Is Cale Makar a generational talent?

[Lays]

Isn’t Fox closer to generational than Makar is right now? The only other defenseman to win a Norris in his sophomore season was Bobby Orr. Not saying either of them are generational but Fox won the Norris and Makar has not yet

 

[blundluntman]

To be fair Lemiuex and Gretzky have a gap on the rest of the Generational talents. They sit at the top on their own.

Not to nitpick but there are a fair amount of people (myself included) that hold Orr in the same esteem as the two. I think he was even rated above Lemieux in the last all time list. I think his peak is just as otherworldy

 

[AvsFan29]

Isn’t Fox closer to generational than Makar is right now? The only other defenseman to win a Norris in his sophomore season was Bobby Orr. Not saying either of them are generational but Fox won the Norris and Makar has not yet

If Makar doesn’t miss games due to injury, he wins that trophy

 

[Lays]

If Makar doesn’t miss games due to injury, he wins that trophy

Fox was better last season defensively, Makar was better offensively. But Makar was on a much better team and didn’t have to deal with his #1C slumping due to Covid with only 11 points in the first 25 games as well as his top winger missing a few weeks due to a political hit piece

 

[AvsFan29]

Fox was better last season defensively, Makar was better offensively. But Makar was on a much better team and didn’t have to deal with his #1C slumping due to Covid with only 11 points in the first 25 games as well as his top winger missing a few weeks due to a political hit piece

Yah I’m just saying that makar wins if he stays healthy. I’m kinda glad he didn’t, because he probably would have signed a bigger contract

 

[Fulham]

This reminds me of the Tyler Myers threads after his first 100 games.

 

[Slurpeelover27]

Unless he becomes a legit hart contender against McDavid for the foreseeable future, I can't justify labeling him one. I don't see him hitting that level of dominance

Makar is the only dman with potential to have multiple hundred point seasons. It has been accomplished only 14 times in the history of the NHL and the last time was in 1991/92 by Brian Leetch. 30 freaking years ago!! Team defense and goaltending are much stronger these days. In the past it was obviously much easier to score.

Since year 2000 only 2 dmen have managed just over 80 points (Burns and Karlsson once each).

If Makar can hit 100 point multiple times while playing above average defense and win multiple Norris's than I would say he is generational. If he played a few more games this year he would have won the Norris and will likely win multiple times in his career.

You should be able to have a generational forward, dman and goalie at the same time IF they are deserving. Obviously McDavid is generational, but if Makar can be head and shoulders above all other dman than why not label him generational? What does Hasek's dominance have to do with Lemieux's dominant play?

Hasek, Brodeur and Roy are the GOAT's and none can be called generational?

 

[Fatass]

Do bears live in the woods?

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

This reminds me of the Tyler Myers threads after his first 100 games.

Yeah, especially because Myers first two seasons were very similar to Makar’s.

 

[blundluntman]

Makar is the only dman with potential to have multiple hundred point seasons. It has been accomplished only 14 times in the history of the NHL and the last time was in 1991/92 by Brian Leetch. 30 freaking years ago!! Team defense and goaltending are much stronger these days. In the past it was obviously much easier to score.

Since year 2000 only 2 dmen have managed just over 80 points (Burns and Karlsson once each).

If Makar can hit 100 point multiple times while playing above average defense and win multiple Norris's than I would say he is generational. If he played a few more games this year he would have won the Norris and will likely win multiple times in his career.

You should be able to have a generational forward, dman and goalie at the same time IF they are deserving. Obviously McDavid is generational, but if Makar can be head and shoulders above all other dman than why not label him generational? What does Hasek's dominance have to do with Lemieux's dominant play?

Hasek, Brodeur and Roy are the GOAT's and none can be called generational?

If he indeed racks up multiple 100 point seasons (with good defense) I'll be arguing his case for sure. Seasons like that can compete with McDavid's prime years imo.
I do think it is possible to have that happen, they just have to be a level above anybody else within that generation. 100 point seasons will seperate Makar from Karlsson enough for it to be a debate in my mind. We'll just have to wait and see.

Also I would say Roy and Hasek are generational as well. Brodeur, not so much (I consider him a tier below). Being generational doesn't exactly make you the goat, but it gives you the potential to be in that conversation

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Makar is the only dman with potential to have multiple hundred point seasons. It has been accomplished only 14 times in the history of the NHL and the last time was in 1991/92 by Brian Leetch. 30 freaking years ago!! Team defense and goaltending are much stronger these days. In the past it was obviously much easier to score.

Since year 2000 only 2 dmen have managed just over 80 points (Burns and Karlsson once each).

If Makar can hit 100 point multiple times while playing above average defense and win multiple Norris's than I would say he is generational. If he played a few more games this year he would have won the Norris and will likely win multiple times in his career.

You should be able to have a generational forward, dman and goalie at the same time IF they are deserving. Obviously McDavid is generational, but if Makar can be head and shoulders above all other dman than why not label him generational? What does Hasek's dominance have to do with Lemieux's dominant play?

Hasek, Brodeur and Roy are the GOAT's and none can be called generational?

What are you smoking? Makar is never sniffing 100pts.

>If Makar can rack up multiple 100pts seasons while playing above-average defense

Dude, Makar hasn’t even come remotely close to accomplishing that so why even bring it up?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

If Makar doesn’t miss games due to injury, he wins that trophy

Well, you'll always have that to hold on to I guess.

 

[Slurpeelover27]

What are you smoking? Makar is never sniffing 100pts.

>If Makar can rack up multiple 100pts seasons while playing above-average defense

Dude, Makar hasn’t even come remotely close to accomplishing that so why even bring it up?

Because he is only 22 years old and only played 1 1/2 seasons and had 44 pts in 44 games last year. The biggest thing is the eye test where you can easily see he is the most dynamic offensively gifted dman perhaps that we have seen in decades. Perhaps Karlsson is close but Makar is still getting better. He creates so many scoring chances every game. Why can't he improve on a point per game pace? The potential is most certainly there. Extremely hard to reach, but it is definitely in the realm of possibility. Even Paul Coffey said so.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Because he is only 22 years old and only played 1 1/2 seasons and had 44 pts in 44 games last year. The biggest thing is the eye test where you can easily see he is the most dynamic offensively gifted dman perhaps that we have seen in decades. Perhaps Karlsson is close but Makar is still getting better. He creates so many scoring chances every game. Why can't he improve on a point per game pace? The potential is most certainly there. Extremely hard to reach, but it is definitely in the realm of possibility. Even Paul Coffey said so.

He’d need to increase his offensive output over a full season by 20%.

44pts in 44 games is nowhere near 100pts in 82 games. When Makar has scored 90pts in a season, we’ll talk.

Bringing up 100pts let alone multiple seasons of 100pts is nothing short of foolish.

 

[VainGretzky]

Too early to give him that label yet but he seems to be trending up to be one

 

[MadLuke]

Isn’t Fox closer to generational than Makar is right now? The only other defenseman to win a Norris in his sophomore season was Bobby Orr. Not saying either of them are generational but Fox won the Norris and Makar has not yet

It is rare to be Fox or Makar age during your somophore season when you are that good too, Karlson won in is third season but was younger.

It is young to win at 22-23 for sure and outside Subban that did not aged well all the name below are quite something:

967-68	NHL	Bobby Orr	19	BOS	D	11	20	31	28	3.3	3.5	0.0	6.7
1968-69	NHL	Bobby Orr	20	BOS	D	21	43	64	55	6.5	5.9	0.0	12.4
1969-70	NHL	Bobby Orr	21	BOS	D	33	87	120	54	12.8	6.7	0.0	19.5
2011-12	NHL	Erik Karlsson	21	OTT	D	19	59	78	16	8.6	4.5	0.0	13.1
1970-71	NHL	Bobby Orr	22	BOS	D	37	102	139	124	13.5	9.3	0.0	22.8
1975-76	NHL	Denis Potvin	22	NYI	D	31	67	98	12	8.7	5.6	0.0	14.3
2020-21	NHL	Adam Fox	22	NYR	D	5	42	47	19	3.7	4.1	0.0	7.8
1971-72	NHL	Bobby Orr	23	BOS	D	37	80	117	83	12.0	8.1	0.0	20.1
1984-85	NHL	Paul Coffey	23	EDM	D	37	84	121	57	9.5	5.3	0.0	14.8
1991-92	NHL	Brian Leetch	23	NYR	D	22	80	102	25	8.1	5.1	0.0	13.2
2012-13	NHL	P.K. Subban	23	MTL	D	11	27	38	12	4.3	2.9	0.0	7.1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Both do feel like potential one if we say that a generation is around 10-12 year's (the usual super prime), for example we could use around what year most of that super 2003 draft stopped to be elite and defining the league has the length of a generation of hockey players.

Karlsson was a 2008 draft

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

The word “generational” should only be used once per generation. If you think Makar is the best player of the last 20-30 years, go ahead and call him generational.

 

[MadLuke]

The word “generational” should only be used once per generation. If you think Makar is the best player of the last 20-30 years, go ahead and call him generational.

I doubt many would agree that Mario Lemieux was not a once in a generation rarity level of talent just because he was not the best player in the last 5 year of is draft year.

If you extend a generation of hockey player to be 30 year's sure that would make that bar quite high.

But that:
Definition of GENERATION.

Is only one of the many definition of generation, it depend of the context.

If you look at cellphone, high school students or game console generations it could be much shorter because of the pace of change and shorts windows, same could be argued about hockey players, a group of hockey players will never be relevant for 30 year's and it is rare for a player to be relevant at the top for 20 season, one could argue a generation is more 12 year's or so for hockey player. A single player in the top 25 of scoring in the 79-80 season played games in the 69-70 season, one could say it was a different generation of players playing.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

I doubt many would agree that Mario Lemieux was not a once in a generation rarity level of talent just because he was not the best player in the last 5 year of is draft year.

If you extend a generation of hockey player to be 30 year's sure that would make that bar quite high.

But that:
Definition of GENERATION.

Is only one of the many definition of generation, it depend of the context.

If you look at cellphone, high school students or game console generations it could be much shorter because of the pace of change and shorts windows, same could be argued about hockey players, a group of hockey players will never be relevant for 30 year's and it is rare for a player to be relevant at the top for 20 season, one could argue a generation is more 12 year's or so for hockey player. A single player in the top 25 of scoring in the 79-80 season played games in the 69-70 season, one could say it was a different generation of players playing.

That’s one hell of a definition you’re relying on. Makar is a fine defenseman. He’s accomplished nothing to make him generational. Nor is he even the best defenseman in the league at this time. If your interpretation of “generational” is a top notch defenseman with no individual or team achievements, sure he’s “generational”. But so are about a dozen others this year.

 

[MadLuke]

That’s one hell of a definition you’re relying on. Makar is a fine defenseman. He’s accomplished nothing to make him generational. Nor is he even the best defenseman in the league at this time. If your interpretation of “generational” is a top notch defenseman with no individual or team achievements, sure he’s “generational”. But so are about a dozen others this year.

Where are you reading this from what you quote ?

Translating my, a talent level that we see once every 10-12 year's (that would make for 10-12 hockey player with generation talent to have existed) to a top notch defenseman with no individual or team achievements ?

The only difference is you define generational talent has someone that is the best player in the last 20-30 year's (something that exclude Mario Lemieux and depending how you view Orr, could exclude Gretzky).

A say that it would be possible for someone to define it has a talent that is an average appear once in a hockey generation and that person could define an hockey generation to be a little bit over a decade. Making it possible to have 2 generational talent not only not far apart but playing on Team Canada 1987 on the same line.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Where are you reading this from what you quote ?

Translating my, a talent level that we see once every 10-12 year's (that would make for 10-12 hockey player with generation talent to have existed) to a top notch defenseman with no individual or team achievements ?

The only difference is you define generational talent has someone that is the best player in the last 20-30 year's (something that exclude Mario Lemieux and depending how you view Orr, could exclude Gretzky).

A say that it would be possible for someone to define it has a talent that is an average appear once in a hockey generation and that person could define an hockey generation to be a little bit over a decade. Making it possible to have 2 generational talent not only not far apart but playing on Team Canada 1987 on the same line.

Ok. Even with that loose definition, you think Makar has achieved that?

 

[MadLuke]

Ok. Even with that loose definition, you think Makar has achieved that?

Talent is quite in the person, not something you achieve. Gretzky and Orr were generation talent when they were 12, and had achieved nothing yet. A generation talent could die in a car crash and we will never know he was one.

Makar did not had a generational career yet, the question is talent, he did not prove it yet which is not the question either, it is taking a guest.

I would go that he has a good chance to be the most special defenseman talent since Karlson drafted in 2008 and that it could end up being in what feel a different generation of them.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Well, we’ve narrowed the definition of “generational” to be top young defenseman for one year. He hasn’t achieved that. Could we close this nonsense?

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Well, we’ve narrowed the definition of “generational” to be top young defenseman for one year. He hasn’t achieved that. Could we close this nonsense?

Edit: we are now including people who have died or may not have died. The definition of “generational” is immense.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Fox was better last season defensively, Makar was better offensively. But Makar was on a much better team and didn’t have to deal with his #1C slumping due to Covid with only 11 points in the first 25 games as well as his top winger missing a few weeks due to a political hit piece

you’re wrong, Mikko Rantanen missed time after the Ayotollah of Iran out a fatwa out on him for saying that the Shah should be reinstated