Is McDavid Top 10 For You All Time Already? If Not How Much More Does He Have to do?

[Sheppy]

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Jean Beliveau
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Howie Morenz
6. Phil Esposito
7. Mark Messier
8. Frank Nighbor
9. Stan Mikita
10. Joe Sakic
11. Bobby Clarke
12. Bryan Trottier
13. Cyclone Taylor
14. Steve Yzerman
15. Connor McDavid

Every centre ahead of him has won a Cup. Everyone besides Mikita won at least two. Everyone has played at least twice as many seasons as McDavid. Everyone besides Mikita was the best forward on a Cup winning team.

If McDavid pulls off the season he's in the process of doing, he will jump at least 5 guys ahead of him.

After first 7 seasons, he's third behind Gretzky and Lemieux. But everyone else continued to add and add and add. McDavid will, but he hasn't yet.

I can’t agree with your list. McDavid is better than a good chunk of those guys.

Cyclone Taylor? Howie Morenz?

Those guys were 90 years old 100 years ago.

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

I don't think Grammy's is a good comparable for winning a cup. Putting out hit songs and/or influential songs is far more important and Hendrix did that.

So, like scoring highlight real goals and influencing the next generation of hockey players. The point is that one can recognize greatness by viewing another's work.

 

[DaPhazz]

No, and he's not even close to top 10. He has 773 points for his career. There are close to 100 players that have over 1000 points.

Of all the reasons against it, this one is probably the weakest

 

[jigglysquishy]

I can’t agree with your list. McDavid is better than a good chunk of those guys.

Cyclone Taylor? Howie Morenz?

Those guys were 90 years old 100 years ago.

If you're disregarding players because of their birth year, you are simply unwilling to make an all-time list.

 

[Sheppy]

If you're disregarding players because of their birth year, you are simply unwilling to make an all-time list.

I can’t put those guys ahead of him, points wise, and the fact that they played 30-40 game seasons with like 4 other teams.

Do you really know enough about those players to justify them being better players than McDavid? Honestly?

Do I think he’s a top 10 player or all time? Not yet. But I can see him entering that mix in a season or two.

 

[SJinNewJersey]

Of all the reasons against it, this one is probably the weakest

Of all the replies to my quote, yours was the weakest.

 

[McJedi]

It feels like his career in Edmonton will end abruptly and with no satisfaction. That club just isn’t competitive because of such poor GM work.

He’s a top 10 player for me but needs to find a new home to realize team success that does define all the greats.

Gretzky won cups. Mario won cups. Crosby won cups. Orr won 2. Gordie Howe won 4.

McDavid needs to win and he ain’t going to in Edmonton with that GM and roster.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I can’t put those guys ahead of him, points wise, and the fact that they played 30-40 game seasons with like 4 other teams.

Do you really know enough about those players to justify them being better players than McDavid? Honestly?

Yes.

The detailed discussions into the careers of players like Frank Nighbor, Howie Morenz, Cyclone Taylor, and Newsy Lalonde is well covered in the History of Hockey forum, where there are dozens of pages of discussions on each player. There are also ample books written on the time period. Newspapers from the time are extensive. The work put into researching early hockey by the hockey history community over the last several decades has completely opened a new world of insight into these players.

We've recovered game logs going back to 1893, before any of these players started their major careers.

McDavid will almost certainly over take all these players, but it won't be because of their era.

 

[Sheppy]

Yes.

The detailed discussions into the careers of players like Frank Nighbor, Howie Morenz, Cyclone Taylor, and Newsy Lalonde is well covered in the History of Hockey forum, where there are dozens of pages of discussions on each player. There are also ample books written on the time period. Newspapers from the time are extensive. The work put into researching early hockey by the hockey history community over the last several decades has completely opened a new world of insight into these players.

We've recovered game logs going back to 1893, before any of these players started their major careers.

McDavid will almost certainly over take all these players, but it won't be because of their era.

Frank Nighbor won 3 cups playing a total of 10 games to win them.

In those 10 games he had 7 points.

I’m not sure that’s a good example for someone who’s better than McDavid, especially with the cup argument.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Frank Nighbor won 3 cups playing a total of 10 games to win them.

In those 10 games he had 7 points.

I’m not sure that’s a good example for someone who’s better than McDavid, especially with the cup argument.

Frank Nighbor has probably the highest defensive peak amongst any centre in the history of the sport. He likely wins four Hart trophies if the award existed. He won the first ever Hart trophy, at age 31.

The History of Hockey forum is doing a pre-1926 project and he is almost guaranteed to go first.

The same forum voted him the 4th best player to debut before the end of World War II

 

[Fourier]

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Jean Beliveau
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Howie Morenz
6. Phil Esposito
7. Mark Messier
8. Frank Nighbor
9. Stan Mikita
10. Joe Sakic
11. Bobby Clarke
12. Bryan Trottier
13. Cyclone Taylor
14. Steve Yzerman
15. Connor McDavid

Every centre ahead of him has won a Cup. Everyone besides Mikita won at least two. Everyone has played at least twice as many seasons as McDavid. Everyone besides Mikita was the best forward on a Cup winning team.

If McDavid pulls off the season he's in the process of doing, he will jump at least 5 guys ahead of him.

After first 7 seasons, he's third behind Gretzky and Lemieux. But everyone else continued to add and add and add. McDavid will, but he hasn't yet.

Winning a cup in 2023 is not exactly the same as winning it in the 60's the 70's or even the 80's. It is far harder to build a contender today than it was back then. Not a single guy on that list won a championship with anywhere close to the support that McDavid has had or will have.

Gretzky was the best of all time and his championship teams had 7 HHOF's. As a season ticket holder back then I watched that team from the beginning. I have no qualms what so ever about ranking McDavid ahead of Messier after the playoffs he had last year and how he has played this year despite Messier's success.

Esposito's Bruins teams were also ridiculously stacked as were Beliveau's Habs. Sackic had not only Forsberg, Hejduk, Tanguay and but also Ray Bourgue, Adam Foote and Rob Blake. And then there is that guy Patrick Roy.

Trottier also had some support. Bossy was pretty decent and Potvin was at least as good as Nurse. Some might even say better. Billy Smith may even have been better than Mike Smith but I'll leave that up to others to judge.

 

[majormajor]

Bobby Orr won though.

We have seen 1 amazing playoffs from McDavid.

Guts on a solid trajectory ask in a few years and he may be in the top 10.

It's a 32 team league with a much much deeper talent pool. McDavid won as many playoff rounds last year as a cup champion in 1972 did. And his play was f***ing historic.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Frank Nighbor has probably the highest defensive peak amongst any centre in the history of the sport. He likely wins four Hart trophies if the award existed. He won the first ever Hart trophy, at age 31.

The History of Hockey forum is doing a pre-1926 project and he is almost guaranteed to go first.

The same forum voted him the 4th best player to debut before the end of World War II

I appreciate the sentiment to keeping these forgotten players alive in the conversations, but it just simply makes no sense to argue Neighbors or anybody who played in that era in this conversation.

These players were integral parts of what helped build and shape the game, and if you want to immortalize them for their contribution that makes sense. The way the game was played and the shape of the league was so different that it doesn’t resemble modern hockey at all. At least the original 6 era has some resemblance to todays league just smaller and subtle differences. Pre 1926 is too far back IMO to be a comparable product.

 

[habdynasty]

Easy top 10

 

[jigglysquishy]

I appreciate the sentiment to keeping these forgotten players alive in the conversations, but it just simply makes no sense to argue Neighbors or anybody who played in that era in this conversation.

These players were integral parts of what helped build and shape the game, and if you want to immortalize them for their contribution that makes sense. The way the game was played and the shape of the league was so different that it doesn’t resemble modern hockey at all. At least the original 6 era has some resemblance to todays league just smaller and subtle differences. Pre 1926 is too far back IMO to be a comparable product.

Then don't use the term all-time.

Post-1926, post-1945, post-1967, post-1990, post-2005 might be less sexy titles, but if that's what you're actually arguing then don't beat around the bush.

The Athletic is running a Top 100 since 1967 right now so they can avoid any discussions on players before their journalists were alive.

If "all-time" to you means post-1967, then just say post-1967.

If you are saying who is the best centre to have their prime post-1967, then my list becomes:

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Sidney Crosby
4. Phil Esposito
5. Mark Messier
6. Joe Sakic
7. Bryan Trottier
8. Bobby Clarke
9. Steve Yzerman
10. Connor McDavid

If you want to say best centre to have their prime post-1991, then my list becomes

1. Mario Lemieux
2. Sidney Crosby
3. Joe Sakic
4. Connor McDavid
5. Evgeni Malkin
6. Peter Forsberg
7. Sergei Fedorov
8. Joe Thornton
9. Pavel Datsyuk
10. Eric Lindros

 

[Jerkbait]

To play Devil's Advocate, both Wayne and Mario won with significantly better supporting casts. Wayne had 5 team mates and a coach that would go on to be members of the Hall of Fame. Mario had five as well. Such is the pre-salary cap era.

Crosby won with Malkin, Letang, MAF. That's three Hall of Fame players. Kessel was a huge contributor to their back to back cups, but it's debatable whether or not he gets in the Hall.

Prior to last year, I'd have said he needs to show me something in the playoffs. He and Leon put up 2 points a game in the playoffs last year. Those are peak Gretzky/Lemieux numbers. Management is the biggest reason that club doesn't get over the hump.

The 2009 penguins were not that much different at all.....the Oilers won without Wayne....Pittsburgh Goalie was Tom Barrasso in 92....mcdavid has a good supporting cast. Not the deepest bug with a few tweaks its winnable. Your right sometimes management will hold a player back but regardless that players inst a top 5 unless he wins . To be honest is there a top 10 player who hasn't won ? A top 20 ?? Maybe Marcel ?

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

If McD left Edmonton and went to a different team and won cups would it tarnish his legacy for not being able to do it in Edmonton?

No staying in edmonton is tarnishing his legacy. Embarassing management for years

 

[roon]

Yes.

The detailed discussions into the careers of players like Frank Nighbor, Howie Morenz, Cyclone Taylor, and Newsy Lalonde is well covered in the History of Hockey forum, where there are dozens of pages of discussions on each player. There are also ample books written on the time period. Newspapers from the time are extensive. The work put into researching early hockey by the hockey history community over the last several decades has completely opened a new world of insight into these players.

We've recovered game logs going back to 1893, before any of these players started their major careers.

McDavid will almost certainly over take all these players, but it won't be because of their era.

Why wont it be because of their Era? The talent in the NHL in the Era of Nighbor, Morenz, Cyclone Taylor etc is the equivalent of Junior hockey or worse today. It was comparatively a joke league back then. When we are discussing the best players of "All Time" - it means the most skilled players that have ever played the game throughout its history....of which - the individuals mentioned aren't even in the conversation. Simply because they were able to dominate a league in an Era where it wasn't difficult to do so doesn't make them "All time greats".

 

[Jerkbait]

I hope he does but the same way Ovechkin won.. not until late and not until he’s got a full supporting cast

I hope as well actually. Iam not anti mcdavid but he will not be on ovie level until.wins
Sid will finish a top 5 in my opinion.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Why wont it be because of their Era? The talent in the NHL in the Era of Nighbor, Morenz, Cyclone Taylor etc is the equivalent of Junior hockey or worse today. It was comparatively a joke league back then. When we are discussing the best players of "All Time" - it means the most skilled players that have ever played the game throughout its history....of which - the individuals mentioned aren't even in the conversation. Simply because they were able to dominate a league in an Era where it wasn't difficult to do so doesn't make them "All time greats".

No, it doesn't.

It's comparing how players do against their peers. That's how all-time lists have always worked out, dating back to pre-WWI baseball lists.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

He has 4 art rosses ( about to run away with 5) and is only 26 years old(in a few days). Am I missing something from people saying he's not top 10 ?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??!!?!?!?

 

[stokes84]

In my lifetime, he ranks 5th. He’s behind 99, 66, 8, and 87 until further notice.

I might also possibly rank him behind Lindstrom, but maybe not.

Anyone that came before my time is for the old timers to debate.

 

[Sheppy]

Frank Nighbor has probably the highest defensive peak amongst any centre in the history of the sport. He likely wins four Hart trophies if the award existed. He won the first ever Hart trophy, at age 31.

The History of Hockey forum is doing a pre-1926 project and he is almost guaranteed to go first.

The same forum voted him the 4th best player to debut before the end of World War II

Ok, but like he didn’t play long, hard hockey. Hard probably isn't the right word, but he didn't play nearly enough.

He played 349 games in 12 seasons.

His post season consisted of 20 games in 8 seasons. Back then you won a cup playing 2 playoff games.

I can't for the life of me find a way to put him ahead of McDavid.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Easily yes based on talent, production and individual awards. I expect nearing the end of his career he’s in the discussion for #5. Lots will depend on that. Team success, continuity of personal success and remaining free of career altering injury.

 

[roon]

No, it doesn't.

It's comparing how players do against their peers. That's how all-time lists have always worked out, dating back to pre-WWI baseball lists.

So using your logic "All Time" lists will always over emphasize above average players who play during periods of relatively low skill levels. Thats a pretty terrible way to create a list of "All time greats".

You have to account for the era in which someone played - there simply is no other objective way to look at it.