D Cale Makar - UMass (Amherst), NCAA (2017, 4th, COL)

[lawrence]

People comparing CHL training facilities to NCAA

It's not even close.

Using training facilities as an argument. Even funnier. CHL players have more then good enough training facilities already. That argument pretty much cancels each other out.

 

[lawrence]

You are literally comparing apples to oranges.
The CHL is 60 teams. The USHL is 17.

So it would sense to compare the USHL to an individual league, like the QMJHL for instance.

Total USHL drafted players in 2016 = 32 (+15 Alumni)
Total QMJHL drafted players in 2016 = 14
Total OHL drafted players in 2016 = 48
Total WHL drafted players in 2016 = 34

I believe Steve Kournianos meant the CHL is a better development leauge then the USHL, and nothing to really do with how many players end up getting drafted, since like you said, its apples to oranges, since the USHL is kinda like our CHL highest level of junior in the States, compared to the QMJHL, which is only Quebec and eastwards.

 

[Breakers]

Using training facilities as an argument. Even funnier. CHL players have more then good enough training facilities already. That argument pretty much cancels each other out.

Wake me up when a CHL team has a facility like this
& The fact you think the gym isn't important like your previous post suggests you have never played competitive hockey before.

 

[lawrence]

Wake me up when a CHL team has a facility like this
& The fact you think the gym isn't important like your previous post suggests you have never played competitive hockey before.

..... is this a joke? Seriously man is this a joke? Your not really using training facility as an argument are you?

& The fact you think the gym isn't important like your previous post suggests you have never played competitive hockey before.

I never said it wasn't important. I said game time is more important for development. Never once did I say game time over no gym time. not once.

 

[Breakers]

Using training facilities as an argument. Even funnier. CHL players have more then good enough training facilities already. That argument pretty much cancels each other out.

..... is this a joke? Seriously man is this a joke? Your not really using training facility as an argument are you?



I never said it wasn't important. I said game time is more important for development. Never once did I say game time over no gym time. not once.

Cale Makar on Vancouver sports Radio

Makar says he picked AJHL NCAA route over WHL for development reasons, "play less games & more time in the gym & I'm excited about college."

Wow LOOK AT THAT right from the player himself.

so clearly he does value it.

 

[TeddyBare]

Playing more games in a season wouldn't mean you develop better over another prospect.
That's a ridiculous argument.

Did Werenski develop worse compared to Provorov
Did McAvoy develop worse compared to Sergachev

 

[lawrence]

Playing more games in a season wouldn't mean you develop better over another prospect.

That's a ridiculous argument.

That's a ridiculous argument.

Absolutely not. Game time is important for prospects. Especially if they have 80% more games playing in the CHL. ? Because of an injury Brock Boeser was limited to 28 games.

Now of course if your someone like Phil Kessel, vs Gilbert Brule, he can play 70 games, and Kessel needs 30, is that 40 extra games going to make him a better player then Kessel? absolutely not, but its good development time for Brule himself.

better over another prospect.

I never compared between 2 prospects. It was more for one player if he played 70 games or choose a league that played 40 games with different rules and a different size rink. It's pretty obvious the leauge that offers 70 games is a better development BECAUSE OF MORE GAME TIME. key word "development" then the league offering 40.

Cale Makar on Vancouver sports Radio

Makar says he picked AJHL NCAA route over WHL for development reasons, "play less games & more time in the gym & I'm excited about college."

Wow LOOK AT THAT right from the player himself.

so clearly he does value it

Good for him. Nothing against that decision, personally I Hope Canucks can draft Makar.

Did Werenski develop worse compared to Provorov
Did McAvoy develop worse compared to Sergachev

Never once did I say College was a bad development league. not at all.

 

[lawrence]

You kind of ignored most of what I wrote earlier... but I'll try one more time.

The AHL-NHL analogy is bad one. Junior A teams are not farm teams. Their players weren't all attending CHL camps and were then cut and sent down (I'll admit a few were). But in the case of the Penticton Vees, I don't know of one player on that team who had the intention of trying to make a CHL team but failed. They all came to prepare for NCAA.

But OK, the Vees are a little special. The other top BCHL teams have similar NCAA commits (never attended any CHL team camp) but also some who did try to make the CHL at ages 16 or 17 and didn't make it. And here's the thing: those players are now 19 or 20. They've gained two or three years experience. If they were currently playing in the CHL, they would undoubtedly be playing better than your run-of-the-mill CHL 17 year old, but CHL teams will keep 16 or 17 year olds up instead for development purposes. CHL teams will keep the 16/17 year old with potential over a currently superior 19 or 20 year old trying to go from Junior A any day. And some of these 16 and 17 year olds never really develop well -- resulting in bad CHL teams.

Bottom rung CHL teams are typically full of 17 year old draft eligible players who have no hope of getting drafted and 19 year olds who never fulfilled their potential. Good Junior A teams will be stocked up on NCAA commits plus a LOT of 19 and 20 year olds who gave up on the CHL at age 17 but have continued developing -- many of whom will enter NCAA or ECHL hockey next season. That age factor makes all the difference in the world when measuring level of competition (as opposed to using the number of future NHL prospects as the main criterion).

The AHL-NHL analogy is bad one. Junior A teams are not farm teams.

their not, but its one step down.

One step down from NHL= AHL
for CHL one step down is Junior A.

Does Junior A have guys that are good enough to play in the CHL? maybe. Maybe the ones out of the BCHL. Does the AHL have guys that can play in the NHL? I'm sure there are on each AHL team.

Bottom rung CHL teams are typically full of 17 year old draft eligible players who have no hope of getting drafted and 19 year olds who never fulfilled their potential.

feels like now your slamming the CHL. Probably the best Junior league on the planet.

I took the average of the top 20 players and averaged out the age for the following teams. I decided to use 2 bottom feeders Vancouver Giants, and the Guelf Storm of the OHL

Giants average age 18.05
Storm average age 17.6

Brooks Bandits average age 18.5
Penticton Vees average age 18.4

Giants number of drafted players 3
Storm number of drafted players 2. (one got traded. did not include Ryan Merkley who will be a top pick in 2018 and Isaac Ratcliffe who will be drafted this summer)

all 5 teams that competed at rbc cup number of drafted players 0.

those players are now 19 or 20. They've gained two or three years experience. If they were currently playing in the CHL, they would undoubtedly be playing better than your run-of-the-mill CHL 17 year old,

they would undoubtedly be playing better than your run-of-the-mill CHL 17 year old,

a 17 year old in the CHL is not a "run-of-the-mill" that is quite an insult to a player that made the CHL, let alone the amount of 17 year olds that get drafted at the age of 17.

Again, I looked at 3 bottom feeders from each team of the CHL.
Vancouver Giants, Guelph Storm, Sherbrooke Phoenix.

those players are now 19 or 20. They've gained two or three years experience.

ALL OF THEM and I mean ALL OF THEM, have 18 and 17 year olds outplaying the overeager on their team who are 19 years and 20 years old

Vancouver Giants. team is lead by a 18/17 and a 18 year old, on a team with 3 20 year olds and 6 19 year olds.

Storm, team is lead by a 16 17 and 18 year old, (not the best argument, they only have 3 19 year olds)

Sherbrooke Phoenix their top scorer is an 18 year old, 3 20 year olds and 4 19 year olds.

The 18 year olds are doing better then the 19 and 20 year olds on their team. 19 and 20 year old CHLers. If they can do better then 19 and 20 year old CHLers, there is no doubt in my mind they can handle a 19 and 20 year old Junior A er who probably couldn't make the CHL which had to resort to Junior A in hopes of getting picked up by College.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0008372017.html

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0028072017.html

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0067382017.html

I've kindly provided the links to the 3 teams. You can also clearly see, that that a lot of the 18/17 year olds are outscoring outplaying the 19 and 20 year olds on their team.

My point? Just because your older doesn't mean your better. I've provided some data, and no better way then to match it with players in the same league . As I've clearly provided you some information on 18/17 year olds outplaying the 19/20 year olds on their team.

if the 18/17 year old can out play 19/20 year olds on their team in the CHL, do you need ask if they can outplay 19/20 year old Junior A ers?

Now did all 20 player from one team not tryout at all? Even lets say 5 on each team was able to play in the CHL, its still only 5 players against a roster of CHL players, its a miss match.

But back to the main argument can the best of Junior A take on the worst of the CHL and win? well... in hockey yes. Again if Team France can beat Canada at the worlds, but being realistic here, The Giants or the Storm will outclass the best of what the Junior A has to offer.

As a betting man..... I will use the Brooks bandits as an example... they are no match against the Vancouver Giants . a bunch of guys who couldn't make the CHL against a team of players that made the CHL like cmon.

 

[The Sweetness]

Off-topic but I don't buy the argument that more games always means better development.

If simply playing games was the best way to get better you'd see teams spending more time scrimmaging and less time doing skill-specific drills at practice. Playing games is obviously extremely important but so is working on specific skills and situations in a learning environment where you have more time with the puck or working on the specific skill they are trying to improve as well as getting more feedback from coaches.

It's also important to keep in mind the trade-off of playing more games as it means there will be less time for practice due to game days as well as the travel to and from games, which should not be ignored as this can be a significant amount of ice time lost over the course of a few years.

I think it's lazy to simply say the CHL is a better developmental league due to the number of games being player as we've also seen many countries, such as Sweden produce a great number of prospects, despite a small population, playing a relatively smaller number of games. If the argument is simply that more games = more development then posters supporting this theory should be pushing for even more than 70 games.

The ultimate question is finding a balance between practice and gametime, tailoring development to players individual needs and hopefully long-term more studies digging into how players can develop skills, which is a far more interesting discussion than more games = better players.

 

[ceg195]

Again, I looked at 3 bottom feeders from each team of the CHL.
Vancouver Giants, Guelph Storm, Sherbrooke Phoenix.

My internet says Kootenay, Barrie and Moncton are the bottom 3 teams. Your proposal is invalid.

But on that note, this thread is about Cale Makar.

 

[Daximus]

Off-topic but I don't buy the argument that more games always means better development.

If simply playing games was the best way to get better you'd see teams spending more time scrimmaging and less time doing skill-specific drills at practice. Playing games is obviously extremely important but so is working on specific skills and situations in a learning environment where you have more time with the puck or working on the specific skill they are trying to improve as well as getting more feedback from coaches.

It's also important to keep in mind the trade-off of playing more games as it means there will be less time for practice due to game days as well as the travel to and from games, which should not be ignored.

I think it's lazy to simply say the CHL is a better developmental league due to the number of games being player as we've also seen many countries, such as Sweden produce a great number of prospects, despite a small population, playing a relatively smaller number of games. If the argument is simply that more games = more development then posters supporting this theory should be pushing for even more than 70 games.

The ultimate question is finding a balance, tailoring development to players individual needs and hopefully long-term more studies digging into how players can develop skills, which is a far more interesting discussion than more games = better players.

I always found this interested. Are more games better for developing your abilities? Recently Scheifele had an interview about why he decided to play for Canada again at the World CHampionships after having played so much hockey including the World Cup and previous World Champiobships and he said something along the lines of; The only way to become one of the best players in the world is to play hockey, you don't become the best player in the world in the gym, you become the best player in the world by facing the best competition available to you. I can't take a summer off while guys like Crosby and McDavid are out there getting playoff games I have to keep playing in order to improve. I'll see if I can the exact interview but it was something along those lines. Found it very interesting coming from someone who has a tonne of drive to get better.

 

[Adonis Creed]

Yound kids at age 17-18 should focus on playing different sports instead of hitting the GYM...

Devellop the ability, the brain etc...before the muscle...

Go to the GYM when you are 21-24...not before it's useless

 

[IceManCat]

Yound kids at age 17-18 should focus on playing different sports instead of hitting the GYM...

Devellop the ability, the brain etc...before the muscle...

Go to the GYM when you are 21-24...not before it's useless

Why would someone who is making a trajectory to play pro hockey all of a sudden play tennis or soccer? This statement is just bizarre. If you are looking to play pro hockey it is in the best interest to develop a body and mind for that purpose.

 

[TeddyBare]

It's pretty obvious the leauge that offers 70 games is a better development BECAUSE OF MORE GAME TIME. key word "development" then the league offering 40.

That's been proven to be wrong.
At least amongst NCAA developed D-man as they are outperforming their CHL counterparts
Stats prove it.
http://thehockeywriters.com/ncaa-defensemen-gaining-popularity/

There is no better developmental league compared to one another, they are just different. I don't know why people can't understand that.


"Even though they played 35 to 40 games each year (Werenski played for the University of Michigan for two years, while Hanifin and Eichel played College Hockey for one), the long-term results of prolonged development in the NCAA outweigh the short-term benefits provided by the CHL. Of course, some players are better suited for the CHL but as the NHL continues to demand more from their defensemen, the NCAA is quickly becoming their best option according to the results"

 

[Adonis Creed]

Why would someone who is making a trajectory to play pro hockey all of a sudden play tennis or soccer? This statement is just bizarre. If you are looking to play pro hockey it is in the best interest to develop a body and mind for that purpose.

Soccer to devellop his vision, his footwork, different kind of cardio, his lower body strenght etc...
Tennis i won't suggest...Ping-Pong might be better, devellop reflex, hand-eye coordinnation etc...
Boxing would be a great training too


I have a different mind and opinion thant most on that subject... I find GYM session to be useless until 21-24

 

[IceManCat]

Soccer to devellop his vision, his footwork, different kind of cardio, his lower body strenght etc...
Tennis i won't suggest...Ping-Pong might be better, devellop reflex, hand-eye coordinnation etc...
Boxing would be a great training too


I have a different mind and opinion thant most on that subject... I find GYM session to be useless until 21-24

Regardless of age when someone is working out a muscle they are strengthening it. This isn't a matter of opinion this is a fact. By exercising in the gym they are becoming stronger. Its not really a matter of opinion just like 1+1 =2.

 

[MonyontheMoney]

Soccer to devellop his vision, his footwork, different kind of cardio, his lower body strenght etc...
Tennis i won't suggest...Ping-Pong might be better, devellop reflex, hand-eye coordinnation etc...
Boxing would be a great training too


I have a different mind and opinion thant most on that subject... I find GYM session to be useless until 21-24

I get the argument for developing multi sport athletes at an earlier age, but waiting until 21 or 24 to make the commitment to hockey full time just seems foolish. This is after the draft, and after many of the top young players have already debuted in the NHL.

There's really no evidence that would suggest players are better off holding off on training until 21-24. The cardio benefit from soccer is not hockey specific, ping-pong is not something you play for half a year, and I'm sure plenty of players already do encorporate some form of boxing/MMA in their training.

At that age, when a player knows they want to play in the NHL, why waste time participating in other sports that are not fully transferable to hockey? It's much wiser to hit hockey specific movements and training in the gym, IMO.

 

[StayAtHomeAv]

Soccer to devellop his vision, his footwork, different kind of cardio, his lower body strenght etc...
Tennis i won't suggest...Ping-Pong might be better, devellop reflex, hand-eye coordinnation etc...
Boxing would be a great training too


I have a different mind and opinion thant most on that subject... I find GYM session to be useless until 21-24

You are definitely onto something with the other sports. But going to the gym isn't at all useless for a teenager. I honestly can't even fathom that logic.

 

[Adonis Creed]

You are definitely onto something with the other sports. But going to the gym isn't at all useless for a teenager. I honestly can't even fathom that logic.

I'm not against gym, i'm against heavy lifting. No need for that at a young age.

Do jump rope, open weight training..ton of plyo.

I'm talking before age of 21.

Yes the guy should focus on hockey...but in the summer during his off-season for me he'll be better working out in a different sports than hockey. Take a 6-8 weeks brake and do something else.

I've seen 2-3 QHMJL prospects hit my Boxing Gym. I asked them about that and they ahd the same opinion as me.

One of them might be a 1st rounder this year..other 1 is prolly a 2nd or 3rd rounder.

It's a long debate and I understand both side of opinions.
My main point is that having a nice Campus Gym etc...should not be a priority to devellop. Good coaching is.

 

[Breakers]

That's been proven to be wrong.
At least amongst NCAA developed D-man as they are outperforming their CHL counterparts
Stats prove it.
http://thehockeywriters.com/ncaa-defensemen-gaining-popularity/

There is no better developmental league compared to one another, they are just different. I don't know why people can't understand that.

Exactly
They talk about 2012. Who are some of the best D-man from that draft?
Lindholm-europe
Reilly-CHL
Parayko-NCAA
Goestibhere-NCAA
Trouba-NCAA
Slavin=NCAA

Makar is going to the same school as Brandon Montour, and will be one and done.

People still think if you aren't in the CHL your are some second class prospect. Never understood it.

 

[covfefe]

Exactly
They talk about 2012. Who are some of the best D-man from that draft?
Lindholm-europe
Reilly-CHL
Parayko-NCAA
Goestibhere-NCAA
Trouba-NCAA
Slavin=NCAA

Makar is going to the same school as Brandon Montour, and will be one and done.

People still think if you aren't in the CHL your are some second class prospect. Never understood it.

Totally agree, but there's at least a little cause for concern that UMass was so atrocious last season..

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Totally agree, but there's at least a little cause for concern that UMass was so atrocious last season..

I could be wrong, but I think they hired a new coach from St Lawrence and last year was his first year. I agree though that UMass has never been a powerhouse. He should, however, see some good competition just from being in Hockey East.

 

[tigervixxxen]

Off-topic but I don't buy the argument that more games always means better development.

If simply playing games was the best way to get better you'd see teams spending more time scrimmaging and less time doing skill-specific drills at practice. Playing games is obviously extremely important but so is working on specific skills and situations in a learning environment where you have more time with the puck or working on the specific skill they are trying to improve as well as getting more feedback from coaches.

It's also important to keep in mind the trade-off of playing more games as it means there will be less time for practice due to game days as well as the travel to and from games, which should not be ignored as this can be a significant amount of ice time lost over the course of a few years.

I think it's lazy to simply say the CHL is a better developmental league due to the number of games being player as we've also seen many countries, such as Sweden produce a great number of prospects, despite a small population, playing a relatively smaller number of games. If the argument is simply that more games = more development then posters supporting this theory should be pushing for even more than 70 games.

The ultimate question is finding a balance between practice and gametime, tailoring development to players individual needs and hopefully long-term more studies digging into how players can develop skills, which is a far more interesting discussion than more games = better players.

There's a different path for everyone, I do believe that. I prefer the CHL model but I understand it's not right for everyone, especially those that need more time.

Along the lines of interviews, I found AJ Greer's perspective interesting because he did both NCAA and CHL. He said actually in CHL he practiced more because he was there to 100% focus on hockey. In college he said there was always somewhere else to go, either class or study hall. They might practice more but they leave right after practice. In CHL they could stay after practice for hours working on things because they didn't have other obligations.

As far as Makar, he's not going to say much until he talks to his NHL team I'm sure.

 

[ForsakenSabre]

Oh yay another NCAA vs CHL pissing contest. Never seen this argument before

I will be thrilled if the Sabres get him at 8. Let him take his time to develop

 

[TheKrebsCycle]

May end up being the best player in the draft. Immense upside.