Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by Kamiccolo, Dec 4, 2018.
Not even close yet
His rookie season was also the 05-06 one when top-end players hit ridiculous amounts of points. 7 players broke the 100 point barrier and 14 players scored 90 points. Also worth mentioning Ovechkin - who won the Calder over your precious 18yo Crosby - was 20 by the end of the season due to his late birthday and lockout year before. But I believe you don't really care about these things or the fact that McDavid was hurt in his rookie season and got two Rosses straight at the ages of 20 & 21, Mr. Crosbyshow...
I was not talking about mcdavid....
First ovechkin was 20 at the start of the season in 05-06. They were 2 years difference in their rookie season.....it's huge at that age.
You said that it's nothing that he did 102 points at 18 that season because 7 players did 100 points...
Loll in the 80s a lot more players did 100 points per season and how many 18 years old did 102 points like Crosby did 05 -06 ???? Only one ...hawerchuk.
Look at sakic , yzerman , jagr's etc stats at 18 and 19 years old and you will see that what Crosby did at that age is nothing less than generational..
Jagr for example did 62 points at 18...
Sidney Crosby is a generational player ...like mcdavid btw .
Won’t this generational thing ever go away ? There are dozens of terms that could be used and create much less confusion. People try to fit reality into that theorotical box of an idea where magically every 30 years or I don’t know some magical player clearly better than everyone comes out and change the game. The NHL is not like that at all.
Generational: Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe.
I think you mean : here’s my list of the 4 greatest players of all time.
Dahlin will be a Norris candidate. Which is great. Generational?? Doubtful, I’ve only ever seen five players in my 50 years of watching.
Hm: Hasek (7 Vezina)
Who's this Dahlin?
Played in the Swedish national team in soccer during the 90s.
Hilarious how you don't mention arguably greatest goalscorer of all-time.
To me, no. Ovechkin is a generational goalscorer but not player. I see it like this- For a player to be generational you have to be able to make a, credible, case that he would be the best player in any given era- transcending generations. Crosby I view as a, very/if at all, slightly improved Mikita and I never saw any label him as generational around here. McDavid might be but so far his peak is not even clearly above someone like Forsberg(whom is not generational).
How does his rookie season compare to Ekblads? I remember hearing a lot of the same talk back then. Not to be a troll genuinely curious
I’ve always thought of it as players who could be considered the best player nearly every year of their career. Someone like Crosby has been in the running every year since he was rookie. If we look at generations of about 10-15 years, I would say Crosby has been one of a kind for that long. Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, Crosby. I also think some positional exceptions could be made for Lidstrom and Hasek.
All of those players have something in common. They came into the league and added something to it. They brought something elite, and in Crosby’s case, at a very young age. They changed the game while they played, in some way. They didn’t just have elite careers, they are all the measuring stick for their generations.
I rank Ovechkin comfortably ahead of Crosby all time so guess we just see things different. To me Crosby is "just another"(and that's no slight) Messier, Mikita, Trottier kind of player while Ovechkin might be the greatest goal scorer of all time and got a higher peak.
To me what you are describing is more like a superstar while generational is one level above that. I agree that Hasek might have a case, Lidström not so much. Now Jagr? Idk
Overuse of term: check.
Generational to me, should mean at least once per generation of something. Meaning the guy should be the best, unquestionably at least at their position, for the length of a career. So say we call a career 15 years. If your guy is not one of the top 3 at his position for the duration, he's not generational anything. He's just really good. The difference them becomes when you start talking overall. That's the Orr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux talk. Those guys I would say are when you think about your life span as a hockey fan, who were the very best players you ever saw at a play. My grandfathers answer will be different than my father's or mine or my son's. The generational tag is something that should be applied after a player has stopped playing and you can weigh the entirety of their career. Applying it at the beginning is just nonsense.
I always cringe when Hart votings get brought up to evaluate defensemen relative to forwards, but lets be honest here, in hindsight is there really ANY other player that's been active since he entered the league that's a clear cut choice to build around save Gretzky and Lemieux for obvious reasons. This obviously also apply to Bourque too, but I can't think of another player that provided such value over such an extended period of time. I can think of several other players I'd take for a playoff run, a year, a few year window, but build a winning team around, seriously?
The OP stated he might already be a top 10 d? Come on. This is getting absurd. Hes clearly the greatest defenseman ever, in any sport.
And so far a better athlete than Rasmus tbh.
Agreed, leaving Mike Bossy off that list is awful.
Generational is a term throwing around way too much..
I don't think we understand what Generational means.
This thread sucks ass.
literally the same i've heard about Ekblad in his rookie year.
OP is a leaf fan, take him back to your boards and lock him in the stockades!
Separate names with a comma.