Sidney Crosby Appreciation Thread

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

All I've done is disagreed with your argument, don't see the need for the unnecessary quips.

You've made some pretty bold statements, many people will agree with you, many will not. But if you don't want to open yourself up for discussion about it, don't post it on a discussion board.

You've said Crosby is this generations Gretzky, I've said he isn't (because I feel no one is). I've posted my reasons for disagreeing. If you want to extend it to off the ice now, I'll again heavily disagree with that as well. Gretzky brought the NHL to places it's never been, Crosby kept hockey in Pittsburgh (no small feat) but until he's got a cartoon version of himself, he's no Gretzky.

I quip when I feel that someone isn't getting the point anyway, so I best entertain myself through the process.

You're directly comparing the two, continue to do it, and we'll always be having a different conversation. That's the problem, you're not disagreeing with or criticising my argument, you're criticising what you think my argument has to be.

My argument is simple. Crosby is the most similar man to Gretzky in both on ice performance and off ice importance to the game of hockey that this generation has. Is he Wayne Gretzky? No, he's Sidney Crosby of course.

But when you separate the man from the idea, and treat Gretzky figuratively, Crosby does indeed live up to that. Is he as offensively productive as Gretzky? No. Is he pulling the NHL out of obscurity? No. Does he have to do the same things Gretzky does to be the most important player of his generation? No, he doesn't. It's a different time, the game needs different things, Crosby has different things to off his team, but that doesn't take away his importance.

Every generation might have a Gretzky, some might not, but not every 'Gretzky' will save the NHL and fire at 2 points per game over his career. Try not to take it so literally, and maybe you'll get it. Nobody will ever replace Gretzky, but once a generation, if we're lucky, a player will come along and fill some of the void he left. Crosby is that guy, whether you feel like admitting it or not.

I don't even know why I'm defending him. I hate Crosby. Either way, if you're not going to pick up what I'm putting down and play the same game, then we're just going to go in circles. You keep talking about who is better, or what in particular each of them has done compared to the other. I'm not, and it has little to do with my point, so if that's all you've got then move along.

[doctajones428]

Sidney Crosby is the closest we have come to a Wayne Gretzky this generation. He isn't better and he isn't worse because he isn't comparable. He is playing in a completely different time period and a completely different NHL. Would Crosby in the 80's outplay Gretzky in today's game? Who knows. We will never know.

Better? Everyone happy? Can we stop the debate now? Can we talk about Sid the Kids impressive start to the season?

[SixtySix]

Originally Posted by doctajones428

Sidney Crosby is the closest we have come to a Wayne Gretzky this generation. He isn't better and he isn't worse because he isn't comparable. He is playing in a completely different time period and a completely different NHL. Would Crosby in the 80's outplay Gretzky in today's game? Who knows. We will never know.

Better? Everyone happy? Can we stop the debate now? Can we talk about Sid the Kids impressive start to the season?

If your only reason is that it's 2 different NHLs, what is to stop someone from asking if guys like Stamkos or Ovechkin or Giroux would outplay Gretzky in the 80s? I agree that it isn't fair to make direct comparisons between players from different eras but it's not like it's impossible to state when one player is above another player. Is Peter Statsny better than Chris Butler? It's a hyperbole but the point is it's still possible to distinguish how great players are/were even if they're from different times. There is a reason that Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr are identified as the greatest players to ever play.

Crosby is this generation's Gretzky but he's not as good as Gretzky.

[vilzeh]

and, most likely, when Crosby is retiring, he is identified as one of the greatest players to ever play.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by vilzeh

and, most likely, when Crosby is retiring, he is identified as one of the greatest players to ever play.

I think everyone is on board with "most likely, he will be identified as one of the greatest players to play"

You're not going to get a debate that he was better than players like Bernie Nichols.

But it is ridiculous to think he is as good, or better than the great one.

[vilzeh]

I don't find it ridiculous at all, but that's my opinion.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Feel like saying Crosby is this generation's Gretzky is like saying Cammalleri/Giordano/whoever is this team's Iginla.

Iginla becomes a Flames, starts posting some nice numbers and leads the team in scoring for over a decade. Many people of that generation thinks he's the greatest or one of the greatest players to ever dawn the Flaming C, although he has some of his own competition with a peer who showed up slightly later in Kiprusoff. Now that both are gone, does there need to be a de facto "Iginla"? If you want to call whoever you think is the best player for the Flames this year as the "Iginla of this season", I guess you can do it. I'm going to go ahead and say that this team doesn't have an Iginla. If we're lucky maybe one of the young players will develop into one but Monahan's still a long ways away from putting him in conversation of best player to play for the Flames.

I don't know why you couldn't just call so-and-so the Flames best player this year without bringing up Iginla. Seems a lot easier than throwing a hissy fit when someone says, "wait hold up, he's good but he's not Iginla good."

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Feel like saying Crosby is this generation's Gretzky is like saying Cammalleri/Giordano/whoever is this team's Iginla.

Iginla becomes a Flames, starts posting some nice numbers and leads the team in scoring for over a decade. Many people of that generation thinks he's the greatest or one of the greatest players to ever dawn the Flaming C, although he has some of his own competition with a peer who showed up slightly later in Kiprusoff. Now that both are gone, does there need to be a de facto "Iginla"? If you want to call whoever you think is the best player for the Flames this year as the "Iginla of this season", I guess you can do it. I'm going to go ahead and say that this team doesn't have an Iginla. If we're lucky maybe one of the young players will develop into one but Monahan's still a long ways away from putting him in conversation of best player to play for the Flames.

I don't know why you couldn't just call so-and-so the Flames best player this year without bringing up Iginla. Seems a lot easier than throwing a hissy fit when someone says, "wait hold up, he's good but he's not Iginla good."

But there doesn't need to be that immediate replacement. Players grow into that role, if anyone fills it at all.

One day, if there is a player that consistently leads the team both on and off the ice, makes contributions of his time and money to our community, and is overall solidified as the face of our franchise, then yes, he would be the "Iginla" of that generation.

You don't need to just pick someone as soon as that person is gone. The way you make it sound, it's as though just about any swingin' dick should be named "the next Iginla" because you always need to have one, but that's not the way it works.

Once again you're basing your argument on something that isn't happening or hasn't been said.

[strombad]

Besides, Bobby Orr was the best player to ever play the game, so I don't think people should get too uptight about comparisons to "the great one".... he's still not the GREATEST one. Bobby Orr redefined the defensive position, you could say he helped redefine what hockey was. Gretzky redefined offence. Perhaps Crosby, if given the time, will be the one to redefine the "complete" player?

Let's just calm down and wait before saying he'll never be Gretzky. Nobody will be. But Gretzky was never Orr, so it's not like it matters.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Cammalleri's lead the team in goal scoring and point production just as many times as Crosby has lead the league though.

[FlamesAddiction]

Crosby is a step ahead of his peers, which I attribute more to his drive and determination. Too many players these days let their foot off the pedal once they start making a lot of money, but Crosby still plays hungry.

He's not this generation's Gretzky. I would say he is closer to Lemieux. Honestly though, the gap in talent between superstars and second tier stars is not like it used to be. It's hard to compare the 80s/90s to now IMO.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by strombad

Besides, Bobby Orr was the best player to ever play the game, so I don't think people should get too uptight about comparisons to "the great one".... he's still not the GREATEST one. Bobby Orr redefined the defensive position, you could say he helped redefine what hockey was. Gretzky redefined offence. Perhaps Crosby, if given the time, will be the one to redefine the "complete" player?

Let's just calm down and wait before saying he'll never be Gretzky. Nobody will be. But Gretzky was never Orr, so it's not like it matters.

Orr was the greatest player. Gretzky had the greatest career.

Crosby is the best player in the game today but he isn't in the same class as those two who transcended the game.

[albertGQ]

If Gretzky retired after the same number of seasons as Orr, he would no doubt be considered the greatest player of all time. If you pro rate his first 10 years over a 20 year career, he would be on pace for 16 Art Rosses, 18 Hart trophies, ~1100 goals, over 3200 points. People don't really factor how Orr would have slowed down had he had a full career.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would say he is closer to Lemieux.

I'm honestly a Crosby fan, but it must seem like I just really hate the guy but....

1996 Lemieux leads the league in scoring. 161 points in 70 games, good for 189 points in 82. The next best is the person I feel Crosby is closest to in terms "player of his generation" in Jagr with 145, after that everyone else has 120 or under. That includes Sakic, Francis, Forsberg, Selanne, Lindros, Fedorov, Mogilny, Fleury, Oates, Sundin, Hull, Yzerman, etc. etc. I mean is that competition exceedingly weaker than Crosby's? I think it's a great disservice to those players to suggest it. Yet Lemeiux slaughtered them in the scoring race, after missing a season with Hodgkin's a couple years earlier.

Defenseman playing that year? Bourque, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, Chelios, Pronger, MacInnis, Murphy, Stevens, etc. etc.

But if Lemieux was on pace for 190 points, the goalies must have been terrible right? Roy, Brodeur and Hasek. Enough said.

Goal scoring that year, despite having Lemieux, was completely comparable to the year after the lockout when Crosby made his debut.

Until someone explains to me how Lemieux's 1996 season was a product of the high scoring and weak competition of the 1980s I'm going to have a hard time following along with any type of argument that suggests it, which often seems to be the case.

Then there's also the fact that Lemiux had a higher point-per-game in the 90s than 80s which is often overlooked, even if he did miss a bunch of games because of Hodgkin's and a done back. Which still didn't stop him from putting up 229 points in 170 games after the turn of the millennium as a 40 year old coming back from a 4 year retirement (forced to do so because his back was so bad he couldn't tie his skates).

Until Crosby puts up anywhere close to Lemieux type numbers, and maybe this is the year he will and I'll look foolish, I think comparing him to Lemieux is still unfair. He's got a long ways to go in my opinion. Right now let's see if he can beat Jagr's post lockout 123 points and earn his second Hart to see if he deserves to be listed with Jagr and friends when all is said and done.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

If Gretzky retired after the same number of seasons as Orr, he would no doubt be considered the greatest player of all time. If you pro rate his first 10 years over a 20 year career, he would be on pace for 16 Art Rosses, 18 Hart trophies, ~1100 goals, over 3200 points. People don't really factor how Orr would have slowed down had he had a full career.

I count 0 Norrises

[Inglewood Jack]

we need some fricken clarified definitions up in here. this is the way I interpret it:

Greatest - sum total of accomplishments over an entire career
Best - highest sustained level of play during a player's prime

by that criteria, Gretz is without question the greatest, while in my opinion either Orr or Lemieux (aptly named) were the best. Sid is neither of those yet, but we won't be able to make that call until 10-15 years from now when he's ready to call it quits.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

Orr was the greatest player. Gretzky had the greatest career.

Crosby is the best player in the game today but he isn't in the same class as those two who transcended the game.

Talent wise, of course not.

[Rerun]

How old are you Strombad and all your other pro Crosby supporters that say that Crosby is the new Gretzky?

I ask because if you were not able to watch Gretzky play in his prime (1978-1994... 16 years by the way.... How many players can be considered in their prime for 16 years?).... and I'm not talking you-tube videos or watching when you were 5 or 10 years old....

...Frankly, you don't have a fricking clue!

There is a reason why Gretzky holds 9,999 records and awards. He was just that good. Nobody else, other than Mario Lemieux for a few years, was even close.

end rant/

[icecube]

Lemieux was pretty close.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm honestly a Crosby fan, but it must seem like I just really hate the guy but....

1996 Lemieux leads the league in scoring. 161 points in 70 games, good for 189 points in 82. The next best is the person I feel Crosby is closest to in terms "player of his generation" in Jagr with 145, after that everyone else has 120 or under. That includes Sakic, Francis, Forsberg, Selanne, Lindros, Fedorov, Mogilny, Fleury, Oates, Sundin, Hull, Yzerman, etc. etc. I mean is that competition exceedingly weaker than Crosby's? I think it's a great disservice to those players to suggest it. Yet Lemeiux slaughtered them in the scoring race, after missing a season with Hodgkin's a couple years earlier.

Because it's so difficult to compare eras, I tend to put the hard numbers aside and instead look at how much better a player is in their given era than their peers. I realize this is subjective and very opinion based though.

Gretzky and Orr compared to their peers were way more ahead than Crosby is to his peers (IMO). Crosby is to his peers, roughly just as ahead as Lemieux was to his, although I agree that could be a little too generous.