THE NEXT ONE #87 said:why?
They're so different type of players!
Crosby is a lot better now than Spezza was with 16.
With the size from Crosby, Spezza wouldn't have played at the WJC with 16!
And Crosby will play in the 1st or 2nd line with 18 in the NHL and not play in a junior league like Spezza.
I hope the Habs catch him
Liquidrage said:I think the fairer comparision is Crosby at 16 vs Lindros at 16.
Liquidrage said:I think the fairer comparision is Crosby at 16 vs Lindros at 16.
Enoch said:I wonder if he will grow anymore. I know that I stopped growing at an incredibly young age (14).
I'd have to go with Crosby though. The kid is extremely fast, has a nice shot/nose for the net, and has very good vision on the ice. What more could you ask for?
Enoch said:I wonder if he will grow anymore. I know that I stopped growing at an incredibly young age (14).
I'd have to go with Crosby though. The kid is extremely fast, has a nice shot/nose for the net, and has very good vision on the ice. What more could you ask for?
Sampe said:Regarding size, here's an interesting quote taken from this page:
" I'm not quite done with the height/weight changes research, but if anybody's curious here's what I've got so far:
I looked at 120 players taken in the 1997 OHL midget draft, and compared their size then (most would have been 16) to their current height and weight (taken from a variety of up-to-date sources.)
The average height and weight for the players at age 16 was 72.8 inches and 184.4 pounds. Six years later, they averaged 73.2 inches and 197 pounds - a gain of about .4 inches and 12.6 pounds. But the gains were unevenly distributed.
Most players (65%) didn't get any taller. Almost all that did only grew an inch. There were only two cases in the 120 of a player getting two inches taller, and two getting three inches taller. There is some correlation between starting size and the likelihood of growth - guys under six feet had a 46% chance of getting bigger, 6'1"-6'2" had a 33% chance, and 6'3" and over had a 27% chance.
Most (74%) of the players gained some weight between 16 and 22. The extreme case was a 6'5", 185-pound draftee who grew an inch to 6'6" and filled out to 240 pounds by the time he made it to the pros. I'm still examing the numbers for weight, using pounds-per-inches-of-height as a way to measure growth of body size, but I think I've got the beginnings of a realistic way to add X pounds per year to young players. I haven't been able to find any meaningful correlation between starting height/weight and rate of growth - all sizes seem roughly as likely to put on weight, so that probably simplifies the calculation a lot. "
THE NEXT ONE #87 said:You can't compare Crosby with Lindros!
Lindros dominated the OHL with his body presence, but Crosby has the better sense and he's so skilled! ubeliveable
FlyerGuy69 said:it's Crosby, he is just insane with the puck and he seems to know when to shoot and when to pass.
Lindros was enormous for his age, even at the time he was huge by NHL standards but he also has incredible skills also. Lindros wasn't just great because of his size but because of his combination of rare size & skill(elite skill).
Crosbyfan said:This data is definitely at odds with anything I've seen before. I've seen averages of 2-3 inches from 16 to 18 or 19 but based on age differences within a group, not the same group taken at different times. 120 is a reasonably large group especially since its the same individuals taken twice. But I'm skeptical, unless they all padded they're stats back in 97 this seems to go against what most people think.
gb701 said:Seen averages of 2-3 inches in growth from 16-18 or 19 before where??
This is not the sort of information that is just thrown around - you have either seen real statistical data, or you are just repeating idle comments on boards like these.
Seriously, I am also skeptical of a post on a bulletin board based on research that itself is based on data that we all know is inaccurate - team information on height and weight of players is notoriously exagerrated, at all levels. Having said that, and for what it is worth, I would be shocked to find that 2-3 inches is the average growth after 16. I doubt it would be half of that.
Getting back to what this might or might not mean in respect of Crosby - it still puts him in the 6 foot range which is just fine for a strong kid like him. Size is not going to be a factor one way or the other the way he plays.
FlyersFan10 said:Just to play Devil's Advocate, let's remember that Crosby has the benefit of playing on a significantly better team than what Spezza had to work with. I'm sorry, but I don't think Crosby would have put up those great numbers on the Ice Dogs that Spezza had to play with.
Sampe said:Regarding size, here's an interesting quote taken from this page: