Generational vs. Exceptional Draft Prospects

[LeafsNation75]

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.

Besides Tavares getting exceptional status in the OHL was he not referred to as generational leading up to the NHL draft because there was some thought off Hedman or Duchene possibly going 1st overall or was that the media to hype up the 09 draft? With Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid there was not any other debate about someone else being selected 1st overall.

 

[sabrebuild]

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.

Good post, I would just say the euro thing screws up the perspective on a lot of these prospects.

For example, Ovie, if Canadian and playing in the chl would have absolutely gotten the generational tag.

Playing pro in Europe cuts way back on production, especially for teenagers who get minimal ice time. Ovie in the chl would have been new lindros minus the fighting, which might have developed in Canada.

The idea that Malkin and Ovie go 1-2 in that draft and it hardly got half the hype Crosby or Stamkos got tells the lack of coverage bias.

 

[93LEAFS]

Good post, I would just say the euro thing screws up the perspective on a lot of these prospects.

For example, Ovie, if Canadian and playing in the chl would have absolutely gotten the generational tag.

Playing pro in Europe cuts way back on production, especially for teenagers who get minimal ice time. Ovie in the chl would have been new lindros minus the fighting, which might have developed in Canada.

The idea that Malkin and Ovie go 1-2 in that draft and it hardly got half the hype Crosby or Stamkos got tells the lack of coverage bias.

I don't think Ovi would have, because he would of been compared to 16 year old Crosby, who would have been picked ahead of him in almost all scenarios. Crosby would have gone first in 2004 had he been eligible.

I think to be a generational prospect, you have to meet two very key criteria points. One, is that you are likely the best prospect to be drafted within a 5 year or so time-frame. I think Crosby goes over anyone in that 5 to 10 year period, even a 16 year old Crosby would have gone ahead of Ovi. The other is, there has to be a realistic expectation that the player can win multiple Hart trophies and Lindsey trophies during there peak. Yes, I understand awards aren't perfect, but if you are generation you should so clearly be the best player in the league that you dominate these awards.

In my opinion, since the fall of the WHA there have been 4 generational prospects (Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, and McDavid) and only one clear-cut generational player (Lemieux) with strong arguments for Crosby, Jagr, Hasek and to a lesser extent Ovi. Past that their isn't anyone I would label a generational player, with the caveat that McDavid is likely to become one but to even be in the discussion you need a fairly long track record that extends past 2 seasons.

Ovi also got as much hype as Stamkos if not more. He was hyped to the same levels as Thornton and Lecavalier, who were the most hyped prospects between Daigle and Crosby. Malkin didn't really because he played further east into Russia and emerged as a dominant player in his draft year.

The only guys in North American Sports right now who are absolutely Generational are Lebron and Mike Trout. No one else is that much further ahead than their peers that they can definitively claim it. Brady is amazing, but Manning was always close with him and then there is Aaron Rodgers. Although, I'd label Brady generational due to being so dominant, but I don't think its as clear cut as the first 2.

 

[sabrebuild]

I don't think Ovi would have, because he would of been compared to 16 year old Crosby, who would have been picked ahead of him in almost all scenarios. Crosby would have gone first in 2004 had he been eligible.
.

What I’m saying is that your belief in that being true, is because Crosby, was a tremendous prospect purely on his own merits. And was also seen and built up within hockey Mecca of Canada. So from the time he was 12 you heard about him. So when he is destroying the q against teenagers and put up crazy numbers he solidified his status as a generational guy.

Now transfer him to Moscow. Let him be born under the soviets and never be heard of at all until he was 15 or 16 and made his first international tourney.

Then let Sid play pro at age 16, and only get 12-14 minutes a game with little pp for a year or two. Maybe he gets half point a game as a 16 year old and just under a ppg as a 17 year old.

Meanwhile a 6’3” 215 lb dervish has been a goal scoring machine from Montreal who has been known since he was 14. By the draft he has put up 70 goals in a season and is being penalized in the q for being to physical due to pure man strength and size.

Do you still think Crosby goes 1 as a 16 year old under those circumstances? Or is it possible that media attention and playing environment play big factors in how prospects are viewed, versus their actual skills.

 

[93LEAFS]

What I’m saying is that your belief in that being true, is because Crosby, was a tremendous prospect purely on his own merits. And was also seen and built up within hockey Mecca of Canada. So from the time he was 12 you heard about him. So when he is destroying the q against teenagers and put up crazy numbers he solidified his status as a generational guy.

Now transfer him to Moscow. Let him be born under the soviets and never be heard of at all until he was 15 or 16 and made his first international tourney.

Then let Sid play pro at age 16, and only get 12-14 minutes a game with little pp for a year or two. Maybe he gets half point a game as a 16 year old and just under a ppg as a 17 year old.

Meanwhile a 6’3” 215 lb dervish has been a goal scoring machine from Montreal who has been known since he was 14. By the draft he has put up 70 goals in a season and is being penalized in the q for being to physical due to pure man strength and size.

Do you still think Crosby goes 1 as a 16 year old under those circumstances? Or is it possible that media attention and playing environment play big factors in how prospects are viewed, versus their actual skills.

I think scouts tend to get it right. If it was all about hype than Kovalchuk would never have passed Jason Spezza. Or the Sedins and Stefan going above Brendl. Ovechkin was known as a youth prodigy at 16. He was written about as the next one very shortly after Kovalchuk was drafted.

I've never really seen any proof that Euro's get undervalued at the top of the draft due to their playing environment. The hit and misses seem to be about the same. Except for a couple cases around 2010 with Russian where no-transfer agreement scared team. Everyone knew Tarasenko was a top 5 talent and Kuznetsov a top 10, and the slip was due to what happened with Radulov.

 

[alko]

What was John Tavares? There was a hype about him, if im correct. And he did some spectacular season in OHL when he was 16. And after he was drafted by Islanders (or it was clear Islanders will pick Nr 1) there was a boom in season tickets sales.

But he doesn't fill his status. He is only a "star".

 

[93LEAFS]

What was John Tavares? There was a hype about him, if im correct. And he did some spectacular season in OHL when he was 16. And after he was drafted by Islanders (or it was clear Islanders will pick Nr 1) there was a boom in season tickets sales.

But he doesn't fill his status. He is only a "star".

His hyped died down due to a lack of progress between his 16 and 18-year-old seasons. He really rounded out his game, but he was still knocked for his skating. I also remember at the time around the OHL everyone thought he was a clear tier behind Sid due to his lack of skating and not having the same passing abilities as Sid. He was more credited for his strength on the puck, a deadly shot and being in the right place.

 

[gifted88]

There are only so many generational players.

Will Dahlin be better than Crosby or McDavid? Not just as a defenceman, but overall? I find that hard to believe.

I believe he's viewed as a franchise player, the type you build a team around. And that's getting mistaken for generational.

 

[sabrebuild]

I think scouts tend to get it right. If it was all about hype than Kovalchuk would never have passed Jason Spezza. Or the Sedins and Stefan going above Brendl. Ovechkin was known as a youth prodigy at 16. He was written about as the next one very shortly after Kovalchuk was drafted.

I've never really seen any proof that Euro's get undervalued at the top of the draft due to their playing environment. The hit and misses seem to be about the same. Except for a couple cases around 2010 with Russian where no-transfer agreement scared team. Everyone knew Tarasenko was a top 5 talent and Kuznetsov a top 10, and the slip was due to what happened with Radulov.

I agree scouts tend to get it right. Both Ovie and Crosby went 1st overall. But your statement that if they were in the same draft, particularly with Crosby being 16, is where hype diverges from “getting it right”.

At the time they are both monster prospects, but Crosby is generational because he did his youth damage against kids in the spotlight, while Ovie player against men and was great, but limited in exposure.

Given their careers now in hindsight, it would be asinine to pick 16 year old Crosby over 18 year old ovechkin. We now know that both players are generational. Crosby the Uber grinder/playmaker extraordinaire and ovechkin might be the best pure goal scorer ever, certainly since Gretz, which considering eras, is a nod for Ovie.

Now given all that, and that we know they were both monsters the second they touched nhl I would suggest that the tiny delineation in hype between Ovie being just a stud first overall and Crosby being the Next One, is more a product of their environments than it is their actual ability as prospects.

I mean realistically Ovechkin was Russian Crosby. Youngest Russian national to play internationally for the men’s team at 17. Dominated the under 18 tournament well over 2 ppg. Made the under 20 tournament as a 16 year old and played very well. His accolades go on.

The point to me is you could look at both of their careers and the signs of their greatness were very similar, other than media exposure at a young age and the development system and the related production numbers.

Consider this, Tavares got the generational bump after getting exceptional status and putting up, what 70 goals in his 16 year old season? What kind of bump does Ovechkin get if he puts up Tavares stats to go along with incredible athleticism and size that Tavares lacks?

Just my opinion.

 

[93LEAFS]

I agree scouts tend to get it right. Both Ovie and Crosby went 1st overall. But your statement that if they were in the same draft, particularly with Crosby being 16, is where hype diverges from “getting it right”.

At the time they are both monster prospects, but Crosby is generational because he did his youth damage against kids in the spotlight, while Ovie player against men and was great, but limited in exposure.

Given their careers now in hindsight, it would be asinine to pick 16 year old Crosby over 18 year old ovechkin. We now know that both players are generational. Crosby the Uber grinder/playmaker extraordinaire and ovechkin might be the best pure goal scorer ever, certainly since Gretz, which considering eras, is a nod for Ovie.

Now given all that, and that we know they were both monsters the second they touched nhl I would suggest that the tiny delineation in hype between Ovie being just a stud first overall and Crosby being the Next One, is more a product of their environments than it is their actual ability as prospects.

I mean realistically Ovechkin was Russian Crosby. Youngest Russian national to play internationally for the men’s team at 17. Dominated the under 18 tournament well over 2 ppg. Made the under 20 tournament as a 16 year old and played very well. His accolades go on.

The point to me is you could look at both of their careers and the signs of their greatness were very similar, other than media exposure at a young age and the development system and the related production numbers.

Consider this, Tavares got the generational bump after getting exceptional status and putting up, what 70 goals in his 16 year old season? What kind of bump does Ovechkin get if he puts up Tavares stats to go along with incredible athleticism and size that Tavares lacks?

Just my opinion.

I don't think Tavares was ever generational. At no point was he a better prospect than Sid was. I've never included Tavares as generational, and I always thought he was a very comparable prospect to Stamkos (who is the same birth year as him). Even a year before Tavares draft, many thought Stamkos was the better prospect.

I don't think the Euro's get slept on, they get properly evaluated. Ovi is the closest they came as a prospect, but a 16-year-old Sid goes over an 18-year-old Ovi in an NHL draft based on potential if both were in the 2004 NHL draft. That isn't an asinine statement. I'd add, a bunch of Euro's get exposure at a young age now. Look how far back the Mattias Emilio Pettersson thread goes, or look at Patrik Koys.

Finally, I would think Crosby to this point has had the better career than Ovi. I'm not even sure Ovi is a generational player. Crosby is the player (outside of the injured years) that everyone would take as the guy to build their team around. And, I don't believe there are two generational guys at once unless you are talking a Messi/Ronaldo or Bird/Magic situation, and I'm not sure Ovi and Crosby meet that standard, as both those guys are in the discussion for top 5 of all-time in their respective sports.

 

[57special]

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.

Lindros probably deserved the hype, but a lot of the noise surrounding him was because of his "generationally awful" parents.

It's forgotten now, but it wasn't entirely sure that the Habs were taking Lafleur. Marcel Dionne was nearly as hyped, and justifiably so...if Dionne was chosen by the MTL, I think they would have been just as good during the 70's glory years.

 

[sabrebuild]

I don't think Tavares was ever generational. At no point was he a better prospect than Sid was. I've never included Tavares as generational, and I always thought he was a very comparable prospect to Stamkos (who is the same birth year as him). Even a year before Tavares draft, many thought Stamkos was the better prospect.

I don't think the Euro's get slept on, they get properly evaluated. Ovi is the closest they came as a prospect, but a 16-year-old Sid goes over an 18-year-old Ovi in an NHL draft based on potential if both were in the 2004 NHL draft. That isn't an asinine statement. I'd add, a bunch of Euro's get exposure at a young age now. Look how far back the Mattias Emilio Pettersson thread goes, or look at Patrik Koys.

Finally, I would think Crosby to this point has had the better career than Ovi. I'm not even sure Ovi is a generational player. Crosby is the player (outside of the injured years) that everyone would take as the guy to build their team around. And, I don't believe there are two generational guys at once unless you are talking a Messi/Ronaldo or Bird/Magic situation, and I'm not sure Ovi and Crosby meet that standard, as both those guys are in the discussion for top 5 of all-time in their respective sports.

Google some headlines for Tavares after his 16 year old campaign. Between exceptional status and breaking a Gretzky record, he definitely got generational hype and then followed up with two stagnant seasons, which were still great, but took away the generational tag. By his draft, totally agree was no longer generational at all.

Just because you repeat that Crosby would have been drafted first doesn’t make it an argument. Particularly because he had yet to prove himself at that age even against other juniors. Particularly given how their nhl careers played out, particularly early on before injuries, they were neck and neck production wise, and Ovechkin brought a complete extra level of physical play.

I’m not sure the point of your last paragraph. Ronaldo/Messi, bird/Magic is not a bad comparison at all.

Let’s say Crosby is knocking on the top 5, maybe 5 exactly. Where is Ovie? Top ten for sure and most of the difference is in team success nhl and olympics. So to me those are absolutely good comparables of generational stars occurring at a similar time.

I would pick Crosby over Ovechkin based on position. But on pure talent..

To each his own. But to me it would strike me as odd that the only country in the world to ever create a generational prospect is Canada, despite numerous Non-Canadians becoming superstars for long periods of time.

I mean sure, the internet helps with exposure, but can you honestly say that Dahlin has gotten the same level of coverage he has gotten in Frolunda as he would have in London putting up ppg as a dman undrafted player.

 

[Spirit of 67]

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.

Tavares belongs in that category with Modano, Perrault, etc.
Other than that, the "generational" players you mentioned I have no beef with.

Edit: Missed Lafleur. Same as Tavares.

 

[93LEAFS]

Google some headlines for Tavares after his 16 year old campaign. Between exceptional status and breaking a Gretzky record, he definitely got generational hype and then followed up with two stagnant seasons, which were still great, but took away the generational tag. By his draft, totally agree was no longer generational at all.

Just because you repeat that Crosby would have been drafted first doesn’t make it an argument. Particularly because he had yet to prove himself at that age even against other juniors. Particularly given how their nhl careers played out, particularly early on before injuries, they were neck and neck production wise, and Ovechkin brought a complete extra level of physical play.

I’m not sure the point of your last paragraph. Ronaldo/Messi, bird/Magic is not a bad comparison at all.

Let’s say Crosby is knocking on the top 5, maybe 5 exactly. Where is Ovie? Top ten for sure and most of the difference is in team success nhl and olympics. So to me those are absolutely good comparables of generational stars occurring at a similar time.

I would pick Crosby over Ovechkin based on position. But on pure talent..

To each his own. But to me it would strike me as odd that the only country in the world to ever create a generational prospect is Canada, despite numerous Non-Canadians becoming superstars for long periods of time.

I mean sure, the internet helps with exposure, but can you honestly say that Dahlin has gotten the same level of coverage he has gotten in Frolunda as he would have in London putting up ppg as a dman undrafted player.

Crosby was dominating the QMJHL at 16 at a ridiculous level. He played for team Canada at 16 at the WJC. So, he had absolutely proven himself in juniors. I am saying if they were both eligible for the 2004 draft. Which would have been after Crosby's first full season in junior.

Tavares wasn't generational. He was never viewed as a better prospect than Crosby, and even after his ridiculous 16 year old season. I followed Tavares in the OHL, but I'll humor you and google, and look what comes up. Here is an archived version of a Bob McKenzie from that time. So, no, even at that point Tavares was not generational.

Stamkos before Tavares - Hockey Forum - Hockey Fan Forums - NHL Boards

John Tavares of the Oshawa Generals would like nothing more than to be eligible for this year's draft, but he was born five days too late, according to existing rules. So while Tavares' agent Bryan Deasley continues to lobby the NHL in what would appear to be a longshot effort to make Tavares eligible for 2008 instead of 2009, here's a question we put to the scouts after they ranked the 2008 prospects:

"If John Tavares were eligible for the 2008 draft and it was being held on Saturday, where would he rank on the lists they just submitted?"

The strong consensus is at No. 2, just behind Sarnia sniper Steven Stamkos. Tavares accumulated 91 voting points. Stamkos had 100; and Drew Doughty 88.

Three scouts did say they would take Tavares first overall.

"You can't look past 72 goals as a 16 year old," one scout said. "He's only going to get better. He's so focused. He is so determined to score goals and make goals happen that he won't be denied."

But five scouts pegged him at No. 2 and two others ranked him at No. 3. So seven of 10 scouts surveyed, as of today, would take Stamkos over Tavares.

It wouldn't be fair to say scouts are concerned that Tavares' skating, deemed to be average at this point, will prevent him from becoming a big-time NHL scorer, but compared directly to the dynamic skating of Stamkos, the scouts who slotted Tavares at No. 2 did say it has to be a factor.

This description (which took place to start the season right after Tavares 72 goal season) does not sound generational. If a majority of people view Stamkos as the better prospect, and some even viewed Doughty as one.

For a majority of Hockey's history, almost all the players have come from Canada. An inordinate amount of generational players are therefore likely to be Canadian. There have only been 3 generations (10 year spans) where the league has not been completely dominated by Canadians, and even during those eras, they have made up close to half the NHL.

I said there is an argument for Hasek and Jagr as generational, but neither of them was viewed as such as prospects. Ovi's in the discussion also. But, he wasn't the best prospect of his era, Crosby still was the better prospect in 2004 despite being a year away from his draft. Crosby isn't a top 5 player yet, and Ovi is still somewhere around 15. I also don't think Ovi would be taken over Crosby at anypoint during their career to build a team around except the years Crosby's career looked like it was in-flux.

I assume you are trying to make the case Dahlin is generational, which I don't agree with. Do you seriously think it is a reasonable expectation for him to be the clear best player in the NHL? Do you think he can win multiple Harts and/or Lindsey's or that he becomes a top 50 player of all-time? Those were all reasonable expectations for Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid, and hasn't been for any other prospect to enter the league. Ovi wasn't a significantly better prospect than Thornton, Malkin, or Lecavalier.

And Bouchard just put up a PPG as a defender on London and its debatable if he's a top 10 pick.

 

[Thenameless]

I think scouts tend to get it right. If it was all about hype than Kovalchuk would never have passed Jason Spezza. Or the Sedins and Stefan going above Brendl. Ovechkin was known as a youth prodigy at 16. He was written about as the next one very shortly after Kovalchuk was drafted.

I've never really seen any proof that Euro's get undervalued at the top of the draft due to their playing environment. The hit and misses seem to be about the same. Except for a couple cases around 2010 with Russian where no-transfer agreement scared team. Everyone knew Tarasenko was a top 5 talent and Kuznetsov a top 10, and the slip was due to what happened with Radulov.

Everything you've said about scouts generally getting it right is true. I think the difference comes in the level of hype. Hockey is a religion here in Canada, and I think we tend to get really worked up when one of our own looks to be an exceptional or a generational talent. As valuable as Norris level defensemen are, especially with their generally longer useful careers than high scoring forwards, I knew there was no way Hedman would go ahead of Tavares. Partly because high scoring centers are "sexy", and partly because of the being Canadian extra hype.

 

[93LEAFS]

Everything you've said about scouts generally getting it right is true. I think the difference comes in the level of hype. Hockey is a religion here in Canada, and I think we tend to get really worked up when one of our own looks to be an exceptional or a generational talent. As valuable as Norris level defensemen are, especially with their generally longer useful careers than high scoring forwards, I knew there was no way Hedman would go ahead of Tavares. Partly because high scoring centers are "sexy", and partly because of the being Canadian extra hype.

Centers are just more valued because they are the most important players at driving 5v5 play and have less bust risk attached than defenders. Its why the best player in the league over the last 30 years tends to be the best center in the league.

And by hype, I'm talking about what people actually scouting the draft are saying, and not hot-takes on message boards. Yes, people were going crazy over JT entering 2007-08, but the scouting community was heavily leaning Stamkos at that point (different draft classes but same birth year and both played in the OHL). Also notable, unlike the guys who go get labeled generational such as Crosby, McDavid and Lindros, he didn't make the Canadian team as a 16-year-old. The only player to actually do that 3 years before their draft class was J-Bo.

 

[sabrebuild]

Crosby was dominating the QMJHL at 16 at a ridiculous level. He played for team Canada at 16 at the WJC. So, he had absolutely proven himself in juniors. I am saying if they were both eligible for the 2004 draft. Which would have been after Crosby's first full season in junior.

Tavares wasn't generational. He was never viewed as a better prospect than Crosby, and even after his ridiculous 16 year old season. I followed Tavares in the OHL, but I'll humor you and google, and look what comes up. Here is an archived version of a Bob McKenzie from that time. So, no, even at that point Tavares was not generational.

Stamkos before Tavares - Hockey Forum - Hockey Fan Forums - NHL Boards



This description (which took place to start the season right after Tavares 72 goal season) does not sound generational. If a majority of people view Stamkos as the better prospect, and some even viewed Doughty as one.

For a majority of Hockey's history, almost all the players have come from Canada. An inordinate amount of generational players are therefore likely to be Canadian. There have only been 3 generations (10 year spans) where the league has not been completely dominated by Canadians, and even during those eras, they have made up close to half the NHL.

I said there is an argument for Hasek and Jagr as generational, but neither of them was viewed as such as prospects. Ovi's in the discussion also. But, he wasn't the best prospect of his era, Crosby still was the better prospect in 2004 despite being a year away from his draft. Crosby isn't a top 5 player yet, and Ovi is still somewhere around 15. I also don't think Ovi would be taken over Crosby at anypoint during their career to build a team around except the years Crosby's career looked like it was in-flux.

I assume you are trying to make the case Dahlin is generational, which I don't agree with. Do you seriously think it is a reasonable expectation for him to be the clear best player in the NHL? Do you think he can win multiple Harts and/or Lindsey's or that he becomes a top 50 player of all-time? Those were all reasonable expectations for Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby and McDavid, and hasn't been for any other prospect to enter the league. Ovi wasn't a significantly better prospect than Thornton, Malkin, or Lecavalier.

And Bouchard just put up a PPG as a defender on London and its debatable if he's a top 10 pick.

I think it’s pretty clear you have a strong opinion that you are having a difficult time even considering the possibilities of different outcomes.

I absolutely think Dahlin has a chance to be a top 50 player in the league history depending on injuries.

My only player that I argued about was Ovechkin since we have lots of history to judge and it’s pretty clear that Crosby and Ovie have been similar players in overall impact since they were teenagers and in the same league/continent and media landscape. But to you it’s a huge difference. Ok.

We disagreed on Eichel too. Time will tell for Dahlin.

 

[bauer]

Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, McDavid is about right. not including goalies or defensemen.

good arguments can be made for Ovechkin for his amazing goal scoring ability, but that's about it.

Tavares is not even close to generational. not sure why anyone would list him. franchise center yes, but not generational.

generational means you can dominate your era. McDavid is 21 coming off back to back 100 point scoring titles. he is 100% generational.

if you're a forward and can't win a scoring title, you're not generational.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think it’s pretty clear you have a strong opinion that you are having a difficult time even considering the possibilities of different outcomes.

I absolutely think Dahlin has a chance to be a top 50 player in the league history depending on injuries.

My only player that I argued about was Ovechkin since we have lots of history to judge and it’s pretty clear that Crosby and Ovie have been similar players in overall impact since they were teenagers and in the same league/continent and media landscape. But to you it’s a huge difference. Ok.

We disagreed on Eichel too. Time will tell for Dahlin.

You still think Eichel is generational?

I accept there are different outcomes, but I don't think that is the likely outcome. I don't see Dahlin winning a Hart within his first 4 years in the league like Lindros, Crosby, Mario and McDavid. 3 of those also won a Lindsey within 3 years of being drafted.

I also wouldn't call Crosby and Ovi equals at this point. 3 cups and 2 Conn Smyths speak different. The fact most would choose Crosby to build around during that time frame says the same.

Wasn't the argument about Eichel was that he wasn't a better prospect or on pace to be a better player than Tavares and Stamkos after his rookie year? I don't think he's done anything to change that in the 2 years since.

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, Crosby, McDavid is about right. not including goalies or defensemen.

good arguments can be made for Ovechkin for his amazing goal scoring ability, but that's about it.

Tavares is not even close to generational. not sure why anyone would list him. franchise center yes, but not generational.

generational means you can dominate your era. McDavid is 21 coming off back to back 100 point scoring titles. he is 100% generational.

if you're a forward and can't win a scoring title, you're not generational.

People are mentioning Tavares because at ages 14-17 he was viewed as someone who could have all time great goal scoring potential and offensive instincts. Many people thought he could be a dominant offensive force and score 50 even 60 goals someday.

When is the next time you think we will see a 16 year old score 70 goals in the chl? It was warranted that people saw that potential , and while he hasn't lived up to it he was 10 seconds away from an art ross and has had a great career but agreed he isn't generational.

 

[93LEAFS]

People are mentioning Tavares because at ages 14-17 he was viewed as someone who could have all time great goal scoring potential and offensive instincts. Many people thought he could be a dominant offensive force and score 50 even 60 goals someday.

When is the next time you think we will see a 16 year old score 70 goals in the chl? It was warranted that people saw that potential , and while he hasn't lived up to it he was 10 seconds away from an art ross and has had a great career but agreed he isn't generational.

Except as shown by articles at the time, even at 17 coming off that 16 year old season he wasn't viewed as better than Stamkos by the NHL community.

 

[sabrebuild]

You still think Eichel is generational?

I accept there are different outcomes, but I don't think that is the likely outcome. I don't see Dahlin winning a Hart within his first 4 years in the league like Lindros, Crosby, Mario and McDavid. 3 of those also won a Lindsey within 3 years of being drafted.

I also wouldn't call Crosby and Ovi equals at this point. 3 cups and 2 Conn Smyths speak different. The fact most would choose Crosby to build around during that time frame says the same.

Wasn't the argument about Eichel was that he wasn't a better prospect or on pace to be a better player than Tavares and Stamkos after his rookie year? I don't think he's done anything to change that in the 2 years since.

Strawman central.

I never said Eichel was generational. I said he was a better pick than any first since Crosby and McDavid. If we extend that to Ovie I would definitely put him over Eichel.

The different look is in reference you your refusal to believe that generational hype is connected to media and development style differences.

Team success has nothing to do with an individuals ability. I guess Gretzky lost his generational ability after leaving the Stacked Oilers and not being able to win anywhere else.... pretty dumb argument.

This idea that everyone would rather build around Crosby is based largely on position and just you reiterating your opinion. You have no massive survey to say that is true, and even if you did it proves nothing relating to whether Ovechkin or Crosby were different quality prospects.

Umm, in Tavares case it’s pretty clearly in Eichel’s favor. Even rookie years, significantly better sophomore year for Eichel even with a bad high ankle sprain to start the year.

Third year about even ppg, which Eichel did on the worst team in the league with another high ankle sprain in the middle of the season.

Stamkos absolutely gets the advantage on his elc, but to be fair his line mates were St. Louis, Malone, and with Lecavalier on the pp. Half of stammers points were on the pp. Meanwhile Eichel has less than a third of his points on the pp.

No bone to pick with Stammer, but I would suggest Eichel’s numbers given the ppg and injuries might have found a way to go up tenish points with a Hall of Fame winger at his side. I could be nuts.

Anyway, like I said time to move on.

 

[sabrebuild]

Except as shown by articles at the time, even at 17 coming off that 16 year old season he wasn't viewed as better than Stamkos by the NHL community.

Hype Train: Tavares to McDavid

First ever exceptional player, article omg....

The claim from me was not that Tavares was generational. It was that he got the hype before leveling out his last year and half.

It’s almost like there are shades of gray rather than your opinion being concretely right cuz of an article you found that confirmed your opinion.

 

[93LEAFS]

Strawman central.

I never said Eichel was generational. I said he was a better pick than any first since Crosby and McDavid. If we extend that to Ovie I would definitely put him over Eichel.

The different look is in reference you your refusal to believe that generational hype is connected to media and development style differences.

Team success has nothing to do with an individuals ability. I guess Gretzky lost his generational ability after leaving the Stacked Oilers and not being able to win anywhere else.... pretty dumb argument.

This idea that everyone would rather build around Crosby is based largely on position and just you reiterating your opinion. You have no massive survey to say that is true, and even if you did it proves nothing relating to whether Ovechkin or Crosby were different quality prospects.

Umm, in Tavares case it’s pretty clearly in Eichel’s favor. Even rookie years, significantly better sophomore year for Eichel even with a bad high ankle sprain to start the year.

Third year about even ppg, which Eichel did on the worst team in the league with another high ankle sprain in the middle of the season.

Stamkos absolutely gets the advantage on his elc, but to be fair his line mates were St. Louis, Malone, and with Lecavalier on the pp. Half of stammers points were on the pp. Meanwhile Eichel has less than a third of his points on the pp.

No bone to pick with Stammer, but I would suggest Eichel’s numbers given the ppg and injuries might have found a way to go up tenish points with a Hall of Fame winger at his side. I could be nuts.

Anyway, like I said time to move on.

When you are talking about generational and being the best player of your generation, team success can't be ignored. The only sport it really can be is Baseball. Pretty much every other sport, to be the best player of your generation you need to win. Ovi simply hasn't at any level outside the world championship, and Sid has historically owned him in head to head match-ups. This isn't a Bird vs Magic or Messi vs Ronaldo situation where they are constantly trading titles back and forth. As for them as prospects, Crosby was viewed as the better prospect and would have been drafted ahead of Ovi if they were both in the 2004 drafts, and especially if you want to compare them as prospects at the day of their drafts. Ovi was a great prospect, but wasn't generational. He wasn't significantly ahead of Kovalchuk from his own country, who owned Russian division 2 in his draft year.

Eichel wasn't clearly the best prospect outside of McDavid since Crosby. He was on par with Tavares, Stamkos, MacKinnon and later Matthews. If you want to talk about teammates and linemates, Tavares, offensive help was a joke compared to Eichel. He led his team with 54 points as a rookie with their second best forwards being Moulson and Okposo.

Flat out, do you think Dahlin should be viewed as generational, and do you think he isn't because he played in Sweden and not in NA? Because that seems to be partially what this is about.

Hype Train: Tavares to McDavid

First ever exceptional player, article omg....

The claim from me was not that Tavares was generational. It was that he got the hype before leveling out his last year and half.

It’s almost like there are shades of gray rather than your opinion being concretely right cuz of an article you found that confirmed your opinion.

Well, I'd say McKenzie interviewing NHL scouts on the issue is pretty damn definitive. Maybe people were acting like he was generational, but when you look at the case he wasn't. I don't know how someone can be viewed as even generational based on hype if at that age they were viewed as the second best 1990 born prospect. The article I'm pointing to is right in September of 2007, which is way before the hype started leveling off in your opinion. He was also cut from Canada at 16, which is something that doesn't tend to happen to generational talents and tends to build that level of hype (See Lindros, Crosby and McDavid). I would argue Spezza had more hype than JT at most points.

You are also overhyping the "Exceptional player angle." Yes, they changed the rules for him, but only to re-implement allowing 15-year-olds into the OHL. Previously in the late 1990's, a 15-year-old could play in the OHL for their local team then enter the draft at 16. The OHL just allowed Tavares to outright enter the draft at 15. Previously, guys like Jason Spezza and Rico Fata played in the OHL at 15, and that was fairly fresh in the memory at the time Tavares was allowed to.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

That's a weird way to look at it then, since under your definition Mario Lemieux wasn't generational because Gretzky was still around. Heck, Gretzky wasn't generational because it wasn't 20 years separating him and Bobby Orr.