View Single Post
12-14-2012, 09:57 AM
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 18,208
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by topched View Post
How does this make any sense? If RNH is a better player at 19 than Tavares was at 18, then I would expect RNH to dominate the tournament as much or more than Tavares did.
How does what you're saying make sense? Tell me, does the best player always play best? Does the best player always have as good a performance as someone else? Why did Crosby only have 9 points, was he not a generational talent, should he not have had much more? What about Malkin the next year, he was older, faster, stronger, more talented, still didn't dominate like Tavares. You're trying to say merely because RNH is better, that he will dominate as good if not more than Tavares.

Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
You're overrating Tavares quite a bit here. There were people who thought that Hodgson was the real MVP, including some of the media at TSN. Also, from the 2005 team at forward I would say that Bergeron, Getzlaf and Carter were comparable but simply had less prominent roles. Crosby was a better player at the time but didn't have a great tournament. There shouldn't be any debate that Nugent-Hopkins is a better player right now than Tavares was in 2009. That doesn't necessarily mean that he will have the better tournament, but it's not at all unreasonable to expect it.
Here? Maybe. On TSN? Not really. Tavares was a shoo-in for MVP, no chance any one else was going to get it.

To the last parts, it doesn't matter other players were better players at the time, doesn't mean they had better tournements. Same reason why it's ignorant to assume RNH will.

Nullus Reverentia is offline