Has Connor Bedard quietly became underrated ?

[PainForShane]

It's both. You need to dominate junior and hit the ground running and dominate the league. Every generational player has done that. Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid. Lindros was a generational prospect but didn't end up a generational player. And Crosby had the best 18 year old season in history so not sure what your point is there.

Gordie Howe exists. So do Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo (and many others).

 

[Acallabeth]

Bedard has Donato, Kurashev, people need to chill. Hockey is a team game and he has by far the worst supporting cast of any star player joining the league.

Most 1st overall picks join trash teams.
Tampa didn't even have a 45-point scorer in Lecavalier's rookie season or the year before.
Ovechkin scored more than the next 2 top scorers on the Caps combined in his rookie season.

 

[Crow]

I think it shows how difficult it is to dominate this league as a teenager. It took guys like MacKinnon and Kucherov years to become the players they are.

You need a physical attribute to differentiate yourself to do it. Crosby was already incredibly strong at 18 and McDavid was the fastest skater in the league the minute he stepped onto the ice. Bedard is neither strong nor fast, and still looks like a small child. He needs time.

Bedard is light years ahead of where Mackinnon was at even a couple seasons later in his development. Despite that you have people saying Connor will put up 110 points someday at his peak. That just seems really f***ing stupid to me, probably based on wishful thinking or some weird desire to feel smarter than everyone who sees his potential. Bedard will prove those people very wrong with any health.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Bedard is light years ahead of where Mackinnon was at even a couple seasons later in his development. Despite that you have people saying Connor will put up 110 points someday at his peak. That just seems really f***ing stupid to me, probably based on wishful thinking or some weird desire to feel smarter than everyone who sees his potential. Bedard will prove those people very wrong with any health.

I had Bedard pegged as a guy with a 60 goal 120 point ceiling, but I don't think him being ahead of Mackinnon at this age means a ton. They are completely different players.

Bigger, more powerful guys like Mackinnon often take longer to reach their full maturity - this is why citing Howe as an example of a generational player that took a while to hit his stride doesn't really hold much water.

Consider that Mackinnon was only 6'0 180 before the draft, and has since added 20 lbs. Meanwhile, Bedard already weighed 185 lbs, despite being only 5'9.75 at the combine. He is much closer to his physical maturity than Mackinnon was at the same age.

Bedard should continue to get stronger and faster, but he's probably closer to a finished product than Mackinnon. More importantly, his offensive game doesn't rely as heavily on those athletic attributes as a PWF like Mackinnon, so we wouldn't expect to see a dramatic improvement in his offensive performance as a result.

 

[swerdnase]

Gordie Howe exists. So do Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo (and many others).

I'm not disagreeing with you but putting Jordan on your list is just wrong. He dominated the minute he stepped foot in the NBA. Even before that he led the 84 Olympic team made up of college players, against an NBA All-Star team that had Magic, Bird and Isaiah and beat them in all 8 games as the best player on the floor.

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/1984-throwback-to-when-team-usa-led-by-michael-jordan-dismantled-nba-all-stars-in-preparation-for-the-olympics

 

[PainForShane]

I'm not disagreeing with you but putting Jordan on your list is just wrong. He dominated the minute he stepped foot in the NBA. Even before that he led the 84 Olympic team made up of college players, against an NBA All-Star team that had Magic, Bird and Isaiah and beat them in all 8 games as the best player on the floor.

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/1984-throwback-to-when-team-usa-led-by-michael-jordan-dismantled-nba-all-stars-in-preparation-for-the-olympics

As a freshman at UNC (roughly same age as Bedard is now), Jordan averaged 13.4 points shooting over 50% (ACC Freshman of the year) which was excellent but not even close to dominant. Bedard's rookie of the year performance in the NHL (at 18) was much more impressive in my opinion and people are going out of their way to clown this achievement as somehow not enough.

Jordan also famously didn't make his high school varsity team early on (later he used that for motivation) and wasn't even picked first overall in the NBA draft when he was ~21 years old.

All that to say Jordan clearly "did not dominate (the NBA's equivalent of) junior" which is the part of the particular claim in the post I was responding to (by including Jordan specifically).

edit spelling

 

[swerdnase]

All that to say Jordan clearly "did not dominate (the NBA's equivalent of) junior" which is the part of the particular claim in the post I was responding to (by including Jordan specifically).

Got it, although he did hit the clutch game winner in the NCAA Finals his freshman year as well as winning NCAA Player of the Year the following two seasons.

Not to mention that Bobby Knight famously said this about him after coaching him in the Olympics, "In the categories of competitiveness, ability, skill, and then athletic ability, he's the best athlete, he's one of the best competitors, he's one of the most skilled players,' Knight said. 'That, to me, makes him the best basketball player I've ever seen play."

 

[Crow]

I had Bedard pegged as a guy with a 60 goal 120 point ceiling, but I don't think him being ahead of Mackinnon at this age means a ton. They are completely different players.

I think it’s really dumb to try to project him based on all the other players you have as well as Mackinnon. Mackinnon is just an example that projecting the limit of someone’s peak by teenage play is a fools errand.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I think it’s really dumb to try to project him based on all the other players you have as well as Mackinnon. Mackinnon is just an example that projecting peaks by someone’s teenage play is a fools errand.

I didn't see you saying this when people were projecting him as a generational player based on his play as a 15-17 year old. But I guess his 18-19 year old seasons in the NHL are less relevant than what he did in junior?

 

[WarriorofTime]

I didn't see you saying this when people were projecting him as a generational player based on his play as a 15-17 year old. But I guess his 18-19 year old seasons in the NHL are less relevant than what he did in junior?

Do you think there is a better Forward on a go-forward basis than Bedard born between 1998-2006?

 

[VainGretzky]

I didn't see you saying this when people were projecting him as a generational player based on his play as a 15-17 year old. But I guess his 18-19 year old seasons in the NHL are less relevant than what he did in junior?

Who do you think will end up better Bedard or Jack Hughes

 

[Crow]

I didn't see you saying this when people were projecting him as a generational player based on his play as a 15-17 year old. But I guess his 18-19 year old seasons in the NHL are less relevant than what he did in junior?

I misspoke quite a bit saying that projecting their peak is an issue. I actually don’t have much of an issue with your projection very much although I think you are underestimating his playmaking ability.

What I meant to say, and what I’ve been saying pretty much this entire thread is that putting a ceiling on a player like him based on his teenage play seems foolish.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Do you think there is a better Forward on a go-forward basis than Bedard born between 1998-2006?

Boy that's a tough one. Bedard is definitely in the conversation. I think the below guys could also contend for that spot:

Carlsson
Stutzle
Hughes
Michkov

I misspoke quite a bit saying that projecting their peak is an issue. I actually don’t have much of an issue with your projection very much although I think you are underestimating his playmaking ability.

What I meant to say, and what I’ve been saying pretty much this entire thread is that putting a ceiling on a player like him based on his teenage play seems foolish.

Yeah I made that projection while he was still in junior. I think I overestimated how his shooting would translate, so he's postured himself more towards a playmaker. I've always said his playmaking was extremely underrated though.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Who do you think will end up better Bedard or Jack Hughes

That's really tough. If Hughes can get healthy and stay that way, I think I'd probably give him the edge because of his skating. But given his injury history (especially with his shoulders), I'd probably lean Bedard.

 

[PainForShane]

Got it, although he did hit the clutch game winner in the NCAA Finals his freshman year as well as winning NCAA Player of the Year the following two seasons.

Not to mention that Bobby Knight famously said this about him after coaching him in the Olympics, "In the categories of competitiveness, ability, skill, and then athletic ability, he's the best athlete, he's one of the best competitors, he's one of the most skilled players,' Knight said. 'That, to me, makes him the best basketball player I've ever seen play."

No, he didn't win two player of the year awards. Ralph Sampson won during MJ's sophomore season. And I'm not sure what Jordan's performance in the Olympics has to do with this conversation because that happened when he was 21 years old. Yes he broke out in the Olympics imo (you could also argue his initial breakout was his junior year in college) but that was when he was 20 or 21 years old. Still older than what Bedard is now.

***

Put a different way, Jordan breaking out during his age 21 college season and Olympics shows it's too early to accurately make judgements on 19 year old Connor Bedard. Not sure that's what you were going for but that's the conclusion your argument seems to support

 

[Toby91ca]

Bedard has a generational shot, there isn't much question in my mind on that. I'm not worried about him either, I think he'll continue to improve and be a star player, but his lack of speed might hold him back a bit with his size....we'll see. Either way, projecting to Crosby and McDavid level is a stretch. For the record, his stats in junior, I've suggested were better than McDavid's so there was good reason for hype....that doesn't mean I think he's going to be as good or better than McDavid though.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No, he didn't win two player of the year awards. Ralph Sampson won during MJ's sophomore season. And I'm not sure what Jordan's performance in the Olympics has to do with this conversation because that happened when he was 21 years old. Yes he broke out in the Olympics imo (you could also argue his initial breakout was his junior year in college) but that was when he was 20 or 21 years old. Still older than what Bedard is now.

***

Put a different way, Jordan breaking out during his age 21 college season and Olympics shows it's too early to accurately make judgements on 19 year old Connor Bedard. Not sure that's what you were going for but that's the conclusion your argument seems to support

Hey man, you're simply just wrong here. It's pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about in terms of trying to compare non-similiar situations.

For context -

NBA had been a "Center" league for the entirety of existence up to this point. Think Quarterback in Football. Jordan didn't go first overall, but really because he wasn't a Center. It's that simple. Jordan himself went a long way to changing this in terms of how the NBA would transform itself over the last 40 years.

In addition, NCAA Freshman did not play until only very recently. A Freshman Starting was itself a big feat, let alone on a national title winner.

Jordan may not have been the best "prospect" ever (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or LeBron) but he wasn't a Johnny Come Lately. You keep mentioning him being 21, but not staying all four years just wasn't even a thing then. Whereas NHL players drafted at Age 18 since forever now.

 

[PainForShane]

Hey man, you're simply just wrong here. It's pretty clear you don't really know what you're talking about in terms of trying to compare non-similiar situations.

For context -

NBA had been a "Center" league for the entirety of existence up to this point. Think Quarterback in Football. Jordan didn't go first overall, but really because he wasn't a Center. It's that simple. Jordan himself went a long way to changing this in terms of how the NBA would transform itself over the last 40 years.

In addition, NCAA Freshman did not play until only very recently. A Freshman Starting was itself a big feat, let alone on a national title winner.

Jordan may not have been the best "prospect" ever (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or LeBron) but he wasn't a Johnny Come Lately. You keep mentioning him being 21, but not staying all four years just wasn't even a thing then. Whereas NHL players drafted at Age 18 since forever now.

Sorry man. Literally the only thing I have been claiming wrt Jordan is that he was not the best "prospect" ever.

That's literally my only claim. Which you agree with.

 

[#37]

A sophomore slump is to be expected. The kid played a lot of hockey last year and was living under a microscope the whole time with a touch of weirdness from a veteran team mate.

Honestly, I can't remember that amount of hype for a player before. I mean, his first game in the NHL was broadcast nationally in the US complete with interviews with him and Crosby. Crosby seemed a bit amused by the whole thing, but exuded class I thought.

This kid will never meet the expectations placed upon him, no one can.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Sorry man. Literally the only thing I have been claiming wrt Jordan is that he was not the best "prospect" ever.

That's literally my only claim. Which you agree with.

This is being pedantic though. He was a great prospect. The bold you replied to was about dominating "juniors" and hitting the ground running. Jordan was an elite college player and then took the League by sensation as a Rookie.

Someone like Tom Brady obviously fits the bill more naturally.

 

[Midnight Judges]

12 points in 13 games on a bad team, while shooting an unsustainably low 6.7 % in the early going.

Yeah his shot is straight nasty. No way that % sustains.

 

[Soundwave]

As a freshman at UNC (roughly same age as Bedard is now), Jordan averaged 13.4 points shooting over 50% (ACC Freshman of the year) which was excellent but not even close to dominant. Bedard's rookie of the year performance in the NHL (at 18) was much more impressive in my opinion and people are going out of their way to clown this achievement as somehow not enough.

Jordan also famously didn't make his high school varsity team early on (later he used that for motivation) and wasn't even picked first overall in the NBA draft when he was ~21 years old.

All that to say Jordan clearly "did not dominate (the NBA's equivalent of) junior" which is the part of the particular claim in the post I was responding to (by including Jordan specifically).

edit spelling

What's the famous saying, Dean Smith (coach at North Carolina) was the only person who could hold Michael Jordan to under 20 points a game.

He played within a system at UNC that kept his scoring totals down. Still he also did hit the game winning shot in the NCAA championship game, lol, a lot of the signs were there, a lot of NBA scouts were just blinded by the idea of building around a center.

Michael Jordan also only really started playing basketball seriously at around the high school age (hence he got cut trying out for the senior squad), which is not a lot of turn around from age 15/16 to being among the best players in the world at age 21.

 

[PainForShane]

This is being pedantic though. He was a great prospect. The bold you replied to was about dominating "juniors" and hitting the ground running. Jordan was an elite college player and then took the League by sensation as a Rookie
Someone like Tom Brady obviously fits the bill more naturally.

Great doesn't mean generational, which was the initial post I responded to. Anyone going #3 in the draft is a great prospect, no argument there, he was elite in college, but not generational. He wasn't nearly as dominant or hyped as Ralph Sampson for instance. Given this discussion, I completely disagree the distinction is pedantic -- the argument of that particular post was that in order to become generational, a player has to dominate at all levels during development, that's simply not true. Yes Michael had a great 'junior' (ie NCAA) career but if it were really that exceptional he would've been picked 1OA.

And sure, Tom Brady fits the Bill more naturally, as does CR7, which is why I included both. As well as Gordie Howe. There's probably a few examples in every sport (I follow tennis, Novak Djokovic is probably the best example there). The point is the first few years in anyone's professional career don't prove much of anything.

Either way, too early to tell with Bedard. We'll all see how his career progresses in real time.

 

[Crosby2010]

Has anyone peaked at the Hawks' roster? That team is woeful. Just watch Bedard on the ice and the moves he makes against seasoned vets. He'll be a super star sooner rather than later.

 

[TheNumber4]

Bedard is only scratching the surface of how good he’ll be. Hawks seem to be treating him as just some guy, but they should start treating him like the superstar that he is. That means, get the Bedard the puck, all the time, every time.