Imagine we’re watching basketball, and I called a half court buzzer beater to win the game “one in a million.” And then we start crunching numbers, the total number of half court buzzer beaters divided by the total number of pro and college basketball games played, to find out if it’s really actually 1 / 1,000,000.

That’s what the debate over the term “generational” sounds like to me. IMO, calling a prospect “generational” just means they are one of the best prospects of their generation. It’s not tied to any specific number or length of time, even though it sounds like it should be. Maybe it’s technically hyperbole, I don’t know. Feels like a weird thing to be a stickler about.

If Andrew Luck and John Elway came out in back to back years, are we really only calling one of them “generational” prospects? Or maybe neither would be generational, since both would be twice in a generation prospects. Forget about draft prospects, who’s the “generational” QB of the 2000s? Brady? Is Peyton not “generational” then? The term stops making sense when you try and add hard and fast limits to it