7 Norris trophies but he wasn't generational? Lol
2022-2023 Around The League
- Thread starter Bill Peckerskull
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I wouldn't laugh at other peoples opinions on this matter. It comes down to what you think "generational" means. People have different definitions for the word and then start to argue against each other about who is generational and who isn't, it's not going to be a fruitful conversation unless people agree on the term first. Some people take it literally, like "once in every 20-25 years", some people mean a player that's a step or two better than what most call franchise player and are ready to say that there are multiple generational players playing in the league right now.
Personally I think it's not possible to have half a dozen generational players playing in the league at the same time. I would say that (I'm going to take heat for this) that Ovechkin is generational, Crosby probably also, McDavid most likely will be and Makar has a chance but it's going to take a lot more longevity for McDavid & Makar to be labeled one in my opinion.
Personally I think it's not possible to have half a dozen generational players playing in the league at the same time. I would say that (I'm going to take heat for this) that Ovechkin is generational, Crosby probably also, McDavid most likely will be and Makar has a chance but it's going to take a lot more longevity for McDavid & Makar to be labeled one in my opinion.
Last edited:
Yup... basically the same as the #1D conversation. Some take that as meaning top 32 defensemen in the league. Some take it as an all situations, high end defender who has a very strong impact for 22-23++ minutes a night (or whatever random criteria)... where there could be a select few 1Ds or their could be more than 32 (lot more unlikely but possible in that train of thought).
Ray Bourque is my all-time favorite player in any sport, anytime, anywhere. But even I would not have given him the Norris that year. He was absolutely phenomenal for a franchise defenseman who was entering his 40s, and there's no way, no how the Avs don't win the Cup without him, but he was not the best defenseman in the National Hockey League that year. I'm not completely certain he was even the best defenseman on his own team.
Lidstrom was far and away the best defenseman of his generation. In an era where most of his contemporaries got it done with big hits, blocks, highlight-reel rushes, and big, booming slapshots from the point, he got it done with a quiet, insanely efficient game. Just because he didn't supply the airwaves with lots of big highlight-reel material doesn't mean he wasn't absolutely beating down the opposition at both ends of the ice. The Wings had the closest thing you can get to an actual dynasty in hockey for roughly 20 years, and the number one reason for that was because they had Lidstrom that whole time. He was the Joe Montana of hockey--a guy who didn't have one big, flashy aspect to his game, but was just good enough in every single area to get it done, and he may very well have been the very smartest defenseman to play the game. Yes, smarter (possibly) than Orr, though not as talented IMO. Just like with Gretzky, who himself was not an elite-level skater, I don't recall a time when Lidstrom got effectively hit. Denis Potvin used to say with the Great One that by the time you tried to line him up for a hit, he was already gone. Lidstrom was pretty close to that, I do not recall many instances where he got crushed and it was a clean hit, certainly not in his prime.
tl;dr: You're wrong...ish
Last edited:
Or maybe those teams were somehow able to regularly retool on the fly and not have off years (like Calgary appears to be having for instance) and not-great goaltending because they had an elite steadying presence on the back end there the whole time. No surprise the Wings fell into the shitter not long after he retired and are still working their way back.
I mean, look at how Ken Holland is doing having been handed the best current player in the NHL and an elite #2 behind him. Could it be that guys like Lidstrom and Yzerman (not to mention Bowman) just happened to make the so-called genius GM look better than he actually was?
And to answer your question, no I wouldn't call Jagr generational. Elite, franchise player, gamebreaking talent, yes, but not generational. Mario? Absolutely. Not Jagr though.
Not sure where I land on the Makar debate. I don't think I'd label him that just yet. Some say Erik Karlsson is...not sure about that either. Among the current crop of players I'd definitely say Crosby and McDavid are.
We should acknowledge though that we did indeed see three generational talents in net in the 90s and early 00s all play at the same time (Brodeur, Roy, Hasek).
dahrougem2
Registered User
Again, generational is not something that I would consider Lidstrom. I mean multiple times he either won a Norris and had a teammate finish runner up or vice versa where a teammate won and he finished runner up. He played with loads and loads of talent around him.
That's not to say he isn't one of the greatest players of all time, but not someone I'd consider generational. I think if you took players like Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby, etc and placed them on any team in the league they would still have the same affect, statistics, and hardware. I'm not so sure the same would be said about Lidstrom playing for a team other than Detroit.
I think Jagr had all the talent to be generational, but IMO ended up short due to him moving through so many teams, leaving the NHL for 3 seasons after his Rangers stint, and significant under performance as a Cap (this is probably the killer). The middle one is tricky... should playing in a different league really prevent you from be regarded as one of the best? Injuries certainly can and do, but should playing in a different league? I'd say Tretiak was a generational goalie, but I can't think of many guys who never ended up in the NHL who are generational.
Metallo
NWOBHM forever \m/
I agree. He's a generational talent because he does things that no other Dman does, you just need to look at him play. Plus, like you said, his influence on the game. From there having an HoF career is just a matter of longevity.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 53,457
- 59,300
To be generational you need to be head and shoulders above the 2nd best player at your position*. Like McDavid is now and Crosby was.
Orr was 2 tiers above the next best dman in the league at the time. That's generational stuff.
Makar is nowhere near that level of dominance over his peers yet.
*Only exception is when Lemieux and Gretzky were in their prime at the same time.
Orr was 2 tiers above the next best dman in the league at the time. That's generational stuff.
Makar is nowhere near that level of dominance over his peers yet.
*Only exception is when Lemieux and Gretzky were in their prime at the same time.
IIRC only one defensemen ever to win the Norris is not in the HoF. Makar is pretty much already a lock there.
Is Ovi generational to you?
Ovi might go down as the greatest goal scorer in history, and Crosby is head and shoulders above him??
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
Sucks to be Randy.IIRC only one defensemen ever to win the Norris is not in the HoF. Makar is pretty much already a lock there.
McDavid isn't even head an shoulders above one of his own teammates
SaltySkywalker
Bushes of Love
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
dahrougem2
Registered User
Oh I disagree. The statistics are deceiving because they're so close but McDavid is quite clearly the best player in the NHL and I don't think it's particularly close.
John Mandalorian
2022 Avs: The First Dance
- Nov 29, 2018
- 12,332
- 8,086
It's amazing how much time is spent here on this very thing. First people disagree, then it's 12 posts back and forth parsing out definitions and interpretations.
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 85,970
- 35,502
Lidstrom is probably one of the reasons why we’ve got “voter fatigue” now and it’s difficult to repeat.
They were handing out Norris’ to this dude like candy back in the day. Tell me he deserved it over Blake in 01-02 and I’ll tell you and those voters to go **** yourself. They even gave Chelios more votes that year because Red Wings.
They were handing out Norris’ to this dude like candy back in the day. Tell me he deserved it over Blake in 01-02 and I’ll tell you and those voters to go **** yourself. They even gave Chelios more votes that year because Red Wings.
- Aug 25, 2006
- 9,976
- 8,401
Gentlemen, please keep it down to only one post per person per subject. Thank you!
Is this your first post on this subject?
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 85,970
- 35,502
I have no idea what's going on in this thread and haven't read the posts. I just saw talk of Lidstrom and Norris trophies and wanted to rant about something that's annoyed me for 20 years.
- Aug 25, 2006
- 9,976
- 8,401
- Status
