Define generational and franchise players

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
I hear these terms thrown around a lot leading to many heated discussions. Would these be the accepted definations:

Generational

A talent that is seen only once or twice every twenty years or see. ie. Howe, Orr, Gretzky

Franchise

At any given time, four or five players in the league who are considered elite and you build a team around. ie. Jagr, Forsberg, Bourque
 

TopProspect91

Registered Abuser
Sep 11, 2004
684
84
Toronto
Your pretty much right on with those assesments, daver.

Some generational young talent in the league right now would be someone like Crosby and Ovechkin.

Some young franchise players would include the likes of Kovalchuk and Staal.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,391
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
I hear these terms thrown around a lot leading to many heated discussions. Would these be the accepted definations:

Generational

A talent that is seen only once or twice every twenty years or see. ie. Howe, Orr, Gretzky

Franchise

At any given time, four or five players in the league who are considered elite and you build a team around. ie. Jagr, Forsberg, Bourque

Generational talents typically change the way the game is played. Orr was the prototypical offensive d-man (and he also was phenomonal defensively as well). IMO Wayne (and to a lesser extent Mario) created the "high scoring" 80's because teams had to score at least 3-4 goals to have a chance to beat the Oilers.

Franchise players dominate for an extended period of time. These guys are seen as "best at their position". It's easier for me to say who isn't a franchise player - a guy like Dave Andreychuk. He's the all time PPG scorer and has over 600 goals, but he was never seen as the best at his position.
 

SammyTheBull

Registered User
Dec 1, 2005
4,515
0
Your pretty much right on with those assesments, daver.

Some potential generational young talent in the league right now would be someone like Crosby and Ovechkin.

Some young franchise players would include the likes of Kovalchuk and Staal.

Fixed.
 

Hockey-Freak

Registered User
Apr 18, 2005
226
0
I hear these terms thrown around a lot leading to many heated discussions. Would these be the accepted definations:

Generational

A talent that is seen only once or twice every twenty years or see. ie. Howe, Orr, Gretzky

Franchise

At any given time, four or five players in the league who are considered elite and you build a team around. ie. Jagr, Forsberg, Bourque


Generational - agreed.

Franchise - Maybe more than four or five. They have definitely to be elite, but not for 3-4 seasons, for the most of their careers. So a guy like Martin St. Louis, who had one great seasons and a few good ones, can´t be called a franchise player.
He should also be the one who makes the player around him better (Messier - Graves), and I mean ALOT better. He has to lead the team on and off the ice. He don´t have to be the biggest producer on the team (Rod Brind'Amour - I think he developed into a franchise player) if the other criterias are fulfilled. They have to be the face of the franchise - Brian Leetch, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman.
It´s also interesting, that the most/all of the players I mentioned, have got an intelligence that is definitely higher compared to the average player - and I don´t mean hockey sense. Maybe the reason why Eric Lindros failed to be a franchise player. A franchise player wouldn´t leave his franchise as easy as i.e. Paul Kariya, if it would not be his last chance for a cup (Ray Bourque).


It seems that here on HF-boards every top-5 pick is a sure bet to become a franchise player but I wouldn´t care. I´m sure Dany Heatley is considered a franchise player but not yet in my mind. He´s a very good player but he hasn´t fulfilled any other criteria (yet). Kovalchuk is an even better example. He want´s to be the guy with the photo on the first page in an Atlanta newspaper after a win but he doesn´t get it that he needs the other guys to have a photo with the Stanley Cup in his arms to be in EVERY newspaper.
 

Russian_fanatic

Registered User
Jan 19, 2004
7,699
1,753
Franchise talent comes along alot more than generation talent. Heck most top picks in some drafts can be known as franchise talents. Not all, but some. Generation talent only come along every few generation. I think Ovechkin, and Crosby are generation talents, because to score 100 points in your rookie year is just insane.
 
Last edited:

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
This thread is about how the terms should be defined.

How they actually are used here is usually in terms of potential, especially on newly drafted players or prospects, (this being hockey futures) and usually mean potential top ten or so in the league at his position for 'franchise players' and potential top two or three in his position for 'generational' players.
 

Hockey-Freak

Registered User
Apr 18, 2005
226
0
maybe its me, but I'd consider Bourque a generational player...

Isn´t franchise player enough?
If Bourque is a generational player, Brian Leetch is it too.

This will lead to 20-30 "generational players" from the mid 80s till now.
 

Luigi Lemieux

Registered User
Sep 26, 2003
21,440
9,062
i think a generational player has to be head and shoulders above the rest of the league for an extended period of time. (gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe)

i think a franchise player has to be one of the best players in the league for an extended period of time. (bourque, forsberg, yzerman, sakic) i think jagr and lafleur are in between these categories because of their multiple consecutive art rosses, but they didn't dominate to the extent of gretzky/lemieux.

crosby and ovechkin are not generational players yet, but have the potential to be.
 

I hate Jon Sim

Registered User
Jul 29, 2006
117
0
Generational are great players that everyone knows and loves like Orr, The Espisitos and Gretzky

Franchise players are players for a team there fans remember like Denis Savard, Ron Francis(Most Underatted player ever) or Jeremy Roenick and MAts Sundin
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
I'd say it's pretty even

Are you serious? Bourque was the best D-Man for his entire career. He didn't win every Norris or 1st team selection but everyone considered him the best all-around defenceman almost from his Rookie season until 1997 or so and he was great after that until he retired.

Leetch was just a very good defenceman and a potential Hall of Famer. Bourque defined what the best defenceman was for the better part of 2 decades.

The best Defenceman in the NHL timeline goes like this since expanision

Orr gives way to Potvin gives way to Bourque gives way to Lidstrom. No one else is there to even be considered though Coffey would have the best argument to fit on this list.

Bourque defined a generation of NHL Defenceman but I think he was not a "generational talent". Only Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Mario have geen generational talents IMO.
 

bigjags*

Guest
I'd say Jagr is a generational player. He'll go down, IMO, top 10 player of all time.

Franchise is more like a Bure or a Sakic.
 

MN_Gopher

Registered User
May 2, 2002
3,628
21
Mpls
Visit site
To me there can be only one generational player at a time or era. I ll give that there could be a forward, a defencemen and goalie that overlap. So to me Ovechkin and Crosby can not be generatioanl players at the same time. That would make them franchise. There may be only 3-4 generational players in any sport all together.

The best example i can think of in any sport is Wilt Chamberlain. They had to change rules after he played. Goaltending was a big one for the game of basketball. And it was either him or Mikan that made them put the three second violation in. IMO Bird, Magic, Jordan then were not generational. They overlapped and one was not clear cut better than the other.
 

Hockey-Freak

Registered User
Apr 18, 2005
226
0
To me there can be only one generational player at a time or era. I ll give that there could be a forward, a defencemen and goalie that overlap. So to me Ovechkin and Crosby can not be generatioanl players at the same time. That would make them franchise. There may be only 3-4 generational players in any sport all together.

The best example i can think of in any sport is Wilt Chamberlain. They had to change rules after he played. Goaltending was a big one for the game of basketball. And it was either him or Mikan that made them put the three second violation in. IMO Bird, Magic, Jordan then were not generational. They overlapped and one was not clear cut better than the other.


I´d generally agree but it´s really hard to say Lemieux was no generational player.
 

Letang fan 58

No More Fleury
May 12, 2004
5,814
1
Canada
To me there can be only one generational player at a time or era. I ll give that there could be a forward, a defencemen and goalie that overlap. So to me Ovechkin and Crosby can not be generatioanl players at the same time. That would make them franchise. There may be only 3-4 generational players in any sport all together.

so your basically saying that the 2 greatest players all time Mario and Gretzky were not generational talents?

generational talents dont come along often, but there is no hard defenition saying there can be only 1 fwd or 1 dman............crosby and ovechkin look like they could both be generational talents going forward......it doesnt matter if they both came along at the same time or not........they have the talent to define the generation.

franchise players are players your team builds around........it may get thrown around to often but there are more than one of them on some teams, and there are some teams that do not have one as well.

to the guy who said a franchise player isnt a player who would move around unless it was for a last chance at the cup.......does that mean you do not reguard chris pronger as a franchise player?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->