No to:
Vezina - The game was too different and the league too small compared to subsequent eras to be considered, imo.
Richard - Same as above.
Bossy - Was never at any point considered the best player in the world (BPITW), which is a minimum requirement of the “generational” label, imo.
Dryden - Was a cog in the big 70s Canadiens machine, an important cog, but still. Was never considered BPITW. Many argue he was more of a product of the teams he played on. While that may not be entirely true, the argument has some merit.
Potvin - Never the BPITW.
Lidstrom - He was incredibly consistent, more than anything else. But he was never the BPITW (he may not have ever even been the best player on his own team), and the gap between him and his contemporaries was often very small. In fact, many feel that he was gifted Norris Trophies on reputation more than once. Consistency and longevity is what set him apart. That doesn’t mean generational. If he’s generational, then so are guys like Ray Bourque, Doug Harvey, Paul Coffey, Brad Park, Brian Leetch, many of whom peaked higher than Lidstrom. No.
Lindros - Was a generational prospect for sure, but whether it was injuries or something else, he never quite lived up to the hype, which is amazing because he was a great player. If he was ever considered BPITW, it was very, very briefly, and probably had more to do with hype than reality.
Kane - Was never BPITW. You can point point to his trophies, but would you do the same for guys like Sakic, Trottier, Yzerman, Messier, Dionne, Lafleur, Forsberg, etc who are in the same category? The list starts getting pretty long.
Malkin - Same as above.
Matthews - LOL.
Bedard - Maybe a generational prospect.
ok, you have A LOT of learning to do....
yeah im just gonna mute you.
. He’s probably Finnish, tbh, which would explain it lmao.
