Player Discussion Quinn Hughes, Pt. VI

[Luck 6]

This last page is getting carried away.

When do we start calling Hughes a generational talent? Well, maybe after he’s won his third Norris trophy.

Ovechkin earned this title and he has 8 x Rocket Richard, an Art Ross, 3 x Hart, a Conn Smythies, a Calder, and 3 x Ted Linday trophies. Crosby was also tagged as generational, and his award resume is in that same ballpark. Not only that, but they have each won the Stanley Cup.

When Karlsson was in this conversation, the thought was that he would improve beyond that season. Keep in mind he was only 26 to start the season and had already won his second Norris trophy. But after that he’s recessed if anything, having a good peak doesn’t make you a generational talent.

As I said, give me two Norris trophies before we even open discussions on this matter. I for one am more than happy with him being a legit #1D with numerous Norris nominations, even if he doesn’t win. That’s better than what we’ve ever had before.

 

[alicia]

I’d argue that Hughes is a generational talent for our franchise. Rest of the league? We’ll see.

 

[nergish]

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

I have to agree, Petey included.
I was more tuned into Canucks games than ever this season just to watch Quinn move. He might be the best skater I've ever seen in my 25+ years of watching this sport.
Add to it that he also has elite puckhanding abilities, excellent passing, and reads plays so intuitively... we have an unstoppable force for the next decade+.

Even his 'muffin shot' netted him a good handful of goals (and assists thru deflection) this year.
I am proud this kid plays for my home team.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

I have to agree, Petey included.
I was more tuned into Canucks games than ever this season just to watch Quinn move. He might be the best skater I've ever seen in my 25+ years of watching this sport.
Add to it that he also has elite puckhanding abilities, excellent passing, and reads plays so intuitively... we have an unstoppable force for the next decade+.

Even his 'muffin shot' netted him a good handful of goals (and assists thru deflection) this year.
I am proud this kid plays for my home team.

Only thing that can possibly stop him is injuries. We NEED to make sure he is protected. I’ll be so furious if someone takes out his knees or throws an elbow and there’s f*** all for a response. We’ve seen it with Petey multiple times now.

The secret’s out. Everyone knows he is a game-changer, and you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think he’ll have a target on his back in the corners.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I’d argue that Hughes is a generational talent for our franchise. Rest of the league? We’ll see.

Hughes could become one of the Canucks 'all time greats'..but using the word 'generational' around this player in any form, is a bit much (the only player who remotely comes close in Canuck history is Bure).

 

[tantalum]

Hughes could become one of the Canucks 'all time greats'..but using the word 'generational' around this player in any form, is a bit much (the only player who remotely comes close in Canuck history is Bure).

Normally I'd agree with being careful about that label and I guess we should be careful because there are many years yet in his career to see where he lands. However, his rookie year is certainly suggestive of generational.

 

[VanJack]

Is it fair to say that nobody in the entire NHL plays defense the way Quinn Hughes plays it? There's a couple of young d-men like Makar and Adam Fox who have 'elements" of Hughes game, but not the total package.

In order to be considered a 'generational talent' a player has to revolutionize the way his position is played. Bobby Orr; Wayne Gretzky, Crosby and Lemieux are some examples. Connor McDavid in today's NHL.

Going forward, it isn't hard to predict that Hughes will eventually change the way blueliners play. And a new generation of kids will try to emulate him and play the way he plays.

So yes, regardless of the assists and points he wracks up, Hughes has a chance to be considered a 'generational talent'. He's basically carrying the Canucks right now as a 20-year old.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Is it fair to say that nobody in the entire NHL plays defense the way Quinn Hughes plays it? There's a couple of young d-men like Makar and Adam Fox who have 'elements" of Hughes game, but not the total package.

In order to be considered a 'generational talent' a player has to revolutionize the way his position is played. Bobby Orr; Wayne Gretzky, Crosby and Lemieux are some examples. Connor McDavid in today's NHL.

Going forward, it isn't hard to predict that Hughes will eventually change the way blueliners play. And a new generation of kids will try to emulate him and play the way he plays.

So yes, regardless of the assists and points he wracks up, Hughes has a chance to be considered a 'generational talent'. He's basically carrying the Canucks right now as a 20-year old.

Again,..'generational' is a bit of a stretch for Hughes (and he's my favourite player on the team)..If this is the case..then similar players from the past like Niedermayer and Coffey would have to be 'generational ' also...?

Not to take anything away from QH brilliant first year ..but the Calder could be going to Makar (is he generational..?)..The term is so loosely thrown around these days.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Is it fair to say that nobody in the entire NHL plays defense the way Quinn Hughes plays it? There's a couple of young d-men like Makar and Adam Fox who have 'elements" of Hughes game, but not the total package.

In order to be considered a 'generational talent' a player has to revolutionize the way his position is played. Bobby Orr; Wayne Gretzky, Crosby and Lemieux are some examples. Connor McDavid in today's NHL.

Going forward, it isn't hard to predict that Hughes will eventually change the way blueliners play. And a new generation of kids will try to emulate him and play the way he plays.

So yes, regardless of the assists and points he wracks up, Hughes has a chance to be considered a 'generational talent'. He's basically carrying the Canucks right now as a 20-year old.

How did Crosby "revolutionize" the way his position is played? To me he just played it extremely well, to the point where he is definitely a generational talent. But what did he do that is so revolutionary?
McDavid too, please explain.

Normally I'd agree with being careful about that label and I guess we should be careful because there are many years yet in his career to see where he lands. However, his rookie year is certainly suggestive of generational.

A generational rookie year? Scoring-wise for a 19 year old rookie D he is in elite company. He'll have to improve exponentially to be considered generational though.

 

[MS]

He's clearly going to be the best PP QB in the NHL (or very close to it) and has 70+ point seasons in his future.

How good he will be overall remains to be seen. He was absolutely mutilated defensively last year when he wasn't playing sheltered minutes next to Tanev - +12 in 19 games under 20 minutes, -22 in 48 games over 20 minutes. Will he be a new-age Phil Housley who racks up huge point totals while being a high-event defensive liability, or can he develop to a point where he's actually top-end defender in the league at ES?

 

[Bougieman]

Kinda sad to see this Hughes thread get highjacked by YET another thread debating the meaning of the world "generational". I think I've read this same debate in various threads of HFboard at least 20 times in the last 5 years. It never fails to be a rather frustrating example of the futility of semantics to witness, because it's a puzzle that can never be solved. Why? Everyone debating has a slightly different idea about its meaning and how one even goes about defining the concept. It's like reading an impassioned debate on who is stronger: Superman or Captain Marvel.

Then again, we're all desperate to have ANYTHING hockey-related to talk about in the middle of this play stoppage, so at this point in time I really can't begrudge anyone for wading into this old swamp again.

 

[Breakers]

So Hughes struggled against elite competition?

He played about 33% of his 5v5 TOI against "Elite" competition or about 370 some odd minutes.
in that ice time.
Not low, but Not Charlie McAvoy, zdeno chara high. Makar is 34%, Fox is 28% for reference
CF%rel: 5.70
GF: 21
GA: 12
GF%: 63.60

You should see the numbers 5v5 against elite competition when he isnt with Tanev
113 Minutes (pretty small sample)
CF%Rel: 16.05
GF: 12
GA: 3
GF%: 80

 

[Bleach Clean]

So Hughes struggled against elite competition?

He played about 33% of his 5v5 TOI against "Elite" competition or about 370 some odd minutes.
in that ice time.
Not low, but Not Charlie McAvoy, zdeno chara high. Makar is 34%, Fox is 28% for reference
CF%rel: 5.70
GF: 21
GA: 12
GF%: 63.60

You should see the numbers 5v5 against elite competition when he isnt with Tanev
113 Minutes (pretty small sample)
CF%Rel: 16.05
GF: 12
GA: 3
GF%: 80

Which site do you reference here?

I've seen different numbers, but they essentially say the same thing: Hughes was middling against high end competition. That's shot differential, not plus minus. This does not signify a "high-event defensive liability".

 

[tantalum]

A generational rookie year? Scoring-wise for a 19 year old rookie D he is in elite company. He'll have to improve exponentially to be considered generational though.

Absolutely. That was my point. It will be years to make that determination but his rookie year are suggestive that it might be possible given you are looking at Leetch type comparisons. I wasn't saying that he WAS generational. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

 

[Breakers]

Which site do you reference here?

I've seen different numbers, but they essentially say the same thing: Hughes was middling against high end competition. That's shot differential, not plus minus. This does not signify a "high-event defensive liability".

for all canucks defense vs "elite"
PuckIQ | Woodmoney

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Absolutely. That was my point. It will be years to make that determination but his rookie year are suggestive that it might be possible given you are looking at Leetch type comparisons. I wasn't saying that he WAS generational. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough...

It would be beyond amazing if Hughes has a career that is comparable to Leetch.

 

[Breakers]

I'm just glad with the season he had.
I wouldn't ever say generational, or compare him to some of the guys in this thread.

he wasn't sheltered
he turned vancouver from the 2nd worst transition team in the NHL into the 17th.
he was great 5v5, his transition is elite
the scoring was there and he played 22+ minutes a night with Vancouver's travel schedule as a 20 year old

anybody complaining is insane if you expected more.

 

[tantalum]

It would be beyond amazing if Hughes has a career that is comparable to Leetch.

Indeed it would be but rookie season wise that is the level he was close to. You had two players in Hughes and Makar that weren't just really good rookie D-men but top 10 scoring D-men in the league playing important minutes. They were quite honestly at or near the front of the group of guys that sits just behind the elite in the league.

 

[nowhereman]

He's clearly going to be the best PP QB in the NHL (or very close to it) and has 70+ point seasons in his future.

How good he will be overall remains to be seen. He was absolutely mutilated defensively last year when he wasn't playing sheltered minutes next to Tanev - +12 in 19 games under 20 minutes, -22 in 48 games over 20 minutes. Will he be a new-age Phil Housley who racks up huge point totals while being a high-event defensive liability, or can he develop to a point where he's actually top-end defender in the league at ES?

Plus minus is about as flawed a stat as you can use for defensive impact, especially without much context. Hughes' stickwork, positioning and ability to close gaps quickly are very impressive for his age and he lead the Canucks in lowest rate of shot attempts, shots on goal, and expected goals against at 5-on-5 for much of the season. His zone deployment might not be as defensively-tilted as a young player like McAvoy (who is several years older) but he's comparable to most other defensemen in his age group (Makar, Dahlin, Fox, etc).

The notion that Hughes is poor defensively is a fallacy, prompted most likely by a combination of his height and offensive-minded style. No, he won't be the next Langway or Robinson defensively but I think he'll be closer to a Brian Leetch-like player than the the next Phil Housely.

 

[BB06]

How many of Hughes -'s come from empty net goals? I remember that stretch where Canucks got 4 straight games with an empty netter against and Hughes got a minus every time.

 

[geebster]

This last page is getting carried away.

When do we start calling Hughes a generational talent? Well, maybe after he’s won his third Norris trophy.

Ovechkin earned this title and he has 8 x Rocket Richard, an Art Ross, 3 x Hart, a Conn Smythies, a Calder, and 3 x Ted Linday trophies. Crosby was also tagged as generational, and his award resume is in that same ballpark. Not only that, but they have each won the Stanley Cup.

When Karlsson was in this conversation, the thought was that he would improve beyond that season. Keep in mind he was only 26 to start the season and had already won his second Norris trophy. But after that he’s recessed if anything, having a good peak doesn’t make you a generational talent.

As I said, give me two Norris trophies before we even open discussions on this matter. I for one am more than happy with him being a legit #1D with numerous Norris nominations, even if he doesn’t win. That’s better than what we’ve ever had before.

You are arguing that he isnt a generational player, which it is certainly too early to call. Generational talent is, as the name implies, just based on talent level and where it projects. Given his rookie season being one of the greatest ever, it isnt a stretch to say he is a generational talent. Now whether he realizes that potential and has the accolades to be considered a generational player is a debate for the future.

 

[RobertKron]

You are arguing that he isnt a generational player, which it is certainly too early to call. Generational talent is, as the name implies, just based on talent level and where it projects. Given his rookie season being one of the greatest ever, it isnt a stretch to say he is a generational talent. Now whether he realizes that potential and has the accolades to be considered a generational player is a debate for the future.

Generational players are ones that are dominant and marked for greatness from a very young age, and carry that into adulthood through the hype and pitfalls that come along with it. Crosby/Ovechkin, Gretzky, Orr, Lindros to a degree, etc. In a lot of ways, it's about the hype as much as the player, as they come to be emblematic of a period in time as they grow up in the sport's spotlight. This is why you don't hear Nick Lidstrom or Ray Bourque come up all the time as a generational player. Players typically earn the term as a youth, and then back it up as an adult.

Like, it's okay for Hughes to just be an elite player.

 

[VanJack]

Generational players are ones that are dominant and marked for greatness from a very young age, and carry that into adulthood through the hype and pitfalls that come along with it. Crosby/Ovechkin, Gretzky, Orr, Lindros to a degree, etc. In a lot of ways, it's about the hype as much as the player, as they come to be emblematic of a period in time as they grow up in the sport's spotlight. This is why you don't hear Nick Lidstrom or Ray Bourque come up all the time as a generational player. Players typically earn the term as a youth, and then back it up as an adult.

Like, it's okay for Hughes to just be an elite player.

That definition of 'generational' might have applied when most of the players in the NHL graduated from Canada's Major Junior system or came from a few countries like the U.S., Sweden and Finland.

But now players come from all over the world. And in a lot of these countries, the term 'generational talent' isn't something anyone even understands. Increasingly these players don't make their marks until they actually arrive in N.A. And at that point they're still capable of carving out a career that in retrospect could be regarded as 'generational' because they changed the way was being played.

So I suspect that in time, the term 'generational talent' might have less and less meaning.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hughes could become one of the Canucks 'all time greats'..but using the word 'generational' around this player in any form, is a bit much (the only player who remotely comes close in Canuck history is Bure).

imo the closest we ever had to generational was luongo before the difficult pregnancy

i love bure more than anyone but in those years we saw a similar player achieve similar results in winnipeg. i mean i will fight someone to the death over vancouver bure > winnipeg selanne but i can’t pretend that selanne wasn’t definite proof that bure wasn’t in fact one in a generation.

 

[RobertKron]

That definition of 'generational' might have applied when most of the players in the NHL graduated from Canada's Major Junior system or came from a few countries like the U.S., Sweden and Finland.

But now players come from all over the world. And in a lot of these countries, the term 'generational talent' isn't something anyone even understands. Increasingly these players don't make their marks until they actually arrive in N.A. And at that point they're still capable of carving out a career that in retrospect could be regarded as 'generational' because they changed the way was being played.

So I suspect that in time, the term 'generational talent' might have less and less meaning.

I mean, it's basically a term that gained major prominence with Crosby, and then everyone started running it into the ground trying to apply it to every big young midget-age talent, and later every really good player that they liked, so it's not like it even matters.

Also, we live in a world that is more connected than ever. It's more likely, not less, that a 13 year old in Sweden or wherever will have "generational" hype now than they would have in 1997.