Moose Head
Registered User
I guess Peter Stastny was generational since he was second only to Gretzky in the 80’s, Gretzky’s peak.
How many Art Ross trophies did Peter Stasny win over Gretzky or Lemieux?I guess Peter Stastny was generational since he was second only to Gretzky in the 80’s, Gretzky’s peak.
You are coming on a message board to message people on the message board that messaging on a message board is irrelevant?Doesn’t matter if he’s viewed as generational or not by message board posters. He’s a two time Stanley Cup Champion, Conn Smythe and Art Ross trophy winner. Guy is a Winner and that’s all that matters.
I too use to carry that opinion, but that means you are saying players like Lindstrom and Hasek are not generational players.Makar and Celebrini are not generational, Makar has just developed into a legendary talent similar to Kuch.
Generational guys are those born to play guys that were crowned at an extremely young age
He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned itGenerational?
No.
I too use to carry that opinion, but that means you are saying players like Lindstrom and Hasek are not generational players.
he hasn't been the best player of his generation. He has never even been considered the best player in the NHL.He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned it
It’s irrelevant to him. Whether he is or isn’t is just outside chatter.You are coming on a message board to message people on the message board that messaging on a message board is irrelevant?
He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned it
Do I sound offended just found your post sounded funny.It’s irrelevant to him. Whether he is or isn’t is just outside chatter.
Sorry you’re offended. All posts matter!!!
How many Art Ross trophies did Peter Stasny win over Gretzky or Lemieux?
As the answer is zero, he is an utterly irrelevant comparison.
No, it's not, don't play silly. Winning major awards is definitely a requirement for even below-generational tiers, while your Stasny example shows how unreliable stats without context can be.Winning the Art Ross makes you generational? Being 2nd in scoring over a decade is a more impressive accomplishment.
No, it's not, don't play silly. Winning major awards is definitely a requirement for even below-generational tiers, while your Stasny example shows how unreliable stats without context can be.
Mario Lemieux won 4 Art Ross trophies in the 90s, but was r 25th in the overall 1990-1999 scoring. It's easy to say which feat is a better indicator of Lemieux's level of play.
Conn Smythe?Doesn’t matter if he’s viewed as generational or not by message board posters. He’s a two time Stanley Cup Champion, Conn Smythe and Art Ross trophy winner. Guy is a Winner and that’s all that matters.
Gilbert Arenas says a lot of dumb stuff but one thing I did agree with him on was that a generational talent should be identifiable long before they have accomplished a long list of things.
For me, when McDavid came back in his rookie season and scored that goal vs CBJ, right there at age 18 I was able to say he was a generational talent. He had never racked up 100 pts, any awards, nothing. But it was so clear that he was the most talented player to come into the league in at least 10 years. That is a generational talent to me.
If you have to point to accolades etc , its just not the same. Those guys come into the league at 18 or 19 and are immediately top 5 players in the world. No growing pains, no adjustment period, just sheer dominance from the go.
Kucherov has earned a spot in the HOF as a 1st ballot and he will be regarded as *one of the best* from this generation. But he isn't a once in a generational talent, never has been and winning a few AR doesn't change that. I would put him in the Jagr territory of close but no cigar.