herman said:
Jeez, I wonder if he's referring to any previous picks in particular.
2015 NHL Entry Draft
- Thread starter L K
- Start date
- Status
Jeez, I wonder if he's referring to any previous picks in particular.
L K
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
I don't think that's a very fair characterization of who needs more OHL time vs. not. Strome has already established that he can dominate the OHL. He's not going to get significantly better by dominating it again. At the very least he will still have DiBrinicat there next year so he wouldn't be alone.
The biggest boone for Strome returning to the OHL would be playing in the World Juniors but he could just as easily do that from the NHL too. So really the question would be more around contract protection if the Leafs draft Strome to me. He doesn't need more OHL time. He would benefit from a year in the AHL but the rules don't allow it.
I think that the Oilers have basically ruined everyone's opinion on tanking and 18-year olds playing in the NHL. Just because the Oilers tank didn't work (until now) doesn't mean it's stupid to try to rebuild that way. And just because the Oilers may have rushed their 18-year olds doesn't mean that putting players in the NHL in their post-draft season will ruin them.
My initial preference at this time would be to send him back. But that could definitely change if the Leafs feel like his performance is NHL-worthy. I do agree with ZBBM that teams are very guilty of putting too much stock in preseason performances. We've seen it basically every year for awhile now with the Leafs. But I'm a lot more comfortable with Dubas and Hunter having more clout to make that call in this situation. Smart management can tell the difference between a player who just looks good in that environment and a player who is actually good.
My initial preference at this time would be to send him back. But that could definitely change if the Leafs feel like his performance is NHL-worthy. I do agree with ZBBM that teams are very guilty of putting too much stock in preseason performances. We've seen it basically every year for awhile now with the Leafs. But I'm a lot more comfortable with Dubas and Hunter having more clout to make that call in this situation. Smart management can tell the difference between a player who just looks good in that environment and a player who is actually good.
bustaheims
Active member
Pick said:
The "Wings' Way" is to draft smart and take the time to let prospect develop at their own pace so that you end up with a roster that made up almost entirely of players your organization drafted. The Wings have more of their own draft picks playing as regulars in their lineup than every other team in the league. The old Wings brought in a lot of outside talent, but the current Wings are ~80% developed in house.
Highlander
Active member
Interesting article in the Star, some saying Marner may have the most raw talent after McDavid,compares him to Gilmour (that is saying something)
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2015/04/23/knights-mitch-marner-reminds-scouts-of-ex-leafs-captain-doug-gilmour.html
http://www.thestar.com/sports/leafs/2015/04/23/knights-mitch-marner-reminds-scouts-of-ex-leafs-captain-doug-gilmour.html
L K
Active member
Marner's parents are fattening Mitch up already. He's had a few humorous local interviews talking about how he is going to struggle to keep up with the diet. I honestly have no concerns about his size. And I do agree that he arguably could be the 2nd best player on pure talent. He has an engine behind him that won't prevent him from being a star player even if he doesn't grow any further.
He's also symptom free now from the crosscheck to his jaw/neck.
He's also symptom free now from the crosscheck to his jaw/neck.
Crucialness Key
New member
Bullfrog said:
Intruculenceables!!
bustaheims
Active member
Bullfrog said:
It's the old "you can't teach size" stuff, plus the theory that bigger players take longer to develop, but, I agree, it's crazy. I'm not convinced he's even a 1st round calibre talent, never mind a top 5 pick.
Bullfrog said:
I'm fine with ranking Crouse in the top-10. I can possibly get behind an idea that he actually has more offensive potential than his stats suggest. He scored 29 goals in 56 games, which isn't that bad. Top-5 among draft eligible OHL players. His low assist totals could possibly be attributed to his line mates. Kingston was a very bad offensive team this year. They finished 4th last in goals for and had the 2nd worst shooting percentage in the league. Nobody but Crouse hit 50 points, and only 2 other players hit 20 goals. I can't find the numbers anywhere, but if I had to guess I would imagine that they have one of the lowest amount of NHL drafted players on their team right now. And if we had more advanced stats for the OHL I would imagine that it would show that his on-ice shooting percentage was ridiculously low, and Crouse might be looked at in a slightly better light.
So I can understand why scouting services would have him ranked in the top-10. But for the life of me I can't understand why he would be in the top-5 and rated higher than Marner. His (and Strome's) PPG rate was higher than Stamkos and Seguin's in their draft years. That's pretty damn impressive. The top-5 in this draft should be locked in 100%.
herman
Well-known member
How relevant are these scouting services' projections on the actual drafting of NHL teams anyway? I figure every team has their own scouting department and they've made their own lists. These projections are just for fans to get hung up on (and for the prospects themselves to know where they stand, I guess).
Some more thoughts that I've had swirling around my head for a little while now about Crouse but forgot to add above. I've tried to read a lot about him, from both sides of the perspective. Somebody described the Crouse debate as basically an analytics vs. old school thinking debate. I find that interesting because like I said above, I kind of think if we had more analytics from the OHL that part of the hockey community may actually like Crouse quite a bit. 5 years from now it could very well be the analytics group defending him and the old school guys (if there are any left by then) condemning him.
Something else that I've noticed on this topic, and no offence to busta and others who say this, but you often hear the "it's just his size" line when people describe why scouts are so in love with him. Well, it kind of seems like that same line could be used to describe why others don't like him. Scouts can definitely be biased towards players with size at times, but it's also definitely possible for people to have a bias against size too. He's like the anti-Marner. Marner's critics write off his offensive talents because he's small. I think it's possible people are guilty of writing off Crouse's talents, offensive or otherwise, because he's big.
Anyway, would I draft Lawson Crouse at 5? Of course not. Would I draft him at 7? Still no. 10? Eehhh, I'd probably still lean towards 'no', especially if somebody like Barzal or a defenceman that I like was still around. I've said before that my draft tendencies would be to always take the player with the highest offensive potential, regardless of where you're picking. So Crouse probably just wouldn't be somebody really on my radar. But I can still understand why he might be on others.
Something else that I've noticed on this topic, and no offence to busta and others who say this, but you often hear the "it's just his size" line when people describe why scouts are so in love with him. Well, it kind of seems like that same line could be used to describe why others don't like him. Scouts can definitely be biased towards players with size at times, but it's also definitely possible for people to have a bias against size too. He's like the anti-Marner. Marner's critics write off his offensive talents because he's small. I think it's possible people are guilty of writing off Crouse's talents, offensive or otherwise, because he's big.
Anyway, would I draft Lawson Crouse at 5? Of course not. Would I draft him at 7? Still no. 10? Eehhh, I'd probably still lean towards 'no', especially if somebody like Barzal or a defenceman that I like was still around. I've said before that my draft tendencies would be to always take the player with the highest offensive potential, regardless of where you're picking. So Crouse probably just wouldn't be somebody really on my radar. But I can still understand why he might be on others.
Frank E said:
Yup. Part of that was because Bennett came back and put up an absurd 20 points in 11 games (Crouse scored 15 in 11 with Bennett in the line-up). But even before that his scoring was getting better. From returning from the World Juniors to Bennett's return he scored 20 points in 20 games.
bustaheims said:
But it was the 'old' Wings who won Stanley cups.
Also, its debatable whether Wings draft wisely or if they provide an environment that allows young players to reach their potential.
The 'old' Wings weren't just successful with players they drafted, they were successful with the free agents and other accomplished players they brought in. This gives more credence to the 'environment' theory.
In Toronto it doesn't seem to work as well. Too many flops from both the draft and the FA market indicate the problem is not with drafting or making hasty free-agent signings, its more a problem with what awaits the players once they get here. The environment in Toronto just doesn't seem to work as well to allow players to play to their potential.
Why do I bring this up? First to say that as important as drafting is, making the right trade or signing the right FA at the right time are just as important.
Secondly, Toronto has stunk for too many seasons in the last 45+ years. One has to conclude that Toronto's problems go beyond poor drafting, poor coaching or poor management. The problems are probably not due to hockey issues and that is the reason why so many 'hockey' men failed here.
The 'environment' here, or the 'culture' seems to hurt more than help. The concern is that the culture hasn't changed (evidence last year) and that it is in this environment that this regime will try a rebuild.
Good Luck.
- Status