end of 2
Ilves 6 Vassan 1 Jarvente 1g 1a
Jukerit 0 Kalpa 4 nothing for Abramov
Bars Kasan 4 Sibir 3 Wilkstrand 2a
Ilves 6 Vassan 1 Jarvente 1g 1a
Jukerit 0 Kalpa 4 nothing for Abramov
Bars Kasan 4 Sibir 3 Wilkstrand 2a
Prospect Info: 2020-2021 Senators Prospect Watch
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
- Status
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Well, I don't think those "reasons" are necessarily true. It really doesn't look like he was a reach at 15th OA. THW had him 11th for example. There was still a few guys that you wish the Sens would have picked instead, but that draft was really awful in general (look the rest of the 1st after 20th). I have no problem at all with the Sens placing bets their bets on Ceci at 15th OA.
Also, scouts didn't seem to see Ceci as a guy with questionable IQ. And I don't think that's his real problem, IMO it has more to do with his decision making. NHL is really fast, you can't hesitate or take too long to make your decisions, you basically have to be able to rely on instincts.
Looks like many scouts were wrong on Ceci
Cody Ceci | Cody Ceci Profile | Cody Ceci Scouting Report 2012
https://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/cody_ceci/
Cody Ceci - NHL - DraftSite.com
Cody Ceci at eliteprospects.com
https://thehockeywriters.com/cody-c...t-prospect-profile-defending-nations-capital/
The last link is the most interesting, a lot of info. For example :
- Cody Ceci’s NHL Scouting Combine tests revealed that he has a wing span of 77.75 inches placing him top 7 of the draft. He placed top ten in the standing long jump (8th; 113”), leg power test (7th), pushups (10th) and pull strength (3rd) completing a successful combine.
Ilves win 6-1 Jarvente 1g 1a 2pm
Bars Kasan win 5-3 Wilkstrand 2a on PP
Jukerit lose 4-1, zilch for Abramov
Bars Kasan win 5-3 Wilkstrand 2a on PP
Jukerit lose 4-1, zilch for Abramov
Last edited:
BondraTime
Registered User
That's literally what causes his poor decision making, which is what is the commonality between he and Thomson. Low hockey sense resulting in bad decision making
Guys with NHL level tools and no toolbox are able to get by and thrive at the junior level without their problems appearing apparent. Once they get to higher levels, it's very apparent.
Lazar, Ceci, Cowen, Thomson are all examples of guys with great tools and not great toolboxes.
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I don't know maybe there's semantics here but as an amateur goalie, I would say that my spatial awareness and sense of anticipation is among my strenghts. However when I have to play the puck, I become nervous and hesitate way too much because I see various scenarios developping. I am just not good at it.
I also finished high school at 15 y/o with top grades in a highly ranked quebec school without ever studying. It eventually became a problem in college as I got used to "the law of least effort" (so I ended partying way too much) so I wouldn't say that my toolbox is bad.
I think there's many many facets to "hockey IQ", like some I have named in this post. But yeah, maybe decision making in amongst them
All that being said, I think that without his decision making problem, Ceci would definitely be top-4 quality. And I think it's part of the reasons why scouts didn't detect a problem with Ceci's "hockey IQ" as his decision making problem didn't impact his game as much in lower levels since the game is much slower.
Last edited:
BondraTime
Registered User
Decision making is directly in line with hockey sense. School grades have little/nothing to do with hockey sense and I.Q, that's just a smart person. George Parros was an Ivy League grad, some of the smartest on ice hockey players can hardly put together coherent sentences. They are completely different skillsets.
There is nothing that correlates more to hockey sense than decision making on the ice, for players at least.
Agreed that it never affected his draft stock because it's always hard to see and notice at the Junior level. If you have the tools (shot, size, skating, stickhandling) to get by, the toolbox (hockey sense) can be disguised. We saw that with Lazar, Ceci, and Cowen. As soon as they got to the higher levels, their tools no longer put them ahead, and now their hockey sense was severely lagging, resulting in bad NHL players (relative to their draft spot, and in general). I think the same is happening with Thomson now.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 67,224
- 52,970
TheDebater
Peace be upon you
Jarventie > McDavid
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Ok I understand the point, maybe I don't fully understand what people mean by hockey IQ. I mean, you would have found me quite ridiculous playing the puck at times lol
So how was Parros or even Greening hockey IQ? Where does it relate to someone's smarts? Where does it stop? I'm a bit confused because I have seen many comments in the past about these players making bad decisions that they were really dumb. Maybe I shouldn't take it in the literal sense I don't know
Is there some kind of concensus on the "hockey IQ" or "hockey sense" definitions? Because it seems to be all over the place
And we agree on the fact that "poor decision making" can be "hidden" in lower levels. IIRC, Ceci didn't struggle with that in the AHL. And even in his first 2-3 NHL seasons, it didn't look like a glaring weakness (as he was playing less and was more sheltered). Could it also be related to confidence? We know that confidence plays a major part in NHL players (or pro athletes) game... I don't know, it seems to me that Ceci problems really started with Guy Boucher and him trying to make Ceci something that he is not.
Anyway, let's hope for a better ending for Thomson but even if he busts, we can afford it. What is important is that Chabot, Sanderson, Branstrom and JBD succeed , all guys that seems to have good/great/elite hockey sense
Thomson will not bust as many here suggest. His issues can be dealt with by good coaching and better situational awareness. He has the tools, but not the toolbox as some have suggested. The simple counter to that is if you don't have the tools, the toolbox itself is worthless.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Personally, I'll wait to see Thomson in the AHL before trying to gauge his future furthermore. For now, he's still a good prospect.
To add-on, he’s recently been playing as the 2C behind Gabriel Fortier (2018 TBL 2nd RD Pick) but was promoted to the 1C tonight. He just picked up another two assists and is now point person game on the season.
Every time I see "Ilves", I want to correct it to Elves! It seems to be just me, too!
TheDebater
Peace be upon you
It is not a very easy attribute to assess simply because it is mostly subjective, but there are ways to determine the level of "Hockey I.Q" a particular player has.
In a way, it is a bit of a biased trait to attribute as most players who are either really good offensively or really good defensively will be given the "high" I.Q tag, as long as they are really good at something.
The players who tend to fall in between, where they are not quite offensive enough, and not quite defensive enough will always be said to be missing something from their game and usually it is between the ears.
For example what separates players like McDavid, Ovechkin, Crosby, and Kane from the rest? They are all athletic and highly skilled, but there are many many many players in the NHL who are probably physically better (i.e. stronger, faster, harder shot,) than those mentioned above, yet they lack "something" that prevents them from being in the same category.
Mark Stone is a great example of a player who generally gets labelled with " good hockey sense " and "high I.Q", because he might not be the fastest player, nor does he possess any specific exceptional skill, yet he finds a way to be productive, he reads the play, he leads the league in takeaways, he knows where to be and when...etc.
On the flip side, a guy like Jared Cowen, for example, has all the tools to be a dominant defensemen; booming shot, huge size, strength, physically imposing...yet he would make the poorest decisions on the ice when the going got tough. He simply could not process the game at the speed required to be a successful NHL defenseman, same goes for Ceci to an extent.
Just because someone goes to University, it does not mean that person is "smart" or has a high IQ at everything. They might be "smart" at electrical engineering because they studied electrical engineering but do poorly writing poetry because they never read or wrote any poetry.
Of course if that person wanted to get better at writing poetry, then that person would have to study poetry and write a lot of poetry to improve his skillset; however, he may never become a "genius" at it but he could get better at it.Daoust so far 4a, 2nd star, Moncton win 7-6
Last edited:
- Status
