View Single Post
Old
03-31-2013, 08:03 PM
  #23
Solution
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Cheswick, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Til the End of Time View Post
my concern is that crosby will develop a legacy somewhat akin to forsberg-- a dominant player, fondly remembered by those that watched him play, but one whose legacy is hugely diminished by his lack of health and lack of hardware.

i mean, we all here recognize jagr was the dominant player of his generation, and why is that? because of all those art ross trophies.

i can't get behind this idea that trophies are irrelevant. they are hugely important.
If Crosby is to be considered only as the Forsberg of his generation, that is not bad. Forsberg was a much better player than Lindros who was the player considered most dominant in that time period. Look at the Stanley cups won by each player.

Jagr was the dominant player of his generation not because of his Art Ross trophies but because he dictated the way the game was played. That is what won him the Art Ross trophies.

If trophies are that important, I guess we should consider Jim Carey better than Olaf Kolzig. Or Ovechkin better than Crosby.

Solution is offline   Reply With Quote