Alexandre Daigle : Why was he hyped so much?

[vadim sharifijanov]

Some surface level statistical comparison for fun:

DRAFT -1
Daigle:
66-35-75-110 (involved in 46% of his team's goals)
Turgeon:
69-47-67-114 (34%)
Modano:
70-32-30-62 (18%)

DRAFT
Daigle:
53-45-92-137 (involved in 38% of his team's goals)
Turgeon:
58-69-85-154 (37%)
Modano:
65-47-80-127 (34%)

DRAFT +1
Daigle (NHL):
84-20-31-51 (involved in 25% of his team's goals)
Turgeon (NHL):
76-14-28-42 (15%)
Modano (Junior):
41-39-66-105 (35%)

DRAFT +2
Daigle (NHL):
47-16-21-37 (involved in 32% of his team's goals)
80-28-36-64 (Hockey-Reference Adjusted)
Turgeon (NHL):
80-34-54-88 (30%)
80-28-44-72 (Hockey-Reference Adjusted)
Modano (NHL):
80-29-46-75 (26%)
80-24-38-62 (Hockey-Reference Adjusted)

Things obviously diverge quite a bit from there. I decided to calculate what percentage of goals each player was involved as a way to represent team depth and very roughly adjust for scoring across the junior leagues.

ooh thanks for the legwork

that was some rookie year in the Q by daigle

i guess my hunch is what made daigle an exceptional junior player was his tools. he skated better than everyone else and had a really good shot. at the next level, those advantages were still advantages but they weren't like a cheat code anymore.

that's kind of why i brought up kariya upthread. they were about the same age—kariya was four months older. but you could see that what made kariya dominate at the WJC, which daigle did not, was instincts and vision. even in his draft -1, when kariya made the team as a very early birthday for his cohort but still by far the youngest guy on the team, you could see in spurts kariya had "it."

i think in the same way, turgeon, who in my understanding was regarded as the best north american prospect between mario and lindros, scored at a similar rate to daigle in their draft years. but again, his advantage over everyone else was upstairs, not tools.

modano i think was more of a cross between the two. incredible tools but obviously he also thought the game at a high level, albeit not at a near-genius level like kariya or turgeon.

it kind of makes me think: someone on this board (i think @MS ?) insists that jeff friesen was considered the presumptive number one prospect for the 1994 draft in their draft -1 year. i have no memory of this but that's another out of this world skater with goal scorer's hands at the lower level. and he followed up his very impressive CHL rookie of the year (the year after daigle won the award) with an excellent draft age year but fell to #11 with no future superstars and only one can't-miss prospect (bonk) passing him. i wonder of part of friesen's fall was watching daigle's rookie year: the killer start and then him looking less and less impressive with every passing month.

After his illustrious entertainment mogul career.. he needed the money.

it's an interesting question: if daigle came around a decade later, would he have thrived in the post-lockout NHL? or would he have killed it as vince on HBO's entourage?

 

[Staniowski]

Yes, Daigle was very skilled overall and he scored a lot in minor hockey and in junior. Any player with his skills would be a big prospect. Anybody who watched him play when he was 16 or 17 would think he was a big prospect.

But his hockey sense, assertiveness, and intensity were a bit lacking....and they were his problems.

At the time of the draft, there were certainly people who thought Pronger was better, and a smaller number who thought Kariya was better.

 

[authentic]

I think the hype was warranted. He was clearly an insanely skilled player who didn't have the drive. He still put up pretty respectable points on some really bad teams until he eventually fizzled out. He took 2 full seasons completely off and still put up 51 points in 78 games on a pretty bad Minnesota team. He came in during the height of the clutch and grab era. He's a guy that would probably thrive in today's NHL.

It was 82 games. Didn't even realize he played until 1999, I thought I remembered him just playing for Ottawa for 3 or 4 seasons then calling it quits. But yeah he really did suck compared to his expectations. He had a decent shortened rookie season though., just like Yakupov.

 

[crosbyshow]

His biggest problem and he admited it at 25 years old;

He did not liked playing hockey...

He said in a very famous interview in French (Radio Canada) that he played for his father.

He said... it was easy until Juniors to rely just on his skills but you need passion in the NHL


He gave this interview when he stopped plaing hockey in his mid 20s for 2 years.

This interview was a very big thing in Quebec at the time

 

[Troubadour]

might he also have been very quickly solved by the league?

in his first two months RNH was scoring at over a pt/game and then he never returned to that level until last month

iirc yak also began his career on a scoring run he never recaptured

I believe it's an understated aspect. When people think of transition from the juniors to the NHL, they always talk "faster, bigger, stronger" and rarely "smarter".

The truth is, unless you truly are a Lemieux level talent, whatever you've got, those seasoned pros have seen a hundred of times. It may work a game or a dozen, but eventually, they will catch up. One has to improve.

 

[JianYang]

I was 15-16 yrs. old with a subscription to The Hockey News. As SomeDude said, the hype was warranted. He was sooo good, but apparently just didn't have the drive to succeed or get better. He very much could've been better not Lindros or Lemieux good, but still an excellent career. I thought he could've hit 100 points a couple of times in his career. He had a very high self-esteem and thought he was a better player than what he actually was.
He also "dated" prime Pam Anderson briefly. Which is nice for him.

Yeah, I remember an interview with Daigle in the late 90s, and it was clear that he wasn't as into the game of hockey as most other players at that level are.

He seemed to bemore into the glitz and glamour off the ice.

I also seem to remember from that interview that playing the game was more for his dad than himself.... But it was so long ago that I can't say for sure.

I think he might have had more appreciation for the game when he came back to the nhl in the 2000s, but when you hear him earlier in his career, it was pretty clear he didn't have the drive to get better.

I don't care if you are Crosby or mcdavid... Without the drive to keep improving, that talent will only take you so far at the highest level.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

i remember the 1993 WJC and it was clear as day to anyone watching that daigle was not in kariya's postal code as a talent.

what could daigle with his head screwed on straight have been? i want to say a rich man's scott young? given that he would have played his prime in the DPE, that probably means he scores annually in the mid-to-high 30s and in a good year is in the 40s and in an everything-goes-right career year flirts with 50.

but looking at the drafts around him, he obviously wasn't mario or lindros. but was he as good as pierre turgeon? i don't think so. maybe he could have been pre-hitchcock modano? but then you have to remember that pre-hitchcock modano was modano with daigle's commitment and attitude issues, and hall of fame modano was modano with his priorities in the right place. which means that daigle with everything going well is modano underachieving, ie, as a talent daigle wasn't at modano's level either.

This has to be the strangest comparison I have ever seen.

One of Daigle's weaknesses was his shot, Young had a heavy shot. Both were fast, but Daigle was shifty east-west while Young was more of a straight line skater. Daigle had good playmaking vision at times, whereas Young was never a playmaker. Always enjoy reading your takes, but this one is wild to me.

 

[markymarc1215]

During 1993, everyone was talking about Daigle. He was touted as the next French Canadian superstar (the "next" Lemieux). Ottawa signed him to an insane rookie contract. Quebec offered a king's ransom to Ottawa for his rights.

Yet I did uncover some pre internet IRC hockey user groups, where some people were really skeptical of him. They said his play would not translate very well against bigger, stronger, and more talented players. They were right.

So how did Daigle receive so much hype?

Overhyped based on the Lindros pick. Had gaudy numbers but a known lack of desire. Had 2 decent years in Ottawa before the wheels came off. Was a complete enigma and just wasn't engaged. There is a reason he bounced from team to team for so long. Eventually, he became a decent top 9 forward for the Wild at the start of their expansion. As a Ranger fan, he wasn't that bad during his time with us. We just expected a lot more given his pedigree, as did the Flyers, Lightning, Penguins, Wild, etc. His play was similar to what Lafreniere is now.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This has to be the strangest comparison I have ever seen.

One of Daigle's weaknesses was his shot, Young had a heavy shot. Both were fast, but Daigle was shifty east-west while Young was more of a straight line skater. Daigle had good playmaking vision at times, whereas Young was never a playmaker. Always enjoy reading your takes, but this one is wild to me.

i guess i always thought daigle was best served learning the defensive game (which i think he did in the end in minny?) and becoming a two way up and down guy with a shooter’s mentality?

ie, instead of being a crappy lafontaine in the NHL he might have been a good scott young

but then i also remember he was supposed to be a good shooter. am i misremembering that?

 

[markymarc1215]

i guess i always thought daigle was best served learning the defensive game (which i think he did in the end in minny?) and becoming a two way up and down guy with a shooter’s mentality?

ie, instead of being a crappy lafontaine in the NHL he might have been a good scott young

but then i also remember he was supposed to be a good shooter. am i misremembering that?

Good post. I think if he developed as expected, he'd end up as a Kucherov type player, as a recent comparison. Of course, reality and work ethic proved to be different.

 

[MarkusKetterer]

Overhyped based on the Lindros pick. Had gaudy numbers but a known lack of desire. Had 2 decent years in Ottawa before the wheels came off. Was a complete enigma and just wasn't engaged. There is a reason he bounced from team to team for so long. Eventually, he became a decent top 9 forward for the Wild at the start of their expansion. As a Ranger fan, he wasn't that bad during his time with us. We just expected a lot more given his pedigree, as did the Flyers, Lightning, Penguins, Wild, etc. His play was similar to what Lafreniere is now.

I recall he broke his arm driving to the net and became more of a perimeter player upon his return.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Why did Daigle play on the wing? He could absolutely fly and had good vision and playmaking skill. Even in junior, I thought his skillset was better suited to playing center. He wasn't physical or good at puck retrieval at all, and his shooting ability wasn't where he excelled. He excelled with the puck on his stick and driving the offense.

I always found it strange that he was a winger, it seemed...limiting for a player with his particular skillset.

 

[Terry Yake]

the hype surrounding daigle was 100% warranted, he just couldn't adjust his game once he got figured out and had zero drive or motivation on top of that. it's like he just expected to come into the league and keep dominating like he did in juniors without having to put in any sort of work or effort

that said, he still managed to have a decade+ NHL career where he put up 51 pts on 3 separate occasions. he's certainly a bust for not living up to the hype, but i wouldn't really call him a bust based off his career alone

 

[MS]

i remember the 1993 WJC and it was clear as day to anyone watching that daigle was not in kariya's postal code as a talent.

what could daigle with his head screwed on straight have been? i want to say a rich man's scott young? given that he would have played his prime in the DPE, that probably means he scores annually in the mid-to-high 30s and in a good year is in the 40s and in an everything-goes-right career year flirts with 50.

but looking at the drafts around him, he obviously wasn't mario or lindros. but was he as good as pierre turgeon? i don't think so. maybe he could have been pre-hitchcock modano? but then you have to remember that pre-hitchcock modano was modano with daigle's commitment and attitude issues, and hall of fame modano was modano with his priorities in the right place. which means that daigle with everything going well is modano underachieving, ie, as a talent daigle wasn't at modano's level either.

I’ve said before that a motivated Daigle probably has a Martin Havlat peak.

Daigle should have been better than he was but he never had superstar potential. His skating caused people to overlook the other flaws in his game, and as you say Kariya was obviously the better prospect when both were on the same team at the ‘93 WJC.

ooh thanks for the legwork

that was some rookie year in the Q by daigle

i guess my hunch is what made daigle an exceptional junior player was his tools. he skated better than everyone else and had a really good shot. at the next level, those advantages were still advantages but they weren't like a cheat code anymore.

that's kind of why i brought up kariya upthread. they were about the same age—kariya was four months older. but you could see that what made kariya dominate at the WJC, which daigle did not, was instincts and vision. even in his draft -1, when kariya made the team as a very early birthday for his cohort but still by far the youngest guy on the team, you could see in spurts kariya had "it."

i think in the same way, turgeon, who in my understanding was regarded as the best north american prospect between mario and lindros, scored at a similar rate to daigle in their draft years. but again, his advantage over everyone else was upstairs, not tools.

modano i think was more of a cross between the two. incredible tools but obviously he also thought the game at a high level, albeit not at a near-genius level like kariya or turgeon.

it kind of makes me think: someone on this board (i think @MS ?) insists that jeff friesen was considered the presumptive number one prospect for the 1994 draft in their draft -1 year. i have no memory of this but that's another out of this world skater with goal scorer's hands at the lower level. and he followed up his very impressive CHL rookie of the year (the year after daigle won the award) with an excellent draft age year but fell to #11 with no future superstars and only one can't-miss prospect (bonk) passing him. i wonder of part of friesen's fall was watching daigle's rookie year: the killer start and then him looking less and less impressive with every passing month.



it's an interesting question: if daigle came around a decade later, would he have thrived in the post-lockout NHL? or would he have killed it as vince on HBO's entourage?

Friesen definitely has massive hype in his draft-1 and was favoured for #1 overall. Was still considered top-5 heading into the draft and then fell on draft day.

It’s an interesting comparison of two players with similar skill sets who underachieved different reasons - Friesen just got fatter and fatter as his career went on and by the time he was 30 he was this 220 lb slug and his explosiveness and dynamic talent was totally gone.

 

[rielledup]

It is always said that he didn't have the passion or drive to become a real star in the NHL. Maybe that's true but I find it interesting that after his NHL career he went on to play five more seasons in Switzerland and retired at 35 which is not young for a pro hockey player. If he didn't care much about hockey why did he continue to play in Europe?

IM guessing because he was still making more money playing hockey that he could doing anything else

 

[WarriorofTime]

It was warranted in that he was by all means an excellent prospect.

Regional Quebec pride likely factors in as well. He was the best French Canadian prospect since Lemieux, and only one other guy has a remotely argument, but one people were less thrilled about for other reasons.

Highest drafted QMJHL prospect per year 1985-1992

1992: Paul Brosseau - 2nd round, 28th overall
1991: Patrick Poulin - 1st round, 9th overall
1990: Karl Dykhuis - 1st round, 16th overall
1989: Patrick Brisebois - 2nd round, 30th overall
1988: Daniel Dore - 1st round, 5th overall
1987: Pierre Turgeon - 1st round, 1st overall
1986: Jimmy Carson - 1st round, 2nd overall (not French Canadian, American). Vincent Damphousse at 1st round, 6th overlal was first Quebec native.
1985: Jose Charbonneau - 1st round, 12th overall

So there had been a bit of a lag of a great French-Canadian prospect. Turgeon had some controversy for not getting off the bench at the Punchup in Piestany, and while Turgeon had a bit better of a PPG in the QMJHL, the league was higher scoring and Daigle's 2.585 is likely relatively better than Turgeon's 2.655.

 

[WarriorofTime]

He also played for one of the worst teams in NHL history given how measly the expansion draft rules were for the new franchises and it was easy for the opposition to key on him.

Meh, Yashin was only a year and some change older and always managed to produce quite a bit more. Ottawa managed to become a Playoff team by the time Daigle was only 21, but while he had some points that year with good ice time, his level of play due to a lack of doing anything other than points was a bigger problem than it was worth and Ottawa improved upon shipping him out. Actually found his biggest success playing for Jacque Lemaire and managed to lead the low-scoring tight-checking mediocre Wild in scoring in 2003-04. Perhaps he might have found a bit of a stride if there hadn't been a lockout. Coming out of it, his PPG was OK but his atrocious two-way play saw him hit waivers and that was it for the NHL. He did manage to show some success in Switzerland, as further proof that the skill was always there.

 

[Hobnobs]

During 1993, everyone was talking about Daigle. He was touted as the next French Canadian superstar (the "next" Lemieux). Ottawa signed him to an insane rookie contract. Quebec offered a king's ransom to Ottawa for his rights.

Yet I did uncover some pre internet IRC hockey user groups, where some people were really skeptical of him. They said his play would not translate very well against bigger, stronger, and more talented players. They were right.

So how did Daigle receive so much hype?

He had no problem translating his skill to the NHL. He didn't have any motivation or passion to do so. What you read is what is said every year when there is a smaller prospect coming into the draft.

 

[Crosby2010]

I know it is just piling on when I say this but I just never saw the special tag with him even in junior. I guess hindsight is 20/20.

 

[The Panther]

I mean he had 137 in 53 games, leading the Q in PPG.

How many guys have led their CHL league in PPG as a draft eligible player? Like 10 ever?

To put this in perspective, in the late-80s Patrice Lefebvre had a 200 point season in the Q... and played three career NHL games.

As I noted in another thread, Daigle was outscored by Rene Corbet and Ian Laperierre in his draft year. Scouts didn't seem to think those guys were going to be super-studs (they weren't), so what was it exactly about Daigle that made them salivate? Speed, I guess...?

But, as others (incl. Daigle himself) have noted, there's a difference between having talent / skill and having desire / passion. The reality is, scouts and NHL braintrusts are dealing with high-school students in the draft. You just never know where their mental / psychological development will go over the next few years.

 

[MadLuke]

To put this in perspective, in the late-80s Patrice Lefebvre had a 200 point season in the Q... and played three career NHL games.

As I noted in another thread, Daigle was outscored by Rene Corbet and Ian Laperierre in his draft year. Scouts didn't seem to think those guys were going to be super-studs (they weren't), so what was it exactly about Daigle that made them salivate? Speed, I guess...?

This seem to not take account draft year vs veteran.

Corbet was a june 1973 player that was a second round pick 2 years before, Laperriere was a january 1974 that was drafted in 1992.

Daigle was a feb 1975 playing in his draft eligibility year, when scout-team drafted those other 2 they were not leading the Q, Corbet scored 65 pts in 45 games and got drafted in the second round, Laperriere 77 in 70. Those played with each other that season, Laperriere points dropped quite a bit once Corbet went to the big league.

And Daigle was a 6 foot solid built future 200 pounds guys, not in the same boat as the 5'6'' not even 165 pounds when wet racking up points in the Q in the 80s for nhl teams.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I really like the amount of keystrokes MadLuke has saved me this week. There's been a number of posts where I'm thinking, "is it even worth laying this out in any digestible format?" ...and then boom, there he is!

 

[seventieslord]

I really like the amount of keystrokes MadLuke has saved me this week. There's been a number of posts where I'm thinking, "is it even worth laying this out in any digestible format?" ...and then boom, there he is!

How are there still people in this section that need this stuff explained to them?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Not to mention that even if they had been the same ages, scouts may have players at different places along their perceived potential curves and believe that one player still has a lot more upside than others producing the same (or more) currently. Like, this shouldn't be a big leap for people here.

 

[The Panther]

I'm aware that players are different ages. My point is simply that forwards in the Q scoring 150+ points (at least in that era) isn't necessarily overly impressive from an NHL-star-perspective standpoint.