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

[Moose Head]

I guess Peter Stastny was generational since he was second only to Gretzky in the 80’s, Gretzky’s peak.

 

[Acallabeth]

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?
As the answer is zero, he is an utterly irrelevant comparison.

 

[BlueSeal]

If the OP would tell us their definition of 'Generational talent', we could better answer the question. I've heard more than the obvious definition for the term from others. Maybe we should establish what the term means, at least on these boards so folks don't go and get confused about it?

 

[Adam da bomb]

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.

You are coming on a message board to message people on the message board that messaging on a message board is irrelevant?

 

[PB37]

I think one of the prerequisites to being a generational talent is the pre draft/pre NHL hype surrounding the player, so some of the narrative is definitely media driven. Orr, Mario, Lindros, Crosby would all fit this, as they had the hype and performance once they made it to justify being generational.

 

[dmac7719]

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

I too use to carry that opinion, but that means you are saying players like Lindstrom and Hasek are not generational players.

 

[GoldenKnight]

Generational?

No.

 

[Brookbank]

Generational?

No.

He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned it

 

[Plastic Joseph]

I too use to carry that opinion, but that means you are saying players like Lindstrom and Hasek are not generational players.

I've never once heard andyone say "during the Lidstrom generation" One of the best to ever do it, but not a generational talent who defines an entire era of the sport. Its harder to do as a Dman, I would say Orr is the only one.


Goaltenders are even more difficult, Hasek had one of the best peaks ever at his position. I could see the case that he was a generational talent.

He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned it

he hasn't been the best player of his generation. He has never even been considered the best player in the NHL.

 

[the valiant effort]

The combination of raw numbers and truly unique skillset puts him in a category all his own.

 

[Thechozen1]

You are coming on a message board to message people on the message board that messaging on a message board is irrelevant?

It’s irrelevant to him. Whether he is or isn’t is just outside chatter.

Sorry you’re offended. All posts matter!!!

 

[Plastic Joseph]

He has to be. He's unlikable but I cant see how he hasn't earned it

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.

 

[Adam da bomb]

It’s irrelevant to him. Whether he is or isn’t is just outside chatter.

Sorry you’re offended. All posts matter!!!

Do I sound offended just found your post sounded funny.

 

[Moose Head]

How many Art Ross trophies did Peter Stasny win over Gretzky or Lemieux?
As the answer is zero, he is an utterly irrelevant comparison.

Winning the Art Ross makes you generational? Being 2nd in scoring over a decade is a more impressive accomplishment.

 

[Acallabeth]

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 only 25th in the overall 1990-1999 scoring. It's easy to say which feat is a better indicator of Lemieux's level of play.

 

[Moose Head]

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.

So H Sedin is generational then.

PS yes, I know I’m making silly comparisons. The whole concept of ‘generational’ has gotten silly IMO.

 

[Mathew Barzal]

This whole thread is worthless without coming to a consensus on what defines a generational talent first.


People have different standards. I wouldn’t have Kucherov in my list of generational talents, but my overall list is a lot more condensed than most peoples.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

Conn Smythe?

 

[authentic]

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.

Jagr actually has a pretty good case to be honest, at least much more than Kucherov considering Jagr was the best player at one time and the premiere offensive talent for nearly a decade once Lemieux was gone.

 

[Thechozen1]

Conn Smythe?

My bad, forgot it was Hedman that won it Regardless.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

No.

Generational talents are very good in their draft +1 or draft + 2 seasons as 18 - 20 year olds. They are usually the best in the league by their draft + 3 season...sometimes sooner than this. This dominance continues for several seasons. See Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid.

Kucherov came to the league in his draft plus 3 season and only produced 18 points in 52 games. He followed this up with 65 and 66 point seasons in draft plus 4 and draft plus 5 seasons. It wasn't until his draft plus 6 season that he emerged as a superstar with 85 points but even at that point he wasn't considered a top-3 forward in the league. That wasn't until either the following season when he had 100 points or the season after in which he achieved his first art ross and hart trophy - his draft plus 8 season.

He has maintained an elite level since then. Right now, his career appears similar to Guy Lafleur with Guy's peak being higher up to this point - 3 art ross trophies, 3 pearsons and 2 harts. Guy and Kuch are great...elite, but not generational.

 

[Bizz]

No. Because a big part of being a Generational Talent is being highly touted before making the jump to a professional league. Kucherov was a late 2nd round pick.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Kucherov is a very talented player but generational players have an impact beyond just stats. They impact the entire league like no other players. They define the era they play in. They are the first players people remember and talk about when discussing the best players in the league during a specific time period. They are the players all others in their era are compared to. Kucherov will always be viewed as a secondary player, as will Matthews, MacKinnon, and Draisaitl during this era. Great players but McDavid's impact is head and shoulders above those players. He has been so good they often need to compare the things he does to Lemieux and Gretzky because no one today has had an overall career even close to as impressive. He is the one all others are compared to in this era.

McDavid, Crosby, Lemieux, Gretzky, are the true generational talents in the past 50 years. They were all looked upon as phenom players well before they entered the NHL. They made an immediate impact with both their elite on ice performances and also their prominence in the league. As others have said, generational player is a subjective term, but if you really have to debate it, the player probably isn't. The whole point of being generational is being so exceptional that it is difficult to to make a case otherwise.

 

[MuckOG]

Kucherov is a very talented player but generational players have an impact beyond just stats. They impact the entire league like no other players. They define the era they play in. They are the first players people remember and talk about when discussing the best players in the league during a specific time period. They are the players all others in their era are compared to. Kucherov will always be viewed as a secondary player, as will Matthews, MacKinnon, and Draisaitl during this era. Great players but McDavid's impact is head and shoulders above those players. He has been so good they often need to compare the things he does to Lemieux and Gretzky because no one today has had an overall career even close to as impressive. He is the one all others are compared to in this era.

McDavid, Crosby, Lemieux, Gretzky, are the true generational talents in the past 50 years. They were all looked upon as phenom players well before they entered the NHL. They made an immediate impact with both their elite on ice performances and also their prominence in the league. As others have said, generational player is a subjective term, but if you really have to debate it, the player probably isn't. The whole point of being generational is being so exceptional that it is difficult to to make a case otherwise.

I was going to say Orr was looked upon the same but he is just outside 50 years ago.

It is a short list of players that had immediate impact and owned the league for a number of years.

 

[Plastic Joseph]

Kucherov is a very talented player but generational players have an impact beyond just stats. They impact the entire league like no other players. They define the era they play in. They are the first players people remember and talk about when discussing the best players in the league during a specific time period. They are the players all others in their era are compared to. Kucherov will always be viewed as a secondary player, as will Matthews, MacKinnon, and Draisaitl during this era. Great players but McDavid's impact is head and shoulders above those players. He has been so good they often need to compare the things he does to Lemieux and Gretzky because no one today has had an overall career even close to as impressive. He is the one all others are compared to in this era.

McDavid, Crosby, Lemieux, Gretzky, are the true generational talents in the past 50 years. They were all looked upon as phenom players well before they entered the NHL. They made an immediate impact with both their elite on ice performances and also their prominence in the league. As others have said, generational player is a subjective term, but if you really have to debate it, the player probably isn't. The whole point of being generational is being so exceptional that it is difficult to to make a case otherwise.

Bingo. You ask about Kucherov and you get a lot of "well the term is subjective but..."

You ask about McDavid and all you get is "yes". That's how you know