Sidney vs Mario

Status
Not open for further replies.

markov`

Registered User
Feb 23, 2003
3,647
0
Top 2 in the world
Visit site
Vicious Vic said:
stockwizard, is that you? :shakehead

Get back to me when Sid score 282 points next year. What made Mario so special was his meteoric rise over the course of his junior career. Young master Crosby still hasn't come close to DOUBLING his outcome between 16 and 17. I simply don't think Crosby has it in him to improve the way Lemieux did over the course of his junior carreer. If Sid gets 200 points, I'll be amazed. And even if he does, it really doesn't matter; no matter how much scoring has decreased in the last 2 decades, it won't be enough to make up for EIGHTY-TWO points.

And just to pre-empt any arguments about Crosby turning pro a year younger (assuming there's no NHL he and he leaves the Q for Europe or if there is an NHL (and yes, I have no problems admitting he'll be playing in it if there is)), if you think Lemieux couldn't have played pro in any league in the world at that age, you're kidding yourself.

Regardless, I'm done with this thread. I'm still amazed (and disgusted) at the lack of respect Lemieux gets around here. End of story.

If Crosby play next season in the QMJHL, he will break Lemieux records quite easily IMO. If he kept his after-christmas pace all season long, he would've had a 200 years old season at 17.

I for one agree that Crosby hasn't proved anything so far. He has the POTENTIAL to become the greatest ever, I am maybe pushing a bit but he will for sure be great. It's ridiculous to put him ahead of Lemieux at the moment, I 100% agree. What I say is just that Sidney, at the same age, is better than anyone who ever lace em up, except maybe Wayne Gretzky and Bobby Orr. I am a big, big fan of the kid and not just because of the numbers. Numbers are a huge indication of the impact the player has on the team though, and is the only 'factual way' to compare forwards.

One last thing... saying Mario doesn't get enough respect on these boards is just... laughable, I'm sorry.
 

markov`

Registered User
Feb 23, 2003
3,647
0
Top 2 in the world
Visit site
dawgbone said:
Well he's not... he's basing it on league scoring for the era. And he's not saying Lemieux would have only scored such and such number of points, he's saying that all things being equal (i.e. scoring in their era), their numbers are statistically close. There is no doubt Lemieux contributed greatly to the high scoring numbers in the Q when he was there... but there's also no doubt that Crosby gives the Q now a boost in terms of scoring.



Yes they would. Don't forget, in '96 and '01 he'd had quite a few years in the league, and experience at the NHL level is valuable... so using his NHL totals as a what-if isn't really valid. We aren't comparing NHL numbers after 10-15 years in the league.

The fact of the matter is players now are significantly bigger than they used to be, especially in junior. Mario would not have nearly the size advantage now as he did then, and that can't do anything other than hurt him (based on the way he plays). Goaltending and coaching is also much better now than it was then. I don't think the young Mario would have put up 282 points in this Q.

Unfortunately, with some of you people you don't understand era's. If Crosby is winning scoring titles with 120 points, while other players are scoring 90, I know that the thinking will be "Well Gretzky scored 215 points...". Fact of the matter is, Crosby would still be dominating the league and the scoring race like Gretzky did, but because of how different the era's are, if you are only looking at total points naturally you are going to see a huge difference between Crosby and a guy like Gretzky or Lemieux.

Crosby already has failed... moron hockey fans have already decided that. In order for Crosby to be mentioned like Gretzky or Lemieux, he's going to have to put up point totals like they did.

That's just not possible. There is nothing in the way the game is evolving that makes me think that scoring is ever going to be like it was for guys like Gretzky or Mario. Back in the 60's,70's,80's and early 90's the game was still evolving. Goalies weren't quite as good, quite as mobile, quite as big as they are now. Coaches weren't nearly as smart, resourceful, or dedicated as they are now. The players now are bigger, smarter, faster, than ever before.

Sorry, but Gretzky in his prime wouldn't score 215 points in this NHL. He wouldn't have nearly 3000 NHL points playing in this era. To me, he's still the greatest player who ever lived, but I am not a dummy. He'd be facing the best checkers who were all bigger and faster than him, and who also were positionally superior to the players he ate up in the 80's and 90's. He'd still probably be the best offensive player in the league, but it wouldn't be to the extent he did it back in the 80's.

If we are expecting Crosby to score points like Lemieux or Gretzky... it won't happen. There isn't a chance in hell (it's too bad Gretz said Crosby could break all his records... because even Wayne knows that isn't possible). There is however, a chance that Crosby will dominate the NHL much like those two did. Where they were above and beyond anyone else in the league. If we are talking about that, then I think it's stupid to say Crosby will never do that. He's too good to write that possibility off. The kid hasn't failed at all yet... I just don't see how you could discount him.

I'd be writing posts like that if english was my first language. Really. :teach:

Great post.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
i know all about the era differences. I said 60% because isn't today's scoring in the Q about 60% of what it was in 1984? Nobody's saying he has to put up 200 pts to be considered with them.

To be honest though, comparative scoring is far more accurate than anything else. Blue Bullet is probably far closer to what Mario would have gotten than you would be trying to make up a number.

Hockey is pretty predictable when we are talking about numbers and scoring. Of course it isn't accurate, the only sure-fire way to know is if they were to actually lace them up and play in the era in question... but all in all... it's safe to say that you can't take what someone did in the past and fast-forward an era and place them in a similar role and think they will do it again. There are far more obstacles in the Q now than there were when Lemieux walked all over the league. Scoring isn't down because the players suck... scoring is down because the defensive side of the game has gotten significantly better.

However, I have no doubt that a prime Mario and Wayne would both put up 150 pts in today's NHL.

Well, then you need to watch alot more hockey. I don't think either would crack 130, and that's being a little generous.

2001 is a bit of an abberation simply because of all the powerplays in the NHL that season. That was the first year of the crackdowns, and penalties were being called all over the place. It also didn't hurt that Pittsburgh had 4 guys on their team with 80 or more points that season. As an indicator... look at Jagr's production. He averaged 125 points (pro-rated) over 3 years, and suddenly his totals fall to around 75 points.

The difference between the mid-90's and now in terms of goalscoring is pretty dramatic... and still... 130 points when everyone else is scoring 95 points is a pretty significant difference.
 
Last edited:

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
dawgbone said:
To be honest though, comparative scoring is far more accurate than anything else. Blue Bullet is probably far closer to what Mario would have gotten than you would be trying to make up a number.

Hockey is pretty predictable when we are talking about numbers and scoring.



Well, then you need to watch alot more hockey. I don't think either would crack 130, and that's being a little generous.

2001 is a bit of an abberation simply because of all the powerplays in the NHL that season. That was the first year of the crackdowns, and penalties were being called all over the place. It also didn't hurt that Pittsburgh had 4 guys on their team with 80 or more points that season. As an indicator... look at Jagr's production. He averaged 125 points (pro-rated) over 3 years, and suddenly his totals fall to around 75 points.

The difference between the mid-90's and now in terms of goalscoring is pretty dramatic... and still... 130 points when everyone else is scoring 95 points is a pretty significant difference.
Jaromir Jagr scored 127 pts in 1999. You're telling me Gretz and Mario would only get 130? Mario at age 37 scored 91 in 67 games which comes out to 111 pts in 82 games. A 24 year old mario would demolish those numbers.

edit - 1996 the goals per game were 6.3. Now they are 5.2. Mario's 161 pt in 70 games season then converts to(since you like era conversions so much) 156 pts in 82 games for 2004 era.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
Jaromir Jagr scored 127 pts in 1999. You're telling me Gretz and Mario would only get 130? Mario at age 37 scored 91 in 67 games which comes out to 111 pts in 82 games. A 24 year old mario would demolish those numbers.

:shakehead

This goes a lot better if you pay attention.

1999 is not now. Jagr did not score 127 points now. The year is 2005... the last NHL season was 2003-2004. Jagr scored 75 points. The scoring leader scored 94 points.

I'm saying Lemieux and Gretz would score 130 points vs 94 points. Look at how their numbers matched up. The closest guys behind Gretzky and Lemieux would have roughly 65-75% of their scoring totals (i.e. when Gretzky scored 208 points, 2nd place was Kurri with 135... which is 65%). 94 is 73% of 130... to me that's a pretty close guess.

What makes you beleive Gretzky or Lemieux would be more dominant against their peers now, than they were in the 80's?
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
dawgbone said:
:shakehead

This goes a lot better if you pay attention.

1999 is not now. Jagr did not score 127 points now. The year is 2005... the last NHL season was 2003-2004. Jagr scored 75 points. The scoring leader scored 94 points.

I'm saying Lemieux and Gretz would score 130 points vs 94 points. Look at how their numbers matched up. The closest guys behind Gretzky and Lemieux would have roughly 65-75% of their scoring totals (i.e. when Gretzky scored 208 points, 2nd place was Kurri with 135... which is 65%). 94 is 73% of 130... to me that's a pretty close guess.

What makes you beleive Gretzky or Lemieux would be more dominant against their peers now, than they were in the 80's?
the scoring leader last year only scored 94 because honestly St. Louis is just not of the same caliber as other scoring leaders. Jagr is past his prime. If you take the 1999 Jagr and put him in 2004, he would have scored 120 pts. He was MUCH better than St. Louis.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
again, why are you only looking at the 2004 season? 1997-2003 were extremely comparable style of play. If Jagr can score 127 in 1999, do you still think Gretzky/Mario would only score 130 in 1999?
 

Sykie

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,048
0
Geneva
snhl.free.fr
dawgbone said:
Well he's not... he's basing it on league scoring for the era. And he's not saying Lemieux would have only scored such and such number of points, he's saying that all things being equal (i.e. scoring in their era), their numbers are statistically close. There is no doubt Lemieux contributed greatly to the high scoring numbers in the Q when he was there... but there's also no doubt that Crosby gives the Q now a boost in terms of scoring.



Yes they would. Don't forget, in '96 and '01 he'd had quite a few years in the league, and experience at the NHL level is valuable... so using his NHL totals as a what-if isn't really valid. We aren't comparing NHL numbers after 10-15 years in the league.

The fact of the matter is players now are significantly bigger than they used to be, especially in junior. Mario would not have nearly the size advantage now as he did then, and that can't do anything other than hurt him (based on the way he plays). Goaltending and coaching is also much better now than it was then. I don't think the young Mario would have put up 282 points in this Q.

Unfortunately, with some of you people you don't understand era's. If Crosby is winning scoring titles with 120 points, while other players are scoring 90, I know that the thinking will be "Well Gretzky scored 215 points...". Fact of the matter is, Crosby would still be dominating the league and the scoring race like Gretzky did, but because of how different the era's are, if you are only looking at total points naturally you are going to see a huge difference between Crosby and a guy like Gretzky or Lemieux.

Crosby already has failed... moron hockey fans have already decided that. In order for Crosby to be mentioned like Gretzky or Lemieux, he's going to have to put up point totals like they did.

That's just not possible. There is nothing in the way the game is evolving that makes me think that scoring is ever going to be like it was for guys like Gretzky or Mario. Back in the 60's,70's,80's and early 90's the game was still evolving. Goalies weren't quite as good, quite as mobile, quite as big as they are now. Coaches weren't nearly as smart, resourceful, or dedicated as they are now. The players now are bigger, smarter, faster, than ever before.

Sorry, but Gretzky in his prime wouldn't score 215 points in this NHL. He wouldn't have nearly 3000 NHL points playing in this era. To me, he's still the greatest player who ever lived, but I am not a dummy. He'd be facing the best checkers who were all bigger and faster than him, and who also were positionally superior to the players he ate up in the 80's and 90's. He'd still probably be the best offensive player in the league, but it wouldn't be to the extent he did it back in the 80's.

If we are expecting Crosby to score points like Lemieux or Gretzky... it won't happen. There isn't a chance in hell (it's too bad Gretz said Crosby could break all his records... because even Wayne knows that isn't possible). There is however, a chance that Crosby will dominate the NHL much like those two did. Where they were above and beyond anyone else in the league. If we are talking about that, then I think it's stupid to say Crosby will never do that. He's too good to write that possibility off. The kid hasn't failed at all yet... I just don't see how you could discount him.

The best post of the thread. Exactly what I was telling to someone a few hours ago unfortunatly I'm not great in english and could not explain clearly things like that.

A really great post guy. :clap:
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,025
1,633
Virginia
Crosby doesn't have the strength or reach of a Lemieux. Mario was Mario in large part due to the fact that he's nearly impossible to take down, has unbelievable reach and elite instincts/touch. All are vital abilities for today's game. Crosby may have the latter, but until I see the kid dominate men I'm hesitant to even qualify his talent in comparison. He wasn't even the best player on Team Canada- Carter and Bergeron were. They have a year or so on Sidney, but if he's the "Keanu Reeves" of hockey players, he didn't do enough. I won't turn this into a Ovechkin/Malkin thread- but those two have shown the ability to play at a high level with senior players.

I could be wrong and he could be the Canadian wunderkind everyone has been waiting for, but as of now I would seriously consider taking a guy like Malkin over Crosby, if you're looking for a Mario clone. He's the closest thing to Lemieux I've seen, without the shooting ability. Ovechkin is right there, but his skill set leans towards goal scoring. It's highly debatable at this point.

That's not to say Crosby can't win an Art Ross or two, or be the next Sakic- but Sakic isn't Gretzky.

Gretzky wouldn't even be Gretzky in today's NHL.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
you guys are really underestimating wayne/mario dominance.

take gretzky's 1984-85 season. he scored 208 pts with the next highest being 135 pts. second place in scoring scored 65% of what gretzky did.

now this is what crosby would have had to score to achieve gretzky level dominance. (crosby's required pts in bold)

2004 - st. louis(94 pts) - 145 pts
2003 - forsberg(106 pts) - 163 pts
2002 - iginla(96 pts) - 148 pts
2001 - jagr(121 pts) - 186 pts
2000 - jagr(96 pts) - 148 pts
1999 - jagr(127 pts) - 195 pts

who still thinks crosby will dominate like gretzky? scoring 120 pts surely won't cut it. you crosby worshippers really need to calm down a little.
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
dawgbone said:
Well he's not... he's basing it on league scoring for the era. And he's not saying Lemieux would have only scored such and such number of points, he's saying that all things being equal (i.e. scoring in their era), their numbers are statistically close. There is no doubt Lemieux contributed greatly to the high scoring numbers in the Q when he was there... but there's also no doubt that Crosby gives the Q now a boost in terms of scoring.



Yes they would. Don't forget, in '96 and '01 he'd had quite a few years in the league, and experience at the NHL level is valuable... so using his NHL totals as a what-if isn't really valid. We aren't comparing NHL numbers after 10-15 years in the league.

The fact of the matter is players now are significantly bigger than they used to be, especially in junior. Mario would not have nearly the size advantage now as he did then, and that can't do anything other than hurt him (based on the way he plays). Goaltending and coaching is also much better now than it was then. I don't think the young Mario would have put up 282 points in this Q.

Unfortunately, with some of you people you don't understand era's. If Crosby is winning scoring titles with 120 points, while other players are scoring 90, I know that the thinking will be "Well Gretzky scored 215 points...". Fact of the matter is, Crosby would still be dominating the league and the scoring race like Gretzky did, but because of how different the era's are, if you are only looking at total points naturally you are going to see a huge difference between Crosby and a guy like Gretzky or Lemieux.

Crosby already has failed... moron hockey fans have already decided that. In order for Crosby to be mentioned like Gretzky or Lemieux, he's going to have to put up point totals like they did.

That's just not possible. There is nothing in the way the game is evolving that makes me think that scoring is ever going to be like it was for guys like Gretzky or Mario. Back in the 60's,70's,80's and early 90's the game was still evolving. Goalies weren't quite as good, quite as mobile, quite as big as they are now. Coaches weren't nearly as smart, resourceful, or dedicated as they are now. The players now are bigger, smarter, faster, than ever before.

Sorry, but Gretzky in his prime wouldn't score 215 points in this NHL. He wouldn't have nearly 3000 NHL points playing in this era. To me, he's still the greatest player who ever lived, but I am not a dummy. He'd be facing the best checkers who were all bigger and faster than him, and who also were positionally superior to the players he ate up in the 80's and 90's. He'd still probably be the best offensive player in the league, but it wouldn't be to the extent he did it back in the 80's.

If we are expecting Crosby to score points like Lemieux or Gretzky... it won't happen. There isn't a chance in hell (it's too bad Gretz said Crosby could break all his records... because even Wayne knows that isn't possible). There is however, a chance that Crosby will dominate the NHL much like those two did. Where they were above and beyond anyone else in the league. If we are talking about that, then I think it's stupid to say Crosby will never do that. He's too good to write that possibility off. The kid hasn't failed at all yet... I just don't see how you could discount him.
Great post. :handclap:
 

Tb0ne

Registered User
Nov 29, 2004
5,452
33
Victoria
Should be interesting to see what will happen.
Aside from everything.... the NHL needs a player to come in and dominate because quite frankly Hockey is not what is used to be. The best players of the past few years have been consistantly injured (Mario, Forsberg)... that really doesn't help the game.

I wonder.. how can the NBA offense change so little since MJ was a player in his prime that a guy like Lebrone James can come in NOW and have every likelyhood of matching or records the breaking records MJ set?

NBA coaches must get better, their systems, their players, their equipment, and so on but how is it that they can keep offense at the same level year after year? Do they even? (I'm not even sure I barely watch basketball, but I'm just going with things I have heard).

Why has the NHL done so little to try and keep excitement in the game until now that we are left with the ideas of making nets larger, adding shootouts and other drastic changes to the game. Why has the NHL created a situation in which records will NEVER be broken, except those in the defensive and goaltending categories?

While I'm not saying we should change the game so drastically that if a player breaks those records we know he was never as good as The Great One but damn it should atleast be possible.. because it sure isn't now.

And lastly how could anyone not root for Crosby? he was born in the same year as argueably the best hockey tournment that was ever played.
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
Pepper said:
First Falloon, then Daigle, then Spezza and now Crosby. The overhyping never ends.
But what does Crosby have in common with the
other three other than hype?What you should have said was first Orr,then Gretzky,
then Lemieux,then Crosby.I'll let you in on something;if you can deliver it ain't hype.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,437
9,057
Dark Metamorphosis said:
you guys are really underestimating wayne/mario dominance.

take gretzky's 1984-85 season. he scored 208 pts with the next highest being 135 pts. second place in scoring scored 65% of what gretzky did.

now this is what crosby would have had to score to achieve gretzky level dominance. (crosby's required pts in bold)

2004 - st. louis(94 pts) - 145 pts
2003 - forsberg(106 pts) - 163 pts
2002 - iginla(96 pts) - 148 pts
2001 - jagr(121 pts) - 186 pts
2000 - jagr(96 pts) - 148 pts
1999 - jagr(127 pts) - 195 pts

who still thinks crosby will dominate like gretzky? scoring 120 pts surely won't cut it. you crosby worshippers really need to calm down a little.
crosby fans..i want to know if you think he can put up these types of numbers.
 

Rediscoveryx

Registered User
May 10, 2002
267
0
Norrland, Sweden
Visit site
markov` said:
If Crosby play next season in the QMJHL, he will break Lemieux records quite easily IMO. If he kept his after-christmas pace all season long, he would've had a 200 years old season at 17.


Did he really start the season in 1804? :D ;)

Sorry, I couldn't resist
 

Anksun

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
3,616
1
Montreal
Visit site
Too bad this has turn into a Crosby vs Mario in the NHL thread...

This was Junior comparison and a good one to me.

Crosby first 2 years in the Juniors are easily better achievements than Mario's first 2 years. What this is saying about his future? I dont know... and really... i dont mind. I'm just enjoying the show Crosby is putting right now.

+ Expecting Crosby to double his numbers is ridiculous... he's the first one to win the scoring title as a 16 years old... Which is already a good enough realisation.
(And one could argue that since WJC and his coming back from what have been call a "2 months injury player still playing", he have easily double his PPG from last year actually...)
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
Some thoughts to cover a number of posts.IMO Crosby was the best forward at the
WJC.He only played 60% of the minutes Carter did and 80% of the minutes of
Bergeron did so his production per icetime was as good as Bergerons and better than Carters.Carters shifts were twice as long as Crosby's and Bergerons.The
Crosby Bergeron line often started in the defensive end and when they got a whistle in the offensive end(sometimes after being on 15 secs.) Richards line would
come on.When Crosby drew a penalty and he drew by far the most penalties of any player in the series Carter was the first powerplay and often scored so Sid didn't even get on the powerplay much.Sidney is a natural center and a creative instinct
player but Brent Sutter asked him to play the wing and be a role player.He was the
best forchecker, backchecker,penalty drawer, and won more fights for the puck
along the boards then any player in the tournament.I have a question for you: who
here thinks that Gretzky could adjust so well and play the role Sutter asked.If
you will remember on one of the Canada teams they had too many centers and they tried different guys on the wing but Gretzky wasn't so good.

A bunch of you guys say we are making outrageous claims but most of our talk
is:he has the potential,he may,IMO,etc whereas your talk is: there is no way he will be as good.

We mostly want to compare them as juniors-you guys don't want to do that
because Mario doesn't compare favorably.

Someone brought up MJ's records-actually I don't think he holds many scoring
records.He was all around good and he was a huge winner.Crosby could possibly have not as much scoring as the other two and still be considered better because he is way better defensively and he could possibly be a bigger winner.

AND FINALLY: You guys state that Wayne and Mario are the 2 best players of
all time like it's a fact and some of you have the gall to state Mario is the best
like it's a fact.It may be your opinion but it's not shared by most Hockey experts
Gretzky/Orr ,then Howe then Lemieux.That's just the way it is folks.
 
Last edited:

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
Edit - 1996 the goals per game were 6.3. Now they are 5.2. Mario's 161 pt in 70 games season then converts to(since you like era conversions so much) 156 pts in 82 games for 2004 era.

No doubt there would be outliers, and extremes... and if you look at 1996-97, Lemieux scores 122 points in 76 games... which is 116 points in 2004-2005... for a 2 year average of about 130 points per year.

You also have to look at how other players in the league did... at their absolute best, the next best scorers in the league had around 70% of the points Lemieux and Gretzky did. There's not much chance in Lemieux scoring 154 points, with 2nd place coming in at 94... it's just never happened in history, so predicting it doesn't have much base to it.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
again, why are you only looking at the 2004 season? 1997-2003 were extremely comparable style of play. If Jagr can score 127 in 1999, do you still think Gretzky/Mario would only score 130 in 1999?

Because that was the most recent season, and the most relevant one because it's closer to the league Crosby will be entering, as opposed to 1999, which was much different. Scoring hasn't dropped much, yet the numbers for the leading scorers keep getting smaller and smaller. What does that lead you to beleive? It tells me that the best players in the league are matching up against each other, leaving players lower on the ladder a greater ability to put up points against weaker competition.

Based on the 1999 season, I figure Gretzky or Lemieux could have scored about 160 points... based on 2004, I don't think either would have had much more than 130 points. But seeing as I never brought up the 1999 season, you continue to put words into my mouth.

We were talking about Crosby... Crosby isn't entering the NHL in 1999... he's entering in 2004. And for him to display Gretzky and Lemieux like dominance, he'd have needed to score 130 points this past season. That's all it is... relative dominance.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
you guys are really underestimating wayne/mario dominance.

take gretzky's 1984-85 season. he scored 208 pts with the next highest being 135 pts. second place in scoring scored 65% of what gretzky did.

now this is what crosby would have had to score to achieve gretzky level dominance. (crosby's required pts in bold)

2004 - st. louis(94 pts) - 145 pts
2003 - forsberg(106 pts) - 163 pts
2002 - iginla(96 pts) - 148 pts
2001 - jagr(121 pts) - 186 pts
2000 - jagr(96 pts) - 148 pts
1999 - jagr(127 pts) - 195 pts

And how often did Gretzky dominate like that? Just one season. You need to stop fooling yourself. Most of the time, it was between 65 and 75%... you can't just grab a couple of outlying seasons and say tada. There's alot more to it than one season.

who still thinks crosby will dominate like gretzky? scoring 120 pts surely won't cut it. you crosby worshippers really need to calm down a little.

Relatively speaking, if the league scoring leaders are scoring 90 points, and Crosby is scoring 130+ points, he is dominating like Gretzky was. Those are just the facts.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
I don't understand why it is so absurd to think that a player who has accomplished as much or more than any player in history before him *might* turn into a superstar.

To me it is much more foolish to say he will NOT be a superstar than to say that he COULD become a superstar.
 

dawgbone

Registered User
Jun 24, 2002
21,104
0
Dark Metamorphosis said:
crosby fans..i want to know if you think he can put up these types of numbers.

In just one season? Possibly. If you are expecting it over a career, not likely as no player has ever done that.
 

Genghis Keon

Registered User
Apr 1, 2002
918
115
Visit site
EroCaps said:
Crosby doesn't have the strength or reach of a Lemieux. Mario was Mario in large part due to the fact that he's nearly impossible to take down, has unbelievable reach and elite instincts/touch. All are vital abilities for today's game. Crosby may have the latter, but until I see the kid dominate men I'm hesitant to even qualify his talent in comparison.

I agree with you, but I wouldn't be surprised if Crosby's lower body strength was comparable to Lemieux's (when Crosby reaches his prime) and his lower body strength is already above what Lemieux's was when he first entered the league (before he started taking care of his body, which I believe started roughly in 1988 after talking with Gretz when they were on the Canada Cup team).

And the same questions were raised about Gretzky and Lemieux (when they were still prospects, it's not like they everybody automatically assumed they were going to be two of the best, if not the best, players of all time). I'm not saying that Crosby is the next Gretzky or Lemieux because I don't think he is (I think he's got the potential to be in the next group of great forwards in the history of the league, immediately following Wayne and Mario), but I am saying that Gretzky and Lemieux both underwent what Crosby is going through now (there were the Unbiased Canadians back before Gretzky entered the league, who said that it was ridiculous to believe that the little guy from Brantford, Ontario would ever be able to dominate the NHL, not to mention become the best player of all time, and the same went for Mario) and I think many people forget that.

He wasn't even the best player on Team Canada- Carter and Bergeron were. They have a year or so on Sidney, but if he's the "Keanu Reeves" of hockey players, he didn't do enough. I won't turn this into a Ovechkin/Malkin thread- but those two have shown the ability to play at a high level with senior players.

Well, he's two years younger than Bergeron (who has already put up roughly 40 points in the NHL) and nearly 3 years (2 and 2/3 years) younger than Carter, so they both have substantially more than a year on Sidney and are both pretty damn good players in their own right, so I think that while Crosby didn't dominate, it's still impressive that he put up a comparable showing to those two guys. Once again, not comparable to Gretzky (Lemieux was the second leading scorer on team Canada at Crosby's age in '83, but turned down the invite in '84), but still better than anyone not named Lindros that Canada has ever produced. I think doing what he did showed enough that, while he's not necessarily the potential best player of all time, he does have the potential to be one of the greats.

I could be wrong and he could be the Canadian wunderkind everyone has been waiting for, but as of now I would seriously consider taking a guy like Malkin over Crosby, if you're looking for a Mario clone. He's the closest thing to Lemieux I've seen, without the shooting ability. Ovechkin is right there, but his skill set leans towards goal scoring. It's highly debatable at this point.

That's not to say Crosby can't win an Art Ross or two, or be the next Sakic- but Sakic isn't Gretzky.

I think Crosby has the potential and a very good chance to become a player a level or two above Sakic. That's still not at a Gretzky/Mario level (even assuming Gretz and Mario are on the same level--not to start that never ending debate again), but it's still high enough to be really, really excited about. With all due respect to the current crop of stars, not many of them, imo, are all that special. I think Crosby is. He shouldn't have to be the guaranteed next Gretzky or Lemieux to be considered special or a potential great.

Crosby has done more than any junior player in decades, he obviously has great, great potential, he obviously loves to play the game, and he's a really fun player to watch. Why can't we just enjoy his play and let him write his own destiny, whatever it may be? Just because some people says he's overrated and he's not the next one, does not mean he'll never become the next one (despite what his detractors may believe); and similarly, just because some people think he is the next one, doesn't mean that he is (despite what his promoters believe). He's the best junior player I've ever seen (him and Lindros are in a class by themselves imo--note: I never saw Gretzky or Lemieux play) and that's good enough for me.

Gretzky wouldn't even be Gretzky in today's NHL.

I disagree. Sure he wouldn't put up 200 points a year, but he'd walk away with the scoring title every year, still nearly getting as many assists as the next leading scorer has points (assuming Lemieux isn't in his prime playing too).
 

EroCaps

Registered User
Aug 24, 2003
18,025
1,633
Virginia
Genghis Keon said:
I agree with you, but I wouldn't be surprised if Crosby's lower body strength was comparable to Lemieux's (when Crosby reaches his prime) and his lower body strength is already above what Lemieux's was when he first entered the league (before he started taking care of his body, which I believe started roughly in 1988 after talking with Gretz when they were on the Canada Cup team).

And the same questions were raised about Gretzky and Lemieux (when they were still prospects, it's not like they everybody automatically assumed they were going to be two of the best, if not the best, players of all time). I'm not saying that Crosby is the next Gretzky or Lemieux because I don't think he is (I think he's got the potential to be in the next group of great forwards in the history of the league, immediately following Wayne and Mario), but I am saying that Gretzky and Lemieux both underwent what Crosby is going through now (there were the Unbiased Canadians back before Gretzky entered the league, who said that it was ridiculous to believe that the little guy from Brantford, Ontario would ever be able to dominate the NHL, not to mention become the best player of all time, and the same went for Mario) and I think many people forget that.



Well, he's two years younger than Bergeron (who has already put up roughly 40 points in the NHL) and nearly 3 years (2 and 2/3 years) younger than Carter, so they both have substantially more than a year on Sidney and are both pretty damn good players in their own right, so I think that while Crosby didn't dominate, it's still impressive that he put up a comparable showing to those two guys. Once again, not comparable to Gretzky (Lemieux was the second leading scorer on team Canada at Crosby's age in '83, but turned down the invite in '84), but still better than anyone not named Lindros that Canada has ever produced. I think doing what he did showed enough that, while he's not necessarily the potential best player of all time, he does have the potential to be one of the greats.



I think Crosby has the potential and a very good chance to become a player a level or two above Sakic. That's still not at a Gretzky/Mario level (even assuming Gretz and Mario are on the same level--not to start that never ending debate again), but it's still high enough to be really, really excited about. With all due respect to the current crop of stars, not many of them, imo, are all that special. I think Crosby is. He shouldn't have to be the guaranteed next Gretzky or Lemieux to be considered special or a potential great.

Crosby has done more than any junior player in decades, he obviously has great, great potential, he obviously loves to play the game, and he's a really fun player to watch. Why can't we just enjoy his play and let him write his own destiny, whatever it may be? Just because some people says he's overrated and he's not the next one, does not mean he'll never become the next one (despite what his detractors may believe); and similarly, just because some people think he is the next one, doesn't mean that he is (despite what his promoters believe). He's the best junior player I've ever seen (him and Lindros are in a class by themselves imo--note: I never saw Gretzky or Lemieux play) and that's good enough for me.



I disagree. Sure he wouldn't put up 200 points a year, but he'd walk away with the scoring title every year, still nearly getting as many assists as the next leading scorer has points (assuming Lemieux isn't in his prime playing too).

Well put, though I question how effective Wayne G. would be today.

September can't get here fast enough...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->