Will we Know By Game 20 If Sidney Crosby Really Is "The Next One"?

[Montrealer]

20 games might be short but, like you said, we better see some flashes of brilliance in those first 20 games if he's supposed to be the next Gretzky.

Or you get your money back?

 

[Hiishawk]

Would he? As I said, I just don't think this league treats 18 years old the same way it used to.

I understand the point of relative scoring, but IMO, this age factor has to be considered. Collective and defensive play, discipline and physicality are now different from what they used to be.

It is belief that at equal talent/potential, it is more difficult today for an 18 years old to compete.

But then why could a guy like Bergeron come in from the 2nd round and get 40 pts as an 18 year old? Nash being the goal-scoring leader at 19?

I agree that numbers are down and size is up over the past 20 years but that's true at the junior level too. If Crosby can considerably outgun opponents as a 17 yr. old junior in a low-scoring, big player era - well, it's from that same body of juniors that the other future NHL will come so...
All things being relative then I would project Crosby to have the same impact as those past "very dominant" juniors (like Lindros)- and, by the way, Thornton was NOT at that level as a junior, nor was Lecavalier.

 

[pens66]

Did you not notice Gretzky tied for 1st in the scoring race his rookie year? Did you not notice Lemieux finished with over a 100 points and was top 10 in scoring his rookie year? If Crosby is that breed of player (remember, we are not talking about the Sakic, Messier, Forsberg level, we are talking about the elite of the elite... the household name, the guy even non-hockey fans talk about) why should Crosby be held to a different standard?

The fact is that Gretzky and Lemiuex tore up the league as 18 year olds. If a players is deemed "The Next One", why shouldn't he have the stuff to do the same? If he doesn't have the stuff, he ain't "The Next One". He is mearly a good to great NHL prospect. Don't sell me gold and tell me its platinum.

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Michael Jordan... what do these athletes have in common? They all had massive breakout rookie years. As 18 year olds, they had the stuff to dominate full grown men. They were superstars from the day they stepped on the ice or the court.

Labron James was declared "The Next One" in basketball and he backed it up. He was an 18 year old kid who dominated full grown men, just as Gretzky, Jordan and Lemieux had done before him. If Crosby is "The Next One" he will have to do the same. There is no way you can get around that.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I really don't think you are comprehending what "The Next One" actually means. It doesn't mean "he might be a solid #1 centre 5 years from now. It doesn't mean he will be an NHL all-star 3 years from now. All-stars are a dime a dozen. It means he is the next Gretzky or Lemieux. Plain and simple.

To be "The Next One" you need to put up Gretzky-like performances or Lemieux-like performances. You need to be a dominant NHL'er from the get go. Not a guy who takes 4 years to develop into a 1st line centre, or even develops into an all-star. Being an All-star won't cut it and it doesn't make you "The Next One".

A guy who takes 4 years to develop is a Joe Sakic or a Mark Messier... NOT a Wayne Gretzky or a Mario Lemieux. Both those players dominated at every level of hockey their entire lives. There was no "development time" given to these players. They were expected to dominate, and they did. You can't develop the stuff Gretzky and Lemiuex had. You have it from pee-wee hockey all the way to the NHL level. We will know very early on if Crosby has that stuff. I'm hoping he does.

Michael Jordan wasn't 18 when he entered the nba, he was 21. Jordan wasn't even hyped up at all, he was actually picked 3rd overall. Nobody expected him to become the greatest baskeball of all time. So Jordan is not really a good comparison. Lebron James, however, is a very good comparison when being hyped as the next one. I agree, Crosby needs to show some dominance in his first year if he is indeed the next one.

 

[SuperUnknown]

I think it all depends if Crosby pulls a "Joe Thornton".

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

But then why could a guy like Bergeron come in from the 2nd round and get 40 pts as an 18 year old? Nash being the goal-scoring leader at 19?

I agree that numbers are down and size is up over the past 20 years but that's true at the junior level too. If Crosby can considerably outgun opponents as a 17 yr. old junior in a low-scoring, big player era - well, it's from that same body of juniors that the other future NHL will come so...
All things being relative then I would project Crosby to have the same impact as those past "very dominant" juniors (like Lindros)- and, by the way, Thornton was NOT at that level as a junior, nor was Lecavalier.

For Bergeron, it's really easy. He didn't play like a next one.

Played a very well-rounded game. I loved him out there. It's like I said earlier, this is a four-game line, mostly. And the gap between skill players and role players has lessened.

I think Bergeron got more points because he isn't an offense guy! He was a reliable guy, got minutes, supported linemates and finished chances in a very mature way. You do not have to overlook for offense to get 40 points in this league if you have a good skillset and a coach's confidence. This kid is very impressive off the ice, very mature and composed, like I've rarely seen this (I'm not talking about dumb "classy" cliches like Crosby spews. I'm talking genuinely intelligent opinions, maturity and composure)

If Bergeron had played it cute, his ass would have been on the bench because you're going to make mistakes at this age, and you will make a lot more if you don't stick to the basics.

To get in the top 10 as an 18 years old today seems to me unlikely (not impossible, again), and certainly more difficult than ever before. You'd need unbelievable skills and top minutes. And you'll have to try things in an environment you're just not familiar with. It's unlikely you can pull that night after night without making a lot of mistakes. On top of being pounded night after night.

Rick Nash did well at 19, in his second NHL season. And he's got glaring holes, didn't finish top 10. And just to point it out, I actually consider him a phenomenon and would not trade him for Crosby.

His team lost all season. It's likely that if it had been a more competitive team, Nash might have a couple more assists, perhaps less goals, a better +/- and probably less ice time. And the team would have a couple more wins.

Plus, it has to be repeated: I don't think his early success or lack thereof is such a useful gauge. It's not an absolute indicator for any players, why should it be for phenoms? Lots of players in this year have had slow career starts and then shined or early starts and then they fell down.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

All things being relative then I would project Crosby to have the same impact as those past "very dominant" juniors (like Lindros)- and, by the way, Thornton was NOT at that level as a junior, nor was Lecavalier.

I forgot that, sorry

Yes, I consider Lecavalier to have been every bit as good a prospect as what I have seen of Crosby these past two years. They are a very different type of prospects, however.

Obviously, I don't feel Vinny has lived up to this potential so far.

Didn't follow Thornton enough to give an opinion on him.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Michael Jordan wasn't 18 when he entered the nba, he was 21. Jordan wasn't even hyped up at all, he was actually picked 3rd overall. Nobody expected him to become the greatest baskeball of all time. So Jordan is not really a good comparison. Lebron James, however, is a very good comparison when being hyped as the next one. I agree, Crosby needs to show some dominance in his first year if he is indeed the next one.

At the time he wasn't anything close to round, and he certainly wasn't orange!

 

[NewHabsEra*]

Crosby isn't being hyped as a solid NHL player. He's not being hyped as a good player. Hell, he's not even being hyped as a great player. He is being hyped as "The Next One". A Gretzky or a Lemieux. By those standards, shouldn't we know very early on if this kid really has what the all-time greats had?

Both Gretzky and Lemieux tore it up their first seasons. From the first times they stepped on NHL ice, you could tell that both were special. Gretzky tied for #1 in the scoring race his rookie year and Lemiuex finished top 10. If Crosby doesn't reach those standards, should we relegate him to future star or future superstar instead of "Next One" status?

There is no next one... The game has changed...

Crosby is gonna be an elite player, one of the best in the game but never he will reach the numbers Gretzky and Lemieux reached, its impossible the way the game is played these days...

 

[Brock]

Personally, I actually kind of agree with the thread starter. It's not Sidney's fault he has been given these expectations, but I mean, dem's da breaks. Nobody in this thread is saying, "hey if Sidney doesn't do well in those 20 games, he's a bust and a worthless piece of trash." What we are saying, is that in his first 20 games we should be able to tell what type of phenom we are dealing with here. If Sid has a really tough time adjusting to the NHL, then the expectations for him might have been unlofty. But if he performs incredibly well (lets say a PPG pace), then maybe these expectations aren't too lofty.

It's not about saying that if he doesn't meet expectations in those 20 games he's a bust, but more about saying if he does, he just might very well be "the next one."

But Sid has pretty much crushed any expectations or concerns people have had against him. I've been coming here a very long time so I can give you the scoop. When he was drafted into the Q, a lot of people were saying "he'll struggle in his first year, you watch." And the VERY few people who had high expectations of him, whether it be leading the Q in scoring were labelled idiots. He didn't just lead the Q in the scoring, he lead the league and captured CHL MVP. And he did it again this year, and led Canada to gold at the WJC and led the Oceanic to the Mem Cup.

Basically what I'm saying is that everytime we set the bar for him, he reaches and surpasses it. I can't wait to see how he performs and If I were a betting man, I'd say he'll do it again.

 

[Brock]

There is no next one... The game has changed...

So because the game has changed there can be no next one?

Every sport goes through a period of adaptation throughout it's history. Saying that because the NHL game has changed, that we won't ever see a Dominant force again is ludicrous IMO.

At some point in time, whether it be Sidney or whether it be Dustin Rose in the year 2020, a player will come around to become a dominant force over his career like players before him.

I just can't see the NHL going say 50 years without seing a player whom we can say "that player is among the 5 best players of all time"

 

[pei fan]

So because the game has changed there can be no next one?

Every sport goes through a period of adaptation throughout it's history. Saying that because the NHL game has changed, that we won't ever see a Dominant force again is ludicrous IMO.

At some point in time, whether it be Sidney or whether it be Dustin Rose in the year 2020, a player will come around to become a dominant force over his career like players before him.

I just can't see the NHL going say 50 years without seing a player whom we can say "that player is among the 5 best players of all time"

This is a very good post.To add to those thoughts just let me say we should be looking at relevant dominace and also factor in that it's harder to be
dominant.

What I find ironic about this argument on these boards is that there is
a nostalgia about Wayne and Mario (especially Mario)and nobody will
ever be as good as them yet there is a lack of nostalgia and respect
for Orr, Howe,Richard,etc. The reason for this IMO is that most
of the posters here grew up in Wayne and Mario's era.

 

[Puckhead]

But then why could a guy like Bergeron come in from the 2nd round and get 40 pts as an 18 year old? Nash being the goal-scoring leader at 19?

I agree that numbers are down and size is up over the past 20 years but that's true at the junior level too. If Crosby can considerably outgun opponents as a 17 yr. old junior in a low-scoring, big player era - well, it's from that same body of juniors that the other future NHL will come so...
All things being relative then I would project Crosby to have the same impact as those past "very dominant" juniors (like Lindros)- and, by the way, Thornton was NOT at that level as a junior, nor was Lecavalier.

Well said Steb, I agree with what you are saying, and I feel that although age has much to do with what can be expected of a young player, I think that his linemates will have just as much to say about how he does. In the case of Nash, he managed to tie for the goal scoring lead at 19 and he did it with very little in the way of top flight linemates. In Crosby's case, he not only has all the tools, he has the toolbox too! He is very mature, he thinks the game incredibly well, and his on ice vision is outstanding. Then you factor in that Mario and Recchi will be his linemates and I think you have the makings of one of the best lines in the NHL. Very few teams have their lines set at this point, because of all the uncertainty that surrounds each team. We have all seen what Lemieux has been able to do even late in his career with all the injury problems and very little in supporting cast. I believe that Crosby will shine with the credit going not only to his God given talents, but to his linemates. It can be said that Bergeron came out of nowhere to challenge for rookie of the year honours, considering he wasn't thought of as a player who would even challenge for a roster spot with Boston coming out of training camp, but his desire, and his linemates helped.