Jump to content

What does generational mean?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mister pudding said:

Well, if we draft him, he sure as **** better be designated a TE if we ever franchise tag him

Preach on that! Because if he defies the odds and becomes a pro bowl player, his people will absolutely claim he should be paid as a WR in that situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Summerhill said:

He's only 240 lbs. He's not Lee Smith. But he uses what he has the max of his ability so that is all you can ask. 

He shouldn’t be expected to be Lee Smith. Smith is built like a tackle and is an extra eligible receiver for short yardage and goal like situations. If Pitts can block like TG here, it would be decent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, belmont4213 said:

I support picking Pitts if we stay put; view him as an elite pass catcher that can block rather than as a TE. However, someone posted numbers that his size, speed, build is essentially Jared Cook, and while I think he has all-pro potential, I doubt he surpasses Kelce, Kittle, or even Waller. He’s a stud, but I don’t think he’s generational.

 

but please, please don’t get me started on the QBs (outside of Lawrence, who may be the best QB prospect since Luck or even Peyton)...

His HWS is similar to Jared Cook while is production is similar to Calvin Johnson. The only reason he won't put up crazy numbers is because of the presence of Julio and Ridley. Give Pitts 150 targets and I'd be willing to bet he can crack 1000 yards and 10 TDs too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, a "generational talent" is someone who literally attains better performance than is likely to be seen for the next 20+ years. With that being said, it's not a matter of whether his records will be broken before then but whether he set the bar far higher than anyone before him. Jerry Rice was a generational talent because he was almost unstoppable. His records were/will be broken but not necessarily by a player with generational talent.

For example, Walter Payton was a generational talent but IMO Emmitt Smith was not, even though Emmitt has more yards. Neither is Frank Gore, who has more yards than Barry Sanders, who I consider a generational talent even though he played right behind Payton. I'd argue that we haven't had a generational running back since Sanders (sorry Adrian Peterson fans). Terrell Davis could have been that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JayOzOne said:

In my opinion, a "generational talent" is someone who literally attains better performance than is likely to be seen for the next 20+ years. With that being said, it's not a matter of whether his records will be broken before then but whether he set the bar far higher than anyone before him. Jerry Rice was a generational talent because he was almost unstoppable. His records were/will be broken but not necessarily by a player with generational talent.

For example, Walter Payton was a generational talent but IMO Emmitt Smith was not, even though Emmitt has more yards. Neither is Frank Gore, who has more yards than Barry Sanders, who I consider a generational talent even though he played right behind Payton. I'd argue that we haven't had a generational running back since Sanders (sorry Adrian Peterson fans). Terrell Davis could have been that guy.

Great points. Being one of the best of his playing days doesn’t mean a guy is among the best of all time, necessarily. So, generational is a moving target, by and large.
 

And for the record, Barry Sanders was, and always will be, the GOAT. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

In my opinion, a "generational talent" is someone who literally attains better performance than is likely to be seen for the next 20+ years. With that being said, it's not a matter of whether his records will be broken before then but whether he set the bar far higher than anyone before him. Jerry Rice was a generational talent because he was almost unstoppable. His records were/will be broken but not necessarily by a player with generational talent.

For example, Walter Payton was a generational talent but IMO Emmitt Smith was not, even though Emmitt has more yards. Neither is Frank Gore, who has more yards than Barry Sanders, who I consider a generational talent even though he played right behind Payton. I'd argue that we haven't had a generational running back since Sanders (sorry Adrian Peterson fans). Terrell Davis could have been that guy.

AP isn't generational!? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term is overused as well. Pitts would be a rare talent, but there are other guys that are in the same ballpark. 

Fant got a lot of buzz when he came out.  Lot of oohs and aahs when Albert Okwuegbunam ran 4.49 at the combine last year. Kelce and Kittle are the top guys right now in the league. Pitts may be a better talent, but will he be on their level or exceed it?

People should temper their enthusiasm. Despite being a great athlete, it doesn't always translate to a great player. Pitts you think would be a handful to cover, but there is no guarantee. Personally I'm not for another WR/TE for this team at #4 or as our first pick. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, vel said:

AP isn't generational!? 

Only from the standpoint that IMO, he's not clearly greater than who came before him. He's had the best career of anybody in years (decades?). But I think a generational talent is somebody who sets a new high water mark and AP hasn't raised it from where Sanders left it. May not have approached it for more than a couple of seasons. Seems to me that a generational talent is not just the best of his time but also better than those who came before. 

The only problem I have with my narrow and eccentric (and probably lonely) view of this definition is with quarterbacks. Of course, Brady is a generational player, like Montana before him. But Rodgers is also and he plays in the same era as Tom Terrific. I want to pump the brakes on Brees because in my opinion, he's great but not at the level of Brady and Rodgers. I put Brady and Rodgers heads above Peyton Manning, though, so no disrespect to Spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JayOzOne said:

Only from the standpoint that IMO, he's not clearly greater than who came before him. He's had the best career of anybody in years (decades?). But I think a generational talent is somebody who sets a new high water mark and AP hasn't raised it from where Sanders left it. May not have approached it for more than a couple of seasons. Seems to me that a generational talent is not just the best of his time but also better than those who came before. 

The only problem I have with my narrow and eccentric (and probably lonely) view of this definition is with quarterbacks. Of course, Brady is a generational player, like Montana before him. But Rodgers is also and he plays in the same era as Tom Terrific. I want to pump the brakes on Brees because in my opinion, he's great but not at the level of Brady and Rodgers. I put Brady and Rodgers heads above Peyton Manning, though, so no disrespect to Spot.

That's exactly what I was going to ask next. Rodgers and Brees wouldn't be generational based on your definition. 

I think you're a little tough, which is fine, but it leaves out so many greats because of timing. It's like Jordan. He's an all time generational guy, but the guys in the league at the same time were just as generational but were overshadowed. 

For me, I just see them in 10 year windows. The game changes so fast, it's hard to comp eras. AP would destroy the times behind him. He'd be Bo Jackson. But would Barry be better than Devonta in 2016? Not a matter of his talent, but the competition he's playing against. Guys are a LOT faster and stronger and the game is different. After Barry came along, guys who could defend Barry came along. It's because he was generational. Tony G is the same. Yes, Kellen Winslow and Shannon Sharpe existed, but Tony changed the position to where a new breed of defenders was born. Guys like Isaiah Simmons and Derwin James didn't really exist before and it's a product of the generational talents before them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, vel said:

That's exactly what I was going to ask next. Rodgers and Brees wouldn't be generational based on your definition. 

I think you're a little tough, which is fine, but it leaves out so many greats because of timing. It's like Jordan. He's an all time generational guy, but the guys in the league at the same time were just as generational but were overshadowed. 

For me, I just see them in 10 year windows. The game changes so fast, it's hard to comp eras. AP would destroy the times behind him. He'd be Bo Jackson. But would Barry be better than Devonta in 2016? Not a matter of his talent, but the competition he's playing against. Guys are a LOT faster and stronger and the game is different. After Barry came along, guys who could defend Barry came along. It's because he was generational. Tony G is the same. Yes, Kellen Winslow and Shannon Sharpe existed, but Tony changed the position to where a new breed of defenders was born. Guys like Isaiah Simmons and Derwin James didn't really exist before and it's a product of the generational talents before them. 

Excellent points, all. A generational talent is one who changes the game. He shows guys at his position what's possible but also forces coordinators to adapt strategy. That changes the physical/mental attributes needed to control the new breed.

Basketball is a different animal from football. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a generational player but so was Magic Johnson and they played on the same team. Jordan was and Pippen may have been. Stephen Curry is a generational player who has already changed the game, perhaps forever. Of course, LeBron is too. And we may be watching the emergence of Giannis, Jokic and Embiid as generational talents.

But I'm a little harder on football players because in my opinion, there might be decades before a player can be compared to generational greats. And that's the point. Julio fits my idea of a generational player. Larry Fitzgerald does too. But there are some great WRs who don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generational = The latest hyped up buzz word. So many expert talking heads throwing around BS for lots of $$$. Pro Football is a great sport but every year at Draft time it's just a feeding frenzy of hyperbole . :rain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ya_boi_j said:

It's a term used entirely too much on this website. I'm still amazed that Pitts started getting called generational all of a sudden after his pro day. Compared to the rest of the tight ends in this draft, of course he's the best. He was actually used more in Floridas passing attack. But as soon as one person called him generational, everyone ran with it

Ain’t that the truth.  Can we just go back to “elite” lmao 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mister pudding said:

Since every topic nowadays is about Fields or Pitts anyway, I thought I'd focus on Pitts today.

Throughout the threads, I see Pitts is a "generational talent." Are we using that term too loosely? What does it mean?

To me, a generational talent is someone like Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders, Tom Brady, even Tony Gonzalez as he changed the tight end position from what it was before.

Will Pitts be better than Kelce, Kittle, Gronk, Waller when healthy, Graham with the Saints? Is it really generational if you are on par with others that are playing? Should we expect more from him than these guys give their teams if we crown him with being a generational talent? 

If we grab Pitts at #4, he will be the highest tight end drafted since Mike Ditka in 1961. If you support the pick, what kind of numbers would you like to see to reflect your desire to draft him so high? 

I think there can be more than one in a generation per say.  I think Julio and Megatron were both generational talents playing at the same time.  Peyton and Brady, maybe even Rodgers and Brees.  If there are more than one it means all of them are some of the best to ever do it.  Back in the day there were a handful of what I consider to be generational running backs all playing at the same time.  Earl Campbell, Tony Dorsett, Walter Payton, Erik Dickerson, Bo Jackson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...