The Next Ones (after Bedard)

[TheGreenTBer]

Has anyone mentioned Dustin Rose yet?

Still busy fighting bears with his...bear...hands

He might permit himself to be drafted next year though.

 

[Bubbles]

Has anyone mentioned Dustin Rose yet?

His son Justin might be the next one. Still deciding between hockey and falconry as their sport of choice.

 

[Postulates]

This will age well.

It will

Misa, Potter, Moore, Mooney, Schaefer, Martin are all better players

 

[Icebreakers]

If Misa or McKenna are as good as Bedard, then Bedard isn’t a generational prospect by definition.

So Ovechkin isn't generational BC of Crosby?

 

[Juxtaposer]

So Ovechkin isn't generational BC of Crosby?

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

 

[AlexGretzchenvid]

Am I the only one that doesn’t see Bedard as generational. Franchise player for sure, but he isn’t Lemieux, he isn’t Gretzky, he isn’t Crosby.

McDavid and Ovechkin are 1 tier below those three.

Bedard has a chance to be with those two. High franchise boardering on generational.

 

[Apex Predator]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

What? Ovvechhkin is looking like he’s going to break goal scoring record or be close. That’s generational!

 

[Icebreakers]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

How can a guy who's going to break the all time goal record not be generational?

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Am I the only one that doesn’t see Bedard as generational. Franchise player for sure, but he isn’t Lemieux, he isn’t Gretzky, he isn’t Crosby.

McDavid and Ovechkin are 1 tier below those three.

Bedard has a chance to be with those two. High franchise boardering on generational.

First of all you're absolutely crazy of you don't consider McDavid a generational player, he's been the best player on the world since he was 19 years old and just put up 153 points, the eye test, the numbers, and the hardware would all suggest he is one of the best players of all time and hands down the best player of the last 7 years since he entered the league.

As for bedard, it's hard to say whether or not he will accomplish what Crosby and McDavid have , but at this point he has to be considered as the best prospect, far and away, since McDavid and that is saying something. I wouldn't bet money on him becoming as good as they did , bit I also wouldn't be shocked to see it happen. I think somewhere between Kane and that level is the most likely outcome, which could very well make him the best player for a stretch of years depending on who else is in the league, how long McDavid stays Elite etc.

I would say bedard is a once in a generation prospect though, dating back to Crosby the only 2 players who would be selected ahead of him are Crosby/McDavid and no other player would really challenge him.

 

[Mathieukferland]

Am I the only one that doesn’t see Bedard as generational. Franchise player for sure, but he isn’t Lemieux, he isn’t Gretzky, he isn’t Crosby.

McDavid and Ovechkin are 1 tier below those three.

Bedard has a chance to be with those two. High franchise boardering on generational.

You don’t see McDavid as generational? He’s the most talented player of all time

 

[clydesdale line]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

So Lemieux wasn't generational because he was in the league at the same time as Gretzky by your definition?

 

[Kshahdoo]

Demidov is going to be special. At least his skating and stickhandling are on the generational level. What he lacks is Michkov's effectiveness. He's still very good at scoring points just not as good as a generational player must. If he improves this aspect, he'll be a superstar at the least.

 

[Michoulicious]

McKenna is IMO better right now than Bedard was at the same age. Hard to say if he will become better, but it's certainly possible.

There is also a 6'4 210 lbs 16 y old goalie called Gabriel d'Aigle that played at 15-16 y old in the Q that is getting compared to Carey Price. He was drafted #2 OA in the Q, which is unprecedented for a goalie.

That would be my best bet at Bedard comparables for the near future.

 

[Gold Standard]

McKenna is IMO better right now than Bedard was at the same age. Hard to say if he will become better, but it's certainly possible.

Not IMO. and it's not particularly close either.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

This is pedantic nonsense.

Words are defined by the way they are used. Gretzky and Lemieux were absolutely generational and saying (as someone did) that Crosby is generational and Lemieux isn't is just missing the forest for the trees.

What generational has grown to mean in hockey is the level above 'elite franchise player'. It's absurd to use the term generational to describe a player who is inferior to Lemieux but happened to be born in a weaker era.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

It will

Misa, Potter, Moore, Mooney, Schaefer, Martin are all better players

McKenna outclasses them all except Misa who is almost a year older than him.

Barring Bedard, McKenna's U16 performances make him Canada West's top prospect since Nugent-Hopkins.

 

[independent observer]

Allgood, Melicherik...these are the most compatible names because the next Bedard will be a player from another generation.

If Misa, McKenna or others born around 2005 reach Bedard's level, then Bedard will not be a generational player.

Generational means best player of his generation. In the history of the NHL, there are only 5 that are indisputable (Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Crosby, McDavid).

Between Gretzky and Crosby - Lemieux, Hasek, Sakic, Jagr are rather exceptional.

So the next Bedard is either a child or not yet born.

Lemieux is generational, anything else is an insult.

 

[independent observer]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

Ovechkin is maybe the most gifted goal scorer ever. Just because Crosby had more team success should not diminish what Ovechkin achieved.

I would also like to add that Malkin‘s game similar to Draisaitl‘s is extremely well suited for the postseason and I think I am not far off to say that Malkin was the better player than Crosby on all Pens cup wins.

Ovechkin has unmatched durability and longevity as a physical force and goalscorer. To accomplish this in a low scoring era is very impressive.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

McKenna is IMO better right now than Bedard was at the same age. Hard to say if he will become better, but it's certainly possible.

There is also a 6'4 210 lbs 16 y old goalie called Gabriel d'Aigle that played at 15-16 y old in the Q that is getting compared to Carey Price. He was drafted #2 OA in the Q, which is unprecedented for a goalie.

That would be my best bet at Bedard comparables for the near future.

No way is Mckenna better than Bedard was at 15.

Mckenna
5g 19p in 20gp

Bedard
12g 28p in 15gp

Bedard already had an NHL shot at 15. He led his team in scoring despite missing 9 games, and was 2nd in the WHL in points per game behind only Dylan Guenther, who played 3 less games. He had more points in 15 games than 19 year old Seth Jarvis had in 24. Then he dropped 7g 14p in only 7 games at the U18's as a double under ager.

Mckenna becoming as good as Bedard is about as likely as Chicago picking Fantilli 1st overall.

Allgood, Melicherik...these are the most compatible names because the next Bedard will be a player from another generation.

If Misa, McKenna or others born around 2005 reach Bedard's level, then Bedard will not be a generational player.

Generational means best player of his generation. In the history of the NHL, there are only 5 that are indisputable (Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Crosby, McDavid).

Between Gretzky and Crosby - Lemieux, Hasek, Sakic, Jagr are rather exceptional.

So the next Bedard is either a child or not yet born.

If your definition of generational is so rigid that it excludes Mario Lemieux, you're using it wrong.

And if I had to take one of them in their primes, I would take Lemieux over Gretzky without a second thought.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

There is no player on realistic horizon that projects to be as good as Bedard.

Misa is maybe the closest and he feels more like a Marner type of player.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Lemieux is generational, anything else is an insult.

No because he is not the best of his generation. Gretzky was in front.

He is therefore exceptional.

 

[BerthMania]

No, he’s not. If Ovechkin is not as good as Crosby, even by a little, then he’s not a generational player. Generational means once in a generation. Only one player in a generation can be generational by definition. Crosby is once in a generation. Ovechkin is not once in a generation because Crosby is better.

So imagine a world in which 2 players of the same age are the best of all time and one is a little better then the other one. Also imagine (in the same world) that the best player of the generation before the one with the 2 best of all time was like the 20th best of all time. In this scenario the second best player of all time wouldn't be a generational player, while the 20th best of all time would be. If that is the definition of a generational talent then I'd say we shouldn't care about who is generational and just care about who's the best player.

 

[independent observer]

No because he is not the best of his generation. Gretzky was in front.

He is therefore exceptional.

Lemieux at best tops Gretzky. Would he not have had cancer, back issues, etc. we would not even have this conversation.

 

[ijuka]

Lemieux at best tops Gretzky and it is not even close. Would he not have had cancer, back issues, etc. we would not even have this conversation.

Lemieux tops Gretzky and "it's not even close"?

By the way, Gretzky also had back issues.

 

[Dirtyf1ghter]

Lemieux at best tops Gretzky and it is not even close. Would he not have had cancer, back issues, etc. we would not even have this conversation.

If you have to evaluate based on things that haven't been done...you're entering a fictional world. Among the players born in the 1960s, there is a generational (Gretzky) and two exceptional (Lemieux and Hasek).

There cannot be two generationals in the same generation.

Or else Lemieux would have had to have the same career masterpiece. But this is not the case. Even without health issues (mostly at the end), he would never have been able to win the Hart Trophy 8 years in a row.