I don't understand why people keep using the bad team excuse. When the sault picked up Campbell they were a top team, with 8 NHL draft picks on their roster.
Prospect Info: Jack Campbell
- Thread starter prob22
- Start date
Rune Forumwalker
Registered User
- May 11, 2006
- 2,570
- 0
Kipper933
Remember the Kipper
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
They were not. They traded their best player in the off season because they knew it would be a bad year.
Their GM is just dumb.
I hope he does well. I saw him in the WJC in 2011 and he was pretty damn impressive. The talent is clearly there.
It's hard to judge goalies on terrible teams. Being a Pens fan, I can remember following Fleury before he left junior and his stats didn't look so good. He was on a terrible team though. What he did have was a boatload of physical talent that you can't teach and the Pens believed that it would all come together for him when he matured and they surrounded him with better talent. It certainly has.
It's hard to judge goalies on terrible teams. Being a Pens fan, I can remember following Fleury before he left junior and his stats didn't look so good. He was on a terrible team though. What he did have was a boatload of physical talent that you can't teach and the Pens believed that it would all come together for him when he matured and they surrounded him with better talent. It certainly has.
Jack Campbell looks just fine so far, granted the small sample space of two games.
Wayyyy too early to tell.
You guys can say what you want but he really didn't have much D help in either Soo or Windsor. Windsor played run and gun and with the offensive talent they had last year, why not?
The Soo had a 17 year old and 16 year old defenceman playing regular shifts in front of him and the one early poster got it right. Check his stats against the other goalies on the team and it isn't even close. His stats were great on a horrible team.
Campbell is the real deal, IMO. Give him a couple of years though, which shouldn't be a problem for you guys with Lehtonen and Bachman ahead of him.
Wayyyy too early to tell.
You guys can say what you want but he really didn't have much D help in either Soo or Windsor. Windsor played run and gun and with the offensive talent they had last year, why not?
The Soo had a 17 year old and 16 year old defenceman playing regular shifts in front of him and the one early poster got it right. Check his stats against the other goalies on the team and it isn't even close. His stats were great on a horrible team.
Campbell is the real deal, IMO. Give him a couple of years though, which shouldn't be a problem for you guys with Lehtonen and Bachman ahead of him.
The Sault wasn't an awful team, but it wasn't exactly a stellar team either. They were mediocre, the kid took a risk trading for a big-name goaltender and it didn't really change the fact they were a mediocre team. He paid a lot, but it was in futures, so time will tell. Campbell didn't stink there, but he didn't exactly light the league on fire either.
The team he played for in Windsor, however, was still fairly solid.
I think the Stars' expectations for Campbell were higher than they should have been going into the draft, and he's been about the prospect I expected him to be — a decent goalie who may crack an NHL lineup some day and have some success, but not necessarily a can't-miss.
Here's the thing that bothered me and still bothers me about it. This is a goalie who didn't play a whole season with traveling and ups and downs, etc. before playing in the World Juniors the year they won gold, most of the looks any teams got on him were in short competitions — and even then, the U.S. started Lee in the games that mattered even if Campbell was strong in relief. Especially at the goaltending position, the litmus test has to be more than a small sampling of games.
Add in the fact that you've already got Bachman and Besko in the system, it's a dumb pick unless you believe the kid can play at that peak level at all times because you've just devalued what you have.
I still would have taken Fowler, and if having him would have stopped that awful trade of James Neal that's even more reason to be concerned.
The team he played for in Windsor, however, was still fairly solid.
I think the Stars' expectations for Campbell were higher than they should have been going into the draft, and he's been about the prospect I expected him to be — a decent goalie who may crack an NHL lineup some day and have some success, but not necessarily a can't-miss.
Here's the thing that bothered me and still bothers me about it. This is a goalie who didn't play a whole season with traveling and ups and downs, etc. before playing in the World Juniors the year they won gold, most of the looks any teams got on him were in short competitions — and even then, the U.S. started Lee in the games that mattered even if Campbell was strong in relief. Especially at the goaltending position, the litmus test has to be more than a small sampling of games.
Add in the fact that you've already got Bachman and Besko in the system, it's a dumb pick unless you believe the kid can play at that peak level at all times because you've just devalued what you have.
I still would have taken Fowler, and if having him would have stopped that awful trade of James Neal that's even more reason to be concerned.
I get what you're saying here but I do disagree on a couple of parts.
Mike Lee was the starting goalie based solely on age. Lee was the 19 year old goalie at the time and Campbell was 17. The logical choice to start at the time was Lee, despite the fact Campbell had more ability. This point was proven throughout that tournament as Campbell took over the #1 role, even though Lee wasn't horrible really at all.
Also, in the draft, you should draft BPA. I doubt Stars management went into that draft saying to themselves, "Hmmm...we have Bachman and Beskorowany so let's not consider taking Campbell". At the time, Lehtonen was injury prone and the jury was out on both Bachman and Besko. IMO, Besko hasn't really proven much at all yet.
Again, to answer the original poster, it is simply way too early to tell. It's often difficult to judge a goalie by his statistics alone and to label Campbell a "bust" at the age of 20 is ludicrous.
I've always believed Campbell would be a better pro goalie than junior and we're about to find out. Give him some time and I think he will prove that he was a good #11 overall pick.
As for that Neal-Niskanen for Goligoski trade, I never understood why the Stars did that.
LT
XXXX - XXXX - X___ - ____
- Jul 23, 2010
- 42,028
- 13,741
No one foresaw Lehtonen becoming a top 5 goalie.
Bachman still has starting potential, but the odds are stacked against him. If he ever does become a starter, it won't be for the Stars.
Besko has done absolutely nothing for me recently. The few games I've seen him, he's looked average. He'll probably be an average back-up, but has some potential.
Campbell has been great in the AHL. Juniors isn't a place to showcase goalies, it a place to showcase offensive talent for the most part. I won't be able to see Campbell this year, but I sure will next year, and I can't wait to see him.
Bachman still has starting potential, but the odds are stacked against him. If he ever does become a starter, it won't be for the Stars.
Besko has done absolutely nothing for me recently. The few games I've seen him, he's looked average. He'll probably be an average back-up, but has some potential.
Campbell has been great in the AHL. Juniors isn't a place to showcase goalies, it a place to showcase offensive talent for the most part. I won't be able to see Campbell this year, but I sure will next year, and I can't wait to see him.
BigG44
Registered User
- Jul 12, 2007
- 24,127
- 1,579
Just listening to the AHL games ... one thing is becoming clear.
Either Jack Campbell is potentially the greatest goalie of all time making huge save after huge save .... or Jeff Fisher has the biggest man crush in the world, and he wants to be Razor.
Every single Campbell save is announced at the top of his lungs, and two of the many, many one liners I can remember are:
1) He must be a mason because he's building a brick wall between the pipes.
2) No soup for you (after a save tonight).
Either Jack Campbell is potentially the greatest goalie of all time making huge save after huge save .... or Jeff Fisher has the biggest man crush in the world, and he wants to be Razor.
Every single Campbell save is announced at the top of his lungs, and two of the many, many one liners I can remember are:
1) He must be a mason because he's building a brick wall between the pipes.
2) No soup for you (after a save tonight).
Stars99Lobo37
Registered User
Cin
Eurosnob.
This is VERY impressing. If he's able to put up these type of number son such a ****ing horrible team, then that's pretty legit.
hairylikebear
///////////////
He started off very strong in Windsor too. Talent or ability were never his weaknesses, consistency is.
But why did they go back and start Lee again in the gold medal game when Campbell had been carrying the load until then. You don't just do that, the U.S. likely had more confidence in Lee and if it was on age alone, that's poor management.
The Stars considered Campbell the best player available, and I think that's a reason why their head scout didn't have a job much longer than that draft and the Glennie one. If he was the BPA, that's fine, but I still think there's more than just BPA to think about. Organizational need does come into play - especially at the goaltending position.
You have to think of the depth you have and how a guy fits. If the system is loaded with centres, for example, you have to wonder whether a centre is going to get the ice to develop behind older guys you have, whether you have to convert a talent to a new position to keep it, or whether you have to sell something you have cheap.
I think Nieuwendyk very clearly did foresee that and even said so at the time.
BigG44
Registered User
- Jul 12, 2007
- 24,127
- 1,579
Several Stars personnel said that. I don't have the link right now either, but that was their opinion.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Game 4 Boston Celtics @ Indiana Pacers - Boston leads series 3-0Wagers: 2Staked: $2,357.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 3 Dallas Stars @ Edmonton Oilers - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 13Staked: $17,222.00Event closes- Updated: