Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Poll: #22

[Raspewtin]

I guess I should've broken it down into smaller pieces to make it easier to understand. I didn't list "a bunch of dmen", I listed all of them since 1990. Never once did we have someone who wasn't at or above point per game in juniors at the same age come into the NHL and show any offense. I am not saying it cannot happen, but for all the people under different circumstances drafted over the last quarter century, not one who scored anything close to .5 points per game wound up a quality offensive defenseman even at the AHL level.


1. You are citing a single example, not every player drafted over the last quarter century.

2. Saying that "every pregnant person is a woman" is not the same as saying "every woman is pregnant" which is the mistake you are making. The fact that someone scores a lot doesn't mean that he'll be a good offensive player (which I cited in listing multiple point per game junior defensemen who went nowhere). This is not the same as saying those who don't score never make it. You can be a high junior scorer and go nowhere, but that does not show that a low junior scorer has a real probability of going somewhere.


The only good point you made is that Walcott really has not played in the juniors before this. However, many good players stepped in and played well in the juniors. That the Rangers are certain that he won't be able to keep up in the AHL at this age isn't a terrifically great sign. They aren't even saying, "let's look at how he does in the training camp" which to me means he's not close to being ready to turn pro.

I'm not even arguing that he has real NHL potential. I don't care what you, or frankly any poster thinks he will be at the NHL level. To say "his point totals in his first Q season don't impress me so where's the upside?" argument is complete BS and doesn't prove anything.

How many more examples do you want? Gilbert Brule, Alex Bourret, Cam Barker, Greg Niemez, all these players were tremendous in juniors that haven't done anything in the NHL. I'm trying to prove that simply stat watching is piss-poor prospect evaluation, and just plain lazy. I don't understand how you can really base a prospect's potential SOLELY on his immediate stats.

We're not talking about a typical junior player. Walcott is anything but a typical junior player. What don't you understand about that? This is the first truly competitive organized hockey he's ever played. Before that he was playing not even division I college hockey. His team wasn't even associated with the NCAA. Do you realize what a leap that is? I'm shocked he put up 20 points, let alone 39. He was BB's best defenseman by the end of the year, ahead of very seasoned Q veterans. If that's not impressive and doesn't indicate some kind of potential, it's not even worth arguing about because you've already made up your mind about him.

Are you really surprised he probably wont be a pro this year? He just finished his first season of major junior, ever. He already made one uncharacteristically large leap from Lindenwood University to BB, it's just out of this stratosphere to expect another leap like that. of course he's probably going back for an overage year, but how much does it REALLY mean? And is it truly best for his development to just throw him into the pros, at probably the ECHL level, where he plays against grown men that have a lot more experience? It's just poor development. I don't see a scenario where he wouldn't go back to juniors, cause if he goes straight to the pros at any level, I'm shocked he wasn't drafted in the 1st two rounds.

 

[Beacon]

How many more examples do you want? Gilbert Brule, Alex Bourret, Cam Barker, Greg Niemez, all these players were tremendous in juniors that haven't done anything in the NHL.

I already addressed this: just because every person who's pregnant is a woman, doesn't mean that every woman is pregnant... just because high scorers failed, doesn't mean that low scorers have a chance to succeed.

Can you cite a few examples where a low scorer in juniors at the age of 20 went on to become a high scorer in the NHL?

 

[Raspewtin]

I already addressed this: just because every person who's pregnant is a woman, doesn't mean that every woman is pregnant... just because high scorers failed, doesn't mean that low scorers have a chance to succeed.

Can you cite a few examples where a low scorer in juniors at the age of 20 went on to become a high scorer in the NHL?

Where did you pull that pregnancy metaphor from? Because I never even alluded to a typical low scoring prospect having real upside.

You're so fixated on the age of 20. That's all your argument is. That he's 20. And it's not even a good argument, for reasons me and Zil have pointed out forty thousand times.

Forget it, he sucks, debates over. This is pointless.

 

[Beacon]

Where did you pull that pregnancy metaphor from? Because I never even alluded to a typical low scoring prospect having real upside.

You're so fixated on the age of 20. That's all your argument is. That he's 20. And it's not even a good argument, for reasons me and Zil have pointed out forty thousand times.

Forget it, he sucks, debates over. This is pointless.

So you have nothing to say, you storm out pretending like you did have a response?

There are many dozens of players who join the juniors at the age of 19 every year. Over the course of the last few decades, this number must be in the several thousand. Can you name at least one player who joined the juniors at the age of 19, scored as little as he did and then went on to have a high-scoring NHL career?

Though every player is different, tese are players in a very similar position to Walcott. How many of the thousands of such players became offensive wizards in the NHL?

By the way, writing that high scorers don't always make it in the NHL doesn't disprove my point that low scorers in juniors are extremely unlikely to become high scorers in the NHL. If anything, it proves my point further: the NHL is so much better than the juniors (hell, the ECHL is better than the juniors - everyone you look at scored more in the juniors than the ECHL), that even the high scorers have a hard time when they move up. If it's that difficult for high scorers, what does it say about low scorers?

But yeah... back to my question... of the thousands of people who made it to the juniors only as 19 year olds for their first year, how many scored .5 points per game in then juniors and then went on to score a lot in the NHL?

 

[Beacon]

His stats aren't the only thing that concerns me. Being this thin is bad. Do you remember Prucha? He just didn't have the body that could build muscle and so he's out of the NHL. People who don't lift think (and post here) that you can gain 15 pounds quickly over the summer. This is why they quit the gym after 3 weeks (every time you pick up a weight, your arms should grow an inch or else quit!).

Gaining weight is a long process and for some, it is an impossible process. Some guys have a small frame with thin bones that can't handle a lot of muscle, so the meat won't grow. Others have low testosterone, and again, the meat won't grow (unless they take steroids). I don't know if this is a problem for him, but any time I see someone abnormally thin (particularly for an athlete... it's not as if we are talking about couch potatoes here), I am concerned. This is why I am not voting for Donnay yet.

It's possible that Walcott is 168 pounds of shredded meat and that would make him decently strong, but then he wouldn't be sent to the juniors instead of the ECHL.

It's also possible that he's now stronger than 168, and the stats are outdated. But until I find that out, this is a legitimate concern. A forward can be small (not always - Prucha), but it's especially tough for a defenseman. If he were 18, I'd give him more of a break than at 20 because he had two extra years to put on muscle.

I wish Walcott well, but I have enough concerns that I think that someone like Noreau and Yogan should go ahead of him.

 

[Zil]

But yeah... back to my question... of the thousands of people who made it to the juniors only as 19 year olds for their first year, how many scored .5 points per game in then juniors and then went on to score a lot in the NHL?

I don't know what to tell you. Clark thinks there's offense there. Treff thinks there's offense there. Herman says he has the tools to be productive. When a guy has a limited amount of exposure like Walcott does, you have to trust the scouting reports to a greater degree. The talent evaluators think he has the ability to provide offense.

Context and development curves mean a lot more to me than your one size fits all, points-based analysis. I'm a ceiling guy and Walcott is a pure ceiling pick. You may prefer someone who has a better shot at being a grinder like Yogan or Noreau. That's fine. But it's specious to assert that Walcott has no real upside because of his Q numbers.

His stats aren't the only thing that concerns me. Being this thin is bad. Do you remember Prucha? He just didn't have the body that could build muscle and so he's out of the NHL. People who don't lift think (and post here) that you can gain 15 pounds quickly over the summer. This is why they quit the gym after 3 weeks (every time you pick up a weight, your arms should grow an inch or else quit!).

Gaining weight is a long process and for some, it is an impossible process. Some guys have a small frame with thin bones that can't handle a lot of muscle, so the meat won't grow. Others have low testosterone, and again, the meat won't grow (unless they take steroids). I don't know if this is a problem for him, but any time I see someone abnormally thin (particularly for an athlete... it's not as if we are talking about couch potatoes here), I am concerned. This is why I am not voting for Donnay yet.

It's possible that Walcott is 168 pounds of shredded meat and that would make him decently strong, but then he wouldn't be sent to the juniors instead of the ECHL.

It's also possible that he's now stronger than 168, and the stats are outdated. But until I find that out, this is a legitimate concern. A forward can be small (not always - Prucha), but it's especially tough for a defenseman. If he were 18, I'd give him more of a break than at 20 because he had two extra years to put on muscle.

I wish Walcott well, but I have enough concerns that I think that someone like Noreau and Yogan should go ahead of him.

Given his background, it's perfectly reasonable to think that he hasn't had a lot of time on a pro-level strength training program at this point. Also, Prucha's problem was that he was both small and not a particularly good skater. The latter is never going to be a problem with Walcott.

 

[nyr2k2]

Beac, I hope you know that whenever you launch into your PPG/age/league analyses, the board rolls its eyes and lets out a groan. It's not necessarily an indictment of the analysis itself, but do understand that what you're doing is a very specific way of evaluating players that while valuable, isn't the be-all end-all.

I mean, what's the point? To let us know that Walcott faces extremely long odds to make it? Well no ****! He was the 140th pick in the draft, and anyone picked that late faces almost impossible odds. We're all well aware of this.

No one can find you a comparable for Walcott, because honestly, how many guys that spent their age 18 season in sub-D1 hockey end up having their name called on draft day? No one is going to be able to give you a comparable because, well, there aren't really any comparables. Walcott has followed a pretty unique path to beginning his professional career.

You're always quick to comment, "I trust that the Rangers saw something in Player X to draft him/sign him/etc." Well, what now? The Rangers obviously see some real potential in Walcott, right? Otherwise they wouldn't have wasted a pick on him, when they could have waited a year and signed him as an UDFA. Clearly there's a skill set there that the professional scouts and talent evaluators saw that warranted a selection, despite whatever statistical analysis you've found that indicates he sucks.

I'd buy adding Noreau in front of him, but Yogan? I know we've both been high on Yogan, but the fact that he couldn't carve out a spot for himself on a crappy Hartford team at age 22 is cause for concern. He was drafted in a similar spot to someone like Walcott, and in three years since, hasn't really done anything to indicate he has a future as an NHL player. At what point do you start looking past him? I'm not writing him off yet, but if he doesn't perform this season he's a total non-prospect in my eyes.

McCarthy. Add Walcott.

 

[mti79]

Nejezchleb. Add Nicholls. I haven't seen Nejezchleb play, but I go by the stats and what I read. And I like what I've read....

He has put up points when healthy. If he can stay healthy and develop more, I think he can be a top 9 winger in the NHL.

 

[Beacon]

NYR2k2,

You gave an argument about St. Croix that rings in my ears when I discuss him: how many smallish offensive forwards made the NHL after a significant time in the ECHL?

But how many smallish offensive defensemen who haven't broken out even in juniors at his age made it? I doubt there was even one. Nobody seems to remember anyone.

His position is not at all unique. There were thousands of players like him who played low-end hockey until 19, then jumped to the juniors. How many have made it? Seems to be none. My argument here isn't specific to particular stats. People see stats and immediately respond that it's irrelevant. But when nobody in a similar position succeeded, shouldn't that raise concerns?

 

[nyr2k2]

NYR2k2,

You gave an argument about St. Croix that rings in my ears when I discuss him: how many smallish offensive forwards made the NHL after a significant time in the ECHL?

But how many smallish offensive defensemen who haven't broken out even in juniors at his age made it? I doubt there was even one. Nobody seems to remember anyone.

His position is not at all unique. There were thousands of players like him who played low-end hockey until 19, then jumped to the juniors. How many have made it? Seems to be none. My argument here isn't specific to particular stats. People see stats and immediately respond that it's irrelevant. But when nobody in a similar position succeeded, shouldn't that raise concerns?

How many of those players that followed his path were drafted? 99% of guys that do what he did obviously have no chance of making the NHL. However, the trusted Rangers scouts evidently saw enough in him to warrant a selection in the draft. What sets him apart from the hundreds of other guys that play lower-level college hockey before jumping to Canadian junior hockey is that this guy evidently has the skills to be an NHL draft pick. That seems to make him a unique case.

 

[Jxmarts]

Skapski... add Noreau.

 

[JimmyG89]

Some guys take longer to develop and some have issues such as Walcott has had personally preventing them from developing. If he was 17 and putting these numbers up he is basically a top round selection. It was his first year as a junior player and produced. Look at a guy like Andrew Shaw who got passed over and made it. A 5th rounder as well. one who went undrafted was Marty McSorley who entered the OHL as an 18 year old. Charlie Huddy was the same as McSorley. These guys went undrafted. It is possible. I'm not saying he will come close to these guys, but he has potential and it is untapped.

 

[Beacon]

TIEBREAKER: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1713313