Is Pettersson an elite/superstar forward? Is he up there with McDavid, Matthews etc?

[The Duke]

Generational gets thrown around too much.  Who are the real generational talents over the years? 

Howe

 

Orr

 

Does anyone else sneak in pre-Gretzky?  Bossy? 

 

Gretzky/Lemieux

The 90s/2000s gets muddled.  Jagr? Yzerman?  Sakic? Brodeur/Hasek/Roy?  Can’t be all of them.

 

Crosby/Ovechkin

 

McDavid

Bedard? 
 

Petey isn’t on that list… but he’s an elite 1C.  No doubt about that.

[Mikeyman109]

i think Peteys struggling with an injury we dont know about. If thats the case i dont know how we judge his worth at this time.

When healthy and on his game he is very close to being elite. A few more pounds he will be a bull. he already seems to like to hit. 

He definitely needs some consistent players to play with though.

[Reznor]

He's elite. But is he on the level of the very best players in the league? I would say not. 

 

I actually had this conversation with my 11 year old last night. If looking at the POSITION, I would say that Hughes is better than Pettersson. For Hughes, some feel that Makar might be a better defenseman, but who else is truly in contention? One could argue Fox or Heiskanen. Maybe Josi or some could even say Hedman or Dahlin. But really, I feel Hughes and Makar stand alone, and I believe many agree with that.

 

However, while I would put Petey in the top 10 of forwards, he's not at the top of that list. I believe he has the potential to get there, but he needs to get a little bit stronger, and a little bit more consistent. Whereas a player like McDavid is nearly impossible to shut down and has very few poor games, Petey just isn't a threat out there at all times.

[Grinch]

Petterson for sure is in the elite category but the players you are comparing him too fall into the super elite category 

 

/end thread 

[BCNeil]

He is a top 10 player in the league.  McDavid and Matthews are a level higher.  McDavid 2 levels.  

He can quickly close that gap, doing what they haven't in the playoff.  A Conn Smythe maybe.

[Beni]

I don't really see him as a superstar, he is very good though

 

He also isn't playing with legitimate 1st line guys though either. 

[CanuckMan]

I think these are the top categories of players:

 

1. Generational (Crosby in his prime, ovechkin, mcdavid, etc)

2. Elite (mackinnon/kucherov guys that rarely take a night off)

3. Superstar (Petey, Mathews’s, Draisaital, etc)

4. Star (Miller, boeser, horvat, RNH type)

Until he shows the consistency I don’t think he’s an elite player. He’s a superstar. Too many nights where he doesn’t show up on the score sheet (elite players find a way to do it). Instead I think Peteys scoring is done in bunches: 2,3,4 point games.

 

love the guy and glad he’s on his team but I sure hope the Canucks don’t pay him like an elite player (11-12 mil). I’d be ok with 10-10.5 mil.

 

For how much he’s supposedly gotten bigger and bulked up he sure does fall down a lot.

 

[Malibu]

20 hours ago, IBatch said:

Also want to add, having followed this team mostly like it's a religion, since the late 80's almost done High School, i've only ever seen a few young players come in and just kick major butt right away.   Those guys are an 18 year old Linden, Bure who was a year younger but didn't start until he was 20 or so,  Brock's first season (a lot of years, he would have won the Calder, but was a legit all-star selection, insane accurate competition skills, and all-star MVP...folks forget how we were drooling over him at the time ... for sure a 40-50 future goal scorer right?), EP and then QHs.     That's it.    Only time I remember, having this quality and at this age, was in the early 90's once you add Ronning and Nedved.  

 

EPs aside from Bure, has also been the best player we've ever had, at 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and now just starting 25.    Until he was mugged, was getting high praise. and killing it his rookie year.   Still his hottest streak.   Ten goals, ten games.   Great one even spoke a bit.   

 

And he was also setting records in the SHL, which has had some pretty great HHOFers come through.    

 

In the end, don't really care if he ends up a "super-star" or not.   Only that we sign him long term, to a fair deal that he won't struggle to meet.   And that we win a cup with him.     And am truly grateful we have him too.    He's awfully close to becoming one.   And so think, he's got a shot at some hardware, and a few selections too (first and or second, injuries happen and players regress, McDavid probably keeps hogging them for awhile yet anyways). 

Great posts by you here imo. I thought we had something close to the next Gretzky in his first year, but yeah, those muggings. I would point out that using "yet" to describe his potential is pretty optimistic as most star players have their best years by 25 historically.

[shiznak]

I’d say he’s more of a superstar than elite. But based off his production, you can say he’s elite. 
 

He needs to be more engaged on a nightly bases, rather than quietly being a PPG player. 

[CanuckMan]

20 minutes ago, shiznak said:

I’d say he’s more of a superstar than elite. But based off his production, you can say he’s elite. 
 

He needs to be more engaged on a nightly bases, rather than quietly being a PPG player. 

perfect way to put it as far as engagement. Petey gets the points but doesn’t always seem to have the same impact to the game as say Hughes does. I would say Hughes is more valuable to this team than Peterson is which basically means he’s not elite, he’s a star maybe headed into the superstar category. 

[PeteyBOI]

18 hours ago, The Duke said:

Generational gets thrown around too much.  Who are the real generational talents over the years? 

Howe

 

Orr

 

Does anyone else sneak in pre-Gretzky?  Bossy? 

 

Gretzky/Lemieux

The 90s/2000s gets muddled.  Jagr? Yzerman?  Sakic? Brodeur/Hasek/Roy?  Can’t be all of them.

 

Crosby/Ovechkin

 

McDavid

Bedard? 
 

Petey isn’t on that list… but he’s an elite 1C.  No doubt about that.

coffey deserves to be there.. Esposito

 

I like your 90/2000s list... and would add eric Lindros and Peter forsberg... Skill wise they belong here... Eric Lindros WAS the best player for 3 YEARS before his major concussions... I also think chris Pronger was generational People Just went to the Finals when he made the playoffs

[IBatch]

21 hours ago, The Duke said:

Generational gets thrown around too much.  Who are the real generational talents over the years? 

Howe

 

Orr

 

Does anyone else sneak in pre-Gretzky?  Bossy? 

 

Gretzky/Lemieux

The 90s/2000s gets muddled.  Jagr? Yzerman?  Sakic? Brodeur/Hasek/Roy?  Can’t be all of them.

 

Crosby/Ovechkin

 

McDavid

Bedard? 
 

Petey isn’t on that list… but he’s an elite 1C.  No doubt about that.

 

 

Nice list, also don't think generational means just the best all-time.   It's the best of a generation.    Otherwise it would just look like a top 15 or so list of best players all-time, and then you'd be dealing with that 80-90's muddy list.   Just got with the best of that group, and Yzerman and Jagr are far enough apart in age to be in different hockey generations.     Forsberg and Lindros and Bure are tough.  Of the group, Lindros would have been the guy though.  He was hyped that way, built for that era and was taking the league over for a period of 3 years until his concussions started keeping him out of he middle of the ice, and played more tentative.     What a treat it was when PHI was in town, best game all season was New Year's Eve tilts with their team.   Lindros threw a hit once, that I doubt we will

ever see again, a 200lb guy flying 20 feet hard into the boards.   Airborn most of the way.  Just goofy stuff.  Worth a watch (Eric's greatest hits).    He was the complete package.   Very fast at 245lbs 6'4" and a wrecking ball, good fighter to boot.    

 

A couple more to add to the list but not doing early guys aside from Shore. 

 

Shore,  Harvey, Plante, Sawchuk, Hull (900 pro goals) Richard.  

 

Espo:  Before Gretzky, all the kids wanted to be him.   More than Bobby Clarke (ok not me, one ugly dude, and guess I was vain at 7-10 playing road hockey, went with the better smile and better hair plus, PHI was tough and that had appeal).  

 

Lafluer:  He beats out Dionne.  Because he lucked out and didn't get drafted number two.   Otherwise I don't think he makes the list.   Too much hardware to ignore, and best player for a big enough stretch 

 

Dionne:  Ok changed my mind, he shouldn't be punished just because little bit of hardware.   Guy was incredible.   

 

Potvin  (retired most points by a D, if he didn't play several seasons worth of games in the playoffs  he'd probably played longer, scariest player Gretzky ever played against, because he could crush or check you and get the puck and go down and score, would always look for him and go the opposite side).   He's a prototype of what it means to be generational - from start to finish, amazing. 

 

Bossy :  Best sniper in the game all-time.   There likely won't ever be a better pure sniper either.   

 

Borque  (first or second team all-star more then any d, from year one to his last season, runner/finalist for the Norris a lot more then he won).   Like Potvin, amazing from start to finish. 

 

Coffey  (final Norris 14 years in, almost won the Hart that year too).   Borque and Coffey came in at around the same time, and it was a constant debate who you'd want on your team, early it was mostly Coffey, later on Borque.  I liked both, but Coffey just had it all in a more exciting way.   Nobody's going to get as many Gordie Howe hat-tricks as a D.   Top two in all-time scoring, and did it into the dead puck era).   Looking at Borques and Coffey's accolade's makes most generational players blush a little.  Or at least they should be.    Year after year, they just did it. 

 

 

Roy (revolutionized the game).  Also either first or second best goalie all-time.   Sawchuk still gets that honours according to THN list. 

 

Yzerman (came in around the same time as Roy), one of the best centers all-time.  

 

Edit: Sakic see below.   Added as honourable mention but just can't keep him off the list.   A regular Hart, Selke, Byng, first and second team candidate or winner.   Two cups and a Smythe, and a "golden goal" bringing back the first gold medal in half a century.    He did everything Yzerman did.   Just a little younger is all.  I wonder if Crosby will score 100 points at age 37, and be 7th in Hart votes?  A Pearson adds to his case as well.    First all-star 3 times age 31 and up.    I'd have a hard time putting Crosby above either Yzerman or Sakic yet in the all-time lists as well.    If he retired now that is.   Still has to show he's got it right up until he's done.   Ovi falling off a cliff.   It's hard to predict. 

 

Jagr  (no brainer. Best winger in the league for a decade, best player for a lot of that too). 

 

 

Lidstrom  (no he's not Borque, or Coffey, took a long time for the quality of competition to age out, but he was the best of the 2000's, although Pronger was pretty great too, tempted to add Pronger, but then would have to add Larry Robinson for sure, and consider Park and Rob Blake too). 

 

Hasek  (of course he's generational)

 

Thornton  (best of that age group, this is where the top all-time lists go sideways)

 

Ovi

 

Crosby 

 

 

McDavid 

 

 

In hockey, 10 year gaps are good enough.    And several times in history, the two best have been pitted against each other.   Sometimes there have been more than 2 though, have to consider positions as well.  Goalies and D's, forwards.   Can't just be forwards. 

 

 

Yes I left out Orr, Mario and Gretzky.   Why?  Because they aren't once in a generation (as in every 10 or so years as far as hockey players go).     More like once in a lifetime, and that's if you're lucky enough. 

 

 

 

Honourable mentions. 

 

Sakic ... he was the best of the guys who came in a few years after Yzerman did.  Better than Modano, Selanne, Sundin, Mogilny, Federov, Bure.    Was tough leaving him off the list.    Also the hero in 2002 gold medal game.    Likely has close to how many points Howe got, without losing 1.5 seasons to lockout, and breaking his fingers in a snowblower accident which ended his career.    About as perfect a center as any team could ask for. 

 

Lindros...touched on that already, but IF his career followed the correct trajectory, he'd have a lot more hardware, and likely some cups too.  

 

Forsberg.    Just had too many other guys in the mix.   And only when Jagr or someone else wasn't in the way, was he the man, and Sakic was their Captain, and did just as much. 

 

Mckinnon.   Moved him off the generational, to this side.    Second best, first debate was Crosby, now he's behind McDavid.    A super-star though.   If you're regularly in the top 3 at your position, that gives you that.   It's also a very thin line.   The generational guys, are ones who did from the start to the end.   Had a tough time adding Lidstrom, but well he was the best of his generation, and too much hardware to ignore.    Then Pronger and Neidermayer.   

 

AL Mac.   Hard to leave him off the list.   There are other D's on this list, i'd have to think long and hard before taking Al Mac on an all-time team.   Al Mac Pronger, we're almost impossible to deal with 30 minutes a game. 

 

Pronger.   See above. 

 

Robinson.   See above.  

 

That's a total of 17 players, since the mid/late 60's to now.  Close  to a 60 year period.    An average of 2.8 per decade.   Call it 3 per decade if you add Orr, Gretzy and Mario. 

 

 

Wonder what Biestra thinks of this list?   What's the requirements, to go from a super-star, to generational?   All these guys played each other, one way or the other, because in their 20's, they played against the guys 5, 10, 15 years older even and for Howe..well up to 30 years.  Same with Jagr.  

Edited December 30, 2023 by IBatch

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, MidKnight Ego said:

coffey deserves to be there.. Esposito

 

I like your 90/2000s list... and would add eric Lindros and Peter forsberg... Skill wise they belong here... Eric Lindros WAS the best player for 3 YEARS before his major concussions... I also think chris Pronger was generational People Just went to the Finals when he made the playoffs

Pronger is tough I agree.   Like I said above though, we'd for sure have to add Robinson, probably Park too.   And guys like Blake enter the equation too.    Lidstrom, Pronger, Neidermayer were the best of their generation.    Each guy won cup(s).    Pronger won a Hart and a Norris.   He was an absolute beast at his peak, during the early 2000's.   Basically took EDM to the final on his own too.   ANA was the last throwback team to win a cup.   As in a team you'd see in the 70's/80's.    Loaded with truculence.     I wouldn't hold it against you, if you added him as generational, was awfully tempted to as well.   Same with Larry Robinson.   There aren't many D's i'd want on my team before him.    Robinson/Pronger would be a deadly third all-time pairing. 

 

Lindros >  Forsberg.    Forsberg was a great player too though, just too many others though.   Federov, Bure, Selanne,  Sundin etc.    Jagr and Lindros, we're the best of that age group though.  Sakic was a bit older, played his first 7 seasons for the Nords, and they were terrible.   Why Lindros was picked in the first place.     Yzerman or Sakic was a thing.   That rivalry, made Ovi's and Crosby's seem very, very tame.  

Edited December 30, 2023 by IBatch

[PeteyBOI]

31 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Pronger is tough I agree.   Like I said above though, we'd for sure have to add Robinson, probably Park too.   And guys like Blake enter the equation too.    Lidstrom, Pronger, Neidermayer were the best of their generation.    Each guy won cup(s).    Pronger won a Hart and a Norris.   He was an absolute beast at his peak, during the early 2000's.   Basically took EDM to the final on his own too.   ANA was the last throwback team to win a cup.   As in a team you'd see in the 70's/80's.    Loaded with truculence.   

 

Lindros >  Forsberg.    Forsberg was a great player too though, just too many others though.   Federov, Bure, Selanne,  Sundin etc.    Jagr and Lindros, we're the best of that age group though.  Sakic was a bit older, played his first 7 seasons for the Nords, and they were terrible.   Why Lindros was picked in the first place.     Yzerman or Sakic was a thing.   That rivalry, made Ovi's and Crosby's seem very, very tame.  

im pretty sure that rivalry was because of draper and Lemieux... every game between them was a must watch... i watched alot of Philli games... lindros was the best for 3 years hands down...

 

and Lidstrom he was good so was niedermyer, But if i was picking a player between those 3 Id pick Pronger first... why i Put forsberg in there was because he was the first line center and sakic was second line, which is crazy... those pre cap era teams were stacked...Just silly things like adding borque Hasek...

 

Detroit had Hull,Coffey,Federov,Lidstrom,Yzerman,Robitaille,shanahan,Larianov,Chelios,Datsyuk,Hasek,Draper,Duschene,Olausson,Mccarty, and a rookie avery... whats that 11 HOF players and duschene almost made it right?

 

that was all in one year LOL 2001-2002

 

also adam oated was/is criminally underrated in the same way i see people talk about howerchuk... he was better than Hull IMO, made everyone better including Joe Juneau LOL

Edited December 30, 2023 by MidKnight Ego

[iinatcc]

9 hours ago, CanuckMan said:

I think these are the top categories of players:

 

1. Generational (Crosby in his prime, ovechkin, mcdavid, etc)

2. Elite (mackinnon/kucherov guys that rarely take a night off)

3. Superstar (Petey, Mathews’s, Draisaital, etc)

4. Star (Miller, boeser, horvat, RNH type)

Until he shows the consistency I don’t think he’s an elite player. He’s a superstar. Too many nights where he doesn’t show up on the score sheet (elite players find a way to do it). Instead I think Peteys scoring is done in bunches: 2,3,4 point games.

 

love the guy and glad he’s on his team but I sure hope the Canucks don’t pay him like an elite player (11-12 mil). I’d be ok with 10-10.5 mil.

 

For how much he’s supposedly gotten bigger and bulked up he sure does fall down a lot.

 

 

Isn't Superstar higher than Elite?

[Dom]

Nope. The only superstar we have on this team is Hughes. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Dom said:

Nope. The only superstar we have on this team is Hughes. 

Quinn Hughes is a generational talent.

Petey is a super duper star.

Miller is a superstar.

Hronek is a star. 
 

Demko is:

[D.B Cooper]

He isn’t even the best forward on the team.   
Let’s cool it with ‘elite’ talk

[D.B Cooper]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Quinn Hughes is a generational talent.

Petey is a super duper star.

Miller is a superstar.

Hronek is a star. 
 

Demko is:

Generational is a player that comes by once in a generation. 
Hughes is incredible, but there are dmen ahead of him.  
 

[HKSR]

12 hours ago, CanuckMan said:

I think these are the top categories of players:

 

1. Generational (Crosby in his prime, ovechkin, mcdavid, etc)

2. Elite (mackinnon/kucherov guys that rarely take a night off)

3. Superstar (Petey, Mathews’s, Draisaital, etc)

4. Star (Miller, boeser, horvat, RNH type)

Until he shows the consistency I don’t think he’s an elite player. He’s a superstar. Too many nights where he doesn’t show up on the score sheet (elite players find a way to do it). Instead I think Peteys scoring is done in bunches: 2,3,4 point games.

 

love the guy and glad he’s on his team but I sure hope the Canucks don’t pay him like an elite player (11-12 mil). I’d be ok with 10-10.5 mil.

 

For how much he’s supposedly gotten bigger and bulked up he sure does fall down a lot.

 

 

2 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

Isn't Superstar higher than Elite?

Yeah, I think superstar is above elite.

 

I also don't place Pettersson with Matthews.  As much as I hate the guy, Matthews is in the Mackinnon/Kucherov territory.  Miller is also a much more complete player than Pettersson RIGHT NOW.  Could Petey be better?  Maybe, but until he does it, he's a lesser player than Miller.  Period.

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said:

Generational is a player that comes by once in a generation. 
Hughes is incredible, but there are dmen ahead of him.  
 

Huggable One is generational. He’s carried AHL level D from his second season until this year (Tanev was excellent) when a competent GM got him a proper partner. Now with a good partner Hughes is putting up generational numbers. Remember with Tanev Hughes set the scoring record for rookies in a playoffs. That’s a generational talent. 
Now how and inhale the odour from the empties to clear your mind from its toxins.

[HKSR]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

 

 

Nice list, also don't think generational means just the best all-time.   It's the best of a generation.    Otherwise it would just look like a top 15 or so list of best players all-time, and then you'd be dealing with that 80-90's muddy list.   Just got with the best of that group, and Yzerman and Jagr are far enough apart in age to be in different hockey generations.     Forsberg and Lindros and Bure are tough.  Of the group, Lindros would have been the guy though.  He was hyped that way, built for that era and was taking the league over for a period of 3 years until his concussions started keeping him out of he middle of the ice, and played more tentative.     What a treat it was when PHI was in town, best game all season was New Year's Eve tilts with their team.   Lindros threw a hit once, that I doubt we will

ever see again, a 200lb guy flying 20 feet hard into the boards.   Airborn most of the way.  Just goofy stuff.  Worth a watch (Eric's greatest hits).    He was the complete package.   Very fast at 245lbs 6'4" and a wrecking ball, good fighter to boot.    

 

A couple more to add to the list but not doing early guys aside from Shore. 

 

Shore,  Harvey, Plante, Sawchuk, Hull (900 pro goals) Richard.  

 

Espo:  Before Gretzky, all the kids wanted to be him.   More than Bobby Clarke (ok not me, one ugly dude, and guess I was vain at 7-10 playing road hockey, went with the better smile and better hair plus, PHI was tough and that had appeal).  

 

Lafluer:  He beats out Dionne.  Because he lucked out and didn't get drafted number two.   Otherwise I don't think he makes the list.   Too much hardware to ignore, and best player for a big enough stretch 

 

Dionne:  Ok changed my mind, he shouldn't be punished just because little bit of hardware.   Guy was incredible.   

 

Potvin  (retired most points by a D, if he didn't play several seasons worth of games in the playoffs  he'd probably played longer, scariest player Gretzky ever played against, because he could crush or check you and get the puck and go down and score, would always look for him and go the opposite side).   He's a prototype of what it means to be generational - from start to finish, amazing. 

 

Bossy :  Best sniper in the game all-time.   There likely won't ever be a better pure sniper either.   

 

Borque  (first or second team all-star more then any d, from year one to his last season, runner/finalist for the Norris a lot more then he won).   Like Potvin, amazing from start to finish. 

 

Coffey  (final Norris 14 years in, almost won the Hart that year too).   Borque and Coffey came in at around the same time, and it was a constant debate who you'd want on your team, early it was mostly Coffey, later on Borque.  I liked both, but Coffey just had it all in a more exciting way.   Nobody's going to get as many Gordie Howe hat-tricks as a D.   Top two in all-time scoring, and did it into the dead puck era).   Looking at Borques and Coffey's accolade's makes most generational players blush a little.  Or at least they should be.    Year after year, they just did it. 

 

 

Roy (revolutionized the game).  Also either first or second best goalie all-time.   Sawchuk still gets that honours according to THN list. 

 

Yzerman (came in around the same time as Roy), one of the best centers all-time.  

 

Edit: Sakic see below.   Added as honourable mention but just can't keep him off the list.   A regular Hart, Selke, Byng, first and second team candidate or winner.   Two cups and a Smythe, and a "golden goal" bringing back the first gold medal in half a century.    He did everything Yzerman did.   Just a little younger is all.  I wonder if Crosby will score 100 points at age 37, and be 7th in Hart votes?  A Pearson adds to his case as well.    First all-star 3 times age 31 and up.    I'd have a hard time putting Crosby above either Yzerman or Sakic yet in the all-time lists as well.    If he retired now that is.   Still has to show he's got it right up until he's done.   Ovi falling off a cliff.   It's hard to predict. 

 

Jagr  (no brainer. Best winger in the league for a decade, best player for a lot of that too). 

 

 

Lidstrom  (no he's not Borque, or Coffey, took a long time for the quality of competition to age out, but he was the best of the 2000's, although Pronger was pretty great too, tempted to add Pronger, but then would have to add Larry Robinson for sure, and consider Park and Rob Blake too). 

 

Hasek  (of course he's generational)

 

Thornton  (best of that age group, this is where the top all-time lists go sideways)

 

Ovi

 

Crosby 

 

 

McDavid 

 

 

In hockey, 10 year gaps are good enough.    And several times in history, the two best have been pitted against each other.   Sometimes there have been more than 2 though, have to consider positions as well.  Goalies and D's, forwards.   Can't just be forwards. 

 

 

Yes I left out Orr, Mario and Gretzky.   Why?  Because they aren't once in a generation (as in every 10 or so years as far as hockey players go).     More like once in a lifetime, and that's if you're lucky enough. 

 

 

 

Honourable mentions. 

 

Sakic ... he was the best of the guys who came in a few years after Yzerman did.  Better than Modano, Selanne, Sundin, Mogilny, Federov, Bure.    Was tough leaving him off the list.    Also the hero in 2002 gold medal game.    Likely has close to how many points Howe got, without losing 1.5 seasons to lockout, and breaking his fingers in a snowblower accident which ended his career.    About as perfect a center as any team could ask for. 

 

Lindros...touched on that already, but IF his career followed the correct trajectory, he'd have a lot more hardware, and likely some cups too.  

 

Forsberg.    Just had too many other guys in the mix.   And only when Jagr or someone else wasn't in the way, was he the man, and Sakic was their Captain, and did just as much. 

 

Mckinnon.   Moved him off the generational, to this side.    Second best, first debate was Crosby, now he's behind McDavid.    A super-star though.   If you're regularly in the top 3 at your position, that gives you that.   It's also a very thin line.   The generational guys, are ones who did from the start to the end.   Had a tough time adding Lidstrom, but well he was the best of his generation, and too much hardware to ignore.    Then Pronger and Neidermayer.   

 

AL Mac.   Hard to leave him off the list.   There are other D's on this list, i'd have to think long and hard before taking Al Mac on an all-time team.   Al Mac Pronger, we're almost impossible to deal with 30 minutes a game. 

 

Pronger.   See above. 

 

Robinson.   See above.  

 

That's a total of 17 players, since the mid/late 60's to now.  Close  to a 60 year period.    An average of 2.8 per decade.   Call it 3 per decade if you add Orr, Gretzy and Mario. 

 

 

Wonder what Biestra thinks of this list?   What's the requirements, to go from a super-star, to generational?   All these guys played each other, one way or the other, because in their 20's, they played against the guys 5, 10, 15 years older even and for Howe..well up to 30 years.  Same with Jagr.  

I define a generation as 25 to 30 years.  Kinda thinking along the lines of a family generation.  Usually 25 to 30 year olds will have kids, and those 25 to 30 year olds' parents will be in their 50s to 60s (maybe a bit older).

 

Prior to 1955 I'd give to Howe (although he kinda straddled into the next 25 year period).

1955 to 1980 (25 years), it was Esposito, Orr, maybe Mikita?

1980 to 2005 (25 years), it was Gretzky and Lemieux (and maybe Jagr).

From 2005 to current (18 years so far), I'd say Crosby, Ovi, Mcdavid.

From 2030 for the next generation, probably Bedard given how his rookie season has gone so far.

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I define a generation as 25 to 30 years.  Kinda thinking along the lines of a family generation.  Usually 25 to 30 year olds will have kids, and those 25 to 30 year olds' parents will be in their 50s to 60s (maybe a bit older).

 

Prior to 1955 I'd give to Howe (although he kinda straddled into the next 25 year period).

1955 to 1980 (25 years), it was Esposito, Orr, maybe Mikita?

1980 to 2005 (25 years), it was Gretzky and Lemieux (and maybe Jagr).

From 2005 to current (18 years so far), I'd say Crosby, Ovi, Mcdavid.

From 2030 for the next generation, probably Bedard given how his rookie season has gone so far.

 

IMHAO a player must lead his club to at least one Cup to be considered truly great. If McWhiner Baby isn’t a leader on a Cup winner then he stays in the category with guys like Dionne, Perrault, and other great offensive players who never won. 
The truly greatest players all amazing. So they get separated by the ability to take their club to a Cup. 

[D.B Cooper]

9 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Huggable One is generational. He’s carried AHL level D from his second season until this year (Tanev was excellent) when a competent GM got him a proper partner. Now with a good partner Hughes is putting up generational numbers. Remember with Tanev Hughes set the scoring record for rookies in a playoffs. That’s a generational talent. 
Now how and inhale the odour from the empties to clear your mind from its toxins.

All that is awesome.  
But again, there are still better dmen in the league/world.   That means he isn’t generational.  

[CanuckMan]

I don’t think there is much of a difference in terminology between “elite” and “superstar”. They practically mean the same thing (higher than a star). 
I’d say the term elite is higher than a superstar. There can be many superstars, but elite means a select few greater than the rest.