Do you consider Matthews a 'Generational' player or talent?

[Sidney the Kidney]

Not how I remember it. I had not heard the term until Sid and Ovechkin was not mentioned the same way. Ask a Caps fan. It took awhile.

Ovechkin's early career is what made him be considered generational though. The fact the guy could score 50+ goals AND finish with 100+ points and win a scoring title (and compete for scoring titles) is what made Ovechkin generational.

If Ovechkin was "only" a 50 goal, 80 point guy during his peak he wouldn't be considered generational.

 

[BlueBaron]

Ovechkin's early career is what made him be considered generational though. The fact the guy could score 50+ goals AND finish with 100+ points and win a scoring title (and compete for scoring titles) is what made Ovechkin generational.

If Ovechkin was "only" a 50 goal, 80 point guy during his peak he wouldn't be considered generational.

Respectfully disagree. It's Gretzkys record and the total body imo. Stamkos had a 60 goal campaign and the word was not applied to him.

He needed those numbers to get where we are but I don't think he cemented Generational status until recently while Sid and McD were handed it.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Respectfully disagree. It's Gretzkys record and the total body imo. Stamkos had a 60 goal campaign and the word was not applied to him.

He needed those numbers to get where we are but I don't think he cemented Generational status until recently while Sid and McD were handed it.

Because Stamkos was never a serious contender for the Art Ross. He scored goals at a high rate, but he wasn't a perennial 100+ point Art Ross threat, which Ovechkin was during his peak. That's literally the difference between Ovechkin and goal scorers like Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc. The fact he wasn't *just* a threat for the Rocket.

 

[wintersej]

From a goalscorer point of view he is. He seems to be keeping up with Ovechkin who is his obvious measuring stick.

Durability is the only concern which has nothing to do with his talent.

We didn't speak of Ovechkin as generational until he started threatening Gretzky so it's not unreasonable to want Auston to prove more.

If he can keep his separation from peers up it should become a consideration, especially considering his closest rival leans heavily on a generational player to keep in the conversation.

Longetivity matters with Ovi. Stamkos was there too.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

From a goalscorer point of view he is. He seems to be keeping up with Ovechkin who is his obvious measuring stick.

Durability is the only concern which has nothing to do with his talent.

We didn't speak of Ovechkin as generational until he started threatening Gretzky so it's not unreasonable to want Auston to prove more.

If he can keep his separation from peers up it should become a consideration, especially considering his closest rival leans heavily on a generational player to keep in the conversation.

I basically agree with all of this. Ovi wasn’t thought of as generational until he hit 500 career goals at age 30, and people realized that he could end up with 800+ goals by the time he is done.

Matthews has a long road ahead of him, and the only player from his generation who already vaulted himself into the generational tier is McDavid.

I voted no but I could change my mind in the future.

 

[SUX2BU]

No

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Because Stamkos was never a serious contender for the Art Ross. He scored goals at a high rate, but he wasn't a perennial 100+ point Art Ross threat, which Ovechkin was during his peak. That's literally the difference between Ovechkin and goal scorers like Kovalchuk, Stamkos, etc. The fact he wasn't *just* a threat for the Rocket.

Stamkos absolutely was a Ross threat before he broke his leg. Not to mention Ovechkin has 1 Ross, hardly the case for being well rounded

Age 19 to 22

95 pts
91 pts
97 pts
57 pts in the 48 game season

Finished 5,5,2,2 in points those years.

 

[Puckstuff]

Matthews is closer to the Kucherov and Malkin tier then he is Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin the only 3 I have as generational.

You could actually say Kucherov is better then Ovechkin many seasons so it's a paradox but I would only consider Ovie, McDavid, Crosby generational.

 

[Regal]

Stamkos absolutely was a Ross threat before he broke his leg. Not to mention Ovechkin has 1 Ross, hardly the case for being well rounded

Age 19 to 22

95 pts
91 pts
97 pts
57 pts in the 48 game season

Finished 5,5,2,2 in points those years.

Ovechkin led the league in points per game for three consecutive seasons against a high level Crosby and Malkin. Stamkos was never really an Art Ross threat against good competition, despite the finishes. The only time he was within 12 points of the winner was 2013, but that was because Crosby missed time despite blowing the league away in PPG. He might have gotten there, but that version of Stamkos doesn’t beat any actual Art Ross winner since the lockout other than Benn.

 

[Favin]

No standard definition for "generational talent".

I probably have looser criteria than most...so I'd say yes.

 

[Randyne]

Stamkos absolutely was a Ross threat before he broke his leg. Not to mention Ovechkin has 1 Ross, hardly the case for being well rounded

Age 19 to 22

95 pts
91 pts
97 pts
57 pts in the 48 game season

Finished 5,5,2,2 in points those years.

top10 PPG finishes
Ovechkin 1,1,1,5,5,8,9,9
Stamkos 3,3,6,7

top10 GPG finishes
Ovechkin 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,5,5,6,8
Stamkos 1,1,2,3,3,3,6,7

Only Gretzky and Lemieux have more top1 PPG+GPG finishes than Ovechkin

 

[wetcoast]

No, Crosby and McDavid are what generational look like.

Matthews is a fantastic player and a rare talent, but he is not near the generational level

This is what I came to say but really he is in the "almost close to generational" in terms of a prospect and as a player in the NHL aside from his injuries.

He had an excellent D+1 season for the US U18 development team in 14-15 and his play and stats in the Swiss league as a draft eligible player was simply outstanding when his age is taken into consideration.

 

[Savant]

Matthews is going to finish his career as the best USA born player of all time. He’s generational.

 

[TheNumber4]

Depends on your definition of Generational player. After the season he just had, I would put Matthews in that tier. The guy just won the Hart, played great defense while potting 60 goals.

Is McDavid better? You could certainly argue it, but my definition of Generational player can include multiple guys. I’d say Ovy and Crosby are both generational guys who played at the same time.

The definition of generational should include the fact that a generational player shouldn’t need to play his way into or out of the definition based on a season by season performance.

Generational players don’t need one outlier hot season to be in the conversation. If they are truly generational, there should be NO conversation.

Matthews is not generational.

Matthews is going to finish his career as the best USA born player of all time. He’s generational.

Nah. That’s Kane. And being the best of one country means little when it comes to defining what a generational player is .

 

[Savant]

The definition of generational should include the fact that a generational player shouldn’t need to play his way into or out of the definition based on a season by season performance.

Generational players don’t need one outlier hot season to be in the conversation. If they are truly generational, there should be NO conversation.

Matthews is not generational.


Nah. That’s Kane. And being the best of one country means little when it comes to defining what a generational player is .

He will finish better than Kane. It’s Kane right now though. And being the best player that a country produces certainly has a bearing on being generational. Especially coming out of USA. It’s not exactly like saying he is the best player out of Belarus.

 

[TheNumber4]

He will finish better than Kane. It’s Kane right now though. And being the best player that a country produces certainly has a bearing on being generational. Especially coming out of USA. It’s not exactly like saying he is the best player out of Belarus.

Doubtful. Kane is much better. Even recently

 

[The Grim Reaper]

If he’s generational then we have 3-4 generational players within one generation. So no.

Also, is Stamkos generational? Most would say no.

Generational goal scorer, but not a generational player, yet, or ever.

 

[Paul4587]

Matthews is going to finish his career as the best USA born player of all time. He’s generational.

The current best born US player isn’t generational so that’s not really relevant.

 

[powerbomb]

Gah, sports conversations like these make me think we are in a collective nosedive as a society. Much the same way that kiddos will ask “is _____ the best thing ever???” (fill in the blank with literally anything, and you know it’s being asked) or the banal overuse of the word “epic” to describe plainly ordinary things, folks are lowering the bar to convince themselves they are witness to a miracle.

Matthews is a great player with a high ceiling. He has the potential to accomplish tremendous things, like pulling Toronto into a deep playoff run. He has by no means done anything to inspire the thought that he is a generational talent. That’s not me throwing shade or being disrespectful either, it’s just asinine to make him out to be near the Michael Jordan level (in case fans need a non-hockey reminder of what generational is supposed to be).

If your uncle pulls a quarter out of your ear, it doesn’t mean you’ve just borne witness to Houdini level magic. Gah, why do I bother?

 

[McRpro]

The problem is the generational label varies from person to person. There's no set criteria. To me a generational player has to be so at basically the start of their NHL career. There are but a handful of players that fit this criteria. Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Crosby, McDavid. Lindros had a chance. And Ovechkin is borderline. That's it. Howe as well but that's such a different era. The rest are just paltry superstars, like Matthews.

 

[Grifter3511]

I think there should be a thread debating and defining what generational actually means, and then once a consensus is established it should be stickied at the top of every single thread. Or better yet, it should be in a pop up whenever someone opens the site so everyone sees it and understands and maybe....just maybe....the word can come to mean something again.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The easiest way to see if someone is generational is to compare their trophy case of major awards to another similar generational player (note that it needs to be adjusted for players who played before some of these awards were introduced) Ovechkin has 9 Rockets, an Art Ross, 3 Harts, 3 Lindsays and a Conn Smythe.
Matthews has two Rockets, a Hart and a Lindsay.
So 17 Ovechkin major awards to 4 for Matthews.
If Matthews can match Ovechkin’s awards he should be considered generational imo. I doubt that he will but it’s not impossible. There’s been a lot of superstars down through the years but a generational player is a totally different level. For me it’s Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin and probably McDavid when all is said and done.

 

[Stephen]

Generational goal-scorer, for sure (if he keeps it up/doesnt follow a Stamkos path).

I think the generational argument is too strict. I would consider Chara a generational talent, for example, amongst "active" players. I would also include Crosby, McDavid, Ovechkin, and Makar (tentatively... Karlsson looked like he was on that path, too).

When they use the term "generational" it's supposed to be strict. It's a term used to describe the quality of a player you see rarely in a lifetime. Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux feels about right. Even including Sid (debate the separation between him and Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Ovechkin all you want) or McDavid (premature) feels like you're watering it down.

 

[Stephen]

I think there should be a thread debating and defining what generational actually means, and then once a consensus is established it should be stickied at the top of every single thread. Or better yet, it should be in a pop up whenever someone opens the site so everyone sees it and understands and maybe....just maybe....the word can come to mean something again.

Doesn't mean anything really other than to imply ultra rare and high quality.

 

[BlueBaron]

I think there should be a thread debating and defining what generational actually means, and then once a consensus is established it should be stickied at the top of every single thread. Or better yet, it should be in a pop up whenever someone opens the site so everyone sees it and understands and maybe....just maybe....the word can come to mean something again.

Yeah. Is it talent or accomplishment? It really is a vague term.