as i have reiterated a ton of times, my favorite evaluation tool is the "you vs. you yesterday" when thinking about how prospects project. when applying this to jack drury, you get a really impressive picture of a player that has significantly improved at every level in his second time around. he was abysmal in the ushl at 16-17, but demolished it the next season. he had a decent enough freshman season, but has taken it up another notch as a sophomore. all this in a league where exponential increases in production are uncommon and even top flight prospects don't come in right away and turn the screws. alex turcotte was a top 5 pick and he's doing like 17 in 22 right now. john beecher, first round pick of the bruins, 12 in 21. it used to be that the ncaa was for americans and major junior was for canadians and those were pretty exclusive. with the increased emphasis on developing home grown talent, there are very few elite americans that pass on the ncaa if they don't make it straight to the league. the level of competition, in my opinion only, now exceeds that of major junior because the difference between the haves and have-nots are not as pronounced because it's reasonable on any given night to see 23-24 year old players matched up against these elite prospects. guys with pedigrees, even, that just wanted to finish their degree and move on. the ncaa was viewed as the hedge betting option for the previous generation. if you weren't quite sure you were going to play hockey for a living, it was a good half step to get your education in an inferior hockey environment. that was the trade off from spurning interest from the chl. plus, the limitations that the cba put on major junior in terms of age restrictions for turning pro, the contract loopholes to give players more agency, and the advantages that the ncaa has in terms of facilities and coaching makes it an incredibly attractive destination as things currently stand. i fully expect some of those issues to be addressed eventually, but the ncaa is becoming the place where the playing field is more evenly distributed with nhl talent at a wide variety of developmental stages. it's not the same animal it was when jack's father was coming through. the two aren't even recognizable to one another.
ted was able to make it to the league for a significant amount of time because he embraced the elements of the game that he was asked to embrace in terms of motor, tenacity, and suppression. that was the way to the league for most players at the time, because your offense was viewed as inapplicable at higher levels. that's another change in the way development is understood. had ted come up in this generation, maybe his career looks a little different. not a guarantee obviously, but the differences in the game from the time these two started out are such that comparative tools to measure output are almost irrelevant.