Brookbank
Registered User
- Nov 15, 2022
- 2,023
- 1,956
Bedard was just as good as Mcdavid in junior and arguably better. And that is why he's being compared to Mcd and CrosbyYep, and nobody was comparing him to McDavid or Crosby.
Bedard was just as good as Mcdavid in junior and arguably better. And that is why he's being compared to Mcd and CrosbyYep, and nobody was comparing him to McDavid or Crosby.
I "go out of my way" to call out terrible takes whenever I see them. Saying Bedard is on Crosby and McDavid's level is an objectively terrible take, in the same way people were comparing Wright favorably to Matthews because of junior points.I don't know about other people, personally I believe you are a hater because you continue to go significantly out of your way to continue to broadcast some version of "there is no chance Bedard will be generational because his rookie year production was comparatively low." And here you are lecturing me on how you think I sound. Has it ever occurred to you that no one listens to haters?
I'm a hater because I think he'll be closer to Kane than McDavid.Bedard just finished his rookie year and is 19 years old. As everyone knows, plenty of generational athletes don't dominate every step of the way -- Michael Jordan (at 21) went 3rd overall in the draft, his first couple years were nothing special. Tom Brady went #199 overall. Djokovic took forever to start beating Roger and Rafa, now with Rafa retiring Novak is going to finish with more hardware / weeks at number one than either of those guys, and also a better head to head record against both.
Your argument is dumb. I also think you're a hater, but that's not my primary point here, you're the one who brought that up.
bUt wHaT aBoUt his JuNiOr hOcKeY sTaTs?!?Bedard was just as good as Mcdavid in junior and arguably better. And that is why he's being compared to Mcd and Crosby
Explain how it makes logical sense to project bedard’s ceiling from his rookie year but it does not make sense to project jack Hughes ceiling from his rookie year.Yep, and nobody was comparing him to McDavid or Crosby.
McDavid was considered a HOFer before he played an NHL game. Because of his junior career obviously.bUt wHaT aBoUt his JuNiOr hOcKeY sTaTs?!?
Means absolutely nothing.
I "go out of my way" to call out terrible takes whenever I see them. Saying Bedard is on Crosby and McDavid's level is an objectively terrible take, in the same way people were comparing Wright favorably to Matthews because of junior points.
I'm a hater because I think he'll be closer to Kane than McDavid.
Have you ever stopped to wonder if maybe all the homers in this thread are the unreasonable ones?
bUt wHaT aBoUt his JuNiOr hOcKeY sTaTs?!?
Means absolutely nothing.
We've seen countless 18 year old centers struggle to produce and then become elite offensive players. Thornton, Staal, Lecavalier, Draisaitl, Barkov etc. Anyone watching him could see the talent was there he just needed to mature physically (and better puck luck, check his oish% that year).Explain how it makes logical sense to project bedard’s ceiling from his rookie year but it does not make sense to project jack Hughes ceiling from his rookie year.
Am I a hater if I say it's very clear that Celebrini will not he a generational player? Or is it just hating to say that about Bedard?No, you're a hater because you said, and I quote, "it's very clear that he (Bedard) will not be a generational NHL player" and here you are continuing to defend this objectively terrible take.
You're not fooling anyone.
FalseMcDavid was considered a HOFer before he played an NHL game. Because of his junior career obviously.
Any chance maybe Bedard finds some more gears like all of those other players have?We've seen countless 18 year old centers struggle to produce and then become elite offensive players. Thornton, Staal, Lecavalier, Draisaitl, Barkov etc. Anyone watching him could see the talent was there he just needed to mature physically (and better puck luck, check his oish% that year).
None of the big 4 generational forwards have had that issue.
Though frankly the points aren't even the biggest indicator for me - he just lacks the necessary elite athletic ability to create time and space for himself in today's NHL. He's a good skater, but certainly not elite. He's well developed for his age, but he's not all that strong on the puck for a guy with his dimensions. Crosby and McDavid both had massive athletic advantages over Bedard that played a huge role in their ability to dominate the league.
I jest a bit but I find your argument to write him off very unconvincing.
Anyone saying he doesn’t have a chance to be as good as CrosbyWho's writing him off?
Not in my opinion no. He's definitely going to improve, I could see him hitting 120 points multiple times in his career if scoring levels remain elevated.Any chance maybe Bedard finds some more gears like all of those other players have?
Okay, you're not arguing with me though, your beef is with historical precedent.Seems like a very poor argument to assert that a player must dominate the league as a rookie based on a sample size of 4 players (all while omitting one that didn’t) to be generational.
I'm not moving goalposts, I have been consistent on this going all the way back to his junior career. The stats very clearly support my point, but even if they didn't, I'd still argue his lack of distinguishing athletic ability would hold him back from reaching 87 / 97 levels.Not sure why you have spent so much time making countless posts about his rookie PPG, goals per game, point standing in the league, etc if it’s not about that and it is about his athletic ability now. Seems like moving the goalposts.
The game was so much slower back then, you didn't really need to be an elite athlete.The best player ever wasn’t exactly known for his athleticism.
I mean yah, the game is completely differentLet me guess now he is too old to count too like Howe?
That's okay, it's just weird that you've seen me say he'll probably be better than Patrick Kane and interpret that as me trying to "write him off".I jest a bit but I find your argument to write him off very unconvincing.
Anyone saying he doesn’t have a chance to be as good as Crosby
Well I don’t agree that Crosby is top 5. Not sure where I have him but let’s say top 10.How dare someone run with the assumption that Bedard might not be a top 5 all time player!
I mean it's so disrespectful to think it's more likely he's a top 15-20 player all time than top 5.
Well I don’t agree that Crosby is top 5. Not sure where I have him but let’s say top 10.
Anyway, there is a difference between saying:
-He might not be an (arguably) top 10 player all time
-He definitely won’t be a top 10 player all time
In fact I agree with the first one, and I even go further and say he probably won’t be.
So please don’t twist what I’ve said.
Agree, but I wouldn't call that underrated. Kaner has had a great career.Bedard is more of a shooting Patrick Kane than he is Crosby/Mcdavid. Just a step down from generational, IMO.
No doubt Crosby is a completely different animal. Different types of players. I don’t expect Bedard to ever catch up to Crosby in strength on the puck. That doesn’t make Bedard less suited to have the better career. There are areas Bedard projects to be a better in like goal scoring.Nothing is certain. But it's more likely than not that he won’t be as good as Crosby.
People forget how good Crosby was right at the start. He was so freaking strong on the puck. I dont see that with Bedard. But that's more respect for Crosby than disrespect for Bedard.
Kane is likely retiring with 1400-1500 career points, good for top 20 all time, amongst all of his other accolades. So all this bickering is over some gap between Patrick Kane and Crosby/McDavid??? Seems like a lot of bickering over some meager difference.
Yep, and nobody was comparing him to McDavid or Crosby.
90 points did not seem likely. And even if it was, that still would have put him way behind Sid in terms of relative scoring.
Well I don’t agree that Crosby is top 5. Not sure where I have him but let’s say top 10.
Anyway, there is a difference between saying:
-He might not be a top 10 player all time
-He definitely won’t be a top 10 player all time
In fact I agree with the first one, and I even go further and say he probably won’t be.
So please don’t twist what I’ve said.