Who were our Generational players?

[crosbyshow]

.

Robinson is one the best left d ever to play in the NHL.

Robinson and all the list would be Generational players?

 

[MXD]

Larry Robinson is very clearly not the best left-handed shooting D-Men born between 1951 and 1953 in his area code, and thus isn't generationnal.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Larry Robinson is very clearly not the best left-handed shooting D-Men born between 1951 and 1953 in his area code, and thus isn't generationnal.

Great blueliner but I don't see how he's generational. You really have to separate yourself from the pack to be able to do that. Dennis Potvin and later on Paul Coffey were around.

Steve Yzerman for example came within a few goals of accomplishing the 6 x 50/100 that Lafleur did. But I wouldn't call him generational. Same with Joe Sakic. They are great, all time players who are among the best ever but I just don't put them in that class because there were better players out there.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Price had the talent and work ethic to be generational, but he fell short due to injuries. He's this a generational talent, but not a generational player.

On the other hand, Sidney Crosby suffered a comparable number of injuries, and still had a generational career.

I don't think his injuries were comparable. If they were, he'd be retired.

Totally agree on your assessment of Price. Generational talent but not generational career. He had all the tools to be among the absolute best players of all time but couldn't stay healthy. Best goalie of his generation but I don't think it's a wide enough margin to call him generational.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Doug Harvey
Guy Lafleur
Patrick Roy

Edit: adding Maurice Richard as well. Hart trophy, led the league in goals 5x, and first to 500 career goals, and first to score 50 in 50.

All are kind of borderline-ish for different reasons, but in each case, I lean more towards yes rather than no.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

This is very entertaining and corresponds to my memory of him. Yeah, you can say any goalie could have a nice highlight reel with random great saves, but he did this all the time, and I guarantee no goalie made saves like the ones you'll see here. Just insane levels of athleticism and creativity.



There actually haven't been that many players over time that are stand alone attractions game after game. Hasek was so fun to watch.

Hasek is the best to ever do it. It will be a long time before we see another one like him, perhaps never. He understood the object was to keep the puck out of the net at all costs and you don’t win anything for style points. He literally never gave up on the puck. He would throw a blocker, leg, head or something in the way. This level of creativity has never existed before or after him.

I doubt I’ll ever see another in my life time.

 

[Mrb1p]

Robinson is one the best left d ever to play in the NHL.

Yes but he was never the best at his position due to Potvin and Orr.

 

[lillypad33]

What we thought of being generational talent back then, may no longer hold merit if they played today. The league has expanded to 32 teams and players are paid millions. The Habs had exclusivity of drafting french Canadians in a league with six teams for some time, many franchises folded. You have more parity today than back then.

Please.. let's keep repeating the exclusive French Canadian myth.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Never seen any of these dudes ,dale weise is my Richard/Lafleur (sad)

 

[Habs Halifax]

Robinson is one the best left d ever to play in the NHL.

Robinson deserves to be in the conversation. Fringe generational IMO. His career +/- is well ahead of anybody else. A list that includes Orr, Bourque, Gretzky, etc. Yes, Robinson played on stacked teams but so did other stars on other teams. Robinson's impact on D was very impressive. A guy like this makes the coach look good.

How much was Robinson's +/- affected by the stacked team? Difficult to know. S Savard, Lafleur, Shut are also in the top 15. Buy yeah, the lead he has on the next guy is a massive gap and can't be ignored. His impact on D was Chara level.

 

[MXD]

Robinson deserves to be in the conversation. Fringe generational IMO. His career +/- is well ahead of anybody else. A list that includes Orr, Bourque, Gretzky, etc. Yes, Robinson played on stacked teams but so did other stars on other teams. Robinson's impact on D was very impressive. A guy like this makes the coach look good.

How much was Robinson's +/- affected by the stacked team? Difficult to know. S Savard, Lafleur, Shut are also in the top 15. Buy yeah, the lead he has on the next guy is a massive gap and can't be ignored. His impact on D was Chara level.

.... He's clearly the second best left-shooting D-Men born in his area code between 1951 and 1953, and the (first) best left-shooting D-Men is also arguably not generationnal (though I tend to see him as generationnal).

 

[HespelerGreenFlash]

What we thought of being generational talent back then, may no longer hold merit if they played today. The league has expanded to 32 teams and players are paid millions. The Habs had exclusivity of drafting french Canadians in a league with six teams for some time, many franchises folded. You have more parity today than back then.

No player of consequence ever was drafted because of the French rule. The C-form was instrumental to the Habs having little chance at the top draft age players.

 

[MXD]

What we thought of being generational talent back then, may no longer hold merit if they played today. The league has expanded to 32 teams and players are paid millions. The Habs had exclusivity of drafting french Canadians in a league with six teams for some time, many franchises folded. You have more parity today than back then.

That rule brought them only two players : Michel Plasse and Réjean Houle.

While Houle was a decent support player (and Plasse was pretty much a remplacement-level netminder), one can claim that this "rule" was probably more detrimental than anything else in the long run.

 

[schwang26]

Howie Morenz is widely regarded as the best player of the first half century.

Doug Harvey absolutely qualifies as a generational talent. He’s still widely regarded as the 2nd best blueliner ever behind Orr.

Those two along with Richard qualify. Richard in the 40s had absurd numbers and once owned the league’s all-time points and goals record. Howe overlaps most of his career but he’s still an insane player.

Beliveau I don’t think qualifies, Hull and Howe were better. Most hockey fans had Sawchuck ahead of Plante.

Dryden and Lafleur have supernatural resumes in the 70s. But Dryden gets underrated because of the teams he was on and Lafleur’s prime outside six years is underwhelming. Both were incredible talents. I don’t think most people would consider them generational but maybe borderline. Dryden has the craziest resume ever. Lafleur was the first six straight 50-100 point player. To this day only two others have done it.

On the flipside of Dryden, I find Roy gets overrated for his cups. People also seem to ignore the great teams he was on. Many regard him as the greatest goalie ever (I’m not part of that group) so maybe he qualifies.

Carey Price had the talent to be a generational player but injuries prevented him from proving it. To me, he’s our great lost talent. If he’d been able to get back to back Harts in 2016 his resume would be so much better. Plus who knows what would’ve happened in the playoffs with him.

So I’d say, Morenz, Richard, Harvey, Roy. Maybe Lafleur and Dryden depending on how you want to evaluate it.

I feel the opposite on Dryden and Roy. Look what Roy had to do in the playoffs (specifically on the Habs) to win 2 cups. Dryden had legendary teams in front of him, and if you look at his international play against the Soviets, he really didn’t look that great. No doubt Dryden was good, but I find him a bit overrated.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I feel the opposite on Dryden and Roy. Look what Roy had to do in the playoffs (specifically on the Habs) to win 2 cups.

Roy never won a cup on an underdog team. I can’t even remember him winning a series as an underdog. He was behind some of the best defensive teams we’ve ever had. Three Selke finalists, Two Norris winners, trapping system…

Ken Dryden had two massive upsets on his way to the cup in 71. Did it as a raw rookie walking in off the street. That was probably the biggest upset cup win of all time.

Yes, those Roy cups here were unexpected. But they were unexpected because everyone thought the Oilers would win in 86 and the Pens in 93. We didn’t face either one. At best we beat evenly ranked teams in both of those cup runs. We got extremely lucky. Roy never beat a powerhouse in his entire run with us. Price did it four times on bad teams.

Btw, when Dryden left we suddenly stopped winning cups. He was a huge part of those teams.

Dryden had legendary teams in front of him, and if you look at his international play against the Soviets, he really didn’t look that great. No doubt Dryden was good, but I find him a bit overrated.

Nobody would’ve had a good game against the Soviets. It was like playing a team from Mars. Something nobody had ever seen.

And Roy lost for Team Canada to the Czech Republic. A far inferior team to Canada. Price won gold and had to be near perfect to do it in some of those games. His team couldn’t seem to score.

 

[schwang26]

Roy never won a cup on an underdog team. I can’t even remember him winning a series as an underdog. He was behind some of the best defensive teams we’ve ever had. Three Selke finalists, Two Norris winners, trapping system…

Ken Dryden had two massive upsets on his way to the cup in 71. Did it as a raw rookie walking in off the street. That was probably the biggest upset cup win of all time.

Yes, those Roy cups here were unexpected. But they were unexpected because everyone thought the Oilers would win in 86 and the Pens in 93. We didn’t face either one. At best we beat evenly ranked teams in both of those cup runs. We got extremely lucky. Roy never beat a powerhouse in his entire run with us. Price did it four times on bad teams.

Btw, when Dryden left we suddenly stopped winning cups. He was a huge part of those teams.

Nobody would’ve had a good game against the Soviets. It was like playing a team from Mars. Something nobody had ever seen.

And Roy lost for Team Canada to the Czech Republic. A far inferior team to Canada. Price won gold and had to be near perfect to do it in some of those games. His team couldn’t seem to score.

The Habs were never seen as favourites in 86 or 93. (And I know, you didn’t call them favourites). True, not necessarily underdogs but Roy was pretty amazing in those cup runs.

 

[Andy]

Carey Price had the talent to be a generational player but injuries prevented him from proving it. To me, he’s our great lost talent. If he’d been able to get back to back Harts in 2016 his resume would be so much better. Plus who knows what would’ve happened in the playoffs with him.

The other thing that hurt Price is that the bar of recognition from non-Habs supporters in regards to habs players is very high when compared to other teams.

Price on any other club would have been easily recognized as a generational talent - at least in a far more general manner in the hockey world.

It also didn't help that he was so effective at his position that he made it look like he never was putting in much effort to stop pucks. He had such high hockey sense and an incredible ability to be square to the puck. Easily one of the most efficient goaltenders of all time. The lack of flash coincides in my opinion with the lack of recognition.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

The Habs were never seen as favourites in 86 or 93. (And I know, you didn’t call them favourites). True, not necessarily underdogs but Roy was pretty amazing in those cup runs.

You’re absolutely right that Roy was amazing in those runs. Deserved the Smythes for sure. Some of the best goaltending I’ve ever seen.

You’re also right we weren’t cup favourites but I already told you why. Have a look at the teams we beat on those cup runs. They were good but not great clubs. No Oilers, no Pens. We were as good or better than any of them. He didn’t have a single upset series win in either of those runs.

Ken Dryden did. Carey Price did.

That’s not to diminish Roy. I point it out more so because I don’t think Dryden gets his due. People write off his accomplishments by pointing to the teams he was on and then turn around and and talk about how Roy has these huge upsets on worse clubs. No he didn’t. His teams were much better than people remember and the path to victory was a lot easier. I don’t remember Roy ever beating a favourite in an upset series win.

 

[Beige Van]

Post expansion, Lafleur is probably the closest. Absolutely dominant for 6 seasons. If only he had not smoked and took his health more seriously, he could have been generational. But alas, his peak was a tad short to qualify.

Lafleur is our only drafted player to eclipse 100 points in a season (6 times). Shutt and Naslund did it once apiece. Leclair came very close a couple of times in Philly, and Richer cracked 90 once. Let's hope Demidov can be the next one.

Edit: should say Lafleur is the only player to eclipse 100 points multiple times.

 

[The Last Red]

Post expansion, Lafleur is probably the closest. Absolutely dominant for 6 seasons. If only he had not smoked and took his health more seriously, he could have been generational. But alas, his peak was a tad short to qualify.

Lafleur is our only drafted player to eclipse 100 points in a season (6 times). Shutt and Naslund did it once apiece. Leclair came very close a couple of times in Philly, and Richer cracked 90 once. Let's hope Demidov can be the next one.

Edit: should say Lafleur is the only player to eclipse 100 points multiple times.

If Lafleur wasn’t generational due to a shorter career peak, neither was Bobby Orr, but of course Orr was. So was Guy. He was 100 percent a generational talent/player.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

If Lafleur wasn’t generational due to a shorter career peak, neither was Bobby Orr, but of course Orr was. So was Guy. He was 100 percent a generational talent/player.

I don’t have any issue with Lafleur being called generational. He was the Connor McDavid of his day. 6x 50 and 100 is no joke.

 

[The Last Red]

I don’t have any issue with Lafleur being called generational. He was the Connor McDavid of his day. 6x 50 and 100 is no joke.

You better not given your username here.

 

[TRG]

This is very entertaining and corresponds to my memory of him. Yeah, you can say any goalie could have a nice highlight reel with random great saves, but he did this all the time, and I guarantee no goalie made saves like the ones you'll see here. Just insane levels of athleticism and creativity.



There actually haven't been that many players over time that are stand alone attractions game after game. Hasek was so fun to watch.

For me, without a doubt, the GOAT goalie.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You better not given your username here.

Growing up I knew he was the best player in the world. But I was too young to really care. By the time I really started getting into hockey he was older and Lemaire pulled his shenanigans. He was my favourite player but I didn’t really get to see him at his best.

All that being said, he was the fastest player in the league and didn’t just put up points - he put up goals. I think he qualifies. Six years is a long stretch of dominance. Just a shame he couldn’t keep going long after.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

For me, without a doubt, the GOAT goalie.

I hated Hasek. Still not a fan.

But I have to agree.