i think it's fair to say this blog and accompanying thread are a new low for this site.
- Fountain-San

agrEEd

No. It isn't. The term generational should imply something so rare it comes along once in a generation. It's possible they can overlap lap Mario and Wayne, but most of those players are nowhere near the level of Wayne or ORR. Talk about taking a term reserved for the best 5 or 6 players of all time and watering it down so that a couple hundred players can make the list.

- Larsson_fan

Um...there's 10 players on this list, not a "couple hundred".

Just because Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr were the best generational talents in the history of the game, does not mean there were not other, lesser generational talents in the game throughout the years. Yzerman? Lindros? Crosby? I'd certainly argue they were generational, and like Gretzky and Lemieux, all on the same list Matthews is now on.

Is Ovechkin generational? His numbers would suggest it. What about Patrick Kane? Debatable.

So McDavid is the next one, the next clear-cut generational talent. But to think that other players, such as Matthews, won't become generational in this generation is a bit much.

Whether you like it or not, he's already in the conversation, and he can be both #2 of his generation AND be generational.

Um...there's 10 players on this list, not a "couple hundred".

Just because Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr were the best generational talents in the history of the game, does not mean there were not other, lesser generational talents in the game throughout the years. Yzerman? Lindros? Crosby? I'd certainly argue they were generational, and like Gretzky and Lemieux, all on the same list Matthews is now on.

Is Ovechkin generational? His numbers would suggest it. What about Patrick Kane? Debatable.

So McDavid is the next one, the next clear-cut generational talent. But to think that other players, such as Matthews, won't become generational in this generation is a bit much.

Whether you like it or not, he's already in the conversation, and he can be both #2 of his generation AND be generational.
- W_1

No. Yzerman, Lindros, Pat Kane, are not generational. People can have different definintions of what it means, but yours just goes too far.

No. Yzerman, Lindros, Pat Kane, are not generational. People can have different definintions of what it means, but yours just goes too far.
- prock

Give me an example of a generational talent not named Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr then...

Give me an example of a generational talent not named Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr then...
- W_1

Gordie Howe. Crosby. Maybe Ovechkin, but he's kinda borderline for me.

McDavid probably will be.

Maybe Lidstrom. Probably not, but maybe.

Gordie Howe. Crosby. Maybe Ovechkin, but he's kinda borderline for me.

McDavid probably will be.

Maybe Lidstrom. Probably not, but maybe.
- prock

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/playerprojections/

According to this ^^ definition, you would be correct. I was looking for something more definitive but it seems the general consensus for a "generational talent" is about one per decade.

Still, hockey has been around for 100 years or so...more than 4-5 generational talents have existed.

But you guys have made your point, I will make my list of players for this term much smaller.

No. Yzerman, Lindros, Pat Kane, are not generational. People can have different definintions of what it means, but yours just goes too far.
- prock

Lindros was absolutely a generational talent. His career was cut short as a result of devastating injuries.

Having said that, it all depends on how you define "generational". Is it once every 10 years? 5 years? Less? More? Do you have to wait until their career is over to reflect whether they, indeed, were "generational"?

It's a silly word that seems to generally be understood as a player who is automatically a "franchise player" right out of the gate. At least, that's how I view the term.

Matthews appears to be a franchise player. As do McDavid and Eichel. Crosby and OV before them. Karlsson surely fits the bill as well. I'm not sure if Toews or Kane can be considered as such but there's certainly an argument to be had for them as well.

Having said that, Matthews and McDavid are two different players with different strengths. The Leafs and Oilers should be happy with what they have and debating if one is "better" than the other is a colossal waste of time... which apparently we have in abundance.

Lindros was absolutely a generational talent. His career was cut short as a result of devastating injuries.

Having said that, it all depends on how you define "generational". Is it once every 10 years? 5 years? Less? More? Do you have to wait until their career is over to reflect whether they, indeed, were "generational"?

It's a silly word that seems to generally be understood as a player who is automatically a "franchise player" right out of the gate. At least, that's how I view the term.

Matthews appears to be a franchise player. As do McDavid and Eichel. Crosby and OV before them. Karlsson surely fits the bill as well. I'm not sure if Toews or Kane can be considered as such but there's certainly an argument to be had for them as well.

Having said that, Matthews and McDavid are two different players with different strengths. The Leafs and Oilers should be happy with what they have and debating if one is "better" than the other is a colossal waste of time... which apparently we have in abundance.
- mjones242

generational player. lindros mayvhave had the potential but he never got there. look up Bryan Doherty. he was a "generational talent" too.

Um...there's 10 players on this list, not a "couple hundred".

Just because Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr were the best generational talents in the history of the game, does not mean there were not other, lesser generational talents in the game throughout the years. Yzerman? Lindros? Crosby? I'd certainly argue they were generational, and like Gretzky and Lemieux, all on the same list Matthews is now on.

Is Ovechkin generational? His numbers would suggest it. What about Patrick Kane? Debatable.

So McDavid is the next one, the next clear-cut generational talent. But to think that other players, such as Matthews, won't become generational in this generation is a bit much.

Whether you like it or not, he's already in the conversation, and he can be both #2 of his generation AND be generational.
- W_1

Again ......the term exists to separate the 5-6 best players from the rest of the Hall of fame, elite players....or do we need to come up with something new for those players?

generational player. lindros mayvhave had the potential but he never got there. look up Bryan Doherty. he was a "generational talent" too.
- prock

He absolutely did get there. His first 7 seasons were superstar status and despite being ravaged with horrible injuries (most notably, concussions) he still has the 17th best points-per-game average in NHL history.

I can only assume you're referencing Bryan Fogarty in your analogy. He had a lot of hype going into his first year in the NHL but never even came close to looking like a star player. Meanwhile, Lindros was an absolute force of nature as soon as he entered the league and is now a member of the HHOF.

He absolutely did get there. His first 7 seasons were superstar status and despite being ravaged with horrible injuries (most notably, concussions) he still has the 17th best points-per-game average in NHL history.

I can only assume you're referencing Bryan Fogarty in your analogy. He had a lot of hype going into his first year in the NHL but never even came close to looking like a star player. Meanwhile, Lindros was an absolute force of nature as soon as he entered the league and is now a member of the HHOF.
- mjones242

yes that was meant to be fogarty. weird autocorrect. he was absolutely that talented. just had mental problems.

lindros was not a generational player. no chance. what youvdescribe as an absolute force in his first year was third on his team in scoring. less games sure. had one Hart trophy. and that was a shortened season. my point being that regardless of why they never got there, they had the talent, but didnt. he was in the top 10 in NHL scoring just 3 times. top 5 just once. he was great when he was healthy. had he had 15 healthy NHL seasons, MAYBE he could have carved himself a career that would have him considered an all time great. but he was nowhere close. he'll he was borderline HOF.

I'm actually a fan, and think he got a bad rap in many ways. but generational player? no way. that's insane to suggest.

Everyone else ignored the fact that he claimed Stamkos scored 51 goals in his rookie season when he only scored 23 goals..?

yes that was meant to be fogarty. weird autocorrect. he was absolutely that talented. just had mental problems.

lindros was not a generational player. no chance. what youvdescribe as an absolute force in his first year was third on his team in scoring. less games sure. had one Hart trophy. and that was a shortened season. my point being that regardless of why they never got there, they had the talent, but didnt. he was in the top 10 in NHL scoring just 3 times. top 5 just once. he was great when he was healthy. had he had 15 healthy NHL seasons, MAYBE he could have carved himself a career that would have him considered an all time great. but he was nowhere close. he'll he was borderline HOF.

I'm actually a fan, and think he got a bad rap in many ways. but generational player? no way. that's insane to suggest.
- prock

Fogarty was never dubbed a "generational talent" -- he was drafted 7th overall and only had one monster season in the OHL (his 3rd season at 19 years old). Having said that, he came into the league with expectations but obviously wasn't able to translate his game into the NHL. Yeah, he suffered with demons (read: alcohol), but no one was predicting he would tear up the league.

Meanwhile, Lindros was constantly being touted as "The Next One" and being touted as a generational talent. Not only was he a force offensively with delicate
hands but he could steamroll the opposition with brute force. Can you name a player in the history of the NHL with his size and skillset?

Sure, as a rookie, he was only 3rd on the team in scoring but he missed 20 games and was on pace for a 100 point season and 50+ goals. How many rookies have accomplished that feat?

Lindros was easily the most complete player of his generation and, if it wasn't for injuries, would certainly have been in the Hart and Art Ross races multiple times. For the record, he finished in the Top 10 for Hart voting 4x in that 7 year span I mentioned (winning it once in, yes, a shortened season).

He's now in the HHOF which automatically makes him an all-time great. Very few players in the history of the league have had 7 years of hockey right out of the gate that match his performance.

He WAS generational and only haters will disagree. It's not his fault that his career was cut short - his combination of attributes: speed, finesse, a thundering presence, were not just generational -- they're almost unheard of.

Fogarty was never dubbed a "generational talent" -- he was drafted 7th overall and only had one monster season in the OHL (his 3rd season at 19 years old). Having said that, he came into the league with expectations but obviously wasn't able to translate his game into the NHL. Yeah, he suffered with demons (read: alcohol), but no one was predicting he would tear up the league.

Meanwhile, Lindros was constantly being touted as "The Next One" and being touted as a generational talent. Not only was he a force offensively with delicate
hands but he could steamroll the opposition with brute force. Can you name a player in the history of the NHL with his size and skillset?

Sure, as a rookie, he was only 3rd on the team in scoring but he missed 20 games and was on pace for a 100 point season and 50+ goals. How many rookies have accomplished that feat?

Lindros was easily the most complete player of his generation and, if it wasn't for injuries, would certainly have been in the Hart and Art Ross races multiple times. For the record, he finished in the Top 10 for Hart voting 4x in that 7 year span I mentioned (winning it once in, yes, a shortened season).

He's now in the HHOF which automatically makes him an all-time great. Very few players in the history of the league have had 7 years of hockey right out of the gate that match his performance.

He WAS generational and only haters will disagree. It's not his fault that his career was cut short - his combination of attributes: speed, finesse, a thundering presence, were not just generational -- they're almost unheard of.
- mjones242

I would concede to that.....at least you put forth a solid argument to help convince me.
That dingaling that suggested a list that included Pierre (frank)ing Turgeon as generational did not.

Fogarty was never dubbed a "generational talent" -- he was drafted 7th overall and only had one monster season in the OHL (his 3rd season at 19 years old). Having said that, he came into the league with expectations but obviously wasn't able to translate his game into the NHL. Yeah, he suffered with demons (read: alcohol), but no one was predicting he would tear up the league.

- mjones242

when Fogarty was in junior, it was well known he had the capability to be the best defenseman in the history of the game. He shattered Bobby Orr's records, in a tougher era to play in. He was an alcoholic, severely depressive, paranoid, and a drug abuser, even when he was drafted. He led the OHL in scoring, and it was well known he played most of his games drunk. At the age of 17. His coaches as a child, from Brantford, compared him to Gretzky, and most agreed he was far more naturally talented than Gretzky.

He was absolutely that talented. He just couldn't handle NHL life. He couldn't handle life at all, for that matter.

Meanwhile, Lindros was constantly being touted as "The Next One" and being touted as a generational talent. Not only was he a force offensively with delicate
hands but he could steamroll the opposition with brute force. Can you name a player in the history of the NHL with his size and skillset?

- mjones242

Yes, I can. An actual generational player, Lemieux, was roughly the same size (a little taller, not quite as built), and had WAY more talent.

Joe Thornton has the size and the hands too.

Sure, as a rookie, he was only 3rd on the team in scoring but he missed 20 games and was on pace for a 100 point season and 50+ goals. How many rookies have accomplished that feat?

- mjones242

in that era, quite a few. Teemu Selanne, Peter Stastny, Joe Nieuwendyk, Dale Hawerchuk, Steve Larmer wasn't far off.

Lindros was easily the most complete player of his generation and, if it wasn't for injuries, would certainly have been in the Hart and Art Ross races multiple times. For the record, he finished in the Top 10 for Hart voting 4x in that 7 year span I mentioned (winning it once in, yes, a shortened season).

- mjones242

I loved the way he played. But most complete player of his generation? No. Hell no. And top 10 in Hart voting 4 out of 7 years hardly screams generational to me. In the last 7 years, Toews has finished top 10 4 times. Getzlaf 3 times. Stamkos 3 times, plus two 11th place finishes. Pat Kane 4 times in the last 8.

Top 10 a few times is not nearly enough to say generational.

He's now in the HHOF which automatically makes him an all-time great. Very few players in the history of the league have had 7 years of hockey right out of the gate that match his performance.

He WAS generational and only haters will disagree. It's not his fault that his career was cut short - his combination of attributes: speed, finesse, a thundering presence, were not just generational -- they're almost unheard of.
- mjones242

Meh, the Hall of Fame is pretty watered down these day. Is Dino Ciccarelli an all-time great?

And I don't have an issue with you calling him an all time superstar. But generational player? No. Not at all. If he is, you might as well say that only 20 or 30 players a generation can be called generational.

I'm not a hater. Not at all. Loved the way he played the game. I was a fan, and happy when the Leafs got him, despite him being a shell of his former self.

He just never turned out to be "the next one". He was just a great player, when healthy. That's all he was.

edit - are you related or something? That's the only way I can see someone arguing that he's a generational player.

I would concede to that.....at least you put forth a solid argument to help convince me.
That dingaling that suggested a list that included Pierre (frank)ing Turgeon as generational did not.
- Larsson_fan

hell no. When you're counting a player or two per generation, that you can call generational, I guarantee you don't think he was the best or second best player of his generation. Guaranteed.

good lord

good lord
- kicksave856

yeah, no poop. Lindros generational?

yeah, no poop. Lindros generational?
- prock

wrestle me in the street

wrestle me in the street
- kicksave856

This sounds very erotic.

This sounds very erotic.
- prock

as it was intended.

Lindros was absolutely a generational talent. His career was cut short as a result of devastating injuries.

Having said that, it all depends on how you define "generational". Is it once every 10 years? 5 years? Less? More? Do you have to wait until their career is over to reflect whether they, indeed, were "generational"?

It's a silly word that seems to generally be understood as a player who is automatically a "franchise player" right out of the gate. At least, that's how I view the term.

Matthews appears to be a franchise player. As do McDavid and Eichel. Crosby and OV before them. Karlsson surely fits the bill as well. I'm not sure if Toews or Kane can be considered as such but there's certainly an argument to be had for them as well.

Having said that, Matthews and McDavid are two different players with different strengths. The Leafs and Oilers should be happy with what they have and debating if one is "better" than the other is a colossal waste of time... which apparently we have in abundance.
- mjones242

Just looking back on this.

"Franchise player right out of the gate". I think that's where you'll find almost everyone disagree with you. It means a little more than that. When you talk about generational, it obviously is connected to a generation. Not being a franchise player. It's the kind of player that stands out as the best, in an entire generation.

That's why you're including WAY too many players.

Just looking back on this.

"Franchise player right out of the gate". I think that's where you'll find almost everyone disagree with you. It means a little more than that. When you talk about generational, it obviously is connected to a generation. Not being a franchise player. It's the kind of player that stands out as the best, in an entire generation.

That's why you're including WAY too many players.
- prock

On the contrary, how many individuals are "franchise" players as soon as they enter the league?

There's a world of difference between a player who develops into a "franchise" player and one who is immediately one on Day 1.

On the contrary, how many individuals are "franchise" players as soon as they enter the league?

There's a world of difference between a player who develops into a "franchise" player and one who is immediately one on Day 1.
- mjones242

More than 1 or 2 per generation.

It's just a weird criteria. I guarantee you're the only one using that definition.

when Fogarty was in junior, it was well known he had the capability to be the best defenseman in the history of the game. He shattered Bobby Orr's records, in a tougher era to play in. He was an alcoholic, severely depressive, paranoid, and a drug abuser, even when he was drafted. He led the OHL in scoring, and it was well known he played most of his games drunk. At the age of 17. His coaches as a child, from Brantford, compared him to Gretzky, and most agreed he was far more naturally talented than Gretzky.

He was absolutely that talented. He just couldn't handle NHL life. He couldn't handle life at all, for that matter.
- prock

You're completely overstating his accomplishments. He didn't "shatter" Orr's record. Orr was 17 and was averaging more than 2 points per game. Fogarty was barely a point per game player when he was 18 and only had his monster season a year later. And as for the era they played in, the year Fogarty managed 155pts the team with the most anemic offense in the league was average 3.43 goals per game. Not exactly a tough era to put pucks in the net.

Yes, I can. An actual generational player, Lemieux, was roughly the same size (a little taller, not quite as built), and had WAY more talent.

Joe Thornton has the size and the hands too.
- prock

Neither player used their size in the same way Lindros did. They used their size to muscle their way through the competition - they didn't annihilate players with thunderous hits nor were they pugilists in the way Eric was.

Per Lemieux, I think he's the most talented offensive player in the history of the game - bar none. I won't argue that Lindros was more gifted -- but that doesn't take away from him being "generational". Frankly, I'd place Lemieux in a category above "generational" -- I think he's a once in a lifetime player (okay, maybe thrice... Gretz and Orr were pretty decent too).

in that era, quite a few. Teemu Selanne, Peter Stastny, Joe Nieuwendyk, Dale Hawerchuk, Steve Larmer wasn't far off.
- prock

Lindros came into the league well after Stastny, Nieuwendyk, Hawerchuk, and Larmer. The only peer would be Selanne who was 22 years old in his rookie year.

I loved the way he played. But most complete player of his generation? No. Hell no. And top 10 in Hart voting 4 out of 7 years hardly screams generational to me. In the last 7 years, Toews has finished top 10 4 times. Getzlaf 3 times. Stamkos 3 times, plus two 11th place finishes. Pat Kane 4 times in the last 8.

Top 10 a few times is not nearly enough to say generational.
- prock

If he played healthy for multiple seasons after those first 7 I'm sure he would have been a Hart candidate many times over. Having said that, I'm not stating the Hart candidacy as the only metric by which you should measure a player's "generationalness".

Per "complete player", name me another player of his generation who was the complete package of size, talent, and speed.

Meh, the Hall of Fame is pretty watered down these day. Is Dino Ciccarelli an all-time great?

And I don't have an issue with you calling him an all time superstar. But generational player? No. Not at all. If he is, you might as well say that only 20 or 30 players a generation can be called generational.
- prock

I would argue that any player in the HHOF is definitely an "all-time" great. So yeah, Dino fits the bill. Geez, he's only 18th all-time in goals scored -- how can he not be considered one of the best players ever? lol...

Was Dino "generational"? Nope. He was star player and deserved of his HHOF induction.

Per "20 or 30" players a generation being called "generational"? That's not my argument. My argument is that Lindros - love him or hate him - was a generational talent who combined freakish size and toughness with speed and finesse -- he could feather a pass and snipe a goal just as easily.

I'm not a hater. Not at all. Loved the way he played the game. I was a fan, and happy when the Leafs got him, despite him being a shell of his former self.

He just never turned out to be "the next one". He was just a great player, when healthy. That's all he was.
- prock

He never turned out to be "The Next One" because his career was cut short. It's tantalizing to know just where he would have ended up career-wise had his noggin not been turned to mush by some questionable hits. Poor Eric - he did have a tendency to skate with his head down...

edit - are you related or something? That's the only way I can see someone arguing that he's a generational player.
- prock

Nahh... I'm not a Flyers fan and I wasn't excited by Lindros signing with the Leafs when he did.

It just irks me when people only think Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr were truly "generational". I think there's room for more than them in the list.

If McDavid is cut down after 7 years of playing will we revoke his "generational" status? Food for thought.