daver
Registered User
Crosby.
Please explain what you think a worthy run is and how it doesn't apply to Crosby.
Crosby.
You're misunderstanding these comparisons... anyone should realize that Crosby is "better" than any player that played in the 50s or 60s or whatever. These lists aren't measuring absolute abilities.-Let's not bring goaltending and size of the goalies and pads from 1946 when Howe played, to the early 80's of Wayne, to today's goliath goaltenders and their padding.
Top 4 should be
Gretzky
Lemieux
Should be top 2
It's based on career that's why
Top 5 Hart finishes
Crosby 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5,
Malkin 1, 2 , 2
Top 10 Point finishes
Crosby 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6
Malkin 1, 1, 2
So Lemieux should be top two because of Hart and finishes. Malkin should be outside the top 25 based on Hart and point finishes.
But somehow Hart and point finishes don't benefit Gordie Howe because...
Because Howe tears Lemieux a new hole.
-They both had clear advantages. You had stacked lines pre-1967. You had a diluted product in the 80's.
-In the 60's the Canadians were winning the Stanley Cup AND getting the #1 draft pick every year. That is comical. Thats like the Penguins winning the Stanleu Cup, then adding McDavid and Matthews to the Pens roster. This is exactly how hockey was back then.
1.5x or 2x? Compared to the 06? A league that was, for all intents and purposes, a 100% Canadian?
And Crosby has back to back Conny Smythes and another two Conn Smythe worthy runs... His individual legacy already far exceeds Roy's. And beyond legacy, he's just a much better player.
agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.
Not really. At that time the top talent, players comparable to McDavid and Matthews, were signed LONG before they ever reached draft age. For example, during that time period the Bruins signed Bobby Orr as a 14 year old. He was never drafted.
What you got in the early drafts were the best players who were NOT already scouted and signed. So 3 of the first 5 drafts didn’t even produce an NHL player from the #1 pick. The other 2 were journeymen with irrelevant NHL careers.
What you’re probably thinking of was the 1971 draft, when Montreal managed to trade up to the #1 pick and draft Guy Lafleur. The story of how it happened is amazing, but at heart the system was the same as todTalking about the Boomer-era O6, when the Canadian cohort was double today’s size AND middle/lower class kids could still rise to the top without the economic barriers that exist today.
agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.
That's really not all that different in practice from what the poster said. The stanley cup winning team could very well end up with the best prospect from a given rookie class.
As an extremely biased Red Wings fan I'm wondering how Ovechkin is above Lidström...
If Toews is 26th, why isn't Bergeron on the list, because he sure as hell is better than Toews.I would flip Orr and Gretzky and Hull and Sidney.
Other then that, pretty much spot on.
Toews I'm sure is 26th. And if this was the intangibles list he's number one, two, and three. (Three Cups)
Bourque and Lidstrom ridiculously underrated
Lidstrom was never a Hart finalist
How can he be a top 20 player of all-time when he was never considered one of the top 3 most valuable players during his era?
If anyone is underrated, it's Pronger
Explain yourself.agree to disagree. Sid didn't deserve those 2 Smythes. First one belong to Matt Murray, second one Malkin. In fact, if Penguins had not added Phil Kessel they would not have won either cup - that makes Phil the MVP.