Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by HOCKEYGOON, Jan 1, 2004.
Crosby -- 33GP 33G 43A 76PTS 36PIM 2.3PPG
Spezza -- 52GP 24G 37A 61PTS 33PIM 1.2PPG
From a points persepctive it isn't even close. Then factor in that Crosby is the better all around player, faster, better in one on one battles etc. and there is no argument whatsoever.
In my opinion Sidney Crosby is 10X the player Spezza was at the same age at this tournament.
Crosby has created chances everytime he has touched the ice and shown poise well beyond that which a 16 year old boy should possess. He could easily take a top 6 spot on this team and run with it. Spezza was just impressive because of his age, he didn't create nearly as many chances as Crosby and deserved his position on the 4th line.
They're so different type of players!
Crosby is a lot better now than Spezza was with 16.
With the size from Crosby, Spezza wouldn't have played at the WJC with 16!
And Crosby will play in the 1st or 2nd line with 18 in the NHL and not play in a junior league like Spezza.
I hope the Habs catch him
In all fairness, Spezza could have played in the NHL earlier and on a high line if he wasnt Sens property.
I think the fairer comparision is Crosby at 16 vs Lindros at 16.
Crosby. He can skate much better than Spezza could, he's stronger on the puck, he's got as much skill or more skill with the puck than Spezza does and he's proven to be fairly productive.
It's not a numbers game though. I just think that Crosby is a better rounded player.
Crosby by a long shot dude!
He is good defensively, has more talent and can skate faster then spezza already!
Here's the scary thing about Crosby....
He's head and shoulders above Spezza, but his level of domination is closer to Lindros. The sick part is, Lindros was as good as he was because he was a man child. He had a 25 year old build playing against kids. Crosby is nowhere near that level of phsyical maturity, he's doing this all on skill alone. That drops my jaw.
You can't compare Crosby with Lindros!
Lindros dominated the OHL with his body presence, but Crosby has the better sense and he's so skilled! ubeliveable
Crosby is the better player at this point, and his success has been more impressive because he seems to play a better two way game, plus he's better in the forners and all that....just my two cents.
It's crazy....think about guys like Kariya, Sakic, Thornton, etc. at 16 and they weren't even considered for the Canadian Junior Team or putting up numbers like Syd! Hopefully he hasn't hit his peak!
I wonder if he will grow anymore. I know that I stopped growing at an incredibly young age (14).
I'd have to go with Crosby though. The kid is extremely fast, has a nice shot/nose for the net, and has very good vision on the ice. What more could you ask for?
He could gain 10 lb and 2" in height WHILE he's still 16!
I don't think his size could give a problem for him. He's still growing!,... til 19 hopefully,...
He's near to 5'11 now (already like Sakic) , and he should claim with luck to 6'0 or 6'1.....
If not, he has to consume male hormones that he grows,...
Regarding size, here's an interesting quote taken from this page:
" I'm not quite done with the height/weight changes research, but if anybody's curious here's what I've got so far:
I looked at 120 players taken in the 1997 OHL midget draft, and compared their size then (most would have been 16) to their current height and weight (taken from a variety of up-to-date sources.)
The average height and weight for the players at age 16 was 72.8 inches and 184.4 pounds. Six years later, they averaged 73.2 inches and 197 pounds - a gain of about .4 inches and 12.6 pounds. But the gains were unevenly distributed.
Most players (65%) didn't get any taller. Almost all that did only grew an inch. There were only two cases in the 120 of a player getting two inches taller, and two getting three inches taller. There is some correlation between starting size and the likelihood of growth - guys under six feet had a 46% chance of getting bigger, 6'1"-6'2" had a 33% chance, and 6'3" and over had a 27% chance.
Most (74%) of the players gained some weight between 16 and 22. The extreme case was a 6'5", 185-pound draftee who grew an inch to 6'6" and filled out to 240 pounds by the time he made it to the pros. I'm still examing the numbers for weight, using pounds-per-inches-of-height as a way to measure growth of body size, but I think I've got the beginnings of a realistic way to add X pounds per year to young players. I haven't been able to find any meaningful correlation between starting height/weight and rate of growth - all sizes seem roughly as likely to put on weight, so that probably simplifies the calculation a lot. "
This data is definitely at odds with anything I've seen before. I've seen averages of 2-3 inches from 16 to 18 or 19 but based on age differences within a group, not the same group taken at different times. 120 is a reasonably large group especially since its the same individuals taken twice. But I'm skeptical, unless they all padded they're stats back in 97 this seems to go against what most people think.
it's Crosby, he is just insane with the puck and he seems to know when to shoot and when to pass.
Lindros was enormous for his age, even at the time he was huge by NHL standards but he also has incredible skills also. Lindros wasn't just great because of his size but because of his combination of rare size & skill(elite skill).
I remember Eric at 18 and he looked like he would not be out of place on any line, on any team in the NHL. How big was he at 16?
Seen averages of 2-3 inches in growth from 16-18 or 19 before where??
This is not the sort of information that is just thrown around - you have either seen real statistical data, or you are just repeating idle comments on boards like these.
Seriously, I am also skeptical of a post on a bulletin board based on research that itself is based on data that we all know is inaccurate - team information on height and weight of players is notoriously exagerrated, at all levels. Having said that, and for what it is worth, I would be shocked to find that 2-3 inches is the average growth after 16. I doubt it would be half of that.
Getting back to what this might or might not mean in respect of Crosby - it still puts him in the 6 foot range which is just fine for a strong kid like him. Size is not going to be a factor one way or the other the way he plays.
Actually my sources are pretty weak. I thought that I implied that. I have on numerous occasions used data from team/school etc.sources and compared heights. As I said I compared ages within a group and not the same group over time which any reasonable "scientific" study would do unless they used a very large sample. So my "research" is anecdotal at best but of sufficient size to be skeptical of a group as large as 120 gaining only an average of 0.4 inches from 16 to 22. I also claim that most people believe that the average growth is significantly more than this but of course this is just my opinion. Anybody have any "real" numbers?
Just to play Devil's Advocate, let's remember that Crosby has the benefit of playing on a significantly better team than what Spezza had to work with. I'm sorry, but I don't think Crosby would have put up those great numbers on the Ice Dogs that Spezza had to play with.
That's a point I was thinking of making. Spezza played on a team without an NHL drafted player at the time. Rimouski has a bunch of them, including a first rounder.
kidsgrowth.com shows a male height chart. Looks like about 1.3 inches gained between 16 and 18 and 1.6 between 16 and 19. (U.S. population)
So much for my "research"!
Ah, nice to see my work being appreciated. But, seriously, it should be kept in mind that I did that study for the purpose of getting the "reported" heights and weights in the game correct - I wasn't really concerned with the real heights and weights. My guess is that there was more padding going on when they were 16, and that muted the results a bit - two or three guys actually "shrank" between 16 and 22.
I did a followup using WHL draft data to check the growth between 15 and 17, and in those years the average height went from 71.5 to 72.7 inches, and several guys grew 4 inches. Combining the two sets of data, I think it's reasonable to conclude that growth tails off around 16 for most players.
If Crosby says he's still growing, I believe him, but if he's 5'10-5'11 and 185-ish now, my guess is he winds up around 6'0, 200-210. The chances of gaining 3 or 4 inches are pretty remote.