow, I didn't realize that Bobby Hull got started so young. That was really rare in the O6 days, correct?

I'm too young to see Hull play, but just from a statistical standpoint, I think Crosby has had the better start. Hull has 2 Art Rosses in his first 5 years (winning the goals title both years), but he was out of the Top 10 in points the other 3 times. Was Hull seen as an up and down player at that point in his career? He didn't consistently challenge for the scoring title until 63-64, his 7th year in the league (after which he was Top 6 in points for 6 straight years and won 5 of 6 goal scoring titles).

Crosby only has 1 Art Ross, but was Top 6 in points in 4 of 5 seasons, and Top 6 in points per game every season of his career so far.

Yep, Hull came in at 18 virtually unheralded. Mahovlich got all the press clippings. First two years he had 47 & 50 points which wasn't too shabby in those days. Took off & won 2 AR's in the next 3 years. Not sure why he fell back a bit in 60-61 but seem to remember him having a nagging injury that season

Agree that Crosby was more of an impact player on day one & he did win his only AR in year 2 but when you looking at the best players over their first 5 years, Hull is certainly up their with Crosby.

Gordie Howe came in at 18 also. First 3 years were not great but he took off in year 4 and won his first AR in year 5.

Have to remember that it was rare for 18 year olds to make it in the original 6 and teams were deep enough back then that it was hard for a young rookie to get first line minutes no matter what is talent level was. Not like today.

 

[Trottier]

I would agree that Crosby is a more complete player than Lemieux. But he isn't a better player.

Agree entirely.

Completeness is great, but it is often overrated. Hockey is a team sport, and as such you have others to compensate for where you are weak.

Disagree entirely. In fact, among some of the newer brand of NHL fan (misguided by the notion that personal offensive numbers alone are measure of a player), the 95% of the game that is played when the puck is not on one's blade is ignored, entirely. It's a sad, often pathetic, bastardization of the game, which one sees here (not on this board, thankfully) daily.

And no, if I am incapable of playing without the puck, in open space, positionally and do not work hard outside the offensive zone, you will not "compensate" for my weakness, certainly not entirely. A hockey player, at least based on my three+ decades of watching, playing and coaching the sport, is tasked with all areas of the ice, and multiple responsbilities EVERY SHIFT.

Now, not every player is going to be physical, or a great faceoff man, or great defensively, etc. But to suggest that a complete player is overrated is dubious to be kind. Forwards like Clarke, Trottier and Yzerman are considered among the best ever PRECISELY because they were able to contribute in multiple ways to every game. Read Bobby Clarke's comparison of Mike Richards vs. Jason Spezza a couple years back. He said that Spezza could only hurt you with the puck on his blade; he was a non-factor otherwise. Richards can hurt you in all areas of the ice, and impact a game thusly. In hockey circles, the latter is consider more valuable. That's "overrated"? Only in numerical-centic terms, not in real life hockey terms. Because all-around, at least in the case of Trottier and Yzerman, meant GREAT offensively, too.

Now, all that said...

When a player is as offensively talented as Lemieux or Gretzky, expecting them to block shots and fight is like asking a spinal surgeon to mop the floor after an opperation.

But that's the point! Among forwards (at least in the past 30+ years) , no forwards come close to those two offensively. As I say often, they transcended the game, dominated it exponentially compared to mere mortals. So, yes, the normal rules of the game do not apply to them. They apply to every other player.

(And Orr, who pre-dated both, was equally dominant offensively from the backline AND was a complete player...which is why some of us consider the best ever to step on frozen ice.)

Just my opinion.

 

[Big Phil]

If you are looking only at a player's first 5 years, Bobby Hull is certainly is in the discussion. What has Crosby accomplished in his first 5 years that would put him ahead of Hull?

Well you can start with comparison to the rest of the NHL

Top 10 scoring finishes (best to worst):

Hull - 1, 1, 13, 20, 21
Crosby - 1, 2, 3, 6, (outside the top 20, injured)

No doubt Crosby beats Hull for the first 5 years in the NHL.

Both won a Cup and had another run to the final. Crosby was at least as vital to that success if not more than Hull. Crosby won a Hart as well.

 

[Big Phil]

As much as I have never liked him Messier was far better than Crosby at least at this stage of his career. Crosby's book is far from written yet but the best ever is beyond a stretch. I would start a team with Clarke, Howe, Orr, Sakic or Yzerman as well before Crosby. The game is different now though so comparing apples for apples is probably impossible.

How is the game different now? It was hard in the original 6 for an 18 year old to dominate just like today. Let's count on our fingers the amount of 18 year olds in NHL history who made an impact and were considered in elite company with the NHL.

Crosby......Gretzky.......Orr.......maybe Hawerchuk if you want to be generous. That's all I can think of. Look at Stamkos as an 18 year old. He was nearly demoted to the minors, but now.......Thornton had three goals his rookie campaign. Lecavalier had 28 points as an 18 year old. Howe had 7 goals.

In all honesty Messier's first 5 years were not at the level of Crosby. It remains to be seen whether Crosby can withold his dominace and be as good as Messier was for his whole career but as for the first 5 years there is nothing Messier did that gives you the impression he was better than Crosby.

Orr you have a good case. Even Howe wasn't too bad his first 5 although he started slower than Crosby. But Clarke, Yzerman and Sakic? Not buying that. Clarke started rather slow as a 20 year old and then years 4 and 5 took off. Yzerman took off pretty good in year 5 butyear 6 was his true coming out party. Sakic was saddled with a bad team but his play from 1988-'93 is not close to what Crosby has done.

 

[shazariahl]

Agree entirely.



Disagree entirely. In fact, among some of the newer brand of NHL fan (misguided by the notion that personal offensive numbers alone are measure of a player), the 95% of the game that is played when the puck is not on one's blade is ignored, entirely. It's a sad, often pathetic, bastardization of the game, which one sees here (not on this board, thankfully) daily.

And no, if I am incapable of playing without the puck, in open space, positionally and do not work hard outside the offensive zone, you will not "compensate" for my weakness, certainly not entirely. A hockey player, at least based on my three+ decades of watching, playing and coaching the sport, is tasked with all areas of the ice, and multiple responsbilities EVERY SHIFT.

Now, not every player is going to be physical, or a great faceoff man, or great defensively, etc. But to suggest that a complete player is overrated is dubious to be kind. Forwards like Clarke, Trottier and Yzerman are considered among the best ever PRECISELY because they were able to contribute in multiple ways to every game. Read Bobby Clarke's comparison of Mike Richards vs. Jason Spezza a couple years back. He said that Spezza could only hurt you with the puck on his blade; he was a non-factor otherwise. Richards can hurt you in all areas of the ice, and impact a game thusly. In hockey circles, the latter is consider more valuable. That's "overrated"? Only in numerical-centic terms, not in real life hockey terms. Because all-around, at least in the case of Trottier and Yzerman, meant GREAT offensively, too.

Now, all that said...



But that's the point! Among forwards (at least in the past 30+ years) , no forwards come close to those two offensively. As I say often, they transcended the game, dominated it exponentially compared to mere mortals. So, yes, the normal rules of the game do not apply to them. They apply to every other player.

(And Orr, who pre-dated both, was equally dominant offensively from the backline AND was a complete player...which is why some of us consider the best ever to step on frozen ice.)

Just my opinion.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said completeness is often overrated. What I meant was that if one player is clearly dominant at something (in this case, offense, but defense is just as compelling) it doesn't matter to me *as much* that he may not be strong everywhere else. I agree that being complete is better than NOT being complete. And when two players are roughly equal, the more complete player should obviously win.

What I meant was that I don't think being "more complete" is enough to compensate for glaring imbalances. Remember, this started with Crosby vs Lemieux. Obviously Crosby is more complete, but he is clearly not the BETTER player, as you agreed.

I guess where I differ from you is that I don't think Gretzky and Lemieux are the only ones who get a pass due to their greatness offensively. Jagr is as highly rated as he is because of offense, same with Bure, same with many others. Do I rank them higher than Crosby? Jagr probably right now... not so much with Bure.

Point is that a player can be great at many aspects of the game. The more aspects, the more complete, and the more highly regarded that player is. But Crosby hasn't yet reach the offensive levels of dominance that some of these others have, so he isn't (at least to me) in the realms of "well, he's better than Jagr because he is more complete". His primary focus is to score points, something Jagr dominated at more to this point in Crosby's career. His better D, at least to me, doesn't make up for that compared to Jagr, so it obviously doesn't come close to Lemieux.

And for the record, I agree about Orr. He and Howe are probably the most complete players of all time. But personally I still rank Gretzky as number 1, despite a lack of completeness there as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sakic was saddled with a bad team but his play from 1988-'93 is not close to what Crosby has done.

Careful Phil, it's sacrilege around here to knock on Sakic in any way even when true