Define generational and franchise players

Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by daver, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. daver

    daver Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2003
    Messages:
    15,392
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    I hear these terms thrown around a lot leading to many heated discussions. Would these be the accepted definations:

    Generational

    A talent that is seen only once or twice every twenty years or see. ie. Howe, Orr, Gretzky

    Franchise

    At any given time, four or five players in the league who are considered elite and you build a team around. ie. Jagr, Forsberg, Bourque
     
  2. TopProspect91

    TopProspect91 Registered Abuser

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    Location:
    Toronto
    Your pretty much right on with those assesments, daver.

    Some generational young talent in the league right now would be someone like Crosby and Ovechkin.

    Some young franchise players would include the likes of Kovalchuk and Staal.
     
  3. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,097
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    171
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    Generational talents typically change the way the game is played. Orr was the prototypical offensive d-man (and he also was phenomonal defensively as well). IMO Wayne (and to a lesser extent Mario) created the "high scoring" 80's because teams had to score at least 3-4 goals to have a chance to beat the Oilers.

    Franchise players dominate for an extended period of time. These guys are seen as "best at their position". It's easier for me to say who isn't a franchise player - a guy like Dave Andreychuk. He's the all time PPG scorer and has over 600 goals, but he was never seen as the best at his position.
     
  4. SammyTheBull

    SammyTheBull Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fixed.
     
  5. Hockey-Freak

    Hockey-Freak Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Generational - agreed.

    Franchise - Maybe more than four or five. They have definitely to be elite, but not for 3-4 seasons, for the most of their careers. So a guy like Martin St. Louis, who had one great seasons and a few good ones, can´t be called a franchise player.
    He should also be the one who makes the player around him better (Messier - Graves), and I mean ALOT better. He has to lead the team on and off the ice. He don´t have to be the biggest producer on the team (Rod Brind'Amour - I think he developed into a franchise player) if the other criterias are fulfilled. They have to be the face of the franchise - Brian Leetch, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman.
    It´s also interesting, that the most/all of the players I mentioned, have got an intelligence that is definitely higher compared to the average player - and I don´t mean hockey sense. Maybe the reason why Eric Lindros failed to be a franchise player. A franchise player wouldn´t leave his franchise as easy as i.e. Paul Kariya, if it would not be his last chance for a cup (Ray Bourque).


    It seems that here on HF-boards every top-5 pick is a sure bet to become a franchise player but I wouldn´t care. I´m sure Dany Heatley is considered a franchise player but not yet in my mind. He´s a very good player but he hasn´t fulfilled any other criteria (yet). Kovalchuk is an even better example. He want´s to be the guy with the photo on the first page in an Atlanta newspaper after a win but he doesn´t get it that he needs the other guys to have a photo with the Stanley Cup in his arms to be in EVERY newspaper.
     
  6. Russian_fanatic

    Russian_fanatic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Franchise talent comes along alot more than generation talent. Heck most top picks in some drafts can be known as franchise talents. Not all, but some. Generation talent only come along every few generation. I think Ovechkin, and Crosby are generation talents, because to score 100 points in your rookie year is just insane.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2006
  7. Epsilon

    Epsilon #basta

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    71,586
    Likes Received:
    26,495
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    South Cackalacky
    "Generational talent" is one of the more useless terms ever invented given that it seems to pop up every couple of years these days.
     
  8. Seph

    Seph Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    17,340
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Oregon
    Home Page:
    A franchise player defines his franchise. A generational player defines his entire generation of players.
     
  9. Russian_fanatic

    Russian_fanatic Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,694
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Close thread. Enough said.
     
  10. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    This thread is about how the terms should be defined.

    How they actually are used here is usually in terms of potential, especially on newly drafted players or prospects, (this being hockey futures) and usually mean potential top ten or so in the league at his position for 'franchise players' and potential top two or three in his position for 'generational' players.
     
  11. firstroundbust

    firstroundbust lacks explosiveness

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    maybe its me, but I'd consider Bourque a generational player...
     
  12. Hockey-Freak

    Hockey-Freak Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Isn´t franchise player enough?
    If Bourque is a generational player, Brian Leetch is it too.

    This will lead to 20-30 "generational players" from the mid 80s till now.
     
  13. firstroundbust

    firstroundbust lacks explosiveness

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Parts Unknown



    I'm sorry bud, but Bourque > Leetch
     
  14. Entrancemperium

    Entrancemperium Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    626
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I'd say it's pretty even
     
  15. Luigi Lemieux

    Luigi Lemieux Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    17,235
    Likes Received:
    1,201
    Trophy Points:
    169
    i think a generational player has to be head and shoulders above the rest of the league for an extended period of time. (gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe)

    i think a franchise player has to be one of the best players in the league for an extended period of time. (bourque, forsberg, yzerman, sakic) i think jagr and lafleur are in between these categories because of their multiple consecutive art rosses, but they didn't dominate to the extent of gretzky/lemieux.

    crosby and ovechkin are not generational players yet, but have the potential to be.
     
  16. King'sPawn

    King'sPawn Enjoy the chaos

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    11,576
    Likes Received:
    993
    Trophy Points:
    214
    End of discussion.
     
  17. I hate Jon Sim

    I hate Jon Sim Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Generational are great players that everyone knows and loves like Orr, The Espisitos and Gretzky

    Franchise players are players for a team there fans remember like Denis Savard, Ron Francis(Most Underatted player ever) or Jeremy Roenick and MAts Sundin
     
  18. BuppY

    BuppY xGoodwillx

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    16,385
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Pretty much lol
     
  19. Sens Rule

    Sens Rule Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    23,032
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Are you serious? Bourque was the best D-Man for his entire career. He didn't win every Norris or 1st team selection but everyone considered him the best all-around defenceman almost from his Rookie season until 1997 or so and he was great after that until he retired.

    Leetch was just a very good defenceman and a potential Hall of Famer. Bourque defined what the best defenceman was for the better part of 2 decades.

    The best Defenceman in the NHL timeline goes like this since expanision

    Orr gives way to Potvin gives way to Bourque gives way to Lidstrom. No one else is there to even be considered though Coffey would have the best argument to fit on this list.

    Bourque defined a generation of NHL Defenceman but I think he was not a "generational talent". Only Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Mario have geen generational talents IMO.
     
  20. bigjags*

    bigjags* Guest

    I'd say Jagr is a generational player. He'll go down, IMO, top 10 player of all time.

    Franchise is more like a Bure or a Sakic.
     
  21. bigjags*

    bigjags* Guest

    Brilliant post. :clap:
     
  22. Vman

    Vman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,296
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Burnaby, BC
    Home Page:
    Is Niklas Lidstrom generational or franchise?
     
  23. MN_Gopher

    MN_Gopher Registered User

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    medical
    Location:
    Mpls
    Home Page:
    To me there can be only one generational player at a time or era. I ll give that there could be a forward, a defencemen and goalie that overlap. So to me Ovechkin and Crosby can not be generatioanl players at the same time. That would make them franchise. There may be only 3-4 generational players in any sport all together.

    The best example i can think of in any sport is Wilt Chamberlain. They had to change rules after he played. Goaltending was a big one for the game of basketball. And it was either him or Mikan that made them put the three second violation in. IMO Bird, Magic, Jordan then were not generational. They overlapped and one was not clear cut better than the other.
     
  24. Hockey-Freak

    Hockey-Freak Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I´d generally agree but it´s really hard to say Lemieux was no generational player.
     
  25. Letang fan 58

    Letang fan 58 No More Fleury

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    5,814
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    so your basically saying that the 2 greatest players all time Mario and Gretzky were not generational talents?

    generational talents dont come along often, but there is no hard defenition saying there can be only 1 fwd or 1 dman............crosby and ovechkin look like they could both be generational talents going forward......it doesnt matter if they both came along at the same time or not........they have the talent to define the generation.

    franchise players are players your team builds around........it may get thrown around to often but there are more than one of them on some teams, and there are some teams that do not have one as well.

    to the guy who said a franchise player isnt a player who would move around unless it was for a last chance at the cup.......does that mean you do not reguard chris pronger as a franchise player?
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"