Crosby vs players from 90s

[nowhereman]

He relied pretty damn hard on Jagr and Francis specifically (and the rest of the team generally) in 92 when he was sitting out after having his wrist broken. Francis and Jagr took over.

Yes, Jagr did step up during the few games Lemieux missed in the NYR and BOS series. But I still stand by my opinion that Jagr was largely riding shotgun with Lemieux during those Cups and didn't prove himself any more valuable than any of the other strong pieces on that team. That's nothing to scoff at, unless you're comparing his playoff resume with other legends (where it doesn't look as impressive).

 

[MXD]

speed skating?

Then, whatever you watched, watch again, since you didn't understand the first time around.

 

[StroShow]

Crosby is top 5 all time

Gretzky
Lemieux
Orr
Howe
Crosby

 

[bobholly39]

He relied pretty damn hard on Jagr and Francis specifically (and the rest of the team generally) in 92 when he was sitting out after having his wrist broken. Francis and Jagr took over.

Yes, Jagr did step up during the few games Lemieux missed in the NYR and BOS series. But I still stand by my opinion that Jagr was largely riding shotgun with Lemieux during those Cups and didn't prove himself any more valuable than any of the other strong pieces on that team. That's nothing to scoff at, unless you're comparing his playoff resume with other legends (where it doesn't look as impressive).

Jagr was good in 1991 and 1992 but he absolutely wasn't the game changer he became later on in his career. Those teams won the cups because of Lemieux (no not *only* Lemieux, it's a team sport - but Jagr was just one among quite a few strong players, and doesn't stand out too much in 91 or 92).

Jagr actually has a really strong playoff resume overall though. It just sucks for him that it coincides with his teams not being that good, so he wasn't able to go very deep in playoffs in his prime. I think Jagr ranks #1 all time for game winning points in the playoffs - or possibly for game winning points in 3rd period/OT. Someone made a thread about that lately, I forget specifics, but it was an impressive metric. So he performed great generally - but he's missing that iconic "smythe worthy run" that most players of his caliber have, in fact most generally have multiple.

 

[tabness]

90s ainec

(well honestly I can’t deny my childhood era of the late nineties into the 2000s was pretty bad hockey except for a handful of teams looking back now but hey a lot of the star players of the earlier nineties were still playing and now that I am into collect old video the early to mid nineties seems to be the zenith of hockey for me)

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Excluding 99/66 for obvious reasons, Crosby is/was clearly better than every "90s" forward. Jagr is the only one who has an argument over Crosby, the rest he passed years ago.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I agree with most everything you're saying here however one thing. The definition of generational isn't just the best player of an era for myself but someone that is literally head and shoulders above everyone else. According to my criteria for myself, nobody has been generational since Mario. Maybe my standard is too high for generational but that's the point of generational for myself.

Edit, except Hasek sorry.

What if I told you someone this year scored 105 points in 56 games.

And lapping the next non-team-mate by 37 points.

 

[ManofSteel55]

In another thread, Mulletman, yes, him, said that Crosby compared more to the Forsbergs and Bures of the world rather than the generational talents. I'm paraphrasing here but i think this was his point.
The more I thought about it the more I felt i agreed. I thought about Sakic, Forsberg and Jagr, and i don't feel like there's a clear separation between those and Crosby. Sure, Crosby has many individual awards, but he didn't compete against Gretzky or Lemieux. So what I'm saying is I think Crosby is in the same tier of player as Forsberg, Sakic, Jagr and Lindros, and not a once in a generation or top 5 player of all time. Am I braindead?

Gretzky is a tier above everyone, and Lemieux is a tier ahead of everyone except for Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr.

The rest of the discussion is a bit muddy to me. Are Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Bure, Yzerman, Lindros all in the same tier? I don't think so. Not at all. Their peak play may have been comparable to one another, but can we honestly put guys with shortened careers/peaks like Lindros, Bure and Forsberg in the same tier as guys who had full careers as superstars like Jagr, Sakic and Yzerman (just noticed you didn't include Yzerman, but I think he fits alongside Sakic and Jagr here). I don't think so. Using only the players mentioned, the "tiers" for greatness go like this.
- Gretzky
- Lemieux
- significant gap
- Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Crosby (in no particular order)
- even larger significant gap
- Bure, Lindros, Forsberg

Shuffle it slightly if we are talking peak play only (Lindros, Bure and Forsberg might move up, Sid might move down as he was injured for much of his "peak").

 

[Fatass]

Crosby plays in a manner that would make him a great player in any era.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

It is mostly the technology that makes it seem that way. People at the top end haven't changed much, if at all.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

It's the same old stupid argument.

Crosby vs players in the 90s. Does that mean he uses 90s equipment? That he didn't have access to the advances in training and coaching and technology?

Of course if you drop McDavid into 1986 using a time machine and he brings today's equipment he would destroy the league. But that doesn't really shed light on how good he is now compared to how good Gretzky was in 1986, when he finished with 215 points, which was 74 more points than the next closest guy, Mario Lemieux.

You can really only evaluate these guys against their peers in any meaningful way.

 

[Plante]

Imo, Crosby is a top10 player of all time. I'd be okay saying that. He is still my favourite hockey player and I hope he can win another Cup.

If Crosby went head-to-head against Gretz he would destroy Wayne. Sid has the body of a man, while Wayne was built like a teenaged girl, sorta like EP40.

90s was my time, so after Lemieux and Jagr I'd be okay saying he's the best Penguin ever.

You sound like an NHL commentator talking about Gretzky when he was first moving to the NHL lmao

 

[pi314]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

+1 to this.

 

[nowhereman]

Gretzky is a tier above everyone, and Lemieux is a tier ahead of everyone except for Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr.

The rest of the discussion is a bit muddy to me. Are Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Bure, Yzerman, Lindros all in the same tier? I don't think so. Not at all. Their peak play may have been comparable to one another, but can we honestly put guys with shortened careers/peaks like Lindros, Bure and Forsberg in the same tier as guys who had full careers as superstars like Jagr, Sakic and Yzerman (just noticed you didn't include Yzerman, but I think he fits alongside Sakic and Jagr here). I don't think so. Using only the players mentioned, the "tiers" for greatness go like this.
- Gretzky
- Lemieux
- significant gap
- Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Crosby (in no particular order)
- even larger significant gap
- Bure, Lindros, Forsberg

Shuffle it slightly if we are talking peak play only (Lindros, Bure and Forsberg might move up, Sid might move down as he was injured for much of his "peak").

Sakic and Yzerman are not in the same tier as Crosby or Jagr. The difference between Sid/Jagr and Sakic/Yzerman is about the same as the difference between Sid/Jagr and Gretzky/Lemieux. Neither Sakic nor Yzerman are top 20 players of all time.

 

[tabness]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

I know the "bigger, stronger, faster" thing is almost cliche here, but well, it's quite clear that players now aren't bigger (NHL player average height has plateaued since the nineties and weight has straight up decreased) and very likely they aren't stronger (see average weight decrease as well as studies of the general population suggesting male millennials and zoomers are weaker than their boomer and gen X predecessors). I mean drafting starting in the eighties and increasing in the nineties saw an almost comical premium on size, to the detriment of skill.

That leaves "faster" and yeah the game is faster, but given the style of play (much more dominated north-south), shift length, and skate technology, really how much are faster the players themselves inherently?

It's the 1990s not 1890s lol

 

[Boxscore]

1. Lemieux
2. Jagr/Crosby
3. Forsberg/Sakic/Yzerman/Lindros
4. Bure/Hull/Fedorov/Selanne/Mogilny/Sundin

This is fairly accurate, although, I would probably go --

1. Lemieux
.
.
2A. Jagr
2B. Crosby/Yzerman
3. Sakic/Forsberg/Lindros/Selanne
4. Hull/Bure/Sundin/Fedorov/Mogilny

 

[Foppberg]

Crosby is in the same tier as Jagr, which is a tier higher than Sakic/Lindros/Forsberg

Jagr is in his own tier.

Jagr

Sid/Forsberg/Sakic/Lindros

 

[Fantomas]

As others have said, same tier as Jagr, higher than Sakic/Forsberg.

I think Forsberg/Sakic at their best are comprable to Crosby at his best. But they weren't as consistently good.

 

[Boxscore]

As others have said, same tier as Jagr, higher than Sakic/Forsberg.

I think Forsberg/Sakic at their best are comprable to Crosby at his best. But they weren't as consistently good.

I think Crosby's high-end is a hair above Sakic and he is just as consistent as Sakic was. Forsberg is the wildcard, because I take the "best Forsberg" over the "best Crosby or Sakic" 10x out of 10. The problem is, Forsberg was too prone to injury to sustain his mega elite level for a long stretch. But when he was "on", Forsberg was a complete animal and could dominate a game in ways that Crosby and Sakic couldn't dream of.

 

[psycat]

It is quite sad that Hockey players managed to get slower, smaller and less skilled with the puck in the last 30-40 years. I was watching the swimming olympic trials and they were comparing the times needed to make the Finals in each event and showing how it is got progressively faster each Olympic cycle, but apparently Hockey is the one sport where players actually peaked more than a generation ago and these players just aren't as good. That is too bad.

Comparing ahtletics and endurances sports to team sports? Ridiculous. Also of course the "vast" time improvements are due to "mariginal gains" like better swimsuits, shoes, doping, healthcare etc and less so about ability.

In cycling they went faster in the 90s compared to now does that mean humans regressed or does it mean that Cancer Jesus and his contemporaries doped more than they do now? (Even though they obviously dope now aswell).

 

[WarriorofTime]

Comparing ahtletics and endurances sports to team sports? Ridiculous. Also of course the "vast" time improvements are due to "mariginal gains" like better swimsuits, shoes, doping, healthcare etc and less so about ability.

In cycling they went faster in the 90s compared to now does that mean humans regressed or does it mean that Cancer Jesus and his contemporaries doped more than they do now? (Even though they obviously dope now aswell).

In cycling they were obviously doped to high hell and now they test stricter, pretty bad comparable.

 

[DearDiary]

Jagr is in his own tier.

Jagr

Sid/Forsberg/Sakic/Lindros

Jagr put up a lot of points, but he did a lot of cherry picking and blowing assignments when he got moody. I question how much of a positive influence he had for his team game to game

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's the same old stupid argument.

Crosby vs players in the 90s. Does that mean he uses 90s equipment? That he didn't have access to the advances in training and coaching and technology?

Of course if you drop McDavid into 1986 using a time machine and he brings today's equipment he would destroy the league. But that doesn't really shed light on how good he is now compared to how good Gretzky was in 1986, when he finished with 215 points, which was 74 more points than the next closest guy, Mario Lemieux.

You can really only evaluate these guys against their peers in any meaningful way.

Yes you can always say it is stupid to compare players across their eras. In an absolute sense, players are no doubt better today and would blow guys from the 90s away in skill competitions. I am not questioning the sacred alter of 99 and 66 which I know would cause people a heart attack but when people say the best guy from today is about as good as the 3rd or 4th guy from the 90s, and then the next 5 or 6 guys from the 90s are better than the 2nd or 3rd best guy now, you start to lose me with your nostalgia.

 

[UED]

I think Crosby compares VERY closely with Sakic and Yzerman. All 3 are 5'11" canadian Cs. All 3 had 6 100+ point seasons. Crosby and Yzerman have 3 cups, Sakic 2. But Sakic and Yzerman had to compete with Lemieux or other amazing players for trophies during their best years whereas Crosby was pretty much alone. Not every best player has to be the best ever.