Generational vs. Exceptional Draft Prospects

[93LEAFS]

This guy knows what he’s talking about and definitely isn’t invested in the conversation due to personal bias.

By the way, which of Gretzky or Lemieux wasn’t generational?

They both managed to be but they were also 5 to 6 draft years apart, and won the supporting hardware to make their case.

What bias do I have? Against the Sabres? I said this long before the Sabres won the lotto, and I said the exact same thing when people tried to label Matthews, Laine and Eichel generational. If anything, my argument has stayed consistent.

Seems more like Sabres fans who are invested in this are the ones pushing it like you or teams that were at the bottom of the league this year. And, I'll prolly end up saying the same thing about Hughes next year and Lafreniere in 2020.

Its seems the Generational tag is quickly just becoming an annual prospect.

 

[explore]

They both managed to be but they were also 5 to 6 draft years apart, and won the supporting hardware to make their case.

What bias do I have? Against the Sabres? I said this long before the Sabres won the lotto, and I said the exact same thing when people tried to label Matthews, Laine and Eichel generational. If anything, my argument has stayed consistent.

Seems more like Sabres fans who are invested in this are the ones pushing it like you or teams that were at the bottom of the league this year. And, I'll prolly end up saying the same thing about Hughes next year and Lafreniere in 2020.

Your definition of generational is abritrary and not based on talent level above peers. It’s stands out when you add random 5 year cut offs to separate two blatantly clear generational players like Lemieux and Gretzky, who were drafted/entered the league 6 years apart.

A generational prospect/talent isn’t defined on an abritrary time line, but on how likely they are to change the game. Orr, Gretzky, Mario, Crosby, and McDavid all played/play the game with their own unique style, in a way that no one before them did. Dahlin is without a doubt in that category as a prospect.

There hasn’t been a defense prospect of Dahlin’s caliber in 45 years. That is generational.

 

[93LEAFS]

Your definition of generational is abritrary and not based on talent level above peers. It’s stands out when you add random 5 year cut offs to separate two blatantly clear generational players like Lemieux and Gretzky, who were drafted/entered the league 6 years apart.

A generational prospect/talent isn’t defined on an abritrary time line, but on how likely they are to change the game. Orr, Gretzky, Mario, Crosby, and McDavid all played/play the game with their own unique style, in a way that no one before them did. Dahlin is without a doubt in that category as a prospect.

There hasn’t been a defense prospect of Dahlin’s caliber in 45 years. That is generational.

Generational absolutely has some level of timeline. Its a once in a generation type player, generally meaning the best player of their generation.

Dahlin wouldn't clearly go ahead of either Matthews or Eichel if they were in the same draft, I would think that would stop a prospect from being labelled generational. McDavid clearly goes above anyone else in that time frame. The only debate is Crosby who was drafted a decade before him.

If you want to say generational is arbitrary fine, but then how can any prospect be clearly generational like some in this thread have suggested.

 

[explore]

Generational absolutely has some level of timeline. Its a once in a generation type player, generally meaning the best player of their generation.

Dahlin wouldn't clearly go ahead of either Matthews or Eichel if they were in the same draft, I would think that would stop a prospect from being labelled generational. McDavid clearly goes above anyone else in that time frame. The only debate is Crosby who was drafted a decade before him.

If you want to say generational is arbitrary fine, but then how can any prospect be clearly generational like some in this thread have suggested.

I didn’t say generational was abritrary, I said your definition of generational was abritrary. I subsequently defined the term as I see it.

There is a time aspect to a player being generational, but your view has it being more important than talent.

Your definition of generational doesn’t allow for more than one generational player at a time. When it happens, you create special rules to explain it away. That’s a useless definition.

 

[Derg12]

Personal opinion is that the "Generational Tag" applies only to players with a litany of career achievements next to their name - whether their careers are behind them like Gretzky or in progress like Crosby, the "Generational Tag" must come with tangible evidence of greatness.

I don't mind calling players like McDavid or Dahlin "Elite" or "Exceptional" but let's keep the cream of the crop tags for those that have actually accomplished greatness.

 

[93LEAFS]

I didn’t say generational was abritrary, I said your definition of generational was abritrary. I subsequently defined the term as I see it.

Your definition of generational doesn’t allow for more than one generational player at a time. When it happens you create special rules to explain it away. That’s a useless definition.

Okay, tons of players play in a unique style which is unlike other players. It has to be at a certain level of dominence. I also don't really see how Crosby played the game differently than anyone else. He just played the same game better. He was highly skilled and played with grit. McDavid plays the game faster, if you consider that a dynamic change. But, then that same logic could apply to Pavel Bure as generational.

What I've said is. Generational is the best player of a generation or at the very least a player validated as being among the very best of there generation by the plaudits they receive in the NHL. That, tends to be validated through awards they receive.

To be a generational prospect. You have to atleast have one of these two things. Do you expect this player to win multiple Hart Trophies and/or Lindsey's. I get award voting isn't perfect, but if someone is so clearly genrational that should be easily reflected through what they were able to win on an indvidual level. Secondly, I would ask, is this prospect the best prospect among his generation of players. For the first one, I think its highly unlikely Dahlin accomplishes that, as Orr is the only defender to do this in recent history. Secondly, I don't think anyone takes him over McDavid.

He's an amazing prospect and a franchise talent. He's in the discussion as the best prospect of the 2000's not named McDavid or Crosby alongside Ovi, Malkin, Tavares, Stamkos, Matthews and Eichel. But, I don't think that makes him generational.

 

[93LEAFS]

Personal opinion is that the "Generational Tag" applies only to players with a litany of career achievements next to their name - whether their careers are behind them like Gretzky or in progress like Crosby, the "Generational Tag" must come with tangible evidence of greatness.

I don't mind calling players like McDavid or Dahlin "Elite" or "Exceptional" but let's keep the cream of the crop tags for those that have actually accomplished greatness.

I think guys like McDavid, Crosby, Lindros, and Lemieux it was a very realistic expectation for them to achieve these types of career marks. I mean, all of them within 3 years of entering the league managed to win the Hart Trophy and Lindsey trophy. It was a realistic expectation. McDavid seems on track (but so did Lindros), Crosby probably is generational (depending on how strict a definition you want) and Lemieux absolutely is.

Dahlin is the best D prospect in ages (although, I don't think he's in an entirely different tier than Hedman was or Doughty) but given the risk of defenders and the fact, I do think it is debatable where he would go in other recent drafts, I'd hold back on labeling such. He's still likely to be a perennial Norris candidate and the franchise defender the Sabres need.

 

[geofff]

Personal opinion is that the "Generational Tag" applies only to players with a litany of career achievements next to their name - whether their careers are behind them like Gretzky or in progress like Crosby, the "Generational Tag" must come with tangible evidence of greatness.

I don't mind calling players like McDavid or Dahlin "Elite" or "Exceptional" but let's keep the cream of the crop tags for those that have actually accomplished greatness.

For a generational player? sure. But this thread is talking about generational prospects, so basically all you have to go on is their pre-draft achievements.

 

[mouser]

I think guys like McDavid, Crosby, Lindros, and Lemieux it was a very realistic expectation for them to achieve these types of career marks. I mean, all of them within 3 years of entering the league managed to win the Hart Trophy and Lindsey trophy. It was a realistic expectation. McDavid seems on track (but so did Lindros), Crosby probably is generational (depending on how strict a definition you want) and Lemieux absolutely is.

Dahlin is the best D prospect in ages (although, I don't think he's in an entirely different tier than Hedman was or Doughty) but given the risk of defenders and the fact, I do think it is debatable where he would go in other recent drafts, I'd hold back on labeling such. He's still likely to be a perennial Norris candidate and the franchise defender the Sabres need.

On a related note, who would have gotten the most pre-draft hype going back through the 90's? Hamrlik? Pronger? Jovanovski? Berard? Phillips? E Johnson? Doughty? Hedman? Jones? Ekblad?

I'd presume Pronger, but I'm not familiar with the hype train at the time of all of those draftees.

 

[93LEAFS]

On a related note, who would have gotten the most pre-draft hype going back through the 90's? Hamrlik? Pronger? Jovanovski? Berard? Phillips? E Johnson? Doughty? Hedman? Jones? Ekblad?

I'd presume Pronger, but I'm not familiar with the hype train at the time of all of those draftees.

I feel Hedman. His skill set was just so rare. This was also when Pronger had just led the Ducks (2 years prior) to the Playoffs and was among the most dominant guys in the lead.

If we are talking prior to their draft year, I don't think anyone really matches Bouwmeesters hype when he made the Canadian WJC team as a 16-year-old. To this day he's still the only 16-year-old defender to make the Canadian WJC team and is the only player to make the Canadian WJC team in their D-2. Similar to Tavares, his hype faded out by draft day.

I'm really not comfortable speaking definitively on guys prior to 2000 or so. I trust the people I ask who I know followed the draft back then, but I didn't follow it close enough at that time too.

Also should be remembered, Bogosian was viewed as Doughty's equal.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

I have nothing else to say other than 93leafs is wrong and, couldn't be more wrong but he's willing to die upon that hill

 

[StatisticsAddict99]

Generational is the best player of their generation or in serious discussion at the very least. Guys like Yzerman, Sakic, Bourque, Messier, etc weren't generational and they are all very clearly top 50 players of all time.

That is a little subjective though, Crosby and Ovie had a rivalry for the longest time... Malkin might even be in that discussion.

I don’t think these terms should apply to players who are already in the league... If your the best in the world it should be silly to have the word “Generational” used instead of “Best” if your Top 5 you should be just that not expressed by a “Exceptional Tallent” . The terms Exceptional and Generational should be left at the door when prospects turn to players. My older post is a little outdated(and has some incorrections).

Generational - Highest potential prospect in the past 10 years or equivalent(or better) to the previous Generational Talent(positions may varie)

C - McDavid/Crosby
W - Ovechkin
D - Dahlin(though he doesn’t have the same level of skill as Crosby and McDavid he is the best Defensive prospect in nearly 30 years).
G - ?

Exceptional/Franchise - Extremely high potential prospect with Elite skill and HOF potential that a team uses to build around(should be max Top 3 players in a draft and a majority of the time only the First player selected).

C - Eichel/Matthews/Tavaras
W - Hall/Laine/Yakupov
D - Doughty/Hedman/Ekblad
G - ?

Elite - A player who will make a difference and who could potentially be a top 30-10 player in the NHL over his tenure

C - Mackinnon/Strome/Hischier
W - Marner/Draisaitl
D - Heiskanen/Makar
G - ?

 

[explore]

Okay, tons of players play in a unique style which is unlike other players. It has to be at a certain level of dominence. I also don't really see how Crosby played the game differently than anyone else. He just played the same game better. He was highly skilled and played with grit. McDavid plays the game faster, if you consider that a dynamic change. But, then that same logic could apply to Pavel Bure as generational.

What I've said is. Generational is the best player of a generation or at the very least a player validated as being among the very best of there generation by the plaudits they receive in the NHL. That, tends to be validated through awards they receive.

To be a generational prospect. You have to atleast have one of these two things. Do you expect this player to win multiple Hart Trophies and/or Lindsey's. I get award voting isn't perfect, but if someone is so clearly genrational that should be easily reflected through what they were able to win on an indvidual level. Secondly, I would ask, is this prospect the best prospect among his generation of players. For the first one, I think its highly unlikely Dahlin accomplishes that, as Orr is the only defender to do this in recent history. Secondly, I don't think anyone takes him over McDavid.

He's an amazing prospect and a franchise talent. He's in the discussion as the best prospect of the 2000's not named McDavid or Crosby alongside Ovi, Malkin, Tavares, Stamkos, Matthews and Eichel. But, I don't think that makes him generational.

Dahlin as a prospect has been compared offensively to Karlsson and defensively to Lidstrom. He has size, he plays physically. I’ve read/heard at least once that he has no weaknesses to his game. That’s how I judge a prospect as generational.

Predicting awards is foolhardy because it doesn’t account for randomness in how long a career a player has. Mario Lemieux didn’t play anywhere near as much as Gretzky due to Hodgkin’s lymphoma and back problems, but is just as generational.

Ignoring randomness, Dahlin as a prospect has unlimited potential.

Dahlin would go above both Eichel and Matthews. He’s clearly on a different tier than both, and both of them are exceptional in their own right. McDavid would go above Dahlin because C > D when all else is equal.

 

[Slangston]

If we're to get technical, Lemieux and Gretzky are only separated by about 4 years. Gretzky being an early January birthdate in '61, Lemieux a late birthdate in '65.

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Generational: Crosby, ovechkin, mcdavid, Laine

Exceptional: stamkos, Tavares, Matthews, Kane

 

[Daneurism]

Nah. Respectively, Bogosian was never seen as Doughty's equal as prospects. Bogosian certainly was very highly regarded as a prospect, and disappointed, but he was never considered to be of Doughty's quality as a prospect. Doughty was clearly rated as the number 1 Dman in that draft. The conversation was always Stamkos vs Doughty.

 

[McFlash97]

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.)

I like how you stuck Matthew's in the conversation . Also McDavid just won back to back Art Ross trophies by age 21. Only other player to accomplish the feat. 99. Its pretty safe to assume his trajectory is pretty generational.

 

[Killerjas]

Generational: Crosby, ovechkin, mcdavid, Laine

Exceptional: stamkos, Tavares, Matthews, Kane

Laine generational? Bit of a stretch, falls in the same category as Matthews, Stamkos, Tavares etc.

 

[gifted88]

By the way, which of Gretzky or Lemieux wasn’t generational?

The poster you quoted says right in it "you sometimes see multiple". We are currently seeing two on the go right now, I don't think anyone has a good argument to not call one of Crosby or McDavid generational talents.

Is Dahlin a generational prospect? Was he the best player in the SHL? Will he be the best in the NHL? That's what's being claimed if you call him a generational talent.

 

[explore]

A portion of a detailed break down of Dahlin from Scott Wheeler of the athletic (PAY WALL): Breaking down Rasmus Dahlin: The makings of a generational...

The numbers tell part of the story. In 41 games for Frolunda in the SHL this year, Dahlin picked up seven goals and 20 points, making him the highest-scoring under-18 defenceman in the history of Sweden’s top tier. Adam Larsson, a fourth-overall pick in 2011, is the only defenceman in recent history who has even broken double digits (he posted 17 points in eight more games). Even if you extrapolate Dahlin’s production to the under-19 age bracket, only Victor Hedman (second overall in 2009) has bested him — and by a lone assist in two more games.

This isn’t new for Dahlin.

The previous season, his 22 points in 24 games in SuperElit (Sweden’s top under-20 junior league) represented the highest points per game clip (0.92) ever for an under-17 defenceman with a 24-or-more game sample size. Only Erik Karlsson (10 in 10) and Oliver Kylington (21 in 21) have ever bested it. At the 2018 world juniors, his six points (all assists) in seven games made him the third-highest scoring draft-eligible defenceman in the tournament’s history to Ryan Ellis (2009) and Olli Juolevi (2016). This, despite not scoring on his tournament-high 25 shots (3.6 per game) from the backend.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Because Dahlin isn’t Ellis, Juolevi, Kylington, or even Hedman. At 17 years old, his 19:02 average time on ice during the SHL’s regular season ranked third on his team (just 32 seconds behind the team leader’s 19:34). By year’s end, Dahlin played more than 21 minutes a night in each of Frolunda’s final three playoff games. He’s the closest thing hockey has to finding another Karlsson. And he’s ahead of the curve. By Dahlin’s age, Karlsson had only played in seven SHL games. Even the year after he was drafted, Karlsson notched just 10 points in 45 games.

No matter what mental gymnastics you do, Dahlin is generational.