Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,771
- 7,578
At the same age (18) Schremp scored at a 1.45 PPG rate, while Steel is over 2 PPG.
C Sam Steel - Regina Pats, WHL (2016, 30th, ANA)
- Thread starter The Iron Goalie
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
At the same age (18) Schremp scored at a 1.45 PPG rate, while Steel is over 2 PPG.
Ducks Nation*
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,329
- 4
gifted88
Dante the poet
Didn't mean to compare them directly, just saying there is more to translating to the NHL than PPG in junior.
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
And that's where you have to evaluate their skillsets and see where they'd fit in today's NHL.
The good thing for Steel is that he's projectable as a good NHL forward. He's very smart on both sides of the puck and a very well-rounded player.
On the other hand, he lacks an elite dynamic offensive talent that sets guys like Marner, Gaudreau, or Kane out at the next level. He's a very good skater, and as previously mentioned his hockey IQ is his greatest asset, but he lacks much else to call elite in the rest of his game. He's no wizard with the puck, he's not a sniper, and he's not big, strong, or powerful to make up for that. (although he's a very good playmaker from my limited viewings; his vision looks great)
His point-production-for-the-ages hardly means he's going to be a HoF-er (or anywhere close) and though it's still early in his career, he still has a long ways to go if he can be considered a future franchise center.
Here's hoping Steel makes me eat my words.
The good thing about him is that he's got a pretty high floor and his bust potential is pretty low. At the very worst, we've got ourselves a solid 3C.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Schremp had obvious deficiencies in his game, and he made little effort to fix them. Steel doesn't really have any glaring weaknesses. Some context, please. This is like a previous poster suggesting Steel is the next Etem. There are reasons players don't transition, and it only takes a cursory glance to see that Steel doesn't really have those same concerns.
Steel projects to be a good NHL player. I'm not going to suggest he's an elite prospect, but what he's doing is still pretty special.
gifted88
Dante the poet
Again, I was not in any way comparing the two players. If you go back and read I said you can't just look at PPG and tell who will translate well at the next level.
I think Steel has the smarts to play anywhere in the line-up and take on any role at the next level. Not sure if 1C is realistic but he definately does looks like he'll be an NHLer.
what about his game makes 1C not realistic (other than not being drafted top 10)? is it probable, no, but i don't know that 1C is probably for almost any prospect However, i don't see how it would be an unrealistic possibility.
gifted88
Dante the poet
Not sure if 1C is realistic. That means I have no clue, I'm not a scout. I guess he could very well develop into one...but you think it's realistic for that to happen?
- Sep 28, 2014
- 78,466
- 126,530
Hopefully when Steel is a rookie he doesn't get a random healthy scratch, like Konecny tonight, despite leading his team in ES scoring.
izzy
go
I think we agree, just a semantic disagreement. I am using realistic as a synonym for possible, while you are using it as a synonym for probable. I think it's possible based on Steel's play and production that he could be a 1C, I don't think it's probable though, as there are very few prospects (outside of 1st overall picks) who I would consider probable 1c's in the NHL.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Even with 1st overall picks, I think "probable" doesn't always apply. It just depends on the quality of the pick that particular year. In general, I think people tend to underestimate how difficult it is for a player to be, what I'd call, a legitimate #1 center. As far as prospects go, those types of players tend to be quite exceptional.
The same thing applies to, again what I'd call, legitimate #1 defensemen. Just look at someone like Morgan Rielly or Hampus Lindholm. Both of them are, without question, extremely talented. I don't really have any doubt that both of them have the ability, but there is always that extra something that makes a true #1 defenseman, and that's hard to quantify. It just seems to be that ability to put it all together, consistently, at the NHL level. It remains to be seen if either of them can be that guy over the course of a career. I feel that they've both shown the ability to be that caliber of player, but they've also shown they can be less than that. And those are two of the best young defensemen out there. Ekblad is another example. It isn't just about being able to play at that level, but maintaining it. Typically, I think players often find themselves somewhere between the upper level of their play, and the lower, and that usually has them falling short (over the long-term) of that rather elite category.
I'd agree with you on Steel. I think it's realistically possible that Steel could be that guy. I don't think it's probable. As an Anaheim fan, I don't even care though. Steel has elevated his game, and he turns 19 tomorrow. I'm excited to see what he can do with more time and development. If he can even be a legitimate top six talent, that's quite a find at 30th overall.
Everyone should keep in mind that Steel was considered a lottery pick heading into last season. For whatever reason, he didn't post lottery type numbers but scouts knew the talent was there.
Give credit to the Ducks scouts for taking him where they did.
Give credit to the Ducks scouts for taking him where they did.
Ducks Nation*
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,329
- 4
I've never seen a ranking where he was in the top 10. Most had him between 10-15 in the very early rankings. Jones on the other hand was in the top 5 in some fan rankings.
King Mapes
Sub to My YouTube Blocks_4_days
A lottery pick implies between 1-14. I think that is close enough to 10-15 for discussion purposes, don't you?
ah yes, the 5'6" wonder.
Go back a bit further and look up Dale Derkatch. He was 5'4" (or 5'5" is you are being very generous) but had incredible numbers in the W.
tacogeoff
Registered User
92pts now.
what does everyone think he will finish with in the Reg season (barring injury)?
I will take a guess at 132
what does everyone think he will finish with in the Reg season (barring injury)?
I will take a guess at 132
Vinegar Strokes
Dirty Ducks
NHL Dude 120
Registered User
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
Depends on his training camp. AHL would be ideal, but he's not going to have that option next season, so it's likely he gets a cup of tea with the big team and heads back to juniors.
Ducks Nation*
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,329
- 4
Unless he has the best camp ever I highly doubt he is in the NHL next season, hope he can prove me wrong though.
Regina is bidding for the MC, and will be losing Brooks. So it would be an interesting challenge for Steel to be asked to be the clear leader on the team in a season with massive expectations if he goes back. The Ducks can carve out a sheltered 3rd line role for him if they want, due to the ability of Getz and Kesler to eat very tough minutes.
