Ummm no !!!!!! Generational tag...

[DirtyDeeds]

The media has gone wild or lack the understanding of the term "Generational".

 

lately they toss it about for anyone.... for example

 

Toronto media have been talking about Auston Matthews as generational talent...

Sorry T.O. He might turn out to be a Franchise player but he falls very short of being a Generational Player.

 

Listening to the Washington radio play by play they often refer to Alex Ovechkin as a generational player. They even hold out his "point a game" in playoffs as proof.

Sorry Caps announcers but he is definitely a Franchise player but no more.

 

Buffalo describes Jack Eichel as the 2nd generational player from his draft year.

Already? Shame on you guys.. He is likely an elite player and could become a franchise player but Generational he is not and I doubt he ever will become.

 

So how about you guys? Fed up with all the titles of Generational being tagged to a teams good player? Don't they need to play at a extremely "better than everyone else" level for a long time to be a real "Generational Player"????

 

Are we going to settle for Elite and Franchise players just becoming Generational because some sports announcer wants to lower the grading system to include their player?

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, DirtyDeeds said:

The media has gone wild or lack the understanding of the term "Generational".

 

lately they toss it about for anyone.... for example

 

Toronto media have been talking about Auston Matthews as generational talent...

Sorry T.O. He might turn out to be a Franchise player but he falls very short of being a Generational Player.

 

Listening to the Washington radio play by play they often refer to Alex Ovechkin as a generational player. They even hold out his "point a game" in playoffs as proof.

Sorry Caps announcers but he is definitely a Franchise player but no more.

 

Buffalo describes Jack Eichel as the 2nd generational player from his draft year.

Already? Shame on you guys.. He is likely an elite player and could become a franchise player but Generational he is not and I doubt he ever will become.

 

So how about you guys? Fed up with all the titles of Generational being tagged to a teams good player? Don't they need to play at a extremely "better than everyone else" level for a long time to be a real "Generational Player"????

 

Are we going to settle for Elite and Franchise players just becoming Generational because some sports announcer wants to lower the grading system to include their player?

You lost me at Ovechkin.

Greatest goal-scorer of pushing 2 generations.

He'll end his career as one of the greatest goalscorers of all time.

We may never see another like him, or, it'll be a while.

Is that not the very epitome of a generational talent?

First ballot HOF, easy.

One of the greatest pure goal scorers this league has ever seen.

[DirtyDeeds]

1 minute ago, conundrumed said:

You lost me at Ovechkin.

Greatest goal-scorer of pushing 2 generations.

He'll end his career as one of the greatest goalscorers of all time.

We may never see another like him, or, it'll be a while.

Is that not the very epitome of a generational talent?

First ballot HOF, easy.

One of the greatest pure goal scorers this league has ever seen.

How many hundreds of 1st ballot HOFs are there? Is this where your line is drawn for generational talents? If they are 1st ballot HOF they are generational?

 

As for the goal scoring.. He is definitely one of the best however.... He is not tops in any scoring category.... Not in goals scored, not in goals per game, points, points per game.. none yet. and there are many non generational players who are above him in those categories...

 

For example:

 

or 

for playoffs he does not even make the top 25/20 (I think he sits at 54 goals in 113 playoff games. 47.787):

 

I personally don't consider him a Generational player.. Franchise for sure.. 

 

However I did ask where you set your bar.. ty for your input...

 

[conundrumed]

4 minutes ago, DirtyDeeds said:

ty for your input...

 

My pleasure.

 

The 2 of us just proved the term, "generational", is simply a matter of opinion.

 

[DirtyDeeds]

1 minute ago, conundrumed said:

My pleasure.

 

The 2 of us just proved the term, "generational", is simply a matter of opinion.

 

I mostly agree. Probably because each individual has slightly different parameters to set their standards. 

 

My line which is drawn very high is roughly this:  

with a generation being in the 20-25 year range.

 

If the NHL was started in 1917 then in the number of Generational players should have been roughly 4.5 of them.

My list would be 

Gordie Howe

Wayne Gretzky

Mario Lemeaux

Sidney Crosby 

and maybe Bobby Orr.

 

Our friend McJesus up in Edmonton may one day earn the tag but not until a few more years of Generational level play.

Then there are the might have been like

Eric Lindros... Could have been had he not had a shortened career.

 

Anyway.. Each has their own methodology. 

[Flyerfan52]

IMO there can be 2 generational players @ 1 time but it usually signifies the passing of the torch. Rocket Richard was a generational player when in his prime over a career that spanned 1943-44 to 1959-60 but there was a fellow named Gordie Howe playing from 1946-47 onwards. I view both as generational as they exchanged awards over the years both played. But that's rare.

 

Orr is likely that as he did change the way defensemen were viewed.

 

Gretz is a gimme as breaking/owning dang near every record is unheard of.

 

Lemiuex is more like Lindros. Could have/should have/would have if not for his injuries/cancer.

 

Crosby > Ovechkin is a ? for me. Crosby had the benifit of a better supporting cast throughout his career. Reverse that & OV would likely be the 1 with SCs.

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

As you say we all have different ways of assigning value.

[Heartbreaker]

2 hours ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Orr is likely that as he did change the way defensemen were viewed.

 

If that's the barometer, then how about Patrick Roy? While he didn't change the way the position was "viewed", it could certainly be argued that he changed the way that the position was played.  

 

Love. 

[cross16]

Baring injury Ovechkin is very likely going to wind up as a top 5-7 goal scorer of all time and doing so on an era where goal scoring is a fair but lower than some of the other guys on the list. If that isn't generational then basically nothing is or you have an unrealistic bench mark. You don't get goal scorers like that very often, as the list deeds just referenced will show you. 

 

For me generational is not about numbers, it's about skill sets and talents. How often do you see/find a player that can do what a certain player does. If it comes up once every 8-10 years then imo you've got a generational talent. Imo the only generational talents in the league today are Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin but for different reasons. 

[robrob74]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

Baring injury Ovechkin is very likely going to wind up as a top 5-7 goal scorer of all time and doing so on an era where goal scoring is a fair but lower than some of the other guys on the list. If that isn't generational then basically nothing is or you have an unrealistic bench mark. You don't get goal scorers like that very often, as the list deeds just referenced will show you. 

 

For me generational is not about numbers, it's about skill sets and talents. How often do you see/find a player that can do what a certain player does. If it comes up once every 8-10 years then imo you've got a generational talent. Imo the only generational talents in the league today are Crosby, McDavid and Ovechkin but for different reasons. 

 

You can’t use numbers alone because of the way the game is played is different from generation to generation. If Gretzky started playing ten or fifteen years later, his numbers wouldn’t be the same. He’d likely have less points. 

 

That’s not saying he’s not the greatest, it is just reality. Would he still have gotten over and close to the 200 points.

[conundrumed]

15 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

If that's the barometer, then how about Patrick Roy? While he didn't change the way the position was "viewed", it could certainly be argued that he changed the way that the position was played.  

 

Love. 

Yeah but nobody likes goalies.

[Flyerfan52]

24 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Yeah but nobody likes goalies.

Goalies are hardest to judge.

After years of only standup goalies the butterfly style was made possible by the use of the mask & introduction of lighter equipment.

Shortly after came the hybrid of the 2.

Hard to remember who was 1st @ each since each was imitated so fast.

I do know that the agressive play of guys like Billy Smith & Ron Hextall brought another change. Former defenseman turned goalie Hextall was the 1 that actually tried (& succeeded) to score a goal that wasn't just credit for last touch by his team.

Each of those changes made a huge difference in the game but so did the evolution of the type that decided to play goal. Ken Dryden was so different from your average goalie (heck, average player) that it's hard to call any generational Goalies pick up on any edge faster than skaters it seems.

[conundrumed]

14 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

Goalies are hardest to judge.

After years of only standup goalies the butterfly style was made possible by the use of the mask & introduction of lighter equipment.

Shortly after came the hybrid of the 2.

Hard to remember who was 1st @ each since each was imitated so fast.

I do know that the agressive play of guys like Billy Smith & Ron Hextall brought another change. Former defenseman turned goalie Hextall was the 1 that actually tried (& succeeded) to score a goal that wasn't just credit for last touch by his team.

Each of those changes made a huge difference in the game but so did the evolution of the type that decided to play goal. Ken Dryden was so different from your average goalie (heck, average player) that it's hard to call any generational Goalies pick up on any edge faster than skaters it seems.

I think maybe if you're going to look at ONE goalie that was so odd and a big difference maker, you'd have to consider Hasek.

Another one of those things of, "Will there ever be another one like him".

No real science to him, just all fight.

[Flyerfan52]

34 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I think maybe if you're going to look at ONE goalie that was so odd and a big difference maker, you'd have to consider Hasek.

Another one of those things of, "Will there ever be another one like him".

No real science to him, just all fight.

They are a different breed. Who else would want to face 100 mph frozen rubber soming @ you constantly.

Yet off ice they are often the most cerebral of all players. I've read they are also best @ finding people to manage their $s as they have a shorter shelf life. Older goalies making $5+ were rare so they got their money invested wisely. The difference from starter to backup & the coresponding $s can change with 1 seaon even if playing behind a weak team.

[conundrumed]

18 minutes ago, Flyerfan52 said:

They are a different breed. Who else would want to face 100 mph frozen rubber soming @ you constantly.

Yet off ice they are often the most cerebral of all players. I've read they are also best @ finding people to manage their $s as they have a shorter shelf life. Older goalies making $5+ were rare so they got their money invested wisely. The difference from starter to backup & the coresponding $s can change with 1 seaon even if playing behind a weak team.

I think I was Hextall before Hextall.

 

I went from being a top RW/C/D to saying, "JFC, how about I just play net"?

I was, like, 12. Just tired of losing to garbage.

They started me in B, because that's what adults do, they get all mad at you.

I was with the "select" team within a month, and with my former AAA team in half a year.

Hated by the goalies, which was kind of my intention.

The spin is kinda crazy, watching what I used to do vs guys doing the same to my teammates at my house. Nope.

I fought guys just a year earlier, now I got, "but you're the goalie".

Hated that part.

2-handed chops, stick tip to the 'nads, behind the knee.

Oh yeah, anytime you'd like to drop the gloves, right now.

My opinion on playing goal, as someone who did, is hatred.

You will not be scoring on me. I hate you as a player, as a person, not a chance you score on me.

Goalies are indeed a different breed, imho.

Skaters don't know emotion until they get between the pipes.

 

[Khrox]

On 5/19/2018 at 4:09 PM, DirtyDeeds said:

The media has gone wild or lack the understanding of the term "Generational".

 

lately they toss it about for anyone.... for example

 

Toronto media have been talking about Auston Matthews as generational talent...

Sorry T.O. He might turn out to be a Franchise player but he falls very short of being a Generational Player.

 

Listening to the Washington radio play by play they often refer to Alex Ovechkin as a generational player. They even hold out his "point a game" in playoffs as proof.

Sorry Caps announcers but he is definitely a Franchise player but no more.

 

Buffalo describes Jack Eichel as the 2nd generational player from his draft year.

Already? Shame on you guys.. He is likely an elite player and could become a franchise player but Generational he is not and I doubt he ever will become.

 

So how about you guys? Fed up with all the titles of Generational being tagged to a teams good player? Don't they need to play at a extremely "better than everyone else" level for a long time to be a real "Generational Player"????

 

Are we going to settle for Elite and Franchise players just becoming Generational because some sports announcer wants to lower the grading system to include their player?

I'm another who disagrees with the Ovechkin part. While he does have 139 more regular season games played than Crosby, their stat lines are still heavily comparable. And from your list of "generational" complaints, I assume you would count Crosby as generational? You also take into account, 1 out of every 6 goals Ovi scores is a game-winner (on average). That is a pretty impressive feat. And on the NHL site, Dan Rosen had this to say about him:

 

Quote

He is the best goal-scorer of his generation and, if you consider era-adjusted numbers, he may be the greatest goal-scorer of all time. Ovechkin is 19th in NHL history in goals with 607 in 1,003 games (.605 per game). He is fourth all time in goals per game among players who have played at least 700 games. The players ahead of him are Mike Bossy (.762), Mario Lemieux (.754) and Pavel Bure (.623). Wayne Gretzky, the NHL all-time leader in goals with 894, is fifth (.601). Imagine if Ovechkin played in the 1980s, when there was more scoring than today. Imagine how many goals he would score. He might already be at 700-plus. I don't think that's a stretch. It's another seven or eight goals per season to each of his 13 seasons. 

That's pretty significant stuff right there. I agree that it may be a little early to determine if Eichel or Matthews are generational, but I would say Ovi deserves to be up there.