Lebrun: If Crosby wins another Stanley Cup, he will then become better than Toews

[Gooch]

Right, a guy who won 6 scoring titles and 6 Harts is Ron Francis.

Ron Francis didn't have the benefit of playing against the same competition that Howe did. Their career numbers are similar, nothing crazy but steady solid production. If Howe been competing against Gretzky and Lemieux how many Scoring titles would he of won?

 

[Jozay]

He was always better than Toews....

 

[Human]

Wasnt there game in the playoffs a few years ago wher Toews lost it and took 3 minors in row, and one of his teammates had to calm him down in the penalty box. Yeah best leader in the world.

It was against the Wings when they were 3-1 down in the series.

Seabrook was the guy.

 

[Fugazy]

He's always been better than Toews. Cup count doesn't mean anything.

 

[JackSlater]

Ron Francis didn't have the benefit of playing against the same competition that Howe did. Their career numbers are similar, nothing crazy but steady solid production. If Howe been competing against Gretzky and Lemieux how many Scoring titles would he of won?

Howe wouldn't beat Lemieux or Gretzky for scoring titles, as Francis didn't. Francis wouldn't beat Richard, Hull, Beliveau, Mikita for scoring titles. Howe did.

 

[Gooch]

Howe wouldn't beat Lemieux or Gretzky for scoring titles, as Francis didn't. Francis wouldn't beat Richard, Hull, Beliveau, Mikita for scoring titles. Howe did.

Ron Francis had a damn solid career and often goes overlooked. He has almost identical points per game and total points and games played as Gordie Howe. Add to it that Ron Francis was a solid defensive center with a Selke Trophy on his resume and you have the Rodney Dangerfield of Hockey Players.

BTW, you made my main point though that Howe wouldn't be able to compete with Lemieux and thus why Lemieux should be in the top 3 over Howe.

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

 

[JackSlater]

Ron Francis had a damn solid career and often goes overlooked. He has almost identical points per game and total points and games played as Gordie Howe. Add to it that Ron Francis was a solid defensive center with a Selke Trophy on his resume and you have the Rodney Dangerfield of Hockey Players.

BTW, you made my main point though that Howe wouldn't be able to compete with Lemieux and thus why Lemieux should be in the top 3 over Howe.

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

Absolutely Francis was solid. That isn't enough to suddenly surpass Howe. The argument surrounding points per game and total points is also pretty weak. Howe played in a significantly lower scoring era and played 70 game seasons. Francis played at the perfect time to have a very high points per game average and high total points, which is worth considering just as much as Howe's competition. Francis was a good two way player though like you said, as Howe was.

As far as Lemieux, I said that Howe wouldn't be able to beat Lemieux for scoring titles. I should perhaps have specified that Howe couldn't outscore a healthy Lemieux. Considering Howe's far better longevity, consistency and all around play he has a solid argument to go over Lemieux. I suppose that this is deviating a bit from the Crosby > Toews tautology.

 

[MeowLeafs]

Even if Crosby didn't have and never will win a cup, he's still better than Toews.

 

[Brownies]

Ron Francis had a damn solid career and often goes overlooked. He has almost identical points per game and total points and games played as Gordie Howe. Add to it that Ron Francis was a solid defensive center with a Selke Trophy on his resume and you have the Rodney Dangerfield of Hockey Players.

BTW, you made my main point though that Howe wouldn't be able to compete with Lemieux and thus why Lemieux should be in the top 3 over Howe.

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

Here's clips of a 50 years old Howe playing with a 17 year old Gretzky. Nothing to add, just thought it was cool. I won't try to compare who's better in the top 5, but all of those players could've played at anytime, with similar equipments.
Edit : screw that, too old to post youtube vids.

 

[57special]

Ron Francis had a damn solid career and often goes overlooked. He has almost identical points per game and total points and games played as Gordie Howe. Add to it that Ron Francis was a solid defensive center with a Selke Trophy on his resume and you have the Rodney Dangerfield of Hockey Players.

BTW, you made my main point though that Howe wouldn't be able to compete with Lemieux and thus why Lemieux should be in the top 3 over Howe.

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

You do understand that there were only 6 teams in the NHL when Howe played, right?

 

[57special]

Ron Francis had a damn solid career and often goes overlooked. He has almost identical points per game and total points and games played as Gordie Howe. Add to it that Ron Francis was a solid defensive center with a Selke Trophy on his resume and you have the Rodney Dangerfield of Hockey Players.

BTW, you made my main point though that Howe wouldn't be able to compete with Lemieux and thus why Lemieux should be in the top 3 over Howe.

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

You do understand that there were only 6 teams in the NHL when Howe played, right?

Oh, and the Crosby/Toews statement is absurd.

 

[MadLuke]

People like to romanticize old time era players in a variety of sports. But the facts are there was fewer competition back then and the talent pool was a lot shallower than it is in a more modern era.

For hockey it is not sure how much it is true, because of how big Canada part of the talent pool and that the number of player in minor league went down and how much it can cost now to play hockey to reach a pro level.

The male hockey age population in Canada was higher in Gretzky time than in the 2000 and the number general population / number of team went down not up:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/archive/index.php/t-1248145.html

 

[Jordan Belfort]

Crosby is too 5 all time. And In before the nostalgia old person bias where they can't comprehend that Yzerman and Frederic weren't "way better" than Crosby. He's top 5 and there's no argument

 

[Price is Wright]

The great players of their era, if born in a different era, would probably still be great players.

 

[GKJ]

Now think that he didn't make the cut at ESPN.

All of a sudden the article makes more sense

 

[KPower]

Taken out of context as usual.

 

[tony d]

Yeah, Crosby's better than Toews right now, Cup or no cup this year for Sid the Kid.

 

[Kritty]

Yay he might finally dethrone the mighty Toews. I guess that doesn't hold true for Malkin though, even if he wins his second conn smythe. Still the 101st best player.

When Malkin leads a team himself and isn't playing behind Crosby, then I'll believe that he is as good as people think he is.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Maybe Crosby will elevate himself above Toews with another cup win, but Sid will never be higher than Mike Richards

 

[daver]

When Malkin leads a team himself and isn't playing behind Crosby, then I'll believe that he is as good as people think he is.

Terrible logic.

 

[Gooch]

When Malkin leads a team himself and isn't playing behind Crosby, then I'll believe that he is as good as people think he is.

Each and every time Crosby has gone down to injury (which has been often) Malkin has stepped up and his production increases.

 

[Gooch]

For hockey it is not sure how much it is true, because of how big Canada part of the talent pool and that the number of player in minor league went down and how much it can cost now to play hockey to reach a pro level.

The male hockey age population in Canada was higher in Gretzky time than in the 2000 and the number general population / number of team went down not up:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/archive/index.php/t-1248145.html

While in Canada that might be the case it is not the case in the rest of the world, especially in USA.

 

[Riddum]

He already is, way above Toews...not even close...

Wrong

 

[Neuf]

Each and every time Crosby has gone down to injury (which has been often) Malkin has stepped up and his production increases.

What if Malkin was always on another team (i.e. Sid-less)? More points?

 

[Pick87your71Poison]

When Malkin leads a team himself and isn't playing behind Crosby, then I'll believe that he is as good as people think he is.

Yeah, like in 2011-2012, when Crosby missed most of the year, playing only 22 games largely near the end and Malkin just crumbled in trying to keep the Pens afloat. In 75 games, he was only able to put up the following season:

50 goals (2nd in NHL)
59 assists (3rd in NHL)
109 points (1st in NHL, 12 points ahead of 2nd)
Won the Art Ross, Hart, and Pearson awards

And the Pens really struggled with him playing as the #1 guy too:

Finished with 108 pts
Finished 2nd in Eastern Conference (1 pt behind 1st)
Finished 4th in NHL (3 pts behind Presidents Trophy winners)
Finished with a +61 GD (2nd in NHL)

Malkin and his team really are a mess when he has to play as the top dog. No way can he be considered elite when that's all he and they can do largely without Sid.