Right. I'm not making the case that Kucherov is either. I'm just saying he belongs a lot higher on the list than where that guy put him.Yzerman was also not even close to being considered generational.
Lol very ironic but the NHL radio guys today were talking about Makar and used the word "Generational" over and over.Mcdavid and Crosby were called generational talents way before there Draft, no one has ever said Celebrini has the talent to be generational, Bedard is in my opinion very overhyped, and I'm not sure how you say Ovie wasn't generational from the beginning the guy was an absolute force his rookie season he scored 50 goals, how is that needing time to live upto the hype? Mcdavid very well probably would have hit 90+ points his rookie year if not for injuries. And no Makar is not generational, its not something you become over time, it happens from the moment you enter the league, where the players presence on a team alters the course of an entire franchise, like Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Crosby. And also Celebrini has never been mentioned in the same breath as the type of prospect as Bedard even whom I don't consider to be generational, yet alone Crosby or Mcdavid, once again you're revising history to support a false narative.
No that will not make him generational
I'm not saying Yzerman wasn't great. But Kucherov should be viewed above him. He's just insanely dangerous.
Right. I'm not making the case that Kucherov is either. I'm just saying he belongs a lot higher on the list than where that guy put him.
Yes, saying he's generational overrates Kucherov. But most people underrate him still.
Yzerman had 155 points playing for a bum team. Also had a few other seasons above 120, and then became one of the games elite two-way players in the second half of his career. Best case scenario Kucherov may have the slightest bit of an offensive advantage but I don’t believe he is a better overall player quite frankly.
Saying he belongs above Yzerman is a testament to how overrated he is really, but who knows if he puts together a few more seasons like last year I could see the argument for it then.
Makar isn't the best defenseman we've ever seen, stop hyping a player to be something he's not the best DMAN we've ever seen won 9 Norris trophies in a row, who won 2 scoring titles, re defined the way the position is played how the f*** is Makar in a position to take down Orr? There is only one of us on drugs right now my guy and its you, Prime Orr would not lose a Norris to Hughes, he has 1 Norris in 6 seasons and your trying to say he's going to take down a guy who won 9 straight? And no I'm in no way underestimating him, I'm just realistic in my take.Lol very ironic but the NHL radio guys today were talking about Makar and used the word "Generational" over and over.
Your definition is all over the place. By that you have to be a #1 pick to be considered "generational" and by day 1 you either have it or you dont.
A. Be called "generational" before the draft
B. Be a force in your rookie season.
C. Be a ppg+ your rookie season
You are completely wrong about Celebrini. He may not have been hyped as long as Bedard was due to playing NCAA over juniors, but dude is considered the complete player by every scout and on par with Bedard near his draft.
So Makar could win 10 Norris's, 10 Cups, and hes not generational because he wasnt hyped like McDavid or Crosby?
Rookie season - nearly a PPG and Calder, 7th in scoring missing 13 games
Sophmore season - PPG, 2nd in Norris voting, 5th in scoring missing 12 games
Third season - Norris, Cup, Conn Smythe, 2nd in scoring missing 5 games
4th season - PPG +, 3rd in Norris voting, 9th in scoring missing 22 games
5th season - PPG +, 3rd in Norris voting, 2nd in scoring missing 5 games
6th season - PPG +, currently tied for the league lead in scoring as a defenseman
He has a chance to pass Bourque for all time points as a dman. the only thing stopping him is retiring before it or injuries. Ill give you Orr and Lidstrom, but he is comfortably on pace to be #3 with an argument to take down one or both of them with enough team and individual hardware. You are drastically underestimating how great he is.
In a world where the third best defenseman we've ever seen isnt "generational", youre on drugs.
I mean he wont have 6 Norris trophies by that age the dude is injury prone as hell, I can't argue with you Makar fan boysI agree with all of that, but not by the age of 25. Im under no illusions that Makar will have a better career than Lidstrom. All im saying is at this point, he has had a better career. Makar has a norris and a cup. By the same age, Lidstrom had neither. Makar could possibly (but not realistically) have 6 Norris' by the age Lidstrom won his first. Also, if you think the guy is so great you could maybe spell his name correctly.
What about physical play?To be considered generational, you also have to be a great "2-way player" and the "Most Valuable" to your team.
There, that should add some clarity.
Yeah, and very few goalies were that good offensively either.What about physical play?
Also: neither Gretzky nor Lemieux meet your standards for generational then.
The fact that you can't make your point without exaggerations and assumptions leads me to believe that you just can't argue at all.Makar isn't the best defenseman we've ever seen, stop hyping a player to be something he's not the best DMAN we've ever seen won 9 Norris trophies in a row, who won 2 scoring titles, re defined the way the position is played how the f*** is Makar in a position to take down Orr? There is only one of us on drugs right now my guy and its you, Prime Orr would not lose a Norris to Hughes, he has 1 Norris in 6 seasons and your trying to say he's going to take down a guy who won 9 straight? And no I'm in no way underestimating him, I'm just realistic in my take.
And no scout I ever read said Celebrini was a generational prospect the f***?
I mean he wont have 6 Norris trophies by that age the dude is injury prone as hell, I can't argue with you Makar fan boys.
I really truly believe people do not understand the definition of generational talent?!
Probably cause there is no universally agreed upon definition of the term.I really truly believe people do not understand the definition of generational talent?!
we have 2 guys in the league that can lay claim to generation talent--both guys hit the league and the rest is history
Kuch has 637 pts in 575
McDavid 726 in 501
Crosby in his first 550 games? 769 pts
Also--for generation talent remove all team accolades
according to some people there are around 6 generational talents playing in the nhl right now
We are getting great talent confused with generation talents
That's baitHe's right below what we consider generation. Generational players literally define the era. Gretzky, Orr, Mats Sundin, Sid Crusty/Ovi, Connor McDonald, etc...
Look, I had to put a leaf there. Don't hateThat's bait
I don't think so. Kucherov has already scored 100 points 4 times, has the TWO highest assist totals by a winger in history, and won two Art Ross trophies. He and McDavid are the two best playoff performers of the generation, and Kucherov has two cups.
Again, Yzerman is my all time favorite player. It's not easy for me to argue anybody over Yzerman. But watching Kucherov now, it's just pretty clear that this is the best forward I've ever followed on a game by game basis.
Did you read anything I wrote? I said all TBD, because he is a mere 6 years into his career, but he could pass Orr and Lidstrom. If Makar wins 10 Norris's in a row, 5 Cups, and a few Conn Smythes. He will easily go down as the best weve ever seen. Do I think he will do that? Obviously not, but the possibility is there.Makar isn't the best defenseman we've ever seen, stop hyping a player to be something he's not the best DMAN we've ever seen won 9 Norris trophies in a row, who won 2 scoring titles, re defined the way the position is played how the f*** is Makar in a position to take down Orr? There is only one of us on drugs right now my guy and its you, Prime Orr would not lose a Norris to Hughes, he has 1 Norris in 6 seasons and your trying to say he's going to take down a guy who won 9 straight? And no I'm in no way underestimating him, I'm just realistic in my take.
And no scout I ever read said Celebrini was a generational prospect the f***?
I mean he wont have 6 Norris trophies by that age the dude is injury prone as hell, I can't argue with you Makar fan boys
Actually I've actually said there are literally 6-7 players in the history of the NHL i'd label as gernerational, and there is no way Makar surpasses Bourque at any point for #3. And no I've never said anyone can be generational maybe remove your head from Makars ass long enough so your vision is less blurred and you would be able to see that.Did you read anything I wrote? I said all TBD, because he is a mere 6 years into his career, but he could pass Orr and Lidstrom. If Makar wins 10 Norris's in a row, 5 Cups, and a few Conn Smythes. He will easily go down as the best weve ever seen. Do I think he will do that? Obviously not, but the possibility is there.
I even said when its all said and done, I could see Makar solidly in #3 ranking for all time defensemen.
Lidstrom got his first Norris at 31 so if were going off that logic, Makar is way ahead of the pace to be #2.
But back to the "generational" tag, your logic is insane. Bedard alone was labeled that before the draft and my point is that anyone can be "generational" if they play well enough. Lidstrom would not be "generational" based on your ass backwards logic.
16-17 - McDavid 100, Kuch 85 (5th missed 8 games)As close to generational as you get without being it, 1st ballot hall of famer, he'll be remembered as the guy keeping up with Mcdavid for Ross's every year idk man the guys crazy.
Youre not worth even conversing with. Blocked.Actually I've actually said there are literally 6-7 players in the history of the NHL i'd label as gernerational, and there is no way Makar surpasses Bourque at any point for #3. And no I've never said anyone can be generational maybe remove your head from Makars ass long enough so your vision is less blurred and you would be able to see that.