Generational Talents

[Bradely]

I hear you, but neither of those guys are about to pass Gretzky’s goal record. Bossy may have been a generational talent, but did not play long enough to be remembered as a generational player by future generations. Lindros, similarly, had too many health issues to sustain a generational career. That’s what makes this such a tough list to make. You have to have the talent and the durability.

Correct...Orr was not a length model either but he changed hockey and was the best of his era. Bossy was like Ovi, but with 4 more rings! IMO the game impact needs to be a factor. Brodeur did change how keeper control the puck, Roy and Hasek goaltending. You are correct on Lindros and health, I do beleive he was a generational talent. One of it's own.

99, 66, 4 and Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur are for me the top one's.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

We need more generational talent threads

 

[sensfan4lifee]

They both have three Cups.

What, do you consider successful? Winning a Stanley Cup? Or individual awards?

Go watch that Oilers doc and see just how much players care about individual awards and McDavid crying in his jock about losing the Cup.

No matter what anybody thinks, individual awards are like side quest bonuses in a video game. It's a trinket compared to the main quest.


Mike Bossy is better then Sidney Crosby. Has four Cups, never scored less then 50 goals a year until his final year when he couldn't bend over and Sidney Crosby is a generational talent?

Come on now


Breathe.

Ron Francis is top 10 in all time scoring, won two cups, and was better defensively then Crosby ever was who was a second line center because some guy named Mario was the 1C, who also played 1C when Mario was injured.

You are trying to undermine a top 10 all time in scoring player to prop up Crosby? An arguably better all round player? Because Crosby has individual awards?



Again, who had a better career, Bossy or Crosby?

Is Mike Bossy a generational talent?

Bossy also played in the 80's have you seen the scoring level in the 80s? Also Crosby scored 100 points at 18 I could go on and on, but yes Crosby is a generational talent.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Correct...Orr was not a length model either but he changed hockey and was the best of his era. Bossy was like Ovi, but with 4 more rings! IMO the game impact needs to be a factor. Brodeur did change how keeper control the puck, Roy and Hasek goaltending. You are correct on Lindros and health, I do beleive he was a generational talent. One of it's own.

99, 66, 4 and Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur are for me the top one's.

3 more rings.

 

[eXile3]

It’s an undefined and nebulous concept so it’s not surprising peoples views on it are different.

I honestly don’t understand why Jagr doesn’t get considered. Maybe because there are already too many Pens.

Won five scoring championships, carried some pretty bad teammates at times, 11 seasons in top 10 scoring, and if you watched him there was a time period where he looked unstoppable.

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

Correct...Orr was not a length model either but he changed hockey and was the best of his era. Bossy was like Ovi, but with 4 more rings! IMO the game impact needs to be a factor. Brodeur did change how keeper control the puck, Roy and Hasek goaltending. You are correct on Lindros and health, I do beleive he was a generational talent. One of it's own.

99, 66, 4 and Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur are for me the top one's.

I don’t think you can use Cups to determine whether someone is generational. Too many other factors on one team, let alone the more 31 other teams in the league. Richard and Lafleur I have no perspective on outside of stats and conceptual conversation on what the league/game was back then vs today.

I like the concept of changing the way the game was played. Orr did that, for sure. I wonder whether Crosby or Ovechkin have done that. I know McDavid has done it.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I'm speaking purely of the 1970s and on (simply because I'm not well informed enough before the expansion era), but the only people I'd consider generational are Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, McDavid, Crosby and Ovi. Jagr is right on the border where I wouldn't argue against you if you wanted to include him.

I think Ovi's overall impact may not be on par with the other guys, but being the best goal scorer of all time holds so much weight that I don't think you can justify not including him.

/thread

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think Ovi's overall impact may not be on par with the other guys,

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Capitals were a garbage lottery team when Ovechkin arrived and won the 2nd most games in the NHL over the next 17 years as he scored 800 goals?

 

[GrandmaCookie]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Capitals were a garbage lottery team when Ovechkin arrived and won the 2nd most games in the NHL over the next 17 years as he scored 800 goals?

Can he play defense tho?

 

[PenguinSuitedUp]

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the Capitals were a garbage lottery team when Ovechkin arrived and won the 2nd most games in the NHL over the next 17 years as he scored 800 goals?

Regular season wins? Who cares?

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

Bossy also played in the 80's have you seen the scoring level in the 80s?

If that's the case, you hold gretzkys and Marios statistics against them. With this logic, we need to suddenly put an asterisk next to stats from the 80s because it was a high scoring era and most of the teams had at least three certified knuckle draggers on their roster.

It doesnt work that way. You cannot hold a players era against them considering time machines haven't been invented. And if you don't think a guy who averaged 50 goals a year for 95% of his career isn't scoring goals in any era that's totally on you.

Also Crosby scored 100 points at 18 I could go on and on

So 100 points at 18= generational talent?

Good lord...

, but yes Crosby is a generational talent.

No, he isn't. If he is, the Lafleur and Bossy are, which waters down the title and is disrespectful to the actual generational talents the game has seen.

Hasn't McDavid almost put up 300 points in two years then go on and break one of Gretzkys playoff records? Show me one time in Sids career where he made the NHL his personal bitch with that level of dominance.

It's OK, I'll wait.....

 

[Midnight Judges]

Regular season wins? Who cares?

Your team certainly did last season, and the season before.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

I don't consider 2 decades to define "generational".
I consider the 'Big 4' to be generational. They are transformative talents who changed the way the game is played, and dominated their peers in a way that looked like they belonged in another league.

From the Expansion era 1967 till now I lump that in as 4 generational talents in 80 years.

Crosby was SUUPER close, but was too injured during his prime and not enough individual hardware. I lump him closer to guys like Jean Beliveau, and Ray Bourque, but he was


Everyone knows McDavid is up there too, but he needs to win a cup to cement it.
153 point season, and 42 point playoffs with all those individual accolades.

Even if he nears the top of the all-time list, without that ring, he will never be considered more than Marcel Dionne.

 

[Brookbank]

Depends on your definition of generational, but yes, technically speaking, a generational talent should only come around every 20-30 years and I agree the term is thrown around like candy these days.

It really isn't. It's just that when a new player comes along that could/is generational , ppl see it as one upping the previous one.

So now when Bedard comes up, the McDavid bros see it as an affront to Mcdavid. Which it isn't.

I always thought and believe to be the case , that generational players are known by name by most fans even before they were drafted, they break records in junior play and/or get granted exceptional status. And they go #1 by a country mile in a strong draft.

So that would be Lindros , Crosby, McDavid and Bedard.

 

[Master P]

We already have a Kucherov thread.

 

[sensfan4lifee]

Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur comes to mind.
Jagr.... MacDavid.
Roy, Hasek


Agree on the first and third.
Ovechkin, you have to throw in Bossy, Hull at a certain point. He is a shooter!

No

If that's the case, you hold gretzkys and Marios statistics against them. With this logic, we need to suddenly put an asterisk next to stats from the 80s because it was a high scoring era and most of the teams had at least three certified knuckle draggers on their roster.

It doesnt work that way. You cannot hold a players era against them considering time machines haven't been invented. And if you don't think a guy who averaged 50 goals a year for 95% of his career isn't scoring goals in any era that's totally on you.

So 100 points at 18= generational talent?

Good lord...


No, he isn't. If he is, the Lafleur and Bossy are, which waters down the title and is disrespectful to the actual generational talents the game has seen.

Hasn't McDavid almost put up 300 points in two years then go on and break one of Gretzkys playoff records? Show me one time in Sids career where he made the NHL his personal bitch with that level of dominance.

It's OK, I'll wait.....

If I have to explain to you why Mike Bossy is not a generational talent and why Crosby is you should probably log out, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is, and most of your statements are just idiotic.