I think generational refers to the guys who define each generation in the NHL. When we think of the 1980s we are thinking of gretzky and lemieux. The 90s its lindros jagr and forsberg, 2000s is crosby vs ovechkin, and I think the next 10 years will be Mcdavid vs Matthews with mcdavid putting up the better numbers and being recognized as the better player but just like ovechkin, or lemieux in the 80s no one is going to use them being second best as a realistic reason to say they aren't generation defining talents in the league.
I mostly agree. I think it may be a bit early on the Matthews is generational train though. That doesn't mean what he did wasnt impressive. 40G is no easy feat for anyone, nevermind a rookie. I dont want it to seem like I'm bashing Matthews, because i'm not. But humor me for a second:
Mcdavid played 45 games in his rookies season, and had 48 points, so a 1.06 PPG that paced him for 87 points. Now, much like anyone else, i Dont know if that pace was sustainable (though this year seems to indicate it was), because anything could have happened; a nagging injury that doesn't sideline him but hampers his ability to shoot/skate/pass, for instance. So lets assume he slows down 20% on his pace in the last 37 games he didnt play (thats a rather sharp decline, but lets go with it). He still would have had 80 points at seasons end.
For me, right now, Matthews is absolutely Franchise level. He is an amazing talent.
But I'm hard pressed to lump him in with McDavid right now when theres a pretty clear difference. I'd like to see a little more than one season before dubbing someone as generational when his peers have recently had better seasons by comparison, that's all.