Crosby vs players from 90s

[Fantomas]

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.

You might be underrating 00-01 Sakic. Unbelievable year. Including the playoffs.

 

[psycat]

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

I mean it makes way more sense than your nonsense that because (doped)sprinters today are fractions of a second faster than they were 30 years ago Crosby is better than, say, Jagr. Makes zero sense.

You don't think that swimmers or whatever today benefit from better medicins, (training) equipment, doping and what not and that could be the reason they are slightly faster? I mean just five or so years ago they invented some suits that made everyone and their dog break every record for a couple of months or so before they were banned, did all swimmers just magically become better over night? And how does that even begin to relate to how we rank hockey players across eras?

Also you realize NHL barely test for doping right and that every single player puts on like 10kgs of muscles in ridiculously short time once they go over. That's obviously slightly off topic though.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I feel like any argument for Jagr over Crosby or vice versa is a pretty flimsy argument. Jagr did have more scoring titles, Crosby actually had more individual awards than Jagr. Jagr had 5 Art Rosses, 3 Pearsons and 1 Hart, while Crosby has 2 Art Rosses, 2 Harts, 3 Pearsons, 2 Richards and 2 Smythes. At Crosby's age, the two had nearly identical regular season PPGs (1.28 for Crosby, 1.29 for Jagr) and playoff PPGs (1.10 for Crosby, 1.04 for Jagr).

Forsberg doesn't have a case for being on that level solely because of the injury problems he dealt with. Was Forsberg at his best on par with Crosby and Jagr at his best? Yeah, sure. But Forsberg had a grand total of 1 season where he won a Hart and Art Ross and a grand total of 2 100 point seasons. He had a comparable PPG to Crosby and Jagr while not having nearly close to the individual hardware that those two have.

Is it nothing but nostalgia that makes people argue that guys like Sakic, Lindros and Forsberg were on par with Crosby? Each of those guys had seasons that were individually on par with Crosby's peak, but what made Crosby (and Jagr, for the record) as good as they were was that they consistently repeated that level of success. None of those other guys did that outside of a handful of seasons.

 

[rogking65]

I would add Roy and Brodeur to the Generational list. Sundin to the franchise list but other than that pretty accurate.

nah,Sundin is more Adam Oates.Mke Gartner,mike Modano etc

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

Wayne doesn't get enough credit for his athleticism. I mean take a look at this:

It gets overshadowed by his god-like intuition and hockey IQ...people who never saw him play will never understand that dynamic he brought to the table.

 

[Luongoisthegoat]

Crosby is a top 3-5 talent all time. Injuries got his career that’s all. Extremely underrated player,his hockey iq is insane.

 

[rogking65]

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.

you do understand that the worst player in the league today is probably more skilled than the best ploayer in the 1940 s. But this does not make that player a greater payer than the one from the 40's

 

[Richard]

you do understand that the worst player in the league today is probably more skilled than the best ploayer in the 1940 s. But this does not make that player a greater payer than the one from the 40's

I doubt that- do you understand that there are many ways to skin a cat? Players today are taught the most efficient, the "best," the most powerful etc. ways to play. They also basically play the same.

A player from the 1940's found his own way-no two played the game the same way. Now, yes, these cause inefficiencies I will grant you. But they also develop skill. A lot of the reason certain things are taught a certain way is that a way of skating, or shooting, that one guy from the 1940s develops may work at an elite level for 1 kid out of 10,000. Whereas the standard method will work with anyone.

Does it make it better? Depends on your point of view.

Same with a baseball swing. Yes some look cruddy compared to modern swings but people forget that while the velocity of a baseball throw wasn't the same the ball moved much more due to substances being put on it, cheating and so forth. One of those goofy swings may be better to hit a curve or a slider....


Same in hockey

 

[Brownies]

Wayne doesn't get enough credit for his athleticism. I mean take a look at this:

Edit : Sorry I belive it's the second time I post this video in this thread... Didn't notice it was the same old that had been revived.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I'd take Sakic or Forsberg over Crosby, depending how I felt that day.

 

[daver]

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.

Not offensively. Crosby is clearly the superior offensive player highlighted by his ability to carry a line of any quality of wingers.

 

[authentic]

Edit : Sorry I belive it's the second time I post this video in this thread... Didn't notice it was the same old that had been revived.

Funny enough he looked like a better runner than skater.

 

[ScaredStreit]

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

This easily.

Gretzky/Lemieux
Crosby/Jagr
Sakic/Lindros/Forsberg etc.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Jagr >> Crosby, no contest

Sakic = Crosby ... Crosby has a slight edge as a scorer and a much bigger edge due to his better possession game. Sakic was clutch in the playoffs though, so it makes it close. If it's a strong team that is assured of the playoffs, I'd probably take Sakic. Otherwise, Crosby.

Crosby ??? Forsberg. Forsberg was a playoff beast and at his best was an overall better player IMO than Crosby. I'd do the same as with Sakic, but for peak/prime only (not career).

Crosby > Lindros. Lindros when healthy during his peak (which was basically never) was better than Crosby, but he made Forsberg seem like an iron man and his playoff performance was good, but not great IMO in a limited sample size.

 

[Boxscore]

Not offensively. Crosby is clearly the superior offensive player highlighted by his ability to carry a line of any quality of wingers.

Lol ok.

 

[daver]

Lol ok.

Good point, I stand corrected.

 

[andrjusha]

Crosby is in somewhere below Jagr and above those other 90s superstars Sakic/Lindros/Forsberg/Yzerman.
SLFY had excuse of playing against prime Jagr, Lemieux and old Gretz for not winning any scoring titles.
Crosby had two Art Rosses against weaker competition (probably missed another couple), got lucky with two Rockets while scoring below 40G/82 in his prime.
He is better player and more complete than SLFY, but is nowhere close to top tier all-time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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?

Crosby > Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Lindros

 

[Czech Your Math]

Crosby is in somewhere below Jagr and above those other 90s superstars Sakic/Lindros/Forsberg/Yzerman.
SLFY had excuse of playing against prime Jagr, Lemieux and old Gretz for not winning any scoring titles.
Crosby had two Art Rosses against weaker competition (probably missed another couple), got lucky with two Rockets while scoring below 40G/82 in his prime.
He is better player and more complete than SLFY, but is nowhere close to top tier all-time.

I don't think he was a more complete player than Forsberg or Lindros, just healthier and more longevity... and that counts for a lot, but not the same thing.

They both played sound defense, probably even better possession games (which is saying something), and more physical as well.

 

[nowhereman]

Maybe I'm not as prone to getting drunk off nostalgia as others might be but I'm absolutely blown away that people think Crosby and Sakic (or Forsberg) were a similar caliber of player. I have yet to see a single argument that is evenly remotely convincing and, yet, the narrative continues. Even though his prime was destroyed by injuries, Crosby still boasts a career that's clearly superior to every 90s star with the exception of maybe Jagr (though I think most still have Sid ahead). The fact that some people put him in a tier with the likes of Bure, Selanne, etc. is borderline nuts. If I was making my own all-time list, I'd have at least 20 or so players between Sid and Sakic (and many more with Fosberg/Yzerman).

At this point, I think Crosby might be one of the more disrespected superstars of all time. Maybe he'll get more respect once he's retired.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Maybe I'm not as prone to getting drunk off nostalgia as others might be but I'm absolutely blown away that people think Crosby and Sakic (or Forsberg) were a similar caliber of player. I have yet to see a single argument that is evenly remotely convincing and, yet, the narrative continues. Even though his prime was destroyed by injuries, Crosby still boasts a career that's clearly superior to every 90s star with the exception of maybe Jagr (though I think most still have Sid ahead). The fact that some people put him in a tier with the likes of Bure, Selanne, etc. is borderline nuts.

At this point, I think Crosby might be one of the more disrespected superstars of all time. Maybe he'll get more respect once he's retired.

Anyone that thinks Joe Sakic was as good as Crosby is absolutely nuts. No disrespect to Sakic, he was one of the best players of his era but he is a step below Crosby.

 

[bleedgreen]

I always had Crosby as a NA Forsberg. Early on I felt the comparison on what level they are one as fair. I don’t anymore. Crosby’s longevity takes him to another level. His work ethic for a star level player is extraordinary.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Maybe I'm not as prone to getting drunk off nostalgia as others might be but I'm absolutely blown away that people think Crosby and Sakic (or Forsberg) were a similar caliber of player. I have yet to see a single argument that is evenly remotely convincing and, yet, the narrative continues. Even though his prime was destroyed by injuries, Crosby still boasts a career that's clearly superior to every 90s star with the exception of maybe Jagr (though I think most still have Sid ahead). The fact that some people put him in a tier with the likes of Bure, Selanne, etc. is borderline nuts. If I was making my own all-time list, I'd have at least 20 or so players between Sid and Sakic (and many more with Fosberg/Yzerman).

At this point, I think Crosby might be one of the more disrespected superstars of all time. Maybe he'll get more respect once he's retired.

Crosby was definitely a greater player than Yzerman, Selanne, Bure, Kariya, etc. Lindros may have been better, but certainly not greater, and with all his injuries it's a moot point.
It's close with Sakic, but I ceratinly understand putting Crosby above him. I think he was greater than Forsberg, but not better, so the criteria have to be clearly defined.

He gets plenty of respect, more than he probably deserves IMO. I have the read following types of things many times over the years:

A) He's a complete player, great defense, etc.
B) He was robbed of his peak by injuries, his PPG was so great during those injury years of 2010-11 to 2012-13, etc.

Well, first of all, his initial injury that started his three year fiasco is portrayed as some dirty hit, when all I saw was Crosby skating a lazy circle in the offensive zone with his back to the play (opposition rushing the other way), then turning his head to watch the opposing rush, with zero effort to get back on D... and the opposing player trying to quickly skate straight up the ice to join the rush, but hitting his shoulder on Crosby's turned head in the process.

No doubt he generally works very hard, and sometimes plays good defense... but he did neither on that play. I've seen Jagr take tons of big hits, and some were dirty, while some were mainly the result of putting himself in a vulnerable position (e.g., Ovechkin's hit in the 2010 Olympics; Ruutu's hit in 2006 Olympics was an example of both).

Next, all of this crying about his injuries, he was clearly the best, his PPG, etc. (unfortunate injury, but he wasn't the first and won't be the last hockey player to be affected by injury).
Well, let's look at a few facts about his career:

Before his injury years, he won 1 Ross in five seasons and that was in his second year. He went up against peak, healthy Ovechkin/Malkin in 2008 & 2009. In 2008, Crosby was injured late in the season and we don't know how that would have turned out, as it was a close race between the three. In 2009, he finished third, 10 points behind Malkin and 7 points behind Ovechkin. Wait, I thought he was so dominant that he was clearly the best? In 2010, he tied Ovechkin for second, and only because Ovechkin missed 10 games due to suspension & injury. Henrik Sedin won the Ross, but hey it happens. I can totally imagine peak Jagr losing a Ross to Sedin. The kicker being that not only did he finish behind Ovechkin in PPG in both 2009 & 2010, but behind Malkin in the only season they were both healthy (aside from Malkin's rookie year), and behind both Sedins in 2010. Again, isn't he supposed to have been clearly the best? Funny how he only managed great PPG numbers when he played 41 games or less. Guess what? He wasn't the first to show that kind of pattern. See Bure (1.54 in 11 GP, 1.67 in 20 GP) as an example of another player whose best PPG seasons were in short samples, yet never matched those in full or near-full seasons.

Skipping over his three injury seasons, (a total of 99 games), we come to 2014. He easily won the Ross over a weak field (Getzlaf, Giroux, Seguin & Perry ain't exactly Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne & Lindros/Kariya/Bure) after a lot of rest over the previous three seasons. He turned 27 a couple months before 2014-15 season and was clearly the best, with Ovechkin having dropped off substantially from his peak and Malkin injured more often than not. One would expect him to dominate, right? Instead he was outscored by Jamie Benn each of the next two seasons, by Tavares in 2015, and barely edged a defenseman and 36 y/o Thornton by 3 points in 2016. Then McDavid started his peak and any chance of another Ross vanished.

Back to his defense and being a complete player. I don't fully agree about his defense, but he does have an excellent possession game. When comparing him to the likes of Jagr & Forsberg, what's usually a substantial edge in his favor is actually a disadvantage. His career plus-minus on generally good teams is +183 in 1,039 games, while he is +16 in 174 career playoff games. Forsberg, also playing for generally good teams, was +238 in 709 games, and +54 in 151 career playoff games. Jagr, playing for generally mediocre teams (some better, some worse), was +322 in 1,733 games, and +30 in 208 playoff games (from ages 20-36, he was +279 in 1,193 games, and +36 in 145 playoff games, again on generally worse teams).

He's been a great player and still a very good one, but some of the arguments made for him are not based in fact.

 

[andrjusha]

I don't think he was a more complete player than Forsberg or Lindros, just healthier and more longevity... and that counts for a lot, but not the same thing.

They both played sound defense, probably even better possession games (which is saying something), and more physical as well.

Foppa is unique player, like Datsyuk was after him, maybe better defensively than Crosby (I do not care much about defense for first line forwards whose primary job is to score) but his career high is 30 goals, goals scoring is part of completeness.
Lindros is unique power forward, I do not see how his defense is better and 68 assists is career high plus couple of 50A seasons, playmaking is part of completeness too.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Foppa is unique player, like Datsyuk was after him, maybe better defensively than Crosby (I do not care much about defense for first line forwards whose primary job is to score) but his career high is 30 goals, goals scoring is part of completeness.
Lindros is unique power forward, I do not see how his defense is better and 68 assists is career high plus couple of 50A seasons, playmaking is part of completeness too.

As far as Lindros, 68 assists in 73 games indicates he was a pretty good playmaker, right? If you consider durability & longevity to be a part of completeness, then he definitely failed at that. I don't think Lindros or Crosby were/are particularly great defenders, just not generally bad ones. With their elite scoring and possession games, they don't really need to be, so we agree on that.

In Forsberg's case, the point is to get the puck in the net, whether it's you or a teammate. Also, he scored 64 goals in 151 playoff games, so he could score goals when he wanted to or needed to. I have little doubt he could have scored more goals, but if maximizing goals decreases points, how is that more valuable to the team?

Completeness is sort of nebulous. If it's having the best "low score" among various categories, someone like Fedorov was probably the most complete player of the 90s, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was better (more valuable) than some players which were less "complete."