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

[Coffey]

Can we start using our brains, eyes & intuition to evaluate players?

No.
Just look at any social media post about McDavid and a gaggle of tards will say "How many cups?"

 

[Frank Drebin]

No.
Just look at any social media post about McDavid and a gaggle of tards will say "How many cups?"

It has zero to do with legacy or perceived legacy.

Its the only "criticism" they have left and are desperately hanging on to.

The longer McDavids career goes on, and the further these people insist on cup wins, the dumber their opinions will look in hindsight. I pay them zero mind.

 

[Lshap]

When it comes to discussions of "the greats", things are far more narrative-driven than they are about the eye test or the quality of the player in question. It's like those mythological tales about great conquerors/kings where the story/appeal retroactively defines the reality of the situation. I personally hope McDavid wins a cup because players like that belong in history and in the same conversations as other champions. But if he doesn't win one, I'm not gonna lie to myself and say "he didn't do enough" or pretend players on better rosters should be ranked above him. Honestly, I'm starting to think the word "great" should be removed from conversations about top 5/10/25/50 players. Saying "Connor McDavid is a top 5 player of all time based on his dominance/career achievements" just sounds right. Greatness however is a bit more complicated and conditional.

I agree. Greatness is complicated because it includes intangibles. McDavid's talent is unquestionable – he's already in the top-5 based on his individual performance – but does he inspire? Does he lead? Does he make teammates play harder? Is his contribution to the team more than the sum of his goals and assists? We can't see those intangibles, but anyone who's ever worked in a team knows their value.

Crosby ticks those boxes and, as Captain, earns extra credit for his teams' results. It doesn't make him a better player than McDavid, but it may make him 'greater' in the narrative sense you mentioned. McDavid may be every bit the leader Crosby has been, but until he gets team results he doesn't earn the narrative that elevates the best players into great leaders.

 

[Video Nasty]

"The great ones find a way to win"

Howe - He found a way to win by beating the other 5 teams in the league. Yes, he had a 17% chance, at random (per season), of being on the Stanley Cup-winning team, but that's not why he won. He won because he is great. His first Cup was a sign of true greatness, when he played 1 game and scored 0 goals and 0 assists. Take notes Connor, that's how you get it done.

Gretzky - Against all odds he found a way to win despite only having 5 HOF teammates and playing for a literal dynasty. For some reason, when he went to a different team at the prime age of 28, he was never able to win again. Maybe greatness doesn't travel well?

Lemiuex - He found a way to win coincidently right after Ron Francis and Paul Coffey & Jagr joined the team. For some reason, he had only made the playoffs once in the 6 seasons prior to that. But as soon as he had 5 HOF teammates, his greatness was able to flourish.

Orr - He found a way to win, which is probably not surprising since he was the best talent the game had ever seen and had the 2nd best player in the league at that time on his team. The Bruins were the top team in the league 4 times during his run of 8 straight Norris trophies, despite that he only won 2 Cups. You would think his greatness + those circumstances would have meant 5-6 Cups, but I guess greatness works in mysterious ways.

Can we start using our brains, eyes & intuition to evaluate players? Because everything screams transcendent talent when I watch Connor McDavid play hockey, and frankly the idea that he needs to "win" to be truly great I find offensive because of how stupid it is.

Other than some of the wording on the Gretzky bit, spot on.

 

[DearDiary]

The cup winning argument doesn't apply here. It's not a situation like Ovechkin on the Capitals where they failed in years where they had a stacked roster. Everyone including most of the media and players knows the Oilers have a terrible roster and are carried by 2 players. Everyone knows the only way the Oilers win a playoff round is if McDavid puts up 2 ppg and even that isn't guaranteed. The issue is 20 years after McDavid retires where arguments like that fade and people question McDavids leadership.

My personal opinion is that the biggest reason for the Oilers failure of success is stacking lines. Draisaitl, McDavid and RNH should be run on 3 separate lines at all times. Putting them together at any point other than the end of a period or to catch the other teams worst players on an icing should not happen. It's stat padding and hurts the team.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think 77 was a different case, bourque played on Bruins teams that were close enough but ended up bailing bailing because he couldn’t seal the deal. That severely altered how I viewed his career in totality . I’m not arguing his contributions to Colorado weren’t instrumental, but looking at his whole career from a bigger perspective it just looked like a legacy move to put the icing on a career that was largely defined by regular season accolades. I say all this as life long bruins, born and raised in greater Boston area so I’m not particularly fond of hating on bruins players as general rule, but bourque leaving the way he did has always bothered me. I’ll freely admit my perspective is probably a little jaded on this . I think I’ll always look negatively on great pro athletes that cash in their chips at the end of their careers for a lay up championship.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't think we agree, but at least I see where you're coming from.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

but does he inspire? Does he lead? Does he make teammates play harder? Is his contribution to the team more than the sum of his goals and assists?

Do all teams with an "inspiring" captain automatically win the Cup?

Was Iginla not "inspiring" enough?

 

[jcs0218]

So you think if Hasek didn't end up on one of the greatest teams ever assembled we'd look differently at his career?

There were definitely people who had negative judgements about Hasek in regards to his no Stanley Cup wins prior to 2002.

He wasn't viewed at Roy's level in terms of all-time ranking until he finally won the Stanley Cup in 2002.

So winning a Stanley Cup was definitely important in shaping his legacy.

 

[Coffey]

Was Iginla not "inspiring" enough?

lol It's hilarious how easy it is to blow up peoples terrible opinions with simple history like that.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

The cup winning argument doesn't apply here. It's not a situation like Ovechkin on the Capitals where they failed in years where they had a stacked roster. Everyone including most of the media and players knows the Oilers have a terrible roster and are carried by 2 players. Everyone knows the only way the Oilers win a playoff round is if McDavid puts up 2 ppg and even that isn't guaranteed. The issue is 20 years after McDavid retires where arguments like that fade and people question McDavids leadership.

My personal opinion is that the biggest reason for the Oilers failure of success is stacking lines. Draisaitl, McDavid and RNH should be run on 3 separate lines at all times. Putting them together at any point other than the end of a period or to catch the other teams worst players on an icing should not happen. It's stat padding and hurts the team.

quite possibly the dumbest take in this thread

 

[jcs0218]

Every other all-time great has had winning a Stanley Cup a part of judging their all-time legacy, whether it has been fair or not.

As recently has 6 years ago, Ovechkin was getting criticized for not ever having won the Stanley Cup.

And I can guarantee you that Crosby's career would be looked at differently now if he had never won the Stanley Cup.

So why should McDavid get special treatment?

 

[Lshap]

Do all teams with an "inspiring" captain automatically win the Cup?

Was Iginla not "inspiring" enough?

Obviously no one can inspire a bad team to a Cup. The best leaders still need the horses. I'm not penalizing McDavid for intangibles I can't see nor judge. I'm giving extra marks for players who make their team better by their presence and leadership style. Crosby came to mind because of an earlier comment about him. He's not a better player than McDavid, but he may be a greater one.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Every other all-time great has had winning a Stanley Cup a part of judging their all-time legacy, whether it has been fair or not.

As recently has 6 years ago, Ovechkin was getting criticized for not ever having won the Stanley Cup.

And I can guarantee you that Crosby's career would be looked at differently now if he had never won the Stanley Cup.

So why should McDavid get special treatment?

Ovechkin was criticized because his teams "choked" in the playoffs. The capitals won THREE presidents trophies as the best team in the regular season prior to finally breaking through in 2018.

That criticism was warranted.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Patrick Roy, the greatest "money" goalie of all time played on teams ranked

7 (won cup)
5
2
2
4
6
5
6 (won cup)
9
2 (won cup)
2
1
7
4
9
1 (won cup)
4
6

Out of his 18 seasons in the league, he played behind a top 6 team in the league for 14 of them. 75% of his career he played for a legitimate cup contender. Not one season did he play on a team that wasn't top 10 in the league.

Crosby's career looks similar as well.

29th
10th
5th
8th (won cup)
8th
3rd
4th
2nd
6th
15th
4th (won cup)
2nd (won cup)
10th
9th
7th
5th
12th
20th

7/18 times the pens finished top 5 in the league. 14/18 times the pens finished top 10. Nearly half his career the pens were legit cup contenders.

Now lets look at the mcdavid era oilers

28th
29th
7th
23rd
25th
9th
11th
11th
7th

9 years in the league.
Only 5 playoff appearances
zero with a top 5 team.
only 3 with a top 10 team.
Every season with some sort of buyout or retention on the cap lmao

Its pretty crazy that so much emphasis by some is put on what team you ended up playing for.

 

[nbwingsfan]

That's a dangerous imaginary scenario, because it would go back to the Mark Spector question of "hey Connor would you rather win 8-5 or..." That scenario would haunt McDavid forever.

I mean no amount of “great defensive play” would make up for a goalie letting in 5G on 12 shots

 

[MadLuke]

Its pretty crazy that so much emphasis by some is put on what team you ended up playing for.

That completely disconnect the player with the team finish.


Look at the Kings:

1991-92	NHL	Kings*	80	35	31	14	84	0.525
1990-91	NHL	Kings*	80	46	24	10	102	0.638
1989-90	NHL	Kings*	80	34	39	7	75	0.469
1988-89	NHL	Kings*	80	42	31	7	91	0.569
1987-88	NHL	Kings*	80	30	42	8	68	0.425
1986-87	NHL	Kings*	80	31	41	8	70	0.438
1985-86	NHL	Kings	80	23	49	8	54	0.338

When they have 160pts Gretzky it seems to completely change their faith versus when they do not.

 

[Frank Drebin]

That completely disconnect the player with the team finish.


Look at the Kings:

1991-92	NHL	Kings*	80	35	31	14	84	0.525
1990-91	NHL	Kings*	80	46	24	10	102	0.638
1989-90	NHL	Kings*	80	34	39	7	75	0.469
1988-89	NHL	Kings*	80	42	31	7	91	0.569
1987-88	NHL	Kings*	80	30	42	8	68	0.425
1986-87	NHL	Kings*	80	31	41	8	70	0.438
1985-86	NHL	Kings	80	23	49	8	54	0.338

When they have 160pts Gretzky it seems to completely change their faith versus when they do not.

Did it?

 

[iCanada]

If you took all Europeans out of the modern NHL would that make McDavid a worse player?

No, but his numbers would likely nearly double as half the league was replaced by AHL players.

 

[Hank Plank]

I never understood this idea.

Are you telling me that if he does not win any cup until 40, but as a 42 years old he joins a team, plays a couple games in the playoffs and his team wins the cup, suddenly his legacy is different?

YES, 100%. The caveman part of your brain thinks this way, championship means prestige that can't be replaced by personal accomplishments.

 

[nturn06]

4 cups to none is huge difference.

I am not comparing McD to Wayne, those were two different comments to two different quotes.

And, I fogot, how many cups did Mario win?

 

[blankall]

Patrick Roy, the greatest "money" goalie of all time played on teams ranked

7 (won cup)
5
2
2
4
6
5
6 (won cup)
9
2 (won cup)
2
1
7
4
9
1 (won cup)
4
6

Out of his 18 seasons in the league, he played behind a top 6 team in the league for 14 of them. 75% of his career he played for a legitimate cup contender. Not one season did he play on a team that wasn't top 10 in the league.

Crosby's career looks similar as well.

29th
10th
5th
8th (won cup)
8th
3rd
4th
2nd
6th
15th
4th (won cup)
2nd (won cup)
10th
9th
7th
5th
12th
20th

7/18 times the pens finished top 5 in the league. 14/18 times the pens finished top 10. Nearly half his career the pens were legit cup contenders.

Now lets look at the mcdavid era oilers

28th
29th
7th
23rd
25th
9th
11th
11th
7th

9 years in the league.
Only 5 playoff appearances
zero with a top 5 team.
only 3 with a top 10 team.
Every season with some sort of buyout or retention on the cap lmao

Its pretty crazy that so much emphasis by some is put on what team you ended up playing for.

Pretty amazing that a team with the two best players in the league struggles so much.

 

[UnSandvich]

He's not passing Gretzky or Orr, so 3 is as high as he'll go imo. Lemieux & Howe is an easier bar though.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Pretty amazing that a team with the two best players in the league struggles so much.

Were you amazed when hall was traded for Larsson?

Barzal pick for g. Reinhart?
Lucic contract?
Nurse contract?
Koskinen contract?
Campbell contract?

Stop with the lazy drive by snipes.

 

[Lou Sassole]

The cup winning argument doesn't apply here. It's not a situation like Ovechkin on the Capitals where they failed in years where they had a stacked roster. Everyone including most of the media and players knows the Oilers have a terrible roster and are carried by 2 players. Everyone knows the only way the Oilers win a playoff round is if McDavid puts up 2 ppg and even that isn't guaranteed. The issue is 20 years after McDavid retires where arguments like that fade and people question McDavids leadership.

My personal opinion is that the biggest reason for the Oilers failure of success is stacking lines. Draisaitl, McDavid and RNH should be run on 3 separate lines at all times. Putting them together at any point other than the end of a period or to catch the other teams worst players on an icing should not happen. It's stat padding and hurts the team.

The capitals didn't have a second line center, decent defense, or goalie for years. Their roster wasn't some juggernaut. They had Jeff Schultz with Mike Green as a top pair, for f***s sake.

 

[Coffey]

The capitals didn't have a second line center, decent defense, or goalie for years. Their roster wasn't some juggernaut. They had Jeff Schultz with Mike Green as a top pair, for f***s sake.

Well the oilers have 5 ECHL dmen in their lineup.