A hockey generation would be around 10, maybe 15 years. Sports like football would be even shorter.
Generational Talent vs Franchise Player
- Thread starter Maestro84
- Start date
A hockey generation would be around 10, maybe 15 years. Sports like football would be even shorter.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
I consider guys like Dionne, Sakic, Yzerman, Trottier, Messier, probably Lindros, MacInnis, Francis, and Forsberg as “Franchise” Players.
The players I consider to be inbetween are Jagr, Bobby Hull, Potvin, and Coffey. All were well above their peers, but at the same time either overshadowed....or never quite reached that level in some way.
I’ve always considered Jagr, Hull(Bobby), Coffey, and Potvin to be somewhat generation, but better than the usual franchise player. Not just from their hardware and careers, but impact. Offensively, Coffey is up there with Orr. But I’ve seen many say that Potvin was just so amazing on both ends, if Orr had never been....he might be considered the greatest. But then Lidstrom would still come along.....
Would love to hear your takes on this.
The players I consider to be inbetween are Jagr, Bobby Hull, Potvin, and Coffey. All were well above their peers, but at the same time either overshadowed....or never quite reached that level in some way.
I’ve always considered Jagr, Hull(Bobby), Coffey, and Potvin to be somewhat generation, but better than the usual franchise player. Not just from their hardware and careers, but impact. Offensively, Coffey is up there with Orr. But I’ve seen many say that Potvin was just so amazing on both ends, if Orr had never been....he might be considered the greatest. But then Lidstrom would still come along.....
Would love to hear your takes on this.
That's what makes hockey so hard to define a generational player. I mean shit even Gretz and Lemieux were only born 4 years apart. We need a better buzzword to describe these types of player because generational is not it.
Todd from Leduc
Connor “The Next Great One” McDavid
So what happens if Kooch wins the Art Ross and Hart this year and next?
Then can he be talked about in the same hallowed halls as McDavid?
Let’s face it.....there are a handful of players that can win the award every year.
Sure McDavis is the most consistent.....but does that make his prowess as impressive as Gretzky?
Nah.....he’s just one of a few damned good players
If Kooch puts up 20 more points than McDavid this year I have no issue calling him better.
Just like if McDavid was lapping the field you’d be trumpeting the GOAT AINEC flag.
FissionFire
Registered User
Generational talents by definition come along once a generation. So progressively you can look at it was being Richard - Howe - Orr - Gretzky - Lemieux - Ovechkin. On that list really only Gretzky and Lemieux overlap primes and that’s a beyond rare to have two players of that caliber active at the same time. That would be like Pele and Ronaldo being contemporaries or Jim Brown and Barry Sanders. In rare rare occurrences you have two generational talents at once but it’s so rare.
Generational talents do things that transcend the sport and simply are on a historical level. As great as Crosby has been, he’s not a transcendental player on his era. Ovechkin’s goal scoring sets him heads and shoulders above everyone since the 80s. Just consider this is a guy who has a legitimate chance to challenge Gretzky’s career goal record. Let that sink in. That’s a generational level player to me, doing things nobody ever really thought possible. Crosby and McDavid (and Malkin if you insist on including him) are franchise level players who are great but just never separated themselves the way Ovechkin has.
Generational talents do things that transcend the sport and simply are on a historical level. As great as Crosby has been, he’s not a transcendental player on his era. Ovechkin’s goal scoring sets him heads and shoulders above everyone since the 80s. Just consider this is a guy who has a legitimate chance to challenge Gretzky’s career goal record. Let that sink in. That’s a generational level player to me, doing things nobody ever really thought possible. Crosby and McDavid (and Malkin if you insist on including him) are franchise level players who are great but just never separated themselves the way Ovechkin has.
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,598
- 22,101
Where do you get that definition from? Because I checked 4 or 5 legit sources and could not find "once in a generation." All I found was "of or relating to a generation" and similar definitions, and to be honest that's pretty vague/malleable.
Using that definition, though, I'd say Ovi and Crosby easy, Karlsson and Chara on the D side. They defined their generation of hockey. McD will get there, Kane and Malkin are really goddamn good but not good in a way different from those in generations before them. Posted all this already, but considering we still seem to have confusion over what the term means I feel it bears repeating.
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,598
- 22,101
Nope, not what it means.
Also, it's "Lemieux" for god's sake. So generational you can't spell his name..
- Dec 17, 2018
- 12,598
- 22,101
Not what that means. Source- a dictionary.
Seriously, I think a lot of people are confusing "once in a generation" with "generational."
VanIsle
Registered User
Orr Gretzky Lemieux Bossy Ovechkin in my era.
You have to be miles ahead of everyone else to be that.
You have to be miles ahead of everyone else to be that.
KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,241
There's a difference between "generational talent" and "generational player". Lindros and Malkin were generational talents, but injuries and what not stopped them from having the hardware and number of elite seasons that the generational players do.
Generational players imo: Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid
Jagr is an interesting case. He was clearly ahead of his peers, but he was clearly below Lemieux when he played so I don't think they belong in the same tier. Gretzky/Lemieux and Crosby/OV overlapped but there isn't much separating them so it's different. Don't know why guys like Lidstrom or Bossy are being mentioned. You have to be the best player in the league multiple times, those guys weren't even 1x.
Generational players imo: Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid
Jagr is an interesting case. He was clearly ahead of his peers, but he was clearly below Lemieux when he played so I don't think they belong in the same tier. Gretzky/Lemieux and Crosby/OV overlapped but there isn't much separating them so it's different. Don't know why guys like Lidstrom or Bossy are being mentioned. You have to be the best player in the league multiple times, those guys weren't even 1x.
Malkin wasn't a generational talent. He was far from the best prospect over that 10 or so year period. That distinction went to Crosby. Generational talents are basically, Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, and McDavid, who go first in practically any draft within 5 years of them either way. While Ovi was insanely hyped, and one of the best prospects, in 2004 a 16-year-old Crosby would have gone first in that draft. Now, Ovi has a case as a generational player, but I wouldn't call Ovi or Malkin generational talents. That is pretty much held to the player perceived to be the best prospect for a generation.
Funny as I always saw Malkin as a better prospect than Ovechkin, although the gap was extremely small and might be a center bias as well on my part.
I know it's early days but with Dahlin, is he too close to McDavid to have the generational talent label in your mind?
I also wonder if the only difference with Ovechkin, is if he is born halfway between Lindros and Crosby does that make him a generational talent then?
I have always considered the term generational talent as exclusively and exceptionally standing out as a elite prospect and always hitting the NHL running.
Ovechkin does better than Malkin in this regard.
Dahlin is the best example of this as a defenseman since Potvin.
Generational isn't positional. It is your status among the entire league. The only generational D-man in the modern NHL is Orr. Dahlin isn't generational, he's not a clearly better prospect than Matthews or Eichel, let alone McDavid. I'd say there are two important questions.
Would any team have taken 17-year-old Dahlin over 17-year-old McDavid? I don't think so. Is it reasonable to expect Dahlin to be so good that he wins multiple Harts and/or Lindsay trophies? I don't think so either. By those two qualifications, I wouldn't classify him as generational.
I get what you are saying here but what if the timeline between Orr, Gretzky and Mario was closer to 10 years than the close to 20 that it was.
nothing else would change except could you have 3 "generational talents within 10 years.
In terms of actual talent and performance one would have to say yes.
The answer would be no on both counts of course.
The Hart is a tough bar for Dmen as its usually a forward award since Dmen have the Norris.
Potvin in my books fits the generational talent label and I think Dahlin might as well.
Potvin isn't generational. Great player, iconic player for a franchise and first ballot hall of famer, but neither he, Bourque or Lidstrom were generational. They were never the absolute best player in the league. The only non-forward to be in that discussion in recent years for an extended period of time was Hasek.
Generational talents is the best prospect of a generation or so. The only players in the league who fit that description are Crosby and McDavid.
I guess we are going to agree to disagree as I think Potvin has a very strong case as best player in the league in
75-76
77-78
78-79
79-80 (only 31 GP due to injuries).
I mean using Hart results would validate that Esposito was a better player than Orr in 68-69 and 73-74 which can be debatable for 68-69 to a very small degree but becomes a lot harder in 73-74.
Potvin wasn't better or more valuable than Lafleur or Clarke during that time frame.
Hart or Lindsey's should show up if you are generational. Your dominance should be that obvious. The best he had was a 2nd place Hart finish.
Snippit
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2012
- 16,568
- 10,047
This might be a logical definition based on the term, but there's no reason to think 2 guys couldn't step into the NHL at around the same time and both play at a level considered to be generational.
If Crosby and McDavid were in the same draft year, does one of them lose their generational status? Do both?
As a generational talent? Yes. That person should have separated themselves from the pack. Now, they could both prove themselves as generational players by accomplishing at a very high level like Ovi and Crosby. It's supposed to be the best prospect of a said generation. People just want to alter it so they can label their guy generational. There is one generational prospect in the last 10 drafts. And, that is McDavid.
Snippit
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2012
- 16,568
- 10,047
The problem with this definition is that it creates a situation where guys deemed to be generational could be inferior to players that are not, simply because they might have played behind a better talent in a given era.
Players generally improve across generations. I remember this exact argument when Eichel was in the same draft as McDavid. We haven't seen a scenario where this happens. We haven't seen two McDavid's or two Crosby's in the same draft. The target base for generational talent is constantly moving because it's measured by who is the best prospect of a given era.
Some teams may be all-time great, but never win because they play behind a better team. We don't adjust for that.
I'd put Hasek with the other true general talents. He was simply that much better than all others at his position. Plus, he was the best PLAYER in the NHL of the 1990s, especially the late 1990s. From 93-94 through 98-99, he was a Hart finalist all years except 95-96, a year he still led the NHL in SP. He was hurt for part of the year
Snippit
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2012
- 16,568
- 10,047
Gretzky and Lemieux entered the league about 5 years apart.
There's no reason to think why two amazing talents couldn't enter the league at relatively the same time. It might not be likely but it's realistically just a matter of probability.
