Is Thornton the most underrated generational talent?

[SUX2BU]

Generational ......

 

[Steve]

why not?

This is always a contested word on HF

IMO, the answer to your questions is in the definition of the word "Generational". A generation is somewhat ambiguous because it's ongoing without confines to dictate the beginning of one and the end of another. That being said, a generation is typically represented as the time frame between generations of a species or product (ie with humans - children to parent to grandparents). Granted there are varying interpretations based on a variety of factors but typical human generation defined as 20-25 years (ish) so the question would be;

Is Thornton so rare that this quality of player only comes along every 20-25 years?

 

[Atoyot]

because he's not at Crosby's or Mcdavids level at any point in his career. At no point was Thornton even considered one of the best players in hockey.

I disagree with pretty much everything that illpucks is saying (or ever says, really), but Thornton was definitely considered one of the best players in hockey for a good while.

 

[daver]

because he's not at Crosby's or Mcdavids level at any point in his career. At no point was Thornton even considered one of the best players in hockey.

2005/06?

 

[DustyMartellaughs]

Can we please have no more threads started by Leafs fans?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Not generational

 

[93LEAFS]

Yzerman scored 150+ points in a season and won multiple awards and cups. Yes he was generational.

Expanding the term would be calling Thornton, Drai, Malkin, and Sundin generational.

Sakic on the other hand, I honestly don't know.

No he wasn't. He didn't win a single Hart trophy. Never won an art ross. Neither were ever in the discussion as better than Mario or Gretzky who their careers substantially overlapped with.

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

No he wasn't. He didn't win a single Hart trophy. Never won an art ross. Neither were ever in the discussion as better than Mario or Gretzky who their careers substantially overlapped with.

Everyone looks like cannon fodder to those two in that era.

 

[93LEAFS]

Everyone looks like cannon fodder to those two in that era.

Well, generational is supposed to mean best of a generation. He's also behind Messier and Ray Bourque, neither of who I would call generational either.

 

[RealisticLeaf55]

Well, generational is supposed to mean best of a generation. He's also behind Messier and Ray Bourque, neither of who I would call generational either.

You put Yzerman in any other generation, he becomes generational by your...standards.

Bourque I can agree to some extent. MacInnis and Lidstrom seem more generational.

But to stay on topic, I agree. Thornton was an elite playmaker, but not generational.

 

[Esq]

How can you be "generational" when you were never, at any point in your career, considered a top-3 player in the league? Even in 06-07 (92 assists with Heater on the wing), no one thought he was better or more valuable than Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom or Hasek. I mean, even in at his peak, most people would still take Datsyuk over him.

 

[93LEAFS]

You put Yzerman in any other generation, he becomes generational by your...standards.

Bourque I can agree to some extent. MacInnis and Lidstrom seem more generational.

But to stay on topic, I agree. Thornton was an elite playmaker, but not generational.

Okay, claiming Lidstrom and MacInnis seem generational. But, no Yzerman would not be generational in any other generation. He's behind Messier from guys and Bourque of guys from this era. He finished top 3 in Hart voting once.

 

[razor8]

How can you be "generational" when you were never, at any point in your career, considered a top-3 player in the league? Even in 06-07 (92 assists with Heater on the wing), no one thought he was better or more valuable than Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom or Hasek. I mean, even in at his peak, most people would still take Datsyuk over him.

We live in an era where everyone has to have a fancy title in front of their names. Generational, top 10 whatever etc. It's weird really.

Thornton is a really good hockey player. Isn't that good enough anymore? Evidently not.

 

[illpucks]

So basically this is HFboards. Because

Players currently in league with 3 or more 100 pt seasons

Evgeni Malkin (106. 109, 113) - HFboards verdict - generational
Sidney Crosby (102, 120, 103, 109, 104, 100) HFboards verdict - generational
Alex Ovechkin (106, 112, 110, 109) HFboards verdict - generational
Connor McDavid (100, 108, 116) HFboards verdict - generational
Joe Thornton (101, 125, 114) HFboards verdict - hahahaaha he sucks. He's not even franchise.

 

[4thline]

Generational isn't a level at a certain trait. It's by being the clear best player of your generation. He's not ahead of Ovi or Crosby or Jagr of forwards he played against. Where he ranks next to Sakic and Yzerman is also highly debatable guys he played against for a few years. Great player, first ballot HHOF, will get his number retired in San Jose. But, not generational.

Playing devils advocate, (I don't really think he's generational) I wouldn't consider any of those guys to really be of his hockey "generation." The closest in age is 6 years younger, and came up in a completely different era of hockey. Thornton was a 26 year old in his prime with 4 point per game seasons by the time they entered the league.

Any argument for Thornton being generational would be based on two things
-how a hockey generation is "defined"- is it based on a player development band (3-4 years on either side of the player) or having clear separation for the majority of their career, regardless of other players relative age
-deciding if it only means being the "best" of that generation, or is there a higher threshhold

Of players born in 79 it's him and Hossa- -----------> everyone else. Then from 80-83 the only forward in that tier is Kovalchuk (arguable) and 75-78 you've got Datsyuk/ Iginla / St. Louis.

You good argue that he's the best of that group, which makes him the best forward in a 9 year span. I don't know if that's enough for the label, but it's a compelling argument

 

[SI90]

How does a player who wasn't generational for any year of his career become generational because he's decent at the end of his career?

The short answer is that said player just has to join the Maple Leafs and Thats what happens lol

 

[93LEAFS]

Playing devils advocate, (I don't really think he's generational) I wouldn't consider any of those guys to really be of his hockey "generation." The closest in age is 6 years younger, and came up in a completely different era of hockey. Thornton was a 26 year old in his prime with 4 point per game seasons by the time they entered the league.

Any argument for Thornton being generational would be based on two things
-how a hockey generation is "defined"- is it based on a player development band (3-4 years on either side of the player) or having clear separation for the majority of their career, regardless of other players relative age
-deciding if it only means being the "best" of that generation, or is there a higher threshhold

Of players born in 79 it's him and Hossa- -----------> everyone else. Then from 80-83 the only forward in that tier is Kovalchuk (arguable) and 75-78 you've got Datsyuk/ Iginla / St. Louis.

You good argue that he's the best of that group, which makes him the best forward in a 9 year span. I don't know if that's enough for the label, but it's a compelling argument

He simply didn't win enough hardware. One, he'd be the only generational talent to not lead his team to a cup in his prime, and two, he didn't dramatically separate himself awards-wise from his closest contemporaries, Martin St. Louis has a better hardware case and I'm not including Lady Byng's. Being generational should be blatantly obvious, and is generally reflected by dominating the Hart and Pearson/Lindsay race during their prime.

 

[illpucks]

How can you be "generational" when you were never, at any point in your career, considered a top-3 player in the league? Even in 06-07 (92 assists with Heater on the wing), no one thought he was better or more valuable than Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom or Hasek. I mean, even in at his peak, most people would still take Datsyuk over him.

???? Go back and see 05-06, and let it slowly sink in that he played on 2 different teams, so add up the point totals, and maybe you will notice something about that year.

 

[AvroArrow]

Elite franchise player for many many years. Not quite generational, just a tier below. Still going to be a 1st ballot HOFer, but no you can't put his name next to Gretzky/Lemieux/Jagr/Orr/Ovi/Sid. McDavid has been fantastic so far, if he keeps it up, he'll be the next guy on that list. Love Jumbo Joe, but he's not generational and there's really no shame in that.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Not saying he is or isn't generational (that term essentially has no meaning anymore), but it's interesting that people are willing to recognize Ovechkin as a "generational player" due to his level of goal-scoring, yet are unwilling to recognize a player as generational due to their level of playmaking.

 

[PavelBrendl]

92 assists is post lockout record. Serious generational playmaking there. Combined with a 56 goal Cheechoo Rocket win over a 123 pt- 54 goal Jagr, and a 52 goal Ovi. Those guys didn't do anything like that. I know they are amazing players Sakic and Yzerman but I mean not like that stat.

Teemu Selanne scored 76 goals in his rookie season. A record that will likely never be touched. Not once has anyone ever claimed that he was a generational player.

 

[Leaf Fans]

No it’s becasue he’s a leaf now. You new around here !? Lol

Most Leafs fans don't agree that he is generational.

 

[illpucks]

Teemu Selanne scored 76 goals in his rookie season. A record that will likely never be touched. Not once has anyone ever claimed that he was a generational player.

He did that once. Actually my post is incorrect. 96 assists is post lockout record. So Joe has 96 and 92 assist season. If that's not a generational performance I dunno what is.

 

[illpucks]

How does a player who wasn't generational for any year of his career become generational because he's decent at the end of his career?

This is a sarcastic post right? A bit worried if the 8 likes on the post are zoomers who actually believe this is true...

 

[DropTheGloves]

Not saying he is or isn't generational (that term essentially has no meaning anymore), but it's interesting that people are willing to recognize Ovechkin as a "generational player" due to his level of goal-scoring, yet are unwilling to recognize a player as generational due to their level of playmaking.

I’m going to guess it’s because one of those guys has led the league in “their” category nine times and the other three.