I think another criteria has to be long gevity. I do not and one cannot blame Lemieux for cancer, or chronic back problems. But they happen. And that IMO is the only thing holding him back. He did not have a full career.
Define generational and franchise players
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
I think another criteria has to be long gevity. I do not and one cannot blame Lemieux for cancer, or chronic back problems. But they happen. And that IMO is the only thing holding him back. He did not have a full career.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
LMFAO holding him back from what exactly............the guy was as much a generational talent as the game has ever seen..........he was IMO the 2nd best player to ever lace up his skates and he did play for over a decade and dominated for 95 % of that. When he first retired he was the only player EVER to be above 2 points per game for a career.
Maybe if lemieux had played only 2 years or less........then you could possibly not consider him a generational talent...........although he would still have been a generational talent, just not one that played for a long period of time.
SneakerPimp82
Registered User
Why can there be only one generational talent at a time? Lemieux and Gretzky dominated the game like no other, I'd say that alone defeats your definition. Regardless of Lemieux's injury history, he still dominated for about 10 years, that's enough longevity in my book, and most others' as well I'm sure.
Also, Magic and Bird you could argue one way or another that they are not generational talents. What is NOT arguable is the fact that Michael Jordan is a generational talent. He not only dominated the game on offense and defense, he defined an entire era of the game(i.e. a generational talent defines his generation). Don't you ever wonder why analysts keep asking "who's going to be the next Jordan?" Kinda the same way hockey analysts ask who's going to be the next Gretzky.
Franchise Player - Player of high skill level, that is the corner stone of building a championship contender/winner.
Generational Player - A player who is of such High skill level, he dominates the entire league for several years.
Generational Player - A player who is of such High skill level, he dominates the entire league for several years.
Why? It's not that rare for a team to have multiple franchise players. Detroit had Yzerman and Lidstrom, for example. Does that mean one of those guys is not a franchise player? Or that neither is a franchise player since neither is clearly superior?
A generational anything is what makes up that group of people or what ever. The greatest generation ever. When everyone kicked in to help out with WWII. Or the MTV generation. Those were solid things that everyone in that age could bond with. You cannot bond to multiple players and call them generational. Its a once in a generation thing. If want to say player X is the player of his generation. He has to be head and shoulders above everyone else. For Crosby or AO IMO to be generational players. They have to dominate like no other for the next 10-15 years. Or there ra of hockey. Including the lay over with Thornton and Jagr now and who ever else may come.
Its not a bad thing. Its just to me what it is. Its like having multiple valedictorians. Well we all good grades so cannot we all be? There is only one at a time. Generational talents are one at a time.
As for Lemieux and Gretzky. In Lemieux's 17 year career he had 5 seasons under 30 games. And 5 under 70 games. I put Lemieux in the same category with guys like Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, Jim Brown and Pete Sampras. No one can argue what they did when they played. But take a guy like Agassi. He has won all the majors Pete never did. He was still making finals well after Pete retired. Pete owned grass when he played. But Agassi had the better career. Lemieux owned the game of hockey when played. Gretzky stilll has more assists then Mario has points.
Its not a bad thing. Its just to me what it is. Its like having multiple valedictorians. Well we all good grades so cannot we all be? There is only one at a time. Generational talents are one at a time.
As for Lemieux and Gretzky. In Lemieux's 17 year career he had 5 seasons under 30 games. And 5 under 70 games. I put Lemieux in the same category with guys like Barry Sanders, Gale Sayers, Jim Brown and Pete Sampras. No one can argue what they did when they played. But take a guy like Agassi. He has won all the majors Pete never did. He was still making finals well after Pete retired. Pete owned grass when he played. But Agassi had the better career. Lemieux owned the game of hockey when played. Gretzky stilll has more assists then Mario has points.
Its like a hierarchy.
Me
Hoping for one last shot
Minors
On the team
Seeing playing time
Decent
Average
Good
Great
All-Star
Perennial All Star
Perennial All Star and stick way out from your peers. League leader etc
Perennial All Star and stick way out from your peers. League leader etc, heart and soul of your team. Wining championships. Franchise
Franchise. Amoung best ever. All time great team
All time great team MVP. Generational.
Me
Hoping for one last shot
Minors
On the team
Seeing playing time
Decent
Average
Good
Great
All-Star
Perennial All Star
Perennial All Star and stick way out from your peers. League leader etc
Perennial All Star and stick way out from your peers. League leader etc, heart and soul of your team. Wining championships. Franchise
Franchise. Amoung best ever. All time great team
All time great team MVP. Generational.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
OK.........not only do i now doubt your hockey knowledge for saying Lemieux wasnt a generational talent........I also know that you know nothing about Tennis.......Agassi had a better career then Samprass LOL? is that a joke........look up some info about them.......Samprass has won how many grand slams opposed to Agassi?
Fact is Lemieux was the 2nd best player ever in the NHL........if that is not a generational talent then your standards are ridiculous and you should stop posting about this immediately.
Ok smartass, who defines the current/90s generation of goaltenders? Hasek? Roy? Brodeur? Is Lidstrom not a franchise player because Yzerman defined the Red Wings? You haven't answered the question at all.
When did Pete when on clay? Whats more important dominating one aspect of a game or all aspects. I'd rather have a career grand slam as supposed dominating one venue.
So two cups and 7th all time scoring is the second best ever? I disagree. Who knows what would have happened if he stayed healthy. Then yeah i think no doubt he keeps that pace up. He is second or the greatest. But he didn't.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
Pete won a record 14 Grand slam titles including 7 Wimbeldon 5 US open and 2 French open's
Agassi won 8 Grand slam titles.
Pete was the worlds number one player for a record 6 years in a row.
This is not even a sane argument......ask anyone who knows a single thing about tennis.....you are way off base.
The argument in regards to Lemieux has and had nothing to do with him being the 2nd best all time...........although I still strongly believe he is easily the 2nd best talent the NHL has ever seen...........there is no way you can take cup consideration or 7th all time points into consideration without looking at points per game or its just ridiculous to even throw it out there. If he had stayed healthy there is no question he would have been above Gretzky unless his pace drastically.
Either way Mario was most def. a Generational talent.......you either are not old enough to have seen him play back when he was dominating the league........or you seriously undervalue the talent that Mario had.
Pete never won the french. Thats the clay one. But i guess you know way more about me and you cannot even get facts straight. Maybe a little research first. He won two Aussie opens. And in tennis if you ask around like oh say Mcenroe. He said its a lot harder to win a grand slam then to just dominate on one surface. So yes many experts say Agaasi had the better career, Sampras had the better run.
And yes i saw Mario play. Say him destroy my North Stars. And i thought he was awsome. And i still think he is. He may be the best talent to play in the NHL. Arguably. If you take any players numbers in their prime they are awsome. If we put Lemieux's best 10 vs Greztky's best ten. Who wins by a mile? I never said he was not good or even short of spectacular. All i am saying is that to truly be recognized as generational you have to do it over a career. Spanning all seasons. Not just here and there.
If Jim Brown had never walked away. If Barry sanders had not just left. If Sayers didn't have knee problems. If Tyson never went to jail, and if Demato never died. If Jordan never left for baseball. Add in if Mario had never had his problems. If Ted Williams never left for war. The list goes on. These things happen. You do not blamethe player. I do not. But you cannot add asterisks(unless you use steroids) to the record book about how and why a player was never able to put up max stats.
Way of topic. Williams could have been the best hitter all time. Or maybe is i am not touching this one. But numbers wise. He leaves baseball when he is 24-26. You could add in another 120 homers, maybe another .400 season 300 or so RBIs. All of a sudden he is top 5 in RBI, HR and AVG. Still today those numbers would stand. But it is still a big what if. Same thing with Mario. No doubt you could reasonably add another cup and a ton more points. But they did not happen. So you have to go with whats on the paper.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
your right it was the french he missed and he had 2 aussie titles........either way........sampras had a way more impressive career then agassi and its recognized by nearly everyone in the tennis world. for the record here is a link to sampras vs agassi head to head over their careers........clearly shown sampras dominated agassi. http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Sampras-Agassi_HH.htm
dude if you seriously dont think that Lemieux, or Jordan were generational talents in their sports then you need some help.
Mario was absolutely 100% a generational talent.......you speak of him like he played 10 games and was a fluke..........the guy ended his career 7th all time in points.........in less games then anyone above him by a LONG LONG ways.
As for bringing Jordan into it LOL next you should tell me how Tiger is not a generational golfer
are your views this messed up seriously? or are you just killing time?
Last edited:
Pronger got TRADED to Edmonton, he didn´t leave St.Louis as an UFA and that was what I mean. Paul Kariya left the Ducks as an UFA.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
I was referring to Pronger leaving Edmonton, not him leaving St Louis......either way hes a franchise player. always has been, always will be.
Ya, a franchise player of the St. Louis Blues. Or do you think the Oilers will retire his jersey?
Brian Leetch is a franchise player of the NYR. Ray Bourque of the Bruins....
To be a franchise player means you are the face of the franchise + you have to play outstanding. If Pronger would have stayed for another 5 seasons with the Oilers you could probably say that he´s an Oilers franchise player but he didn´t.
"Franchise player" is not a titel and it´s not a kind of increased grade compared to a "normal" No.1 defenseman.
It´s a kind of verbal honor for a player that accompanied with his team for a long time.
But that´s just my opinion. Feel free to ignore/disagree... me
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
I guess I disagree, to me he is a franchise player.......he was a franchise player for the oilers meaning a player they were looking to build around..........circumstances happened and they had to trade him........they got franchise player value in that trade to me. He will now go and be one of a pair of franchise Dmen in Anaheim.
Franchise player to me means someone that a team is looking to build around that has a dramatic impact on your franchise....and he was exactly that in edmonton, and will be every stop he has in his career most likely.
your right it was the french he missed and he had 2 aussie titles........either way........sampras had a way more impressive career then agassi and its recognized by nearly everyone in the tennis world. for the record here is a link to sampras vs agassi head to head over their careers........clearly shown sampras dominated agassi. http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/Sampras-Agassi_HH.htm
dude if you seriously dont think that Lemieux, or Jordan were generational talents in their sports then you need some help.
Mario was absolutely 100% a generational talent.......you speak of him like he played 10 games and was a fluke..........the guy ended his career 7th all time in points.........in less games then anyone above him by a LONG LONG ways.
As for bringing Jordan into it LOL next you should tell me how Tiger is not a generational golfer
You are not getting the point. Generational does not = really really good. If we took a poll. For a player to be generatioanl. He would have to win 100% or close to it to be considered generational. Put Jordan up against Magic and Bird as they overlapped a good amount. And it would not be 100%. Shaq at the other end might take away. Orr would win 100%, Howe would win 100%, Tiger Woods is the only generatioanl player in all of sports today. He would win close to 100%.
Generational is the face of the generation. If you cannot agree on one face or represetative to stand out for group. Then no one is. You cannot coin that generation by one player. It does not mean there are not greats, super stars or all timers. It just means one player cannot stand up for their group.
And for the record about tennis. A grand slam is the bench mark for greatness. Agassi has it. Pete does not.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
If you ask people if Mario is a Generational talent almost 100% would say he is......you are the first and only person ive ever heard argue this point, its quite ridiculous.........you are a hockeys future prospect board here.........where every few years someone is regarded as the best prospect since who....thats right Mario Lemieux.............Mario and Gretzky were both absolutely generational talents........if you cant see that your a lost cause on the subject.
I guess I should have known this already when you said Jordan.........the best Basketball player of all time was not even a generational talent lol seriously just ask around a little bit and see how far off your views are.
I have asked around a lot. And like i said i have been involed in some fun number crunching debates. Like if Babe Ruth never pitched how many more at bats would he have gotten and at his rate how many more homers would he have hit. Also if they played a 162 game schedule. I have gone on the Jordan debate. Did he score 100? Did they change the rules after and during his playing career. Was there a hack a Jordan ? Is Jordan number one in scoring all time? Does he have the most championships all time? No to all. Could he be the best all time maybe. But if your first team dream team has Bird and Magic on it. Then i cannot give Joradn that label. Wilt i can becasue he changed the game. He forced the NBA to change rules becasue he dominated that much.
Here is the part you must not be able to grasp. Forgive i gave you too much credit in the intellegence department. Generational means the best in a generation. A generation is what say a 15 year span. One player has to dominate for that span. And be clear cut above his peers at that time. If Wilt played with Olajuwon, Ewing, Shaq, Robinson. He would not be a generational talent. I do not see him sticking that far out. If Howe, Gretzky, Orr, Crosby, AO, Lemieux all played in the same span. No way one is a generational. But when only one played at a time he is that generations talent. To be generatioanl you have to revolutionary. Like the slider in baseball. It changed alot of things. Wilt changed basketball, Orr changed hockey and defintly how a defencmen is viewed, Gretzky dominated the stat sheet and no one else. The game changed because he dominated so much. More assists then anyone else has points. Jordan did not revolutionize the two guard spot. Lemieux did not revolutionize the center spot. Did they dominate yes, are they the best of all time in their sports, arguably yes. Do they hold major records, nope. Did they have full careers, nope.
Last edited:
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 21,551
- 9,373
so according to you two of the top 4 players ever weren't generational players because they didn't play long enough? orr and lemieux are widely regarded to be a part of the elite 4 which includes gretzky, howe, orr, and lemieux. i think you're taking the "generational" part of generational player a little too literally. it's more or less used for players far better than their peers. gretz and mario's careers just happened to overlap.
Letang fan 58
No More Fleury
Show me the place where a generational player has to have played 15 years..........that is absolutely ridiculous...........or show me the place where it says the game must have been changed because of this player for him to be a generational talent.
A generational talent is just that...........an extremely talented player that when you speak of that point in time in regards to the sport you must mention because he was that good..........Mario was absolutely that good and was 100% absolutely a generational talent.........not only was he a generational talent he was one of the games best EVER......I think you need to look up some of the records that Mario put up and some of the seasons that he had because you clearly underrate the 2nd best player all time.
Now how in the hell do you think that you are going to be able to count Orr as a generational talent if you do not count Mario because of his career length? such a freaking hypocrite its unreal.
Ok last point on sports other then hockey because clearly if you can not even understand generational talent with regards to the NHL it's not worth trying to explain it in other sports............Michael Jordan won 6 rings.......a ton of scoring titles, and is generally regarded as the best basketball player of all time........thus making him a generational talent.........when you talk about the period of time when MJ played in who do you talk about? give your head a shake if you think that people regard Bird, Magic or whoever as a better player then Jordan.
