No. But it's an example of how it takes some players longer to take off than others.
I'd consider Lafleur generational. He had a short career and it took him a while to get there but six straight years of 50/100 had never been done before and has only been replicated by two others (Yzerman just missed out on being a third.) Lafleur was the best player in hockey for half a decade. A long period of dominance for the game. His game after 1980 fell apart with injuries, politics and other crap. So I get if people don't count him as generational but he and Bossy are about as good as you can get without being Gretz/Lemieux.
Another example: Dominik Hasek. Many people consider him generational. He didn't really become a starter until 11 years after he was drafted.
Like every player before him, he will have to prove it. I'm not convinced of anything at this stage except his awesome potential. If he is generational though I won't hold it against him if it takes him a bit to get there. Like I said, marathon not a sprint.
Hey there -- agree with most if not everything you've been saying here, esp the main point in which we're 100% in agreement. And your posts / arguments seem well thought out, this is the first time I'm seeing you, to me you seem like a good poster. But I think some context is necessary re: Hasek.
Hasek was a unique case, I have him firmly in my Mt Rushmore of players (Gretz first, Mario Gordie Orr Hasek as 2-5 in no particular order), I was a fmr goalie and am still in awe of what Hasek was able to do consistently over most of his career, esp with how ridiculously bad some of those Sabres teams were. Different discussion.
But in terms of playing time, Hasek was in a different spot than most forwards in that ppl who knew him in Europe knew how good he was, but in Chi he was stuck behind Ed freaking Belfour who had to have been one of the easier first ballot HOF picks that have ever been made. Imo no sane GM / coach would start some unproven snow angel goalie over Crazy Eddie who was one of the very best goalies in the NHL for most of his career. Not sure if you read Brodeur's book, but he talks about how if NJ had been able to land Cujo (as was rumored at the time), he doubts he would've had anywhere near the career he had because he doesn't think he would've been able to get consistent playing time ie not had the opportunity to prove himself at the NHL level. Point is, for goalies playing time matters and Hasek wasn't going to get it playing behind Belfour in Chicago.
Hasek didn't struggle that much in the NHL if at all, though looking up his stats I guess his first year in Buffalo wasn't great, though that year he was far better statistically than a ~30 year old Grant Fuhr in roughly the same number of starts. But goalies more than other positions need the opportunity, it wasn't that Hasek was bad or even mediocre early on, he just didn't get the opportunity to run with a team until his 2nd year in Buffalo, when he got his first of six Vezinas (in 8 years). That year he ended up relegating an early 30 something Grant Fuhr to the bench (Fuhr wasn't even close to washed up, he'd later be a starter for STL).
***
Anyway I don't think Hasek is an example of someone who took a while to get going aside from arguably that first year in Buffalo, where even still he was statistically the best goalie in a 3-way split (one of the goalies being Grant Fuhr). Otherwise 100% agree with the rest of your posts here and the overall message you're conveying.
Re: Bedard, he is still only 19 and imo showing enough upside that's imo it's a bit silly to try to argue his potential is capped somehow based on struggles he may or may not be having in his 2nd year in the league (after winning the Calder no less).
Like you said, it's a marathon not a sprint. Edit grammar / spelling
As you said, different circumstances.
