D Matt Schaefer - Erie Otters, OHL (2025 Draft)

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I never understand this argument in that we don't see superstar stagnate in the NHL but somehow we are supposed to believe that they do in junior?

I get that he might be more challenged in the NCAA, which is an option, or the OHL where it isn't but traditionally players where drafted in their age 19 years and there is literally zero proof that they stagnated.

Most of the time this argument "too good for the CHL" is made prematurely based on stats. Remember Jornad dumas before the 23-24 season "too good for junior" and here we are a year later and he still isn't even a .5 PPG guy in the AHL, sure it's coming off an injury and layoff but still it was misplaced.

I've been there before. Update your phone. It's bugging out on you. Your autocorrect isn't working.

 

[wetcoast]

17 games does not justify him being in the NHL next season.

Where did I say anything about the NHL next season?

either he is ready or he isn't, nothing to do with the number of games he has played so far and he'll be back BTW.

The person I was responding to said he has nothing to prove in Juniors. That is a terrible take.

I tend to agree with you here.

Mitch marner/Dylan strome end prospects still had stuff to proof in juniors and played their D+1 there after draft seasons where both could go 1st overall in this draft.

Dylan Strome doesn't belong in this thread at all.

Schaefer can benefit from playing a full season in the OHL. He isnt a franchise D prospect who is ready to be a good NHL player as a 18 year old like Dahlin was

We don't know that yet and we will know more in October.
If he isn't ready I have no problem with him returning to the OHL and while some will see it as "proof" that he was over rated I doubt it as I think he will have a very good chance of having the best career of any draftee this year.

Makar didn't go to the NHL in his D=1 and it didn't hurt him.

 

[Dempsey]

I never understand this argument in that we don't see superstar stagnate in the NHL but somehow we are supposed to believe that they do in junior?

I get that he might be more challenged in the NCAA, which is an option, or the OHL where it isn't but traditionally players were drafted in their age 19 years and there is literally zero proof that they stagnated.

Most of the time this argument "too good for the CHL" is made prematurely based on stats.

Remember Jordan Dumas before the 23-24 season "too good for junior" and here we are a year later and he still isn't even a .5 PPG guy in the AHL, sure it's coming off an injury and layoff but still it was misplaced.

I 100% agree with you and I've said this before as well. Even if a player is dominant at that level there's still more they can work on to prepare for the NHL even in juniors.

 

[lokomotiv15]

I never understand this argument in that we don't see superstar stagnate in the NHL but somehow we are supposed to believe that they do in junior?

I get that he might be more challenged in the NCAA, which is an option, or the OHL where it isn't but traditionally players were drafted in their age 19 years and there is literally zero proof that they stagnated.

Most of the time this argument "too good for the CHL" is made prematurely based on stats.

Remember Jordan Dumas before the 23-24 season "too good for junior" and here we are a year later and he still isn't even a .5 PPG guy in the AHL, sure it's coming off an injury and layoff but still it was misplaced.

My apologies, I think stagnate might not be the best choice of words. I should say plateau, instead. We don't see top NHL players necessarily stagnate; They usually enter the league, get better, hit their "peak" and then fall off. I see it as if peak McDavid, or Crosby, or Gretzky or Lemieux, had a league higher than the NHL to go play in while they were in their primes, they would have continued to grow and adapt to dominate an even higher league.

If when I played junior, I dropped and played against a bunch of house league u-18s for a season, sure I'd get to work on in game things, using time and space, getting shots off in game situation from different places, trying different things creatively offensively, but after 40 games and 400 points, the lack of a challenge to push me to grow beyond my current limits are what would make me "too good" to play in that league. Now that is obviously hyperbole, but again, I'm only using all-time greats when I bring up someone who was too good for junior.

I think Schaefer is closer to Dumais than he is any of those guys were as junior players, but I also agree he definitely isn't too good for junior, either.

 

[wetcoast]

My apologies, I think stagnate might not be the best choice of words. I should say plateau, instead. We don't see top NHL players necessarily stagnate; They usually enter the league, get better, hit their "peak" and then fall off. I see it as if peak McDavid, or Crosby, or Gretzky or Lemieux, had a league higher than the NHL to go play in while they were in their primes, they would have continued to grow and adapt to dominate an even higher league.

If when I played junior, I dropped and played against a bunch of house league u-18s for a season, sure I'd get to work on in game things, using time and space, getting shots off in game situation from different places, trying different things creatively offensively, but after 40 games and 400 points, the lack of a challenge to push me to grow beyond my current limits are what would make me "too good" to play in that league. Now that is obviously hyperbole, but again, I'm only using all-time greats when I bring up someone who was too good for junior.

I think Schaefer is closer to Dumais than he is any of those guys were as junior players, but I also agree he definitely isn't too good for junior, either.

Also a D+1 Dman playing at the same level isn't the same thing as a forward in most situations.

I also think that the overall level of competition will be higher in the OHL next year with the new NCAA rules but that remains to be seen.