Silly ESPN

[toby91_ca 620]

So, it appears to me that they left off some obvious players that should belong on this list. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking:

- Datsyuk

- Zetterberg

- Crosby (although, maybe he's 200lbs+)

Ooops, forgot the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...mp;lid=tab3pos2

Edited March 11, 2008 by toby91_ca

[lets go pavel 2]

So, it appears to me that they left off some obvious players that should belong on this list. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking:

- Datsyuk

- Zetterberg

- Crosby (although, maybe he's 200lbs+)

i saw that too ... they have dats listed at 197 and z at 195, both 5'11", but maybe they figured that was close enough to disqualify them ...

[Guest YzermanForever19]

No surprise here. ESPN knows absolutely nothing when it comes to the NHL. It's a complete joke. I love ESPN when it comes to every other sport. But when it comes to hockey. I don't even go to their NHL section anymore. It's TSN for me. A site that actually cares about and knows hockey.

[Jamaica Jon 1]

This is just ridiculous. It would be one thing to accidentally leave off 2 middle/end-of-the-list players, but Datsyuk and Zetterberg would arguably be 1-2 on that list...

edit - Although, I do have my doubts they are both actually the height/weight listed (especially Z). Maybe ESPN thought the same?

Edited March 11, 2008 by Jamaica Jon

[eva unit zero 271]

Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Tomas Plekanec. All three are under 6-0 and 200 lbs, and all three are among the top 35 in scoring, which is more than can be said for that entire list save for Savard, Ribeiro, and Parise. The only difference? The first three guys I listed are European.

[toby91_ca 620]

The only thing I can think of is that they are thinking about the really small (St. Louis), but if they wanted a list of the best players under 5'11", 190lbs, then that would be the list, not the best under 6'0", 200lbs.

I have a hard time believing Datsyuk is 197lbs, he looks pretty damn skinny to me.

[timothy1997 0]

do i have to explain EVERYTHING around here?!??!?! Datsyuk and Zetterberg don't count because they are Red Wings.

[ProfessorLidstrom5 0]

I can't believe Jiri Hudler isn't on that list

[Spinner 6]

do i have to explain EVERYTHING around here?!??!?! Datsyuk and Zetterberg don't count because they are Red Wings.

nailed it

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Actually its pretty obvious that theyre going with really small guys. Zetterberg is actually listed at 6'0, and Datsyuk is only off by a little bit. I dont think people go around saying either Datsyuk or Zetterberg are small guys. Of course theyre not big, but theyre not small either.

This list is nothing to get hyped about.

[Lidstromrules16 7]

what about Rafalski?

[imisssergei 0]

Actually its pretty obvious that theyre going with really small guys. Zetterberg is actually listed at 6'0, and Datsyuk is only off by a little bit. I dont think people go around saying either Datsyuk or Zetterberg are small guys. Of course theyre not big, but theyre not small either.

This list is nothing to get hyped about.

Riberio - 5'11" 178

Parise - 5'11" 190

That's right where the twins would fit in, size wise.

[irishtemper14+25 11]

and kane is like 5'8, hes not close to 5'10

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Actually its pretty obvious that theyre going with really small guys. Zetterberg is actually listed at 6'0, and Datsyuk is only off by a little bit. I dont think people go around saying either Datsyuk or Zetterberg are small guys. Of course theyre not big, but theyre not small either.

This list is nothing to get hyped about.

Absolutely! This is just another case of Wings fans displaying how thin their skin is.

Obviously the list is about the really small guys. But of course people are just getting mad because the Wings aren't listed. Boo freaking hoo.

Z and Dats are not as small as these guys. And if somebody wants to make an argument that Z and Dats don't weigh what they are listed at, get some perspective people. Like some of the guys on that list really weigh what they do.

For instance, Marc Savard at 196. Anybody who believes that is too gullible to take seriously. But of course Wings slappies don't bring that up, they just want our boys listed #1 and #2 because we can't handle when we aren't glorified on every single list in the universe.

edit: I do agree that ESPN blows when it comes to hockey and they should've done a better job of clarifying the piece. Hell, they'd have been better served just saying here are the best small players in the league. They did themselves a disservice by putting the 6-0, 200 lb qualifier on there. So in that sense I understand why some fans are taking issue with the list.

Still, people should be smart enough to read between the lines. The list is so obviously compiled with the really small guys in the league and not really by the 6-0, 200lb criteria they used.

Edited March 11, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

This is just ridiculous. It would be one thing to accidentally leave off 2 middle/end-of-the-list players, but Datsyuk and Zetterberg would arguably be 1-2 on that list...

edit - Although, I do have my doubts they are both actually the height/weight listed (especially Z). Maybe ESPN thought the same?

Actually, Crosby would or should be ahead of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but again they probably didn't take those guys because they're a tad bigger than most of those who made the list.

[toby91_ca 620]

Actually, Crosby would or should be ahead of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but again they probably didn't take those guys because they're a tad bigger than most of those who made the list.

I give them a pass on Crosby as he is listed at 200lbs, but not Zetterberg or Datsyuk. I agree they focused on the smaller guys, but that's not the criteria they listed, which is annoying as you say.

The thing is though, I don't really see Datsyuk or Zetterberg as being much bigger than Parise and Savard.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I give them a pass on Crosby as he is listed at 200lbs, but not Zetterberg or Datsyuk. I agree they focused on the smaller guys, but that's not the criteria they listed, which is annoying as you say.

The thing is though, I don't really see Datsyuk or Zetterberg as being much bigger than Parise and Savard.

My guess is if you saw the 4 of them together, Savard would look much smaller than the other 3. Parise I don't know much about.

You do have to love the way player heights and weights are consistently lied about. I've stood next to some of these guys.

I'm just a hair under 5-11 and I played at 200lbs (albeit poorly as I was much better around 185-190), anyway, i'm about 182 or so now. If I were in the NHL I guarantee i'd be listed at 5-11, 200lb even if I wasn't. They almost all lie or it gets bumped up by somebody in PR or whatever. Most of these guys don't weigh what they're listed at. Height is probably skewed a good 1/2 inch to a full inch, especially on the smaller players.

If Pat Kane is 5-10 then I am 6-1.

[scotvm 0]

i surely would have included Mike Cammalerri on their list but whateve

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

i surely would have included Mike Cammalerri on their list but whateve

QFT!

[cirov19 1]

I have to agree with the person who said that it's because they're Red Wings.

Red Wings clearly don't count in anything.

Edited March 11, 2008 by cirov19

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Lidstrom anybody? He's at 189.

Yeah but he's 6-2. Even though their list should've been clarified better, they did keep it at players under 6 feet tall.

[cirov19 1]

Yeah but he's 6-2. Even though their list should've been clarified better, they did keep it at players under 6 feet tall.

I realized that after my quote and changed it.

Edited March 11, 2008 by cirov19

[Jamaica Jon 1]

Actually, Crosby would or should be ahead of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but again they probably didn't take those guys because they're a tad bigger than most of those who made the list.

Oh, I totally agree. I was assuming Crosby was over 200 lbs. (in fact he is listed at 200 lbs, so technically not UNDER 200)

Looking back, at the comments, they do say:

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are both a little big for this category, I think...which is why I left off Mark Recchi.

Atleast they acknowledged it.

And I don't think we're totally unjustified in getting mad that the Wings are not listed. Sure we are homers in MANY aspects, but this team rarely gets respect from any of the supposed hockey "know-hows" (especially at ESPN), and in a category where 2 of our guys absolutely SHOULD be listed and aren't... it is a bit irritating. If they "meant" for it to be a list of small guys that's fine, but they shouldn't call it a list of best under 6' 200 lbs and not actually include the best (like many here have mentioned).

Edited March 11, 2008 by Jamaica Jon

[Deke 0]

Getting hockey news from ESPN.com is like getting financial advice from Sesame Street.

[cirov19 1]

Getting hockey news from ESPN.com is like getting financial advice from Sesame Street.