Crosby vs McDavid (At Age 22)

[Nadal On Clay]

Then why bring it up? McDavid has only made the playoffs once. Compare their first playoff appearances.

Crosby was better than McDavid during their 1st playoff run too.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Having a hand in two game-winning goals (one midway through the game and one in the third period so it's not like they were opening minute goals where afterwards opponent was shut down for 60 minutes in a lopsided win) isn't distinguishable impact? You learn something new everyday...

With regards to Letang the talk clearly specifically was in games 3 and 4 so no backpedaling there.

Also what I dodn't get is that now you're downplaying Crosby's contribution to Pens wins and are asking questions like this:



That wasn't your original question, so again you're trying to manipulate things. You asked about Crosby having ANY impact in the SERIES. Not in games 5-7. But in the SERIES. Last time I checked games 3-4 belonged to the series as well. So I'm not putting too much emphasis on anything. I'm showing you with facts how Crosby impacted the series. Never once have I told you he had the biggest impact in the series or anything like that. But I've shown you that he had an impact in the series, impact in Pens winning the series (again I guess I need to point out that winning a series requires four wins).

In your original question you said to the poster that he will be manipulating things and it will be funny. Well you've been doing nothing but that when I only presented you with the fact on how Crosby had ANY impact in the series. And sure enough, it has been funny. But I'm done with you here. I'm sure you want to get the last word in so go ahead.

Not when he played poorly in game 5 and 6 and barely played in game 7. All more important games, all games where Crosby simply wasn’t Crosby.

Well then let me rephrase to what I really meant. I meant his team wining the series, he had little to no impact on his team winning the series.

I thought he played better than Crosby those two games and the whole series. Just like Malkin.

I’m down playing his finals because people like you like to run around the facts and truths in an attempt to make him look better than he actually was. The fact that Crosby played like he did and his team STILL won only proves my point more. He had a great post season that year, but a terrible finals.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Crosby was better than McDavid during their 1st playoff run too.

5 points in 5 games
4 points in 6 games

Both lead their teams in points. Both very small sample sizes, only McDavid won and Crosby didn’t....

How can you honestly make that judgement call? Seriously?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Having more playoff experience certainly helps getting a player more prepared for the post season, wouldn’t you think? It’s more ridiculous to just assume McDavid would fall flat every post season based on his play within his only one

Yes and no. Crosby went from 5 points in his first playoffs to leading the league in points in his second playoffs. I don't think those 5 games he played the prior year gave him the experience to explode like that.

I don't personally think McDavid will continue to produce so little in the playoffs, but at the same time you can't just assume he'll produce as well as Crosby has with more experience under his belt. That's diminishing what Crosby has *actually done* by suggesting all it takes is a good player to get some experience to produce like that.

I never said that, I said having a good team around him helped him have more opportunities to play in the post season and for the cup. His play alone gets all my credit, but he’s only one player and still needed help. Every great player has.

And I don't disagree with that. Of course having a good team helps, just like it has helped Toews win a Conn Smythe that he likely doesn't if he played on the Oilers. But despite all that extra opportunity, Crosby's production is even greater than guys like Toews and Kane *because* he's better.

That's my sole issue. Making it seem as though Crosby's points-per-game and overall career production in the playoffs should be taken with a grain of salt because he's simply gotten more opportunities to play games in the playoffs.

I agree, but that same logic still should stand for McDavid, who still hasn’t had a chance to prove or disprove everyone’s thoughts on his playoff play. They are both generational talents, their play will speak for itself, but That doesn’t change that Crosby had more opportunities to make that jump. Until McDavid gets the same, it’s hard to say.

But there's no guarantee McDavid would produce the same as Crosby if he played the same number of games in the playoffs. Maybe Crosby's style is more conducive to producing in the playoffs? Or maybe McDavid actually blows Crosby out of the water if/when he plays as many games? We don't know and can only speculate. But that's unfair to Crosby since we'd have to assume that what Crosby has actually DONE can be equaled by what McDavid MIGHT do.

The irony is this reminds me of the people who disregard Crosby's 66 points in 41 games season as an example of a scoring title he would have won if he didn't get hurt. "But you don't know he would have kept up that pace over a full 82 games". Yet, we're just going to assume McDavid can produce as well as Crosby just because their regular season totals are similar? Why does McDavid get the benefit of the doubt, but suggesting Crosby winning a scoring title when he's miles ahead of the pack at the time of injury is so outlandish?

(Not saying you've argued this last one, but I've seen countless times people refusing to give credit to Crosby for scoring titles he most certainly would have won, not due to someone being better than him that year, but due to injury at the time he was killing the league)

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yes and no. Crosby went from 5 points in his first playoffs to leading the league in points in his second playoffs. I don't think those 5 games he played the prior year gave him the experience to explode like that.

I don't personally think McDavid will continue to produce so little in the playoffs, but at the same time you can't just assume he'll produce as well as Crosby has with more experience under his belt. That's diminishing what Crosby has *actually done* by suggesting all it takes is a good player to get some experience to produce like that.



And I don't disagree with that. Of course having a good team helps, just like it has helped Toews win a Conn Smythe that he likely doesn't if he played on the Oilers. But despite all that extra opportunity, Crosby's production is even greater than guys like Toews and Kane *because* he's better.

That's my sole issue. Making it seem as though Crosby's points-per-game and overall career production in the playoffs should be taken with a grain of salt because he's simply gotten more opportunities to play games in the playoffs.



But there's no guarantee McDavid would produce the same as Crosby if he played the same number of games in the playoffs. Maybe Crosby's style is more conducive to producing in the playoffs? Or maybe McDavid actually blows Crosby out of the water if/when he plays as many games? We don't know and can only speculate. But that's unfair to Crosby since we'd have to assume that what Crosby has actually DONE can be equaled by what McDavid MIGHT do.

The irony is this reminds me of the people who disregard Crosby's 66 points in 41 games season as an example of a scoring title he would have won if he didn't get hurt. "But you don't know he would have kept up that pace over a full 82 games". Yet, we're just going to assume McDavid can produce as well as Crosby just because their regular season totals are similar? Why does McDavid get the benefit of the doubt, but suggesting Crosby winning a scoring title when he's miles ahead of the pack at the time of injury is so outlandish?

(Not saying you've argued this last one, but I've seen countless times people refusing to give credit to Crosby for scoring titles he most certainly would have won, not due to someone being better than him that year, but due to injury at the time he was killing the league)

He still had the opportunity to be in the post season regardless in 2008 because of his team. He only played 58 games that year, but his team behind Malkin secured a playoff spot. We still can’t speculate on how their styles compare because one made the post season multiple times while the other made it once. In the end there is no way of knowing if McDavids style does or doesn’t. Like you said and I totally agree, it’s about the experience and it’s hard to gain playoff experience carrying around a dead weight team. That doesn’t mean Crosby’s impact and contribution isn’t obvious, it should be.

I agree you can’t assume. I have no idea to be honest. But many are still using his last playoff run as proof of what is to come. I know you don’t agree, but that’s where I have an issue.

Well hear me out. Crosby’s production and abilities in the post season should not be questioned. I may hammer away about his play at times in the post season, but that’s only because the few I quote tend to forget that it’s a team game and a team effort in the end. The playoffs shouldn’t excluded at all, but like we have both established, it’s the context.

I agree there is no way of knowing, but there is also no way of assuming he wouldn’t be able to produce like he has been in the regular season. Many just like to think that he wouldn’t and him not making the post season is entirely on his shoulders, all while giving Crosby ALL the credit. Again, not your words, but that’s where it gets ridiculous.

I see your point, but we actually have more to prove what “could have” happened in 2011 than the “evidence” many like to use against McDavid. Would he have hit 130+ points? Probably not, but a lot of points? Yes....scoring title? It’s safe to say yes. He just had to much of a lead on everyone. McDavid is a big what if.

All in all, I don’t support Crosby being in any way “significantly” better because he was able to win a cup around this age gap....especially when McDavid hasn’t had the opportunity to expand his post season play due to his play. But yes I agree that doesn’t mean we should assume McDavid would have been able to play just as great and achieve the same things. It’s a big question mark, but I just feel many see him and how he has been playing and how much it resembles Crosby as a young rising star. Only time will tell.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

5 points in 5 games
4 points in 6 games

Both lead their teams in points. Both very small sample sizes, only McDavid won and Crosby didn’t....

How can you honestly make that judgement call? Seriously?

Did you watch them at all?

Crosby looked like the superior player in their respective first rounds. McDavid also had a player who scored 13 pts in the 2nd round while he scored 5. Not to mention Crosby was the best player on his team by far and the best point producer. McDavid was not.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Did you watch them at all?

Crosby looked like the superior players their respective first rounds. McDavid also had a player who scored 13 pts in the 2nd round while he scored 5. Not to mention Crosby was the best player on his team by far and the best point producer. McDavid was not.

It seems lost on some that Crosby still produced in his first POs despite his team getting dominated.

McDavid's team won his first playoff series and still only had 4 (including an absolutely meaningless EN goal) points in 6 games.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Did you watch them at all?

Crosby looked like the superior player in their respective first rounds. McDavid also had a player who scored 13 pts in the 2nd round while he scored 5. Not to mention Crosby was the best player on his team by far and the best point producer. McDavid was not.

I did. I saw a great player but 5 games is hardly enough to make any kind of assumption like that. It just sounds extremely bias. Ya he was the best player and point producer through 5 games.....congrats?

Sure, we are all aware. What’s more funny is how much you Pen fans clinge on to that post season to make your decisions....because you know, it’s one and his very first one. He had a bad series against the Ducks. You make it sound like Crosby NEVER had an off series, or that another player in his own team never put produced him.

Like I said, you can’t rhink this through in any other way outside of McDavid not being Crosby’s equal because his one and only post season, he didn’t perform well. And you soak in the fact that he hasn’t been able to “redeem” himself in your eyes because his team is sorely lacking.

 

[GreatGonzo]

It seems lost on some that Crosby still produced in his first POs despite his team getting dominated.

McDavid's team won his first playoff series and still only had 4 (including an absolutely meaningless EN goal) points in 6 games.

McDavid still lead his team with those 4 points. So he clearly produced better than anyone on his team, so your not correct.

The Pens had four players with 4 points. Crosby had 5. He wasn’t the only one producing.

 

[FartMilk]

It seems lost on some that Crosby still produced in his first POs despite his team getting dominated.

McDavid's team won his first playoff series and still only had 4 (including an absolutely meaningless EN goal) points in 6 games.

McDavid also scored a shorthanded goal late in game 2 which helped even the series at 1-1.

We can debate about who is the better even strength player if you want, because that surely goes to McDavid over Crosby.

 

[bathdog]

There is no wash between Drai and Malkin. Why do you people love comparing those two as if they have any sort of resemblance in terms of impact?
Malkin DID have a larger impact than Drai.....

Crosby played a lot with Malkin on PP and at times on his wing. Malkin fished the ‘08 season second in scoring and was a Hart Finalists when Crosby was out due to injuries...only to out score Crosby AND Ovechkin to win the scoring title the following year with one of the best playoff performerances of all time, winning the Smythe.

What exactly is equal about that? Malkin has 2 scoring titles, a Hart, Lindsay, Smythe, while leading the Pens in production 2/3 of their cup runs.....Your comparing a generational player to a solid 2nd line center.

The whole “wash” argument is just pathetic and is an insult to Malkin. I mean are you really trying to say that playing with Drai has more impact on McDavid than not? It’s the other way around buddy.

If Crosby didn’t benefit for Malkin, then there is no need to stretch the truth and try to make an argument for McDavid and Drai.

[mod]

I literally said Malkin can have a larger impact, that goes without saying. If this was about counting cups, or team accomplishments it'd be another story, or if Malkin was a regular linemate of Crosby. It's about individual performance though, and Malkin wasn't a regular linemate of Crosby. Yes, they played frequently together on the PP, but only rarely at even strength. Drai is essentially a regular linemate of McDavid. I haven't taken a dive into the numbers, but if we're going to compare their PP linemates, then we're also going to compare their EV linemates, a place where most of the game actually take place, so if Crosby's PP production is inflated relatively speaking by playing with superior PP linemates, then McDavid ES production would be inflated relatively speaking by playing with better EV linemates, no?

Crosby was way above average in the playoffs, individually, during his first few years, regardless of what Malkin did.
McDavid was very average in the playoffs, individually, during his first few years. Yes he only had one showing, and no, I don't think it's fair to judge him off of it, so I don't.

 

[Khomutov]

The discussion about playoff performance is pointless until we see more of McDavid in the postseason. Judging a player on one year is unfair and while Crosby is great in the playoffs he had some bad runs too.

 

[daver]

The discussion about playoff performance is pointless until we see more of McDavid in the postseason. Judging a player on one year is unfair and while Crosby is great in the playoffs he had some bad runs too.

Don't be ridiculous. If their careers both ended after 4 seasons Crosby is unquestionably rated higher than McDavid.

To your 2nd point, Crosby is the best playoff performer of his era. He just won two Conn Smythes along with having the most productive two round performance of the era.

 

[daver]

McDavid also scored a shorthanded goal late in game 2 which helped even the series at 1-1.

We can debate about who is the better even strength player if you want, because that surely goes to McDavid over Crosby.

Speaking of pointless debates.

Guess who was the dominant ES scorer in the playoffs over his first four seasons and for his era?

Guess who was T69th in ES points in the playoffs despite being T30 in points?

That is the only kernel of relevance that a ES points vs. PP points debate has, that an ES scorer will be able to keep up their point totals better in the playoffs.

 

[Habs 4 Life]

It's dam close but I'm still going to go with Sid.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I did. I saw a great player but 5 games is hardly enough to make any kind of assumption like that. It just sounds extremely bias. Ya he was the best player and point producer through 5 games.....congrats?

Sure, we are all aware. What’s more funny is how much you Pen fans clinge on to that post season to make your decisions....because you know, it’s one and his very first one. He had a bad series against the Ducks. You make it sound like Crosby NEVER had an off series, or that another player in his own team never put produced him.

Like I said, you can’t rhink this through in any other way outside of McDavid not being Crosby’s equal because his one and only post season, he didn’t perform well. And you soak in the fact that he hasn’t been able to “redeem” himself in your eyes because his team is sorely lacking.

Neat strawmans.

Crosby was just plain better during their first round appearance while being one year younger. There is no bias about it at all. Stop trying to claim everyone who voted Crosby is biased on him. I already showed you the stats and if you would not be biased agaisnt Crosby, you would see it too.

You justneed to accept that McDavid has been really disappointing on his first playoffs and that Crosby was better. McDavid also had another round to prove the first round was an anomaly and he got outscroed by 8 pts by his own teammate while going under PPG for the 2nd round in a row. Now, that doesn’t mean McDavid will be disappointing in every playoff he plays, not at all, but it’s pretty clear who was better in their first playoff.

I never said that Crosby never had a bad series, I was simply pointing the fact that McDavid had a disappointing first playoffs, which is the point you were arguing on. Stop making excuses for McDavid. It was Crosby’s first one too while being younger and yet, he was better.

You can spin it all the way ou want, but it still won’t make McDavids first playoff apprearance better than Crosby’s.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

The discussion about playoff performance is pointless until we see more of McDavid in the postseason. Judging a player on one year is unfair and while Crosby is great in the playoffs he had some bad runs too.

@GreatGonzo

 

[blundluntman]

Me coming back to this poll after forgetting about it for a week:

 

[GreatGonzo]

Neat strawmans.

Crosby was just plain better during their first round appearance while being one year younger. There is no bias about it at all. Stop trying to claim everyone who voted Crosby is biased on him. I already showed you the stats and if you would not be biased agaisnt Crosby, you would see it too.

You justneed to accept that McDavid has been really disappointing on his first playoffs and that Crosby was better. McDavid also had another round to prove the first round was an anomaly and he got outscroed by 8 pts by his own teammate while going under PPG for the 2nd round in a row. Now, that doesn’t mean McDavid will be disappointing in every playoff he plays, not at all, but it’s pretty clear who was better in their first playoff.

I never said that Crosby never had a bad series, I was simply pointing the fact that McDavid had a disappointing first playoffs, which is the point you were arguing on. Stop making excuses for McDavid. It was Crosby’s first one too while being younger and yet, he was better.

You can spin it all the way ou want, but it still won’t make McDavids first playoff apprearance better than Crosby’s.

Again it’s just bias to say after 5 games he looked better. But whatever floats your boat.

I never said everyone who voted for Crosby is bias....yet you accuse me of doing a straw man? Ironic. I clearly said they vote for him because he won a cup, and because McDavid wasn’t so great his first one.

Wow another straw man....your really going for the record aren’t you. I accepted he wasn’t good, I’ve made that clear. But what’s interesting is you want me to do that while others can’t accept that McDavids team is the reason why he hasn’t had another crack at the post season and that McDavid one and only Post season shouldn’t reflect how talented he is and how dominant he has been compared to Crosby early on.

Maybe you should practice what you actually preach instead of falling back on your faulty and bias ways. You continue to use McDavids second round against him as if that should dictate any and every playoffs he will ever have, and you do this knowing that he struggles to make the post season. Again, ironic. Maybe let’s give me another chance before making those judgement calls?

And in many ways Crosby’s was disappointing too. He lost in 5 games, I don’t see how that’s something amazing. But he’s your guy, it’s your team, so clearly he was outstanding....

Everything you just argued about his just hypocritical.

[mod]

I literally said Malkin can have a larger impact, that goes without saying. If this was about counting cups, or team accomplishments it'd be another story, or if Malkin was a regular linemate of Crosby. It's about individual performance though, and Malkin wasn't a regular linemate of Crosby. Yes, they played frequently together on the PP, but only rarely at even strength. Drai is essentially a regular linemate of McDavid. I haven't taken a dive into the numbers, but if we're going to compare their PP linemates, then we're also going to compare their EV linemates, a place where most of the game actually take place, so if Crosby's PP production is inflated relatively speaking by playing with superior PP linemates, then McDavid ES production would be inflated relatively speaking by playing with better EV linemates, no?

Crosby was way above average in the playoffs, individually, during his first few years, regardless of what Malkin did.
McDavid was very average in the playoffs, individually, during his first few years. Yes he only had one showing, and no, I don't think it's fair to judge him off of it, so I don't.

Linemates don’t matter though. It doesn’t matter whether or not Malkin was on his line or not, many are still trying to compare him to Draisatl because he plays on McDavids line, as if to suggest that Drai and Malkin are in any way equal.

I don’t see how ones ES numbers can be inflated due to “better” ES linemates. McDavids ES production has been far superior, and just like Crosby, he makes the players around him better. But that shouldn’t take away the fact that Crosby’s team had a superior PP early on, as evidence to his ‘07 season.

I never said otherwise have I. I have clearly said that having Malkin makes a bigger impact on the Pens and their chances to winning in the post season than any of McDavids teammates. McDavid was average, the funny thing is the run around that many do in order to justify Crosby being better. McDavid wasn’t great and Many Crosby lovers enjoy it and write him off overall as a playoff choker, they then decide to blame him for why the oilers haven’t been back to the post season while praising Crosby. McDavid has to prove himself, but he can’t do it without the even being there and gaining experience, but again, many here just don’t understand that.

Not just that, but the linemate/team argument is very flawed in general. Crosby played only 58 games in ‘08. Malkin got the team to the post season in the end, Hossa was then partnered up with Crosby, and he out produced Crosby in the conference finals and finals while finishing one point behind him. Once again though, people love to ignore this. Why?

@GreatGonzo

I agree. Yet people have used it to say Crosby is better and how McDavid is inferior. Sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Again it’s just bias to say after 5 games he looked better. But whatever floats your boat.

I never said everyone who voted for Crosby is bias....yet you accuse me of doing a straw man? Ironic. I clearly said they vote for him because he won a cup, and because McDavid wasn’t so great his first one.

Wow another straw man....your really going for the record aren’t you. I accepted he wasn’t good, I’ve made that clear. But what’s interesting is you want me to do that while others can’t accept that McDavids team is the reason why he hasn’t had another crack at the post season and that McDavid one and only Post season shouldn’t reflect how talented he is and how dominant he has been compared to Crosby early on.

Maybe you should practice what you actually preach instead of falling back on your faulty and bias ways. You continue to use McDavids second round against him as if that should dictate any and every playoffs he will ever have, and you do this knowing that he struggles to make the post season. Again, ironic. Maybe let’s give me another chance before making those judgement calls?

And in many ways Crosby’s was disappointing too. He lost in 5 games, I don’t see how that’s something amazing. But he’s your guy, it’s your team, so clearly he was outstanding....

Everything you just argued about his just hypocritical.


Linemates don’t matter though. It doesn’t matter whether or not Malkin was on his line or not, many are still trying to compare him to Draisatl because he plays on McDavids line, as if to suggest that Drai and Malkin are in any way equal.

I don’t see how ones ES numbers can be inflated due to “better” ES linemates. McDavids ES production has been far superior, and just like Crosby, he makes the players around him better. But that shouldn’t take away the fact that Crosby’s team had a superior PP early on, as evidence to his ‘07 season.

I never said otherwise have I. I have clearly said that having Malkin makes a bigger impact on the Pens and their chances to winning in the post season than any of McDavids teammates. McDavid was average, the funny thing is the run around that many do in order to justify Crosby being better. McDavid wasn’t great and Many Crosby lovers enjoy it and write him off overall as a playoff choker, they then decide to blame him for why the oilers haven’t been back to the post season while praising Crosby. McDavid has to prove himself, but he can’t do it without the even being there and gaining experience, but again, many here just don’t understand that.

Not just that, but the linemate/team argument is very flawed in general. Crosby played only 58 games in ‘08. Malkin got the team to the post season in the end, Hossa was then partnered up with Crosby, and he out produced Crosby in the conference finals and finals while finishing one point behind him. Once again though, people love to ignore this. Why?


I agree. Yet people have used it to say Crosby is better and how McDavid is inferior. Sort of defeats the purpose.

Again, there is nothing biased with my claim. Crosby was just better in the 5 games he played than McDavid was in his 13 games. Now you’re trying to use the fact that Pittsburgh lost to make his performance disappointing

So, just because some posters can’t accept that McDavid isn’t the reason the Oliers are bad, you gotta go down at their level and claim Crosby was not better than 97 in their first playoffs? I thought you were a more knowledgeable poster...

Yes it is a 5 game sample size, but it doesn’t change the fact that Crosby was just better.

For the bolded part, please quote where I said it. Either you lack reading comprehension or you just love to do strawmans posts after posts. I never said that McDavid won’t have any success in the playoffs. I expect him to be wayyy better than he was in his first appearance who was really disappointing for his standards.

Nobody will be able to convince you if you just keep ignoring the facts, which is probably one of the main reasons you do strawmans in basically all the posts you quote me in.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Again, there is nothing biased with my claim. Crosby was just better in the 5 games he played than McDavid was in his 13 games. Now you’re trying to use the fact that Pittsburgh lost to make his performance disappointing

So, just because some posters can’t accept that McDavid isn’t the reason the Oliers are bad, you gotta go down at their level and claim Crosby was not better than 97 in their first playoffs? I thought you were a more knowledgeable poster...

Yes it is a 5 game sample size, but it doesn’t change the fact that Crosby was just better.

For the bolded part, please quote where I said it. Either you lack reading comprehension or you just love to do strawmans posts after posts. I never said that McDavid won’t have any success in the playoffs. I expect him to be wayyy better than he was in his first appearance who was really disappointing for his standards.

Nobody will be able to convince you if you just keep ignoring the facts, which is probably one of the main reasons you do strawmans in basically all the posts you quote me in.

It’s 5 games.....5. You can keep claiming whatever all you want. 5 games will never be enough to determine anything. That’s your opinion and it’s a very bias one and that’s ok, we can’t all be transparent.

Hey lookie ANOTHER strawman. That’s three for you my friend. I never claimed McDavid was better, or that Crosby was better their first playoff runs. My point is Crosby had 5 points in 5 games and was bounced from the first round after a historic season. By everyone else’s logic, he’s a failure, a choker, he isn’t as good as everyone said. The difference? Even while injured, he was able to make the post season the following year and had a great performance. McDavid hasn’t had another opportunity, Crosby did and he ran with it. I’m not saying McDavid would have done just a great, but to say he wouldn’t have done great at all, or that his one post season will only tell us how he will be from now on, that’s the argument many are making. Wake up.

“Was just better because I say so.” That’s all I’m reading. Fact is your watching those games through rose colored glasses.

Not you personally, but others. I should have rewritten that.

Saying a 5 game sample size is enough to determine who was “better” is just as ridiculous. Not just that, but who is to say Crosby would have done well if he made the second round? Who is to say they would have won? A lot of what ifs. All my point was , was that Crosby’s first playoff performance proved nothing and so did McDavids. Now we have to see if he can step up his game when he gets the chance.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

It’s 5 games.....5. You can keep claiming whatever all you want. 5 games will never be enough to determine anything. That’s your opinion and it’s a very bias one and that’s ok, we can’t all be transparent.

Hey lookie ANOTHER strawman. That’s three for you my friend. I never claimed McDavid was better, or that Crosby was better their first playoff runs. My point is Crosby had 5 points in 5 games and was bounced from the first round after a historic season. By everyone else’s logic, he’s a failure, a choker, he isn’t as good as everyone said. The difference? Even while injured, he was able to make the post season the following year and had a great performance. McDavid hasn’t had another opportunity, Crosby did and he ran with it. I’m not saying McDavid would have done just a great, but to say he wouldn’t have done great at all, or that his one post season will only tell us how he will be from now on, that’s the argument many are making. Wake up.

“Was just better because I say so.” That’s all I’m reading. Fact is your watching those games through rose colored glasses.

Not you personally, but others. I should have rewritten that.

Saying a 5 game sample size is enough to determine who was “better” is just as ridiculous. Not just that, but who is to say Crosby would have done well if he made the second round? Who is to say they would have won? A lot of what ifs. All my point was , was that Crosby’s first playoff performance proved nothing and so did McDavids. Now we have to see if he can step up his game when he gets the chance.

I dont know why you’re still quoting me with the bolded part, since I’m not the one who claims McDavid sucks in the playoffs or that he can’t get his team to the playoffs. It doesn’t apply to me. I can’t care less about what other Crosby/Pens fans say. I actually think that McDavid might have the edge in the RS just because he hasn’t lost an Art-Ross when healthy, but the gap is very small.

I don’t know why you still think I’m being biased for saying Crosby was better than McDavid in their 1st playoff appearance. Crosby was not playing out of his mind, but McDavid simply “sucked” more than him. I already showed you reasons why Crosby was the better player or if you want, the one who sucked less.

McDavid was clearly outplayed by Draisaitl and even Letestu had more pts than him. Not to mention Talbot was also playing out of his mind. McDavid was at best the 2nd best player during their 2 rounds and was 4th at worst. None of them were spectacular, but McDavid was clearly worst.
Even if you want to use strictly their 1st rounds, Crosby is still slightly ahead, the 2nd round just makes it worst.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I dont know why you’re still quoting me with the bolded part, since I’m not the one who claims McDavid sucks in the playoffs or that he can’t get his team to the playoffs. It doesn’t apply to me. I can’t care less about what other Crosby/Pens fans say. I actually think that McDavid might have the edge in the RS just because he hasn’t lost an Art-Ross when healthy, but the gap is very small.

I don’t know why you still think I’m being biased for saying Crosby was better than McDavid in their 1st playoff appearance. Crosby was not playing out of his mind, but McDavid simply “sucked” more than him. I already showed you reasons why Crosby was the better player or if you want, the one who sucked less.

McDavid was clearly outplayed by Draisaitl and even Letestu had more pts than him. Not to mention Talbot was also playing out of his mind. McDavid was at best the 2nd best player during their 2 rounds and was 4th at worst. None of them were spectacular, but McDavid was clearly worst.
Even if you want to use strictly their 1st rounds, Crosby is still slightly ahead, the 2nd round just makes it worst.

I’ve seen it posted countless times, not by you....I’m just talking to you and I made it a point. I understand you didn’t say that.

I don’t think anything shows from their first playoffs. I don’t think it’s enough games or enough anything to make that kind of decision. I agree McDavid wasn’t good for the most part. But in the end Crosby still had the opportunity to expand his talent in the post season where as McDavid hasn’t, so comparing their playoffs doesn’t exactly make sense. Can you see Crosby’s playoffs as a plus for him? Sure. My whole view is, their playoff opportunities are not equal in any way.

And again, what does that have to do with anything? Your just proving my point more with how bringing up that post season to further belittle McDavid. Look where he is now compared to the other two.....but that doesn’t matter, because nearly years ago, McDavid was out produced by Draisatl In a playoff run, and that means he isn’t better....where as we apparently can’t use Crosby’s ‘09 finals with that same logic where he was out scored by Talbot and Kennedy.

Once again, it’s bias as hell to continue to use McDavids playoffs against Crosby’s. It’s silly. It’s clearly not going to benefit McDavid.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I’ve seen it posted countless times, not by you....I’m just talking to you and I made it a point. I understand you didn’t say that.

I don’t think anything shows from their first playoffs. I don’t think it’s enough games or enough anything to make that kind of decision. I agree McDavid wasn’t good for the most part. But in the end Crosby still had the opportunity to expand his talent in the post season where as McDavid hasn’t, so comparing their playoffs doesn’t exactly make sense. Can you see Crosby’s playoffs as a plus for him? Sure. My whole view is, their playoff opportunities are not equal in any way.

And again, what does that have to do with anything? Your just proving my point more with how bringing up that post season to further belittle McDavid. Look where he is now compared to the other two.....but that doesn’t matter, because nearly years ago, McDavid was out produced by Draisatl In a playoff run, and that means he isn’t better....where as we apparently can’t use Crosby’s ‘09 finals with that same logic where he was out scored by Talbot and Kennedy.

Once again, it’s bias as hell to continue to use McDavids playoffs against Crosby’s. It’s silly. It’s clearly not going to benefit McDavid.

I am not comparing Crosby’s playoff resume to McDavids, I simply quoted someone who asked someone else to compare McDavids first playoff to Crosby’s first playoff, which I did. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m strictly comparing their first year like the original poster I quoted asked.

It’s not a hot take to claim that McDavid was disappointing and was clearly outplayed by Draisaitl. Does that make Draisaitl a better player? No, because they’re clearly not the same quality of player. Does that make Draisaitl the better playoff performer? Hard to tell because of the small sample size, but he had a better start even though I expect McDavid to lap him by the end of their careers.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I’ve seen it posted countless times, not by you....I’m just talking to you and I made it a point. I understand you didn’t say that.

I don’t think anything shows from their first playoffs. I don’t think it’s enough games or enough anything to make that kind of decision. I agree McDavid wasn’t good for the most part. But in the end Crosby still had the opportunity to expand his talent in the post season where as McDavid hasn’t, so comparing their playoffs doesn’t exactly make sense. Can you see Crosby’s playoffs as a plus for him? Sure. My whole view is, their playoff opportunities are not equal in any way.

And again, what does that have to do with anything? Your just proving my point more with how bringing up that post season to further belittle McDavid. Look where he is now compared to the other two.....but that doesn’t matter, because nearly years ago, McDavid was out produced by Draisatl In a playoff run, and that means he isn’t better....where as we apparently can’t use Crosby’s ‘09 finals with that same logic where he was out scored by Talbot and Kennedy.

Once again, it’s bias as hell to continue to use McDavids playoffs against Crosby’s. It’s silly. It’s clearly not going to benefit McDavid.

It doesn’t matter. Crosby at 22 was a far more seasoned player than Mcdavid is right now. Crosby at 22>