Generational Talents

[Forgot About Drai]

What was that kids name...Emilio something?

(Being sarcastic btw)

 

[seadawg]

...

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I think it is safe to say that Crosby and OV will both be considered "generational" talents by the end of their careers (assuming they don't end their careers prematurely due to injury). They are already the best players of their generation, but they have to continue being the best players for the next decade at least before we can truly call them generational.

In my life-time, I have seen Gretzky and Lemieux, as you mention. Then there was Bobby Orr. And I would also consider Lidstrom to be a generational talent. He was, no question in my mind, the best dman of his generation. I'd also consider Brodeur to be a generational talent.

But to be generational, in my mind, you really have to be truly the best at your position. A lot of great players have played this game, including Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Messier, and Howe, but I wouldn't call any of them generational. When you look at career numbers, one might think that I am being disrespectful to Messier and Howe. However, their numbers were mostly the result of playing consistent hockey longer than almost anyone else (especially Howe, obviously). They were both great leaders and all-around players, but not necessarily the best players playing the game year after year for as long as they played.

All those players I've mentioned are close to generational, but not quite there, imo.

 

[MeowLeafs]

I'm not convinced Crosby or AO are generational. Never evaluate a player when he's on a hot streak. 1 or 2 weeks ago people were saying Crosby was going to hit 70 goals, 140 points. I doubt he even hits 65 goals and 130 points. And AO is showing that he might not ever score 60+ goals again. He's only done that once in his career. His 2nd highest is 56...something Cheechoo has done.

My point is that we so badly want players of now to be "generational", but the fact is those 2 players are at a notch below Gretz/Mario/Orr.

Crosby may become one of them...but still not likely

 

[Mojo19]

Nathan Mackinnon

 

[Ward Cornell]

We're not even sure Crosby and Ovi are generational yet. Right now, they are ALMOST in the class of a Jagr, which is just teatering below generational IMO. Of course, they could easily vault their way up to Jagr's level, but they have a ways to go still and have shown nothing to be in Gretzky or Lemieux's type of dominant class. For instance, Gretzky and Lemieux simply never gave up the MVP or Art Ross, unless health got in the way. Same for Jagr, although to a lesser degree.

Right now, Crosby and Ovi have only won a single Art Ross trophy each, with Crosby seemingly on track to get a 2nd.

Gretzky won 10, includiung 7 straight.
Lemieux won 6, with only Gretzky ever beating him when he was healthy.
Jagr won 5, including 4 in a row.

At the same age, Gretzky and Lemieux were well ahead of Crosby and Ovi. Jagr, was probably tracking in a similar way, although he remained in Lemieux's shadow until Lemieux was forced out with health issues.

Think about it - the league went 21 years without anyone else winning an Art Ross other than these three guys. For 8 straight years since, a different player has won it without repeating. There were no Iginla's or H Sedin's or Forsberg's or St. Louis' winning a one-off Art Ross in these guys day. All of these past 8 winners are greatly talented, but they would have lost the scoring race by 40-50 points against the generational guys Lemieux and Gretzky (like Yzerman and others did). I'm not even sure they'd challenge Jagr in his day, at least not yet. Crosby this year is really the first time I've looked at either as someone who might just be separating themselves from the other top elite talents.

When it comes to the Hart Trophy, there was a BIT more of a mix in there (although Gretzky still won 9 straight), but I think part of that was the voting fatigue of giving it to the same guys. One any player got onto a debatable level with Gretzky or Lemieux (or even Jagr) the voters tended to vote for change just because it was so amazing to see someone capture lighting in a bottle to challenge them.

As to someone coming down the pipe, you don't really have an idea until they are17 or so to see their development curve continue to track upwards. And even then, it so easy for them to plateau and get caught by their peers...really, there is no one separating themselves right now in any major way.

IMHO......BINGO!

The term "Generational Talent" is thrown far too easily out in describing a player. I've watched hockey since the late 50's and I've only seen 5. (Richard, Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Mario)

Crosby...he's on course and he does rise to the "big moment".
Ovie.....maybe but he needs to get over the funk that he's in for almost a year.

 

[Ward Cornell]

But I heard through the hockey grapevine that Sidd Finch has quit baseball and will now become a "generational talent" in hockey!!

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I think it is safe to say that Crosby and OV will both be considered "generational" talents by the end of their careers (assuming they don't end their careers prematurely due to injury). They are already the best players of their generation, but they have to continue being the best players for the next decade at least before we can truly call them generational.

In my life-time, I have seen Gretzky and Lemieux, as you mention. Then there was Bobby Orr. And I would also consider Lidstrom to be a generational talent. He was, no question in my mind, the best dman of his generation. I'd also consider Brodeur to be a generational talent.

But to be generational, in my mind, you really have to be truly the best at your position. A lot of great players have played this game, including Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Messier, and Howe, but I wouldn't call any of them generational. When you look at career numbers, one might think that I am being disrespectful to Messier and Howe. However, their numbers were mostly the result of playing consistent hockey longer than almost anyone else (especially Howe, obviously). They were both great leaders and all-around players, but not necessarily the best players playing the game year after year for as long as they played.

All those players I've mentioned are close to generational, but not quite there, imo.

Interesting take on Lidstrom. Given he has never been looked at as even the best player in the game at any given time, I certainly wouldn't call him generational, although he does have a classification above your typical superstar. I see Lidstrom as a Ray Bourque type, which is arguably "the best d-man of his time" (Pronger is also in the conversation I suppose), but not generational per se. Certainly not close to an Orr, who I agree is likely the only other sure-fire generational guy over the last 40+ years alongside 99 and 66.

I don't see Brodeur that way, although he certainly gets points for longevity, like Lidstrom. But I see Hasek as a superior goalie to Brodeur. He is certainly the best goalie I have ever seen since watching hockey in the 70's and the only goalie I might entertain the designation of generational. He is also the only goalie I have seen as the best "Player" in the league at any given time, and his Hart trophy's back that up.

Howe gets some special consdieration given he was seen the best in the league at different periods, although any generational designation for him factors in his ridiculous longevity, otherwise I don't see him any better than a Messier at both of their primes, which is a fantastic player and leader, but agree, not a generational talent. Even the Rocket, Beliveau and Lafleur fall short of the definition in my book, much like Jagr, Bossy, Hull, and Yzerman do, similar to how I'll likely look on Iginla, Thornton and a few others of this generation. Superior talents to be sure, but hardly generational. Jagr-backers can make an argument for him, but he isn't in the class of 4, 66 and 99.

 

[chewey]

I agree with most of what you are saying. But I think it is safe to say that Crosby and OV will both be considered "generational" talents by the end of their careers (assuming they don't end their careers prematurely due to injury). They are already the best players of their generation, but they have to continue being the best players for the next decade at least before we can truly call them generational.

In my life-time, I have seen Gretzky and Lemieux, as you mention. Then there was Bobby Orr. And I would also consider Lidstrom to be a generational talent. He was, no question in my mind, the best dman of his generation. I'd also consider Brodeur to be a generational talent.

But to be generational, in my mind, you really have to be truly the best at your position. A lot of great players have played this game, including Jagr, Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Messier, and Howe, but I wouldn't call any of them generational. When you look at career numbers, one might think that I am being disrespectful to Messier and Howe. However, their numbers were mostly the result of playing consistent hockey longer than almost anyone else (especially Howe, obviously). They were both great leaders and all-around players, but not necessarily the best players playing the game year after year for as long as they played.

All those players I've mentioned are close to generational, but not quite there, imo.

Wait, Lidstrom is a generational talent to you but Bourque and Howe aren't?

 

[ed bruin]

what about Joe Thornton

 

[seadawg]

Wait, Lidstrom is a generational talent to you but Bourque and Howe aren't?

well, perhaps it is a bit subjective, but I do consider Lidstrom the second best dman to ever play the game, after Orr.

Bourque's numbers are better, but I've always thought Lidstrom was the better defenseman. There is a reason Detroit won so many Cups and has always been so competitive.

 

[chewey]

well, perhaps it is a bit subjective, but I do consider Lidstrom the second best dman to ever play the game, after Orr.

Bourque's numbers are better, but I've always thoguht Lidstrom was the better defenseman. There is a reason Detroit won so many Cups and has always been so competitive.

I understand if people want to put Lidstrom ahead of Bourque, I do. There are arguments that can be made. Personally I still see Bourque > Lidstrom .

However, comparing Cups has always been somewhat flawed in my mind. Bourque's team compared to Lidstrom's is a lot worse! Cups are a team win, no 1 player can ever take a team to the cup. The closest ever in my mind (or I can think of at this point) is Hasek and even he fell short.

Their defensive game isn't that far apart either. Bourque was the more physical but he won the Norris against some stiffer competition than what Lidstrom has faced.

What is your argument against Mr. Hockey not being a generational talent?

 

[seadawg]

What is your argument against Mr. Hockey not being a generational talent?

well, and again this is a very subjective thing, but to me Howe is similar to Messier. Despite their incredible career numbers, they weren't necessarily the "best" players in the game for an extended period of time. They have awesome career numbers largely because of their longevity.

I certainly would not argue with anyone who does consider Howe or Messier (or Bourque) a generational talent. I believe a case can certainly be made for all of them.

 

[scoutman1]

well, and again this is a very subjective thing, but to me Howe is similar to Messier. Despite their incredible career numbers, they weren't necessarily the "best" players in the game for an extended period of time. They have awesome career numbers largely because of their longevity.

I certainly would not argue with anyone who does consider Howe or Messier (or Bourque) a generational talent. I believe a case can certainly be made for all of them.

AHHHH I have to say How is a generational talent, he was the main superstar of his time, Mr everything at that time.