Do you consider Matthews a 'Generational' player or talent?

[Krewe]

I think Matthews is as good as a player can be without being generational. Guys like him blur that line because they are clearly generational in major aspects of the game (scoring), but don't quite separate themselves over a career the way McDavid and the other true ones do.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Doesn't "generational player" imply they are the best player of their generation?

Howe
Makita
Orr
Lafleur
Gretzky
Lemieux
Crosby
McDavid

HM: Bobby Hull, Esposito, Jagr, Ovechkin

I don't foresee Matthew's name being added to the above list.

I don't necessarily like this description because, technically speaking, it means one of Lemieux or Gretzky aren't generational since a big portion of their careers overlap.

Maybe I've just got a more loose definition, but I opt for the type of talent that doesn't come around often and establishes themselves as a cut above their peers for multiple years in their career. The caveat being if they happen to play during the same time as another "generational" talent, both guys have to had a block of time at the top and even when they weren't at the top, both guys should have been neck and neck with one another (ie. the Crosby/Ovechkin situation).

 

[MuckOG]

I don't necessarily like this description because, technically speaking, it means one of Lemieux or Gretzky aren't generational since a big portion of their careers overlap.

Maybe I've just got a more loose definition, but I opt for the type of talent that doesn't come around often and establishes themselves as a cut above their peers for multiple years in their career. The caveat being if they happen to play during the same time as another "generational" talent, both guys have to had a block of time at the top and even when they weren't at the top, both guys should have been neck and neck with one another (ie. the Crosby/Ovechkin situation).

Some overlap yes, but Gretzky's peak years were well before Lemieux's peak. Each player during their peak were clearly the best players in the NHL.

When I think of "generational", I think of a player that is clearly better than everyone else in the league for at least a few years (ie The kind of player that only comes around once in a generation). Matthews has been great, but he hasn't taken over the league like players such as McDavid, Crosby and the others I listed.

As someone mentioned, if you think Matthews is "generational", then so are players like Patrick Kane, Malkin, etc. I don't consider either Kane or Malkin to be generational players. To claim otherwise, IMO, cheapens the meaning of the term.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Not how I remember it. I had not heard the term until Sid and Ovechkin was not mentioned the same way. Ask a Caps fan. It took awhile.

Caps fan here.

It didn't take a while. In fact Ovechkin was the far superior player in their first 5 years. Not close.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think it's very clearly no.

Generational players come into the league and dominate immediately, even if they have a garbage team around them.

Matthews has barely out-goaled age 31-36 Ovechkin (259 to 255) while being surrounded excellent talent from day 1. He's 10th in points since entering the NHL.

He is an excellent player. But nothing he has done stacks up to the accomplishments of McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby, Jagr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, or Howe.

 

[Xspyrit]

Some overlap yes, but Gretzky's peak years were well before Lemieux's peak. Each player during their peak were clearly the best players in the NHL.

When I think of "generational", I think of a player that is clearly better than everyone else in the league for at least a few years (ie The kind of player that only comes around once in a generation). Matthews has been great, but he hasn't taken over the league like players such as McDavid, Crosby and the others I listed.

As someone mentioned, if you think Matthews is "generational", then so are players like Patrick Kane, Malkin, etc. I don't consider either Kane or Malkin to be generational players. To claim otherwise, IMO, cheapens the meaning of the term.

Hasek and Lidstrom aren't generational?

Am I the only one talking about different positions/roles means there could be several generational players at the same time

Generational should mean players who marked a generation

Offensive forwards : Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, McDavid

Goal scorers : Ovechkin, Matthews

2-way forwards : Messier, Francis, Sakic, Bergeron

Defensemen : Coffey, Bourque, Lidstrom

Goalies : Roy, Hasek, Brodeur

 

[MuckOG]

Hasek and Lidstrom aren't generational?

Am I the only one talking about different positions/roles means there could be several generational players at the same time

Generational should mean players who marked a generation

Offensive forwards : Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Crosby, McDavid

Goal scorers : Ovechkin, Matthews

2-way forwards : Messier, Francis, Sakic, Bergeron

Defensemen : Coffey, Bourque, Lidstrom

Goalies : Hasek, Roy, Brodeur

First, I don't rank goalies with skaters. If we are talking about the greatest goaltenders of all time, Hasek certainly is in that conversation.

Lidstrom was an elite defender and a HOFer, but not generational, IMO. He may have been the best blueliner over a period of years, but he wasn't the best player in the league or face of the NHL as the guys I put on my list. Orr is the only defender I have on my generational list because he was the best overall player in the league, not just the best blueliner.

Admittedly, I have a strict and narrow definition, as I believe the term "generational" warrants a strict and narrow definition. If you want to water it down, go ahead...but then it just turns into a list of the "very elite" players.

 

[Xspyrit]

First, I don't rank goalies with skaters. If we are talking about the greatest goaltenders of all time, Hasek certainly is in that conversation.

Lidstrom was an elite defender and a HOFer, but not generational, IMO. He may have been the best blueliner over a period of years, but he wasn't the best player in the league or face of the NHL as the guys I put on my list.

Admittedly, I have a strict and narrow definition, as I believe the term "generational" warrants a strict and narrow definition. If you want to water it down, go ahead...but then it just turns into a list of the "very elite" players.

Agree that the term "generational" warrants a strict and narrow definition but why would it mean "best player in the league" or "face of the NHL"???

Very hard to define in NHL context but to me they are a tier above Elite players at their position

I don't see the argument as to why guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, Hasek or Roy wouldn't be considered generational even if they're never been the #1 best NHL player. I mean, in theory it can take more than a generation to encounter another player at the same position as good and impactful as they were

 

[MuckOG]

Agree that the term "generational" warrants a strict and narrow definition but why would it mean "best player in the league" or "face of the NHL"???

Very hard to define in NHL context but to me they are a tier above Elite players

Because that's just how I interpret it. Generational players should be rare and transcend the sport.

 

[norrisnick]

First, I don't rank goalies with skaters. If we are talking about the greatest goaltenders of all time, Hasek certainly is in that conversation.

Lidstrom was an elite defender and a HOFer, but not generational, IMO. He may have been the best blueliner over a period of years, but he wasn't the best player in the league or face of the NHL as the guys I put on my list. Orr is the only defender I have on my generational list because he was the best overall player in the league, not just the best blueliner.

Admittedly, I have a strict and narrow definition, as I believe the term "generational" warrants a strict and narrow definition. If you want to water it down, go ahead...but then it just turns into a list of the "very elite" players.

Strongly beg to differ.

 

[Xspyrit]

Because that's just how I interpret it. Generational players should be rare and transcend the sport.

ok which of the players I named didn't? 17 players for 6 role/positions in a 40 years span


If we're being anal with the semantics, the average generation length is about 25 years so you can't have both Lemieux and Gretzky as generational. Same with Ovechkin and Crosby. Which do you choose?

 

[MuckOG]

ok which of the players I named didn't? 17 players for 6 role/positions in a 40 years span


If we're being anal with the semantics, the average generation length is about 25 years so you can't have both Lemieux and Gretzky as generational. Same with Ovechkin and Crosby. Which do you choose?

I choose the players that I listed as "generational".

Howe
Mikita
Orr
Lafleur
Gretzky
Lemieux
Crosby
McDavid

I'm borderline on Bobby Hull, Phil Esposito, Jagr and Ovechkin.

This is just my list and if you don't like it....fine!

 

[jigglysquishy]

Hull was considered better than Mikita by his peers.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Hard to call a guy "generational" when there's currently a forward who is undisputedly better than him

 

[leafsfan5]

Hard to call a guy "generational" when there's currently a forward who is undisputedly better than him

Hypothetically, let's say Gretzky and McDavid were playing in the same era. Does that mean McDavid wouldn't be generational?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Hypothetically, let's say Gretzky and McDavid were playing in the same era. Does that mean McDavid wouldn't be generational?

It took Lemieux being the only player ever to even come close to Gretzky's numbers. It took Ovechkin being the greatest goal scoring wing to get the moniker with Crosby.

Matthews being an Yzerman/Malkin/LaFleur isn't a bad thing.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Hypothetically, let's say Gretzky and McDavid were playing in the same era. Does that mean McDavid wouldn't be generational?

It's really not that hard to understand though. Look at the players we are saying are generational, look at their stats over their careers and then look at Matthews. One of those doesn't look like the others.

Drai isn't close to generational and neither is Mack. Those are AM's comparables and when it comes to Drai he outproduces AM by a large margin.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It took Lemieux being the only player ever to even come close to Gretzky's numbers. It took Ovechkin being the greatest goal scoring wing to get the moniker with Crosby.

Matthews being an Yzerman/Malkin/LaFleur isn't a bad thing.

Lafleur at peak was a tier above Yzerman/Malkin/Matthews.

Ovechkins claim isn't so much his 2013-2020 Rocket run, but his 2007-2010 run.

3x leading the league in PPG
3x Pearson
2x Hart
Point finishes of 1, 2, 2

That 3 season peak is a clear step above Matthews. And is by far the biggest part of Ovechkins resume.

 

[Video Nasty]

Lafleur at peak was a tier above Yzerman/Malkin/Matthews.

Ovechkins claim isn't so much his 2013-2020 Rocket run, but his 2007-2010 run.

3x leading the league in PPG
3x Pearson
2x Hart
Point finishes of 1, 2, 2

That 3 season peak is a clear step above Matthews. And is by far the biggest part of Ovechkins resume.

Yeah, this revisionist history of when Ovechkin was considered generational is so strange to me. I keep seeing people parrot that his run of Rockets and flirting with Gretzky’s record is when it happened, but no, it was clearly over the course of his first 5 seasons when Ovechkin came storming out of the gates and won the Calder over Crosby while outscoring and outpointing him in their rookie campaign to make anyone without an agenda pause for a moment.

Then Crosby hit 120 and swept the major awards while Ovechkin took a slight step back before going on one of the greatest 3 year runs over the past 40 years when he (I’m going to slightly expand on your info):

Won 2 Harts and finished a close second to Sedin in 2009-2010.

Won 1 Art Ross and finished second twice: to Malkin by 3 points in 3 less games and to Sedin with 3 less points in 10 less games.

Won 3 Pearsons.

Won 2 Rockets and was runner up to Crosby and Stamkos by 1 goal in 9 and 10 games less played respectively.

Led the league in each year in a host of stats like EV goals, Point Shares, etc

Mere goals and points away from an outright sweep of the Hart, Pearson, Ross, and Rocket for three straight years. I wish we saw it happen and I hope to see it happen by someone again.

 

[ghostingtaro]

franchise player yes, generational no

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Some overlap yes, but Gretzky's peak years were well before Lemieux's peak. Each player during their peak were clearly the best players in the NHL.

When I think of "generational", I think of a player that is clearly better than everyone else in the league for at least a few years (ie The kind of player that only comes around once in a generation). Matthews has been great, but he hasn't taken over the league like players such as McDavid, Crosby and the others I listed.

As someone mentioned, if you think Matthews is "generational", then so are players like Patrick Kane, Malkin, etc. I don't consider either Kane or Malkin to be generational players. To claim otherwise, IMO, cheapens the meaning of the term.

For the record I don't think Matthews is generational. He hasn't separated himself from the rest of the league and what he's done apart from last season isn't "generational" type performance. I was commenting more on the idea that a player can't be generational if there's already another one currently playing in the league at the same time.

 

[leafsfan5]

It took Lemieux being the only player ever to even come close to Gretzky's numbers. It took Ovechkin being the greatest goal scoring wing to get the moniker with Crosby.

Matthews being an Yzerman/Malkin/LaFleur isn't a bad thing.

It's really not that hard to understand though. Look at the players we are saying are generational, look at their stats over their careers and then look at Matthews. One of those doesn't look like the others.

Drai isn't close to generational and neither is Mack. Those are AM's comparables and when it comes to Drai he outproduces AM by a large margin.

I don't think Matthews is generational lol, I just disagree with the idea if one player is clearly the best in the world another player can't be generational

If any of McDavid/Crosby/Ovechkin got stuck in Gretzky's era they wouldn't be close to him, under that idea they wouldn't have been generational (even though they clearly are)

 

[Xspyrit]

I choose the players that I listed as "generational".

Howe
Mikita
Orr
Lafleur
Gretzky
Lemieux
Crosby
McDavid

I'm borderline on Bobby Hull, Phil Esposito, Jagr and Ovechkin.

This is just my list and if you don't like it....fine!

Of course, you have the right to have your opinion but it seems like it's based more on "face of the NHL" like you mentioned above... Like someone already told you, Bobby Hull was the face of the NHL above Mikita

So Mikita and Lafleur are generational but Hasek and Lidstrom aren't? Jagr and Ovechkin aren't? It doesn't make much sense but ok, it's your list at least

It took Lemieux being the only player ever to even come close to Gretzky's numbers. It took Ovechkin being the greatest goal scoring wing to get the moniker with Crosby.

Matthews being an Yzerman/Malkin/LaFleur isn't a bad thing.

Matthews is trending to score as much if not more than Ovechkin... If he doesn't regress or decline during the next decade, it will become a very tight race. The guy turned 25 y/o a few days ago and already has 259 NHL goals....

I'm far from a Matthews/Leafs fan. I get flame out by Leafs fans on the occasion but I am more a fan of calling a spade a spade than anything else.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

Caps fan here.

It didn't take a while. In fact Ovechkin was the far superior player in their first 5 years. Not close.

Why am I the first to respond to this!? Sid won the Hart in his age 19 season, it took Ovechkin until his age 20 season to just win the Calder. Ovechkin was not the far superior player in their first 5 seasons.

 

[DFC]

No, but maybe.

What I mean is, as of now he's the best pure goal-scorer in the league, IMO. That alone doesn't make him generational, unless he pulls an Ovy and stays on top for 15 years.

That said, if he loses his mind and hits 75 this year, it's time to re-evaluate.

Of course, you have the right to have your opinion but it seems like it's based more on "face of the NHL" like you mentioned above... Like someone already told you, Bobby Hull was the face of the NHL above Mikita

So Mikita and Lafleur are generational but Hasek and Lidstrom aren't? Jagr and Ovechkin aren't? It doesn't make much sense but ok, it's your list at least



Matthews is trending to score as much if not more than Ovechkin... If he doesn't regress or decline during the next decade, it will become a very tight race. The guy turned 25 y/o a few days ago and already has 259 NHL goals....

I'm far from a Matthews/Leafs fan. I get flame out by Leafs fans on the occasion but I am more a fan of calling a spade a spade than anything else.

Yeah, but that insane longevity is part of Ovy's legacy. It's hard to say a guy is pacing for more than Ovy when the guy is 25. Maybe when he's 32 or 33 and still putting up ridiculous numbers.