Generational vs. Exceptional Draft Prospects

[hockeydraftcentral]

Each day for over a month now, I have been tracking the performances of hundreds of 2018 NHL Entry Draft prospects on my website. While doing this, I often think about the concept of a great player vs. a generational player.

It's an important question this year, because I feel Rasmus Dahlin is a generational player who should be drafted first overall if he avoids injury. There are people who don't believe in drafting defensemen at No. 1, and I get that, but it would be a huge mistake to overlook Dahlin on that basis. He is not Chris Phillips or Aaron Ekblad or Erik Johnson or Bryan Berard or Roman Hamrlik, etc. None of those guys was ever seen as a generational player for the two years leading up to his draft year. Only one obvious generational NHL defenseman was ever actually taken at No. 1 overall -- Denis Potvin in 1973.

So I can't see anyone but Dahlin as the best player in this draft, because a defenseman like this is very, very rare.

There have been many NHL players who appear generational in retrospect, but were not obviously so in their draft years. Among defenseman, the obvious one is Nicklas Lidstrom. Among forwards, Jaromir Jagr would be a good example. It's not a coincidence that both prepped for the NHL in Europe, which does not get the hype normally reserved for generational North Americans. This is yet another reason why Dahlin is so special -- because he's European and he is fully deserving of the attention he gets.

The list of other obviously generational players in their draft year, going back to 1969, would include: Connor McDavid, John Tavares, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, Eric Lindros, Mario Lemieux, Potvin, and Guy Lafleur. All of the other Hall of Famers and All-Stars taken at No. 1 were exceptional players who stood out as clear No. 1's, but it would not be fair to say they were seen as generational players on draft day. That group includes Auston Matthews, Steven Stamkos, Patrick Kane, Ilya Kovalchuk, Vincent Lecavalier, Joe Thornton, Mats Sundin, Mike Modano, Pierre Turgeon, Dale Hawerchuk, Bobby Smith, and Gilbert Perreault.

I see Svechnikov as a member of this second group. He is exceptional. He might well have a Hall of Famer career, but he is not generational like the eight players mentioned above. Dahlin is, in my opinion, and he's the only generational player in a what is shaping up as a very deep 2018 draft pool.

Click to read more...

 

[Beukeboom]

This is slightly OT, but do you think europeans are flying under the radar still? I mean back in Lidstrom's days the scouting coverage of european hockey was no where as good as now so it was easier to see how him and Jagr could be overlooked. A NA prospect was also deemed more safe. Especially since the iron curtain just had begun to fall.

Nowdays we know european players usually adjust fine to NHL play. Back then it was a lot more different compared to european hockey.

Also what do you feel differ between Karlsson and Dahlin in their draft year?

 

[mouser]

Seems like this discussion will center more around what "generational" means.

IMO the last four "Generational Prospects" are Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid.

Players whose pre-draft resumes and hypes were head and shoulders above their peers for years leading up to the draft. Tavares, for example, was heavily hyped as well, getting the exceptional CHL status, but not in the same tier as those four.

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

Seems like this discussion will center more around what "generational" means.

IMO the last four "Generational Prospects" are Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid.

Players whose pre-draft resumes and hypes were head and shoulders above their peers for years leading up to the draft. Tavares, for example, was heavily hyped as well, getting the exceptional CHL status, but not in the same tier as those four.

This may be a fair point. Tavares was not "generational" in the sense of those other four, but he was thought of so highly that Hedman became an afterthought, which has to tell you something. Also, Ovechkin was talked about as a future superstar for at least two years prior to his draft. But you are right that Ovechkin and Tavares were not on the messiah level like the other four. Lafleur and Potvin were at that level, too.

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

This is slightly OT, but do you think europeans are flying under the radar still? I mean back in Lidstrom's days the scouting coverage of european hockey was no where as good as now so it was easier to see how him and Jagr could be overlooked. A NA prospect was also deemed more safe. Especially since the iron curtain just had begun to fall.

Nowdays we know european players usually adjust fine to NHL play. Back then it was a lot more different compared to european hockey.

Also what do you feel differ between Karlsson and Dahlin in their draft year?

The major difference with Karlsson was that he wasn't a regular in the SHL. He put up U20 numbers that I'm sure Dahlin could replicate with no trouble at all. The other difference was size. Karlsson was 5-11, 163, almost 30 pounds lighter than today. Dahlin is 6-2, 181. Big, big difference. The Hockey News ranked Karlsson No. 71. It ranks Dahlin No. 1. The highest final rank I find for Karlsson is Red Line Report at No. 41. However, six months before that draft, Red Line ranked 215 players, and Karlsson wasn't even on the list. Scouts saw the tremendous skill, but were not sure about his decision-making. You don't hear that sort of criticism for Dahlin. Erik Karlsson was not a sure thing at this point in his draft year, but Rasmus Dahlin already is one. This is one reason why he merits the full "generational" label, which is almost unheard of for a defenseman.

 

[Tryamkin]

Generational is a very strong word, not to be used lightly in this tense. As fantastic as Dahlin is (he could be one of the best defensemen to play the game), he may not be on that generational McDavid esque level that I think of when that word comes up.

 

[firstemperor]

Depends how loosely you use the word generational for a prospect. I've already lived through Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, McDavid, Forsberg, Lidstrom, Sakic, Stamkos, Jagr, Ovy, Kane, Stamkos, Malkin, Tavares, Yzerman, list goes on, and countless others. By definition, only one of those, at best, can be generational.

 

[tony d]

Generational is used to loosely. Generation to me is 20-25 years yet you have people calling Crosby (2005) and Mcdavid (2015) generational. Under the 20 year thing only 1 could be generational.

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

I have mixed feelings about the notion that generational players come along only every 25 years, but even if you take this approach, I believe Dahlin to be the first generational defenseman since Denis Potvin in 1973. That's 44 years. No matter what the standard, Dahlin appears truly generational for a defenseman.

Wayne Gretzky was born in 1961. Mario Lemieux was born in 1965. The gap between them is just under five years. Does anyone think they weren't both generational because they were too close in age? Generational is really about talent level and a desire to get the most from it. A generational player reaches the NHL with enough talent to make a big impact even at age 20 or below and have that same impact for 10-15 years. You know a generational player when you see one -- they stand out in a way where you realize you have never seen something like them before at the position which they play.

Look at what Dahlin has been doing for two seasons as a defenseman against men in the SHL and ask yourself if you have ever seen this before? None of us has. Lidstrom had two points in 20 SHL games in his draft year. Hedman had four points in 39 SHL games in his draft year. Dahlin already has six in 12 games.

But here's the best indicator of why Dahlin is generational: He reached the SHL and played real minutes there at age 16. Lidstrom, Hedman, and Karlsson did not.

You have to believe every NHL scout fully recognizes this. As long as Dahlin stays healthy, it would shock me to see another player picked ahead of him.

 

[infinitemile]

The idea that there can only be one generational player every 25 years is ridiculous. It doesn't imply one player only, it implies that this player was not just a franchise player, but defined the NHL while he was there.

Would you say that neither Lemieux or Roy or Lidstrom could be generational because Gretzky was still around? No. Those players defined the NHL in addition to being franchise players.

From the 05 lockout there have been 3 generational players imo, all forwards. Crosby, Ovi, and McDavid. Karlsson is a franchise D but has not defined the league, and Price would be the best case for a G but is debatably a franchise player.

How can you know if a player defined the league? If they changed how players play after them. The league wasn't the same after Roy, Lidstrom, Lemieux. It won't be the same after Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid.

I haven't done enough research into Dahlin to be able to tell. Do you think he will change the way players play after him?

 

[Luddowich]

Look at what Dahlin has been doing for two seasons as a defenseman against men in the SHL and ask yourself if you have ever seen this before? None of us has. Lidstrom had two points in 20 SHL games in his draft year. Hedman had four points in 39 SHL games in his draft year. Dahlin already has six in 12 games.

Hedman had 21 pts in 43 games in his draft season. But, i get your point. What's worth noting is that Hedman was a man child in his D while Dahlin is what, 170-180 with a 6'3 frame which further tells how incredible his stats are.

 

[Tryamkin]

Guys like Stamkos and Tavares are great, but not generational.

 

[RageQuit77]

I don't like HFBoards' loose usage of the term either.

In my very strict list there are 3 names to be generational:

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr.

Hazek and/or Hextall could earn to be called generational Goalies.

The point is - IMO - that to be a generational player, he MUST be such kind he revolutionalized at least his playing role (like Orr did to Defensemen) if not the whole way the game is played there after.

Thus said. Crosby or McDavid or Matthews or [insert name here] are not generational players, not even Ovi... and not saying someone of them could not become such in the future, as to be called generational needs also enough wide time frames of perception, since only real perspective to declare someone generational is the retrospective.)

 

[StatisticsAddict99]

Exceptional Talent = Potential to be Top 50 Player All-Time(or better, also keep in mind they can one day exceed these and may even become Generational but it's highly unlikely)

Current Players: Kucherov, Matthews, Eichel, Laine, Stamkos, Toews, Tavaras, Hedman

Generational Talent = Potential to be Top 25 Player All-Time

Current Players: McDavid, Karlsson, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kane


Generational Player = Top 25 Player(of any era)

- So if you have ever been in the Top 10 of All-Time players you should be deemed Generational(even if a player knocks them out because given the time many will be knocked out but they are still deemed Top-10 All-time for after they're era and then some).

Current Players: Crosby, Ovechkin and maybe Malkin

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

Hedman had 21 pts in 43 games in his draft season. But, i get your point. What's worth noting is that Hedman was a man child in his D while Dahlin is what, 170-180 with a 6'3 frame which further tells how incredible his stats are.

My bad on Hedman. I was looking at his 16-year-old SHL stats, not his draft year. I think Dahlin will beat Hedman's draft-year numbers. It is true that Hedman was a huge, hulking guy -- reminiscent of Lindros in terms of being a man-child at his draft age. So you are right that Dahlin is battling strength issues that weren't the same for Hedman. A former NHL player once told me that when you draft a kid, you have to project what his "man-strength" will look like. The ultimate Swedish example of this is Peter Forsberg, who was quite scrawny on his draft day. Imagine Dahlin once he gets that future "man-strength". Wow.

If it had not been for Tavares, Hedman might have received tons of "generational" hype heading into his draft. If you're a Tampa Bay fan, you have to feel lucky that he was there at No. 2, and you probably would not trade him straight-up for Tavares these days.

As for those who change the way the game is played, I don't consider that necessarily the mark of a generational player. Because while Patrick Roy changed the way goaltenders after him played, in terms of raw talent, I'm not sure he was any more generational than Hasek. A generational player is one with unique talent that you can clearly see from Day One. Roy was nothing special in his draft year. Once he got to the NHL, he was more of a revolutionary who built his success on great style. Hasek built his success on a natural, almost super-human athletic talent. Roy never won back-to-back Hart Trophies like Hasek. A generational player can do that.

Orr was generational and also revolutionized the game, so you can have the talent and the style, for sure. But you take away Orr's talent and the style change would not have been not possible. Gretzky also made innovations, and his talent was primarily in his hockey-sense, not so much his physical attributes. Gretzky's ability to think the game was entirely generational. But what did Lemieux do to change the game? He was really more like a freak of nature in his size, hands, skating, hockey sense, etc. Who will say Lemieux was not a generational player just because he didn't necessarily change the way his position is played?

In the end, it has to be about the talent, whether it's physical or mental. And it has to be about the ability to make remarkable plays based on that talent. It also has to be about commitment and character, because too many potentially great players lacked those traits. There are a lot of NHL players with outstanding commitment and character, but they still need that unique talent, which is why generational players are so rare.

 

[DanM]

I don't like HFBoards' loose usage of the term either.

In my very strict list there are 3 names to be generational:

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr.

Hazek and/or Hextall could earn to be called generational Goalies.

The point is - IMO - that to be a generational player, he MUST be such kind he revolutionalized at least his playing role (like Orr did to Defensemen) if not the whole way the game is played there after.

Thus said. Crosby or McDavid or Matthews or [insert name here] are not generational players, not even Ovi... and not saying someone of them could not become such in the future, as to be called generational needs also enough wide time frames of perception, since only real perspective to declare someone generational is the retrospective.)

This is the winner! It is what generational was supposed to mean. the word gets thrown around at a sickening rate these days.

 

[DanM]

My bad on Hedman. I was looking at his 16-year-old SHL stats, not his draft year. I think Dahlin will beat Hedman's draft-year numbers. It is true that Hedman was a huge, hulking guy -- reminiscent of Lindros in terms of being a man-child at his draft age. So you are right that Dahlin is battling strength issues that weren't the same for Hedman. A former NHL player once told me that when you draft a kid, you have to project what his "man-strength" will look like. The ultimate Swedish example of this is Peter Forsberg, who was quite scrawny on his draft day. Imagine Dahlin once he gets that future "man-strength". Wow.

If it had not been for Tavares, Hedman might have received tons of "generational" hype heading into his draft. If you're a Tampa Bay fan, you have to feel lucky that he was there at No. 2, and you probably would not trade him straight-up for Tavares these days.

As for those who change the way the game is played, I don't consider that necessarily the mark of a generational player. Because while Patrick Roy changed the way goaltenders after him played, in terms of raw talent, I'm not sure he was any more generational than Hasek. A generational player is one with unique talent that you can clearly see from Day One. Roy was nothing special in his draft year. Once he got to the NHL, he was more of a revolutionary who built his success on great style. Hasek built his success on a natural, almost super-human athletic talent. Roy never won back-to-back Hart Trophies like Hasek. A generational player can do that.

Orr was generational and also revolutionized the game, so you can have the talent and the style, for sure. But you take away Orr's talent and the style change would not have been not possible. Gretzky also made innovations, and his talent was primarily in his hockey-sense, not so much his physical attributes. Gretzky's ability to think the game was entirely generational. But what did Lemieux do to change the game? He was really more like a freak of nature in his size, hands, skating, hockey sense, etc. Who will say Lemieux was not a generational player just because he didn't necessarily change the way his position is played?

In the end, it has to be about the talent, whether it's physical or mental. And it has to be about the ability to make remarkable plays based on that talent. It also has to be about commitment and character, because too many potentially great players lacked those traits. There are a lot of NHL players with outstanding commitment and character, but they still need that unique talent, which is why generational players are so rare.

I would say Mario changed the way the game was played as a big power forward in a sense. The stats were video game above almost all peers, and we have not seen a big man like that since, not even Lindros as people love to throw out there.

 

[DanM]

We call Mcdavid generational because we were told he was. The separation between him and the next elite set of players tells me he is not. You could argue his speed, and ability to have his hands and head work at that speed could put him that category, but I have not seen enough to proclaim him the best of his generation.

 

[GetFocht]

is Pettersson Generational or Exceptional?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

What about those prospects dubbed exceptionally generational?

 

[Bustedprospect]

Also what do you feel differ between Karlsson and Dahlin in their draft year?[/QUOTE]

My bad on Hedman. I was looking at his 16-year-old SHL stats, not his draft year. I think Dahlin will beat Hedman's draft-year numbers. It is true that Hedman was a huge, hulking guy -- reminiscent of Lindros in terms of being a man-child at his draft age. So you are right that Dahlin is battling strength issues that weren't the same for Hedman. A former NHL player once told me that when you draft a kid, you have to project what his "man-strength" will look like. The ultimate Swedish example of this is Peter Forsberg, who was quite scrawny on his draft day. Imagine Dahlin once he gets that future "man-strength". Wow.

If it had not been for Tavares, Hedman might have received tons of "generational" hype heading into his draft. If you're a Tampa Bay fan, you have to feel lucky that he was there at No. 2, and you probably would not trade him straight-up for Tavares these days.

In the end, it has to be about the talent, whether it's physical or mental. And it has to be about the ability to make remarkable plays based on that talent. It also has to be about commitment and character, because too many potentially great players lacked those traits. There are a lot of NHL players with outstanding commitment and character, but they still need that unique talent, which is why generational players are so rare.

Hedman would have went first overall if he had played better in those world-juniors. But he didnt play that well at all to be honest. His stats for his last season was inflated due to the fact that they were a one-line team. Hedman did have that nice frame and skating which are quite unique. My knack against him was his offensive game and attitude. And it took him a good while to get going for real in the NHL. He also lack that mean-streak that Dahlin has.

Regarding Dahlin he make it look so effertloss and at both ends of the rink against men. So calm and collected. He is generational blueliner and the greatest talent ever from my nation.

 

[93LEAFS]

Generational is Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid.

Exceptional in that time frame would probably be (My knowledge of the drafts between Lemieux and Lindros is somewhat limited) Turgeon, Modano, Daigle, Thornton, Lecavalier, Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Malkin, Stamkos, Doughty, Tavares, Hedman, Eichel, and Matthews. Dahlin looks to be in that grouping. Just below that since 2000, I'd put in Spezza, Nash, Bouwmeester, P. Kane, Duchene, Bogosian, Hall, Seguin, Mackinnon, Drouin, Jones (Barkov was almost universally at 4 so I wouldn't' group him this high, but he should have and Flordia looks great for it), and Laine.

You can obviously debate some placements. Some may put Ovi in generational, although I disagree strongly on the premise that if a 16-year-old Crosby was in the 2004 draft, he still would have gone first, and the only people between him on both sides that would cause serious debate is Lindros and McDavid. I can see arguments for MacKinnon, Laine, Hall, and Spezza to be bumped up or at least grouped with Stamkos in some middle tier.

As of today, I would expect Dahlin to end up in that exceptional group by the time of the draft, and Svechnikov to end up in that grouping with Laine, Hall, and P. Kane.

Edit: Just to avoid the headache it would be to try to figure out, I avoided mentioning USSR players who were drafted before the fall of communism. Bure, may have had a chance to be generational, and was probably in that exceptional grouping given his accomplishments at his age. Fedorov probably would have been in that exceptional grouping too.

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

Generational is Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid.

....

Edit: Just to avoid the headache it would be to try to figure out, I avoided mentioning USSR players who were drafted before the fall of communism. Bure, may have had a chance to be generational, and was probably in that exceptional grouping given his accomplishments at his age. Fedorov probably would have been in that exceptional grouping too.

Nice post. The generational player that frustrates me the most was Lindros. He had a Hall of Fame career, but it could have been so much more than it was. The off-ice drama that surrounded him was just too much. Anybody would have been affected by that. There was no question he came into the NHL as a generational talent, but he never played like one on a consistent basis. And that is almost tragic, when you think of how much greater he could have been.

As for the Russians, you are right that there were generational players caught in the USSR, and if I had to name one, I might choose Bure. Fetisov was generational, but reached the NHL too late. We'll never know just what Tretiak and some of the other older Red Army stars might have been in the NHL.

I still contend that Dahlin is a generational player. There just haven't been many among defensemen, so we aren't used to identifying them when they come along.

 

[hockeydraftcentral]

Just want to clarify something I pointed out earlier ...

Erik Karlsson was ranked No. 22 by ISS heading into the 2008 draft. That was the highest anybody appears to have ranked him.

Expect Dahlin to get a lot more love in the rankings next spring.

 

[mouser]

Nice post. The generational player that frustrates me the most was Lindros. He had a Hall of Fame career, but it could have been so much more than it was. The off-ice drama that surrounded him was just too much. Anybody would have been affected by that. There was no question he came into the NHL as a generational talent, but he never played like one on a consistent basis. And that is almost tragic, when you think of how much greater he could have been.

As for the Russians, you are right that there were generational players caught in the USSR, and if I had to name one, I might choose Bure. Fetisov was generational, but reached the NHL too late. We'll never know just what Tretiak and some of the other older Red Army stars might have been in the NHL.

I still contend that Dahlin is a generational player. There just haven't been many among defensemen, so we aren't used to identifying them when they come along.

The way I like to describe Lindros is that he was a generational prospect/player who peaked very high in the NHL (high enough to validate his generational prospect label) but did not end up forging a generational NHL career. We still haven't seen anyone since him with a similar combination of size, power and skill.