Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,698
- 13,193
A couple of players every 20 years or so, after that your talking franchise players.because there is no clear definition here
A couple of players every 20 years or so, after that your talking franchise players.because there is no clear definition here
A generation is a decade IMO. 20 years is too wide a gap.Who decided this?
Disagree. A generation is the time from a parent having a kid, until the kid has a kid.A generation is a decade IMO. 20 years is too wide a gap.
Sure that scrub Draisaitl sucks.We toss the term generational around to free and easy these days.
I commented earlier about this but now lets let the numbers do the talking
Kuch first year was 13/14
HE is 4th in pts overall since then
McDavid 655 games 988 pts
Crosby 808 games 937 pts
MacKinnon 796 games 908 pts
Kuch 729 games 882 pts
McDavid is the clear Generational talent of Kuch's era with Crosby being the Generational talent of the previous generation.
Let me put it another way
You have a draft year of
McDavid
Crosby
Mackinnon
Kuch
Patrick Kane
Alex O
Anze Kopitar
Steve Stamkos
Geno Malkin
How many seriously take Kuch over McDavid and Crosby?
For me, the term "Generational" goes to the guy you point at and go there and say "it is him"
Kuch is a great player but he is not a generational talent, in my opinion, part of being a generational talent is not just looking at what that player is doing but other players of his era.
Both McDavid and Crosby would be the ones going 1 and 2 in any draft in the list I posted. Nothing against Kuch but he is also helped by having a lot of good players on his team. Having a clear number 1 d man in Hedman, Number 1 goalie in Vis and a supporting cast that is and was pretty good.
Both McDavid and Crosby did a lot of damage with little or no support from the supporting cast the teams put together early in their career
Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Crosby, Ovie and Mcdavid are generational talents, this can not be argued and not every player who has a good year is Generational simply an elite player having a good year. The word Generational is being watered down so much lately, no Kucherov who is a very good player mind you, but no he's not generational, nor will he ever be considered one accept by a few morons on hfboards who have no understanding of what it actually is. If I was going to add one player to the list of Generational players it would be Hasek not Kucherov.What`s the argument for McDavid being a generational player, but Kucherov isn`t one? Either they are both or none of them is. Kucherov has beaten a prime McDavid TWICE in outstanding fashion in the Art Ross Race. How often have prime Gretzky and Lemieux lost to a non generational player?
On top of that, Kucherov`s success in the playoffs is obviuolsy on a totally different level than McDavid. There are ZERO arguments for McDavid being generational while Kucherov isn`t.
I don`t say that Kucherov is better, but a generational player has to seperate himself from non generational players in a different way.
Bedard is not a generational talent, he was an over hyped prospect who will be a very good player but no he's not generational.No in 2022 and still no today. Obviously depends how we define generational talent.
IMO, it is players who are leaps and bounds ahead of their piers vs great careers.
Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
Crosby
Ovechkin
McDavid
Malkin had the talent but injuries derailed him.
Makar currently has the best case to argue, but is more in the Lidstrom tier of all time great vs "generational".
Bedard and Celebrini are hard maybes
Again, what qualifies McDavid as a generational talent? Being Canadian?Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr, Crosby, Ovie and Mcdavid are generational talents, this can not be argued and not every player who has a good year is Generational simply an elite player having a good year. The word Generational is being watered down so much lately, no Kucherov who is a very good player mind you, but no he's not generational, nor will he ever be considered one accept by a few morons on hfboards who have no understanding of what it actually is. If I was going to add one player to the list of Generational players it would be Hasek not Kucherov.
I think Kucherov is a bit of a unique case that this year-based comparison doesn't work perfectly for, because it undersells the dominance of his peak vs. a player like Kane - while Kane's longevity is superior.Well, he was drafted in 2011. 13 years later, this is his trophy case and awards:
3 time First Team All-Star
2 time Second Team All-Star
2 time Art Ross Winner
1 time Hart Trophy Winner
1 time Lindsay Trophy Winner
So no, I wouldn't say so. Here is Patrick Kane's at the same point in his career:
3 time First Team All-Star
1 time Second Team All-Star
1 time Art Ross Winner
1 time Hart Trophy Winner
1 time Lindsay Trophy Winner
And no one has ever pushed Kane as a generational talent. You can be a really good player for an extended period of time without being close to generational.