Is Nikita Kucherov a Generational Talent? (Based on his NHL Career)

[The Hockey Tonk Man]

No.
But he’s been one of the best players over the past ~7/8 years.

Low key mad dirty tho.

 

[Garbageyuk]

no

He outscored a healthy Connor McDavid twice, who is universally regarded as a generational talent. Snatched an Art Ross from him and one from MacKinnon as well.

Yes.

 

[Oneiro]

He's not generational in the same way Lidstrom wasn't generational. To me, it's Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid as generational skaters and that's it. If you want to include Ovy, that's fine. Ovy to me was the Mariano Rivera of the sport - everyone knew what was coming, but no one could really do anything about it, his shot and ability to create his own ice was that good. But basically the league had no answer in terms of stopping all these guys from putting up comical numbers far above peers for a certain stretch of time. And they all basically added to the vocabulary of the game - you could not learn the game without incorporating their innovations after they were done.

Career-wise, I like him better than Ovechkin though his peak isn't the same as those early Ovy years, which is really what established Ovy's generational tag.

 

[Rschmitz]

Maybe take a look at the roster Chicago iced last year...

Still better than 4th line scrubs

 

[toddkaz]

He wasn't a generational talent in the draft (Even though he scored 3 points per game at U18), but I think in regards to how good he has been NHL, I'd say he has basically been a generational talent.

Kucherov since 2017-18: 144G 259A 403P 290GP. 3 All Star Teams, 2 Stanley Cups, 1 MVP.

In this regard, would you say Nikita Kucherov has been a generational talent?
Let's Discuss.

You want to annoint someone based on 290GP.

On top of that you don't use his entire career stats.

What kind of generational talent needs to do that? No one.

 

[Zalos]

I always thought "generational" meant that this was a player (maybe two at most) that defined a generation.

Pre-1960 = Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Richard, etc.
1960-1980 = Orr & *Lafleur
1980-2000 = Gretzky & Lemieux
2000-2020 = Crosby & Ovechkin
2020-? = McDavid & *?

I put an asterisk for Lafleur because that's a debatable one. As for another player deserving to be alongside McDavid, I have my doubts. I guess Kucherov or MacKinnon (even Makar?) could be in the discussion, but I think those two need more seasons of greatness and more hardware.

Props to Kucherov, though. The fact that he is even in the discussion is huge praise.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No.

But he’s a pretty solid bet for first ballot HOF.

 

[heynowbababooey]

Definitely not. He's incredible but not generational by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I wonder if he was a #1 overall pick how people would view him. I feel like a lot of people use pre-draft hype as a criterion for who is generational.

 

[olli]

If he has a few more seasons like last year for sure. It just took him longer than most players at his level to reach his peak which makes sense given his game is more about skill and smarts than athleticism.

 

[MuckOG]

What is it with fans wanting to attach the generational tag on every great player?

Kucherov is an all time great player, but not one I would put in the same group as Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby and McDavid....players that I consider to be truly generational talents.

 

[JPT]

I will never understand the need to not just watch and appreciate an exceptional talent, but to go ahead and slap some label on them and try to get other people to as well. He's scoring a shit load of points whether HF agrees that he's "generational" or not.

 

[sena]

He outscored a healthy Connor McDavid twice, who is universally regarded as a generational talent. Snatched an Art Ross from him and one from MacKinnon as well.

Yes.

I agree when you do it twice its not a fluke, not to mention in all the years of nhl not a single winger has put up more assists in a single season. That's a crazy thing

 

[The Macho King]

Generational doesn't have an agreed upon definition so this is a super worthless discussion.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

I like Kurri, but was he ever even in Hart consideration? But Lafleur seems like the right tier to me.

That's why I said between. I put Kuch ahead of Kurri, at the moment, just behind Lafleur.

 

[Jumptheshark]

He outscored a healthy Connor McDavid twice, who is universally regarded as a generational talent. Snatched an Art Ross from him and one from MacKinnon as well.

Yes.

Mcdavid has out pts him by 190 pts since he joined the league

According to this site there are about 20 generational players.

 

[archangel2]

If he is generational? Then so are

McDavid
Draisstl
Kane
Alex O
Side the kid
Malkin
Patterned
Panasonic
MacKinnon
Matthews
Maner

 

[Montreal Shadow]

He outscored a healthy Connor McDavid twice, who is universally regarded as a generational talent. Snatched an Art Ross from him and one from MacKinnon as well.

Yes.

Doesn’t make him generational. He’d have to be universally considered the best player for a number of years to get that label and this never happened…because a generational player stopped him.

He’s just a notch below that level.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

As things stand, No.
When all the dust is settled, a Generational Player should have a very good case for being in the Top 10 players of all time.
Now, as the years go by, more and more players will have played the game and maybe we'll be looking at Top 15 of all time or even Top 20.
Does Kucherov look like a Top 10 guy so far? Not even close. It took him too long to get up to speed, and his career numbers are going to be effected by the Covids season(s). But, if he can maintain his current pace for a few more seasons, I could see a good argument for him being in the Top 50... maybe even Top 30, if he keeps being totally insane.
For reference, our History of Hockey Board's most recent #21-#30 (from 2020) is Mark Messier, Alex Ovechkin, Guy Lafleur, Stan Mikita, Viacheslav Fetisov, Sergei Makarov, Phil Esposito, Glenn Hall, Bobby Clarke and Martin Brodeur. That's pretty fast company, and Kuch could potentiall fit in there. Ovechkin (who I would rank higher now) is the only one of that bunch that even sniffs the term Generational.
Is Kucherov a first ballot HOF'er, though? Definetely.

 

[dirtydanglez]

no but he didn't miss by a lot.

 

[Regal]

Generational is such a hard to define term that the discussion isn’t very useful. He’ll go down as a top 10 winger when he’s done though.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No, some don’t understand what generational is, there are very few.

 

[DJJones]

There's one maybe two guys that can be generational over a decade.

So no

 

[Darren McCord]

I always thought "generational" meant that this was a player (maybe two at most) that defined a generation.

Pre-1960 = Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Richard, etc.
1960-1980 = Orr & *Lafleur
1980-2000 = Gretzky & Lemieux
2000-2020 = Crosby & Ovechkin
2020-? = McDavid & *?

I put an asterisk for Lafleur because that's a debatable one. As for another player deserving to be alongside McDavid, I have my doubts. I guess Kucherov or MacKinnon (even Makar?) could be in the discussion, but I think those two need more seasons of greatness and more hardware.

Props to Kucherov, though. The fact that he is even in the discussion is huge praise.

This Kucherov was to slow to start. He was 23 before he had his first ppg season.

Sid had 6 by then. McDavid had 5. Ovi had 3 but lost a year from the lockout or he would have had 4.

Sid and Ovi defined a generation post lockout. McDavid has defined things since.

Generational players make in impact right from the start which allows them to define a generation.

 

[Soul Assumption]

some don’t understand what generational is,

because there is no clear definition here