Toggle sidebar

Has Connor Bedard quietly became underrated ?

NVious said:
The same way Chris Tanev isn't held accountable for his OUTRAGEOUSLY bad offensive game, different players do different things.

As someone else said, give him time to mature and gain a more mature frame.
Click to expand...
Chris Tanev's lack of offense hardly costs any games.

McDavid's defensive game was just plain laughable when he entered the league. It took him 7 years to get it to acceptable level. 7 years.

And Bedard is ten times worse defensively than McDavid at the same point.

What Chicago is doing is not doing any favors to Bedard the hockey player and his development. And I think it just sucks.
 
It's a good thing he landed on the Hawks. Wouldn't want to subject his poor defensive play onto any other fanbase. His play is our burden to bare.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: ViD
hirawl said:
Chris Tanev's lack of offense hardly costs any games.

McDavid's defensive game was just plain laughable when he entered the league. It took him 7 years to get it to acceptable level. 7 years.

And Bedard is ten times worse defensively than McDavid at the same point.

What Chicago is doing is not doing any favors to Bedard the hockey player and his development. And I think it just sucks.
Click to expand...
Of course it does lmao, you just don't think about it because it's not as obviously "seen" like a bad defensive play directly leading to a goal. But him firing muffin shots, him not making passes, his teammates knowing he's a total non threat in the offensive zone obviously costs the team in the same way bad defensive plays cost the team, it's just one is more easily spotted than the other.

Bad defensive=obvious minus
Bad offense=unrealized +

Same thing.
 
NVious said:
Of course it does lmao, you just don't think about it because it's not as obviously "seen" like a bad defensive play directly leading to a goal. But him firing muffin shots, him not making passes, his teammates knowing he's a total non threat in the offensive zone obviously costs the team in the same way bad defensive plays cost the team, it's just one is more easily spotted than the other.

Bad defensive=obvious minus
Bad offense=unrealized +

Same thing.
Click to expand...
I just honestly hope you don't think these things show equally on scoreboard. If you do I suggest you give it some more thought.
 
hirawl said:
I just honestly hope you don't think these things show equally on scoreboard. If you do I suggest you give it some more thought.
Click to expand...
You just don't understand basic logic, failing to contribute offensively is just as bad as failing defensively, it's just that one gets a massive pass for some reason whereas the other doesn't, forwards are supposed to all be Kopitar/Bergeron/Barkov, but if a defenseman contributes nothing offensively, all of a sudden "it's not his job."
 
wetcoast said:
With that roster how would they win more games?
Click to expand...
They are a bad team, but I think they should be better than their record. They had a lot of veteran wingers who should have been able to fill in pretty well in lines 2 thru 4 on most teams, and Bedard is obviously a 1st line caliber talent.

Teravainen, Bertuzzi, Foligno, Hall, Donato, Mikheyev, Maroon, Smith... these are all guys with tons of experience playing up and down lineups across the league. Plus younger offensive guys like Reichel and Nazar. And they have a bunch of vets on the backend who should be serviceable + a rising star in Vlasic.

The biggest gap is that Dickinson is really their only "true" center, everyone else would probably be played on the wing on any legit contender.


So yeah, they aren't going to win a lot. But I think moving Bedard to wing and letting him focus more on creating off the rush could help. The other 3 lines would just need to play low event Tortorella style hockey. That's pretty much the way bad teams can be competitive on a more consistent basis.


I'd probably roll something like

Bedard - Foligno - Nazar
Teravainen - Dickinson - Bertuzzi
Kurashev - Donato - Mikheyev
Maroon - Reichel - Smith
 
wetcoast said:
Most people didn't think so either.

alot of it was his production being on par somewhat then detractors building a huge straw man argument out of it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. But there are a loud few in this thread that think otherwise.
 
WhiskeyYerTheDevils said:
They are a bad team, but I think they should be better than their record. They had a lot of veteran wingers who should have been able to fill in pretty well in lines 2 thru 4 on most teams, and Bedard is obviously a 1st line caliber talent.

Teravainen, Bertuzzi, Foligno, Hall, Donato, Mikheyev, Maroon, Smith... these are all guys with tons of experience playing up and down lineups across the league. Plus younger offensive guys like Reichel and Nazar. And they have a bunch of vets on the backend who should be serviceable + a rising star in Vlasic.

The biggest gap is that Dickinson is really their only "true" center, everyone else would probably be played on the wing on any legit contender.


So yeah, they aren't going to win a lot. But I think moving Bedard to wing and letting him focus more on creating off the rush could help. The other 3 lines would just need to play low event Tortorella style hockey. That's pretty much the way bad teams can be competitive on a more consistent basis.


I'd probably roll something like

Bedard - Foligno - Nazar
Teravainen - Dickinson - Bertuzzi
Kurashev - Donato - Mikheyev
Maroon - Reichel - Smith
Click to expand...
Sure I could easily see....well nothing more by reshuffling the chairs on this titanic really.

They just have a really bad team with washed up guys and not enough younger guys ready to take the next step, rebuilds take time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom