A Generational Talent ( Discussion )

[Westcoasting]

8 hours ago, Snapshot85 said:

I would like to start off with a disclaimer: I hate Gretzky I think Lemiuex was much better.ok now with my personal beliefs out of the way let's talk about what it is to be a generational talent.

 

I have been hearing "Generational Talent" to describe picks.... it's like the new buzz word... last guy it floated around was Rasmus Dahlin, before that Connor McDavid.

 

It got me thinking about defining it.... it seems like a very interesting way to describe the rarity of the caliber of player.

 

To me a generation is about 20-30 years... that's how long it will take for your newborn son to have kids of his own.

 

So surely in the course of the nhl there can be very few..

 

We have heard the names, Dahlin, Mcdavid, Crosby, Hasak, Jagar, Lemieux....

 

But are these players truly generational....?

I think there all really good players... exceptional.... top 0.1% ... but generational I dont think so.

 

Only 2 I believe have been generational

Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky.... 

I would consider them generational...because of thier impact on the game. They literally changed how the game was played... and are about 20-30 years apart. Bobby Orr redefined what a defenseman was.... you could be a offensive weapon and play defense... it was a giant change in the way the game was thought... Lindstrom, Dahlin, Hughes all of those potent offensive weapons have bobby to thank.

 

Then there's Wayne... stats dont lie... he has almost every Important record. He literally changed the game...he was so dominant the nhl had to create new rules just to slow him down.. lol.. now that's a talent. I have yet to see crosby or Mcdavid do that.

 

In Short

.. I think were still waiting for that next generational talent that will turn the league upside down and change it.

 

What do you think?

Cheers

 

 

How about not even 10 years apart...

[Westcoasting]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Fedorov for all his talent couldn't do what Bure did.  Fedorov was healthy most of his career.  Bure had 2 major knee surgeries and had to retire at 32.  Fedorov also played on a stacked Detroit team with several hall of famers.  Bure played with Linden and Greg Adams and then in Florida with a no name team.  Big difference. 

 

Like I said Bure without the knee injuries would have been in the same class as Jagr...

And without the attitude, Jagr loved the game, loved the fans, loved his teammates, loved to just play hockey.

[Snapshot85]

28 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

How about not even 10 years apart...

Ok I'll bite ... 13 years sorry.... Orr rooki year was 66 Gretzky 79. But you get my drift

[RowdyCanuck]

9 hours ago, Snapshot85 said:

I would like to start off with a disclaimer: I hate Gretzky I think Lemiuex was much better.ok now with my personal beliefs out of the way let's talk about what it is to be a generational talent.

 

I have been hearing "Generational Talent" to describe picks.... it's like the new buzz word... last guy it floated around was Rasmus Dahlin, before that Connor McDavid.

 

It got me thinking about defining it.... it seems like a very interesting way to describe the rarity of the caliber of player.

 

To me a generation is about 20-30 years... that's how long it will take for your newborn son to have kids of his own.

 

So surely in the course of the nhl there can be very few..

 

We have heard the names, Dahlin, Mcdavid, Crosby, Hasak, Jagar, Lemieux....

 

But are these players truly generational....?

I think there all really good players... exceptional.... top 0.1% ... but generational I dont think so.

 

Only 2 I believe have been generational

Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky.... 

I would consider them generational...because of thier impact on the game. They literally changed how the game was played... and are about 20-30 years apart. Bobby Orr redefined what a defenseman was.... you could be a offensive weapon and play defense... it was a giant change in the way the game was thought... Lindstrom, Dahlin, Hughes all of those potent offensive weapons have bobby to thank.

 

Then there's Wayne... stats dont lie... he has almost every Important record. He literally changed the game...he was so dominant the nhl had to create new rules just to slow him down.. lol.. now that's a talent. I have yet to see crosby or Mcdavid do that.

 

In Short

.. I think were still waiting for that next generational talent that will turn the league upside down and change it.

 

What do you think?

Cheers

 

 

Start with I agree , I hate gretz too lol

the problem with using generation is where do you put Scott Stevens? He changed the game also....

or Cam Neeley? Or Chris pronger ? 

It's such an over used word now Adays.....

i think maybe has skill for days and his game reminds me of Bure...the rest of those generational players all won cups and earned their weight in gold in the playoffs and mcdavid hasn't proved anything yet..

 

 

 

[Westcoasting]

37 minutes ago, Snapshot85 said:

Ok I'll bite ... 13 years sorry.... Orr rooki year was 66 Gretzky 79. But you get my drift

Ok i was thinking i was watching Orr from about 71 to 76 or 77, then Gretz from 1980ish.

[The Great 8]

On a side note I think the best hockey player ever is Connor Mcdavid. I know Gretzky had an insane number of points. If Mcdavid were to play back then he would obliterate all those records. As for generational. Mcdavid, Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr are the only ones in my opinion.

[J.I.A.H.N]

Well, I have been watching the NHL since 1965

In those years, I had the pleasure to watch some incredible hockey players

 

My list of Generational hockey players during that time, is very short...……...M. Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Hasek and Mario Lemieux

 

All of these players, could in any given game, dominate it to the extent, that every shift they played was dangerous, and there were multiple chances every shift

When Gretzky and Lemieux, played against each other, it was incredible, play after play. Neither played on teams I liked, but both were obviously special, even amongst

the other stars, they were stars.

 

Hasek, had a GAA and Save percentage, that was not human, year after year, for 15 of them....his GAA was 2.20 and his Save% was approx. ,925. But to put that in better perspective, he played in an era, where goal scoring was rampant.

 

All of these players changed the game in some way, or were so much better than the next guy, that they just stood out, consistently, year in, year out. Over their whole career..

 

I have not honestly seen any other players that compare, some very close.....Jagr, Bure, Brodeur, Roy, Crosby, all very good, all set themselves apart from their piers, but I never felt they reached that level, consistently, game in game out, for their whole careers.....

 

Now, you may ask why Hasek, and not Roy or Brodeur, but they both played on very good teams, where Hasek played on crap teams, by and large. And neither Roy or Brodeur had as good of stats throughout their careers, again, even when playing on better teams.

 

Maurice Richard, I can not remember seeing play, but he is regarded as elite, by all hockey experts...……...I will not argue that one!

 

Sorry, but all the other players, including the recent ones, do not dominate, shift to shift, nor game to game, nor year to year. Personally, I hope to see more players of a Generational skill, and quite possibly it could be McDavid or Dahlen, but honestly, McDavid blends into the crowd of other superstars, and yes he is amazing. Dahlen, sure maybe, but ask me in 10 yes.

[J.I.A.H.N]

8 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

I think you have to take a lot into consideration as the game changes.

 

Guys back then were well protected....had enforcers to allow them to do what they did.  The Semenkos and Ginos.  As well, the goaltenders were very "small" in comparison to today's walls of pads that let little light in.

 

I don't think we can compare based on things having evolved so much.  Who knows what Petey could do if he had a legit bodyguard who the refs let do the job?  

 

I think these guys are game changers for sure...the Crosby's, the OV's, the McDavid's.   It's hard to determine how good they could be if they could utilize their talent using the standards of yesterday's game.

 

I think they're all great.

I agree/I disagree

 

The guys you mentioned are incredible, and its a good question

 

But, the new sticks, superior skates and lighter and more supple gear, has made a huge impact, Deb,

The new sticks, have created huge gains in velocity...like 10% in general (at least). The gear also dries, so quickly now, where it would still be wet, in back to back games, even just 30 years ago.

 

I would also say training, nutrition, travel, sleep, all have a play in general performance. Even coaching systems have improved (which is good and bad)

 

But, I think the difference is consistency...…...take Crosby, who is generally regarded as generational, by the new/younger fan. He is very good, and IMO, was the best in the league, at one time...no argument there...……….the difference is, there are many players today, that have caught him or are better now. It is not that he is not good, today, but there are better today. No one can really say that about generational players.

 

The Orr's and Gretzky's, that I mentioned, were the best year to year, their whole career...……..start to finish, basically.

Gordie Howe played 34 years of professional hockey, and was 52 when he quit...…...I seen him in about 1975, and he was still good.

 

I am sure you have a different opinion, being a young woman and all...….but for us old guys, that is probably a general feeling about who is generational

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

[GhostsOf1994]

Gretz

Lemieux 

Lidstrom

Crosby 

Ovechkin 

Mcdavid

All "Generational" talents

 

Eichel, toews, kane, matthews, panarin, marner etc are all franchise players.

 

 

[Kosmo Kramer]

7 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

The term is thrown around a ton, but imo a "generational player" is just that. The type of player that only typically comes around once a generation. McDavid is that. Crosby was that. Can't think of any others in recent times that I would call "generational".

McDavid and Crosby are part of the same Generation, which one is the generational player?

 

I guess we would have to wait till both retire.

 

It's also hard because where do you decide the year cut offs for that generation? When does one end and the next one start.

 

6 hours ago, logic said:

A generation is 10-15 years imo 

2006-2017 the Crosby/OV post lockout generation

2017-??? McDavid generation,

OP is right, a generation is considered 30 years. The time it takes for your newborn to grow up and have their own kids.  Some 20 year olds have kids sure but if you google it, a generation is 30 years.

 

 

My opinion on the term generational is there would only be one per generation.

That said where are the cut offs?  

If the league was formed in 1917

Are the generations

1917-1947 Howe? Rookie year

1948-1978 Orr? 

1979-2009 Gretzky? 

2010-2040 McDavid?

 

I dislike the term generational because it is tossed around and under values the term elite, truly elite.

You could have dozens of truly elite players but one generational player. 

 

I would rank players as Below Average, Average, Good, Very Good, Elite, Generational.

[BrockBoester]

8 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

The term is thrown around a ton, but imo a "generational player" is just that. The type of player that only typically comes around once a generation. McDavid is that. Crosby was that. Can't think of any others in recent times that I would call "generational".

[Toews]

The problem with this thread is that "generational talent" is a pure draft hype term while the OP is trying to apply to it all time greats who don't really need any monikers. Nick Lidstrom IMO is an top 5 defenseman all time but he didn't really get that generational talent hype because he was a player taken in the 2nd round. To get "generational" hype you have to be a clear standout performer at ~ age 16 and not show any visible flaws that could affect transition to the NHL. Patrick Kane didn't get nearly as much "generational" hype because he was 5'10. The same with John Tavares who put up amazing goal totals as a teenager but his generational talent hype was limited due to his skating being viewed as a visible flaw. Stamkos also got a fair bit of that hype as scouts thought he would score 40-50 goals as a center, that is a rare talent in the NHL and he has lived up to it. In recent years McDavid, Eichel, Matthews and Dahlin have all got varying levels of "generational" hype.

 

The flaw in the application of this term is that there is rarely ever one standout "generational" performer in the NHL. If you are going to call Crosby generational then what does that make Ovechkin or Malkin who I would say seem deserving of that moniker as well. The term implies a player is "once in a generation" when there are multiple great players in a generation, even Gretzky had a challenger in Lemieux. I would prefer we dump the term but it will be back with a vengeance as soon as another McDavid pops up somewhere in the world.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Toews

[Silky mitts]

25 minutes ago, Toews said:

The problem with this thread is that "generational talent" is a pure draft hype term while the OP is trying to apply to it all time greats who don't really need any monikers. Nick Lidstrom IMO is an top 5 defenseman all time but he didn't really get that generational talent hype because he was a player taken in the 2nd round. To get "generational" hype you have to be a clear standout performer at ~ age 16 and not show any visible flaws that could affect transition to the NHL. Patrick Kane didn't get nearly as much "generational" hype because he was 5'10. The same with John Tavares who put up amazing goal totals as a teenager but his generational talent hype was limited due to his skating being viewed as a visible flaw. Stamkos also got a fair bit of that hype as scouts thought he would score 40-50 goals as a center, that is a rare talent in the NHL and he has lived up to it. In recent years McDavid, Eichel, Matthews and Dahlin have all got varying levels of "generational" hype.

 

The flaw in the application of this term is that there is rarely ever one standout "generational" performer in the NHL. If you are going to call Crosby generational then what does that make Ovechkin or Malkin who I would say seem deserving of that moniker as well. The term implies a player is "once in a generation" when there are multiple great players in a generation, even Gretzky had a challenger in Lemieux. I would prefer we dump the term but it will be back with a vengeance as soon as another McDavid pops up somewhere in the world.

Crosby and ovi are definitely generational talents. Malkin is very very good but not generational.

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

Crosby and ovi are definitely generational talents. Malkin is very very good but not generational.

I am going to have to disagree and I think this just highlights the subjectivity of the criteria. To me its the Cup runs that sway me (07/08, 08/09,15/16, 16/17) Malkin has near identical stats and more goals than Crosby. A healthy and on top of his game Malkin has contributed just as much to winning as Crosby, and that includes the incredible 14 goals and 22 assists in 24 games in the Pens first Cup win. Winning your first Cup takes a lot of the pressure off your back, Malkin was an absolute beast that year and deserved the Smythe. Crosby clearly has had the best career out of the three, and that includes international hockey. I would put OV second but I really don't think Malkin is too far behind. Malkin has a better post-season resume than Ovechkin as well.

[48MPHSlapShot]

7 hours ago, Kosmo Kramer said:

McDavid and Crosby are part of the same Generation, which one is the generational player?

 

I guess we would have to wait till both retire.

 

It's also hard because where do you decide the year cut offs for that generation? When does one end and the next one start.

I think you're putting too hard a line on it. Furthermore, I think what quantifies as a "generation" in hockey is very different from is considered a "generation" in every day life. 

[elvis15]

On 10/13/2019 at 12:02 PM, Snapshot85 said:

...

What do you think?

Cheers

I think it's semantics. Everyone has their wrinkle on the definition, and the discussion is less about the players and more about the definition.

[RowdyCanuck]

20 hours ago, Kosmo Kramer said:

McDavid and Crosby are part of the same Generation, which one is the generational player?

 

I guess we would have to wait till both retire.

 

It's also hard because where do you decide the year cut offs for that generation? When does one end and the next one start.

 

OP is right, a generation is considered 30 years. The time it takes for your newborn to grow up and have their own kids.  Some 20 year olds have kids sure but if you google it, a generation is 30 years.

 

 

My opinion on the term generational is there would only be one per generation.

That said where are the cut offs?  

If the league was formed in 1917

Are the generations

1917-1947 Howe? Rookie year

1948-1978 Orr? 

1979-2009 Gretzky? 

2010-2040 McDavid?

 

I dislike the term generational because it is tossed around and under values the term elite, truly elite.

You could have dozens of truly elite players but one generational player. 

 

I would rank players as Below Average, Average, Good, Very Good, Elite, Generational.

Well generational players make their legends in the playoffs.....mcdavid hasn't done much there ha 

also if you look at the greats , they made their whole teams better, also didn't matter who you put beside them, kinda like Crosby.....

mcdavid is great but I would take Stevie Y before him and Stevie was not considered generation but was elite....

I hate to say this but Crosby is probably the closest thing we will see to a generation player....

 

i think  mcdavid will go down the same way bure did....injuries will haunt him...

also with mcdavids speed and the way he plays almost would suit the wing better or get mcdavid to buy in like Stevie Y did back in the day and be a 200ft beast. 

 

Also you only mentioned skilled players.....what about the cam neeleys or proberts? Neeley changed the game and in my books probably the best pwfs to play the game......

Or the D man like Stevens and pronger cause we will probably never see guys like them again....

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Well generational players make their legends in the playoffs.....mcdavid hasn't done much there ha 

also if you look at the greats , they made their whole teams better, also didn't matter who you put beside them, kinda like Crosby.....

mcdavid is great but I would take Stevie Y before him and Stevie was not considered generation but was elite....

I hate to say this but Crosby is probably the closest thing we will see to a generation player....

 

i think  mcdavid will go down the same way bure did....injuries will haunt him...

also with mcdavids speed and the way he plays almost would suit the wing better or get mcdavid to buy in like Stevie Y did back in the day and be a 200ft beast. 

 

Also you only mentioned skilled players.....what about the cam neeleys or proberts? Neeley changed the game and in my books probably the best pwfs to play the game......

Or the D man like Stevens and Pronger cause we will probably never see guys like them again....

 

Good points...….but to reply to your last sentence...………….

 

The answer is, because they would be in jail in todays game!

 

LOL

[Kosmo Kramer]

3 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Well generational players make their legends in the playoffs.....mcdavid hasn't done much there ha 

also if you look at the greats , they made their whole teams better, also didn't matter who you put beside them, kinda like Crosby.....

mcdavid is great but I would take Stevie Y before him and Stevie was not considered generation but was elite....

I hate to say this but Crosby is probably the closest thing we will see to a generation player....

 

i think  mcdavid will go down the same way bure did....injuries will haunt him...

also with mcdavids speed and the way he plays almost would suit the wing better or get mcdavid to buy in like Stevie Y did back in the day and be a 200ft beast. 

 

Also you only mentioned skilled players.....what about the cam neeleys or proberts? Neeley changed the game and in my books probably the best pwfs to play the game......

Or the D man like Stevens and pronger cause we will probably never see guys like them again....

 

I wasn't very clear, the names I mentioned weren't my picks of generational players, which is why I put question marks beside them all. It was more about what other people's opinions of who it should be for each era I listed.

 

I couldn't pick generational players, I dont have a deep enough knowledge of the league as a whole.

 

I only started watching during the WCE and only seriously follow the Canucks. 

I could name the best players on each team typically but I couldn't tell you much more than that.