Post-Game Talk (GBU): #21 The Good, the Bad, and the Snakebitten

[Samsonite23]

HFBoards: Where 19 year old Jack Eichel is a whipping boy, and Johan Larsson is a hero. You can't make this stuff up.

How am I making him a whipping boy? I said if he keeps floating, he should possibly sit. Not because he's not good enough, but because I don't want him to make floating a habit. Quit making it seem like I'm bashing the kid.

Bylsma was getting him to do everything well earlier in the season. I think he floats too much at the moment. If I had a guess I would say it's probably due to tiredness/slight injury. If that's the case, he should sit a game as well to recover.

 

[Dingo44]

Eichel is going to be generational. I'm not even in the slightest worried about it.

 

[Sabre the Win]

Eichel is going to be generational. I'm not even in the slightest worried about it.

What do you consider Generational? for curiosity reasons.

 

[ozpensfan]

Gionta looks totally unmotivated in the D-Zone. Too many minutes for a 36 year old

 

[Dingo44]

What do you consider Generational? for curiosity reasons.

I'll take the bait. Like, our best player for the next 10 - 15 seasons. That's generational to me.

 

[Jame]

I'll take the bait. Like, our best player for the next 10 - 15 seasons. That's generational to me.

That's too lenient... Thomas Vanek comes pretty close to that label

 

[TalkingProuder]

I want Eichel to lead us to Cups. So far, he looks like he has the elite talent to do that. Enjoy the ride.

And let Edmonton and McDavid fanboys worry about individual stats. Let's worry about winning this Cup thing.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

That's too lenient... Thomas Vanek comes pretty close to that label

If he's Vanek, he won't be better than Risto.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I'll take the bait. Like, our best player for the next 10 - 15 seasons. That's generational to me.

Thats very broad however I sometimes question what it means to be generational myself. I would see Lemieux and Gretzky as true generational players because they were the only ones of calibre at their given time and in this day and age I would not entirely be sure what would be classified as generational.

Would Kane who has won 3 cups but not be at a point per game pace in his 9 year career be a generational player?

or would Ovechkin who has never won a cup yet is far beyond a point per game pace in his nhl career and one of the best natural goal scorers of the last decade be a generational player?

 

[Moskau]

Thats very broad however I sometimes question what it means to be generational myself. I would see Lemieux and Gretzky as true generational players because they were the only ones of calibre at their given time and in this day and age I would not entirely be sure what would be classified as generational.

Would Kane who has won 3 cups but not be at a point per game pace in his 9 year career be a generational player?

or would Ovechkin who has never won a cup yet is far beyond a point per game pace in his nhl career and one of the best natural goal scorers of the last decade be a generational player?

Generational to me means that there is a clear tier between you and the other best players in the league not only in points but also just being special to watch. Gretzky who would often have 90 more points than the next guy in the entire league who was often his teammate was obviously generational. Lemieux was generational. Orr was generational. Those ones are easy. It gets much more narrow after that. Also saying someone is a generational prospect is different than saying someone is a generational player. Jagr wasn't a generational prospect but he sure seems like a generational player. Lindros was a generational prospect and if not for injuries he would have become a generational player but I don't look at him as one all things considered.

Crosby is becoming an interesting case. Generational prospect, generational player the first few seasons of his career, then injuries but still dominant, then "healthy" and dominant but not clearly above other players in the league anymore. And his own teammate in Malkin has actually had the more dominating seasons in relation to the rest of the league. Ovechkin is in a similar situation to Crosby. Generational prospect, generational player his first few seasons, then "down years" but without the injury excuse and then back to being dominant again but not above the other players in the league. Generational goal scorer for sure.

If a player came into the league and scored 120 points while everyone else was lucky to break 100 or 100 when others score 80, I would call that player generational. I'm not sure that's doable in today's league though. I think McDavid has the potential to do it.

Playoffs should also be a part of the conversation but it's very tricky because it's a team game and even more so come Spring.

 

[Heraldic]

Interesting and all, but are you seriously suggesting that any meaningful conclusions regarding general strengths and/or weaknesses (for any hockey player) can be drawn from watching one game? To me, your observations only reflects the strengths and weakness for this particular game...

Was this a serious question?

On the last GBU we were having a conversation about some of our players' strength and weaknesses regarding our system. When we're talking about not defensive game in general, but some specifics aspect of it, it's really difficult to have any legitimate arguments if the participants disagree what they see on ice. I think that the only way is to point out specific situations from the game that at least indicate something (and just to say, I'm not going to regularly watch the games like that. You don't wanna feel like working when you're watching a game everytime you do watch a game But from time to time it's refreshing to watch a game while having a certain aspect for it).

I have watched last and this season combined every Sabres' game, so I'm not basing my evaluation on one game. But if you expect someone to go through every game so far and dissect every situation in similar fashion, it's a bit too much asked in a discussion board IMO.

Heraldic,

I will have a rebuttal for you soon. There are some points of agreement and disagreement. I do see the attempt to fit certain plays into the "break possession" narrative. And some plays I recall being left out.

I won't get to it today though.

That's fair. Not expecting anyone to have an answer straight away for a specific subject like that.

But just to make sure, my task wasn't to take notes and analyse Larsson's game in general - or even his defensive game in general. Just from the pov from which we talked elsewhere before. So it might look that my evaluation of him was really negative, while in reality I think overall he had a good game.

 

[Aapo]

Was this a serious question?

On the last GBU we were having a conversation about some of our players' strength and weaknesses regarding our system. When we're talking about not defensive game in general, but some specifics aspect of it, it's really difficult to have any legitimate arguments if the participants disagree what they see on ice. I think that the only way is to point out specific situations from the game that at least indicate something (and just to say, I'm not going to regularly watch the games like that. You don't wanna feel like working when you're watching a game everytime you do watch a game But from time to time it's refreshing to watch a game while having a certain aspect for it).

Yeah sorry it was, your introduction and conclusion pretty much hinted me in that direction. But if the point of your post was to see what different viewers/Hf-posters observe in the same game from a specific player, I will follow the replies with great interest. I also might have to rewatch the game myself...

 

[OkimLom]

Thats very broad however I sometimes question what it means to be generational myself. I would see Lemieux and Gretzky as true generational players because they were the only ones of calibre at their given time and in this day and age I would not entirely be sure what would be classified as generational.

Would Kane who has won 3 cups but not be at a point per game pace in his 9 year career be a generational player?

or would Ovechkin who has never won a cup yet is far beyond a point per game pace in his nhl career and one of the best natural goal scorers of the last decade be a generational player?

Honestly,

In the history of the game, in my opinion, there have been 4 players that were worthy of being "Generational". Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux.

These guys reshaped the game and changed the way players play the game. I know some people will say Crosby is a "Generational" player but I look at him in the same way that I look at a guy like Jagr and Lidstrom. I see both of them as the top of the "Elite" players. They probably would be the closest to Generational without being Generational based on my standards. How someone is labeled as a player is pure opinion based.

There have been A LOT of "Generational" prospects along the way. Guys who absolutely were heads and shoulders above their competition.