Comedy gold out of Edmonton

[KennyBanyeah]

He has 5 100 pt+ seasons and likely would've had 3 more were his seasons not cut short by injury. Ovechkin's had 4 100 pt seasons, Malkin 3. Even last season he had a higher points-per-game rate than Benn despite the fact his linemates combined for only 91 points, less than Kessel's linemates in Toronto. That's some crazy production.

Hey, I think a really good argument can be made that he's the best player of the last 10 years. I'd pick him over anyone.

To me though a generational player does at least 2 of the following four things:

1. Wins Art Ross trophies by the bunch and does it easily. Like by 15 + points.
2. Re-defines his position. See Gretzky for Cs and Orr for D.
   
3. Is the best player on the best team while winning personal trophies (Ross, Hart, Conn Smythe) routinely.
   
4. Sets scoring records.

I'm not sure you can say that Sid does any of those things. He's a great player but a notch below the Orrs, Lemieuxs and Gretzkys, IMO.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Crosby is pretty borderline but I'd go with non-generational. He has as many Art Rosses over the last dozen years as two other people in the league, one of whom plays on his team. The other one is some sort of French speaking leprechaun.

If Crosby's generation has a defining player I'd lean towards OV. His goal-scoring is just that much better than anyone else since he's been in the league. He's more of a unique player than Crosby, IMO.

Although I'd take the center I think OV is the guy who kind of changed how certain players approach the game.

How? I think you have to explain that comment a little if you're going to make it.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Hey, I think a really good argument can be made that he's the best player of the last 10 years. I'd pick him over anyone.

To me though a generational player does at least 2 of the following four things:

1. Wins Art Ross trophies by the bunch and does it easily. Like by 15 + points.
2. Re-defines his position. See Gretzky for Cs and Orr for D.
   
3. Is the best player on the best team while winning personal trophies (Ross, Hart, Conn Smythe) routinely.
   
4. Sets scoring records.

I'm not sure you can say that Sid does any of those things. He's a great player but a notch below the Orrs, Lemieuxs and Gretzkys, IMO.

If you ask me if Crosby is a top 5 great? No way. I think that's more the criteria you're working with.

By generational, I think we're just generally speaking "who was the best player of that generation", generation being 10-15 years. If in the past decade you believe that to have been Crosby, I think that would qualify him as generational. It's like for the 10 years prior to that, I'd say Jagr was by and large the best over that span start-to-finish. Do I put Jagr up with Mario and Orr? Not quite, but I do think he was special.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

How? I think you have to explain that comment a little if you're going to make it.

Before OV there was never a winger of his size with his speed and skill. I think his success has forced defenders to use positioning and smart stickwork more than brute force.

Mobility has become more of a focus for DEFENSIVE defensemen as a result. More of Lidstrom style rather than a Derian Hatcher style. IMO, that has a lot to do with OV and players who've adopted his style.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Hey, I think a really good argument can be made that he's the best player of the last 10 years. I'd pick him over anyone.

To me though a generational player does at least 2 of the following four things:

1. Wins Art Ross trophies by the bunch and does it easily. Like by 15 + points.
2. Re-defines his position. See Gretzky for Cs and Orr for D.
   
3. Is the best player on the best team while winning personal trophies (Ross, Hart, Conn Smythe) routinely.
   
4. Sets scoring records.

I'm not sure you can say that Sid does any of those things. He's a great player but a notch below the Orrs, Lemieuxs and Gretzkys, IMO.

He leads active players with 1.36 PPG. Second place is at 1.19. The difference between those two is about 14 points per 82 games. Not quite 15, but pretty close. But you know what? In today's low scoring game and deep talent pool (1st line vs 3rd/4th line isn't the automatic goal that it used to be) that seems pretty good to me.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Where did I not say it was good with me? He's a great player.

OK let me put it to you this way. Do you feel that Crosby has had more or less impact on the game of hockey than Eric Lindros? He had a damn good PPG too (3rd highest of all-time until his sad last couple seasons). He also couldn't stay healthy. I'd say there isn't all that much difference between the two at this point.

Maybe Sid continues to play his best hockey for another 5 years and I'll be swayed to your position, but right now he doesn't define a generation. He hasn't dominated individually or with his team. Year in and year old his peers and sports writers don't feel he's hands down the best.

Team athletes that define their generation (Gretzky, Jordan, Jim Brown, etc.) all were constantly considered the best while in their primes.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

He leads active players with 1.36 PPG. Second place is at 1.19. The difference between those two is about 14 points per 82 games. Not quite 15, but pretty close. But you know what? In today's low scoring game and deep talent pool (1st line vs 3rd/4th line isn't the automatic goal that it used to be) that seems pretty good to me.

A year has 82 games. He doesn't play enough them.

 

[DragonfromTO]

A year has 82 games. He doesn't play enough them.

So then that's the reason rather than any lack of dominance while he's out there, no?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Before OV there was never a winger of his size with his speed and skill. I think his success has forced defenders to use positioning and smart stickwork more than brute force.

Mobility has become more of a focus for DEFENSIVE defensemen as a result. More of Lidstrom style rather than a Derian Hatcher style. IMO, that has a lot to do with OV and players who've adopted his style.

If you were a woman Bobby Hull would beat the shit out of you for saying that.

 

[dash]

If you were a woman Bobby Hull would beat the shit out of you for saying that.

Or simply sit on you.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Where did I not say it was good with me? He's a great player.

OK let me put it to you this way. Do you feel that Crosby has had more or less impact on the game of hockey than Eric Lindros? He had a damn good PPG too (3rd highest of all-time until his sad last couple seasons). He also couldn't stay healthy. I'd say there isn't all that much difference between the two at this point.

Maybe Sid continues to play his best hockey for another 5 years and I'll be swayed to your position, but right now he doesn't define a generation. He hasn't dominated individually or with his team. Year in and year old his peers and sports writers don't feel he's hands down the best.

Team athletes that define their generation (Gretzky, Jordan, Jim Brown, etc.) all were constantly considered the best while in their primes.

I'm not sure that Eric was even ever considered the best in the league during his prime for more than a year or two. From 1992 to 2000 Lemieux and Jagr both had more PPG than the Big E.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

So then that's the reason rather than any lack of dominance while he's out there, no?

Not entirely. If he'd miss 20 games and still win the Art Ross (a la Lemieux) and things of that nature I'd say he was dominant enough to be considered "generational". I guess that's my point. He just isn't THAT much better than everyone else that I put him in the same category as Gretz, Mario, Orr. Those are my definition of generational players.

I put Sid in the category of Sakic and Yzerman types. Not a slight obviously but I just put him behind the guys who for me defined a generation. Sid DOES have 10 more years to play in the NHL though (hopefully).

 

[DragonfromTO]

Where did I not say it was good with me? He's a great player.

OK let me put it to you this way. Do you feel that Crosby has had more or less impact on the game of hockey than Eric Lindros? He had a damn good PPG too (3rd highest of all-time until his sad last couple seasons). He also couldn't stay healthy. I'd say there isn't all that much difference between the two at this point.

Maybe Sid continues to play his best hockey for another 5 years and I'll be swayed to your position, but right now he doesn't define a generation. He hasn't dominated individually or with his team. Year in and year old his peers and sports writers don't feel he's hands down the best.

Team athletes that define their generation (Gretzky, Jordan, Jim Brown, etc.) all were constantly considered the best while in their primes.

When Gretzky set the single season points record he lost the Pearson (now Lindsay) to Mario Lemieux, who he outscored by over 50%. I'm not sure that the players (and writers) are anywhere close to infallible.

I would also add that "who had the most valuable season?" and "who is the best player?" are somewhat different questions anyway. You could conceivably be the best player in the league for years while never being the best player in any single season.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Not entirely. If he'd miss 20 games and still win the Art Ross (a la Lemieux) and things of that nature I'd say he was dominant enough to be considered "generational". I guess that's my point. He just isn't THAT much better than everyone else that I put him in the same category as Gretz, Mario, Orr. Those are my definition of generational players.

I put Sid in the category of Sakic and Yzerman types. Not a slight obviously but I just put him behind the guys who for me defined a generation. Sid DOES have 10 more years to play in the NHL though (hopefully).

When were Sakic and Yzerman ever considered the best player in the NHL (even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux)?

 

[forty_three]

I'm not sure that Eric was even ever considered the best in the league during his prime for more than a year or two. From 1992 to 2000 Lemieux and Jagr both had more PPG than the Big E.

But Jagr and Lemieux played with Jagr and Lemieux. Lindros often played with Renberg and Fedyk.

When were Sakic and Yzerman ever considered the best player in the NHL (even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux)?

Who's the best, I often ponder... right now It's Stevie Wonder! LET'S GO

 

[KennyBanyeah]

When were Sakic and Yzerman ever considered the best player in the NHL (even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux)?

Steve Yzerman won the Pearson in 88-89, with both Gretzky and Lemieux in their prime years. His peers thought he was pretty damn good.

Sakic won it in 2000-01.

So I'd say yes they were considered, arguably, the best in the league at one point in their career.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

You could conceivably be the best player in the league for years while never being the best player in any single season.

This is pretty much where we are right now with Toews, no?

 

[DragonfromTO]

But Jagr and Lemieux played with Jagr and Lemieux. Lindros often played with Renberg and Fedyk.



Who's the best, I often ponder... right now It's Stevie Wonder! LET'S GO

View attachment 39910

John Leclair wasn't chopped liver. And Jagr played without Lemieux for part of that stretch while Lemieux was retired.

That being said, I'm not sure that Lindros wasn't looked at as a "generational" player at the time anyway. It's easy to look back now and say that he wasn't knowing what we know about the latter half of his career.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

I think using the Pearson/Lindsay award as an argument point here is kind of counter-productive - Ovechkin won it from 2008-2010, while Crosby was playing for 2 Cups and winning a gold medal. I think we would all agree that Crosby was the better player at the time despite what his peers believed.

 

[dash]

I blame myself for getting us off topic in this thread - I'm hoping for a Dallas blowout tonight.

/Nilsson is scheduled to get his first NHL start between the pipes.