Connor McDavid will go down as the 2nd best player of all-time

[Nemesis Prime]

McMuffin was outplayed by Makar in the conference final & it really wasn't even close. Crosby was gifted back-to-back Conn Smythes. Keep trying.

ftfy

 

[Slats432]

ftfy

Why do I read this post like this?

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

edit
Cups? Seriously? So now being the "GOAT" requires you to be saddled with a good GM and coach? This board has actually become dumber over the years

For me, the reason that Stanley Cup wins are so important to a players legacy is because every team and every player is playing each season for that one reason, to win the Cup. So, if you fail to do so, or do so less frequently, that will of course affect your legacy.
It's for this same reason that I believe the Conn Smythe trophy should carry far more weight than any regular season trophy.

You can bring up the team aspect of winning the Stanley Cup, and of course that's accurate - but guess what a team consists of? The players. And winning as a team goes beyond just goals and assists on a scoresheet. People often bristle at the mention of intangibles since advanced stats became a thing, but being part of a winning team and what goes into it from every individual player is hard to equate. Hence, winning the Stanley Cup absolutely is a good measure of "greatness" in a player.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

For me, the reason that Stanley Cup wins are so important to a players legacy is because every team and every player is playing each season for that one reason, to win the Cup. So, if you fail to do so, or do so less frequently, that will of course affect your legacy.
It's for this same reason that I believe the Conn Smythe trophy should carry far more weight than any regular season trophy.

You can bring up the team aspect of winning the Stanley Cup, and of course that's accurate - but guess what a team consists of? The players. And winning as a team goes beyond just goals and assists on a scoresheet. People often bristle at the mention of intangibles since advanced stats became a thing, but being part of a winning team and what goes into it from every individual player is hard to equate. Hence, winning the Stanley Cup absolutely is a good measure of "greatness" in a player.

This is a reasonably balanced and thoughtful post I can get behind.

While I do believe that we are capable of separating the skill and ability of an player as an individual, the true greatest of all time all share the lifting of the Cup in common.

That said, what if when he is 38 and 39 he signs with the Bruins as a peripheral, 45 point player and wins two Cups with them as a third line player? Does that somehow cement his legacy more than maybe becoming the second or third highest scorer of all time with no Cups?

I'm not sure. I have to think about that one for a year or two.

 

[Video Nasty]

If we’re 15 years deep into his career and it is marked with repeated postseason collapses, I think it’s fair at that point to criticize.

I expect him to win a Cup well before it comes to that and it could be as early as a few months from now.

 

[Weztex]

I grew up watching both of them and McDavid is far, far, far more skilled then either. On the 80's/90's he would be hitting 300+ every year.

If he went back exactly like he is today he would score 600 points a year. No joke.

No, McDavid is actually a brutal player. There's no way he'd make a NHL lineup in 2123.

See any problem with that reasoning?

 

[Dust]

No, McDavid is actually a brutal player. There's no way he makes a NHL lineup in 2123.

See any problem with that reasoning?

He'd be dead, so yes.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No, McDavid is actually a brutal player. There's no way he makes a NHL lineup in 2123.

See any problem with that reasoning?

I actually think we're much closer to "peak human performance" today than say 100 years ago. The developments in the next 100 years will continue with training and such, but I think 2023 players will be much closer to 2123 players than 1923 players were to 2023 players. Players are already "totally committed", training hard from extremely young ages, incorporating technology into their training, focusing on dieting and maintaining healthy styles... with all the incentive in the world due to player salaries.

The skates and sticks may be better in 100 years, but I don't know how much more actual room there is to grow as opposed to just refining the edges and stuff.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If we’re 15 years deep into his career and it is marked with repeated postseason collapses, I think it’s fair at that point to criticize.

I expect him to win a Cup well before it comes to that and it could be as early as a few months from now.

Lmao yeah right. Oilers are lucky they are in the west. Will get smoked by any of the good east teams. There run last year was a joke

 

[Video Nasty]

Lmao yeah right. Oilers are lucky they are in the west. Will get smoked by any of the good east teams. There run last year was a joke

Stranger things have happened. If they can catch a wave of solid netminding, anything can happen.

You’re definitely one of the most open-minded and least biased posters here, so maybe you’re on to something though.

 

[Garbageyuk]

BINGO! Now you are getting it. That's the true marker. Always has been. However, I don't see McMuffin as capable of leading a team to a Cup, so it'll be a moot point. Which is why I have no issue saying Ovechkin is a far better captain than McMuffin.

You don’t seem biased at all, and this is totally about Cups and not that you’re bitter about McDavid being better than Crosby ever was.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Stranger things have happened. If they can catch a wave of solid netminding, anything can happen.

You’re definitely one of the most open-minded and least biased posters here, so maybe you’re on to something though.

Coming from you that means the world

 

[Dust]

You know your thread has been certified gold when it manages to attract edog fresh from the history of hockey forum.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I'm not even an Oilers fan but the lengths people will go to try and downplay McDavid's accomplishments is always entertaining.

 

[Svencouver]

If he went back exactly like he is today he would score 600 points a year. No joke.

I think this is the strongest argument in the thread so far

 

[Garbageyuk]

For me, the reason that Stanley Cup wins are so important to a players legacy is because every team and every player is playing each season for that one reason, to win the Cup. So, if you fail to do so, or do so less frequently, that will of course affect your legacy.
It's for this same reason that I believe the Conn Smythe trophy should carry far more weight than any regular season trophy.

You can bring up the team aspect of winning the Stanley Cup, and of course that's accurate - but guess what a team consists of? The players. And winning as a team goes beyond just goals and assists on a scoresheet. People often bristle at the mention of intangibles since advanced stats became a thing, but being part of a winning team and what goes into it from every individual player is hard to equate. Hence, winning the Stanley Cup absolutely is a good measure of "greatness" in a player.

No it isn’t. Nobody wins a Cup by themself. A player can’t “will” their team to a Cup; that’s a myth. It’s never happened - a team with one great player winning the Cup due to that player’s abilities. The closest was Probably when Hasek and the Sabres went to the final in ‘99. Not even the greatest goaltender in history could do it. Hasek never won until he was past his prime, i.e., a lesser version of Hasek did what prime Hasek couldn’t. I’ll let you take a guess why.

Conversely, Antti Niemi, a goaltender most fans have probably already forgotten existed, won a Cup in his second season in the NHL. Was he better than prime Hasek? Again, I’ll let you decide.

It really is that simple and it’s pretty straightforward logic, but I guess not for some.

 

[Svencouver]

For me, the reason that Stanley Cup wins are so important to a players legacy is because every team and every player is playing each season for that one reason, to win the Cup. So, if you fail to do so, or do so less frequently, that will of course affect your legacy.
It's for this same reason that I believe the Conn Smythe trophy should carry far more weight than any regular season trophy.

You can bring up the team aspect of winning the Stanley Cup, and of course that's accurate - but guess what a team consists of? The players. And winning as a team goes beyond just goals and assists on a scoresheet. People often bristle at the mention of intangibles since advanced stats became a thing, but being part of a winning team and what goes into it from every individual player is hard to equate. Hence, winning the Stanley Cup absolutely is a good measure of "greatness" in a player.

I think intangibles are part of what made MJ and Duncan so special in the NBA. The spurs were really, more than any other team I can remember, defined by organizational culture - and that came from Timmy.

Someone like Shaq was primarily defined by their possession of a completely game breaking aspect that could not be defended. For Shaq it was size - and arguably, for McDavid, it's speed. Shaq is arguably the single most dominant athlete in NBA history - but he's not in most top 5s behind those other guys who scored less than him because they were better at winning and doing the extra things required *for* winning.

I think LeBron has some pretty strong intangibles too, fwiw. They were the difference between his embarrassment vs the Mavs vs his championship vs the warriors. Cultivating winning matters. Even in a more individual, star driven league like the NBA: team sports just necessarily will always involve those interpersonal soft skills. Anyone that's ever played one can tell you that.

 

[Rehabguy]

I watched the some of the great ones play in my teens on a regular basis, Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy. As much as I like to think that the greatest players to have ever played the game wore an Islander uniform there is no doubt in my mind that McDavid is the greatest forward to have every played this game. There is no weakness at all to his offensive abilities all of which appear to be off the charts. The skating, the shooting, the passing, the puck handling, the creativity, vision, hockey IQ. Sure, Gretzky could dipsy doodle, thread pin-point passes, beat goaltenders with his stickhandling and dekes, but he was not the greatest shooter now particular strong on his skates. Ovechkin and Bossy had those quick accurate releases. Lemieux was strong, had a great wrist shot and a phenomenal passer with high hockey IQ. McDavid takes all the best traits of the best who have ever played the game and mastered all of them. I remember when he first entered the league I tried hard to find a weakness so that no Oiler fan could call him the greatest to ever play the game in homage to the old timers that preceded him. I criticized him for always beating the goaltenders 1 on 1 with fakes and dekes but he never shot the puck. Now he does that with deadly accuracy and a quick release. He's amazing. Yeah, in my book he will definitely go down as the greatest forward to have ever played the game. The "Greatest One".

 

[Kranix]

But the best and greatest player to play the sport of hockey is Mario Lemieux

I love Mario but I doubt dat very moch

 

[Weztex]

I actually think we're much closer to "peak human performance" today than say 100 years ago. The developments in the next 100 years will continue with training and such, but I think 2023 players will be much closer to 2123 players than 1923 players were to 2023 players. Players are already "totally committed", training hard from extremely young ages, incorporating technology into their training, focusing on dieting and maintaining healthy styles... with all the incentive in the world due to player salaries.

The skates and sticks may be better in 100 years, but I don't know how much more actual room there is to grow as opposed to just refining the edges and stuff.

But isn't refining the edges what we've been doing in the last 100 years?

I mean, a peak Jagr played against a 1st all star team Bourque. A 1st all star team Bourque played against a 50 years old Gordie Howe. Howe was a rookie in 1946! A guy who started 77 years ago is one degree of separation removed from a guy still playing pro today... that's a testament to how slow refining the edges really was.

100 years of tweaking will always result in a massive difference on the sport as a whole. I can see it getting slower and more precise, resulting in a much wider field of elite player and thus becoming much harder to dominate. But there's absolutely no doubt that 100 years from now, tons of guys on HFBoards will laugh at how horrible hockey was and how players didn't know how to play back in 2023.

If the site's not down for a server change.

 

[Voight]

You'd think McDavid was 38 and at the tail end of his career the way people talk about his lack of championships.

He's 26 and 7 1/2 seasons into his career. Pump the brakes.

Yzerman was 32 when he finally lifted the cup. Stamkos was 30. Ovechkin 33. Not all great players win right away.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

You'd think McDavid was 38 and at the tail end of his career the way people talk about his lack of championships.

He's 26 and 7 1/2 seasons into his career. Pump the brakes.

Yzerman was 32 when he finally lifted the cup. Stamkos was 30. Ovechkin 33. Not all great players win right away.

Both Yzerman and Ovechkin were criticized for being underachievers before they finally won it all.

Definitely was unfair, but it is what it is. Until McDavid lifts the Cup, it will remain a hole in his resume. A hole that Ovechkin and Yzerman filled. Heck, even Raymond Bourque.

Like it or not, winning the ultimate prize is a huge legacy enhancer. Fair or not.

 

[Voight]

Both Yzerman and Ovechkin were criticized for being underachievers before they finally won it all.

Definitely was unfair, but it is what it is. Until McDavid lifts the Cup, it will remain a hole in his resume. A hole that Ovechkin and Yzerman filled. Heck, even Raymond Bourque.

Like it or not, winning the ultimate prize is a huge legacy enhancer. Fair or not.

Sure. But he's got lots of time. People need to chill.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Sure. But he's got lots of time. People need to chill.

Hey, I sure hope he does win one. He is a great player and he deserves to get some legacy moments like other greats have.

I think it is sad that he never got to represent Canada at the senior level either. I want to see McDavid be center to an important Canadian hockey moment.

 

[Voight]

Hey, I sure hope he does win one. He is a great player and he deserves to get some legacy moments like other greats have.

I think it is sad that he never got to represent Canada at the senior level either. I want to see McDavid be center to an important Canadian hockey moment.

At this point he'll be almost 30 before he does so. Sucks.

Already missed out on 2 Olympics, tho as long as Gary & Co don't play any games (no pun intended) we should be able to see him in at least 2 Olympics.

Pronger played in 4 Olympics, which is a record for a Canadian NHL player - McDavid would've likely tied or maybe even broken that record. (2018, 2022, 2026, 2030, 2034)