Is Connor Mcdavid a "tier above" Sidney Crosby as a player?

[PainForShane]

What else does your crystal ball tell you

Crazy how many like to entertain the idea that Crosby is the answer that the oilers need and are looking for. All while McDavid simply isn’t a “winner.”

So then McDavid isn't a tier above Crosby yet. Possibly by the end of his career.

Wasn't that YOUR argument?

I said if they BOTH were in the same tier, I’d argue McDavid above Crosby, is he in a whole other tier? I wouldn’t say yet. Possibly by the end of his career. Is that really that hard to understand? Did you get all that?

What a buncha jokers (quote above from post 1522). "Is that really that hard to understand? Did you get all that?"

lmfao

 

[Frank Drebin]

I know it might be hard to cope with as an Oilers fan, but you have to entertain the possibility that McDavid might not ever win the cup.

Pens fans know how hard it is to win.. good chance they had Crosby on their team to make sure they got over the hump (multiple times)

Whether or not McDavid wins the cup won't change his place in history above Crosby.

But he will.

 

[Svencouver]

Edmonton would take prime Crosby and Malkin in a heartbeat over McDavid and Draisaitl if the organization really wanted to win.

Both Crosby and Malkin know (and have shown), that in order to win, they might had to sacrifice their individual production to the benefit of their team. They’ve proven it numerous times in the playoffs. The perfect example of this happened in 2016 when Crosby was playing with rookie Sheary and Patric Hornqvist, who was arguably the 8th best forward on the team at the time (behind Crosby, Malkin, Bonino, Hagelin, Kessel, Rust and Sheary). Malkin was playing with the corpse of Chris Kunitz and rookie Bryan Rust on his line, while the HBK line could benefit of the matchup advantage to destroy the opposition. As a result, Crosby’s and Malkin’s totals were lower, because of the way Pittsburgh could distribute the production more evenly among the first 3 lines. Then, in 2017, when Crosby had a better offensive player on his line in rookie Guentzel, his numbers magically improved. Same thing happened with Malkin when Kessel got put on his line. I won’t spend much time talking about the 2009 team, as they were just otherworldly, by deploying the same strategy. It is still arguably to this day the biggest carry job ever done by 2 players in NHL history (excl. Gretzky-led teams).

McDavid has had generally better players on his line, often times playing with Draisaitl at ES to inflate his totals, to the overall detriment of his team. It’s not necessarily his fault, but that is something he could propose to his coach instead of continuing to inflate his totals, playing with RNH, Hyman and sometimes Draisaitl (and letting the other lines hang up to dry). You know, something a good leader would do . Maybe if McDavid and Draisaitl needed less help on their lines, Edmonton could invest in potent goaltending, some trusted defensemans, or better depth players to help them in the playoffs…

There’s no “shoulda”, “woulda”, “coulda” here. Just two guys who had the team first mentality from the start, who showed what it took (multiple times) to be able to lift the big trophy.

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

 

[sanscosm]

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

That’s one of the greatest posts in this thread. I couldn’t have explained it better. Immaculate english with an excellent thought process. Get ready to get quote replied by the McDavid fanboys/Crosby haters that seemingly never played sports and don’t realize that the impact a player has on his team can be more than points and trophies.

 

[Frank Drebin]

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

Edmonton would take prime Crosby and Malkin in a heartbeat over McDavid and Draisaitl if the organization really wanted to win.

Both Crosby and Malkin know (and have shown), that in order to win, they might had to sacrifice their individual production to the benefit of their team. They’ve proven it numerous times in the playoffs. The perfect example of this happened in 2016 when Crosby was playing with rookie Sheary and Patric Hornqvist, who was arguably the 8th best forward on the team at the time (behind Crosby, Malkin, Bonino, Hagelin, Kessel, Rust and Sheary). Malkin was playing with the corpse of Chris Kunitz and rookie Bryan Rust on his line, while the HBK line could benefit of the matchup advantage to destroy the opposition. As a result, Crosby’s and Malkin’s totals were lower, because of the way Pittsburgh could distribute the production more evenly among the first 3 lines. Then, in 2017, when Crosby had a better offensive player on his line in rookie Guentzel, his numbers magically improved. Same thing happened with Malkin when Kessel got put on his line. I won’t spend much time talking about the 2009 team, as they were just otherworldly, by deploying the same strategy. It is still arguably to this day the biggest carry job ever done by 2 players in NHL history (excl. Gretzky-led teams).

McDavid has had generally better players on his line, often times playing with Draisaitl at ES to inflate his totals, to the overall detriment of his team. It’s not necessarily his fault, but that is something he could propose to his coach instead of continuing to inflate his totals, playing with RNH, Hyman and sometimes Draisaitl (and letting the other lines hang up to dry). You know, something a good leader would do . Maybe if McDavid and Draisaitl needed less help on their lines, Edmonton could invest in potent goaltending, some trusted defensemans, or better depth players to help them in the playoffs…

There’s no “shoulda”, “woulda”, “coulda” here. Just two guys who had the team first mentality from the start, who showed what it took (multiple times) to be able to lift the big trophy.

Prime Crosby and Malkin won exactly zero cups with the kind of goaltending that Edmonton has had since well before McDavid and Drai ever suited up for the Oilers.

 

[GreatGonzo]

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

The Spurs also had David Robinson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Kawhi Leonard…they were stacked with talent and won many championships by committee.

It’s easier to win when you have a team around you capable of winning. Crosby didn’t have to lead any of his cup winning teams in points and always had plenty of help in the finals. Yet, these things never impacted his legacy or his contribution to his teams wins. With McDavid it’s the opposite. He gets put under the microscope and his play/achievements get to be dissected and ridiculed….even for things that not even Crosby was able to do.

 

[norrisnick]

This sounds like something MJs man in Detroit would say but like I said usually when most people view a player fairly and come to that conclusion I'll take that and what my eyes see over some random posters biased and frankly nonsensical viewpoints and I used that phrase charitably at this point.

Did Crosby kick your dog or something?

View a player fairly? Crosby defensively, didn't exist for at least the first 10 years of his career. People drag on McDavid now, but what he's been doing defensively is no different than Crosby's first half of his career. The only real difference in style is that McDavid plays in open ice and Crosby and the wall and in the corners. But playing in the corners in the o-zone does not make you a defensive player.

 

[norrisnick]

This point is one of the most salient to me, and I've never really been able to get it out of my head when watching McDavid's career unfold. It's not as if playing with Draisaitl is just some trivial, harmless difference in deployment that benefits his production with no real trade-off; we've seen, time and time again, this strategy come to bite them in the playoffs. IMHO, it's the reason why they lost against Florida. They were utterly gassed in that final game - some would applaud them for giving it everything they had, but that's the same individualist mindset that both praises their gaudy point totals, and unreasonably expects and asks them to win on their own.

I think the reason the Oilers generally seem to be so ineffective with spreading talent through their lineup is because of a lack of commitment to that approach. Expectations are set early on and throughout a season, and throughout McDavid's career, the expectation set is always one of "if the rest of you guys cant produce, we'll just spend the 3rd period playing McDavid and Draisaitl for 50% of it to bail us out, so don't worry about it. This is a very "give a man a fish" mode of leadership - if you f*** up, I'll take over and handle it.

In my experience, this is not a particularly effective long-term strategy for team-building and performance. The rest of the team gets complacent, and the guy they overly-rely upon gets burnt out and beat up - in hockey terms, that means exhausted or injured. When guys feel like excellence is demanded of them, and they have to rise to the occassion to live up to the standard set by Crosby and Malkin if they want the team to win next time they step on the ice, what you see is the superior depth-scoring performance that Pittsburgh has had that Edmonton lacks.

What Crosby - and Malkin - did, was not just to "make their teammates better" in terms of applied stats and on-ice play with them on their wing: what Crosby in particular was instrumental in doing was setting the cultural expectation and attitude that Pittsburgh was a team that had to win like a team. Everything from his otherworldly offseason training and conditioning, his on-ice and in-locker room leadership, and, especially - his performance as an exceptional player, clearly communicated to every single player on the roster what was expected of them and what was demanded of them in order to win.

If you want a reson for Pittsburgh being, indisputably, the most consistent team at winning and making the playoffs over the era, despite their massive generational turnover in roster personnel (including between cups nearly a decade apart), this is it. It's San Antonio Spurs-esque. The Spurs never had the most consistently dominant individual scoring, and that's not because guys like Duncan were incapable of being individually dominant. It's not even necessarily because they "traded offense for defense" in some transactional way. It's because players like Duncan and Crosby have routinely passed up opportunities to score more. At any time, they could have shoved the absolute best linemates (in this case, Malkin etc.) onto Crosby's wing and saw his production skyrocket. They didn't, and even then, his on-ice impact was generational.

Winning is a habit that is produced through every single facet of organizational competence. Crosby started winning his cups not in the playoffs, but in the offseason. This is why his peers appraise him as one of the greatest players and leaders of all time, why GMs would line-up to draft him 1OA if given the choice over comparable players, and why hes won as much as he has. Sure, the rest of Pittsburgh as an organization had a big part in it, too - and no one can argue that Edmonton has been a shining star of organizational competence during McDavid's tenure, even when the team was winning. But Crosby was the one that set the tone and the one that translated that organizational competence into Stanley Cups.

No one is disputing that the Pens have been a better run team than the Oilers.

I will point out that it's complete fantasy to attribute any of that to the players.

 

[Frank Drebin]

30 years from now when our grandchildren look at the history books and ask why some people had Crosby over McDavid as late in mcdavids career as 2024 we can reference the mythical qualities that Crosby had that didn’t necessarily show up on the stat sheet

Things like leadership, being a born winner, elevating teammates (not stastically) elevating his team (even though his team was just as good when he was out of the lineup), sick backhands, elite grinding, relevant points, pace, being “good defensively “, Michigan goals, golden goal, clutch ability despite never leading his team in points in any cup win, etc .

I think they’ll buy it

 

[PainForShane]

30 years from now when our grandchildren look at the history books and ask why some people had Crosby over McDavid as late in mcdavids career as 2024 we can reference the mythical qualities that Crosby had that didn’t necessarily show up on the stat sheet

Things like leadership, being a born winner, elevating teammates (not stastically) elevating his team (even though his team was just as good when he was out of the lineup), sick backhands, elite grinding, relevant points, pace, being “good defensively “, Michigan goals, golden goal, clutch ability despite never leading his team in points in any cup win, etc .

I think they’ll buy it

This idea has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And also I just realized that this entire time you've been pretending that the concept of leadership doesn't exist. What the actual f***

***

Wow what a judgment call. I can tell you have great character with a statement like that…

So what are the other things? Leadership? Being a “winner?” Last time I Checked, Crosby didn’t win any Hart or smythe for anything but his production so it’s odd that you would say there’s more to points in terms of impact…yet it’s the biggest impact.

Crosby was the best player in the world for a number of years, and he won multiple cups. He won a few Harts too, part of the reason was likely production part of that was likely other stuff incl intangibles ie leadership etc. lmao

 

[GreatGonzo]

This idea has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And also I just realized that this entire time you've been pretending that the concept of leadership doesn't exist. What the actual f***

***



Crosby was the best player in the world for a number of years, and he won multiple cups. He won a few Harts too, part of the reason was likely production part of that was likely other stuff incl intangibles ie leadership etc. lmao

I didn’t know there was “leadership” points when it comes to the Hart. Interesting Ovechkin has more Harts than Crosby, maybe they too thought his leadership was also next level….

also, way to dodge my post….again

 

[tabness]

It’s bizarre the mental gymnastics one has to do to think that MacKinnon can win a Hart and out score prime McDavid, but Crosby, who is better than MacKinnon wouldn’t be able to keep up.

you right of course but the McFans have a explanatory construct they can go to here for situations like this... "grace period" lol

that's why the whole discussion is so much deja vu to like the early 2010s with Crosby and Toews or Datsyuk or whatever except Crosby is now on the other side

the arguments leveraged and honed for Crosby are now being turned against him though fortunately those leveraged and honed against him can be now used for him

if Bedard pans out like he showed in those world juniors let's see how this place is in a few years lol

 

[PainForShane]

I didn’t know there was “leadership” points when it comes to the Hart. Interesting Ovechkin has more Harts than Crosby, maybe they too thought his leadership was also next level….

also, way to dodge my post….again

This post?

@PainForShane

“First player with back-to-back four-point games in the Stanley Cup Final.”

“A record eight points when facing elimination in a single Stanley Cup Final.”

“Tied for most points when facing elimination in a single playoff year.”

“Most points in a single Stanley Cup Final, active player”

Some others…

“Fourth for points in a playoff year”

“Most assists, single playoff season.”


But please, go on about how meaningless those games and points were and how “underwhelming” he was compared to Crosby…

Your bolded points have nothing to do with whether the games were meaningful or not.

Literally nothing.

You can try again if you like. Meanwhile seems like you agree with Drebin and are arguing that McDavid's SCF this past year was historically great, the entire argument seems based around the fact that you know how to count and are obsessed with raw point totals. We've been over this before.

 

[wetcoast]

What else does your crystal ball tell you

Crazy how many like to entertain the idea that Crosby is the answer that the oilers need and are looking for. All while McDavid simply isn’t a “winner.”

This last sentence is extremely ironic and somewhat expected sadly since your biggest beef seems to be things that actually did happen compared to things that didn't or haven't happened yet.

But that being said you have a gift for these mental gymnastics to twist yourself into a illogical pretzel and still keep flailing away.

Personally I think it's possible that McDavid could pass Crosby even without a SC but one guy has 3 and the other has zero as of now.

 

[wetcoast]

View a player fairly? Crosby defensively, didn't exist for at least the first 10 years of his career. People drag on McDavid now, but what he's been doing defensively is no different than Crosby's first half of his career. The only real difference in style is that McDavid plays in open ice and Crosby and the wall and in the corners. But playing in the corners in the o-zone does not make you a defensive player.

Man did you even watched the clip I posted they were from 2009 onwards but even if you did your view was set in stone a long time ago and facts or video evidence isn't going to change that I guess.

Here it is once again.

 

[norrisnick]

Man did you even watched the clip I posted they were from 2009 onwards but even if you did your view was set in stone a long time ago and facts or video evidence isn't going to change that I guess.

Here it is once again.

You can build a clip like this for just about everyone that's played enough. I've seen Daniel Sprong bust his ass on a backcheck. That doesn't mean he's a good defensive player. Defense is showing up every game, every shift, every time up and down the ice.

 

[Outl4w]

Crosby started playing and spent his prime in the era of hockey when it was harder to score goals , was more physical, and was the clutch and grab era still. Crosby was a huge part of the NHl comeback and McDavid is a superstar possibly better, but it is hard to compare. Both are first ballot hall of famers and game breakers. Right Now Crosby has more cups so he is better for now. If both players were avaiable in next draft as propsects at 18 years old you could not go wrong with McDavid or Crosby.

 

[GreatGonzo]

This post?



Your bolded points have nothing to do with whether the games were meaningful.

Literally nothing.

You can try again if you like. Meanwhile seems like you agree with Drebin and are arguing that McDavid's SCF this past year was historically great, the entire argument seems based around the fact that you know how to count and are obsessed with raw point totals. We've been over this before.

It has everything to do with whether or not the games were meaningful, or if his points were meaningful. Unless your suggesting they keep records for “meaningless” games…

Sorry if the raw totals hurt your argument and throw you off. Sounds like a personal problem…

This last sentence is extremely ironic and somewhat expected sadly since your biggest beef seems to be things that actually did happen compared to things that didn't or haven't happened yet.

But that being said you have a gift for these mental gymnastics to twist yourself into a illogical pretzel and still keep flailing away.

Personally I think it's possible that McDavid could pass Crosby even without a SC but one guy has 3 and the other has zero as of now.

So you are going to ignore the multiple posters that said prime Crosby would have taken this version of the oilers to a cup win, all while McDavid couldn’t do it? Ok sounds about right for you…please tell me more how “ironic” that is…

You saying anything about mental gymnastics is like the pot calling the kettle black. You have no room to say anything.

 

[norrisnick]

This idea has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

And also I just realized that this entire time you've been pretending that the concept of leadership doesn't exist. What the actual f***

***

Yzerman was panned as a lousy leader you couldn't win with for 14 years. Then he won. Because the team around him was finally good enough to win. And he magically became the gold standard of leadership. Nothing about his approach to the game changed. All he ever did from his first game to his last was bust his ass and do whatever it was his coaches told him to do.

Fans have no concept of who is or isn't a leader. It's ad hoc nonsense tossed at winners because fans have no other way of trying to explain why this guy won but this guy didn't. Obviously it's some innate quality. It's silly.

 

[wetcoast]

Prime Crosby and Malkin won exactly zero cups with the kind of goaltending that Edmonton has had since well before McDavid and Drai ever suited up for the Oilers.

That's a fair point MAF in 2009 is somewhat better than Skinner who isn't horrible all of the time though.

That being said take away McDrai and CroMalkin from both teams and there is a huge difference and the Oilers are tons better than 09 Pens and frankly I think they would have won the sC had Drai been healthy this year.

But the poster you were quoting has a great post and winning isn't solely about talent and scoring points either.

This came up in the Crosby/Jagr better all time thread and most GMs would have taken Crosby over Jagr in a draft for teambuilding winning the SC and I think Crosby would tip the scales here too.

But I wonder how the Big 3 in this thread treat someone like say Matthews in player rating and his playoff resume and if they are consistent?

On second thought no I don't wonder at all.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Crosby started playing and spent his prime in the era of hockey when it was harder to score goals , was more physical, and was the clutch and grab era still. Crosby was a huge part of the NHl comeback and McDavid is a superstar possibly better, but it is hard to compare. Both are first ballot hall of famers and game breakers. Right Now Crosby has more cups so he is better for now. If both players were avaiable in next draft as propsects at 18 years old you could not go wrong with McDavid or Crosby.

No it wasn’t. Stop trying to rewrite history. He literally came into a high flying league for a few years and then scoring dropped. Had nothing to do with being more physical or a “clutch and grab” style of play. Crosby didn’t come up in this rugged era.

 

[wetcoast]

Wow what a judgment call. I can tell you have great character with a statement like that…

So what are the other things? Leadership? Being a “winner?” Last time I Checked, Crosby didn’t win any Hart or smythe for anything but his production so it’s odd that you would say there’s more to points in terms of impact…yet it’s the biggest impact.

Yet his last 3 top 10 Hart finishes were about more than production as were his last 2 Conn Smythe trophies right?

It's weird because on other players it seems that you have some hockey knowledge but then on Crosby your brain sounds like it's a 5 alarm fire in hockey logic.

 

[pi314]

You can build a clip like this for just about everyone that's played enough. I've seen Daniel Sprong bust his ass on a backcheck. That doesn't mean he's a good defensive player. Defense is showing up every game, every shift, every time up and down the ice.

Show me that 14 minute clip of Sprong backchecking.

You’re so unbelievably full of it.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yet his last 3 top 10 Hart finishes were about more than production as were his last 2 Conn Smythe trophies right?

It's weird because on other players it seems that you have some hockey knowledge but then on Crosby your brain sounds like it's a 5 alarm fire in hockey logic.

Can you show me exactly where and how the judges vote according to these “intangibles?” When it comes to the Hart….since apparently those are variables that can’t be measured or proven to even exist, but still exist…

What have I said wrong about Crosby?