If you wanted a center and didn't want a short player, you'd have done well with Lundell who would look pretty good on NJ right now.
Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part III
- Thread starter NJDevs26
- Start date
- Status
What's funny is that Mercer was drafted as a center and has played there, he's just not any good at it. It's just easy to say the Devils drafted for need when he didn't work out at that position (but still may, it's early yet).
That U-23 prospect ranking just had him as a 2C which of course jibes with what he is for NJ.
Guadana
Registered User
Mercer was split RW/C more RW before the draft. He played more center role next year after the draft. But he always tried to play like winger all the time. Anyway he was consensus pick no matter how we are thinking about him in the moment.
I wasnt a fan of penciling him as a center right from the beggining. Im not a fan still. But its not like he should be great all around center for 3C center role. If he will handle it even with some losing of productivity - its okay.
I wasnt a fan of penciling him as a center right from the beggining. Im not a fan still. But its not like he should be great all around center for 3C center role. If he will handle it even with some losing of productivity - its okay.
I don't think it's hindsight bias to criticize the draft. And I don't think it was a terrible first round for them. Mercer, by any measure, was quite a good pick for a back-half first rounder. I wasn't enthused with Muk, but they used him as the equivalent of a 1st round value to add Meier, so no issue there.
I don't think it's hindsight to criticize the Holtz pick though. It was not a good pick and that was my opinion at the time. One-shot scorers, with minimal other + value attributes, are very risky selections. Too many paths to failure IMO. I had Rossi and Perfetti rated far higher than Holtz, and also had Jarvis and Lundel ranked better too. It was a bad pick. Fitz made it worse by mismanaging the asset after the fact too.
I agree. And I think in particular that scoring in the juniors, or Sweden, or KHL, or college - if that’s your only claim to fame - often will not translate to scoring in the NHL. So it was by nature a very risky pick. All Holtz had going for him was his shot and his hands and there was no reason to assume that this would necessarily carry over in the big room. The lack of skating skills in particular was questioned at the time and in retrospect should have been alarming.
Forge
Blissfully Mediocre
Not sure if posted
Luke -6
Silayev - 11
Nemec - 42
Mercer - 56
I have a tough time putting Silayev ahead of two guys already having NHL success. Granted he is promising but he’s 18 and has such a long and winding road ahead of him.
Billdo
Registered User
I hate lists like these. Mercer at 53 is wild to me when you consider he's played three straight 82 game seasons and there's other guys who haven't even hit NHL ice yet. I get that it's based on "potential" but it irks me.
Emperoreddy
Show Me What You Got!
Yeah I have to agree. He only had 5 points less than Luke Hughes at 5v5 last season. And that's with 22 less games played. Luke has the physical tools but Nemec's hockey IQ was instantly noticeable, and not just “good for a teenerager” or “good for a rookie.” He looked like the only calming presence on the entire backend after only 78 games in North America. The sky's the limit for him, IMO.
And he even outscored Dougie Hamilton.
Last edited:
- May 8, 2010
- 20,639
- 36,341
Wheeler and Pronman couldn't be further apart with their Nemec opinions lol. I also tend to prefer Wheeler's lists so yeah.
Forge
Blissfully Mediocre
If I remember right, wheeler was a big nemec guy and pronman had him a little lower. Maybe like #6 or something in that draft class? I know that he liked jiricek a little more in that class
I think Gritsyuk was 150 or something on the list. can't see it anymore cause of the whole subscriber thing popping up now.
No Casey
No Casey
The important thing is that Hutson is ahead of everyone on any list of anything
I don't see Grits on the list at all.
And in case anyone's interested, Mukhamadullin at #89
Devils731
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2008
- 12,731
- 17,707
Grits doesn’t qualify as he is too old for the list.
Better Call Sal
Salnalysis
Yeah, those lists do nothing for me. Just an opinion piece, ultimately. Nice to see where our guys are represented against the whole league, but I agree that it's hard to give credence to where Mercer is ranked when he's done what he's done at the NHL level for 3 years now.
Even with the down year last year, he's tied for 4th in his draft class in goals and 5th in points. I wonder how he was ranked vs. the others in his class.
Even with the down year last year, he's tied for 4th in his draft class in goals and 5th in points. I wonder how he was ranked vs. the others in his class.
I think it's the only way to do a ranking like this. Anyone can rank players in the NHL against players in the NHL, or players who haven't played there against one another, but there's no reason not to consider both groups of players together when you're thinking about the future of the league.
I cancelled my Athletic subscription, but I’m guessing Pronman has more than a few prospects just drafted in June slotted above players who have proven they are capable of playing in the NHL and still appear to have a high ceiling. Pronman lovessssss shiny new toy
- Dec 1, 2019
- 4,997
- 10,651
Starving for content, I listened to the The Athletic Hockey Podcast doing the Pronman rankings. I get that part of it might be to generate interest and hopefully some paid clicks to the articles, but never heard a anyone practically say “he’s good because I said so” so many times like CP did 
Ok, Prawn-man
Ok, Prawn-man
SteveCangialosi123
Registered User
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: The 2024-2025 Tampa Bay Lightning Training Camp- Latest: Felonious Python
-
-
