Sidney Crosby vs Rick Nash

[pei fan]

I skipped the rest of your response but I appreciated the detailed comments.

I'll answer your question: If I believed without a doubt that Nash was going to turn into the better guy, I'd take that bet because it's a funny one

However, I'd be really stupid to take the bet when I dob't find the situation simple. I have said in this thread (and another one about Ovechkin/Kovalchuk/Crosby/Nash/Malkin/Crosby) that I would prefer Nash but in many cases, it's close.

If you can find someone who is convinced Nash will be better, go ahead and make the bet. But I am simply not that person. I cannot say which of those two will come out on top.

Really, just my opinion but I think 90% of the ussers on this forum (not just in this topic) have their opinions way too colored by outside sources. All the articles about how special Crosby could be and his potential are nice.

But perhaps the problem in this thread is that Rick Nash has really not been hyped mch as a prospect. He has exceeded every expectations I had for him three years straight.

Perhaps it's just a matter of opinion but nobody is talking about Rick Nash's potential. To me, he's off the chart and a very high end player with impressive potential for growth.

Okay you don't see it as simple and you stand behind that-fair enough.
I do see it as simple and I do stand behind it.Maybe I'll end up looking like
a ****ing baffoon anyway.

I agree with your comments about Nash being a player with potential.In fact
if you go back to the Nash/ovechkin thread I was the first poster(maybe only)
to say that I saw Nash as more of a player with potential than a proven
player.Yes he won the Richard trophy,but 41 goals isn't going to help your
team win many games when you are on the ice for 35 goals more scored
against you than your team scored.Nash had the highest negative +/- on
his team for both years and last year he was 9 "minus" points higher than
the second highest "minus" player on his team.And yes +/- is relevant in that
context.All I'm saying by this is that Rick Nash has some things still to prove
and work on.At the same time I also think he can become quite a bit better
than he is now.

Nash has some amazing skills but I don't see him as near the stand alone type
of player that Crosby is.If Nash gets to play with a great playmaker I think
he will be a superstar player.If he gets to play with Crosby I think he could have
a Phil Esposito type of career.

 

[pei fan]

Am I missing something here??? Joe Sakic is probably one of the top 10 hockey players of all-time Look at his accomplishments.. Just because he doesn.'t do it with the flare of some people he IS and WAS a dominant force in a time where the NHL didnt have much chance for guys to strive offensively. Yzerman i'd put in the top 30 of all time as well. That's pretty dominant for me.

I have a tendancy to want to let sarcasm fly at this type of post but I won't.
Instead I'll acknowledge you have a different perspective than mine(I'm guessing
it comes from that we probably grew up in different eras).

First of all I was talking about "the dominant player" not one of the better players.
IMO when you measure the best players of all time you have to look at their
dominance factor and you can do that by looking at named all-star teams,
NHL Awards,standings in the scoring race etc.(winning is important too but
has to be taken into context teammates and that players contribution etc.).
All-time scoring can be very misleading in evaluating a players dominance
level and greatness because there are eras where scoring levels across the
league differ dramatically and also you have eras where there are less games
played per year.To demonstrate how this measure can be erroneous let me
say four wordshil Housley/Eddie Shore.

Joe Sakic cannot come anywhere close to the top ten players of all time on
a dominance basis(awards ,all star selections,etc).Actually on that basis alone
he and Yzerman may not rank in the top 100. However they have been very
good players for a very long time and I acknowledge this along with their
leadership abilities and winning moves them up in the rankings but still nowhere
near the top ten. I really do like Steve Yzerman,I've met him (he's a friend of
a friends)and he is a real top notch guy but that doesn't change the history of the game.There is myth that goes around about if it wasn't for Gretzky and Lemieux
Yzerman would have won a lot of trophies and scoring titles but if you go back
and look it doesn't hold up.Also it doesn't consider things like Andy Bathgate
playing in the era's of Richard ,Howe, and Geoffreon (probably 4 of the 5 greatest right wingers of all time)and still managing to receive awards and all star selections.

 

[Kaizer]

but 41 goals isn't going to help your
team win many games when you are on the ice for 35 goals more scored
against you than your team scored.Nash had the highest negative +/- on
his team for both years and last year he was 9 "minus" points higher than
the second highest "minus" player on his team.And yes +/- is relevant in that
context

But Nash can't play for both defencemen for other forwards and goalie. Even Lemieux had "-35" rating despite 100 points in his first season and in 02-03 season when he reached 91 points he had "-25". Even one of the greatest player ever played in the game can't help if you team suck. Why do you ask the same from Nash ?
And another sample. Gilbert Perreault is the only player inducted into HHoF who had the worst "+/-" in the league in a single season. He had "-79" in his first 2 seasons despite he also had 176 points combined.

Imo, the only reason Nash has the highest negative "+/-" in Columbus is that he has the more minutes played than any other forward (actually, he is 4th)

 

[ALF AmericanLionsFan]

Nash is a powerforward who takes alot of abuse. He is young and now plays with some reckless abandon. But what happens when he gets that first major injury? If we are looking only in the short term, Nash is the obvious choice. But long term I would take Crosby. Crosby can contribute so many different ways that you have to think he is going to be effective for so many years ala Steve Yzerman.

I agree with the injury factor. I have always thought about that with Nash. Hopefully he can stay injury free,but how many powerforwards do?

 

[EroCaps]

Apparently they do if this thread is an indication.

It is pretty straight forward. People believe that Crosby's skill set is that much above both of those players to warrant taking the risk of losing one of them to get him. Whether that's right or wrong I'm not addressing, but it is reflected in many of the responses we see here.

Sidney Crosby not only has been dominant at every level he's played at, but has a skill set, that according to every single scout I spoke to this year in my capacity as an an HF writer, unprecedented by any other prospect in this generation of hockey players.

I understand what this thread reflects in terms of people's opinions on Crosby, I'm just asking "why"? I have nothing vested in cutting the kid down, I just want to know what he's done to warrant projections as the next Gretzky? I hope he *is*, but that's an incredibly tall order and not realistic IMO. If it's just his Q #s and performance in the CHL a lot of people may be disappointed in how that translates.

And he wasn't dominant at the WJCs. He was very good, but Carter, Bergeron, and perhaps Getzlaf were better.

 

[ZombieMatt]

I understand what this thread reflects in terms of people's opinions on Crosby, I'm just asking "why"? I have nothing vested in cutting the kid down, I just want to know what he's done to warrant projections as the next Gretzky? I hope he *is*, but that's an incredibly tall order and not realistic IMO. If it's just his Q #s and performance in the CHL a lot of people may be disappointed in how that translates.

And he wasn't dominant at the WJCs. He was very good, but Carter, Bergeron, and perhaps Getzlaf were better.

What he has done is demonstrate a skill set and overall understanding of the game at the age of 17 which many people believe gives him the potential to be a legendary player. Prospects are about potential, and it's not always about being proven. If it was nobody would ever trade for prospects or draft picks.

As for the WJCs, I still believe that the reason Bergeron was able to operate the way he did was because of the opportunities Crosby creates. I'm not saying Crosby made him look good by dominating the game, but the way crosby plays the game, and the way he attracts the complete attention of the opposition, enables his linemates to have a little extra time and gives them more chances to display their own skills.

 

[EroCaps]

What he has done is demonstrate a skill set and overall understanding of the game at the age of 17 which many people believe gives him the potential to be a legendary player. Prospects are about potential, and it's not always about being proven. If it was nobody would ever trade for prospects or draft picks.

As for the WJCs, I still believe that the reason Bergeron was able to operate the way he did was because of the opportunities Crosby creates. I'm not saying Crosby made him look good by dominating the game, but the way crosby plays the game, and the way he attracts the complete attention of the opposition, enables his linemates to have a little extra time and gives them more chances to display their own skills.

Fair enough.

My original point begged the question why Crosby could fetch Nash whereas the two Russian phenoms could not? The same logic used against other prospects is often used in favor of Crosby which suggests hype, IMO.

That second paragraph could be a scout's bio of Evgeni Malkin, or to a lesser extent in terms of playmaking- Ovechkin.

It's doable, but I'd personally like to see the cajones on the guy that trades Rick Nash for any prospect.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

A few takes from a poster in C-bus:

Rick Nash IS hockey in Columbus (I think someone said this before). He is the face of the franchise, and why not? The team made a huge statement by trading up to get him. He's our first real star and should be among the league's best players for years to come. He's thrilling on the ice, and in addition to his proven goal-scoring prowess, an underrated puckhandler. He's great in the community, kids (and the ladies) love him, he's humble (by all accounts). What's not to like?

All that said, I don't see him as a benchmark player in NHL history. Sidney Crosby could be, maybe even should be.

So looking at this two ways: if both were in the draft today, I'd take Crosby. However, if whomever gets the top pick offers it for Nash, and I'm Doug MacLean, I pass.

The best thing would be, of course, for CBJ to get the top pick. And, as I've posted before, then we'd only need to acquire Cory Stillman to have Crosby, Stillman & Nash.

 

[ZombieMatt]

Fair enough.

My original point begged the question why Crosby could fetch Nash whereas the two Russian phenoms could not? The same logic used against other prospects is often used in favor of Crosby which suggests hype, IMO.

That second paragraph could be a scout's bio of Evgeni Malkin, or to a lesser extent in terms of playmaking- Ovechkin.

It's doable, but I'd personally like to see the cajones on the guy that trades Rick Nash for any prospect.

You're absolutely right, it is about hype. And honestly that makes it pretty tough for a team to reject taking Sidney Crosby if there is a trade available. It would be a public relations disaster to not take an opportunity to acquire someone being hailed (right or wrong, that's not my point) as the best prospect of the past 15 years.

 

[EroCaps]

You're absolutely right, it is about hype. And honestly that makes it pretty tough for a team to reject taking Sidney Crosby if there is a trade available. It would be a public relations disaster to not take an opportunity to acquire someone being hailed (right or wrong, that's not my point) as the best prospect of the past 15 years.

Do you think CLB would consider offering Nash a few weeks from now at the draft?

 

[ZombieMatt]

Do you think CLB would consider offering Nash a few weeks from now at the draft?

I have no doubt they would absolutely consider it seriously, but it's tough to say if they would pull the trigger. CLB obviously has been enamoured with him since his junior days and he's came through. And they're not in the most intensive hockey market (not a bad market, it just doesn't have the rabid media that some other teams do), so the external pressure and backlash may not be as great.

But in the end, I think that as a young team, they would do it. It would hurt to give up Nash, but this isn't a team that will be competitive anytime soon, so they're in a position to take a risk to try to have an even greater player who will develop along a similar path that Nash has/will (time line wise) and will grow up with the rest of their core.

 

[ZombieMatt]

Interestingly enough...on Off the Record, Michael Lansberg just asked ISS' Head Scout this question (slightly paraphrased, may not be the EXACT words):

"Is Sidney Crosby head and shoulders above every other great prospect of the past years including Rick Nash and Joe Thornton.?"

Response: Yes he is (then something about him having a complete game and skills).

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Interestingly enough...on Off the Record, Michael Lansberg just asked ISS' Head Scout this question (slightly paraphrased, may not be the EXACT words):

"Is Sidney Crosby head and shoulders above every other great prospect of the past years including Rick Nash and Joe Thornton.?"

Response: Yes he is (then something about him having a complete game and skills).

Oh no! Not the ISS head scout!

 

[ZombieMatt]

Oh no! Not the ISS head scout!

I am simply putting forward the opinion of somebody who does this for a living, and, judging by his position, must have some level of success and earned respect, in the field.

 

[Mooch]

Nash easily for me.

 

[Anthony Mauro]

I am simply putting forward the opinion of somebody who does this for a living, and, judging by his position, must have some level of success and earned respect, in the field.

You had to dignify that with an answer?

It OBVIOUSLY beats a block buddy groupie for Brule!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Interestingly enough...on Off the Record, Michael Lansberg just asked ISS' Head Scout this question (slightly paraphrased, may not be the EXACT words):

"Is Sidney Crosby head and shoulders above every other great prospect of the past years including Rick Nash and Joe Thornton.?"

Response: Yes he is (then something about him having a complete game and skills).

A small but important number of prospects were above Nash over the years, as far as hype and reported potential. I bet the number of prospects has shrunk mightily on most people's list.

For me, and this is a matter of opinion, this number has shrunk to zero.

Rick Nash wouldn't even make the top 10 of most hyped young players of the last dozen of years. Heck, he doesn't even make the top 2 in his own year! A lot of scouts were hyping the other guys.

This is why I personally take all prospect hype with a grain of salt.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

i dont know how anybody can say "for me, its ______ easily"

These are almost for sure two of the top 10 players in the future of the NHL. I dont care how much anyone knows about both players, but any, any GM would be INSANE to make a decision on Crosby or Nash "easily". And yes I would definitely trade Joe Thornton for a 2005 1st overall pick. there are only a couple of players that i would think about not trading for crosby (but still probably end up making da trade).

Nash (Which is why i started this thread)
Ovechkin (already been compared)
Kovalchuk
Heatley
Spezza
Lehtonen

 

[sharkyz15]

Nash will have more assists in the future, he had more assists in his rookie year, so I'm not worried about that, however he's a goal scorer, he might not put up 100 points but 75-85 points is a safe bet.

The other thing is there's more then just scoring points in the NHL, if you watch hockey often you'll know what I'm talking about.

With the new rules coming

I think he will reach the 100 pt mark

Especially if he play on the Jackets top line centered by mr Crosby

 

[ZombieMatt]

A small but important number of prospects were above Nash over the years, as far as hype and reported potential. I bet the number of prospects has shrunk mightily on most people's list.

For me, and this is a matter of opinion, this number has shrunk to zero.

Rick Nash wouldn't even make the top 10 of most hyped young players of the last dozen of years. Heck, he doesn't even make the top 2 in his own year! A lot of scouts were hyping the other guys.

This is why I personally take all prospect hype with a grain of salt.

I think, and maybe I'm reading in between the lines too much, that Landsberg was trying to ask the ISS individual if he felt Crosby was going to outperform both of those guys. Nash was chosen of JBo and Lehtonen simply because he's the current hot topic, and I assume Landsberg was trying to relate his current success to Crosby's abilities somehow.

But the point wasn't the names. The point was the ISS Scout clearly said he felt Crosby's potential was better than any other prospect in recent memory.

That said, for reasons we're discussing right now on MSN, I'm shocked you'd take Nash over Crosby. But that's a side note nobody else would follow, so I won't go into details.

 

[flyercide]

I am at big disadvantage not ever seeing Crosby play. But if the hype regarding him is dead-on right... like the hype was for Lemieux & Lindros than I'd take Crosby over Nash. The amount of threads & hype Crosby has generated is insane... to believe otherwise. I hope he is indeed the Next-One.

 

[flyercide]

Oh one last comment.. if it was "Kovalchuk" or "Crosby"... I'd take Kovalchuk .

 

[Anksun]

I wouldnt like passing up on Nash talent and size. But Crosby would be welcome on my team with open arms without looking back.

 

[Mat]

Some of you really have some high expectations there for Sid, he was CHL MVP for 2 years? so what? Nash was a leading goal scorer in the best league in the world, Nash was also the best player on team Canada along with Joe Thornton, Crosby was't even the best on the Junior Canadian team, how can you compare the two?

The day Crosby puts on his NHL skates and does what Nash did then you can compare them, but at this very moment Nash is better.

amen, thread done

 

[Mat]

After Nash taking a swing at that ref in the World Champs, his character is questionable. Crosby has a strong character.

how about when Crosby started smashing his stick to the ice and kicking the air when London was dominating him in the Mem Cup?
to me, he looks like a suck
to me, nash at least shows he gets into the game

london (junior players) were able to shut down crosby
no team in the world was able to shut down nash at hte world champs