He may not be afraid to hit, but he's not as good at it. I never stated Ovechkin is a better defensive player because he hits. I simply find his defensive play to be stronger than Crosby's.DrMoses said:Just because AO hits doesn't make him a better two way player.
Crosby has played well in his own and and has shown he's not afraid to hit either. Plus he controls the puck more and makes more room for his teammates.
It's even.
Seph said:He may not be afraid to hit, but he's not as good at it. I never stated Ovechkin is a better defensive player because he hits. I simply find his defensive play to be stronger than Crosby's.
You may think it's even, and you are of course entitled to that. I simply disagree, and it looks like the writers of this list disagree also. I think both are fair opinions, cases can be made for either and the difference between who is the better prospect is very marginal. What I most disagree with are the people calling this list a joke because it has Ovechkin higher.
Ziggy Stardust said:Ovechkin and Crosby aren't A and B prospects with X potential. People are aware of their potential and they have fulfilled the hype to a certain extent and are going to get better. I stated the difficulty a European has assimilating to a new environment. It is silly for people to think it is easier for Ovechkin to be productive because he is two years older than Crosby. Is a player in his 30's who can net 80+ points worse than a player in his late 20's who can score 60+ points?
By HF's definitions, both Ovechkin and Crosby are prospects. I could care less about who is #1 or #2. I enjoy watching both rookies, have them both on my fantasy team and am not a fan of either club they play for. I don't care if Crosby is from Canada or if Ovechkin is from Russia. The point is that it goes beyond a slight difference in age that makes a prospect better.
Seph said:He may not be afraid to hit, but he's not as good at it. I never stated Ovechkin is a better defensive player because he hits. I simply find his defensive play to be stronger than Crosby's.
You may think it's even, and you are of course entitled to that. I simply disagree, and it looks like the writers of this list disagree also. I think both are fair opinions, cases can be made for either and the difference between who is the better prospect is very marginal. What I most disagree with are the people calling this list a joke because it has Ovechkin higher.
Interesting logic. 2 years doesnt make a difference when discussing 18 & 20 year olds (try telling that to a kid in the WHL ) & the calder winner is the best prospect.Ziggy Stardust said:The difference we were discussing was 2 years. You brought up Makarov and 26 year old prospects in comparision to players who were drafted a year apart. Clever thinking.
Is it possible to find out how Crosby will be performing as a 20 year old? Is it possible to predict what the Penguins roster will look like in 2 years? Is it possible to predict how much better Ovechkin will get?
Perhaps you should evaluate your logic before posting baseless arguements and adding nothing to this discussion.
Which is fine by me. The only part I'd really like you to agree with me on is that it's not a joke to have Ovechkin higher. It's a valid choice, just as having Crosby ahead would've been valid.DrMoses said:We're going to have to agree to disagree then.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Anybody whio says otherwise isnt at all objective.Seph said:The only part I'd really like you to agree with me on is that it's not a joke to have Ovechkin higher. It's a valid choice, just as having Crosby ahead would've been valid.
Sammy said:Interesting logic. 2 years doesnt make a difference when discussing 18 & 20 year olds (try telling that to a kid in the WHL ) & the calder winner is the best prospect.
Dont quit your day job to become a scout.
This is toooo easy. In your world a player doesnt do a ton of maturing in their late teens to early 20's. Hilarious. For some reason you sem to be unable to comprehend this. It makes no difference whether the guy is in the NHL or in Juniors, the fact is most kids improve a ton in this time frame. I can tell you are not up to logic on this issue, so I'll just call it a day with you & remember your inability to comprehend simple facts.Ziggy Stardust said:
This discussion is about Ovechkin as a 20 year old compared to Crosby as an 18 year old. I don't know what point you are trying to prove since it doesn't seem like you have much of an argument to back it up.
Would you take an 18 year old playing against other kids in juniors over a 20 year old rookie with 36 goals and 69 points in his first NHL season? From what you are saying, that appears to be what you are alluding to. Two years makes a difference if both players are in juniors, and the 18 year old is ahead in his development over the 20 year old. But the 20 year old rookie in discussion is Ovechkin.
So going with your theory, an 18 year old doing well in juniors is better than a 20 year old having a big impact in the NHL. Show me some numbers or facts to prove your baseless theory. Your sad attempt to discredit Ovechkin brought nothing to this discussion other than polluting these boards with more garbage.
Ha ha ha. Nice point. I never said that. Thats something you would say.
Thanks for blessing the boards with your knowledge and sharing your scouting skills with the rest of us. You've enlightened me with your irrelevancy.
Sammy said:This is toooo easy. In your world a player doesnt do a ton of maturing in their late teens to early 20's. Hilarious. For some reason you sem to be unable to comprehend this. It makes no difference whether the guy is in the NHL or in Juniors, the fact is most kids improve a ton in this time frame. I can tell you are not up to logic on this issue, so I'll just call it a day with you & remember your inability to comprehend simple facts.
Sammy said:This is toooo easy. In your world a player doesnt do a ton of maturing in their late teens to early 20's. Hilarious. For some reason you sem to be unable to comprehend this. It makes no difference whether the guy is in the NHL or in Juniors, the fact is most kids improve a ton in this time frame. I can tell you are not up to logic on this issue, so I'll just call it a day with you & remember your inability to comprehend simple facts.
Ovechkin has proven to be a better player, as of now. .Ziggy Stardust said:I already stated in my previous response that IF an 18 year old and 20 year old are both in the juniors, then the 18 year old has a better development window, but once again you fail to grasp that the discussion is Ovechkin. When are you going to learn to read?
If it is too easy, where are the facts, where are the numbers? I appreciate you dodging the issue and topic at hand, which is the discussion of Ovechkin as a 20 year old, but you are avoiding that fact and have provided not a single shred of relevance to this discussion. Thanks for wasting our time having to sift through more crap rather than having a decent and civil conversation regarding the top 50 list.
Next time you should brush up on your homework, improve your reading comprehension and do some research before entering into a debate. I understand your defense to get out of this discussion seeing how you have no substance to provide and I have to repeatedly repeat to you that we are discussing a 20 year old Ovechkin, not just any 20 year old.
How many 18 year olds out there could be as good (or better) than Ovechkin is as a 20 year old? Is it possible for Crosby and/or Malkin to be as good? It sure is. But at the same time, we don't even know how much better Ovechkin will get. And AS OF TODAY, Ovechkin has proven to be the better player.
I will graciously bow out of this discussion now since it appears that a stubborn individual can't comprehend the discussion at hand.
Ziggy Stardust said:I already stated in my previous response that IF an 18 year old and 20 year old are both in the juniors, then the 18 year old has a better development window, but once again you fail to grasp that the discussion is Ovechkin. When are you going to learn to read?
If it is too easy, where are the facts, where are the numbers? I appreciate you dodging the issue and topic at hand, which is the discussion of Ovechkin as a 20 year old, but you are avoiding that fact and have provided not a single shred of relevance to this discussion. Thanks for wasting our time having to sift through more crap rather than having a decent and civil conversation regarding the top 50 list.
Next time you should brush up on your homework, improve your reading comprehension and do some research before entering into a debate. I understand your defense to get out of this discussion seeing how you have no substance to provide and I have to repeatedly repeat to you that we are discussing a 20 year old Ovechkin, not just any 20 year old.
How many 18 year olds out there could be as good (or better) than Ovechkin is as a 20 year old? Is it possible for Crosby and/or Malkin to be as good? It sure is. But at the same time, we don't even know how much better Ovechkin will get. And AS OF TODAY, Ovechkin has proven to be the better player.
I will graciously bow out of this discussion now since it appears that a stubborn individual can't comprehend the discussion at hand.