the Dogsalmon wrote:my money says that unless Gillis pulls off a miracle on July 1st...his time is over by March...he has been far from impressive in any way shape or form...
And as good as Schultz is, there will be some growing pains along the way. As evidenced by his 18 goals and 44 points in just 37 games with Wisconsin, Schultz has a special offensive component to his game. He probably has the poise and skill to quarterback an NHL power play now, but he’s not a particularly physical or developed player and playing against college players who are in their teens and early 20s and competing against men who are NHL veterans represents an enormous adjustment for any young player.
dbr wrote:Some good hockey prospects go to college, most do not.
However, the picks we are talking about - the guys after the first 100 or so selections - are not generally speaking "good hockey prospects" which is probably why Gillis uses this strategy only in the later rounds.
Well in the specific example of Mallet, he got fourth line minutes on his team until this season at which point he exploded and produced more than comparable forwards at the same age vs. the same competition.
So it's a change in opportunity and role as much as it is physical development and experience that led to Mallet's production this season - he outscored players drafted higher than him in his original draft year (ie. guys also playing against younger competition, who were never passed over).
Well I don't know but it sounds like you're prepared to make some sweeping generalizations. Can you support the argument I suspect you're making (that fringe prospects develop worse in the NCAA than they would in the CHL then jumping into pro at age 20, ready or not)?
The Canucks have drafted overage players at a higher rate than the rest of the league since before Mike Gillis was around. As for picking players headed to the NCAA it's worked pretty well for the Canucks over the last decade or so.. Bieksa, Kesler, Schneider, Raymond and others fit that description and have all gone onto contribute at the NHL level.
black ace wrote:If Gillis is taking the side of a 3rd to 7th rounder likely isint going to work out so its easier to give up on a 22 year old College player that hasnt developed than a 20 year old CHL player than great but I would think the better way to develop a player is to put him in the best possible position to develop and the best development league in the world is the CHL.
Fred wrote:The problem with the NCAA is relatively few games, competition iffy, and frankly the need to study. I understand they train hard off and on ice. Every day they both have strenuous work outs in the realms of 3 hours. But they only play weekends. Some NCAA teams are strong others are over aged Junior A, including the no fighting rule ( thrown out of game ). This is why the Canucks wanted to take Patrick White out of college, poor program, poor coaching. The CHL on the other hand is a grind and competitive and tough.
dbr wrote:On the subject of Alexandre Mallet I thought I'd lift some interesting dialogue from over at HFBoards on this player -y2kcanucks wrote:I don't mind the late picks too much (although you have to wonder why we couldn't have used a 7th round pick on someone like Nick Ebert just for the potential alone), but Mallett over Severson still pisses me off.Tiranis wrote:Why? Mallet has progressed better than every single late 2nd/early 3rd round pick from the 2010 draft (his original year of eligibility). What exactly is wrong with him? He outproduced Petr Straka (55th overall, same team) and Kirill Kabanov (65th overall), plus a whole bunch of other players drafted that year. Not to mention that he's a two-way player that will fight pretty much every opportunity he gets.
Hell, he had a better season than: John McFarland (33rd overall), Brett Bulmer (39th overall), Ryan Spooner (45th overall), etc.y2kcanucks wrote:So? Most 2nd/3rd round picks never make it to the NHL. I'd much rather spend that pick on a player who could make it than an overager who hasnt shown anything until this year.Tiranis wrote:He's not an overager though. :facepalm: He's a guy that has produced at a comparable rate as 1st round picks Quinton Howden (25th) and Austin Watson (18th) while actually being 4 months younger than both.Tiranis wrote:He went from being pigeon-holed as a 4th liner to being a 1st liner with PP time. Of course his points jumped. Maybe the skill was always there but not the opportunity. The fact is that no one can deny that he's a tough, two-way center that has produced at a level comparable to Howden and Watson, both 1st round picks from 2010. Considering both of those guys play a similar type of game, I think the comparison is valid.y2kcanucks wrote:Isn't the Q a higher scoring league? I wouldn't put any stock in comparing numbers one to one with players in the WHL or OHL.Tiranis wrote:It's not. WHL is the highest scoring league right now. I love how you're just trying to find a way to discredit his numbers though. No possible way the Canucks found what might be a gem. :laugh:
I included pauser's posts to provide context, not because they are interesting.
dbr wrote:As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).
Potatoe1 wrote:dbr wrote:As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).
I actually prefer the NCAA as a post draft development league (if the program is strong). The players are older, the hockey is better and there is more practices and off ice training.
coco_canuck wrote:I don't have a problem with selecting 19-20 year olds, and I don't have an issue with players committed to the NCAA.
One concern I do have is necessarily drafting for need outside the first two rounds, and specifically drafting college players without giving other leagues much consideration.
Every team makes some selections based on a specific need, but there needs to be a fine line between need and best player available. Same goes for preferring college players, if there is say an OHL kid who projects much better than the best available college player, then I'd rather go with the OHL kid than reaching for someone else.
Since we don't sit at the draft table, it's difficult to say why they may have passed on someone else over the kid they picked in a given round, but Gillis has been mostly open with his draft strategy, and at the moment I'm not completely sold.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest