Jagr or Crosby, Pens Career

[Gurglesons]

Jagr was at his best when he was a Penguin.

And I agree that Crosby has had the better career.

But prime Jagr was more talented than prime Crosby. For a 21 year period from 1980 - 2001, only 3 people won the Art Ross. Their names? Gretzky (10). Lemieux (6). Jagr (5). Gretzky passed the torch to Lemieux. Lemieux passed the torch to Jagr. And no one has dominated the league they way those 3 did for an extended period since then.

Crosby has been the best player of his generation. But aside from short stretches here and there, he hasn't been head and shoulders above everyone else the way Jagr was.

EDIT: your bolded statement makes you lose a lot of credibility in this argument. Not even close? Seriously? You sound like that Caps fan in the other thread that said Crosby isn't even top 200 defensively.

Sid would have 5 art rosses if healthy.

Howe is easily the best winger in history. No touching it. Hull is above Jagr as well. Then you get into the longevity arguments.

 

[Phil68]

Just fyi Jagr is the best Winger in the game's history bar none.. The dude is second all time in point.. Second all time with 4 years missed of playing time.. Wrap that around your heads. Crosby is great yes, but Jagr is that much better above Crosby. Jagr didn't need specific wingers in his long prime, hell after his prime before he left to Europe. Crosby needs a specific type of player to be really effective. This is not a Knock on Crosby's legacy, but Jagr was that damn good. No Bure, no Brett Hull, No Teemu, no Kurri, no Karyia, No Ovi, no Rocket Richard, none of these players dominate the league like Jagr did. And that is not opinion, that's just facts. Take a look at this stats period.

 

[kladorf2005]

Howe and Hull are easily above him.

Then you start getting into the Ovechkin, Lafleur, etc comparisons.

Even if I did agree with all 4 names you just mentioned (which I don't) - how is that "not even close"?

Sid would have 5 art rosses if healthy.

Jagr actually has 5. 4 of them were consecutive. The other was sandwiched between a Gretzky and Lemieux win. McDavid was the first person to win back-to-back art rosses since... Jagr!

 

[Son Goku]

Just fyi Jagr is the best Winger in the game's history bar none.. The dude is second all time in point.. Second all time with 4 years missed of playing time.. Wrap that around your heads. Crosby is great yes, but Jagr is that much better above Crosby. Jagr didn't need specific wingers in his long prime, hell after his prime before he left to Europe. Crosby needs a specific type of player to be really effective. This is not a Knock on Crosby's legacy, but Jagr was that damn good. No Bure, no Brett Hull, No Teemu, no Kurri, no Karyia, No Ovi, no Rocket Richard, none of these players dominate the league like Jagr did. And that is not opinion, that's just facts. Take a look at this stats period.

Hes not better though if he is its marginal. Why do you think the majority consider crosby (at age 31) a lock for top 5-7 all time while Jagr is borderline top ten?

 

[Phil68]

Howe and Hull are easily above him.

Then you start getting into the Ovechkin, Lafleur, etc comparisons.

Maybe Howe, but that is up for debate. Hull?? Bobby or Brett or not in Jagr's conversation. I watched Jagr play when i was living in Montreal. Jagr was the real deal period. Ovi is not is Jagr conversation at all nor is Lafleur and that takes nothing away from from them. People who say otherwise wasn't watching hockey when when he came into he league and saw him grow from there.

 

[Son Goku]

Maybe Howe, but that is up for debate. Hull?? Bobby or Brett or not in Jagr's conversation. I watched Jagr play when i was living in Montreal. Jagr was the real deal period. Ovi is not is Jagr conversation at all nor is Lafleur and that takes nothing away from from them. People who say otherwise wasn't watching hockey when when he came into he league and saw him grow from there.

Peak Ovi was absolutely close to Jagr.

 

[kladorf2005]

Hes not better though if he is its marginal. Why do you think the majority consider crosby (at age 31) a lock for top 5-7 all time while Jagr is borderline top ten?

That isn't true. Replace "lock" with "borderline". Or replace "5-7" with "10-15".

This is why everyone hates us btw. Because we say stuff like that. He's the best of his generation. Let's just leave it at that, and give it another 20 years to digest before making claims like "top 5 of all-time".

 

[kladorf2005]

Peak Ovi was absolutely close to Jagr.

Close, sure. But peak Jagr was objectively better than peak Ovi.

 

[Gurglesons]

Maybe Howe, but that is up for debate. Hull?? Bobby or Brett or not in Jagr's conversation. I watched Jagr play when i was living in Montreal. Jagr was the real deal period. Ovi is not is Jagr conversation at all nor is Lafleur and that takes nothing away from from them. People who say otherwise wasn't watching hockey when when he came into he league and saw him grow from there.

I watched Jags a lot. He had a solid peak. He did nothing during it of any consequence aside from self inflating point totals.

Well that isn’t true. Czech gold was a solid win by him.

 

[kladorf2005]

I watched Jags a lot. He had a solid peak. He did nothing during it of any consequence aside from self inflating point totals.

Do us all a favor and spend 14 more minutes watching him

 

[Ugene Magic]

Plain and simple term.

Jagr came in and learned from the best, and became the best. Crosby didn't come in and learn from the best (he did learn) he was the best player and people learn from him.

He didn't come in just played well, he excelled at that level. From the very beginning.

Jagr needed a few years to be what guys like Mario/Sid already were.

 

[Phil68]

Hes not better though if he is its marginal. Why do you think the majority consider crosby (at age 31) a lock for top 5-7 all time while Jagr is borderline top ten?

You mean the same majority of people and writers who didn't include Malkin in top 100 players of all time and could not find a credible reason why he was not included? Following the masses is not an indication of facts. A Large amount of people on HF watched Jagr when he came back from Europe, and maybe his last year in the NHL when was with the Rangers and was 35 -36 at the time finished with 71 points. Greatest of all time Jagr is top 5 and above Crosby. 50 years from now the stats will show exactly the level he was. When you are 2nd all time you broke records and major ones, not those advance stats ones.

 

[Gurglesons]

Do us all a favor and spend 14 more minutes watching him

Neat.

Sid is still better.

 

[kladorf2005]

Neat.

Sid is still better.

Said the guy who thinks Jagr "isn't even close" to best winger of all-time

Thanks for spending 14 minutes watching that video, btw. Amazing you were able to conjure up this reply in just 6 minutes...

 

[Gurglesons]

Said the guy who thinks Jagr "isn't even close" to best winger of all-time

Thanks for spending 14 minutes watching that video, btw. Amazing you were able to conjure up this reply in just 6 minutes...

I don’t need to rewatch Jagr highlights from my childhood. Jagr was the Penguin I grew up with.

Great player. Not as great as Sid which everyone could tell from day one.

 

[Phil68]

If you grew up watching Jagr and you say Sid is better than Jagr when you stated Jagr was the Penguins. The only two greater players better than him when he came in was Gretzky and Lemieux. And when they fell off it was him and by a long shot. Crosby has competion Ovi, Malkin and thats it. Jagr for 5 to 6 years straight no one was there closest was Lindros.

 

[Son Goku]

Its as if they assume i didnt watch Jagr growing up even as an adult i saw his entire career. In my opinion its crosby. He's comparable offensively along to go with playing the tougher position, miles better defensively AND i think its no question who's more clutch when its time to step up.

 

[Gurglesons]

Its as if they assume i didnt watch Jagr growing up even as an adult i saw his entire career. In my opinion its crosby. He's comparable offensively along to go with playing the tougher position, miles better defensively AND i think its no question who's more clutch when its time to step up.

Exactly. People bitch about Jagr’s squads. Well, a portion of that WAS Jagr.

He got everything he wanted and still didn’t deliver until Lemieux came back.

Easy to score scoring titles when the only expectation is for you yourself to score.

He’s a top 20 player all time, but certain fans want to make it like he is top ten or something. Not a chance given his post season performances.

 

[Son Goku]

Personally i rank Jagr somewhere between 7th and 11th all time. Above a group of guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Mikita but below Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau

 

[dr robbie]

If you grew up watching Jagr and you say Sid is better than Jagr when you stated Jagr was the Penguins. The only two greater players better than him when he came in was Gretzky and Lemieux. And when they fell off it was him and by a long shot. Crosby has competion Ovi, Malkin and thats it. Jagr for 5 to 6 years straight no one was there closest was Lindros.

When you say things like its debatable that Howe was better than Jagr... well, you lose pretty much all credibility in everything else you say. Howe trumps Jagr in peak, prime, and longevity. What argument would someone have to create from obvious biases to even think to place Jagr above him?

And yes, I watched all of Jagrs career... and Lemieuxs... and Crosbys (man, I'm getting old)

 

[Phil68]

Plain and simple term.

Jagr came in and learned from the best, and became the best. Crosby didn't come in and learn from the best (he did learn) he was the best player and people learn from him.

He didn't come in just played well, he excelled at that level. From the very beginning.

Jagr needed a few years to be what guys like Mario/Sid already were.

When you say things like its debatable that Howe was better than Jagr... well, you lose pretty much all credibility in everything else you say. Howe trumps Jagr in peak, prime, and longevity. What argument would someone have to create from obvious biases to even think to place Jagr above him?

And yes, I watched all of Jagrs career... and Lemieuxs... and Crosbys (man, I'm getting old)

The reason i stated Howe is debatable is only because i am going by other people's words. I didn't watch him play when i was young. I too grew up on Prime Lemieux, Jagr, Luc Robitaille (Kings) Kevin Stevens, Paul Coffey,Cam Neely, Esa Tikanen, Glen Anderson, young Sakic and the Nordiques directement a Montreal tabernak

 

[kladorf2005]

When you say things like its debatable that Howe was better than Jagr... well, you lose pretty much all credibility in everything else you say. Howe trumps Jagr in peak, prime, and longevity. What argument would someone have to create from obvious biases to even think to place Jagr above him?

And yes, I watched all of Jagrs career... and Lemieuxs... and Crosbys (man, I'm getting old)

Howe played 40 more games than Jagr and you throw the longevity card out there? That would be like saying Jagr trumps Howe in points.

Come on man. They both had remarkably longgg careers. There is an argument there. You just refuse to see the other side.

And before you blast me, no I am not saying Jagr > Howe. I'm saying Jagr is allowed to be mentioned in the same sentence as Howe. Unlike some other posters in this thread who refuse to admit Jagr can be mentioned in the same sentence as Crosby...

Also, none of us watched Howe (and if we did, we're probably too senile to have a clear opinion anyway, at this point). So it's much more difficult to compare Jagr to Howe

 

[NMK11]

Is it about their Pens career or their overall ability as a player? The title says the former, and when you're looking at their career with the team, one lead his team to three cups and two Conn Symthes while the other, while good, peaked after his cups and never led the team back to winning it all. To me that's the tie breaker.

If you're just looking at who's the overall better player, then that's definitely more of a debate.

 

[Phil68]

Is it about their Pens career or their overall ability as a player? The title says the former, and when you're looking at their career with the team, one lead his team to three cups and two Conn Symthes while the other, while good, peaked after his cups and never led the team back to winning it all. To me that's the tie breaker.

If you're just looking at who's the overall better player, then that's definitely more of a debate.

This is the same argument for Toews and why is deserved to be in top 100 players of all time over Malkin. Crosby's 1st Smythe is up for question. Malkin led the Pens in the two first Cups the Pens won in Crosby Era. In Addtion everyone is history not name Gretzky would be second and a far second behind Lemieux. To your argument about Jarg not leading the team to a Cup, Jagr didn't have a team that's why he got traded because the Pens were such in bad shape finacially. Once Gretzky left the Oilers he never one or led a team to another Championship.. And this is why i do not take people's words or general opinion. I Watch Jagr play and it was sheer dominance on the league. But cannot win a championship without the right people around. Hell look at McDavid, he is right now considered the best player in the game, but his team cannot get in the playoff. Would you say ever since McDavid came in the league Crosby is better then him as a player right now.. Not career.

 

[Phil68]

Crosby is hyped up by the media a lot and with Merrit. But to me growing up in 90's and what players were allowed to do and not do. Crosby did not dominate the game like Lindros, Jagr, post prime Lemieux, Sakic and Forsberg. To me how Crosby has produces is on par to Joe Sakic. Take a look at Sakic's stats. Crosby is better than Sakic, but the margin between the two is not that far apart