C Adam Fantilli - (2023, 3rd, CBJ) Part 2

[Filthy Dangles]

"Youre generational, you're generational and you're genera...."

 

[KaseMeOutside]

To me generational is McDavid, someone who is a top 3 MVP candidate every year, the next tier is the type of player who could win it on any given year but arent going to be in the mix for 10 years straight like McDavid, they'll be a guy who dips in and out

 

[DuckDuckGetz]

He is generational... He's Gen Z.

 

[Boner Champ]

In my lifetime there have been a half-dozen true generational prospects:

Gretzky
Lemieux
Lindros (weakest of the group)
Crosby
McDavid
Bedard

Fantilli is clearly not a part of that group. Having said that, I would put him in the next group - strong franchise prospects:

Daigle
Ovi
Mack
Eichel
Matthews
Dahlin
Hughes
Lafreniere
Fantilli
Michkov

Out of this group, I'd probably put him low-mid of the pack. Behind Daigle and Ovi, maybe a slight step behind Dahlin. On par with Eichel and Hughes, and slightly ahead of Matthews, Laf, Michkov and Mack. (heading into the draft and not who they became of course - LOL Daigle!)

Is that generational - no - but I don't think its a stretch for ppl who use that term loosely. He's still a part of a prospect cohort where the upside is tremendous and bust potential is low.

 

[WiscoJet]

Don't want to side track the thread and maybe it is because he was drafted a year after McDavid but I don't get how Auston Matthews is not remembered as generational, maybe it was because he played in Switzerland his draft year. A league he dominated by the way.

 

[Boner Champ]

Don't want to side track the thread and maybe it is because he was drafted a year after McDavid but I don't get how Auston Matthews is not remembered as generational, maybe it was because he played in Switzerland his draft year. A league he dominated by the way.

In hindsight its easier to call him generational. Maybe its because of McD, maybe because he played in Europe, but I recall him quite clearly being considered a tad behind Eichel as far as prospects are concerned.

Now - dude ended up going to T.O. and busting out immediately, so I think his stock rose so quickly ppl clamoured to replace him over Eichel as the anti-McD.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

In hindsight its easier to call him generational. Maybe its because of McD, maybe because he played in Europe, but I recall him quite clearly being considered a tad behind Eichel as far as prospects are concerned.

Now - dude ended up going to T.O. and busting out immediately, so I think his stock rose so quickly ppl clamoured to replace him over Eichel as the anti-McD.

He wasn’t even a stone cold lock at 1 in his draft year. It’s no disrespect to him, I think he’s a case of people getting it wrong on him, especially offensively. I remember a lot of Toews comparisons.

 

[majormajor]

He wasn’t even a stone cold lock at 1 in his draft year. It’s no disrespect to him, I think he’s a case of people getting it wrong on him, especially offensively. I remember a lot of Toews comparisons.

Matthews wasn't a lock for #1 because of Laine. For comparisons sake, Laine had 7 goals at the world's, Matthews had 6, and Fantilli so far has zero.

My guess is that Fantilli actually goes ahead of any draft prospect in the last three years (including Laf) but he would have clearly gone behind Matthews and probably Laine.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Matthews wasn't a lock for #1 because of Laine. For comparisons sake, Laine had 7 goals at the world's, Matthews had 6, and Fantilli so far has zero.

My guess is that Fantilli actually goes ahead of any draft prospect in the last three years (including Laf) but he would have clearly gone behind Matthews and probably Laine.

Right, but just like McDavid was still a lock despite Eichel and Bedard is still a lock despite Fantilli and Carlsson, that’s kind of the difference between a generational prospect and “merely” one worthy of being selected 1-1.

I’m not really talking Matthews v Fantilli or Matthews v Laine, just answering why the generational prospect tag would only be applied retroactively. I think it’s similar to Ovi, highly hyped prospect who went 1st and somehow exceeded expectations.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

In my lifetime there have been a half-dozen true generational prospects:

Gretzky
Lemieux
Lindros (weakest of the group)
Crosby
McDavid
Bedard

Fantilli is clearly not a part of that group. Having said that, I would put him in the next group - strong franchise prospects:

Daigle
Ovi
Mack
Eichel
Matthews
Dahlin
Hughes
Lafreniere
Fantilli
Michkov

Out of this group, I'd probably put him low-mid of the pack. Behind Daigle and Ovi, maybe a slight step behind Dahlin. On par with Eichel and Hughes, and slightly ahead of Matthews, Laf, Michkov and Mack. (heading into the draft and not who they became of course - LOL Daigle!)

Is that generational - no - but I don't think its a stretch for ppl who use that term loosely. He's still a part of a prospect cohort where the upside is tremendous and bust potential is low.

Ovechkin is generational.

 

[majormajor]

Right, but just like McDavid was still a lock despite Eichel and Bedard is still a lock despite Fantilli and Carlsson, that’s kind of the difference between a generational prospect and “merely” one worthy of being selected 1-1.

I’m not really talking Matthews v Fantilli or Matthews v Laine, just answering why the generational prospect tag would only be applied retroactively. I think it’s similar to Ovi, highly hyped prospect who went 1st and somehow exceeded expectations.

Makes sense.

Personally I think we should just ban the word "generational" and solve the problem that way. Some words cause more problems than they solve.

 

[Boner Champ]

Ovechkin is generational.

Now sure. At the time - only if you had a generous definition of generational.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

He wasn’t even a stone cold lock at 1 in his draft year. It’s no disrespect to him, I think he’s a case of people getting it wrong on him, especially offensively. I remember a lot of Toews comparisons.

Yea I think a lot of kopitar comparisons too.

Not that kopitar can't produce, and he's led the playoffs in pts twice , but Matthews turned out to be a much better goal scorer and offensive player than anyone expected. He was seen as a good to very good #1 but a clear tier below what McDavid was.

To me the generational prospects are reserved for guys like Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, McDavid, and now Bedard. Guys who get so much hype and are expected to be MVP candidates for the majority of their careers, even as soon as their first 2/3 seasons.

Fantilli just isn't that , or even close really. Put him in a draft with Crosby/McDavid/Bedard/Lindros/Lemieux and you have a clear cup top 5 with him sticking out like a sore thumb and going 6th no matter how many times you play that scenario out, there's just no way anyone takes him over any of those players, while the other 5 might change order almost every time because they were each so dominant and viewed as the next mega star and a player who could dominate the league almost immediately but each have their own strengths that might lead to them going 1st or 5th depending on the teams selecting.

The term has gotten so watered down , in reality there is almost always at least 1 prospect in the draft who is viewed as a potential superstar - whether it's Tavares, Matthews, Stamkos, MacKinnon, Dahlin, Daigle, Kovalchuk. etc they were all pegged from a very young age as players who could become dominant NHL players and most of them did just that. They were not however viewed as players who could define a generation with the level of play.

I think fantilli can he really, really good but does anyone actually expect him to be as good as Sidney Crosby? McDavid? Lindros in his prime? That's the bar I am using when I think of a generational talent I'm the draft. I do think there is a possibility Bedard enters that category and that's why I would call him a generational prospect.

Ovechkin is generational.

He was right under it IMO, along with players like Dahlin , Kovalchuk etc they were about as big of a slam dunk #1 you could be , however I don't think Ovechkin was viewed quite as favorably as Crosby/McDavid etc pre draft. Maybe it's because he was playing in Russia , but I would say he is probably the best prospect outside of the generational label in the last 30 years

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Right, but just like McDavid was still a lock despite Eichel and Bedard is still a lock despite Fantilli and Carlsson, that’s kind of the difference between a generational prospect and “merely” one worthy of being selected 1-1.

I’m not really talking Matthews v Fantilli or Matthews v Laine, just answering why the generational prospect tag would only be applied retroactively. I think it’s similar to Ovi, highly hyped prospect who went 1st and somehow exceeded expectations.

Exactly, it doesn't matter who they were up against there was simply no way guys like McDavid and Bedard aren't going #1 even if there are other prospects who could be worthy of the top pick in other drafts. That alone illustrates just how good they were.

Put fantilli, Mathews and Crosby in a draft and who goes #1? It's still an absolute no brainer it's Crosby. Same for bedard, same for McDavid. The only other guys who rival them in the last 20 years are each other. That's why they are in a class of their own

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Makes sense.

Personally I think we should just ban the word "generational" and solve the problem that way. Some words cause more problems than they solve.

Or you can just use it properly. You think we should ban it because it doesn't apply to your favorite players? It's not some made up term , it has a literal meaning and that is "player who is so good they only come around once per generation". Once, not 5 times , not twice in a draft, once total every 7ish years. A player who is viewed as someone who could, potentially, define an era of hockey. Suppose we stop using the term, now we say "future megastar" instead and it has the same effect. I feel like Crosby and Lindros were the only ones who got the term for like 20 years before McDavid, and now the last 8 years people want to make it seem like there's one every year because it's becoming a buzz word. Remember when people tried to apply it to Eichel and Dahlin? They are both amazing players but neither is going to be a generation-defining superstar like Crosby or McDavid and that was obvious. Absolutely Future star players who could even win hardware, but if you really believed they would be the players to define a generation you're glasses are as rose colored as it gets. You could argue that as a Dman, Dahlin has a case, because he was the best defense prospect in the last 20+ years, but he was still nowhere nearly as coveted as Crosby, McDavid or Bedard were/are.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Don't want to side track the thread and maybe it is because he was drafted a year after McDavid but I don't get how Auston Matthews is not remembered as generational, maybe it was because he played in Switzerland his draft year. A league he dominated by the way.

No , it was because he wasn't even the best player in the last 2 years. He might've been 2 days away from being the 3rd pick in the draft since Eichel was often even viewed to be the better prospect. At the time you could have polled all 30 gms and head scouts on who they would prefer McDavid or Matthews, and you would get 60/60 picking McDavid - that's what made McDavid THE generational prospect. If you aren't even the best prospect to come along in 2 years, you aren't getting that label, period. Matthews isn't even the best player born in 1997 , let alone a generation. Yes he's amazing, one of the best in the world and one of the best prospects of his era, but when there's a guy 1 year before you who is universally seen as significantly better than you, it's literally not possible to be considered generational because the other guy is going to have that title. The term means "once per generation"...it's not just some magic level of play where once you're good enough a bunch of players can be "generational" , it means you're so good there is no other player on your level in the last multiple drafts. You can go back 5 drafts and ahead 5 drafts before and after Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, and McDavid and there are 0 players who would have been selected before them, basically no arguments at all (Ovi was really good but Crosby still goes ahead). With Matthews, you only need to go back 1 year and there's already a player who is clearly being selected ahead of him.

 

[majormajor]

Or you can just use it properly. You think we should ban it because it doesn't apply to your favorite players?

No, I haven't been using the term and these aren't my favorite players. It's obviously a failure of a term that people don't use with any consistent meaning so let's just get rid of it. It's a waste of time trying to salvage any meaning from it.

 

[WiscoJet]

No , it was because he wasn't even the best player in the last 2 years. He might've been 2 days away from being the 3rd pick in the draft since Eichel was often even viewed to be the better prospect. At the time you could have polled all 30 gms and head scouts on who they would prefer McDavid or Matthews, and you would get 60/60 picking McDavid - that's what made McDavid THE generational prospect. If you aren't even the best prospect to come along in 2 years, you aren't getting that label, period. Matthews isn't even the best player born in 1997 , let alone a generation. Yes he's amazing, one of the best in the world and one of the best prospects of his era, but when there's a guy 1 year before you who is universally seen as significantly better than you, it's literally not possible to be considered generational because the other guy is going to have that title. The term means "once per generation"...it's not just some magic level of play where once you're good enough a bunch of players can be "generational" , it means you're so good there is no other player on your level in the last multiple drafts. You can go back 5 drafts and ahead 5 drafts before and after Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, and McDavid and there are 0 players who would have been selected before them, basically no arguments at all (Ovi was really good but Crosby still goes ahead). With Matthews, you only need to go back 1 year and there's already a player who is clearly being selected ahead of him.

Just because someone is drafted a year later doesn't mean they can't be generational as well. So Ovechkin isn't a generational talent just because he was drafted a year before Crosby? Got it. What if he was drafted 3 years before Crosby? 5? See how shortsighted that reads.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Exactly, it doesn't matter who they were up against there was simply no way guys like McDavid and Bedard aren't going #1 even if there are other prospects who could be worthy of the top pick in other drafts. That alone illustrates just how good they were.

Put fantilli, Mathews and Crosby in a draft and who goes #1? It's still an absolute no brainer it's Crosby. Same for bedard, same for McDavid. The only other guys who rival them in the last 20 years are each other. That's why they are in a class of their own

I think Matthews probably goes ahead of Bedard if they were eligible at the same time. Scouts love players who are already capable of dominating against men, and they love it even more when those players are 6'3. We just saw this preference play out with Slafkovsky getting picked ahead of Cooley.

There are some very legitimate question marks around Bedard's ability to become a generational NHL player that weren't there for Crosby and McDavid.

 

[tomd]

And now back to discussing Fantilli...

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Just because someone is drafted a year later doesn't mean they can't be generational as well. So Ovechkin isn't a generational talent just because he was drafted a year before Crosby? Got it. What if he was drafted 3 years before Crosby? 5? See how shortsighted that reads.

That’s indeed a pretty poor argument but I still don’t think Ovi was a generational prospect. Generational player, easily, but going into his draft I think that, while he was still quite hyped, it was to a level just below Crosby, McDavid and Berard. It’s a bit semantical but I would say he really exceeded expectations. Like in 2004 I don’t think people really thought Crosby vs Ovechkin would really be a thing.

 

[Bonin21]

Fantilli is clearly not a part of that group. Having said that, I would put him in the next group - strong franchise prospects:

Daigle
Ovi
Mack
Eichel
Matthews
Dahlin
Hughes
Lafreniere
Fantilli
Michkov

This is a weird list...

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

I think Matthews probably goes ahead of Bedard if they were eligible at the same time. Scouts love players who are already capable of dominating against men, and they love it even more when those players are 6'3. We just saw this preference play out with Slafkovsky getting picked ahead of Cooley.

There are some very legitimate question marks around Bedard's ability to become a generational NHL player that weren't there for Crosby and McDavid.

You're the only one whiskey, 99 percent of scouts and NHL executives are taking bedard over Matthews, no offense.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

You're the only one whiskey, 99 percent of scouts and NHL executives are taking bedard over Matthews, no offense.

How can you possibly know that? This sounds like Habs fans this time last year "no way Logan Cooley gets drafted ahead of Shane Wright, you're crazy Whiskey"

 

[Boner Champ]

This is a weird list...

do enlighten

How can you possibly know that? This sounds like Habs fans this time last year "no way Logan Cooley gets drafted ahead of Shane Wright, you're crazy Whiskey"

No he's right. Bedard's the higher calibre prospect by a factor of 10.