Haha, are we really playing this game?Oh youre right Raymond will become a perennial 100 pts player. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
If you want to play this game then the wings will be quickly out of prospect to speculate on.Haha, are we really playing this game?
How many points do you think Slaf will have in his prime? I think he'll have 50-60pts a season
I think he will be a 70 pts power forward. Maybe 90 pts in a career year. Hes only 20. At 20, Raymond had 45 points, which is less than what Slaf got last year at 19. So I guess that means Slaf is trending significantly better than Raymond. Am i doing this right?
If you don't bother reading, don't bother replying. Im done with you.Oh man, i was just trying to poke a bit of fun. So can't tell if you're being serious, but i prefer Raymonds 57 points at 19 over Slaf's 50 at 19.
Well i think he'll peak at 60 points, obviously not just poking fun, but hey whatever. If it makes you sleep better at night knowing that slaf will be a 90 point power forward, be my guest
I didn't say that. But it makes no sense to assume Raymond is done growing at 22 when he's taken big leaps year-over-year, and assume Hutson and your other prospects will keep taking leaps forward.Oh youre right Raymond will become a perennial 100 pts player. Whatever makes you sleep at night.
Suzuki is 3 years older than Raymond and still pacing for less points. Raymond is about to put up a 90 point season at 22, when Suzuki was putting up 40. They are in completely different classes, and it's not even particularly close.
Ummm Slaf is 20 this season and albeit he's having growing pains, he is still trenging for 47 pts if he played 82 games. Thats about the same as Raymond's 20 years old season. The difference is one is 30 pounds heavier. Big forwards generally develop much slower. You know that right?
The difference is that once you get to 90 points theres not much room to grow. "Completely different classes". "Not particularly close". That is comedy gold. Im sick and tired of posters using hyperboles like that.
I do, but he got 47 at 20. Whats your point?
10pts in an injury heavy year
After his 45 pts season we couldnt say he was on an upward trend right? But guess what next year he did better. But I guess only wings can do that right?
Generally a big component, yes. It's very rare to be a teenager that's as tall and filled out as Slaf was at 18/19. They're usually much skinnier like say Byfield who has filled out a bit year over year. That filling out helps with strength and leverage in battles on the ice. And also readjusting to balance/coordination issues dealing with the weight changes. Smaller players also have to bulk up, but by virtue of being smaller the center of gravity/balance issues are diminished vs a guy well over 6' so the adjustments come quicker.Huh are you saying that big forwards generally develop slower than small forwards because they need time to bulk up?
The main reason big forwards needs more time is they need to develop part of their game that they didn't need to develop that much because they were getting it by their size alone. Big forwards generally develop their actual puck skills and hockey IQ later on. Not saying they never had puck skills or hockey IQ to begin with, its just that they never needed to develop as much as the smaller guys. They generally cap these skills later in their nhl career. There are exceptions like Lindros, but theyre very rare. The curve of a big forward is usually like the one of Todd Bertuzzi and Jarome Iginla. Their skills got much better after a few years in the nhl.
John LeClair is another perfect example of this. Keith Primeau as well for a more close-to-home example for Wings fans.
You seem to struggle with facts. Raymond at 19 outscored Slafkovsky at 19. Raymond at 20 scored at about the same rate as Slafkovsky did as a 19 & 20 year old.
The odds are probably better than Suzuki/Caufield becoming regular 80pts players. That's the whole point. Extremely few players peak before their 23rd birthday so what I'm attempting to show with Demidov/Hutson comparisons is that you do understand how silly it is to say players at that age have peaked. It's just that you're unable to apply common sense on a Red Wings player.
But it is significant.
detroithockeynow.com
I’d agree with you if we didn’t have absolute studs on defense. I’m disappointed in a lot of aspects of the rebuild, but there’s more potential than a lot of people give it credit for. Stud defenseman aren’t as sexy as forwards, so when you build more on the backend teams tend to underrate your long term longevity.
I don't know what these people don't understand. Montreal was just a bad team that was trading vets to gain picks and prospects in order to be better at a future date. A rebuild take someone to say it's a rebuild. Actions don't matter only words.
