I think they’re pretty close in terms of talents. McDavid is certainly having a better individual career at the same age at this point, but I think Crosby could have done something similar with better health. His injuries weren’t the Forsberg or Lindros variety either where you’re likely going to see them play out regardless of how many times you play their careers over again, and McDavid also had two major injuries, one of which just didn’t result in missed time due to when it occurred. Still, it’s hard to go against the player who has actually done it.
As for winning, I don’t think McDavid should be punished for his GMs putting poor teams around him. I think he also seems incredibly dedicated and driven so I’m not sure if Crosby has any discernible additional impact on the players around him in terms of either leadership or making players better.
That said, it is interesting that the Pens were regularly able to find decent depth players, and the team was able roll on most despite injuries to their top stars. While I think management seemed to do a good job of having Wilkes-Barre players in a similar system ready to plug and play, I think the biggest advantage Crosby might have in terms of helping his team outside of individual play is that his style seems better suited to a winning system that can be implemented up and down the lineup. McDavid’s at his best when he can go North-south at any opportunity, and in general he tilts the ice as well or better than Crosby from it. But it’s not a style that can be replicated throughout a lineup by lesser players and so you end up in a bit of situation where the team is playing differently depending on who is out there. Is it enough to take Crosby despite the difference in health and individual accolades so far? I’m honestly not too sure.
