Connor McDavid vs Jack Eichel - Round II

[KuralySnipes]

Continued from:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1570297

I thought McDavid and Eichel looked average throughout the tournament, but McDavid looked dominant tonight.

Click to read more...

 

[Tripod]

It won't. Nobody gives a **** about a 5 game sample size tournament

Except last year when Jones took over MacKinnon based in this same tournament.

Then MacKinnon overtook Jones at another tournament at the end of the year.

It does happen.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

It won't. Nobody gives a **** about a 5 game sample size tournament

This is true. People should remember that before the tournament as well. Not just after their favorite prospect struggles a bit.

 

[KPower]

If there was any doubt about #1, it's gone now.

 

[McOvechking]

If there was any doubt about #1, it's gone now.

Because of 1 day of hockey? Don't be so short-sighted. There is still gonna be debate.

 

[Paxon]

For the bolded part... what? I said nothing about losing a year of bantams or whatever or that it mattered today. Your reading comprehension explains a lot.

Ask the IIHF their ages, Eichel is 18, McDavid is 17 (fyi this is an IIHF event). Regardless of what you say, their birthyear is what counts which is why McDavid is eligible for the U18s and Eichel is not. Common sense enough for ya?

As a 16 year old on the third line, McDavid had as many points as 18 year old Eichel on the first line. Fact of life, deal with it, your boy flopped in the tournament.

Thread closing ate my response but I'll type another one up:

It is asinine that you select the IIHF's arbitrary U-18 criteria to determine how old a player is. McDavid is 18 years minus 11 days old. Eichel is about 18 years plus 60 days old. That means there is about 70 days difference between them. McDavid and Eichel started high-level juniors at the same time. McDavid and Eichel have are both in their second WJC. Both are in their draft year. What disadvantage is McDavid granted by the triviality of being eligible this year for a U-18 tournament he won't participate in to the extent that it magically makes him "a year" younger than Eichel, in defiance of basic arithmetic?

The only two factors that matter here are:
Actual age, which affects physical and mental development. There is no difference here as it is well less than three months. You wouldn't say a player born in February is a year younger than a player born in May... I hope.

Developmental age/years, which affects hockey development by the level of play they're exposed to. While it's true McDavid lost a year of midgets, meaning, AFAIK, he had played midgets one less year than Eichel when they started juniors, I'd say that's pretty well overshadowed by them having the same years at the junior level now. Apparently so do you since I assumed that's what you were talking about, as it actually matters to some degree, while you were actually talking about something that doesn't matter in any sense whatsoever (IIHF U-18 eligibility).

Just because people don't say someone is 18 conversationally until they actually turn 18 doesn't make someone who is said to be 17 is a year younger than someone who is said to be 18. 70-ish days is a fraction of a year. Again, what disadvantage is McDavid at? He isn't. He's a better prospect but it has nothing to do with his performances being at a younger age.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

If there was any doubt about #1, it's gone now.

Sure. 1 game against Denmark has sealed it. I mean he scored points! Just ignore the fact that he got tossed around by the Danish defense half a dozen times.

 

[landy92mack29]

Sure. 1 game against Denmark has sealed it. I mean he scored points! Just ignore the fact that he got tossed around by the Danish defense half a dozen times.

just because they're from Denmark doesn't mean a 6'5 220 lbs dman cant out muscle a 6'0 190 lbs underage forward

 

[Get North]

McDavid with 7 points in 5 games so far, Eichel with 4 points in 5 games.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

just because they're from Denmark doesn't mean a 6'5 220 lbs dman cant out muscle a 6'0 190 lbs underage forward

If he gets out muscled by Danish junior players, what's gonna happen against NHL defenseman?

Also, he was getting knocked around by guys much smaller than 6'5 220 lol.

 

[Seachd]

If I have the first pick, I don't know how I can't take McDavid.

But whenever I watch Eichel (which hasn't been much at all), he just reminds me of Modano when he used to walk over the Oilers year after year. Looks like such a good player.

 

[Petey3329]

eichel is good...but mcdavid is great

this argument needs to stop. Mcdavid will go number one and not based on this tournament (even though he has been better) but based on the fact that he was dominating the OHL as a 17 yr old. Amazing player with amazing hockey sense. You cant teach that. Eichel forced the play today. But will be a good player at the next level but will never be connor. This is the ovechkin crosby saga in the NHL all over again. And we know how that went...

 

[Paxon]

If he gets out muscled by Danish junior players, what's gonna happen against NHL defenseman?

Also, he was getting knocked around by guys much smaller than 6'5 220 lol.

No one's disputing McDavid needs to add weight but let's not overstate it. There's no doubt in my mind he can add enough strength to be an elite player. How good he's going to be will be determined by how well he can mesh his game into the flow of the NHL game without doing too much or too little as required, as well as on continuing to improve on his shot. Yeah, if he adds a lot of strength he'll be a monster, but he only needs to improve it to be an elite player.

This offseason was his first with Gary Roberts and the results were pretty obvious when the hockey year rolled around. That program will get the most out of his body. I won't speculate as to how much room there is for strength gains but I see no reason why it'd be below average. I hate to point to a single guy and act like that's the rule rather than the exception, but Stamkos was probably physically comparable to McDavid, did the same training program, and now no one looks to strength as an issue in his game.

 

[Petey3329]

2 player of the games...at 17...highlight reel assists and highlight reel goal.. i dont care if its against denmark he has 8 pts and is just hitting the surface after being injured. Incredible kid

 

[Get North]

It seems like it's easier to get under Eichel's skin than McDavid's. Eichel got upset whenever his opponents pushed him, facewashed him or whatever and he just didn't seem the same. McDavid never really reacted like Eichel, Eichel put himself in the box once. Might come up big later in their careers because you need players who don't get upset that quickly or take themselves out of the game because their opponents try to annoy them.

 

[AD1066]

Might come up big later in their careers because you need players who don't get upset that quickly or take themselves out of the game because their opponents try to annoy them.

Which one broke his hand fighting again?

 

[Tutu to]

just because they're from Denmark doesn't mean a 6'5 220 lbs dman cant out muscle a 6'0 190 lbs underage forward

I dont believe for 1 second McDavid is actually 190.

 

[Get North]

Which one broke his hand fighting again?

Oh yeah, I guess that's pretty bad but I can't imagine McDavid fighting in the NHL. Some players are just more composed than others, I think McDavid is more composed than Eichel.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

No one's disputing McDavid needs to add weight but let's not overstate it. There's no doubt in my mind he can add enough strength to be an elite player. How good he's going to be will be determined by how well he can mesh his game into the flow of the NHL game without doing too much or too little as required, as well as on continuing to improve on his shot. Yeah, if he adds a lot of strength he'll be a monster, but he only needs to improve it to be an elite player.

This offseason was his first with Gary Roberts and the results were pretty obvious when the hockey year rolled around. That program will get the most out of his body. I won't speculate as to how much room there is for strength gains but I see no reason why it'd be below average. I hate to point to a single guy and act like that's the rule rather than the exception, but Stamkos was probably physically comparable to McDavid, did the same training program, and now no one looks to strength as an issue in his game.

Agree, I've always likened his body type to Stamkos. But not sure if that will work for him at the NHL level. Half of CMDs game is based on possession and puck control below the hash marks, which requires significant strength. Stamkos does not excel in this aspect of the game, and I see where it might take some more time than most people think for him to become an elite impact player.

We'll see. I could be flat out wrong and he could come out and score 80+ points next year. I think he'll be closer to 60-65.

 

[3 Minute Minor]

Thread closing ate my response but I'll type another one up:

It is asinine that you select the IIHF's arbitrary U-18 criteria to determine how old a player is. McDavid is 18 years minus 11 days old. Eichel is about 18 years plus 60 days old. That means there is about 70 days difference between them. McDavid and Eichel started high-level juniors at the same time. McDavid and Eichel have are both in their second WJC. Both are in their draft year. What disadvantage is McDavid granted by the triviality of being eligible this year for a U-18 tournament he won't participate in to the extent that it magically makes him "a year" younger than Eichel, in defiance of basic arithmetic?

The only two factors that matter here are:
Actual age, which affects physical and mental development. There is no difference here as it is well less than three months. You wouldn't say a player born in February is a year younger than a player born in May... I hope.

Developmental age/years, which affects hockey development by the level of play they're exposed to. While it's true McDavid lost a year of midgets, meaning, AFAIK, he had played midgets one less year than Eichel when they started juniors, I'd say that's pretty well overshadowed by them having the same years at the junior level now. Apparently so do you since I assumed that's what you were talking about, as it actually matters to some degree, while you were actually talking about something that doesn't matter in any sense whatsoever (IIHF U-18 eligibility).

Just because people don't say someone is 18 conversationally until they actually turn 18 doesn't make someone who is said to be 17 is a year younger than someone who is said to be 18. 70-ish days is a fraction of a year. Again, what disadvantage is McDavid at? He isn't. He's a better prospect but it has nothing to do with his performances being at a younger age.

your failure to understand that birthyear is what is used from tots to IIHF events is hilarious. I actually think you understand it but you're so rooted in arguing that you're making an argument you might not necessarily believe.

btw if you're going to resort to counting down the days between Eichel & McDavid and say Eichel is 70 days from being the same age as McDavid, I could point the other way and say Eichel is 70 days from being drafted already.

 

[Paxon]

Agree, I've always likened his body type to Stamkos. But not sure if that will work for him at the NHL level. Half of CMDs game is based on possession and puck control below the hash marks, which requires significant strength. Stamkos does not excel in this aspect of the game, and I see where it might take some more time than most people think for him to become an elite impact player.

We'll see. I could be flat out wrong and he could come out and score 80+ points next year. I think he'll be closer to 60-65.

He's just gotta work on them gams and he should remain a beast at protecting the puck. His upper body work relies more on his hand-eye coordination than strength to protect the puck. He definitely needs lower body strength to be able to do what he does at the next level.

As to his adjustment I tend to agree with you. Expecting any player to step in and be a top 5 scorer is incredibly unfair. Depending on what kind of personnel is available, I'd probably ease him in the way the Avs did with MacKinnon, at wing on a more protected line. I've said for a while now that it wouldn't surprise me if Eichel has a quicker adjustment to the NHL as he plays a bit more of a direct game, is a bit stronger currently, and has been playing against men. If that turns out to be the case I'll still think McDavid's the better prospect unless that remains the case for a few seasons.

your failure to understand that birthyear is what is used from tots to IIHF events is hilarious. I actually think you understand it but you're so rooted in arguing that you're making an argument you might not necessarily believe.

btw if you're going to resort to counting down the days between Eichel & McDavid and say Eichel is 70 days from being the same age as McDavid, I could point the other way and say Eichel is 70 days from being drafted already.

Your birth-year does not define how old you are. If you're born in December of 1857 how does 1857 define how old you are more than 1858 does? Conversationally people say McDavid is 17 and Eichel is 18 but that does not make McDavid a year younger, because people don't go around saying "17 and 11/12ths years old". Eichel is not a year older than McDavid. McDavid is more 18 than he is 17. He turns 18 in 11 days. It's really that simple. This is one of the most asinine things I've had to argue in a while.

What would it matter if Eichel were drafted already? Draft eligbility, CHL/USHL eligbility, and IIHF eligibility are all arbitrary and use different criteria. Like I said, all that matters is actual age (plays into physical and mental development) and hockey development years at various stages. They're at the same stage and have been for the same period of time, being in their third seasons against top-level amateur competition. They're at the same age being about two months apart. Where is the gap? An imaginary line through time between December and January?

Again, I ask you to articulate what actual advantage Eichel has over McDavid due to the difference in their birthdates.

 

[Plastic Joseph]

Personally I liked Eichel more at the WJC despite the loss today. Eichel was clearly driving the play for USA and aside from trying to do too much at the end he had a good game.

McDavid is still my favorite for 1st overall though, but this debate does not end at the WJC.

 

[3 Minute Minor]

Your birth-year does not define how old you are. If you're born in December of 1857 how does 1857 define how old you are more than 1858 does? Conversationally people say McDavid is 17 and Eichel is 18 but that does not make McDavid a year younger, because people don't go around saying "17 and 11/12ths years old". Eichel is not a year older than McDavid. McDavid is more 18 than he is 17. He turns 18 in 11 days. It's really that simple. This is one of the most asinine things I've had to argue in a while.

What would it matter if Eichel were drafted already? Draft eligbility, CHL/USHL eligbility, and IIHF eligibility are all arbitrary and use different criteria. Like I said, all that matters is actual age (plays into physical and mental development) and hockey development years at various stages. They're at the same stage and have been for the same period of time, being in their third seasons against top-level amateur competition. They're at the same age being about two months apart. Where is the gap? An imaginary line through time between December and January?

Again, I ask you to articulate what actual advantage Eichel has over McDavid due to the difference in their birthdates.

It's like you're new to hockey or just didn't grow up playing hockey and don't understand that your birth year defines your age from tots to midget, defines your CHL draft year, defines what level you can play in at IIHF events, etc.

Example:
http://www.gthlcanada.com/page/age-chart---2014-15-season

The only reason the NHL draft goes by Sept 15 is for insurance purposes lol every other league has a set rule with a birth year cutoff

 

[Paxon]

It's like you're new to hockey or just didn't grow up playing hockey and don't understand that your birth year defines your age from tots to midget, defines your CHL draft year, defines what level you can play in at IIHF events, etc.

Example:
http://www.gthlcanada.com/page/age-chart---2014-15-season

The only reason the NHL draft goes by Sept 15 is for insurance purposes lol every other league has a set rule with a birth year cutoff

Again, you have not articulated what disadvantage McDavid is at. You also aren't accounting for the fact that his birthyear actually didn't determine his CHL draft year, because he was accelerated, which is the whole point. Because of his acceleration he has had as much top-level development as anyone in the draft class: three years. So not only is the age gap not a factor in physical development as it is a mere two months, but it isn't a significant factor in hockey development because he's had the same amount of time at the highest level.

If McDavid didn't accelerate then the two month gap becomes significant, because it'd mean this would be only his second year in juniors, giving Eichel and others around Eichel's birthday an extra year of development at the most meaningful level. If McDavid were 9 months younger then you'd say he's somewhat close to a year younger, meaning he is at a disadvantage in terms of the typical rate of physical and mental maturity. Neither of these things are the case with McDavid. Even if McDavid didn't accelerate it wouldn't make him a year younger, it'd mean he had a year less of hockey development. He'd still be only two months -- not a year -- younger, but he'd be disadvantaged in a different way. It'd still not make sense to say he's a year younger. It's irrelevant in this case as it, well, is not the case.

This is not like comparing Reinhart to Sam Bennett, where Reinhart was not only a much more significant 7 months older but also had an extra year of juniors under his belt. That represents two advantages Reinhart had over Bennett. Eichel has neither of those significant advantages over McDavid. It's that simple. It also doesn't really matter because I'd take Reinhart over Bennett in spite of those advantages, and I'd take McDavid over Eichel without having to invent him being at a disadvantage.

 

[3 Minute Minor]

Again, you have not articulated what disadvantage McDavid is at. You also aren't accounting for the fact that his birthyear actually didn't determine his CHL draft year, because he was accelerated, which is the whole point. Because of his acceleration he has had as much top-level development as anyone in the draft class: three years. So not only is the age gap not a factor in physical development as it is a mere two months, but it isn't a significant factor in hockey development because he's had the same amount of time at the highest level.

If McDavid didn't accelerate then the two month gap becomes significant, because it'd mean this would be only his second year in juniors, giving Eichel and others around Eichel's birthday an extra year of development at the most meaningful level. If McDavid were 9 months younger then you'd say he's somewhat close to a year younger, meaning he is at a disadvantage in terms of the typical rate of physical and mental maturity. Neither of these things are the case with McDavid. Even if McDavid didn't accelerate it wouldn't make him a year younger, it'd mean he had a year less of hockey development. He'd still be only two months -- not a year -- younger, but he'd be disadvantaged in a different way. It'd still not make sense to say he's a year younger. It's irrelevant in this case as it, well, is not the case.

This is not like comparing Reinhart to Sam Bennett, where Reinhart was not only a much more significant 7 months older but also had an extra year of juniors under his belt. That represents two advantages Reinhart had over Bennett. Eichel has neither of those significant advantages over McDavid. It's that simple. It also doesn't really matter because I'd take Reinhart over Bennett in spite of those advantages, and I'd take McDavid over Eichel without having to invent him being at a disadvantage.

Why would I articulate how McDavid was at a disadvantage when I never said that in the first place?

All I did was post McDavid's stats as a 16 year old and Eichels stats as an 18 year old. You jumped to the defense of Eichel when all I've done is state fact.