Nithoniniel
Registered User
Sigh. If he remained unable to be effective despite his size, he won't make it. If the alternatives didn't fix their significant flaws, they won't make it. It's different development routes, and you can't avoid that.How is it flawed if it is actually correct and agreed by you? Poor skating, small D men do not do well at this level. Hell, I'd be surprised if he made the Marlies.
I'd also be surprised if he made the Marlies. It's a late round d-man prospect. They are all long shots.
You can't teach size, you can teach how to be effective in spite of it. Just ask Spurgeon. It's a long shot, but that comes with the territory. If you take a 6-1 guy who handles the puck like a grenade even at his current level, you are also looking at a player with a flaw big enough that he's a long shot to ever make it.Yeah but like they say, you cannot teach size. Why not pick guys at least 6ft, 6-1 with flaws in their game that can be corrected instead of guys whose size pretty much ensures they'll never make it? That's what bugs me about picks like this.
Did you know that guys deemed safe due to fundamental attributes like size is actually more likely to bust than most?