Carl O'Steen said:
Yes, take my quotes from 16 months ago... that's very relevant to this conversation.
It is relevant in more ways than one. First, it indicates you built an idea of this player that was totally unrealistic. It is no wonder to me that you are so down on him. You projected Andrew Ladd as a player he couldn't be from the start.
Not to mention that it's a good example of you being wrong. Something that is unfortunately common place.
Carl O'Steen said:
Obviously not, the Hurricanes should and would be lucky if he turned into a good 3rd line player for them.
My point with the 4th overall pick is that players of Ladd's calibre (Chipchura, Kesler, etc...) don't go 4th overall. They go later in the lottery or even later in the first round. My problem isn't with Ladd as much as it is with those who overhype the guy because he went that high.
How could Ladd be overhyped? This board is populated by mouthbreathers who have looked at Ladd's stats and decided he isn't worth crap. Where's the hype?
As for players of Ladd's calibre not being worth a 4th overall... in 2003, no. In 2002, no. But this is 2004. All there was left past Barker is a bunch of players in the exact same ballpark.
Carl O'Steen said:
He's not that good, the Canes made a mistake taking him at #4 and it's obvious.
As obvious as the Todd Bertuzzi-like qualities you saw in that guy earlier, I suppose? It may be obvious to you, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.
Carl O'Steen said:
His WJC numbers aren't relevant since it was possibly the greatest WJC team every assembled.
I do not understand this. Was he or wasn't he a part of this team, selected above numerous quality players for the squad? Was he or wasn't he a big part of the team? Are his stats very satisfying for that type of player or are they not? Is he or isn't he comfortably ranked high in scoring on what you just called one of the best WJC squads ever assembled?
I don't understand. On one hand, you attach a great importance to his WHL stats. On the other hand, his WJC stats are irrelevant.
Carl O'Steen said:
His play was steady, yet unspectacular. Started off very slowly in the tournament in his offensive play, but managed to score some points on a tremendous team with great linemates.
His play is
supposed to be steady and not spectacular. The devil is in the details for such players. He didn't start slowly. He was on starting with the Russia challenge. It's just that a lot of armchair observers around here can't pick up intangibles, unfortunately for them. Ladd doesn't need to rack up points to be effective.
Sutter recognized that, found him a place on the squad and at the end of the day, Ladd delivered admirably well.
Carl O'Steen said:
Many of the guys drafted after him have better potential and are better prospects. This guy has almost no offensive upside when you think of past top 5 picks. He's similar to the Scott Thornton pick by the Leafs in the 1989 draft.
On potential I disagree with you. On offensive upside I completely agree.
I think you put a lot of weight on offensive upside. I think you can do a lot more than that. If he can turn into a similar style player as Scott Hartnell, I will be satisfied.
Once again, thinking of "past top 5 draft picks" is irrelevant. What matters is this draft, and those players. And I think considering the quality of *that particular draft*, he isn't such a bad pick at all.