Physicality is not just about throwing hits. Crosby has plenty of finesse in his game but he also plays in the trenches a lot absorbing tons of punishment, dishing a lot out and coming out ahead most times.
You make a good argument, and I agree that Crosby is the better player, but if you're ranking goats, total career accomplishments are definitely a factor. I never liked Messier and I think a lot of his numbers are inflated by teams trying to defend against Gretzky, but even still, his longevity is a factor in and of itself.Your only argument for picking Messier over Crosby is longevity and pure numbers based on longevity.
The question is who is the better player, not who put up more numbers over a longer period of time.
For me, and I'm sure most people, Crosby is a better player than Messier even if he retired today.
Nope.
Orr
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Hasek
Roy
Bourque
Esposito
Lafleur
Jagr
Off the top of my head, no particular order
Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Messier
Orr, Lidstrom, Bourque, Harvey, Shore
Hasek
I don't see an argument for Crosby over any of those guys. Even if you want to dismiss super old players like Shore or Harvey, there are still guys like Yzerman, Sakic and Roy in recent years. I think it's safe to project Crosby beyond those centers, but a big argument for them is longevity. There are 6-8 more seasons those two have on Crosby right now and it shouldn't be discounted.
yeah not really. Crosby has never shut down an elite offensive player in the playoff series, he barely PK's, he's actually on the ice for lots of goals against, and his team deploys him primarily for offense to the point where his offensive zone starts are actually higher than Ovechkin's in some seasons.
The Canadian media started claiming Crosby was good at defense right when his offense fell off. It's more media narrative than reality.
Crosby has an incredibly similar career to Guy Lafleur already, so I really don't know how someone can say that Lafleur is top-10 but Crosby isn't. Here's their trophy cases and resumes:
Lafleur:
-560 goals and 1353 points in 1126 games
-5 Cups
-3 Art Ross trophies
-3 Pearson trophies
-2 Hart trophies
-1 "Richard" trophy (didn't exist then but he would have won 1)
-1 Conn Smythe
Crosby:
-446 goals and 1216 points in 943 games
-3 Cups
-3 Pearson/Lindsay trophies
-2 Art Ross trpohies
-2 Hart trophies
-2 Conn Smythes
-2 Richard trophies
In Lafleur's first 13 seasons, his production (1241 points in 942 games) is very similar to Crosby's production (1216 points in 943 games) and his resume is incredibly comparable. You can't have Lafleur in your top-10 without Crosby, that's straight up nostalgia talking. If Crosby retired right now, he's on the same level as Lafleur, Mikita and Jagr.
Anyone still bringing up guys like Sakic and Yzerman is delusional, Crosby is clearly ahead of them.
Crosby is on his way to the top 10 in my opinion but he hasn't even reached 1000 games yet.
Give him time to complete his career.
I don't think you can rank him above guys who maintained such a high level for 1500 games or more.
Ron Francis for example.
Why?
I think there's a good argument for it.
For example:
Sakic - 19 GWG in the playoffs vs 9 for Crosby
8 of those were in OT vs 1 for Crosby
And Sakic maintained his elite level of play until around 40 years of age.
I expect Crosby to pass them up by the time he's done but at this point I put him right around that Yzerman/Sakic tier of players. One of the greats of his generation.
people need to take off their nostalgia/high-scoring glasses. How can anybody honestly argue that the best player over the last 15 years is not a top 10 all time? Do you really believe that players pre-2004 were so much better (spoiler alert, they weren’t). The NHL has been around just over 100 years. So on average a top 10 player should in theory come around every 10ish years. Listing a bunch of players from the 80s and early 90s is just getting distracted by the points and lack of parity
I'm not even arguing that, I'm just saying that even if Crosby was better up until 31 than Messier was, there's so much more to account for. You're literally just erasing half of Messier's career by doing this comparison.
Bourque and Lafleur are a no on this list.Nope.
Orr
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Hasek
Roy
Bourque
Esposito
Lafleur
Jagr
Off the top of my head, no particular order
My argument is that it's impossible in the modern era to have that level of domination displayed by the NHL's golden era of superstars. There isn't the time with the puck or space to do it, everything proves this and this is why nostalgia just murders fans ability to put modern players into proper perspective.I'm pretty sure I'd have Crosby and Ovie in my top 10 if the world exploded right now.
Seems to me they are well on their way to carving out a clear cut second tier where they didn't have clear domination on Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky/Howe levels but domination that is a clear cut above anyone else.
I really don't even know if they have to do anything more, although IMO having a handful of more productive seasons makes that assessment a little more firm.
Crosby is a better player than Messier, I don't care what the totals say. So is Ovechkin for that matter and I'm a huge fan of the Moose.Your only argument for picking Messier over Crosby is longevity and pure numbers based on longevity.
The question is who is the better player, not who put up more numbers over a longer period of time.
For me, and I'm sure most people, Crosby is a better player than Messier even if he retired today.
He passed Ron Francis by age 24. Peak matters way more than longevity. Unless you think Francis is better than Lemieux too?Crosby is on his way to the top 10 in my opinion but he hasn't even reached 1000 games yet.
Give him time to complete his career.
I don't think you can rank him above guys who maintained such a high level for 1500 games or more.
Ron Francis for example.
Lol. He's the best player to enter the league in the last 35 years.Why?
I think there's a good argument for it.
For example:
Sakic - 19 GWG in the playoffs vs 9 for Crosby
8 of those were in OT vs 1 for Crosby
And Sakic maintained his elite level of play until around 40 years of age.
I expect Crosby to pass them up by the time he's done but at this point I put him right around that Yzerman/Sakic tier of players. One of the greats of his generation.