A Generational Talent ( Discussion )

[Tre Mac]

On 10/13/2019 at 3:00 PM, Strombone said:

If generational is directly correlated with the impact they have on the game. Then the Bure, Sedins and Luongo are generational.

 

Bure: Literally changed the speed of the game. He was so fast that the game had tried to catch up to him. But it never did, his knees just gave out on him. 

 

Sedins: They basically invented the newer more creative cycle game in which all other teams in the league started to mimic. Similar to how Steve Nash reinvented the pick and roll for the NBA. 

 

Luongo: They changed the size of goalie equipment right when Lu was on top of the league. They also tried to change the size of the net because of him. But Luongo said he would retire if they did, so they didn't.

 

On 10/13/2019 at 6:04 PM, 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...

 

Oh #$%^ no lol.  

 

Yeah go watch game seven in the '94 finals and tell me Bure was generational, hint his knees were fines.  He was end to end quick and that's it. 

 

Lol Nash re-invented the pick and roll, man what bubble do you live in?

 

This thread is a joke.

[Snapshot85]

27 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

 

 

Oh #$%^ no lol.  

 

Yeah go watch game seven in the '94 finals and tell me Bure was generational, hint his knees were fines.  He was end to end quick and that's it. 

 

Lol Nash re-invented the pick and roll, man what bubble do you live in?

 

This thread is a joke.

No I believe if you read my original statement it was that there's 2 generational players.... orr and Gretzky

... everyone else is just real good. 

 

I do agree maybe crosby for this era.... that's about it.

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

 

 

Oh #$%^ no lol.  

 

Yeah go watch game seven in the '94 finals and tell me Bure was generational, hint his knees were fines.  He was end to end quick and that's it. 

 

Lol Nash re-invented the pick and roll, man what bubble do you live in?

 

This thread is a joke.

I watched every game Bure played and you are commenting on one game?  What about game 6?  Did you watch that game?  Cherry picking a game or two isn't gonna work. 

 

I don't live in a bubble.  I watched both players their entire careers.  Fedorov played with Yzerman as a one two punch and Lidstrom at the back.  Bure played with Greg Adams and Cliff Ronning and still managed to get 50 goals 5 times and would have hit it 8-9 times without the knee injuries.  He could do what others couldn't including Fedorov.  Fedorov was a great player in his own right, would have loved him and Bure to have played together.  But it wasn't meant to be.  But to state that Bure was simply an end to end player is a joke.  Players don't get into the Hall of Fame after only playing 700 games if they are simply end to end players.  

[IBatch]

On 10/13/2019 at 6:52 PM, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Rocket Richard beating up Sean Avery lol:

 

 

Now that’s generational talent.  

 

Gretzky then Orr then the rest. 

 

Shore. Richard, Sawchuck,  Howe. Beliveau.  Hull.  Coffey.  Roy.  Lemuiex.  Hasek.   These guys id call generational. 

 

A step down Harvey, Dionne, Esposito,Lafleur,  Potvin, Bossy, Borque, Broduer, Hull and a few others

 

A step down the garden variety HHOFers

 

Crosby and Ovechkin definitely will make one of these lists.    McDavid looks like the real deal to me too.  So far he’s having a season for the ages (it’s not sustainable but still he’s looking like what a Hart player really is, a guy they can win games all by himself practically). 

[TheRealistOptimist]

@Snapshot85 I think it all comes down to your definition of "generational talent" and how you choose to implement it. 

@Toews is right the term "gerational talent' is used more now as a way to describe someones potential talent and how they could perform in the league. Not all players with 'generational talent" turn into "generational player" and players drafted outside of #1 overall can become "generational players".

 

For me personally I don't think this means that there can only be 1 "generational talent" every 20-30 years. To me I think if you are considered one of the best at your position (F, D, G) for 10-15 years. I think that means you were a "generational player". 

Therefore to me there can be multiple "generational players" at one time. For instance Crosby and Ovechkin are both "generational players". 

Lemieux and Gretzky are both "generational players", you could even probably put Jagr in there as well.

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by TheRealistOptimist
spelling correction

[Dr. Crossbar]

On 10/13/2019 at 9:46 PM, janisahockeynut said:

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.

A lot of what you say is pretty much where I sit on this as well. Also your list of Richard, Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Hasek, and Lemiuex is spot on imo.

 

What really resonates with me is what you say about not seeing any other players that compare, some very close though. I have to agree with you on this. We've certainly seen a lot of superstars and elite players, even dominant elite superstars, but none have really compared to Howe, Orr, or Gretzky on a revolutionary scale. 

 

Ever since Gretzky (and Lemieux), fans and the media have tried to annoint the next great one in the same way but it has never felt truly accurate.

 

And I really remember that push with Lindros who was being shoehorned as the next one but he was nowhere near Gretzky or Lemieux. To me that's really where a lot of this began.

 

Ever since Lindros was hailed as the next one, there's been what seems to be an ongoing expectation AND an assumption that every era has a similarly skilled "generational talent". 

 

To me those expectations, labels, and assumptions have only served to widen the goal posts so more players fit into the term "generational talent". Much the same way in which people so loosely use the term "genius" online today. More than anything, I think the term "generational talent" has been redefined to be more inclusive when in reality it's a very small and exclusive group.

 

Just look online today to see how frequently the word "genius" is used. Everyone's a genius... lol.