Lol, why didn’t Suzuki go top 5 in his own draft? We’re talking about Suzuki in his draft year, not Suzuki right now.
If Suzuki was that great of a prospect, he would’ve went top 3 in his draft. There’s a reason he went 13th overall.
C/W Carter Bear - Everett Silvertips, WHL (2025 Draft)
- Thread starter Bubbles
- Start date
If Suzuki was that great of a prospect, he would’ve went top 3 in his draft. There’s a reason he went 13th overall.
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,843
- 9,680
Thats also over a decade ago now and achilles surgery has made huge strides. Look at the talk from a couple years ago when Rogers tore his first game with the jets. He was back extremely quickly. He was back at practice 77 days after tearing it and it wasnt just a laceration, it was a ruptureErik Karlsson had an achilles laceration back in 2013. You can go back and look at commentary from the time about the recovery process for that kind of injury, including the below from an athletic therapist. Karlsson would actually beat the odds and come back for the playoffs that year.
For at least a couple years after the injury he would talk about how his skating still didn't feel the same as it did before the injury. Of course, it didn't really matter because he was still Erik Karlsson.
Miracle recovery? Therapist says not likely for Erik Karlsson
It's a miracle on Palladium Dr.ottawasun.com
Gregor Samsa
Registered User
- Sep 5, 2020
- 4,099
- 6,375
A little off tangent regarding Suzuki: is he a “boom” player? Like are there some prospects who just explode in a good way that is random? Anyone can find the stats to back it up after the player makes it big time but there are also players with similar stats who don’t. I’ve always been fascinated with the boom player and if it is totally luck.
Peasy
Registered User
I don't think it is luck, I think the reality is, everyone is different, and some people may just find something that clicks for them later in their careers that lets them unlock a new level. Tim Thomas' career is crazy. Logan Thompson was playing in USports not to long ago. Robert Thomas was drafted later than Nick Suzuki in the same draft etc etc. Zach Hyman has a crazy work ethic that allowed him to just continue to slowly add to his game to make him what he is today.
A lot of drafting is luck whether people want to out right admit that or not. At the end of the day, youre trying to project 17/18 year olds for their entire career.
No thanks. You took my previous post out of context; that’s the whole reason for this exchange in the first place. Why would I give you a courtesy you didn’t give to me? Enjoy your day.
Suzuki dropping to 13th overall happens because of size preferences from NHL teams, consensus rankings and bad scouting. Suzuki is making a lot of scouts looking stupid right now. With Suzuki, his IQ was always apparent.
Same thing with Kucherov dropping to the 2nd round, Pastrnak going end of 1st round, Kopitar dropping to the 11th overall, Aho dropping to the 2nd round, Peterka dropping to the 2nd round. Those happened because of bad player evaluations from scouts.
Maybe scouts should change a bit their approach when it comes to criteria. Hockey IQ should always comes first, then work ethnic, then physical skills and finally size imo.
I love Bear as a prospect and I would love if my team could draft him, but him being positioned 15-25 is absolutely fine as he doesn't posses exceptional hockey IQ like Suzuki to compensate for his average skating. Also, his ruptured achilles tendon is a big concern, especially for a player who doesn't possses blazing speed. Those kind of injuries can take up to a year to heal and some people never heal completely.
My nephew had this same injury playing competitive soccer. 2 years later, he's still not fully 100% and lost quiet some speed and strength in his right foot. Those kind of injuries are career threatening for high level athletes, let alone a NHL level prospect where one split second lost can impact his game.
Gregor Samsa
Registered User
- Sep 5, 2020
- 4,099
- 6,375
I think scouting is just hard in general. I’m sure there are a few people here and there but I don’t recall many people banging their drum that Kopitar, Kucherov, Suzuki, Pastrnak, etc should be top 5 picks. It only becomes obvious after the fact. These are kids with their own strengths and flaws but I don’t think you can predict who will overcome their weaknesses and maximize their strengths
Scouting is hard, true, but there are key elements that pops up with these players on why they succeded in the NHL while others more highly rated players during their draft year hasn't paned out.
So you don't believe in bad player evaluation and bad scouting as legitimate reasons ?
Those are professionnal scouts, paid to do a job. In some cases, like the one I listed, scouts dropped the ball. If scouts can't be accountable, than why are teams paying them ? Why not jus rely on consensus rankings every year... it would less costly and easier to manage. Let's just draft the BPA according to Eliteprospects or McKeens... very easy
Otherwise, maybe they should just change their scouting criteria and general approach when evaluating players.
newfy
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2010
- 14,843
- 9,680
Its also why places like this site overrate highlight reels and skill level and say character is overrated by GMs. Half the battle is having someone driven enough to get to the next level. Theres a lot of luck obviously too
Gregor Samsa
Registered User
- Sep 5, 2020
- 4,099
- 6,375
If you’re drafted in the 1st round you have talent and potential. What a 17-18 year old kid does with that talent and potential is up in the air. We’ve seen the consensus often wrong
What a ridiculous way to look at things.
You can’t just say every successful late pick or every player who exceeds expectations was “bad scouting” by the teams who didn’t take them. Development is largely unpredictable and scouting is an inexact science.
Sometimes players take a development curve that nobody could’ve reasonably foreseen - that’s just the nature of this whole thing. Or maybe some believed in the player, but still decided to take a chance on another player for whatever reason - that’s fair as well. And everything in between. Nobody is ever going to be able to predict things with 100% certainty. It’s about educated guesses and playing the odds based on the information available.
Suzuki’s case in particular wasn’t a case of “bad scouting”, and he hasn’t made anyone look stupid - he was a top rated prospect ffs and went at the top of the draft. He just developed a little better than expected, that’s all.
He was pretty much drafted where he should’ve been for the calibre of prospect he was, but he just happened to have maxed out his potential after, whereas others ahead of him did not. It happens, and will continue to happen.
Looking at past drafts strictly from a hindsight perspective is pure comedy - every scout and team in the league looks dumb that way at some point or another. It’s a nonsensical way to look at things.
Draft picks are lottery tickets, and it’s not about being right or wrong 99% of the time. Even the best scouts get it wrong on the regular. Anyone who understands this business knows this.
The point being: Bear and Suzuki are very similar calibre prospects at the same age, we just have the benefit of hindsight with Suzuki, who hit a development curve that most didn’t really see coming. If it was so apparent like you claim, he would’ve been rated top 3. He wasn’t. Maybe the same thing happens with Bear, maybe he disappoints or busts; who knows, but they are similar in calibre at the same age, and all the scouting reports, rankings, and information available pretty much corroborate that.
Last edited:
FissionFire
Registered User
Boom players occur for several reasons. Some are just under scouted (Datsyuk, Edler). Some mature late and make huge strides pre-NHL (Zetterberg). Some are highly rated but end up exceeding expectations (Suzuki, Larkin). It’s a mixture of luck, timing, and the right situation that allows a player to exceed what was previously thought to be their potential.
Also keep in mind rating 17-18 year old kids is very inexact. Some players mature early, some late, some continue to grow, some peak very early and never improve. There will always be some level of “boom” and “bust” with prospects.
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
There was no comparison made, other than that they both showed high hockey IQ as prospects, and shared a few other traits in common (not elite skaters, and smallish). One poster took that out of context and threw a tantrum over it.
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Dominance
99-66-4-9-87/97
Huge. Dark horse for top-10, but I hope he falls to the Penguins.
Unfriendly Ghost
Kasper
I wonder if he'll go top 10 now. There are definitely some guys ranked that high where I'd prefer a healthy Bear. It certainly seems like everything is coming together for McQueen to fall very far.
RainyCityHockey
Registered User
Can anyone who watched him this year comment on why his 2nd half production was much lower than what he did in the 1st half? Scouts like to see just the opposite trend unless there are mitigating factors.
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 3,687
- 6,247
First and foremost great news for Bear, that he is skating already. I was hoping he would drop to 15 which seems very unlikely now.
Ugene Magic
EVIL LAUGH
This.... No, seriously, so much this...
He was looking to be #9 which the Pens are no more in that position.
I'm guessing we're all about to see updates to final rankings updates.
Clint Eastwood
Eff the Habs
- Nov 11, 2018
- 5,041
- 12,370
I have a hard on for high motor players so it goes without saying that I love this guy. Glad he'll be healthy.
