Not a good comparison at all in my opinion. Murray was a very poor skater and Pedan is not. Pedan has a very good first step and can carry the puck much better. Skating is not the issue. Seeing the play and reacting are the problems. Murray , on the other hand, was fairly smart in his game. Just got too banged up to continue at the NHL level.
Right now Pedan is too tentative and too much back on his heels. Much better in the AHL when he was assertive.
I think the better comparison is Tyler Myers in his early Buffalo years who was prone to the consistent awkward mistakes.
Pedan has all the physical tools but needs experience.
Murray only had to think about half of what Pedan is, though. Defensive defensemen often get a lot of credit for being smart compared to two way or offensive guys but in reality it's much easier. It's like comparing the grade of someone in remedial math to another in advanced placement.
I just wanted to expand on this a little to better make my point. I agree with Murray being considered a pretty smart player. I don't think he's the kind of guy that had to go to remedial defence school. He was a decent top 4 option because he could find the open guy and did a pretty good job supporting the puck up the ice. A lot like Chris Tanev. These guys aren't sacrificing offense so much as just being happy to take what's given to them. Still, it's easier to play without the pressure of trying to make something happen offensively. Tanev uses his quick feet to create space for himself and is a very good passer and this safe game suits his style. The tendency is to give a guy like this high marks for hockey smarts. He's certainly very good at it but it's not the toughest class.
A guy like Edler is a little more uneven but is also trying to do a lot more offensively. Tanev will look to the middle of the ice for someone wide open and then up the boards or to his partner. Safe 90% plays. Edler doesn't need the guy to be wide open to give it a shot and he's going to look to make a play cross ice if he can (70% plays). It's not that he doesn't think the game well… he's just playing a different game. The stakes are higher but often so is the reward. The tendency is to give these guys a lower grade for hockey smarts unless they're amongst the really elite at it but it's a much tougher class.
AV used to talk a lot about making high percentage plays yet he still had a lot of time for the high stakes games that Edler and Bieksa played. I think he realized that you can get so far with making those 90% plays that keep the puck out of danger but you're really relying on the other team to make mistakes to score. Those 70% passes are a little riskier but often make for a much better chance at scoring. The play happens fast out there, though, sometimes plays look like 70%... but are really only 40%. When these guys aren't reading the play really well, that can happen a lot. 40% plays rarely disguise themselves as 90% plays but still, I think you need to assume some risk to score regularly.
Rome was the kind of guy that went to remedial defence school. He probably didn't have the talent to go looking for anything more than 100% plays. So, he looked for someone wide open or banged it out off the glass. He's sacrificing some offence to play a really safe game and avoid blowing his wad on a bad bet. You used to see a lot more of this before teams started putting more of an emphasis on possession. Sbisa has some talent but just doesn't think the game well enough to know if it's a 90% play or 40% play. He could use some remedial defence school.
I'm not saying that Edler could play Tanev's game and earn the same grades but I don't think Tanev could play Edler's game as well, either. Pedan is taking the same class Edler is right now. I think it's too early to send him to class with Tanev or to remedial school. With a little more experience the juice might be worth the squeeze and he can always switch classes later if his grades don't improve.
