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

benfranklin

Registered User
Jun 29, 2024
229
165
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
So Lemieux, Beliveau, Daigle, Lindros, Lafleur, Perreault, and Bedard are there by that definition. You dont think that is a bit ridiculous? Zero NHL games required to be "generational".

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.
Two time Covid Stanley Cup Champion*

Fixed it for you
 

SlobKnox

Registered User
Oct 16, 2024
12
14
So Lemieux, Beliveau, Daigle, Lindros, Lafleur, Perreault, and Bedard are there by that definition. You dont think that is a bit ridiculous? Zero NHL games required to be "generational".
I will give it up until the end of your rookie season, after that your prospect days are over in my opinion
 

benfranklin

Registered User
Jun 29, 2024
229
165
I will give it up until the end of your rookie season, after that your prospect days are over in my opinion
Interesting view on it and Im not saying its wrong, but its all about prospect hype to you. I feel like we need a different word for that type of insane prospect hype and meeting it or not.

For me, I think of generation x, y, z. A whole decade+ of an age of people. I explained my eras above in another post, but they are separated by 10-15-20 years each. Whoever dominated that generation above their piers is "generational" in my eyes.
 

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,286
8,876
Regina, Saskatchewan
Interesting view on it and Im not saying its wrong, but its all about prospect hype to you. I feel like we need a different word for that type of insane prospect hype and meeting it or not.

For me, I think of generation x, y, z. A whole decade+ of an age of people. I explained my eras above in another post, but they are separated by 10-15-20 years each. Whoever dominated that generation above their piers is "generational" in my eyes.
We already have the word. It's generational.

The word came into mass media for Crosby when he played in the Q.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
26,262
11,254
15 pages for an argument over semantics? Seems low.
We already have the word. It's generational.

The word came into mass media for Crosby when he played in the Q.

Just to understand correctly, is it not supposed to be a player who doesn't come along every generation rather than just the best of their generation? Seems like that should've been established before this whole debate took off.
 

benfranklin

Registered User
Jun 29, 2024
229
165
We already have the word. It's generational.

The word came into mass media for Crosby when he played in the Q.
We are now 15 pages into this thread and few agree it is that cut and dry. Also doesnt help that is not the literal definition of the word, so no.

"Relating to or characteristic of all the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively."

Like I said above, if that were the case, it would be a strict list of:

Orr, Lafleur, Perreault, Lemieux, Lindros, Daigle, Crosby, McDavid, and Bedard. Can even argue for some other 1OA picks that were massively hyped.

Obviously it is easy to argue Jagr and Ovechkin added themselves to that list based on performance and Daigle the opposite.

If Cellibrini magically pots 80 goals this year, everyone would unanimously add him to that list.

So no, it is not universally agreed upon.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad