|
Post by Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 13:37:22 GMT -5
Can someone please, please, give me a run-down on why Crosby is still called the best player in the world?
I simply do not get it. He has accomplished far less than some of his peers, his trophies are all regular season success ONLY (which we all know is truly meaningless, the goal is the Cup), he's awful defensively, his take-away to give-away ratio is terrible, he can't motivate his teammates as the Captain of his franchise. Sure, he was GIVEN the Canada Captaincy twice (without doing anything to earn it), but wasn't even the best player on his national team either of the two Olympic years.
So why is he still called the "best"?! Yeah, he's GOOD, but he's not the best player in the world, its a title that was given to him before he was drafted that no-body seems to want to let go, meanwhile he continues to fail.
|
|
|
Post by WHALERS_GM_AL on Aug 28, 2015 13:57:18 GMT -5
I agree... I think that they give him the title so they don't hear him cry...
I think that Twoes is a much better and more complete player that Crosby and more deserving of the title...
Heck, I think that Giroux ids a better player than Crybaby, but I would not say that G is the best player in the world...
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 28, 2015 13:58:21 GMT -5
Can't someone please, please, give me a run-down on why Crosby is still called the best player in the world? I simply do not get it. He has accomplished far less than some of his peers, his trophies are all regular season success ONLY (which we all know is truly meaningless, the goal is the Cup), he's awful defensively, his take-away to give-away ratio is terrible, he can't motivate his teammates as the Captain of his franchise. Sure, he was GIVEN the Canada Captaincy twice (without doing anything to earn it), but wasn't even the best player on his national team either of the two Olympic years. So why is he still called the "best"?! Yeah, he's GOOD, but he's not the best player in the world, its a title that was given to him before he was drafted that no-body seems to want to let go, meanwhile he continues to fail. Because the most valuebale thing a player can do is put up points. No one does that like Crosby. Let's not act like he's a bad defensive player either. The teams he's had haven't been all that good (him, geno and a flawed letang were the only good players there for a while, and let's not talk about iginla lol). I guess the question is, if you replace teows with Crosby do you really think they don't win?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 28, 2015 14:01:43 GMT -5
I don't think the "best" or "most talented" player is determined by trophies, regular season success or motivational abilities. Hockey is a team sport (obviously) and he can't do it all by himself. Even if the best/most talented player is on the worst team in the league he is still the best/most talented player.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 14:09:38 GMT -5
Can't someone please, please, give me a run-down on why Crosby is still called the best player in the world? I simply do not get it. He has accomplished far less than some of his peers, his trophies are all regular season success ONLY (which we all know is truly meaningless, the goal is the Cup), he's awful defensively, his take-away to give-away ratio is terrible, he can't motivate his teammates as the Captain of his franchise. Sure, he was GIVEN the Canada Captaincy twice (without doing anything to earn it), but wasn't even the best player on his national team either of the two Olympic years. So why is he still called the "best"?! Yeah, he's GOOD, but he's not the best player in the world, its a title that was given to him before he was drafted that no-body seems to want to let go, meanwhile he continues to fail. Because the most valuebale thing a player can do is put up points. No one does that like Crosby. Let's not act like he's a bad defensive player either. The teams he's had haven't been all that good (him, geno and a flawed letang were the only good players there for a while, and let's not talk about iginla lol). I guess the question is, if you replace teows with Crosby do you really think they don't win? I think if you swapped Crosby and Toews over the past 6 years, Crosby wins maybe once with Chicago and Toews would have won 2-3 times with Pittsburgh. Toews is a clutch player, Crosby just is not. Toews motivates his teammates to play better and they do so. Toews is in a great way responsible for the player growth of Shaw, Kane, Saad, Kruger, etc. He elevates the play of those around him. You simply can't say the same about Crosby. I don't honestly believe the supporting cast on Pittsburg has been that bad, it hasn't. Kunitz is not a bad player, James Neal was on that team too and isn't a bad player, they had the depth to win, just not the leadership IMO. "Chicago is stacked"…why do you think that is? Not because Chicago just has more better players, but because their Captain leads by example and improves the play of those around him. Points are important, but points are not the single greatest thing you can contribute at all.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 28, 2015 14:11:11 GMT -5
So is this a thread as to why Crosby is labeled as the best player in the world or why Toews is not?
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Aug 28, 2015 14:13:33 GMT -5
So is this a thread as to why Crosby is labeled as the best player in the world or why Toews is not? Well, I and some others do think Toews is the better player, you gotta compare Crosby to somebody to make an argument….but no, not specifically.
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Aug 28, 2015 14:16:37 GMT -5
+1 for Toews. I kind of chuckle when I still hear Crosby is the best. Heck Ovi is better now all things considered
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 28, 2015 14:32:50 GMT -5
Here's one vote for Sid the Kid. Most talented player in the league in the pre-Connor McDavid world at least. There is a reasonable argument for Toews, on accomplishments, even though they are primarily team accomplishments. I think if Sid played with Kane, Keith, Seabrook and Sharp, he might have a couple of more cups, too. Eug, Ovi doesn't get in the argument until he actually wins something.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 28, 2015 15:00:51 GMT -5
Eug, Ovi doesn't get in the argument until he actually wins something. Lol some serious irony in that statement.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 28, 2015 15:27:13 GMT -5
Eug, Ovi doesn't get in the argument until he actually wins something. Lol some serious irony in that statement. Ironic in what way?
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 28, 2015 15:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Aug 28, 2015 15:37:54 GMT -5
Interesting side note - in the 2006 draft the Pens took J. Staal second, Toews went third. Imagine if the Pens took Toews
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Aug 28, 2015 15:51:22 GMT -5
Oh, I admit that Ovi has a great collection of individual awards, including three Lindsay/Pearson awards as best player as selected by his peers, same as Crosby. My comment wasn't meant to diminish Ovechkin, who I think is probably the second best player in the game right now. I was just saying that in the way Gavin framed the argument, Ovi wouldn't be considered because he hasn't won a cup. Or an Olympic gold medal which is probably the next biggest team accomplishment in hockey. I'd be happy to have Sid or Toews on my team. Both are great players and leaders.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Aug 28, 2015 15:54:55 GMT -5
No it was straight up real irony.
The argument for Crosby is that hes the best but his team has held him back from ultimate cup success, but then the argument against Ovi is that he hasnt won anything therefore he doesnt get to be in the discussion.
Id say he also doesnt get into the discussion because he plays an easier position.
|
|