Player Discussion Quinn Hughes, Pt. VI

[Dissonance Jr]

Hoglander isn't really a sure-fire pick to be in the race for the Calder next year. However, his game is more matured than other rookies having played against men for the last two years....so, if he's fed top 6 minutes next to Pettersson, Jt. Miller or Horvat and there are no real stand-out contenders league-wide then maybe he'll be in the discussion.
Podkolzin on the other hand, he was a high pick and he comes in the year after next and the way he's progressing i think he deserves to be in the discussion leading up to next-next season. Imagine if both Hoglander and Podz are finalists for the Calder. That will make it 5 Calder finalists in a row. Has that ever happened in NHL history?

I'm eyeballing this list but I believe Montreal has the record with 4 Calder finalists in a row back in the 1940s — Quilty/O'Connor/Harmon/Durnan. Then Toronto also had three finalists in a row in the '40s and Boston did it again in the '60s with Marotte/Orr/Sanderson.

(Pittsburgh and Chicago each had three finalists in two years more recently with Crosby/Malkin/Staal and Kane/Toews/Versteeg but that's a bit different. And Montreal had three finalists in a single year, 1963-'64, with Laperriere/Ferguson/Harper.)

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That will make it 5 Calder finalists in a row. Has that ever happened in NHL history?

I'm eyeballing this list but I believe Montreal has the record with 4 Calder finalists in a row back in the 1940s — Quilty/O'Connor/Harmon/Durnan. Then Toronto also had three finalists in a row in the '40s and Boston did it again in the '60s with Marotte/Orr/Sanderson.

(Pittsburgh and Chicago each had three finalists in two years more recently with Crosby/Malkin/Staal and Kane/Toews/Versteeg but that's a bit different. And Montreal had three finalists in a single year, 1963-'64, with Laperriere/Ferguson/Harper.)

i brought this up back when we were still watching hockey. look what happens when you have three calder finalists in quick succession—

2020 - quiggy - 1st/2nd for the calder
2019 - petey - won
2018 - boeser - 2nd

historical precedents:

2014 - mackinnon - won
2012 - landeskog - won
2010 - duchene - 3rd
result - too soon to tell

2009 - versteeg - 3rd
2008 - kane - won
2008 - toews - 3rd
result - many cups

2007 - malkin - won
2007 - staal - 3rd
2006 - crosby - 2nd
result - many cups

1990 - makarov - won
1988 - nieuwendyk - won
1986 - suter - won
result - otto kicked it in

1978 - bossy - won
1976 - trottier - won
1974 - potvin - won
result - many cups

1968 - sanderson - won
1967 - orr - won
1966 - gilles marotte (later traded for phil esposito) - 3rd
result - several cups

eh who am i kidding?

 

[Dissonance Jr]

i brought this up back when we were still watching hockey. look what happens when you have three calder finalists in quick succession—

Ha, good call. Although the examples that worry me more are:

1991 — Belfour — won
1990 — Roenick — 3rd
1988 — Darren Pang — 3rd
result: Bill Wirtz

And:

1977 — Plett — won
1975 — Vail — won
1974 — Lysiak — 2nd
result: won two playoff games before getting relocated to Calgary.

 

[VanJack]

Pretty hard to compare the old six team NHL with the 31-team modern version in terms of back to back Calder winners. Wasn't it the mid to late 60's before the universal amateur draft was even adopted?

In three consecutive seasons the Canucks will have had a Calder Trophy winner and maybe two; with the certainty of having no worse than one winner and two finalists. It'll be a long time before that ever happens again, if ever.

I suppose it also speaks to how bad the Canucks have been over the past 5-6 seasons. But you still have to make the right call at the draft table.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

1. Carlson
2. Josi
3. Hedman
4. Pietrangelo
5. Makar
6. Slavin
7. Hughes
8. Jones
9. Letang
10. Heiskanen
11. Werenski

Trophy Tracker: Norris

it’s just nhl.com but still, quiggy gets no less than two and as many as six votes out of 18 ballots

 

[Luck 6]

it’s just nhl.com but still, quiggy gets no less than two and as many as six votes out of 18 ballots

I personally don’t see Hughes as No. 7 overall on the Norris list, but at the same time I’m ecstatic to be able to even have that discussion.

I’m not sure what’s going to happen this year with offseason training and all that, but I’m very excited to see Hughes progress over the next couple of years. Hopefully he doesn’t have the old sophomore slump that many players have had.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

When will it be appropriate to dub him a generational talent? How many points does he need? People were calling Erik Karlsson a generational talent in 2015 when he led the Senators in scoring with 1 point per game and I think Hughes has a pretty good chance to eclipse that level of production when he hits his prime.

I don't think enough people appreciate the fact that other than not being strong enough to muscle guys off pucks, he's already elite defensively. Ontop of that, and this is somewhat subjective, but he's already the most creative offensive defenseman I've ever seen. Subjectivity aside, everyone should agree he's at least in the top 5 of creative offensive defensemen in the NHL. Let that sink in. Elite defensively, super elite offensive creativity, super elite skating, elite IQ, elite hands, elite puck skills, elite mentality. It's still hard to fathom that a player this good is playing for the Canucks, it's even harder to fathom that that player is 20 years old.

 

[VanJack]

If by 'generational talent' you mean a guy who helps transform the way the game is played and revolutionizes the way future players play his position, then yes, Hughes is a possibility.

It's still early, and he has to stay healthy. But Hughes is doing things, like walking the blueline and befuddling checkers with his lateral agility, that no other defender in the league is doing right now. One thing's for certain. He'll shatter the team record for blueline scoring and be in the Norris conversation for years to come.

So it isn't going out on a big limb to predict that one day that label might apply to Hughes.

 

[nowhereman]

When will it be appropriate to dub him a generational talent? How many points does he need? People were calling Erik Karlsson a generational talent in 2015 when he led the Senators in scoring with 1 point per game and I think Hughes has a pretty good chance to eclipse that level of production when he hits his prime.

I don't think enough people appreciate the fact that other than not being strong enough to muscle guys off pucks, he's already elite defensively. Ontop of that, and this is somewhat subjective, but he's already the most creative offensive defenseman I've ever seen. Subjectivity aside, everyone should agree he's at least in the top 5 of creative offensive defensemen in the NHL. Let that sink in. Elite defensively, super elite offensive creativity, super elite skating, elite IQ, elite hands, elite puck skills, elite mentality. It's still hard to fathom that a player this good is playing for the Canucks, it's even harder to fathom that that player is 20 years old.

The term "generational" is thrown around too loosely these days. As far as I'm concerned, there are only three generational talents currently in the NHL: Crosby, OV and McDavid. After that, Malkin is the closest. Before that, I think you've got guys like Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Hasek and maybe guys like Richard, Jagr, Harvey and Bourque. But it's not a very big list.

I think Quinn can be one of the very best defensemen in the NHL but if people are projecting him to be the next Brian Leetch or something to that effect, I don't think he'll be considered generational. Very, very good but not the very best.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

The term "generational" is thrown around too loosely these days. As far as I'm concerned, there are only three generational talents currently in the NHL: Crosby, OV and McDavid. After that, Malkin is the closest. Before that, I think you've got guys like Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Hasek and maybe guys like Richard, Jagr, Harvey and Bourque. But it's not a very big list.

I think Quinn can be one of the very best defensemen in the NHL but if people are projecting him to be the next Brian Leetch or something to that effect, I don't think he'll be considered generational. Very, very good but not the very best.

The word generational isn't well defined, I'll give you that, but I don't think it ever meant "the very best" because there's usually more than one generational player playing at the same time. Crosby and OV, for example, are both considered generational and the time span of their careers in the NHL completely overlap. So there can be more than one generational player. Personally I think Makar and Hughes are going to be the 2 generational defensemen of the next decade.

However, you didn't engage with the question I asked which was, "what would it take for Quinn Hughes to be considered generational?"

I think if he gets sufficiently bigger and stronger and puts up 1-2 seasons of 90-100+ points I think he'll be a lock to be widely regarded as generational. Is that fair?

 

[Bankerguy]

I wish Hughes had a RD version of 25 year old Alex Edler to play with.
Don't get me wrong, Edler is still a very very good Dman and was on pace for a 46 point season. But a younger version of Edler who was a natural right side guy would be perfect.

 

[nowhereman]

The word generational isn't well defined, I'll give you that, but I don't think it ever meant "the very best" because there's usually more than one generational player playing at the same time. Crosby and OV, for example, are both considered generational and the time span of their careers in the NHL completely overlap. So there can be more than one generational player. Personally I think Makar and Hughes are going to be the 2 generational defensemen of the next decade.

However, you didn't engage with the question I asked which was, "what would it take for Quinn Hughes to be considered generational?"

I think if he gets sufficiently bigger and stronger and puts up 1-2 seasons of 90-100+ points I think he'll be a lock to be widely regarded as generational. Is that fair?

Yes, there can be two generational talents at the same time (Gretzky/Lemieux, Crosby/OV, Howe/Beliveau) but you'll note that all of those players are top 10-15 players of all time. I mean look at Sid and OV. Crosby is probably most talented all-around offensive player ever outside of Gretzky and Lemieux, while OV will probably finish 2nd all-time in goals. Regardless of whether there are two or even three players on that level at a given time, that's the standard.

That said, the term "generational" is too nebulous to really get deep into a debate on this but, in my opinion, Hughes would have to be a top 10 defenseman of all time to earn the moniker. That means he needs to be in the same category as Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom, Shore, Potvin, Robinson, Coffey, Chelios and Kelly. Even then, I don't think I'd go as far as to call Chris Chelios or Red Kelly (or Pronger/Stevens/Pilote/Park or any other late-top 10 candidate) as "generational" so, really, Hughes would have to end up closer to top 5 if we're talking "generational". A couple 90-100 point seasons could do it, if you combine it with Lidstrom-level consistency, a handful of Norris trophies and a few Cups. But that's a REALLY tough ask.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Yes, there can be two generational talents at the same time (Gretzky/Lemieux, Crosby/OV, Howe/Beliveau) but you'll note that all of those players are top 10-15 players of all time. I mean look at Sid and OV. Crosby is one of the 3-4 most talented all-around offensive players ever, while OV will probably finish 2nd all-time in goals. Regardless of whether there are two or even three players on that level at a given time, that's the standard.

That said, the term "generational" is too nebulous to really get deep into a debate on this but, in my opinion, Hughes would have to be a top 10 defenseman of all time to earn the moniker. That means he needs to be in the same category as Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom, Shore, Potvin, Robinson, Coffey, Chelios and Kelly. Even then, I don't think I'd go as far as to call Chris Chelios or Red Kelly (or Pronger/Stevens/Pilote/Park or any other late-top 10 candidate) as "generational" so, really, Hughes would have to end up closer to top 5 if we're talking "generational". A couple 90-100 point seasons could do it, if you combine it with Lidstrom-level consistency and a few Cups. But that's a REALLY tough ask.

Isn't Quinn Hughes' production in the NHL already in line with what we'd expect from a top 10 defenseman of all time? I agree that Quinn's consistency will be the determining factor and, after watching his first season in the NHL and a lot of his college games before that, consistency is one of his strengths. So I'm pretty optimistic, generational or not, I think we have a legit HHOF player here at the very least. Another thing I think could push him over the top is a Conn Smythe trophy. I don't think we appreciate him enough. So excited to watch him play again. DICKS OUT FOR HUGHES!

 

[nowhereman]

Isn't Quinn Hughes' production in the NHL already in line with what we'd expect from a top 10 defenseman of all time? I agree that Quinn's consistency will be the determining factor and, after watching his first season in the NHL and a lot of his college games before that, consistency is one of his strengths. So I'm pretty optimistic, generational or not, I think we have a legit HHOF player here at the very least. Another thing I think could push him over the top is a Conn Smythe trophy. I don't think we appreciate him enough. So excited to watch him play again. DICKS OUT FOR HUGHES!

Well, I'll never say never and, with how good he's already been so far, things are looking very promising. I'm not going to start bringing up comparisons to the all-time greats quite yet but it feels weird even having this conversation. I mean, when's last time we ever had a player good enough that he warranted a debate of the term "generational", let alone a defenseman? I will say, it's a very good feeling to have.

 

[I am toxic]

The term "generational" is thrown around too loosely these days. As far as I'm concerned, there are only three generational talents currently in the NHL: Crosby, OV and McDavid. After that, Malkin is the closest. Before that, I think you've got guys like Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Hasek and maybe guys like Richard, Jagr, Harvey and Bourque. But it's not a very big list.

I think Quinn can be one of the very best defensemen in the NHL but if people are projecting him to be the next Brian Leetch or something to that effect, I don't think he'll be considered generational. Very, very good but not the very best.

Brodeur, Roy, Federov and Lidstrom say hello. Chara is just standing by silently.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Remember that he did this as an 18 year old who just got drafted. MAN I LOVE THIS PLAYER

 

[nowhereman]

Brodeur, Roy, Federov and Lidstrom say hello. Chara is just standing by silently.

I'll give you an honorable mention for Roy and Lidstrom but since when are Chara and Fedorov generational or even close to it? Neither are top 50 players of all time or even top 20 at their position. And if we're ranking goalies, Brodeur is likely behind Hasek, Roy, Sawchuk, Plante and Hall. It's a real stretch to say he was generational.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

The word generational isn't well defined, I'll give you that, but I don't think it ever meant "the very best" because there's usually more than one generational player playing at the same time. Crosby and OV, for example, are both considered generational and the time span of their careers in the NHL completely overlap. So there can be more than one generational player. Personally I think Makar and Hughes are going to be the 2 generational defensemen of the next decade.

However, you didn't engage with the question I asked which was, "what would it take for Quinn Hughes to be considered generational?"

I think if he gets sufficiently bigger and stronger and puts up 1-2 seasons of 90-100+ points I think he'll be a lock to be widely regarded as generational. Is that fair?

Consider Nick Lidstrom, a player with 7 Norris Trophy, 4 Stanley Cup, 1 Conn Smythe, 12 all star game, never missed the playoff, over 1500 games played and scored 1142 points, 263 playoff games and 183 playoff points, captain of the Red Wings and won gold at the World Championship and the Olympics.
Even with all that accomplishment he is considered a borderline generational talent. Hughes has a long long long way to go to be even in the conversation.
But to answer your question in bold, probably 5+ Norris, multiple Cups, a Conn Smythe or 2, 1500+ games, 1100+ points, 200+ playoff games, 130+ playoff points, and some international tournament gold/MVP. That might get the conversation started. On top of that he will probably need at least 1 Hart/Lindsey trophy, maybe even a scoring title (regular season or playoff), to get any traction.
A Calder would be a good start though

 

[mriswith]

When will it be appropriate to dub him a generational talent? How many points does he need? People were calling Erik Karlsson a generational talent in 2015 when he led the Senators in scoring with 1 point per game and I think Hughes has a pretty good chance to eclipse that level of production when he hits his prime.

I don't think enough people appreciate the fact that other than not being strong enough to muscle guys off pucks, he's already elite defensively. Ontop of that, and this is somewhat subjective, but he's already the most creative offensive defenseman I've ever seen. Subjectivity aside, everyone should agree he's at least in the top 5 of creative offensive defensemen in the NHL. Let that sink in. Elite defensively, super elite offensive creativity, super elite skating, elite IQ, elite hands, elite puck skills, elite mentality. It's still hard to fathom that a player this good is playing for the Canucks, it's even harder to fathom that that player is 20 years old.

To answer the question, probably 3-4 straight norris wins with 20% more points than the closest defender would cause a shift in how defense is played and would get people calling him generational.

I wouldn't get your hopes up...

 

[I am toxic]

I'll give you an honorable mention for Roy and Lidstrom but since when are Chara and Fedorov generational or even close to it? Neither are top 50 players of all time or even top 10 at their position (or, in Chara's case, top 20). And if we're ranking goalies, Brodeur is likely behind Hasek, Roy, Sawchuk, Plante and Hall. It's a real stretch to say he was generational.

Not good enough, put them on the list.

You won't see another Lidstrom again for at least a generation. Roy you will never see a goalie transform the way the position is played again, like he did.

And no goalie will ever earn more wins than Brodeur, nor has any goalie in the previous generation, the current generation or the foreseeable next generation forced a rule change/additional lines on the ice.

Fedorov because he could play both forward and defense at an all-star level. Name another player in the history of the sport that could do that.

I won't contest Chara at this point in time.

 

[nowhereman]

Not good enough, put them on the list.

You won't see another Lidstrom again for at least a generation. Roy you will never see a goalie transform the way the position is played again, like he did.

And no goalie will ever earn more wins than Brodeur, nor has any goalie in the previous generation, the current generation or the foreseeable next generation forced a rule change/additional lines on the ice.

Alright, I'll put Lidstrom and Roy on the list. Both were incredible but borderline, IMO.

But, based on pure ability and individual dominance, I don't think Brodeur is there. The wins are great, for sure, but it's not good enough. If we're using innovation/rule changes to denote generational talent, why not add in Frank Nighbor for revolutionizing two-way play or Geoffrion for adding the slapshot to the game? Innovation doesn't necessarily speak to overall dominance.

Fedorov because he could play both forward and defense at an all-star level. Name another player in the history of the sport that could do that.

Cyclone Taylor? Red Kelly? Mark Howe? Babe Seibert? Brent Burns? Reg Noble?

I won't contest Chara at this point in time.

Not much to contest. Other than his height, I can't think of much that separates him from the pack. He's barely a top 100 player of all time or top 20 defenseman.

 

[I am toxic]

Alright, I'll put Lidstrom and Roy on the list. Both were incredible but borderline, IMO.

But, based on pure ability and individual dominance, I don't think Brodeur is there. The wins are great, for sure, but it's not good enough. If we're using innovation/rule changes to denote generational talent, why not add in Frank Nighbor for revolutionizing two-way play or Geoffrion for adding the slapshot to the game? Innovation doesn't necessarily speak to overall dominance.


Cyclone Taylor? Red Kelly? Mark Howe? Babe Seibert? Brent Burns? Reg Noble?


Not much to contest. Other than his height, I can't think of much that separates him from the pack. He's barely a top 100 player of all time or top 20 defenseman.

None of those goalies led in wins the way Brodeur did, does, and will for the rest of eternity.

As for those two-way players, none of them did it an all-star level in the modern NHL like Fedorov did. Burns was average at forward, and Howe (Mark) did it in the WHA.

I will grant you Chara. For now.

 

[nowhereman]

None of those goalies led in wins the way Brodeur did, does, and will for the rest of eternity.

As for those two-way players, none of them did it an all-star level in the modern NHL like Fedorov did. Burns was average at forward, and Howe (Mark) did it in the WHA.

I will grant you Chara. For now.

Well, you asked for an example from the "history of the sport", with no mention of the "modern" NHL. In that case, Red Kelly was a first-team NHL All-Star six times as a defenseman and finished top 10 in Hart voting twice as a forward.

 

[I am toxic]

Well, you asked for an example from the "history of the sport", with no mention of the "modern" NHL. In that case, Red Kelly was a first-team NHL All-Star six times as a defenseman and finished top 10 in Hart voting twice as a forward.

Fair enough. I think my point stands, Kelly did it in an era where skating was uneven, to put it generously. Fedorov did it in an era when defense could play like Borque or Lidstrom.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Could be the single most important player we've ever drafted. He has the potential to revolutionize the modern defender.