When Gretzky left the Oilers and they won again without him, and he never won again, that should have ended the archaic "Cups define goats" argument once and for all.
Why on earth should I rate who the greatest players of all time were based on how lucky their team circumstances were?? Or what Era they played in.
I have a better idea: let's rank players based on their skill and talent.
I literally have never said any of this nonsense. Again, you’re sensitive to any criticism Crosby gets and you see it as “putting him down.” All I did was point out how wrong the original poster was. Again, sorry if that hurt your feelings.
i have no clue what your point is. Good luck with whatever claim you are trying to make because it doesn’t make any sense
How people can state it’s some kind of fact that he doesn’t make others around him better when:
just a little sarcasm .......point is - if you can rip apart Sid Crosbys game while he was leading his team on a cup run winning MVP .......well, you sir..... can rip apart any body game.
I never said he didn’t.
Saying his smythe was weak and feeling like it should have gone to someone else isn’t “ripping” anyone. The smythe voting was close for a reason.
According to McDavid detractors, he's not a good enough "leader" unless his teammates maintain this exact same pace even without him. That's what "improving" your teammates is all about apparently. Nowadays you have to be a teammate, coach and personal trainer to be considered an "effective leader"
Like. Good point you are making here. It doesn't get brought up often in hockey talks but you are right, Gretz and Lemieux had a boatload of help to win those Cups. There were as close to an All Star team as you could make.
When Gretzky left the Oilers and they won again without him, and he never won again, that should have ended the archaic "Cups define goats" argument once and for all.
Why on earth should I rate who the greatest players of all time were based on how lucky their team circumstances were?? Or what Era they played in.
I have a better idea: let's rank players based on their skill and talent.
91 and 92 pens were 8th in the nhl in regular season points
Guy won 3 cups in a row the second he left McDavid.
His season high is 36 points, but great point projection reach in the smallest sample ever.
Lie? His season high is 83 points.
Just lying now? Kane’s production hasn’t changed at all playing with McDavid, and he never was PPG.
RNH was nearly PPG and won the Calder his first season over a decade ago in a lower scoring era. The data has always suggested he would put up points in a 1st line winger role.
Not even going to touch this one.
1. Went from a 27 goal guy to a 20pt guy away from McDavid
I mean even if you’re a loaded team if you take away the best player in the world you’re going to do worse (minus that freak Edmonton dynasty)
No one can win a cup alone, we're in agreement there. But Anderson = Nugent Hopkins. Look at him outside of Gretzky and later Messier (Tkachuk drove his own offense and has done so in two different teams). Kurri is also no Pastrnak. He hit NHL top 10 in scoring once again without Wayne, and actually ended up 18th two seasons after. Fuhr was not even a Shesheterkin.
Gotta love Hfboards. McDavid was holding him back huh?
Yeah of course the greatest player of all time pat maroon was held back by that dusty bender goon mcdavid
Yes obviously (or what would it say about the supposed best player), the point was not that they were worst without Lemieux, but that they were a regular mediocre .500 team without him.
Has more to do with him joining cup-winning teams rather than McDavid but of course, you can always make everything fit your narrative if you want to.
4-1, 1-4 and 3 OT losses isn't getting destroyed, IMO
Not to mention there are 32 teams in the league now. Some great players are going to go a full career without winning a cupWhen Gretzky left the Oilers and they won again without him, and he never won again, that should have ended the archaic "Cups define goats" argument once and for all.
Why on earth should I rate who the greatest players of all time were based on how lucky their team circumstances were?? Or what Era they played in.
I have a better idea: let's rank players based on their skill and talent.
The math at the time, and the eyeball test, showed a possibility of it happening.
