"Generational" players

[KACaribou]

Can't or can? I think you meant can transform a team.

A Generational talent is the only player who can fully transform a team in the NHL. Even still, the best player in the world only has one Stanley Cup and that's playing with another top 5 player in the world in Malkin, on top of a really good top 2 D guy in Letang.

That shows how tough the NHL really is.

Bennett will need a good supporting cast in the NHL to help us get to the Promise Land. Hope he can find players he can mesh with.

I think the term "generational talent" is used loosely these days. Sidney Crosby is better than everyone but he isn't lapping everyone in the scoring race like a Gretzky or Lemieux, or winning the scoring race as a D like Bobby Orr. Those guys were way, way better than everyone else they played against. Crosby is a little better. He is no generational talent. Nor will be Bennett. McDavid however has a chance, but certainly no guarantee.

[The_People1]

I think the term "generational talent" is used loosely these days. Sidney Crosby is better than everyone but he isn't lapping everyone in the scoring race like a Gretzky or Lemieux, or winning the scoring race as a D like Bobby Orr. Those guys were way, way better than everyone else they played against. Crosby is a little better. He is no generational talent. Nor will be Bennett. McDavid however has a chance, but certainly no guarantee.

 

Crosby is the best player the league has seen 10 years prior to him and he's been the best player 10 years after he entered the league.  That makes him the best player in his generation, thus "generational player".  It's not a term used loosely.  No one said Crosby is the "best of all time" because that's an entirely different classificiation.  Generational players don't even have to win Cups.  They just have to be the best player in his generation.

[cccsberg]

Crosby is the best player the league has seen 10 years prior to him and he's been the best player 10 years after he entered the league. That makes him the best player in his generation, thus "generational player". It's not a term used loosely. No one said Crosby is the "best of all time" because that's an entirely different classificiation. Generational players don't even have to win Cups. They just have to be the best player in his generation.

Crosby is not even the best player today and certainly not generational.

[JTech780]

Crosby is not even the best player today and certainly not generational.

Crosby has the 5th highest PPG of all time. To say he isn't a generational player is silly.

[KACaribou]

You're right not every generation has players exceptionally better than everyone, the 60s-70s did (Orr), the 80s did (Gretzky), the late 80s - early 90s did (Lemieux). I would say Crosby is kind of like a Guy Lafleur, better than everyone else but not twice as good like the players I just listed. It doesn't mean he isn't extremely talented or someone that only comes along once a generation. Dionne was just as good as Lafleur. Kane, Tavaras, Stamkos, Ovechkin... all very close to Crosby in talent.

[s4xon]

Bennett is far from generational, but I don't believe McDavid holds the label either.  This day in age, it's hard to have anyone labeled under such a term.  Crosby is the best in the world, but there are other players that surpass him in points, or are able to shut him down from time to time / year to year.

 

McDavid is a stud.  No question to that, but looking at potential of players like Bennett vs McDavid, its a lot closer than most would think.  The gap that separates their skill level isn't that far apart.  I still hold McDavid in higher esteem, partly due to hype, other partly due to his sheer brilliance of play. 

 

Generational is a loosly applied term that's thrown around too much these days.

[kehatch]

Bennett is far from generational, but I don't believe McDavid holds the label either.  This day in age, it's hard to have anyone labeled under such a term.  Crosby is the best in the world, but there are other players that surpass him in points, or are able to shut him down from time to time / year to year.

 

McDavid is a stud.  No question to that, but looking at potential of players like Bennett vs McDavid, its a lot closer than most would think.  The gap that separates their skill level isn't that far apart.  I still hold McDavid in higher esteem, partly due to hype, other partly due to his sheer brilliance of play. 

 

Generational is a loosly applied term that's thrown around too much these days.

 

Agreed.  Who are the top Cs in the world?  I would list the top 10 as:

1. Crosby (1)
2. Toews (3)
3. Stamkos (1)
4. Malkin (2)
5. Tavares (1)
6. Bergeron (45)
7. Getzlaf (19)
8. Kopitar (11)
9. Giroux (22)
10. Datsyuk (171)

I don't think there is that big of difference between first and eighth, and number 10 was one of the best in his younger years and number nine is still really young.  Most of these guys have cups while some have multiple cups so clearly they are good enough to be the top centre on a cup team.  (Personally, if I was building an actual team - aka not a hockey pool - I would take Toews before Crosby).  

 

I think that McDavid will probably fall on a top 10 list at some point (a day not far off). I am less certain that Bennett or Monahan will (though they could certainly end up there).  But I don't think it is a give in that McDavid is the best guy on that list or that he ends up ahead of Bennett/Monahan when all is said and done.  

[KACaribou]

Bennett is far from generational, but I don't believe McDavid holds the label either.  This day in age, it's hard to have anyone labeled under such a term.  Crosby is the best in the world, but there are other players that surpass him in points, or are able to shut him down from time to time / year to year.

 

McDavid is a stud.  No question to that, but looking at potential of players like Bennett vs McDavid, its a lot closer than most would think.  The gap that separates their skill level isn't that far apart.  I still hold McDavid in higher esteem, partly due to hype, other partly due to his sheer brilliance of play. 

 

Generational is a loosly applied term that's thrown around too much these days.

I think McDavid at his age, and Bennett at his age, both have a chance to be generational. But not like a Bobby Orr, Gretzky, or Lemiex. Every generation has dominant players, whether the league leading scorer has 90 points or over 200. But the key is how much better they are to their peers. Gretzky was almost lapping the second leading scorer in the league some years. Bobby Orr was scoring twice as many points as the second best D-men in the league when he played. Crosby is a little better than his peers. If someone calls that generational, well it's true but not nearly as impressive or dominant. Agree with S4xon.

[kehatch]

I think McDavid at his age, and Bennett at his age, both have a chance to be generational. But not like a Bobby Orr, Gretzky, or Lemiex. Every generation has dominant players, whether the league leading scorer has 90 points or over 200. But the key is how much better they are to their peers. Gretzky was almost lapping the second leading scorer in the league some years. Bobby Orr was scoring twice as many points as the second best D-men in the league when he played. Crosby is a little better than his peers. If someone calls that generational, well it's true but not nearly as impressive or dominant. Agree with S4xon.

 

You won't ever get that level of dominance today.  Players are too well trained.  The scouts are too good.  There is too much parity. being one of the best in a generation of players is pretty special.  Expecting them to double up everyone else in points is unrealistic today.   

[KACaribou]

You won't ever get that level of dominance today.  Players are too well trained.  The scouts are too good.  There is too much parity. being one of the best in a generation of players is pretty special.  Expecting them to double up everyone else in points is unrealistic today.   

Disagree completely. You are thinking it is a common thing because it happened a few times in hockey. It isn't. It doesn't matter the training, these players are physical freaks. Like a Federer. Like a Jordan. Others train just as hard, sometimes harder, they just weren't born with the gift. There will be another freak in hockey. Give it time.

[DirtyDeeds]

Bennett is far from generational, but I don't believe McDavid holds the label either.  This day in age, it's hard to have anyone labeled under such a term.  Crosby is the best in the world, but there are other players that surpass him in points, or are able to shut him down from time to time / year to year.

 

McDavid is a stud.  No question to that, but looking at potential of players like Bennett vs McDavid, its a lot closer than most would think.  The gap that separates their skill level isn't that far apart.  I still hold McDavid in higher esteem, partly due to hype, other partly due to his sheer brilliance of play. 

 

Generational is a loosly applied term that's thrown around too much these days.

I feel the same way about the term Diva.

 

It used to be only less than a handful of singers could be called  a diva and now everybody and their dog is called that. WWE gals all called Divas.... water the terms down until it means next to nothing.

[kehatch]

Disagree completely. You are thinking it is a common thing because it happened a few times in hockey. It isn't. It doesn't matter the training, these players are physical freaks. Like a Federer. Like a Jordan. Others train just as hard, sometimes harder, they just weren't born with the gift. There will be another freak in hockey. Give it time.

Crosby is the freak in hockey.

[tmac70]

Until either play in the big league, one should not assume anything. I agree that McDavid is good, generational, possibly. Bennett we got the best forward in the draft hands down, how good will he be, unknown, generational,possibly. 

 

McDavid in Buff I agree he could be generational as he will have a boat load of talent around him, EDM he has a boat load of mis fits, he will be average inside of 2 years. TO wins the draft is he going to handle the pressure of carrying the Leafs.

[The_People1]

When Gretzky was in his prime, Mario Lemieux was basically his equal.  The separation between Gretzky and Lemieux wasn't much, if at all.  I would say as much as 40% of hockey experts at the time would pick Lemieux over Gretzky if they had to choose one on their team.  During one stretch, Lemieux was averaging a higher points-per-game than Gretzky.  So does that make Gretzky non-generational because he wasn't clearly the best during his time?

 

I would say Gretzky is generational.

 

Crosby is the best Center in the NHL and has been for the last 8 years+.  Even though the gap between himself and the next best player is not big, neither was Gretzky's gap between himself and Lemiuex.  Don't forget Yzerman and Messier either.  The gap doesn't have to be big.  You just have to be one of those special players that comes along once in a generation.

[s4xon]

When Gretzky was in his prime, Mario Lemieux was basically his equal.  The separation between Gretzky and Lemieux wasn't much, if at all.  I would say as much as 40% of hockey experts at the time would pick Lemieux over Gretzky if they had to choose one on their team.  During one stretch, Lemieux was averaging a higher points-per-game than Gretzky.  So does that make Gretzky non-generational because he wasn't clearly the best during his time?

 

I would say Gretzky is generational.

 

Crosby is the best Center in the NHL and has been for the last 8 years+.  Even though the gap between himself and the next best player is not big, neither was Gretzky's gap between himself and Lemiuex.  Don't forget Yzerman and Messier either.  The gap doesn't have to be big.  You just have to be one of those special players that comes along once in a generation.

 

I would say that Gretzky and Lemieux were both generational.  The fact that they resided within the same generation is irrelevant.  Look at their totals, and then the rest of the league at the time.  It was a runaway freight train.  I've also personally always considered Lemieux to be the most complete and better of the two. 

 

When a franchise plans one of the most controverisal tank seasons in NHL history over one player at the draft, then you know he was a generational talent.  They were the team to spark the 'Tank' trend going forward.  The Oilers fell into Gretzky by pure luck.

[Zirakzigil]

When Gretzky was in his prime, Mario Lemieux was basically his equal.  The separation between Gretzky and Lemieux wasn't much, if at all.  I would say as much as 40% of hockey experts at the time would pick Lemieux over Gretzky if they had to choose one on their team.  During one stretch, Lemieux was averaging a higher points-per-game than Gretzky.  So does that make Gretzky non-generational because he wasn't clearly the best during his time?

 

I would say Gretzky is generational.

 

Crosby is the best Center in the NHL and has been for the last 8 years+.  Even though the gap between himself and the next best player is not big, neither was Gretzky's gap between himself and Lemiuex.  Don't forget Yzerman and Messier either.  The gap doesn't have to be big.  You just have to be one of those special players that comes along once in a generation.

Personally I think Super Mario is the better of the two, and thats not just because I am a Pens fan. And sadly its one of those cases where injuries ruined what could have been. I think McDavid/Crosby is similar to the Mario/Gretz era. But due to teams being much closer talent wise, the salary cap and so forth I dont think we will see McDavid run away with points. Its so much more a team game now then ever. Teams are much better trained, coached, scouted and the talent is more evenly spread around. Heck JG is a prime example this season. Teams now have the book on him and hes really cooled off. Hes still dangerous when you give him chances and make mistakes, but hes being much more limited than he was earlier.

[The_People1]

I would say that Gretzky and Lemieux were both generational.  The fact that they resided within the same generation is irrelevant.  Look at their totals, and then the rest of the league at the time.  It was a runaway freight train.  I've also personally always considered Lemieux to be the most complete and better of the two. 

 

When a franchise plans one of the most controverisal tank seasons in NHL history over one player at the draft, then you know he was a generational talent.  They were the team to spark the 'Tank' trend going forward.  The Oilers fell into Gretzky by pure luck.

 

Yea i would say both are generational.  I would say Crosby is generational as well but you don't?

[kehatch]

When Gretzky was in his prime, Mario Lemieux was basically his equal. The separation between Gretzky and Lemieux wasn't much, if at all. I would say as much as 40% of hockey experts at the time would pick Lemieux over Gretzky if they had to choose one on their team. During one stretch, Lemieux was averaging a higher points-per-game than Gretzky. So does that make Gretzky non-generational because he wasn't clearly the best during his time?

I would say Gretzky is generational.

Crosby is the best Center in the NHL and has been for the last 8 years+. Even though the gap between himself and the next best player is not big, neither was Gretzky's gap between himself and Lemiuex. Don't forget Yzerman and Messier either. The gap doesn't have to be big. You just have to be one of those special players that comes along once in a generation.

Agreed on all of the above. It will be interesting to see in 20 years who will be remembered league wide. I don't know if we will be talking about Kane, Toews, Doughty, Chara, Iginla, etc. But I am confident we will be talking about Crosby and Lindstrom. Generational might be the wrong word. But the top players that we will all remember in 20 years are the guys I think about when that word is used.

[jjgallow]

I personally vote that we ignore weird terms mid-level hockey media coin, like "generational"

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generational

 

 

Also not sure how  any of this got on the Bennett thread lol. 

 

Not to knock Bennett.  He may be our captain in a few years.

[s4xon]

Yea i would say both are generational.  I would say Crosby is generational as well but you don't?

 

Crosby is generational in this generation.  But the term is watered down.  I would have to say that Crosby would be the last player I would consider generational, just by how he came and took the league by storm at 18 years old and has consistently put up similar stats in every season he's had, even with a possible career ending concussion.

 

However, the gap that separates him from the Toews, Tavares, Kopitars, Ovechkins and the Kanes isn't much anymore.

 

The media is bad for pushing it, and fans eat it up and spew it around all the forums and media outlets.

 

Hence players like McDavid and Eichel and MacKinnon, etc, etc that are overhyped every draft tend to be given the generational label 2 years before they are drafted.  It's too soon and too much.

*****************************************************************************************************

Every fan loves star players.  There is nothing wrong with the term 'Star' player in hockey.  Bennett will be a star.  Gaudreau is already a rising star.  Monahan is a rising star.  These are the notables that will garner a big payday contract when the time comes due to their game-changing play, the players everyone looks for on the ice, and the names that sell the most jerseys.

 

'Generational' and 'star' don't belong in the same category.  Two totally different entities.  Crosby is a star and a generational player.  So was Gretzky and Lemieux.  Same with Bobby Orr, whom I have ahead of Gretzky as the best of all time players.

 

1.Lemieux

2.Orr

3.Gretzky

[Flyerfan52]

I would say that Gretzky and Lemieux were both generational.  The fact that they resided within the same generation is irrelevant.  Look at their totals, and then the rest of the league at the time.  It was a runaway freight train.  I've also personally always considered Lemieux to be the most complete and better of the two. 

 

When a franchise plans one of the most controverisal tank seasons in NHL history over one player at the draft, then you know he was a generational talent.  They were the team to spark the 'Tank' trend going forward.  The Oilers fell into Gretzky by pure luck.

There can be more than 1. In the '50s there was Gordie (Mr. Hockey) Howe & Maurice (Rocket) Richard.

 

Players are breaking marks they set & are pushing them down the "most this or that" charts but the players doing so are full time players while those guys needed summer jobs to put food on the table. No fitness coaches, rinks available 24/7 or the like. They also had fairly soft padding rather than body armor so felt the pain from hits.

They made their marks in short season so getting 965 points could take 15+ years with 978 games played.

*****************************************************************

BTW, said franchise did that tank twice. 1st time for Lemieux & 2nd for Crosby.

People consider both generational players.

Yet the Sens did as/more obvious a tank to get a generational player with the initials AD which lead to our sideshow lottery.

 

People do pin that tag on teenagers about the time they hit puberty & up the hype as the child approaches draft age.

When Russia was still the USSR their players were considered automations because all they did was practice, work out & eat/sleep per a schedule. They were identified young & put in the program @ about 15.

In the CHL they grant exceptional player status to 15 year olds. Others wait until they are 16. Either way their life becomes mainly hockey 12 months of the year. Are turning out robots?

[KACaribou]

Agreed on all of the above. It will be interesting to see in 20 years who will be remembered league wide. I don't know if we will be talking about Kane, Toews, Doughty, Chara, Iginla, etc. But I am confident we will be talking about Crosby and Lindstrom. Generational might be the wrong word. But the top players that we will all remember in 20 years are the guys I think about when that word is used.

Gretzky and Lemieux were NOT at the same time.

 

Gretzky's best year's were basically over by the time Lemieux had his first big year. Gretzky had 6 or 7 years in a row, before Lemieux, where he was round 200 points or better. Lemieux only had ONE of those types of years - 88/89 when the Flames won the cup.

 

To say people would pick Lemieux over Gretzky NO. If you just look at PPG yes. For size and talent maybe. But Gretzky was the biggest competitor in the league. He wanted to win and own every record in the books. That's the way he played. Lemieux was lax in comparison and didn't have the same aura as young Gretzky.

 

AS A FLAMES FAN, I HATED GRETZKY BUT...

Gretzky was getting twice the points his line-mate Jari Kurri was getting, and more than twice as many as Mark Messier - and for years and years. Messier was never dominant in the way Gretzky was. He just was consistant for a very long time, more like a Gordie Howe.

 

Younger hockey fans look at the stats, or read other young people's opinions about what they think they know because of analytics, and before long everyone has the same opinon. But none of them actually saw these guys play, or knew what everyone at the time knew. Unless you were there, you can't understand how other teams feared and hated playing against certain players or how much fans lothed these guys because they were beating their teams.

 

The first GENERATIONAL TALENT was Bobby Orr, who more than doubled other defencemen in scoring for 6 or 7 years like a Gretzky did. He actually won the scoring title one year - as a D-man! Think about that for a minute. He averaged almost 1.4 PPG in an injury-riddled career playing defence! Bobby Orr was the first real Generational player and many still consider him the greatest player ever. The great Bobby Hull was actually out-scored by the young D-man at the time for several years in a row and said Orr injured was still the best player in the league.

 

Two players dominated the game like no others. If you were winning by 5 goals going into the third period and up against either's team - the game was NOT in the bag. If these two guys got going, it was like a steamroller and there was little you could do. These two guys made that much difference. These two guys changed the game. These two guys were Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky.

 

Remember: being the first and setting the bar at a whole new height is harder than watching and emulating the innovator. Paul Coffey following Bobby Orr, or Mario Lemieux following Wayne Gretzky - both were shown the way by the innovators.

[Kulstad]

Created this thread to help keep the "generational" talk away from other topics.

[DirtyDeeds]

This is so silly to call any player a "generational player " before they have played a single game in the NHL. 

 

Save that title for after they have played a few seasons in the NHL and proved themselves worthy of that title ......

[jjgallow]

This is so silly to call any player a "generational player " before they have played a single game in the NHL. 

 

Save that title for after they have played a few seasons in the NHL and proved themselves worthy of that title ......

 

Well put.  An example:  Lindros.

 

Most on here agree that Crosby's special.  I couldn't really be bothered with definitions.

 

 

What about Lindros?

 

Not as talented as Crosby/Gretzky/Lemieux, but similar impact when factoring in physical dominance.

 

So, what do you do with a guy who only dominated for 4-7 seasons, and never won a cup?

 

There were at Least 2 seasons in there, maybe more, where what Lindros was doing was comparable to Crosby now in terms of impact.

 

So where do you draw the line?  How long do you have to sustain before you make that category?

 

Then take a guy like Daigle.   Similar talent level to Crosby, but never translated.  Not one season.

 

 

We can all agree to cut Daigle out.   And like DD says, we thus shouldn't even be seriously comparing McDavid (I'm guilty) or Bennett yet.

 

Is Lindros in the conversation?

 

He did translate.   For a few short seasons. But he couldn't sustain long enough to set a lasting record.