How important is 'generational player'

[Stoner]

Blue, where does the Cup factor in? Kane closes some ground there, no?

[Hoss]

For me, generational players aren't necessarily the best players in the league. They're the guys that define the generation.

 

The under-30 guys that fall into that, for me, are Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kane, Toews, Stamkos and Quick. Subban will probably creep in there soon.

[TrueBlueGED]

Blue, where does the Cup factor in? Kane closes some ground there, no?

 

I know many (maybe even the vast majority) will disagree, but I don't believe in equating individual success with team success.That Kane has one more Cup than Crosby means absolutely nothing to me when comparing the players.

 

For me, generational players aren't necessarily the best players in the league. They're the guys that define the generation.

 

The under-30 guys that fall into that, for me, are Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Kane, Toews, Stamkos and Quick. Subban will probably creep in there soon.

 

Quick? Ugh. Couldn't disagree more (I'm assuming you're factoring in the Cups, to which I point to my reply to PA. Very possible we'll never see eye to eye on that). If we're tossing goalies into the mix here, Lundqvist is the only choice. I also think if you're including Toews, you have to include Kopitar.

[LGR4GM]

The only pre-draft player in the past ten years to be labeled a generational talent is Sidney Crosby. Examine the Pengunis' win record and their achievement in the playoffs after his sophomore year: 1 Stanley Cup, 1 Stanley Cup Finals loss, 1 Conference Final, 2 Conference Semifinals, 3 Conference Quarterfinals. Eight seasons, eight trips to the playoffs, two SCF appearances with one win.

 

I very much dislike that shithead, but he's an elite talent that contributes to his team. Remember pre-Crosby Penguins? If Pittsburgh doesn't draft Sydney Crosby, they might not have replaced the igloo and may have moved the team. Crosby's existence transformed that franchise.

 

Now, it helps that he's been surrounded by a fundamentally sound roster (at times), including a first selection overall goaltender in Fleury and a second selection overall center in Malkin. The 2nd round picks have contributed as well.

 

Examine the last seven SC winners. Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago (x2), Boston, LA (x2). Only Pittsburgh has that generational talent. But every team, including Pittsburgh, has a large amount of elite talent. Think of the "hockey household" names on those teams. Think of how many players on those teams you'd like to have play for the Sabres. Now think about how you acquire a core of elite talent.

 

We need to draft well. We need to hit on our 2nd and some 3rd round selections. We need to acquire guys that support elite and possibly a generational talent. We can draft these players or we can trade for these players. But the players that will ultimately define our team are the elite and generational talent that we'll have to draft. These players are extremely difficult to trade for and you're lucky if you can draft them.

 

But best chance to draft those highly influential players is to tank the ###### out of the season.

Fleury does not help the Penguins do anything but lose. Also the reason the pens haven't won a cup since 2009 is they draft horrendously bad. They have almost 0 players from drafts between 2007-2011. This problem is something they have appeared to be correcting.

[Hoss]

 

Quick? Ugh. Couldn't disagree more (I'm assuming you're factoring in the Cups, to which I point to my reply to PA. Very possible we'll never see eye to eye on that). If we're tossing goalies into the mix here, Lundqvist is the only choice. I also think if you're including Toews, you have to include Kopitar.

 

Lunqvist isn't under 30. Toews is head and shoulders above Kopitar when it comes to who people will talk about when they mention this generation.

 

I included Quick because, if you're going to include an under-30 goalie, it has to be him.

[TrueBlueGED]

Lunqvist isn't under 30. Toews is head and shoulders above Kopitar when it comes to who people will talk about when they mention this generation.

 

I included Quick because, if you're going to include an under-30 goalie, it has to be him.

 

My bad, I missed the "under-30" when I read your post. More people talk about Toews than Kopitar, sure, but that's a function of their respective markets. Should we really let the media dictate whether a player is considered generational? I think that should be purely based on what they do on the ice, regardless of how much attention they get.

 

I still wouldn't put Quick anywhere near generational status, whether we're talking under-30 or everyone. For my money Rask is better than Quick, and by quite a bit (and I wouldn't include Rask as a generational goaltender either...at least not yet).

 

Perhaps we should try to actually come up with a workable definition of generational player. To me, a generational player can be loosely defined by meeting two criteria: being among the best several players of his generation with a clear separation to the next tier (and that next tier has to be elite players) and having a reasonable comparison to the all-time greats...of course, this also means we have to have some idea of how long a generation is. There has to be some longevity too, to avoid labeling a flash in the pan as generational. To me, players like Kane, Toews, Kopitar, etc. are not generational players because there are so many of them clumped up with reasonable arguments to who is or is not better--the clear separation just isn't there. If you have 10 players roughly equal, then you either have 10 generational players or zero; I'd opt to say zero in that situation.

Edited August 24, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[Hoss]

Should we really let the media dictate whether a player is considered generational?

 

No, we shouldn't. But that's how it works. Kopitar doesn't have that star style of game, which is why he will fall out of some conversations. He's worthy of being considered generational, but I doubt I'll tell my grandkids about him.

 

The mix up here is that your definition is different than mine. I'm not including talent, despite the obvious fact that it takes talent to be in this class, but I'm basing it more off who everybody knows and talks about when they discuss hockey. Obviously if I was talking just die-hards then some of these guys would be in there, but I'm talking on a more general basis. The average fan won't see Kopitar the way others do.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Tankalicious

[drnkirishone]

Crosby is the only player you can use this term on currently. Maybe toews if he leads teams to another 2 cups can be meantioned.

[Randall Flagg]

Crosby is the only player you can use this term on currently. Maybe toews if he leads teams to another 2 cups can be meantioned.

Does a generational player need to have 'generational talent'? Because if so I couldn't see Toews, who is very talented nonetheless, ever qualify for that no matter how many cup wins he has. Crosby does have a talent level notably higher than everyone else in the 'elite' category so I do agree that he is the one and only qualified player right now.

[Stoner]

Miller is generational.

[Hoss]

Does a generational player need to have 'generational talent'? Because if so I couldn't see Toews, who is very talented nonetheless, ever qualify for that no matter how many cup wins he has. Crosby does have a talent level notably higher than everyone else in the 'elite' category so I do agree that he is the one and only qualified player right now.

 

I want to buy you a beer.

[Randall Flagg]

I want to buy you a beer.

Eheheh if you're ever on campus again let me know! :P

[Hoss]

Eheheh if you're ever on campus again let me know! :P

 

I'll be there for a week starting Friday. Got a paid week off at work, so I'm coming to visit the lady friend.

[Randall Flagg]

I'll be there for a week starting Friday. Got a paid week off at work, so I'm coming to visit the lady friend.

Well that's exciting, though I'm leaving Friday for the weekend. Enjoy the week and perhaps I'll see ya around!

[TrueBlueGED]

No, we shouldn't. But that's how it works. Kopitar doesn't have that star style of game, which is why he will fall out of some conversations. He's worthy of being considered generational, but I doubt I'll tell my grandkids about him.

 

The mix up here is that your definition is different than mine. I'm not including talent, despite the obvious fact that it takes talent to be in this class, but I'm basing it more off who everybody knows and talks about when they discuss hockey. Obviously if I was talking just die-hards then some of these guys would be in there, but I'm talking on a more general basis. The average fan won't see Kopitar the way others do.

 

Well, there's the rub. To me, any definition of "generational" that includes Toews but excludes Kopitar is invalid on face. They're basically the same player.

Edited August 24, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[Byebye]

A generational talent is absolutely not necessary to win the Stanley Cup, anybody could tell you that.

 

Do the Buffalo sabres need McDavid/Eichel to win a Stanley Cup? Absolutely not, that being said the sabres do need some serious help, building a solid core and adding depth in every position. We have set ourselves up very nicely in that regard, not going to waste my time explaining, everyone should know our picks and prospects.

 

That being said, while I've never seen Gretzky play, I have seen Crosby. What a treat that was, just seeing the small things he does so well. He takes the game to another level of intensity and speed, undoubtedly a better, more entertaining game with him in it.

 

Do the sabres need McDavid? I encourage everyone in the Buffalo area to go watch McDavid when he's in town, especially the people against the "tank"(hate calling it that). You'll realize, we don't need McDavid, what a luxury it would be if we had him.

 

To sum it all up, a generational talent isn't exactly synonymous with Stanley cups. I think having one would be great for the city, I'm sure pegula wouldn't mind it considering his investments either.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Naulter8

[nfreeman]

Well, there's the rub. To me, any definition of "generational" that includes Toews but excludes Kopitar is invalid on face. They're basically the same player.

 

No. Toews plays a much harder game.

 

I agree with you about Crosby though.

[LastPommerFan]

How important was Wayne to the teams he played on?

 

Mario?

 

Syd?

 

Gordie?

 

Bobby?

 

If you have one, they are of the ultimate importance. To final statement in the OP, each of these players guaranteed that their teams were better than they would have been without them. Significantly better. During each of their careers, other teams won stanley cups, sure, but every team that had one of these players got significantly worse after they left.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[Kristian]

I don't recally exactly who it was, but when Mario made his second comeback, one broadcaster said something along the lines of "boy, looking at Mario makes you realise how many average hockey players there are in the NHL".

 

To chich the color guy said something like "No, he's just that much better than everyone else".

 

I forget the actual wording, but the meaning was pretty clear to me - A generational player, IMHO, is someone who makes everyone else look bad to average.

[pi2000]

The Sabres were the lowest scoring team in the league last season, by a very wide margin (30 goals fewer than FLA, that's almost a goal every other game worse than the #29th ranked team).

 

That said, they need offense. McDavid and Eichel are the best offensive players to enter the draft in a decade, so yeah I'd say getting one of those guys would jump start the rebuild, probably get them to where they want to go a lot quicker. That's not to say either of these guys will guarantee a Cup in the next 5 years, but they'll certainly help the Sabres be more competitive.

[Taro T]

Not sure about getting into the minutia of the definition, but IMHO since the Sabres came into the league there have been 5 true generational players and several that would be in the discussion but (just) miss the grade.

 

My 5 are:

Orr

Gretzky

Mario

Dom &

Sid.

 

That's it. There're several that are close (Bossy, Lafleur, Messier, & Parent spring to mind immediately, there are others who deserve to be in the discussion as well) but none bring the full package of what those 5 brought.

[mphs mike]

I find the definition of "generational player" interesting.

I never thought of it being the player who define san era - I always thought of it as a player so great, you are lucky if one comes along in each generation. If it is merely the best of an era, frankly you are simply talking about someone who belongs in the hall of fame at the end of hi career. If, as I believe, a "generational player" is someone so far above the other's level of play that thy might only come along once n a generation (generally defined as every twenty years) then I think since I began watching hockey in 68 or 69 you are talking about Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky.

Yes, you can win a Stanley Cup without a generational player as I see it because a Cup is won annually and I don't think there is currently a "generational player" in the game. n the other hand, having grown up watching Bert go end to end was ALOT of fun and he did help us play in a SC Final