My theory on why McDavid will never be as good as Crosby

[D-Money]

59 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

1. McDavid is a very poor face-off C.

This statement sums up what is wrong with your assertion. Crosby was also bad at face-offs when he started out. But as he worked on them, and got physically stronger (due to maturity), he improved greatly.

 

McDavid is already as-good-or-better than Crosby is (or ever was?) at many facets of the game. And there is no reason to think that as he continues to grow, develop, and mature, he won't get even better.

[JM_]

Just now, D-Money said:

This statement sums up what is wrong with your assertion. Crosby was also bad at face-offs when he started out. But as he worked on them, and got physically stronger (due to maturity), he improved greatly.

 

McDavid is already as-good-or-better than Crosby is (or ever was?) at many facets of the game. And there is no reason to think that as he continues to grow, develop, and mature, he won't get even better.

No thats actually not the case. Sid's been over 50% his entire career save 1 season (2016). 

 

which specific facets? 

 

1. Speed. 

2...... 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

This is a great assessment. Sure maybe McD can evolve his game, but maybe not. Until then any sort of comments like "he's the best" are just fluff, outside of pure speed. 

Correct.

Connor is not as good as Crosby right now. he gets the press because he is so young and has the AR. And by rights, no sports should really see their best player of the decade/generation be the best player of the decade by the time they are 20. Not unless its gymnastics. So yes, Connor has some growing to do and rounding out to do.

However, if Connor does remain the fastest player in the league by a country mile his whole career, he may still end up better than crosby, despite not having as good a backhand or edge work or such. The best player is not the most complete player at his sport, he is simply the most effective player in his sport. And sometimes, we do have cases where the best player is the best player simply because he has one super-dominant weapon compared to the rest of the field, even if he is just merely 'good' at the other skills.

Connor can be that guy too. We shall see.

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

Correct.

Connor is not as good as Crosby right now. he gets the press because he is so young and has the AR. And by rights, no sports should really see their best player of the decade/generation be the best player of the decade by the time they are 20. Not unless its gymnastics. So yes, Connor has some growing to do and rounding out to do.

However, if Connor does remain the fastest player in the league by a country mile his whole career, he may still end up better than crosby, despite not having as good a backhand or edge work or such. The best player is not the most complete player at his sport, he is simply the most effective player in his sport. And sometimes, we do have cases where the best player is the best player simply because he has one super-dominant weapon compared to the rest of the field, even if he is just merely 'good' at the other skills.

Connor can be that guy too. We shall see.

 

thats an interesting argument. I would lean towards the players that are more dominant/capable in all aspects of their game in terms of ranking who was the best, but I can see why others would consider dominance in fewer areas as the main thing if it was that much over and above everyone else. 

 

[D-Money]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No thats actually not the case. Sid's been over 50% his entire career save 1 season (2016). 

 

which specific facets? 

 

1. Speed. 

2...... 

2005-06	PIT	1174	534	640	45.5%
2006-07	PIT	1686	839	847	49.8%

 

But hey... Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

[erkayloomeh]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So another season and another giant drool bucket over McDavid... but with all the hype I can't shake the idea that he's actually not a complete player in the mould of e.g., Sid Crosby or potentially Austin Matthews. 

 

So flame away but here's my rationale for this:

1. McDavid is a very poor face-off C.

2. McDavid is not a physical player.

 

He's no physical threat whatsoever, we saw Kesler e.g., dominate the guy in the playoffs, and thats something he has yet to overcome. Crosby is a much more agitating player. 

 

On face-offs e.g., McD in his second year only took 806 draws with a 43.2% win rate, Sid in his 2nd year 1615 with a 51.3% win rate (and as improved since). McD's closer to Chaput than Crosby in this regard, with Chaput actually winning more draws. 

 

So for these two reasons I think we can't put McDavid in the same category as Sid or potentially Matthews, or make comparisons with the retired great's. I really feel like you have to be at least competent on draws to be in the same category as the greats. 

 

Sure he may end up scoring a lot of points, but unless you are a complete C I don't think the comparison with the great C's of the game are justified. 

 

 

 

 

Well he isn't really close to Gretzky anyway. 

You can add to the list that he doesn't come close to making players around him way better than Gretzky did

 But then Crosby isn't in the Gretzky category either 

[luckylager]

McD's not as complete of a player as Crosby, I'll give you that for sure.

 

But (sadly) he is the most exciting and offensively talented player in the league. IMO of course. 

 

Ovie was a more exciting forward than Crosby in his early career, but not as well rounded.

 

I fully expect McD to totally wreck himself though. Inevitably he will get tripped up while skating at mach 3 and crash awkwardly into the boards. 

[Zhukini]

2 seasons ago, Crosby was automatic at facoffs in the playoffs, like on any given draw I would put 100$ on Crosby winning no matter who he was up against.

 

They said he couldn't score so he won the rocket.

They Said he couldn't win face offs so he became the best at it.

They said he couldn't take another hit, so he came back and won a cup.

 

i know who I'd take.

[erkayloomeh]

1 minute ago, luckylager said:

McD's not as complete of a player as Crosby, I'll give you that for sure.

 

But (sadly) he is the most exciting and offensively talented player in the league. IMO of course. 

 

Ovie was a more exciting forward than Crosby in his early career, but not as well rounded.

 

I fully expect McD to totally wreck himself though. Inevitably he will get tripped up while skating at mach 3 and crash awkwardly into the boards. 

Yep.  Like Pavel. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, D-Money said:

2005-06	PIT	1174	534	640	45.5%
2006-07	PIT	1686	839	847	49.8%

 

But hey... Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

thats funny - this site didn't list his first two years! https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/crosbsi01.html

 

but the point is the same actually, in his 2nd year 49.8% at 1686 draws he's far superior to McD's second year, so you still helped me 

[luckylager]

Just now, erkayloomeh said:

Yep.  Like Pavel. 

I didn't want to say it...

But yes. Too fast for his own good

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, luckylager said:

McD's not as complete of a player as Crosby, I'll give you that for sure.

 

But (sadly) he is the most exciting and offensively talented player in the league. IMO of course. 

 

Ovie was a more exciting forward than Crosby in his early career, but not as well rounded.

 

I fully expect McD to totally wreck himself though. Inevitably he will get tripped up while skating at mach 3 and crash awkwardly into the boards. 

yah thats probably why they invested so heavily in Drai too to be able to survive the inevitable injuries. 

[Twilight Sparkle]

Time will tell how those west coast injuries pile up. As someone above just said, speed kills. He'll have to mature enough on how to use that speed and not expect someone to respect that speed 100% of the time, especially in the playoffs-- The kid isn't untouchable.

 

McD's gonna take a lot of abuse, just like Crosby did, and Sid was able to evolve his game, and imo, set the bar of how a player in the league should aim to be. People can call Sid a whiner and all that but at the end of the day, he's probably the greatest player in the world right now and it wasn't like he never took abuse to get there.

 

Mcdavid is a long way from being called the best in the world. He's really good at what he does but it's still pretty early in his career to judge

[Rob_Zepp]

He is a sensational player - if Canucks had him the fanbase would love him.   My only fear for him is longevity - he plays fast with a build that isn't made for hard impacts and I think broken collarbones, separated shoulders and even potentially knees could be a concern for him if he hits some bad ice, takes a blindside hit or many of the other possibilities for a guy who plays at that speed.   

 

As beer conversation the other even a few of us asked each other McDavid or Mathews and it was surprisingly split and I had to think longer on it and I actually chose the latter due to that concern I have about longevity.   I think about the abuse the Sedins have had, the abuse Crosby gets and if the same happens to McDavid, it think he may be a shooting star ala Lindros versus a long-term one.   Hope for the league I am wrong but I have a feeling.

[timberz21]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

maybe, maybe not. We'll see. 

 

But comparing them both on their 2nd year in Crosby is the better and more complete player. Matthews also had a far better rookie year. 

I never heard anyone complains about Lemieux's lack of defensive abilities, yet he's considered by many in the top 3 players of all-time.  I don't know what were Lemieux's faceoff numbers?

 

Jagr, Howe, Lafleur, are considered all-time greats, and were wingers and not necessarily known for their defensive prowess.  Where do you compare Crosby/McDavid against them?

 

Unfair to compare Matthews since McDavid was injured.  Although, he was on pace for 85 pts. compared to Matthews' 69

 

Crosby's style and strengths were always centered around skills, IQ, positionning, strength/core balance.  Crosby's low center of gravity always made him great at faceoff and 1on1 battles.   I think McDavid is completely different with skills, speed, explosiveness and instincts.   I think McDavid will learn the faceoff tips and tricks as he gain strength.  Crosby already had a man's body, while McDavid is still looks like a teenager.

 

My take on McDavid is he will probably peak higher than Crosby in terms of point for a few years, but the interesting thing to watch is will McDavid be able to maintain that speed advantage a he nears 30....if he can't then he won't be able to adjust his game like Crosby could do, and for that reason he might not be on top as long as Crosby was.

 

So I'm not willing to guarantee McDavid won't be better than Crosby, but I do believe they will be close at the end.  If McDavid can win 3-4 cups with an offensive style then, even without a two-way game could be considered better than Crosby.  If McDavid outpoints Crosby by a good margin without winning a cup, then he'll never be considered as good as him. 

 

We still have 15 years to go before settling that debate.

[luckylager]

11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yah thats probably why they invested so heavily in Drai too to be able to survive the inevitable injuries. 

Yeah, and every legit dynasty has at least two superstars it would seem.

[Guest]

Crosby's the type of guy that makes his whole team better

 

McDavids the type of guy to win every game by himself(not saying he's selfish or anything, just saying his talent allows him to beat everyone else)

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

He is a sensational player - if Canucks had him the fanbase would love him.   My only fear for him is longevity - he plays fast with a build that isn't made for hard impacts and I think broken collarbones, separated shoulders and even potentially knees could be a concern for him if he hits some bad ice, takes a blindside hit or many of the other possibilities for a guy who plays at that speed.   

 

As beer conversation the other even a few of us asked each other McDavid or Mathews and it was surprisingly split and I had to think longer on it and I actually chose the latter due to that concern I have about longevity.   I think about the abuse the Sedins have had, the abuse Crosby gets and if the same happens to McDavid, it think he may be a shooting star ala Lindros versus a long-term one.   Hope for the league I am wrong but I have a feeling.

its funny to think that a player in Toronto couldn't get more press than one in Edmonton... but there you go. 

 

Of course its too early to say who's better.... thats kind of the point. The hype is just a bit much and i do think Sid had , and has, more tools. I do think AM is going to be a better all-around player based on the small sample size to date.  

 

But I really do think face-offs are a major area of concern for McDavid, I see nothing that says he's made any improvements in that area and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he ended up taking about the same number per year as a 4C and never cracking 50%. So to me if you're going to vault someone up as a C, thats kind of a critical piece. 

 

[RRypien37]

Crosby > McDavid 

 

I was a McDavid fan during his come up but the hype train has gotten ridiculous. I heard the tsn 1040 guys bringing up the possibility that McDavid was going to be the greatest hockey player EVER when all was said and done...

 

Without the blazing speed McDavid isn't even in the discussion. Crosby is the complete player. 

[aGENT]

I'd probably take Crosby (especially if you equaled their ages) as the more complete and 'playoff' player... but holy @#$% can that McD kid skate.