BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,549
C Brayden Point (2014, 79th, TBL)
- Thread starter Alberta tough
- Start date
- Status
Jacko95
Registered User
- Sep 19, 2012
- 2,971
- 19
Now the just need to learn drafting defenders, outside of the first round (and the 5th for some reason), the Yzerman/Murray duo hasn't drafted anything of note in terms of defenders.
DeAngelo looks awesome, Koekkoek takes his time to develop, but will be better than most expect and with Nesterov (5th round 2011) we have a steal on our hands IMO. Well and Zuhlsdorf (5ht rounder of this summer) is dominating the USHL, playing close to PPG right now.
thrillhous
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2006
- 3,709
- 1,007
Only Schroeder and Chris Bourque were small guys drafted higher than Point. Schremp and Sweatt were not small and are not relevant to the discussion. Again, Baertschi is not in the discussion as it is too early to proclaim him a bust.
None of them were high picks other than Schroeder (late 1st) and he was a consensus 1st rounder that fell into the late portion of the 1st. The Bourques were 2nd/3rds, Sweatt 2nd, Locke and Rajala in the 4th, Conacher and St. Pierre not drafted.
BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,549
Rob Schremp = 5-foot-10
Brayden Point = 5-foot-10
I like Point but you've missed the point. Every year there small guys who are bigtime scorers and threads like this popup and claim some kind of bias from scouts. Yet dig through any drafts and the steals are more likely to be Byfugliens than Gaudreaus.
People were going crazy about Corey Locke here. He had 151 points in 66 games in his draft year. He was the steal of the century. The stupid scouts ignored him because he was small. Well the scouts who ignored him were right.
And if you don't like some of the names on that list add in Grimaldi, Tedenby, Hamill. Brandon Kozun had threads just like this and put up epic numbers in his draft year. Where is he?
Rounds 3-5 is where small skilled guys should be picked and that's where Point was taken.
Last edited:
Love me some Brayden Point, but you can't put 3 Brayden Points together on a line, for every little guy you need 2 big guys to get the puck for him. And big guys with skill and defensive acumen are hard to find and infinitely useful in all situations, especially in the playoffs. If a guy like Nic Petan can't be a top scorer for example, he's completely useless (and personally, never been a fan of Petan).
Jacko95
Registered User
- Sep 19, 2012
- 2,971
- 19
Really? This was one of the top3 lines in the league last season: 6'0-5'8-5'11. And guess what 2 of those guys were in the top 10 of the Selke Voting, one being the highest voted Winger.
You can have small prolific scorer and a defensive stalwart in one player, if developed properly. Hell there are even guys like JT Brown who is a generous 5'10 and makes a living out of his defensive talent only (well and his speed).
The difference between Point and most of the other guys talked about here is, he is far more than just a scorer. He is the captain of his team and listening to interviews you understand why. And he is known to at least be above average in his defensive game. Guys like Schrempp were known for their offense only. Dennis Yan (another Bolts 3rd rounder) is a guy that has been refered to as being all offense. But he is big, so he at least has a easier time learning the rest, if he wants to.
Those guys aren't that good, they got lucky last year and people weren't ready for their speed. Also the East is pretty soft defensively, they didn't even meet any strong defensive teams in the playoffs until Chicago. You see how much they are struggling this year.
I agree small players can be good defensively and possession-wise with the right supporting cast, but that line is going to struggle if it stays together IMO. Point is awesome though, I think he's going to be better than any of the little guys Tampa has right now.
You're still missing the point. I'm not even saying that you should pick small players exclusively. I'm saying they're an inefficiency. Obviously you need different types of players. And if you could find, big, skilled, defensively capable player at every draft position then obviously you would take them.
But that doesn't exist in reality. Often the choice is between a bigger, less skilled player and a smaller player with more offensive upside. For me, I'd rather make the latter choice more often.
It's BS that small guys can't play in the bottom-six too. Paul Byron is a fantastic bottom-six player. Decent possession and ES scoring + very good PK ability. Small guys don't play in the bottom-six because hockey brass have preconceived notions of what a "bottom-six" player is: namely a plug who brings "energy" by chasing hits.
And again, the Kucherov-Johnson-Palat line is pretty good.
Plekanec and Gallagher are two "small" guys on one line.
Ditto Panarin and Kane.
Wonder how ever those players made it to the NHL.
thrillhous
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2006
- 3,709
- 1,007
Rob Schremp = 5-foot-10
Brayden Point = 5-foot-10
I like Point but you've missed the point. Every year there small guys who are bigtime scorers and threads like this popup and claim some kind of bias from scouts. Yet dig through any drafts and the steals are more likely to be Byfugliens than Gaudreaus.
People were going crazy about Corey Locke here. He had 151 points in 66 games in his draft year. He was the steal of the century. The stupid scouts ignored him because he was small. Well the scouts who ignored him were right.
And if you don't like some of the names on that list add in Grimaldi, Tedenby, Hamill. Brandon Kozun had threads just like this and put up epic numbers in his draft year. Where is he?
Rounds 3-5 is where small skilled guys should be picked and that's where Point was taken.
According to elite prospects Schremp is 5'11 but I don't think it really changes anything so...
Corey Locke DID NOT put up 151 in 66 games in his first draft eligible season, he put up 43 points in 55 games. That's why he was passed over entirely in 2002.
Brayden Point put up big numbers in his draft eligible season and still fell to the 3rd, which is what others have been pointing out. He didn't come out of nowhere after mediocre seasons pre-draft, his first two years in the Dub were awesome.
Your comment that you can "dig through any drafts and the steals are more likely to be Byfugliens than Gaudreaus" and your comment that "Rounds 3-5 is where small skilled guys should be picked" are merely assertions; you haven't given me any reason to accept that. Throwing out some names of small guys that have gone nowhere doesn't achieve anything close to that.
BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,549
According to elite prospects Schremp is 5'11 but I don't think it really changes anything so...
Corey Locke DID NOT put up 151 in 66 games in his first draft eligible season, he put up 43 points in 55 games. That's why he was passed over entirely in 2002.
Brayden Point put up big numbers in his draft eligible season and still fell to the 3rd, which is what others have been pointing out. He didn't come out of nowhere after mediocre seasons pre-draft, his first two years in the Dub were awesome.
Your comment that you can "dig through any drafts and the steals are more likely to be Byfugliens than Gaudreaus" and your comment that "Rounds 3-5 is where small skilled guys should be picked" are merely assertions; you haven't given me any reason to accept that. Throwing out some names of small guys that have gone nowhere doesn't achieve anything close to that.
Your assertion is that small guys who score in junior hockey will translate into the NHL. I gave you 15 examples of hype-train little guys who busted.
Want evidence: NHL scouts are professionals. They know what they're doing better than keyboard warriors who can read the WHL stats page. You're not smarter than them. You're not a better scout than them.
I don't know why you keep going back to Locke but he scored a full point-per-game more than Point in his +1 season.
Last edited:
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
According to elite prospects Schremp is 5'11 but I don't think it really changes anything so...
Corey Locke DID NOT put up 151 in 66 games in his first draft eligible season, he put up 43 points in 55 games. That's why he was passed over entirely in 2002.
Brayden Point put up big numbers in his draft eligible season and still fell to the 3rd, which is what others have been pointing out. He didn't come out of nowhere after mediocre seasons pre-draft, his first two years in the Dub were awesome.
Your comment that you can "dig through any drafts and the steals are more likely to be Byfugliens than Gaudreaus" and your comment that "Rounds 3-5 is where small skilled guys should be picked" are merely assertions; you haven't given me any reason to accept that. Throwing out some names of small guys that have gone nowhere doesn't achieve anything close to that.
Pretty much this.. I'm not too familiar with the rest of the prospects posted, but Point has been known in Western hockey circles since long before his impressive rookie playoff debut. He was a dominant bantam player who was selected in the 1st round, and put up over 100 points in a single season. When it came to the NHL draft, I know plenty of people were shocked when he was selected that low.
Point has been top 3 in team scoring in all 4 seasons (only didn't finish #1 in scoring in his 16 year old season), and averages 1.25 PPG throughout his WHL career on a team that has only made the playoffs once (rookie year, didn't play during season). Point is probably one of the best forwards to come through Moose Jaw in a while.
Sure, he has 1 similar attribute to the players you listed (height), but that's just 1 facet to a players game.. I hate when people get pigeon holed on a statistic that isn't even determined by on ice play. Besides, Point is now up to 5'11 according to the WHL website, who I'm fairly certain would have the most accurate listing. 5'11 seems more than a capable height for the NHL, as 6 of the top 10 scorers are 6'0 or under. Anyways, I'd love to hear a case on how those players you listed have been dominant (not just good or great) at every level of competition.
Like I said, I'll be curious to see how he can establish his game at the pro level, but that has more to do with speed than size. At the JR level, he's one of the best prospects.
Being a scout is just watching hockey.. everyone has a different opinion. You're acting as if scouts are never wrong. If an NHL scout gets fired, do they lose all credibility?
BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,549
Read the thread.
It's not about Point.
It started with someone saying: "Amazing how scouts continually screw up, over and over again, with small talented players."
The scouts get it right about small talented players way more than the HF-groupthink does.
thrillhous
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2006
- 3,709
- 1,007
Please tell me when I asserted this.
My assertion is that Brayden Point had no business falling as far as he did. I believe this is due to his size because it would seem from reading draft guides, etc. that this was really the only significant concern about the player. There are other players that have fallen for no reason other than size in the past, so I believe it. Some others have speculated that there is some larger problem with scouts continually overlooking smaller players. Not my words.
You jump in and post "For every example of a small guy who fell through the cracks there are two examples of small guys picked high who busted" and name a bunch of guys that for the most part don't fit the description you had just made. I have been testing you on that point.
Others have posted things like "Just like there are two examples of "big" guys that busted for every case you mentioned". You have had nothing to say about that, so perhaps you agree?
And for the record, I have referred to Locke only in response to you. You are the one bringing him up (for some reason).
BruinsBtn
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 22,080
- 13,549
Ok, what evidence do you have of a conspiracy against small players?
You offer no examples, no numbers, nothing except "I read draft guides". Give me a break.
thrillhous
Registered User
- Jan 5, 2006
- 3,709
- 1,007
I have made no mention of a conspiracy or anything of the sort; nor do I believe there is one. Again, my assertion is that he shouldn't have been drafted as late as he was and that it likely was due to size because I can't read or heard about other concerns like attitude, work ethic, interviews, etc. I could be wrong and I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any insight.
At this point all I've been doing is challenging you on your statement, which is "For every example of a small guy who fell through the cracks there are two examples of small guys picked high who busted". Perhaps not surprisingly you have been unable to back up that statement in any meaningful way. Your preference seems to resort to straw man tactics.
herashak
Registered User
- Mar 24, 2013
- 5,509
- 670
They should trade Johnson sign stammer and have point take the center spot on the triplets line.
CapInSask
Registered User
Despite similarities in size, there is a BIG difference between Point and a guy like Nic Petan. Point is a competitor, you can tell he's had to fight for every inch he's gotten. When he was a rookie in the dub he was almost impossible to get off the puck, even for big guys because he was already so low and he used that centre of gravity to his advantage. Incredible balance. I don't think he's going to be a Selke candidate, but he's by no means a liability.
I don't think it's so much that skilled small players pan out less often than less skilled big players, it's that generally small players are less useful and less versatile and therefore have limited upside compared to a bigger player who at least you can hope will improve their skills. There are exceptions of REALLY good small players, but most GMs aren't willing to gamble on getting one of those, especially high in the draft. So I don't think it's really an inefficiency. As good as a guy like Tyler Johnson was last year, for example, I doubt he has a ton of value in a trade. (Remember Cory Conacher?)
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
Lol, Tyler Johnson has no value (because somehow he's comparable to Conacher), and you shouldn't draft for upside. Got it.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,824
- 7,707
First Blood
The Greiss Is Right!
I am reading as he is basically saying that smaller players have no trade value or value in general
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,253
- 30,296
- Status
Latest posts
-
2024-25 Playoffs Thread - series, opponents, players and team discussion- Latest: ProjectPanthers
-
-
