What ever happened to ... thread?

[Rzombo4 prez]

Berggren will have a 60+ point season within seven years. Will it happen in Detroit like it never did for Hudler, Tatar, Nyquist? Or will it happen after leaving like it did for all three of them? Letting scorers score is such a simple concept, yet... this organization seems to struggle with it at times.

Nope. No NHL coach will ever give him enough ice and opportunity to put up 60+ points because he is genuinely worthless without the puck. Where on earth did this notion come from that he is some coveted NHL scorer? He is 23 and still riding AHL buses.

This board needs to stop blindly worshipping all things Sweden.

 

[jaster]

I mean at some point it's too late and just going somewhere else isn't gonna do anything

if you give someone else your bag of rotten grapes they're still gonna be rotten after they take them home even if they wash them

does that mean all or even most of those guys would have done better if they had been somewhere else from the start? of course not, but just looking at what they did after they left isn't really gonna tell you much

It tells you a lot. A player sucking in one organization and then moving to another organization and still sucking pretty much confirms that the player just sucks. Young players have been developmentally ruined by the organizations that drafted them, yes. It happens. But if you read HFboards enough, you might think it applies to like 50% of prospects who don't make it. It's more like 1%. People get so attached to these kids. Rooting for them is great and all, but they just don't get "ruined" by coaches/teams nearly as much as many people think.

In the end, most of these kids have flaws that hold them back from being NHLers. The ones who make it are able to overcome or correct those flaws, but it's exceptionally hard to do. It's why any pro hockey person will say that the jump to the NHL is by far the biggest jump in all of hockey.

Prospects are generally just overrated here. I mean, it's HFboards

 

[norrisnick]

It tells you a a lot. A player sucking in one organization and then moving to another organization and still sucking pretty much confirms that the player just sucks. Young players have been developmentally ruined by the organizations that drafted them, yes. It happens. But if you read HFboards enough, you might think it applies to like 50% of prospects who don't make it. It's more like 1%. People get so attached to these kids. Rooting for them is great and all, but they just don't get "ruined" by coaches/teams nearly as much as many people think.

In the end, most of these kids have flaws that hold them back from being NHLers. The ones who make it are able to overcome or correct those flaws, but it's exceptionally hard to do. It's why any pro hockey person will say that the jump to the NHL is by far the biggest jump in all of hockey.

Prospects are generally just overrated here. I mean, it's HFboards

Circumstances play a far bigger role in a prospect making it it not than any individual "flaws". Many "flawed" players make it all over the league. Opportunities are available, yes, but not always in the organization you were drafted into.

It's a bit lazy to just say, "oh they didn't make it, they clearly weren't good enough."

Right up there with blaming work ethic for the poor being born poor and remaining poor.

 

[Frk It]

It tells you a a lot. A player sucking in one organization and then moving to another organization and still sucking pretty much confirms that the player just sucks. Young players have been developmentally ruined by the organizations that drafted them, yes. It happens. But if you read HFboards enough, you might think it applies to like 50% of prospects who don't make it. It's more like 1%. People get so attached to these kids. Rooting for them is great and all, but they just don't get "ruined" by coaches/teams nearly as much as many people think.

In the end, most of these kids have flaws that hold them back from being NHLers. The ones who make it are able to overcome or correct those flaws, but it's exceptionally hard to do. It's why any pro hockey person will say that the jump to the NHL is by far the biggest jump in all of hockey.

Prospects are generally just overrated here. I mean, it's HFboards

Yeah and it’s really hard to know who is going to be able to correct those flaws at 17 years old.

If teams knew Point was going to be able to improve his skating that much, he would have went much higher. If teams knew Nick Suzuki was going to get to 212 lbs as a pro, he would have went higher.

If we would have known Zadina was pretty much maxed out already we wouldn’t have taken him at 6.

At the end of the day you are taking educated guesses. You try to get all the info you can (what’s their work ethic, genetics of parents, etc). But there’s a good amount of luck involved between who you pick and what they end up being.

I also think development is generally overstated on here. I tend to believe most of the kids that make it would have made it even if you went a few different directions with their development, and most the kids who don’t wouldn’t have even if you went a different route with their development. There are some exceptions to that, but like you said, they are not most cases.

 

[jaster]

Circumstances play a far bigger role in a prospect making it it not than any individual "flaws". Many "flawed" players make it all over the league. Opportunities are available, yes, but not always in the organization you were drafted into.

It's a bit lazy to just say, "oh they didn't make it, they clearly weren't good enough."

Right up there with blaming work ethic for the poor being born poor and remaining poor.

What is it with the weird analogies in this thread lol... poor people, rotten grapes. People in glass houses sink ships too.

Circumstances have very little to do with it, they aren't poor people. Every organization is slightly different, but the hurdles to reach the NHL are basically the same across the league. Players are simply good enough to make it or they are not. And 99% of players who don't make it simply aren't good enough. Some teams are better at development than others, sure, but this idea that the league is littered with with washed out players who would have made it if they were just in another organization is silly.

How many hockey players who aren't in the NHL currently do you believe would be if they had been developed in another organization?

 

[norrisnick]

What is it with the weird analogies in this thread lol... poor people, rotten grapes. People in glass houses sink ships too.

Circumstances have very little to do with it, they aren't poor people. Every organization is slightly different, but the hurdles to reach the NHL are basically the same across the league. Players are simply good enough to make it or they are not. And 99% of players who don't make it simply aren't good enough. Some teams are better at development than others, sure, but this idea that the league is littered with with washed out players who would have made it if they were just in another organization is silly.

How many hockey players who aren't in the NHL currently do you believe would be if they had been developed in another organization?

It's the off-season. That's the time for weird analogies.

Just from our organization Berggren and Johansson would be approaching 200 games, if not already eclipsed, in at at least half a dozen other organizations. But they are riding buses and bad, because they are in this one.

Further down guys like Tuomisto, Mazur, Wallinder, f***ing Viro would have gotten a game or two or three. Prospects play in other organizations. But here we point at NHL games played and shit on the ones the Wings drafted that haven't played. And it's not as if the performance of the NHL roster has been at a level where not integrating any young players can be excused.

The Red Wings had the fewest games played by qualified rookies this season. A team that hasn't made the playoffs in 8 years and various publications are falling all over themselves to praise our prospect pool, but this organization can't be bothered to actually make use of said prospects.

It's dumb. And the level of dumb warrants the level of dumb analogies.

 

[Frk It]

It's the off-season. That's the time for weird analogies.

Just from our organization Berggren and Johansson would be approaching 200 games, if not already eclipsed, in at at least half a dozen other organizations. But they are riding buses and bad, because they are in this one.

Further down guys like Tuomisto, Mazur, Wallinder, f***ing Viro would have gotten a game or two or three. Prospects play in other organizations. But here we point at NHL games played and shit on the ones the Wings drafted that haven't played. And it's not as if the performance of the NHL roster has been at a level where not integrating any young players can be excused.

The Red Wings had the fewest games played by qualified rookies this season. A team that hasn't made the playoffs in 8 years and various publications are falling all over themselves to praise our prospect pool, but this organization can't be bothered to actually make use of said prospects.

It's dumb. And the level of dumb warrants the level of dumb analogies.

The way you guys talk about Johansson is wild sometimes. Albert Johansson is a 6’0 185 lb defenseman who put up less than 1/3 ppg last year in the AHL and didn’t play on PP1. Most other teams in the league would come to the same conclusion we have so far with him. It’s hard to find a spot in your top 6 for a guy with that profile. I expect him to be on the team next year and hope he grabs a role and turns into something. But I think a lot of you guys have your head in the clouds with what he is as a player versus what he is in reality.

Berggren you may have a point on. I’ll be very curious to see what the next few years look like with him, and if some of you are justified with your campaign to be on the team. Honestly I’m not sure and could see that going a few different ways.

It’s just funny to me you are so focused on # or rookies, as if we haven’t been willing to implement rookies into the team prior to this year, and as if this season was a compete waste of time…. Where we saw us in the playoff hunt up until the very last game and saw monumental growth from guys like Raymond.

 

[norrisnick]

The way you guys talk about Johansson is wild sometimes. Albert Johansson is a 6’0 185 lb defenseman who put up less than 1/3 ppg last year in the AHL and didn’t play on PP1. Most other teams in the league would come to the same conclusion we have so far with him. It’s hard to find a spot in your top 6 for a guy with that profile. I expect him to be on the team next year and hope he grabs a role and turns into something. But I think a lot of you guys have your head in the clouds with what he is as a player versus what he is in reality.

Berggren you may have a point on. I’ll be very curious to see what the next few years look like with him, and if some of you are justified with your campaign to be on the team. Honestly I’m not sure and could see that going a few different ways.

It’s just funny to me you are so focused on # or rookies, as if we haven’t been willing to implement rookies into the team prior to this year, and as if this season was a compete waste of time…. Where we saw us in the playoff hunt up until the very last game and saw monumental growth from guys like Raymond.

I hope you include Steve and most everyone else in the org because they've been raving about AlJo for years now. Raving apparently doesn't lead to letting them play...

Teams that actually made the playoffs found a way to integrate more youth into the lineup. Playing kids does not equate to losing. It's the same tired trope of kids make mistakes. Mistakes cost games. Ignoring the fact that everyone makes mistakes. Kids can at least learn from them.

 

[Frk It]

I hope you include Steve and most everyone else in the org because they've been raving about AlJo for years now. Raving apparently doesn't lead to letting them play...

You can’t have it both ways. He’s good because they say he is? Well if their actions don’t reflect that… why?

I could care less if my employer says I’m a valued employee if I don’t feel like one.

Teams that actually made the playoffs found a way to integrate more youth into the lineup. Playing kids does not equate to losing. It's the same tired trope of kids make mistakes. Mistakes cost games. Ignoring the fact that everyone makes mistakes. Kids can at least learn from them.

You are using one year where we didn’t add any rookies to make it look like we never do and you damn well know it.

 

[norrisnick]

You can’t have it both ways. He’s good because they say he is? Well if their actions don’t reflect that… why?

I could care less if my employer says I’m a valued employee if I don’t feel like one.

You are using one year where we didn’t add any rookies to make it look like we never do and you damn well know it.

What both ways? My point is we have good young players and our mgmt/coaching staff is choosing not to use them until forced to do so.

Which is why Berggren turned down the initial contract offer.

Because it was a mistake. A fairly sizeable one for a rebuilding team with a shit ton of prospects. By not integrating them last season the bottleneck is even more severe this coming season. And what is going to happen? Mediocre vets are going to be signed because our prospect pool is largely unknown because they haven't played. What an entirely avoidable scenario. Again.

 

[Frk It]

What both ways? My point is we have good young players and our mgmt/coaching staff is choosing not to use them until forced to do so.

Which is why Berggren turned down the initial contract offer.

Because it was a mistake. A fairly sizeable one for a rebuilding team with a shit ton of prospects. By not integrating them last season the bottleneck is even more severe this coming season. And what is going to happen? Mediocre vets are going to be signed because our prospect pool is largely unknown because they haven't played. What an entirely avoidable scenario. Again.

If they felt the players that were actually on the team gave us the best chance to make the playoffs and we were in the playoff hunt til the very last game of the season… well that justifies that thinking to me. If you disagree, cool.

I think you could make an argument Berggren would have been a better option than a few of the forwards we played last year. Personally I don’t think that same thing is true with Johansson. We will get our answer on both soon here.

I think we will have 2-3 rookies on the team next year. Partly due to waiver exemption running out, no doubt. So as far as next season goes, I think you are worrying a lot about nothing or at least stuff that hasn’t happened yet and might not happen.

We will see.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

It's the off-season. That's the time for weird analogies.

Just from our organization Berggren and Johansson would be approaching 200 games, if not already eclipsed, in at at least half a dozen other organizations. But they are riding buses and bad, because they are in this one.

Further down guys like Tuomisto, Mazur, Wallinder, f***ing Viro would have gotten a game or two or three. Prospects play in other organizations. But here we point at NHL games played and shit on the ones the Wings drafted that haven't played. And it's not as if the performance of the NHL roster has been at a level where not integrating any young players can be excused.

The Red Wings had the fewest games played by qualified rookies this season. A team that hasn't made the playoffs in 8 years and various publications are falling all over themselves to praise our prospect pool, but this organization can't be bothered to actually make use of said prospects.

It's dumb. And the level of dumb warrants the level of dumb analogies.

In no organization does Johansson have 200 NHL games played. No organization. That is simply a brutal take even for someone with a known fetish for undersized Swedish players. No team in the NHL was calling him up in the 21-22 season. No team. The kid was a twig then and still a twig by some metrics. I can understand wanting him up mid-season of this last year. Before then, however, no one was calling him up.

 

[Gniwder]

Just from our organization Berggren and Johansson would be approaching 200 games, if not already eclipsed, in at at least half a dozen other organizations.

There were 14 teams that were worse than the Wings, not just half a dozen. Burger could've had 200 games with a dumpster fire team, doesn't really mean much.

AlJo ain't that good, please share whatever it is that you're smoking. You'll see it next season, because he's gotta go through waivers.

 

[norrisnick]

There were 14 teams that were worse than the Wings, not just half a dozen. Burger could've had 200 games with a dumpster fire team, doesn't really mean much.

AlJo ain't that good, please share whatever it is that you're smoking. You'll see it next season, because he's gotta go through waivers.

You'd have to ask Steve. No one is more complimentary of Johansson than him...

 

[jaster]

[Albert Johansson scouting report]

I hesitate to jump in about AlJo because of the ulterior motives on both sides of this argument and the fact this isn't actually about AlJo at all lol, but to be clear.....

AlJo is a legitimately good hockey player, he has some very good tools, and in the two times I watched him live this year, he was on another level in the AHL than the players around him. The AHL was easy for him. He's definitely ready for the next challenge.

AlJo's problem, his only problem, is whether his profile can translate to the NHL or not. He doesn't have any major deficiencies he needs to work on in order to succeed in the NHL. His scouting reports always described him as an "offensive defenseman," but that is simply not accurate, or doesn't paint the whole picture at least.

He would best be described as a two-way defenseman, but even that misses out on some nuance. AlJo gets high marks for things that are often overlooked by fans. He has a high-panic threshold. He consistently makes good decisions with the puck, and correct hockey decisions in general. He makes excellent reads defensively; head always up, doesn't' puck-watch, and anticipates well. You could say he has a very sound game, and he should gain the coaches' trust quicker than most. The antithesis of Madison Bowey perhaps.

Frankly, in the games I watched this year, he looked more like a defensive defenseman than anything else because of how well he was shutting down the opposition. And yet, he skates well, transports the puck well, distributes well, and does have a nice shot. So there's your two-way game. But he's not going to put up Hronek numbers, so can he succeed in the NHL as a two-way defenseman with a defensive lean, at his size? That will be the trick for him. He may indeed not make it as a regular NHLer, but he's got an excellent foundation that provides him with a floor that is right on the edge, and a ceiling as an above average complementary partner to a Seider or Edvinsson type.

 

[norrisnick]

[Albert Johansson scouting report]

I hesitate to jump in about AlJo because of the ulterior motives on both sides of this argument and the fact this isn't actually about AlJo at all lol, but to be clear.....

AlJo is a legitimately good hockey player, he has some very good tools, and in the two times I watched him live this year, he was on another level in the AHL than the players around him. The AHL was easy for him. He's definitely ready for the next challenge.

AlJo's problem, his only problem, is whether his profile can translate to the NHL or not. He doesn't have any major deficiencies he needs to work on in order to succeed in the NHL. His scouting reports always described him as an "offensive defenseman," but that is simply not accurate, or doesn't paint the whole picture at least.

He would best be described as a two-way defenseman, but even that misses out on some nuance. AlJo gets high marks for things that are often overlooked by fans. He has a high-panic threshold. He consistently makes good decisions with the puck, and correct hockey decisions in general. He makes excellent reads defensively; head always up, doesn't' puck-watch, and anticipates well. You could say he has a very sound game, and he should gain the coaches' trust quicker than most. The antithesis of Madison Bowey perhaps.

Frankly, in the games I watched this year, he looked more like a defensive defenseman than anything else because of how well he was shutting down the opposition. And yet, he skates well, transports the puck well, distributes well, and does have a nice shot. So there's your two-way game. But he's not going to put up Hronek numbers, so can he succeed in the NHL as a two-way defenseman with a defensive lean, at his size? That will be the trick for him. He may indeed not make it as a regular NHLer, but he's got an excellent foundation that provides him with a floor that is right on the edge, and a ceiling as an above average complementary partner to a Seider or Edvinsson type.

People say I'm smoking stuff (smoking sucks edibles all the way) but jaster here just called AlJo a mix of Devon Toews and Gustav Forsling but better....

 

[Gniwder]

You'd have to ask Steve. No one is more complimentary of Johansson than him...

Is a GM supposed to say his prospect sucks?

Stevie signed Holl instead of promoting him, and Ed got called up ahead of AlJo. Actions speak louder than words. Not we'll see what Stevie does in free agency soon. If Stevie picks up even one UFA D, that means he has no faith in AlJo.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Yeah and it’s really hard to know who is going to be able to correct those flaws at 17 years old.

If teams knew Point was going to be able to improve his skating that much, he would have went much higher. If teams knew Nick Suzuki was going to get to 212 lbs as a pro, he would have went higher.

If we would have known Zadina was pretty much maxed out already we wouldn’t have taken him at 6.

At the end of the day you are taking educated guesses. You try to get all the info you can (what’s their work ethic, genetics of parents, etc). But there’s a good amount of luck involved between who you pick and what they end up being.

I also think development is generally overstated on here. I tend to believe most of the kids that make it would have made it even if you went a few different directions with their development, and most the kids who don’t wouldn’t have even if you went a different route with their development. There are some exceptions to that, but like you said, they are not most cases.

In regards to Zadina a couple red flags prior to the 2018 Draft:

1. Late birthday, allows for extra year to stat pad to inflate the resume. His 17 year old season, his true draft year, he put up 18 points in 20 Czech U-20 games. That's nowhere close to top 10 production.

2. 82 points in 57 games in your 18 year old season in a horrifically weak Q is very good, but not usually worth a top 10 pick. You'd have like to see more assists and total points to show he had fully mastered junior.

Overall, I think he was rushed to pro, simply because everyone said he was ready so he must be ready. Dobson went back to the Q for another year, Bouchard back to the O for another year and then spent time in the A, Hughes went back to Michigan for another year.

 

[Frk It]

In regards to Zadina a couple red flags prior to the 2018 Draft:

1. Late birthday, allows for extra year to stat pad to inflate the resume. His 17 year old season, his true draft year, he put up 18 points in 20 Czech U-20 games. That's nowhere close to top 10 production.

2. 82 points in 57 games in your 18 year old season in a horrifically weak Q is very good, but not usually worth a top 10 pick. You'd have like to see more assists and total points to show he had fully mastered junior.

Overall, I think he was rushed to pro, simply because everyone said he was ready so he must be ready. Dobson went back to the Q for another year, Bouchard back to the O for another year and then spent time in the A, Hughes went back to Michigan for another year.

Late birthdate does not make your 17 year old season your “true draft year”…. I do not get why people do this. I also think it’s kind of silly to list that as a red flag in general.

Overall I agree with some of what you’re saying. Although I’ll also say I don’t think if we developed Zadina differently the end result would have changed too much. So in his case I don’t really thinking being rushed to pro matters.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Late birthdate does not make your 17 year old season your “true draft year”…. I do not get why people do this. I also think it’s kind of silly to list that as a red flag in general.

Overall I agree with some of what you’re saying. Although I’ll also say I don’t think if we developed Zadina differently the end result would have changed too much. So in his case I don’t really thinking being rushed to pro matters.

You play minor hockey with your birth year. While they are much younger in the birth year, the September 16-December 31 grouping of a birth year gets an extra year prior to being drafted as opposed to the January 1-September 15 grouping. So greater opportunity inflate your resume (ex: Zach Hamill). Of course if you're dominant in your 17 year old season, then being even more dominant in your 18 year old season as a late birthdate is not a red flag.

I don't have time to watch every single game tape of 300+ prospects for every draft, thus I look at data based historical trends, league quality, etc to make educated guesses/inferences. I watch as much film as possible.

I do think he was rushed to pro. 35 points in 59 games in the A in his 19 year old season is underwhelming for an offensive specialist who was a top 3 favorite until the final month before the 2018 Draft.

 

[Frk It]

You play minor hockey with your birth year. While they are much younger in the birth year, the September 16-December 31 grouping of a birth year gets an extra year prior to being drafted as opposed to the January 1-September 15 grouping. So greater opportunity inflate your resume (ex: Zach Hamill). Of course if you're dominant in your 17 year old season, then being even more dominant in your 18 year old season as a late birthdate is not a red flag.

Ok well the draft season parameters are the same for everyone. Given that they are, you should compare -1 to -1 and DY to DY.

And saying late birthdate or -1 was underwhelming as a red flag is silly. Cale Makar was a late birthdate and no one was taking about him in what you are trying to say would be his “draft season”, AKA his -1 year.

I don't have time to watch every single game tape of 300+ prospects for every draft, thus I look at data based historical trends, league quality, etc to make educated guesses/inferences. I watch as much film as possible.

I do think he was rushed to pro. 35 points in 59 games in the A in his 19 year old season is underwhelming for an offensive specialist who was a top 3 favorite until the final month before the 2018 Draft.

When you knew what happened in the season now it’s easy to see that. You wouldn’t have known that would be his AHL season back when that decision was made. So that’s pretty much entirely an argument aided by hindsight.

I also guarantee you, you would have seen a shit load of “he has nothing to gain from going back to the Q” posts on this website if that is the decision they went with.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Ok well the draft season parameters are the same for everyone. Given that they are, you should compare -1 to -1 and DY to DY.

And saying late birthdate or -1 was underwhelming as a red flag is silly. Cale Makar was a late birthdate and no one was taking about him in what you are trying to say would be his “draft season”, AKA his -1 year.

When you knew what happened in the season now it’s easy to see that. You wouldn’t have known that would be his AHL season back when that decision was made. So that’s pretty much entirely an argument aided by hindsight.

I also guarantee you, you would have seen a “he has nothing to gain from going back to the Q” posts on this website if that is the decision they went with.

Eh, you shouldn't because you play hockey based on your birthyear; the September 15th cutoff is an NHL imposed rule because that's when training camp starts and, IIRC, they don't want/can't have minors in the league for labor insurance purposes. Because you play with your birthyear, Filip Zadina had played/been eligible for the same number of high level minor hockey seasons as Nico Hischier despite being different draft classes, as they are both 1999 birthyears. Zadina had the extra year to stat pad, had he been 3 months younger, he's not getting into the top 10 conversation of the 2017 Draft based on what he did. Granted, to be fiar, because Zadina is a late birthday, he's one of the youngest in the hockey birthyear, thus potentially more room to grow than a January birthday, so that's another way of looking at it. Regardless Zadina had an extra year to stat pad and inflate his resume. And again 82 points in 57 games in a horrifically weak Q is not that impressive for a forward, especially when it's his 18 year old season.

My point about his readiness for the A and how it ended up is that based on what he did as an 18 year old in the Q, his production wouldn't indicate that he had fully mastered the league like so many "experts" in the scouting business and hockey men like Brian Burke (who said he was NHL ready on the Sportsnet broadcast) believed.

Sure I have hindsight on my side now, but I am going back in time, looking at the factors that existed before draft day, and then using historical trends to make assumptions that you could make at that time.

Another guy who was a late birthday in the Q with weak 17 year old production but very solid 18 year old production is Timo Meier, but he went back to the Q for his 19 year old season. Additionally, his size profile made him more likely to adapt to the pro game in terms of other areas that don't include pure offense.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

Eh, you shouldn't because you play hockey based on your birthyear; the September 15th cutoff is an NHL imposed rule because that's when training camp starts and, IIRC, they don't want/can't have minors in the league for labor insurance purposes. Because you play with your birthyear, Filip Zadina had played/been eligible for the same number of high level minor hockey seasons as Nico Hischier despite being different draft classes, as they are both 1999 birthyears. Zadina had the extra year to stat pad, had he been 3 months younger, he's not getting into the top 10 conversation of the 2017 Draft based on what he did. Granted, to be fiar, because Zadina is a late birthday, he's one of the youngest in the hockey birthyear, thus potentially more room to grow than a January birthday, so that's another way of looking at it. Regardless Zadina had an extra year to stat pad and inflate his resume. And again 82 points in 57 games in a horrifically weak Q is not that impressive for a forward, especially when it's his 18 year old season.

My point about his readiness for the A and how it ended up is that based on what he did as an 18 year old in the Q, his production wouldn't indicate that he had fully mastered the league like so many "experts" in the scouting business and hockey men like Brian Burke (who said he was NHL ready on the Sportsnet broadcast) believed.

Sure I have hindsight on my side now, but I am going back in time, looking at the factors that existed before draft day, and then using historical trends to make assumptions that you could make at that time.

Another guy who was a late birthday in the Q with weak 17 year old production but very solid 18 year old production is Timo Meier, but he went back to the Q for his 19 year old season. Additionally, his size profile made him more likely to adapt to the pro game in terms of other areas that don't include pure offense.

Zadina missing as an NHL prospect had nothing to do with his birthday and everything to do with: (i) athletic limitations that ultimately prevented him from picking up a half step with his skating, and (ii) his offensive IQ and play without the puck. Personally, I don't think another year in the Q would have fixed either. He was overrated from the start and his game wasn't very transferable to pro hockey.

Some prospects miss. This one just happens to sting a lot.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Zadina missing as an NHL prospect had nothing to do with his birthday and everything to do with: (i) athletic limitations that ultimately prevented him from picking up a half step with his skating, and (ii) his offensive IQ and play without the puck. Personally, I don't think another year in the Q would have fixed either. He was overrated from the start and his game wasn't very transferable to pro hockey.

Some prospects miss. This one just happens to sting a lot.

I guess my posts should implicate that he was overvalued going into his draft because of his birthday (plus his statistical profile wasn't that impressive for the Q). Of course, as you said, he had physical limitations that prevented him from taking another step.

I do think it's worth noting that if he's born on August 27th instead of November 27th, he's eligible for the 2017 Draft and we're talking about him as a projected 2nd or 3rd rounder that Cam Robinson, Scott Wheeler, and/or Tony Ferrari like as a potential good value pick, instead of the overhyped "top 3, NHL-ready talent" he was purported to be before the 2018 Draft. Extra year allows for time to inflate the resume.

 

[FabricDetails]

I love this kind of thread. It's almost like the (actually fun) pissing contest sports fan get into where it's like, "Name a random Red Wing (or whatever team)".

"Derek Meech"
"Oh yeah?... Doug Janik"
"Wendell Clark"
"Dude, Clark's not a random... Bro was a beast."
"Yeah but don't act like you remember he played for the Red Wings."
"Brett Lebda"
"Ugh... Dude, not cool."