Sick of hearing Sidney Crosby's name

[titanium2 867]

Ridiculous.

[Original-Six 254]

Look at that form. Its perfect.

Why didnt NBC spend 10 mins breaking this down on replay?

Edited February 22, 2010 by Original-Six

[egroen 384]

Look at that form. Its perfect.

Why didnt NBC spend 10 mins breaking this down on replay?

The feed to that camera angle was lost.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

Yeah Steve just like the last time you got cocky with me. Difference is, this is an opinion. So shut the f*** up and just converse with me like something other than a loudmouth prick, ya?

Ah hell, the other guy kinda shot down the whole plus/minus thing anyway. But my point was proven, I'd bet my last dime these people acting like my opinion is laughable, haven't seen more than a handful of Orr games (and that's being generous, the number is likely zero). It's just taboo to suggest anyone is even close to Orr.

Orr didn't have much in the way of defensive competition or the type of offensive players coming at him Lidstrom did.

Everyone just brings up points. Everyone is usually in agreement that defense comes first but it's like as soon as someone scores a s***-ton of points, we get caught up in the excitement and our priorities go all outta wack. I'm just saying, Lidstrom can contribute offensively enough that defense is still the most important factor to me. And no one throughout history can play as solid, lock down, consistent defense as Lidstrom. Orr faced Esposito and Hull, yeah, and didn't have many defenders as competition back then.

The measures most people are using to compare, just aren't logical most of the time. Coaches opinions? Teammates opinions? Most of the time in sports they're biased as hell and don't care, or spent too much time with one player and not enough with another and that's with both players playing currently. Nevermind one that retired decades ago. Just like when Howe said Orr was the best. I guarantee Gordie would have an easier time beating Orr one on one than Nick, who is pretty much unbeatable. Points were also a hell of alot easier to come by back then. In that era, most defensemen could pass the puck and thank someone else for the assist. Nick came around in the age of no offense, defensively based hockey. He had a hell of alot more competition for the Norris trophies anyway.

I'm just saying at the end of the day, I'll take flawless defense over 120 points from a guy who was about as good as Chelios defensively. Orr wasn't bad on D at all but if he scored 60 points a year and was judged on his D (like he should be, otherwise he's a forward who just starts our deeper) he'd be no better than Harvey, Bourque or Lids.

Points were not "a hell of a lot easier to come by" back when Orr played:

Orr played 9 full length seasons in the NHL and during that span the NHL's scoring champion averaged 123.22 points.

Nick has played 16 full length completed seasons (i didn't include the shortened 94-95 season or this uncompleted season) and during the span of his career the NHL's scoring champion has averaged 119.75 points..so even if you take it at surface value that is a very small discrepancy between point totals....BUT if you consider that during 2 of Orr's 9 full seasons he was the leading scorer in the league (which unfarily counts against him in this instance) and use the 2nd leading scorer in the league's total in place of Orr's; than the average NHL scoring champion's point total for Orr's 9 full seasons comes out to be exactly 120 points.......so I would have to disagree that an average of .25 points a season can justify the remark that points were " a hell of alot easier to come by" in Bobby's Orr's NHL than Nick Lidstrom's

here are the NHL scoring leaders for the season's I'm referring to:

66-67: Mikita 97 pts

67-68: Mikita 87 pts

68-69: Esposito: 126

69-70: Orr 120 (2nd place was Esposito at 99 pts.)

70-71: Esposito 152

71-72: Esposito 117

72-73: Esposito 130

73-74: Esposito 145

74-75: Orr 135 (2nd place was Esposito at 127 pts.)

91-92: Lemieux 131 pts

92-93: Lemieux: 160

93-94: Gretzky 130

95-96: Lemieux 161

96-97: Lemieux 122

97-98: Jagr 102

98-99: Jagr 127

99-00: Jagr 96

00-01: Jagr 121

01-02: Iginla 96

02-03: Forsberg 106

03-04: St. Louis 94

05-06: Thornton 125

06-07: Crosby 120

07-08: Ovechkin 112

08-09: Malkin 113

Edited February 22, 2010 by StevieY'sguy

[StevieY'sguy 1]

I wasn't saying Lidstrom didn't have a good team. Orr wasn't the reason they were great. He was part of it.

I'd say he was a very big part of it, and Lidstrom wasn't the reason the Wings were great either but he was likewise a very big part of it...people will argue that part of the reason that Orr had so many points was that he played with scorers like Esposito and Bucyk and that his defensive skills are overblown because he put up great offensive numbers...although that may be (partly) true, does anyone think that it might be possible that Lidstrom's defensive skills may be overrated slightly as well?? Now I am in no way knocking Lidstrom at all, he is clearly one of the best to man the blueline, and certainly is the best defenseman of this generation but let's face it the guy did play with 4 other current or future Hall of Fame defenseman (Fetisov, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy) and on 6 teams that produced Selke Winners, not to mention on the team that utilized the left wing lock that was so effective for so many years and always had top notch goaltenders behind him... few defenseman in NHL history (if any) could have had many more luxuries than those...

[Guest Lidstromboli]

[Guest zackmorris]

But he didn't score 60pts a year, so how can you ignore that? You think defensemen shoudl just be judged on their D? Do you really think Lidstrom would have won all the Norris trophies he has if he only put up 15-20pts a year?

I'm not ignoring offense, read what I said. All I'm saying is that I'll take Lids D over Orr's O anyday. Every single point brought up to argue in favor of Orr is about how amazing he was at scoring. That's nice, if you're looking for the best offensive defenseman of all time.

And Stevie, there's no way I'm derailing this topic with another pissing contest with you. If someone wants to start a new topic go ahead. If I have to say one thing though and be done with it, it'd be that you can't just compare a favorably constructed list of scorers. Orr's day and age had 7-8 goals per game scored, compared to Nick's hayday of 5.2 or so, with maybe one season higher than 6. Espo, Mikita, Hull...they're good but they ain't no Gretzky, Lemieux, Forsberg or Jagr. The players were better but the game just changed, with the biggest evolution being that goalies were finally competent. You also have to take into account athletes these days are just better than they were back then. It's just a small shred of human evolution. Aside from being better, they're bigger, faster and stronger. Not only forwards, but goaltenders too. The 70s never had the likes of Roy or Hasek or a collective generation of goalies who were leaps and bounds better than generations past.

People act like I'm ignoring Orr's offense. I'm not. They act like I'm saying Nick could contribute like he did. He couldn't. Even if he could, he's too stay at home compared to the likes of most offensive dmen. I just would take Lids D over Orr's O, and the difference between Orr's D (which is good, not amazing) vs Lids offense (which for today's style of play is very good) isn't enough to deter me.

In 30 years, someone will be arguing that a player is better than Lidstrom and even if he is, no one will agree. Because Lids' name will have had time to simmer on the reputation grill so to speak for a few decades and his rep will have outgrown him. Even though he is about as close to perfect as any hockey player will ever get. Just watch, give it a decade or two, a few dramatic commercials, a few specials dedicated to his greatness and it won't take much to sway the collective opinion.

Edited February 23, 2010 by zackmorris

[zettie85 106]

I'd say he was a very big part of it, and Lidstrom wasn't the reason the Wings were great either but he was likewise a very big part of it...people will argue that part of the reason that Orr had so many points was that he played with scorers like Esposito and Bucyk and that his defensive skills are overblown because he put up great offensive numbers...although that may be (partly) true, does anyone think that it might be possible that Lidstrom's defensive skills may be overrated slightly as well?? Now I am in no way knocking Lidstrom at all, he is clearly one of the best to man the blueline, and certainly is the best defenseman of this generation but let's face it the guy did play with 4 other current or future Hall of Fame defenseman (Fetisov, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy) and on 6 teams that produced Selke Winners, not to mention on the team that utilized the left wing lock that was so effective for so many years and always had top notch goaltenders behind him... few defenseman in NHL history (if any) could have had many more luxuries than those...

You make a good point about the teams yet if you have ever watched Lidstrom play regardless of who else is on the ice with him you know that his defencive skills are not over rated. He may have fallen off a little the last 2 years but prior to that he has been the best. To play the way he does shows his defencive skill. He doesn't just use size or aggresiveness like a lot of shutdown guys do.

Most haven't seen Orr play on this board. One person who talks up Orr to god-like status is Cherry. A guy who nobody, minus a few exceptions, takes seriously or can refrain from bashing when they get the chance. Everyone will have there own opinion on who the best is.

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

Crosby is the least photogenic person in the NHL.

I wonder if he actually tries as hard as he can to act "cool" between whistles because he knows the cameras are always on him, and then can't help it when he plays. Because seriously he looks fine before the puck drops then out comes "LOOK AT MY TEETH AREN'T THEY WHITE!!?!?!?"

Lidstromboli: epic

Zack: Why do you think people have a good idea as to who the best players are at their position, regardless of when they played?

This is the second time I have ever seen someone argue against Orr being unquestionably the best defenseman to play the sport. I honestly have no idea how you could hold such an opinion, especially by your own admission that you never saw him play.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Doc Holliday

[Guest Lidstromboli]

hey looks slightly more tolerable with longer hair

slightly slightly

[Electrophile 3,554]

First thing that came to mind.

[MannyK 16]

First thing that came to mind.

hahaha... totally agree. I saw the same thing

[Marty Barry 230]

Ridiculous.

Was that a hit or a dive?

[StevieY'sguy 1]

I'm not ignoring offense, read what I said. All I'm saying is that I'll take Lids D over Orr's O anyday. Every single point brought up to argue in favor of Orr is about how amazing he was at scoring. That's nice, if you're looking for the best offensive defenseman of all time.

And Stevie, there's no way I'm derailing this topic with another pissing contest with you. If someone wants to start a new topic go ahead. If I have to say one thing though and be done with it, it'd be that you can't just compare a favorably constructed list of scorers. Orr's day and age had 7-8 goals per game scored, compared to Nick's hayday of 5.2 or so, with maybe one season higher than 6. Espo, Mikita, Hull...they're good but they ain't no Gretzky, Lemieux, Forsberg or Jagr. The players were better but the game just changed, with the biggest evolution being that goalies were finally competent. You also have to take into account athletes these days are just better than they were back then. It's just a small shred of human evolution. Aside from being better, they're bigger, faster and stronger. Not only forwards, but goaltenders too. The 70s never had the likes of Roy or Hasek or a collective generation of goalies who were leaps and bounds better than generations past.

People act like I'm ignoring Orr's offense. I'm not. They act like I'm saying Nick could contribute like he did. He couldn't. Even if he could, he's too stay at home compared to the likes of most offensive dmen. I just would take Lids D over Orr's O, and the difference between Orr's D (which is good, not amazing) vs Lids offense (which for today's style of play is very good) isn't enough to deter me.

In 30 years, someone will be arguing that a player is better than Lidstrom and even if he is, no one will agree. Because Lids' name will have had time to simmer on the reputation grill so to speak for a few decades and his rep will have outgrown him. Even though he is about as close to perfect as any hockey player will ever get. Just watch, give it a decade or two, a few dramatic commercials, a few specials dedicated to his greatness and it won't take much to sway the collective opinion.

Show me hard evidence and numbers to support your claim that there was about a 3 goal per game average difference from 8 to 5 between Orr's generation to Lidstrom's and I can start to buy your arguement....I'm not here to drag this topic even further away from it's title (if that's even possible) but Esposito, Mikita and especially Bobby Hull are all in a higher echelon than Peter Forsberg....

[zettie85 106]

Show me hard evidence and numbers to support your claim that there was about a 3 goal per game average difference from 8 to 5 between Orr's generation to Lidstrom's and I can start to buy your arguement....I'm not here to drag this topic even further away from it's title (if that's even possible) but Esposito, Mikita and especially Bobby Hull are all in a higher echelon than Peter Forsberg....

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

GPG average

[egroen 384]

I'm not ignoring offense, read what I said. All I'm saying is that I'll take Lids D over Orr's O anyday. Every single point brought up to argue in favor of Orr is about how amazing he was at scoring. That's nice, if you're looking for the best offensive defenseman of all time.

And Stevie, there's no way I'm derailing this topic with another pissing contest with you. If someone wants to start a new topic go ahead. If I have to say one thing though and be done with it, it'd be that you can't just compare a favorably constructed list of scorers. Orr's day and age had 7-8 goals per game scored, compared to Nick's hayday of 5.2 or so, with maybe one season higher than 6. Espo, Mikita, Hull...they're good but they ain't no Gretzky, Lemieux, Forsberg or Jagr. The players were better but the game just changed, with the biggest evolution being that goalies were finally competent. You also have to take into account athletes these days are just better than they were back then. It's just a small shred of human evolution. Aside from being better, they're bigger, faster and stronger. Not only forwards, but goaltenders too. The 70s never had the likes of Roy or Hasek or a collective generation of goalies who were leaps and bounds better than generations past.

People act like I'm ignoring Orr's offense. I'm not. They act like I'm saying Nick could contribute like he did. He couldn't. Even if he could, he's too stay at home compared to the likes of most offensive dmen. I just would take Lids D over Orr's O, and the difference between Orr's D (which is good, not amazing) vs Lids offense (which for today's style of play is very good) isn't enough to deter me.

In 30 years, someone will be arguing that a player is better than Lidstrom and even if he is, no one will agree. Because Lids' name will have had time to simmer on the reputation grill so to speak for a few decades and his rep will have outgrown him. Even though he is about as close to perfect as any hockey player will ever get. Just watch, give it a decade or two, a few dramatic commercials, a few specials dedicated to his greatness and it won't take much to sway the collective opinion.

You really underrate Orr's defense... which is understandable if you have never seen him play (just like many nowadays can not believe Gretzky was really as good as he was, having never seen him). It's kind of hard to imagine a defenseman leading the league in scoring without running around like a 4th forward out there. But Orr did, he literally transcended the game. At his best, he was better than Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux - anyone. He just did not have a long career.

If Lidstrom is a 9.9 defensively (I reserve a perfect 10 for guys like Doug Harvey, Serge Savard and Rod Langway) then Bobby Orr was a 9.5 --- If Bobby Orr is a 10.0 offensively then Lidstrom is a 7.0

How much do you really believe the human species has evolved over the past 30 years? Seriously.

Yes - hockey players are "better" now; but could it possibly be because of better equipment, better training and better nutrition (and yes, the fact that players today get to learn from and stand on the shoulders of giants like Orr)?

Chris Chelios and Ray Bourque, in their 40s, were runners up to a prime Nicklas Lidstrom in the 2000s -- Chelios and Bourque were also dominating Lidstrom in the 90s and winning Norris trophies in the 80s. Here's a hint: these guys were better in their 20s than they were in their 40s. In the early 80s Bourque and Chelios were dominated by Dennis Potvin who captained the Islanders to 4 straight Stanley Cup championships. When did Potvin win his first Norris? 1976 -- the very year Bobby Orr's knees gave out and the year after Orr scored 135 points. Dennis Potvin never held a candle to Orr.

At what year did the human race evolve to such an extent that all previous players sucked?

Edited February 23, 2010 by egroen

[StevieY'sguy 1]

You really underrate Orr's defense... which is understandable if you have never seen him play (just like many nowadays can not believe Gretzky was really as good as he was, having never seen him). It's kind of hard to imagine a defenseman leading the league in scoring without running around like a 4th forward out there. But Orr did, he literally transcended the game. At his best, he was better than Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux - anyone. He just did not have a long career.

If Lidstrom is a 9.9 defensively (I reserve a perfect 10 for guys like Doug Harvey, Serge Savard and Rod Langway) then Bobby Orr was a 9.5 --- If Bobby Orr is a 10.0 offensively then Lidstrom is a 7.0

How much do you really believe the human species has evolved over the past 30 years? Seriously.

Yes - hockey players are "better" now; but could it possibly be because of better equipment, better training and better nutrition (and yes, the fact that players today get to learn from and stand on the shoulders of giants like Orr)?

Chris Chelios and Ray Bourque, in their 40s, were runners up to a prime Nicklas Lidstrom in the 2000s -- Chelios and Bourque were also dominating Lidstrom in the 90s and winning Norris trophies in the 80s. Here's a hint: these guys were better in their 20s than they were in their 40s. In the early 80s Bourque and Chelios were dominated by Dennis Potvin who captained the Islanders to 4 straight Stanley Cup championships. When did Potvin win his first Norris? 1976 -- the very year Bobby Orr's knees gave out and the year after Orr scored 135 points. Dennis Potvin never held a candle to Orr.

At what year did the human race evolve to such an extent that all previous players sucked?

Great post, it should also be noted that Nick didn't win his first Norris trophy until Bourque's final season and at a time when greats such as Bourque, Chelios, and Brian Leetch were well on the downside of their careers...Nick had the luxury of hitting his prime at time where they werent any other all time great D-men to compete with..Niedermayer and Pronger will probably be hall of famers but were nowhere near the level of competition for Nick that the above mentioned guys were to each other.......also the goals per game over Orr's healthy 9 years was 6.16 while Nick's era was/is 5.84..a decrease in scoring yes, although not nearly as remarkable as has been suggested....

[Nev 1,085]

No, I can say that Orr is superior because according to just about everyone (his peers, coaches, opponents, etc.) Bobby Orr was and is the best defenseman to ever lace up the skates. Period.

And did these opponents, peers and coaches also play against players from the 80s? From the 90s? From the 2000s? Players & coaches always look back with rose-tinted specs and regard "their" era as the best.

I'm not saying he's not the greatest defenceman of all time, but your logic for saying so is flawed. Johan Franzen called Darren Helm the best skater he's ever seen. Does that make Helm the greatest skater of all time?

Stevie - I don't buy the argument about Lidstrom not being as good in the 90s. IMO he has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and his play (and stats) from the 90s are no different to the 2000s. It just took 10 years or so for people to realise "dayum, this guys good!" because of his non-flashy style of play. He's been the best player, year in and year out, of the most dominant team of the last 15 years. Remember that thread a while back asking what Lidstrom's best season was? No-one could decide because they were all so similar.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Nev

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

And did these opponents, peers and coaches also play against players from the 80s? From the 90s? From the 2000s? Players & coaches always look back with rose-tinted specs and regard "their" era as the best.

I'm not saying he's not the greatest defenceman of all time, but your logic for saying so is flawed. Johan Franzen called Darren Helm the best skater he's ever seen. Does that make Helm the greatest skater of all time?

Stevie - I don't buy the argument about Lidstrom not being as good in the 90s. IMO he has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and his play (and stats) from the 90s are no different to the 2000s. It just took 10 years or so for people to realise "dayum, this guys good!" because of his non-flashy style of play. He's been the best player, year in and year out, of the most dominant team of the last 15 years. Remember that thread a while back asking what Lidstrom's best season was? No-one could decide because they were all so similar.

Well since Gordie played in the 50s I don't see how the "my era is best" argument holds any water, considering just about all players from all eras agree with Howe on that fact. Also I would consider a player like his opinion over a guy like Franzen's because he has seen hockey evolve since he played and has watched every single great player play from the 50s on. Franzen has not.

And if Lidstrom WAS so consistent from the get-go, then doesn't that hurt his case all-time since he didn't win a Norris till 2000? (you can argue the "notice" card till you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact Lidstrom never won the hardware till guys like Borque, Chelios, and Leetch were on the downside of their careers). For the record I believe Lidstrom is better than all three, with Borque very close behind.

[Nev 1,085]

Well since Gordie played in the 50s I don't see how the "my era is best" argument holds any water, considering just about all players from all eras agree with Howe on that fact. Also I would consider a player like his opinion over a guy like Franzen's because he has seen hockey evolve since he played and has watched every single great player play from the 50s on. Franzen has not.

No, a player like Howe, if he says Orr was in his opinion the best player ever , I would respect that since he played from the 40s to the 80s and saw a lot players. Likewise, Bowman who coached from the 60s to the 2000s. If he said Orr was the best defenceman ever, having coached Robinson, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy, Lidstrom etc, then you have to respect that. I am after all the one who always brings up how Bowman regarded the 2002 team as the best of them all.

But I'm not going to agree he's the best just because everyone from his era says he's the best, which is the argument people are using here.

And if Lidstrom WAS so consistent from the get-go, then doesn't that hurt his case all-time since he didn't win a Norris till 2000?

No. The Norris, like the Selke, is an award that you don't win over 1 seasons play. You usually have to build a reputation over several years before you win it. A poke check here, a funnelling to the boards there - these are not the things that journalists who might only see you play 4 times a year are likely to remember when they cast their votes in the summer. Even Babcock said he had no idea how good Lidstrom was till he came here.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

How the heck did this turn into a Bobby Orr thread?! Orr is better than Lidstrom, no questions asked, no matter how much I like Lidstrom.

And Sidney Crosby still smells.

[StevieY'sguy 1]

And did these opponents, peers and coaches also play against players from the 80s? From the 90s? From the 2000s? Players & coaches always look back with rose-tinted specs and regard "their" era as the best.

I'm not saying he's not the greatest defenceman of all time, but your logic for saying so is flawed. Johan Franzen called Darren Helm the best skater he's ever seen. Does that make Helm the greatest skater of all time?

Stevie - I don't buy the argument about Lidstrom not being as good in the 90s. IMO he has been remarkably consistent throughout his career, and his play (and stats) from the 90s are no different to the 2000s. It just took 10 years or so for people to realise "dayum, this guys good!" because of his non-flashy style of play. He's been the best player, year in and year out, of the most dominant team of the last 15 years. Remember that thread a while back asking what Lidstrom's best season was? No-one could decide because they were all so similar.

I'm not necessarily saying i don't think he was as good in the 90s, but if the Norris is an award built on reputation as you say, then doesn't it further my point that Lidstrom really lucked out playing the last decade or so without another all-time great defenseman to contend with for the Norris trophy?? Ray Bourque won 5 playing the vast majority of his career with another one of the top 10 defenseman of all time in Chelios along with other Hall of Famer's in Brian Leetch and Paul Coffey in the game at their peaks...Lidstrom's biggest competititon over the years have probably been Niedermayer and Pronger, which as I said before just aren't the same echelon of competition that the stars of the 80s and 90s had to contend with. Is Lidstrom better than all of them? Probably (although I would say he has a photo finish to edge Bourque), but I think the fact that he had no real competition in his prime era may have boosted his image a tad higher than it really is.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Everybody needs a little Crosby in their lives. Everyone who replies they don't is obviously reading this thread. Check mate.

Ding, ding, ding! Well, the comedians of the board still don't seem to get it.

A little bit of Crosby would be tolerable.

LGW is not the place for a little bit of Crosby. In fact, I would argue it's one of the premier places on the web to go for Sidney Crosby info.

So congratulations all you f*** nuts, you've turned LGW into Sidney Crosby West for the rest of us.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Ding, ding, ding! Well, the comedians of the board still don't seem to get it.

A little bit of Crosby would be tolerable.

LGW is not the place for a little bit of Crosby. In fact, I would argue it's one of the premier places on the web to go for Sidney Crosby info.

So congratulations all you f*** nuts, you've turned LGW into Sidney Crosby West for the rest of us.

:violin:

You can also thank NBC and NHL Center Ice for shoving him down our throats.

And while I don't visit other sports forums, I can bet you there is a lot of the same disdain towards Crosby and/or marketing towards Crosby.

It is the same thing like college football did with Tim Tebow, the NBA with Bryant and Lebron James and the like. In the end I don't have all that much against these guys, but am so damned sick of seeing their faces or hearing about them like they are portrayed as miracle workers or turning water into wine. And as for Crosby, his rants and whining off/on on the ice don't help his image or whatever to the people that don't like him to begin with. These people deserved to be talked about, yes, but I would like other more coverage of players just as good/almost as good. Not getting that as much.

This is probably not just an LGW thing, and the disgust about him, whether justiifed or not, is not going away any time soon.

You complaining about others with a bad attitude about the absurd levels of Crosby coverage isn't going to sway anybody to your side when a majority of people have come together and have something legitmate that they are dissatifised with, to certain degrees. Is it overzealous sometimes? Sure. But in essence, you are acting just as much as a whiny ***** like the rest of us in here or this thread, or Crosby, etc.

And there are plenty of other threads on LGW that don't talk about Crosby. Plenty on this first page as well.

Edited February 23, 2010 by SouthernWingsFan

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

:violin:

You can also thank NBC and NHL Center Ice for shoving him down our throats.

And while I don't visit other sports forums, I can bet you there is a lot of the same disdain towards Crosby and/or marketing towards Crosby.

It is the same thing like college football did with Tim Tebow, the NBA with Bryant and Lebron James and the like. In the end I don't have all that much against these guys, but am so damned sick of seeing their faces or hearing about them like they are portrayed as miracle workers or turning water into wine. And as for Crosby, his rants and whining off/on on the ice don't help his image or whatever to the people that don't like him to begin with. These people deserved to be talked about, yes, but I would like other more coverage of players just as good/almost as good. Not getting that as much.

This is probably not just an LGW thing, and the disgust about him, whether justiifed or not, is not going away any time soon.

You complaining about others with a bad attitude about the absurd levels of Crosby coverage isn't going to sway anybody to your side when a majority of people have come together and have something legitmate that they are dissatifised with, to certain degrees. Is it overzealous sometimes? Sure. But in essence, you are acting just as much as a whiny ***** like the rest of us in here or this thread, or Crosby, etc.

And there are plenty of other threads on LGW that don't talk about Crosby. Plenty on this first page as well.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here but I want to address a couple of things.

Thanking NBC and Center Ice? Why? I have Center Ice. In the past year I haven't seen 1/5th of the amount of Crosby commercials and attention as he was getting. But the LGW Crosby related threads seem to grow in abundance. As I said before, you get FAR, FAR, more Crosby discussion on this forum than you can get anywhere on TV unless it's late night and the NHL Network is airing a 1/2 hour Crosby special. How often does NBC have hockey on? Are we really going lump NBC in as a Crosby shill?

2. You make a good point, yes, other players should be talked about. Of course LGW is the last place you can go to talk about other players. It's Wings, Crosby, trades, line matchups, Crosby, Babcock sux, Lilja sux, Lang sux, Crosby sux, Leafs interested in....

I hear a lot of LGWers clamoring for more coverage of other players. Well they certainly don't practice what they preach with their unending new Crosby topics.

3. It probably isn't just an LGW thing. But that is beside the point. It's like saying everybody else is retarded so it's okay if we're retarded too.

Lastly, go to just about every message board and see exactly how many Crosby threads there are. I already have. One common theme I have seen is that most sites have an

AROUND THE NHL forum for this kind of s***. Like my first post asked, why can't we have that? Why can't we have a forum devoted just to the Wings and another devoted to the rest of the league?

Seems to me it would not be a difficult thing to do and looks like it would clean up a lot of this back and forth that does nothing but make LGWers antagonistic towards other LGWers.

Again, MODS, can't you just please add an sub forum for around the league talk and keep the Wings thread about Wings related material only? How hard is that?