CanucksCorner.com Forums

The guy broke Gretzkys record which some thought (me) wouldn't be touched.

He's not generational.

He's historical.

With that we have a new standard after generational to label players. Historical.


Still wouldn't put him on Mt. Rushmore tho. Not even close. Well, close maybe after 8-10 guys.

With JR's comments about 3 rookies in the line up next season, Lekkerimaki, Cootes and whoever they draft this year you have to believe that McKenna is their target. At least a forward has to be their target. None of the Dmen are projected to be NHL ready. And do we really have room for another young Dman next season? So I take it that they want McKenna. If they fall to 3rd I think that puts a fly in the ointment.

But do we know if McKenna is ready or wants to turn pro next season? I haven't heard of any of the Centres being ready either. Don't know about Sternberg.

Mount Rushmore plus 6 might be a good off season/post playoffs debate/discussion topic 'Tuzzi.

Overall (does a goalie crack the top10?)

Forwards.

D.

Goalies.

Could be interesting....I'm gonna guess Megs values Orr pretty highly.

How many Howes?

Is McDavid top 5 yet?

At the very least all the Messier mentions will drive Corn and McPilot crazy ...

donlever wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 10:26 pm Mount Rushmore plus 6 might be a good off season/post playoffs debate/discussion topic 'Tuzzi.

Was thinking the exact same thing. Was gonna rattle off a bunch of names but thought the better of it. You know how these subjective debates can blow up, didn't want to do it here.

Only thing I'll mention is not sure if he makes my Mt., but Lubomir Vaic has to be on the list.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 10:25 pm With JR's comments about 3 rookies in the line up next season, Lekkerimaki, Cootes and whoever they draft this year you have to believe that McKenna is their target.

I think it was more of a hope than a plan. Awkward to commit a rookie if they end up 3rd with someone not ready.

That is unless they believe the top 3 guys on their list are undoubtedly ready to go next year.

well Lekkerimaki isn longer waiver eligible so he stays or gets traded for a 4th

Cootes almost made the team last year so I guess they want to get him into the show. But that is assuming one of Blueger or Chyle don't come back I would think.

As for our draft pick, anyone's guess, I guess.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 10:25 pm With JR's comments about 3 rookies in the line up next season, Lekkerimaki, Cootes and whoever they draft this year you have to believe that McKenna is their target. At least a forward has to be their target. None of the Dmen are projected to be NHL ready.

Excellent point.

But I was talking about what I think they should do, not what I think they will do.

We have a whole topic about the differences there.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2026 1:23 am well Lekkerimaki isn longer waiver eligible so he stays or gets traded for a 4th

Cootes almost made the team last year so I guess they want to get him into the show. But that is assuming one of Blueger or Chyle don't come back I would think.

As for our draft pick, anyone's guess, I guess.

That’s what concerns me with management picking third: the pressure to get someone they can show off next year to the fans. I would rather whoever they pick this June not play next year. It’s gonna be another shit-show and they won’t move the needle while getting their head caved-in.

I don’t think Chytil will be standing in anyone’s way at training camp. He probably won’t last a preseason game before getting bumped out of the lineup - literally.

Just BPA…

Watching the playoff games sure strikes how how valuable the big bodies become when you're looking to win games when they matter. Especially if they are mean mutherfuckers who hurt in the corners and in front of the nets

Big guys like Slapkoski or Verhoeff seem to become much more important than tiny bodies like Garland or Stenberg or even scrawnies like McKenna or Pouts

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2026 5:11 pm Watching the playoff games sure strikes how how valuable the big bodies become when you're looking to win games when they matter. Especially if they are mean mutherfuckers who hurt in the corners and in front of the nets

Big guys like Slapkoski or Verhoeff seem to become much more important than tiny bodies like Garland or Stenberg or even scrawnies like McKenna or Pouts

You need both, tiny bodies are ok but they need some big bodies as well.

The big girls try harder reefer. You should have a go lol

Realistic comparables for the top draft prospects

To summarize...

McKenna-Pananrin

Stenberg- Hagel

Verhoeff- Ekblad

Reid- Byram

Malhotra- Mikko Koivu


Lever and Mëds if Stenberg can evolve into a Hagel type that's a pretty solid swede. I'd have to consider if I take that over a panarin type

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/254 ... mock-draft

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 5:55 pm

Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 18, 2026 4:15 pm I would consider a player that's close to scoring 1,000 goals in this league generational.

I think he’s a generational scorer. But not overall as a player. I don’t know, I think if I have to choose between Ovie and Crosby, it’s not even close.

It’s not to take away from him.

Was Brett Hull generational? 741G - 1.09PPG…..

Ovie’s line is similar. 929G - 1.07PPG…..

I think Hull was an underrated player, fwiw, but given Hull’s start came during the corked bat era, the stats have to be viewed in context. And Gretzky played almost his whole career in the corked bat era, which makes Ovie’s record all the more impressive.

I think there’s an impression that Ovechkin is just a sniper, and in some ways, that’s because he’s extended his career by playing more off puck. But for the first decade plus of his career, Ovechkin was an absolute badger. He was in dirty areas. He threw his body around a fair amount—way more than other scorers. He was exciting, did crazy and exciting things.

When he scored so much early in his career and people speculated about whether he might some day challenge Gretzky, the collective wisdom was extremely skeptical *because* of the way he played, that there was no way his body would hold up.

Ovechkin was an absolute leader of the team; he willed their success. It wasn’t a leadership that looked like Sid’s, but it was absolutely visible. Never a passenger. He took a sleepy organization in a sleepy arena filled with suits (was even sleepy when they were good with jagr and bondra and Oates and what not) and made it feel like a real hockey town. And they got the Cup.

I admire Sid a lot, and totally understand the argument that Crosby is better. I’m on the fence on the question. But there’s a part of me that thinks if Alex Ovechkin were Andy Olson from Brampton, no one would question whether he was one of the best 5 players to ever play the sport.

"Generational" seems like a term with no real definition. Legend seems more appropriate to me. Ovechkin and Crosby are two legends.

UW does well to remind us that Ovi wasn't always the sniper from the top of the circle on the power play kinda guy.
.