C Connor Bedard - Regina Pats, WHL (2023 Draft) Part 3

[RedHawkDown]

It means that at 5'7 if you are a "good" playmaker, your good playmaking isn't as effective as the "good" playmaking of a player who is 6'3.

Do I need to explain why that is? I'll do so. If you are 5'7, your space gets crowded out easier, you have a harder time creating space, it's easier to strip you of the puck, you are usually stripped of it quicker and you have a crowded view of the ice through the trees,

Because it's not as good as a 6'3 player with good playmaking, it'd be stupid to treat the exact same ability in a vacuum for a 6'3 player like you would a 5'7 player. Thats why I think when you are 5'7 and in a vacuum you are good in an area, it probably isn't accurate to call it good. It's probably not going to end up being a real asset at the NHL level, if it's only good.

This still doesn’t make sense. If you aren’t as effective as the 6’3” player then your playmaking isn’t as good, irrespective of size. There is no ability that exists in a vacuum, that doesn’t make any sense.

Caufield has above average ability in literally every area and that’s WHY he is a very effective Nhl player despite his size. His skating, playmaking, puck skills are such big assets at the NHL level that he is able to overcome his size limitation. I’m honestly baffled as to what you’re arguing here.

You say “when you’re smaller, you have to be better than the bigger players”. Yeah, exactly. And he literally is. Otherwise there’s no way he would have made the league given how tiny he is and how big of a disadvantage that is. His actual hockey skills are so high end and better than most other players that he ended last season scoring above a PPG despite being the height of a middle schooler.

 

[cg98]

This still doesn’t make sense. If you aren’t as effective as the 6’3” player then your playmaking isn’t as good, irrespective of size. There is no ability that exists in a vacuum, that doesn’t make any sense.

Caufield has above average ability in literally every area and that’s WHY he is a very effective Nhl player despite his size. His skating, playmaking, puck skills are such big assets at the NHL level that he is able to overcome his size limitation. I’m honestly baffled as to what you’re arguing here.

It's honestly pointless, he's been beating this dead horse for a while and no one cares. Why he's talking this nonsense in a Bedard thread is beyond me.

 

[Nash]

He was ridiculously, ridiculously good, though, an utter phenom, stepped right into the NHL and put up 102 points as a rookie.

I’m not knocked how amazing Crosby was, but some context on what helped him hit that in his rookie year is needed. That season coming straight out of the lockout had the league crack down heavily on obstruction. Teams averaged double the amount of powerplay time as last year. He was the top player on that powerplay, but got to play with some pretty goo players, like Gonchar and Recchi, and some games with Lemieux. I’m not discounting him, but that extra PP time went a long way into getting 102.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

It's honestly pointless, he's been beating this dead horse for a while and no one cares. Why he's talking this nonsense in a Bedard thread is beyond me.

Never go full Pavel

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This still doesn’t make sense. If you aren’t as effective as the 6’3” player then your playmaking isn’t as good, irrespective of size. There is no ability that exists in a vacuum, that doesn’t make any sense.

Caufield has above average ability in literally every area and that’s WHY he is a very effective Nhl player despite his size. His skating, playmaking, puck skills are such big assets at the NHL level that he is able to overcome his size limitation. I’m honestly baffled as to what you’re arguing here.

You say “when you’re smaller, you have to be better than the bigger players”. Yeah, exactly. And he literally is. Otherwise there’s no way he would have made the league given how tiny he is and how big of a disadvantage that is. His actual hockey skills are so high end and better than most other players that he ended last season scoring above a PPG despite being the height of a middle schooler.

It makes perfect sense. You are right this doesn't exist in a vacuum, which is why the size advantage matters. This is not some passing drill with no one defending him. The NHL is a fast game with grown men trying to take each other's heads off. You cannot detach the actual measurables of hockey players, and discount that size, speed, strength matters in hockey.

If you did and hockey was a game that existed in a vacuum, almost all the best players would be smaller.

If Caufield was above-average for an NHL player in every area, while also having the goal scoring prowess that he does, he'd be like Paul Kariya or Martin St. Louis. He's a good player and likely will be a top 6 forward, potentially a top line forward, for a lot of years. Unlikely to be one of the best wingers in the game, which is what he'd be, if what you are suggesting is correct.

 

[RedHawkDown]

It makes perfect sense. You are right this doesn't exist in a vacuum, which is why the size advantage matters. This is not some passing drill with no one defending him. The NHL is a fast game with grown men trying to take each other's heads off. You cannot detach the actual measurables of hockey players, and discount that size, speed, strength matters in hockey.

If you did and hockey was a game that existed in a vacuum, almost all the best players would be smaller.

If Caufield was above-average for an NHL player in every area, while also having the goal scoring prowess that he does, he'd be like Paul Kariya or Martin St. Louis. He's a good player and likely will be a top 6 forward, potentially a top line forward, for a lot of years. Unlikely to be one of the best wingers in the game, which is what he'd be, if what you are suggesting is correct.

I honestly have no idea what you’re on about. Paul Kairya and MSL weren’t just above average, they were absolutely elite in most facets of the game, so much so that they dominated despite their size. Similarly, Johnny Gaudreau is probably the smartest player in the NHL, the most deceptive, and a top 2-3 passer in the game; which is why he is dominant despite his size. He isn’t just “above average”, he is the best in the world in a few areas.

I have never said anything about discounting size.

Upon further reflection it seems this conversation is going nowhere so I shall stop here.

 

[Anardil]

Back to Bedard. I found that he tended to develop tunnel vision as the tournament progressed. He seemed to ignore his linemates and rely almost exclusively on his toe drag quick release move. He became predictable IMO. I hope that this is not a tendency going forward.

I still have high hopes for his draft year, but I am also expecting everyone to begin pulling out their magnifying glasses to nitpick his game. I hope for a dominating year to silence most of his critics.

 

[macbowes]

They aren't going all-in, most likely Bedard will be traded at christmas to a contender(Kamloops very likely). Pats unfortunately for him got Bedard at the very start of a rebuild because of their 2 runs the previous years. they have some depth coming but it won't be there for at least 1, probably 2 years which Bedard won't be there for.

Hmm, ah well, regardless, I hope he ends up on a good team that makes a long run.

 

[Rengorlex]

Looks tiny here.

 

[ijuka]

Just because it’s published on a chart, doesn’t make it right. Jfreshes percentile ranks throw out some highly questionable numbers.

Matthews has fantastic CF% gGF% and is among the league leaders in takeaways so what do you think are the statistics proving otherwise, then?

Just because your level of comprehension isn't enough to understand the numbers doesn't mean they're questionable.

It means that at 5'7 if you are a "good" playmaker, your good playmaking isn't as effective as the "good" playmaking of a player who is 6'3.

Do I need to explain why that is? I'll do so. If you are 5'7, your space gets crowded out easier, you have a harder time creating space, it's easier to strip you of the puck, you are usually stripped of it quicker, and you have a crowded view of the ice through the trees.

Because it's not as good as a 6'3 player with good playmaking, it'd be stupid to treat the exact same ability in a vacuum for a 6'3 player like you would a 5'7 player. Thats why I think when you are 5'7 and in a vacuum you are good in an area, it probably isn't accurate to call it good. It's probably not going to end up being a real asset at the NHL level, if it's only good.

Considering Johnny Gaudreau's like 5'6" do you think he'd be a 200 point played if he was 6'4" instead? I don't really understand this logic.

Being small has its benefits too. Mainly, it gives you higher agility and the ability to execute actions faster. A pass by a small player tends to happen faster than a pass by a larger player, simply because of physics. The bigger the player, the less maneuverable they tend to be.

 

[Paul4587]

Matthews has fantastic CF% gGF% and is among the league leaders in takeaways so what do you think are the statistics proving otherwise, then?

Just because your level of comprehension isn't enough to understand the numbers doesn't mean they're questionable.

Trust me, I comprehend them just fine. Matthews is good defensively. He’s not better than 94% of the league though unless you’re purely looking at raw numbers and not factoring in any context or his actual goals against numbers (as opposed to his just underlying numbers) which should hold at least a little bit of weight.

 

[Gold Standard]

This is going to be a fun thread all year with the HF "experts" making nonsensical posts 20 times a day with nonsensical updates on their original nonsense.

Just a reminder, camp is just a few days away. but Connor is already putting in the work. ignore the noise.

 

[scoutman1]

This is going to be a fun thread all year with the HF "experts" making nonsensical posts 20 times a day with nonsensical updates on their original nonsense.

Just a reminder, camp is just a few days away. but Connor is already putting in the work. ignore the noise.

agreed, the kid is unreal...people are going to over microscope him since he came on the scene so early...but people forget the kid right now is just a kid and he is doing what he is doing at such a young age...he is special for sure.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Can’t wait for his inevitable 3 or so game slump to have the experts come back out and claim he’s not that great. The earlier threads when he started slow this past season are now hilarious to look at

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

I mean the *experts* are usually just Crosby/McDavid weirdo fanboys. Most people see this kid and think he's absolutely unreal and can't wait to see what he can do. Treat to watch

 

[Rengorlex]

The big hyped 1st overalls recently have all failed in Dahlin, Hughes and Lafreniere. Wright fell off in hype during his draft year too. All of them were annointed generational talents at one point or other, by the media and fans.

It's fair to nitpick because most prospects never live up to the hype. Maybe Bedard will and hopefully that's the case. Next step is to demolish the CHL competition.

 

[Dust]

The big hyped 1st overalls recently have all failed in Dahlin, Hughes and Lafreniere. Wright fell off in hype during his draft year too. All of them were annointed generational talents at one point or other, by the media and fans.

It's fair to nitpick because most prospects never live up to the hype. Maybe Bedard will and hopefully that's the case. Next step is to demolish the CHL competition.

Maybe Dahlin, but the noise surrounding the other two never reached anywhere near generational.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Maybe Dahlin, but the noise surrounding the other two never reached anywhere near generational.

Right after the WJC in his draft season the hype was at that level for Lafreniere.

 

[Rengorlex]

Maybe Dahlin, but the noise surrounding the other two never reached anywhere near generational.

Jack Hughes is the 'generational' talent who NHL teams are swooning over

There’s a picture in Jack Hughes’ bed room of Pavel Datsyuk, captioned, “To Jack, see you in NHL!”

eu.heraldmailmedia.com

Who is Alexis Lafreniere? Looking at Rangers' No. 1 overall pick in 2020 NHL Draft | Sporting News

Who is Alexis Lafreniere?

www.sportingnews.com

A surefire generational talent, Lafreniere brings speed, physicality, a high hockey IQ, silky mitts and an insane ability to put the puck in the back of the net.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

The big hyped 1st overalls recently have all failed in Dahlin, Hughes and Lafreniere. Wright fell off in hype during his draft year too. All of them were annointed generational talents at one point or other, by the media and fans.

It's fair to nitpick because most prospects never live up to the hype. Maybe Bedard will and hopefully that's the case. Next step is to demolish the CHL competition.

Jack Hughes? The kid who just paced for over 90 points as a 20 year old?

Not sure if I would call that a failure.

 

[Rengorlex]

Jack Hughes? The kid who just paced for over 90 points as a 20 year old?

Not sure if I would call that a failure.

Hughes has 108 points in 166 NHL games. In a relatively high scoring era to boot. That's a failure relative to the generational expectations that many had for him.

A generational talent is immediately a top 10 player in the league and becomes the dominant player of the sport in a quick fashion after getting his feet wet. If Bedard is generational, then he's going to make his case as the best player in the world within the next three years.

 

[VictorLustig]

Hughes has 108 points in 166 NHL games. In a relatively high scoring era to boot. That's a failure relative to the generational expectations that many had for him.

A generational talent is immediately a top 10 player in the league and becomes the dominant player of the sport in a quick fashion after getting his feet wet. If Bedard is generational, then he's going to make his case as the best player in the world within the next three years.

That’s your definition. My definition would not involve any timelines.

 

[Rengorlex]

That’s your definition. My definition would not involve any timelines.

Then it just becomes semantics, but if he is compared to Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, Ovechkin, Crosby and McDavid, that is the standard he has to live up to.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Jack Hughes is the 'generational' talent who NHL teams are swooning over

There’s a picture in Jack Hughes’ bed room of Pavel Datsyuk, captioned, “To Jack, see you in NHL!”

eu.heraldmailmedia.com

Who is Alexis Lafreniere? Looking at Rangers' No. 1 overall pick in 2020 NHL Draft | Sporting News

Who is Alexis Lafreniere?

www.sportingnews.com

Generational is a term that gets over-used, you'll find the generational mark somewhere for most 1st overalls in NBA, NHL and NFL.

McDavid was the last prospect truly pushed as generational.. Dahlin did have some of that hype at 16 but it just became clear cut #1 in the draft as his draft year approached.

 

[VictorLustig]

Then it just becomes semantics, but if he is compared to Gretzky, Lemieux, Lindros, Ovechkin, Crosby and McDavid, that is the standard he has to live up to.

It is just semantics. But how quickly you become good has nothing to do with the being a ”generational” player. Don’t you just have to be a…..pretty darn good player?