Has Connor Bedard quietly became underrated ?

[authentic]

The same process that pegged McDavid as generational before he played an NHL game , also pegged Bedard as generational. He's also an exceptional status player , just as McDavid was. He already has a generational body of work.

Arenas were selling out to see Bedard because he was generational and nothing less.

"Let's see what he does" doesn't even really cut it. Lindros was generational but his career was derailed by injuries. And he still made the hall of fame. He wasn't pegged down a few notches because of that. Everyone knew what he was capable of.

Does anyone try and make the case that Lindros wasn't actually that good ?

In a parallel universe where Lindros had Ovechkin’s durability you’re looking at a top 10 player of all-time.

 

[Crow]

Yeah those are all pretty defensible opinions. I place a lot of emphasis personally on dominance in a more modern league with more skill and a greater talent pool but I can see how someone would have Hull 5 or even Hasek for sure. Pretty sure I have the exact same top 12 as you only in different order. Actually, come to think of it Ovechkin should fit in there somewhere but not sure who I’d take out. You could say Hull and Ovechkin at their best were on that level and are also the best goal scorers of all-time besides Lemieux.

I’m thinking I might have Ovi ahead of Jagr now that you mention it. Probably should. Both amazing peaks and longevity. Tough to say.

 

[Brookbank]

In a parallel universe where Lindros had Ovechkin’s durability you’re looking at a top 10 player of all-time.

Top 5 probably. He was offered more money than Lemieux and Gretzky before he even played an NHL game. The hype didn't come from nowhere. It was his body of work up to that point that made him generational. (a body of work that includes records that Connor Bedard has since broken)

His career was full of injuries and it never really fired on all cylinders. But the generational label was never taken away.

Saying "lets wait and see" on Bedard to see if he's generational defeats the whole purpose of the term. If we had to wait and see, he wouldn't be considered generational.

 

[Bombshell11]

Bedard is not going to be one of the best players of all times, lets stop with the non sense. It was all hype made up by a very bad marketing company: The NHL.

 

[authentic]

Top 5 probably. He was offered more money than Lemieux and Gretzky before he even played an NHL game. The hype didn't come from nowhere. It was his body of work up to that point that made him generational. (a body of work that includes records that Connor Bedard has since broken)

His career was full of injuries and it never really fired on all cylinders. But the generational label was never taken away.

Saying "lets wait and see" on Bedard to see if he's generational defeats the whole purpose of the term. If we had to wait and see, he wouldn't be considered generational.

So you didn’t have to wait and see with Daigle either?

 

[Acallabeth]

Hockeysfuture.com used to have a pretty clear cut definition of a generational talent: it's a player in conversation for the best player ever. The examples were Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and 'maybe Crosby, but we will see'.
Not even Crosby, Ovechkin and Jagr are at that level. The only player who has a somewhat sensible case for being better than some of the 'big 4' is McDavid. Though I see some reason in extending the definition to players in conversation for a top 5 player ever.

Yes and Ovi was 20. Let’s see how Bedard does in two years to compare

Sure, Bedard was too young, too small, the team around him was too bad, there are many reasons he didn't dominate the league in his 1st pro season, it's just not the stuff used to describe one of the best players ever.

 

[hockey20000]

Bedard is not going to be one of the best players of all times, lets stop with the non sense. It was all hype made up by a very bad marketing company: The NHL.

Top 30 top 20 if his career goes right i would say.

 

[Leksand]

It is too early to say if Bedard will fulfill the promise of being a generational talent. This upcoming season should be a very good indicator though.

In their second season as professionals: Orr won a Norris (and the next seven as well) Gretzky won the Hart, Lemieux won the Lindsay, Crosby won the Hart, and McDavid won the Hart.

As for expectations, I think he was hyped as much as can be pretty much, and certainly with expectations well above Patrick Kane. I never fully believed in it, he just doesn’t come across as a freak of nature like the all time greats, with the exception of Gretzky who comes across as having supernatural mental abilities. But I may be wrong, which would be very exciting.

 

[MuckOG]

Top 5 probably. He was offered more money than Lemieux and Gretzky before he even played an NHL game. The hype didn't come from nowhere. It was his body of work up to that point that made him generational. (a body of work that includes records that Connor Bedard has since broken)

His career was full of injuries and it never really fired on all cylinders. But the generational label was never taken away.

Saying "lets wait and see" on Bedard to see if he's generational defeats the whole purpose of the term. If we had to wait and see, he wouldn't be considered generational.

It absolutely was. Lindros had the talent to maybe become a generational NHL player, but as you said, injuries prevented him from realizing that. I certainly don't put Lindros in the Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid group.

 

[Goose]

Feels like he gets the right amount of attention/praise/criticism for what he is at this point:

A guy who came in with a lot of hype as a 1OA that put up a solid, but in no way remarkable or special, rookie season, whose career could go in almost any direction from this point but seems to be pointing to a perennial PPG player as a baseline.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

I expect him to top out around Sakic's level, if all goes well. Sakic was definitely one of the greatest players of all time. Our History of Hockey board most recently ranked him as the 32nd best player of all time. A little low, in my books, but not unfair. It puts him solidly in the top 1% of everyone who has ever played in the NHL.
Could he end up with a better career than Sakic? Sure, he could be 1/3 better and still end up outside of the Top 20, which no small thing.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

It absolutely was. Lindros had the talent to maybe become a generational NHL player, but as you said, injuries prevented him from realizing that. I certainly don't put Lindros in the Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, McDavid group.

I put Lindros in that group if we are going on draft day expectations and hype.

 

[MacMacandBarbie]

Saying "lets wait and see" on Bedard to see if he's generational defeats the whole purpose of the term. If we had to wait and see, he wouldn't be considered generational.

This kind of sums it up. He was never considered generational by the masses like Lindros/Crosby/McDavid were when they got drafted. He seems to be much more in the Tavares level of draft hype, where he broke some records and performed really well, but didn't showcase a particularly unworldly talent(McDavid's speed, Lindros' perfect body)

 

[MuckOG]

I put Lindros in that group if we are going on draft day expectations and hype.

For sure. There was a ton of hype surrounding Lindros coming into the league and it was deserved. He was a freak of nature. Just too many injuries/concussions.

 

[Brookbank]

It is too early to say if Bedard will fulfill the promise of being a generational talent. This upcoming season should be a very good indicator though.

In their second season as professionals: Orr won a Norris (and the next seven as well) Gretzky won the Hart, Lemieux won the Lindsay, Crosby won the Hart, and McDavid won the Hart.

As for expectations, I think he was hyped as much as can be pretty much, and certainly with expectations well above Patrick Kane. I never fully believed in it, he just doesn’t come across as a freak of nature like the all time greats, with the exception of Gretzky who comes across as having supernatural mental abilities. But I may be wrong, which would be very exciting.

But he is a freak of nature. Open your eyes. His shot and vision are freaky

 

[MuckOG]

But he is a freak of nature. Open your eyes. His shot and vision are freaky

If he truly is the generational player you think he will be, then this is the season he needs to prove it. He will need to put up a MINIMUM of 95+ points and win, or at least finish a finalist for a major award (Hart, Ross, or Lindsey), no matter how weak his linemates are. A truly "generational" player should be able to not only rise above that, but make his teammates better as well.

And I'm being generous on the point total. Realistically, he will need to put up 110+ points this season to challenge for one of those awards.

 

[Love]

And no he wasnt

Yes he was. It’s irrelevant whether you think the comparison is fair or not.

 

[PainForShane]

If he truly is the generational player you think he will be, then this is the season he needs to prove it. He will need to put up a MINIMUM of 95+ points and win, or at least finish a finalist for a major award (Hart, Ross, or Lindsey), no matter how weak his linemates are. A truly "generational" player should be able to not only rise above that, but make his teammates better as well.

And I'm being generous on the point total. Realistically, he will need to put up 110+ points this season to challenge for one of those awards.

No, it isn't. In sports, plenty of generational players started their careers relatively slowly ie were not considered one of the best in the world at age 19 (Jordan, Djokovic, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo etc). In hockey, there are many elite players like this as well (Joe Thornton, Jagr, Iginla, Messier who was 2nd round draft pick, etc etc).

Gordie Howe also exists and was a generational player, even though he didn't start dominating offensively until much later.

Wait and see is the only correct answer.

 

[WarriorofTime]

'Generational' is a made up term of art in the sporting context. It doesn't actually mean anything, people spend way too much time debating it.

 

[MuckOG]

No, it isn't. In sports, plenty of generational players started their careers relatively slowly and were not considered elite at age 19 (Jordan, Djokovic, Tom Brady etc). In hockey, there are many elite players like this as well (Joe Thornton, Jagr, Iginla, Messier who was 2nd round draft pick, etc etc).

Gordie Howe also exists and was a generational player, even though he didn't start dominating offensively until much later.

Wait and see is the only correct answer.

We're talking hockey, not the other sports. All the other "generational" NHL players came on strong immediately. Of course, it also comes down to who one considers "generational", and for me it's a short list.

Since 1970: Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid. - All of these players dominated from the very start of their careers.

They are the clear top 1 or 2 players of the era in which they played.

Of course, Howe is as well, but the game in the 1940s can't be compared to the game today so I leave him out and keep it to the modern era.

If we want to compare Bedard to the other players you listed (Jagr, Thornton, Messier, etc.) that's fine. And it's probably more likely that Bedard falls into a group like them (ie Kane, Kucherov, Datsyuk, MacKinnon, etc.) But I don't consider them the 1 or 2 top players over an extended period of time when they played. They were all playing in the shadow of a greater player of their era.

The OP says Bedard is the next Crosby or McDavid. If he is, then we need to see it because Crosby and McDavid showed us in their first two seasons.

'Generational' is a made up term of art in the sporting context. It doesn't actually mean anything, people spend way too much time debating it.

This is true. But this is a forum where stuff like this is debated.

 

[PainForShane]

We're talking hockey, not the other sports. All the other "generational" NHL players came on strong. Of course, it also comes down to who one considers "generational", and for me it's a short list.

Since 1970: Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid.

Of course, Howe is as well, but the game in the 1940s can't be compared to the game today so I leave him out and keep it to the modern era.

If we want to compare Bedard to the other players you listed (Jagr, Thornton, Messier, etc.) that's fine. But I don't consider them the 1 or 2 top players over an extended period of time when they played. They were all playing in the shadow of a greater player in there era.



This is true. But this is a forum where stuff like this is debated.

The reason I brought up other sports is that the sample size of generational players in hockey is too small to draw conclusions from.

One other thing: the modern era is usually considered to start around the early to mid 90s. So if you ACTUALLY kept it to the modern era like you pretend you're doing, you'd leave out Orr and Gretzky (Gretzky was no longer winning Harts by the time the modern era started). So then you're left with 3 players ie Sid, Ovi, McDavid. And personally I'm not ready to call McDavid generational just yet, I don't think he's separated enough from the rest of the pack which includes MacK, Kucherov, regular season Auston Matthews etc. So now we're just talking about just Sid and Ovi, sure they started their careers strong but it's just 2 players.

Compare that to the best NBA player of all-time (Jordan). And the best NFL quarterback of all-time (Brady). And the best soccer goal scorer of all-time (Ronaldo). And the best tennis player of all-time (statistically Djokovic, but Federer also didn't even reach his first major semi until late 22 years old). In your defense, Tiger Woods was a prodigy and found immediate success, and arguably so did Nadal and Messi, though Nadal was more one-dimensional early on.

***

Either way it's clearly possible for an athlete to start off slowly and then finish their career as one of the best to ever play their sport. Why is anyone even arguing against this lmao

 

[belfour30]

Name a "generational" player who didn't torch the league at 18 years old.

Jagr. Also, think about what Jagr's numbers would be if he didn't spend 3 seasons in the KHL.

 

[ClydeLee]

I put Lindros in that group if we are going on draft day expectations and hype.

That's what I always took generational to mean. I know sports terminology is idiotic because people bicker over terms with no set meaning and can be viewed 5 different ways, but before this site or the last 10 years or so. I only heard generational about prospects. Not a term to identify alltime greats.

Maybe that's just more football? But Lindros and Crosby were the generational prospects. In football at least maybe it's just prospects like Andrew Luck was generational and best qb prospect since Manning. Or Trevor Lawrence was a borderline generational qb. I don't ever hear like, Tom Brady was a generational player or Adrian Peterson(or whoever) was a generational running back.

I rarely see this debate outside hfboards with this lingo too. I'm sure it exists, but it seems pointless. Especially when talking about guys being both generational being 4 years apart in age or closer than that if Ovi is involved. It losses meaning. It's just meaningless.

Beyond that. I never thought hype was ever saying Bedard was to be at Mcdavid/Crosby level. Just the best prospect since at that level right below it

 

[hamzarocks]

If he truly is the generational player you think he will be, then this is the season he needs to prove it. He will need to put up a MINIMUM of 95+ points and win, or at least finish a finalist for a major award (Hart, Ross, or Lindsey), no matter how weak his linemates are. A truly "generational" player should be able to not only rise above that, but make his teammates better as well.

And I'm being generous on the point total. Realistically, he will need to put up 110+ points this season to challenge for one of those awards.

He will need 125-130

Mack, Kuch, Mcdavid should be 120-130 pts this year still

<1% chance he puts that much

I think 95 pts is a good expectation

Joe Sakic type player all time is a pretty good expectation for him if he hits off

A first ballot hall of famer who was a top X (3/5/7) player for a long time with a year or two as the best player.

i think we will have to wait until the 2030s to see the next Mcdavid/Crosby level player

 

[GIADF]

If he truly is the generational player you think he will be, then this is the season he needs to prove it. He will need to put up a MINIMUM of 95+ points and win, or at least finish a finalist for a major award (Hart, Ross, or Lindsey), no matter how weak his linemates are. A truly "generational" player should be able to not only rise above that, but make his teammates better as well.

And I'm being generous on the point total. Realistically, he will need to put up 110+ points this season to challenge for one of those awards.

This is the season he needs to prove it while being the third youngest player in the entire league?

Clown take.