Kessel closing gap on Crosby?

Status
Not open for further replies.

espo*

Guest
HabLover said:
I will be interested to see how two other 18 yr olds, Andrew Cogliano and Dan Bertram fair in the NCAA next year. Cogliano is one of the most talented '87's in the world right now and will be heading to Michigan. Bertram, who entered the NCAA at 17, which was probably a bit too young, will have a year under his belt and should be very good for Boston College. The kid has great speed and loves to battle in the corners and in front of the net. To a lesser extent, Brock Bradford and Jonathan Toews will be worth following, although Toews will be another 17 yr old entering the NCAA and it will be tough for him to have an impact.

Does anyone know how Michigan, BC and Minnesota will look next year. Are there any early favourites heading into 2005/2006?
Not to get this off topic but the rumor is Bertram is going to leave the NCAA and join the "dub" next season.
 

markov`

Registered User
Feb 23, 2003
3,647
0
Top 2 in the world
Visit site
pei fan said:
As far as Vinny and others dominating, they only dominated other rookies.Crosby
at 16 dominated EVERY 19/20 year old.

Simply put, comparing every other 16 years old that played in the CHL to Crosby is laughable. As a 17 years old, Lafontaine was as good as Crosby, but that stops here. Lemieux, Bossy, Lafleur, etc were outscored by Crosby at the same age.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
pei fan said:
When I'm saying don't compare 16/17 year olds to 19/20 year olds I'm referring
to your comments about Richards etc.

As far as Vinny and others dominating, they only dominated other rookies.Crosby
at 16 dominated EVERY 19/20 year old.

I can tell numbers play a very big part of your thinking but as I've always said, stats don't tell the whole story but I'll play along for now.

Richards had 115 points as a 16 year old, 20 shy of Crosby. I don't know if I call 20 points DOMINATING (Crosby had 19 more goals which is impressive) but certainly better. FWIW, Richards finished tied for 5th in points in the 'Q' that year (20 points out of 1st). So as a rookie, Richards (by your theories) DOMINATED about 95% of the QMJHL. Scoring was down in the 'Q' last year (by the looks of the numbers) as only 2 guys had over 100 points (Crosby & Roussin). If Richards was playing last year in the 'Q' in his rookie year he'd be 3rd in the league in scoring and have beat out about 99% of the league (yeah, Crosby did 100% but I'm simply trying to dispute your theory that Richards only excelled in his 19 year old season).

Of course this gets off my argument since Richards is one of the ONLY ones that I've mentioned in this thread that has made an NHL impact but let's take Vinny's numbers as a 16-year old, in Crosby's year he would've been the 3rd leading scorer in the league, pretty good for a rookie! Yeah, Crosby was 1st but my point is if Crosby has a Vinny-like career, he'd likely be considered a bust based on all the hype. With Vinny he would've "dominated" (by your theory) about 99% of the league in Crosby's year w/his 102 points.

Brendl dominated the WHL which is often considered the league that resembles the pro style more than any other major junior league (I'm not trying to start a WHL vs. OHL vs. QMJHL debate just going with what the majority USUALLY say). Nobody has topped those 134 points since in the WHL. So Brendl dominated EVERYBODY, not just the rookies.

Yachmenev led the entire OHL in goals w/61 (Jason Allison was next w/55). While he isn't in the top-10 scoring (missed the cut by 3) he still "dominated" (by your theory) a large majority of the OHL. Heck, he bested Crosby's rookie goal total.

And if Crosby is being tabbed the next "Great One" why can't we compare him to 19 and 20 year olds? He's going to be playing against guys that range from 18-45 year olds! Like I said, the ORIGINAL thread starter was about the two now but it quickly turned to the pro prospects of both and this is where my arguments began but now we're COMPLETELY off track since my only original argument was: you can't use Crosby as a bench mark in his junior career when we're discussing pro prospects because if we did, previous history doesn't look pretty.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
markov` said:
Simply put, comparing every other 16 years old that played in the CHL to Crosby is laughable. As a 17 years old, Lafontaine was as good as Crosby, but that stops here. Lemieux, Bossy, Lafleur, etc were outscored by Crosby at the same age.

I'm not comparing every 16-year old but we were discussing PRO prospects and you CANNOT use a players junior success as a bench mark.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
pei fan said:
Can someone else please explain this to him. :D

Right because I'm an idiot.

You've been right on the large majority of your points BUT, YOU CANNOT use a players junior success as a bench mark when we're discussing a players pro career. What your posts implied (at least how I read them, and if you try and attack me for misreading, keep in mind you misread one of my posts earlier that everybody else seemed to understand) is: Crosby has accomplished more than any other player (in history) at the junior level so he is the better prospect.

Maybe you didn't read all the posts and that's why you were discussing it based solely on the original post but we all quickly began talking about the pro prospects of both and just because Crosby is so accomplished at the 'Q' level doesn't make him a better prospect.

That's my piece and I'm out!
 

markov`

Registered User
Feb 23, 2003
3,647
0
Top 2 in the world
Visit site
Schlep Rock said:
I'm not comparing every 16-year old but we were discussing PRO prospects and you CANNOT use a players junior success as a bench mark.

Well in my honest opinion, the fact that no player in the history has accomplished more than him at the same age is revelant.
 

markov`

Registered User
Feb 23, 2003
3,647
0
Top 2 in the world
Visit site
Schlep Rock said:
I can tell numbers play a very big part of your thinking but as I've always said, stats don't tell the whole story but I'll play along for now.

Richards had 115 points as a 16 year old, 20 shy of Crosby. I don't know if I call 20 points DOMINATING (Crosby had 19 more goals which is impressive) but certainly better. FWIW, Richards finished tied for 5th in points in the 'Q' that year (20 points out of 1st). So as a rookie, Richards (by your theories) DOMINATED about 95% of the QMJHL. Scoring was down in the 'Q' last year (by the looks of the numbers) as only 2 guys had over 100 points (Crosby & Roussin). If Richards was playing last year in the 'Q' in his rookie year he'd be 3rd in the league in scoring and have beat out about 99% of the league (yeah, Crosby did 100% but I'm simply trying to dispute your theory that Richards only excelled in his 19 year old season).

Let's say Richards dominated 95% of the QMJHL.

Crosby dominated 100% of the CHL.

Big, big difference.

And if Richards played in today's QMJHL, his point total would drop dramatically, the league is way less offensive that it was.

And that's just number... if we're talking about the better pro prospect, Crosby outmatch Richards, and every prospect you're comparing him to for that matter, in every single category.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
markov` said:
The Gophers are going to be a wicked team, if I'm not mistaken.

Minnesota's Recruits
Macgregor Sharp (Camrose - AJHL)
Mason Raymond (Camrose - AJHL) should be a dominant NCAA player
Nick Kemp (Sioux City - USHL)
Matt Niskanen (Virgina H.S.) big time sleeper for the program
Michael Gergen (Shattucks)
Jason Garrison (Nanaimo - BCHL)
Andrew Carroll (Sioux Falls - USHL)
Jim Jensen (Waterloo - USHL)
Josh Meyers (Sioux City - USHL)
Matt Greer (Des Moines - USHL)
Jared Boll (Lincoln - USHL)

This is a big class with a lot of older players (7 will be 20 by the season) and then they have Mueller fast tracking but I was reading somewhere (maybe here?) if the fast tracking doesn't go as planned he will go to Everett.

The '06-07 class in terms of talent seems much more impressive with two of the top players in North America (Kyle Okposo & Erik Johnson).

As Denver proved this year though, you can have all the talent and blue chippers, etc. in the world and still not win because they sure aren't a team loaded with blue chippers.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
markov` said:
Let's say Richards dominated 95% of the QMJHL.

Crosby dominated 100% of the CHL.

Big, big difference.

And if Richards played in today's QMJHL, his point total would drop dramatically, the league is way less offensive that it was.

And that's just number... if we're talking about the better pro prospect, Crosby outmatch Richards, and every prospect you're comparing him to for that matter, in every single category.

Big big = 5%?

Difference but not "big big" (in my opinion at least).

If Richards played in today's QMJHL we can speculate his scoring would go down but can't say for sure. We can obviously agree offense is down but would Richards? Probably but can't say 100%.

Crosby does out match everybody I have mentioned yes, except for one thing... Daigle, Lecavalier, etc. all had "the next Great One" tag at one point or another.

I'm pulling for Crosby to succeed in the NHL, I think it would be great for the game. My ONLY argument in this thread is simple... you CANNOT use a junior player like Crosby as a bench mark for future pro success because at the end of the day, it means squat. Crosby even knows it means squat hence why he wouldn't want to return next year with or without an NHL (everything I've read said he'll seriously explore all options, Europe, AHL, whatever) and if he felt that his time in junior was so valuable, he'd stay there. Junior hockey is great but in no way can is be a 100% accurate bench mark/prediction for the future of a hockey prospect.

Kid's a stud but anything can happen and to use him as a "bench mark" for Kessel and say Crosby is a better prospect BECAUSE he's accomplished more than anybody to me, doesn't make sense.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
markov` said:
Well in my honest opinion, the fact that no player in the history has accomplished more than him at the same age is revelant.

Relevant but should it be used a bench mark for another stud player to determine NHL prospect status? No.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
markov` said:
Simply put, comparing every other 16 years old that played in the CHL to Crosby is laughable. As a 17 years old, Lafontaine was as good as Crosby, but that stops here. Lemieux, Bossy, Lafleur, etc were outscored by Crosby at the same age.

Not sure what the QJHL vs. QMJHL are (if it's the same league or not) but the year before Lafleur's draft year (69-70) he scored 170 points in 56 games for the Quebec Ramparts and the year he was drafted (70-71) he had 209 points.

The record I just looked at didn't have Lafleur's birth year so if somebody can find it to figure out his age (I'm just going by draft right now) then you may be able to completely prove me wrong.

This argument is getting VERY silly now especially since we all just said we weren't going to compare every 16 year old!
 

gbl1p

Registered User
Jun 19, 2003
1,281
0
Ottawa
www.level1productions.com
Schlep Rock said:
Big big = 5%?

Difference but not "big big" (in my opinion at least).

If Richards played in today's QMJHL we can speculate his scoring would go down but can't say for sure. We can obviously agree offense is down but would Richards? Probably but can't say 100%.

Double standards! In that case, then we can't say 100% that Crosby's numbers in Richards year wouldn't be even greater. You acknowledge that scoring is down, yet forget to acknowledge a relative decrease in Richards number. Would Gretz have a 137 pt rookie year these days?
 

policegopher

Registered User
May 10, 2004
91
0
Minnesota
Schlep Rock said:
Minnesota's Recruits
Macgregor Sharp (Camrose - AJHL)
Mason Raymond (Camrose - AJHL) should be a dominant NCAA player
Nick Kemp (Sioux City - USHL)
Matt Niskanen (Virgina H.S.) big time sleeper for the program
Michael Gergen (Shattucks)
Jason Garrison (Nanaimo - BCHL)
Andrew Carroll (Sioux Falls - USHL)
Jim Jensen (Waterloo - USHL)
Josh Meyers (Sioux City - USHL)
Matt Greer (Des Moines - USHL)
Jared Boll (Lincoln - USHL)

This is a big class with a lot of older players (7 will be 20 by the season) and then they have Mueller fast tracking but I was reading somewhere (maybe here?) if the fast tracking doesn't go as planned he will go to Everett.

The '06-07 class in terms of talent seems much more impressive with two of the top players in North America (Kyle Okposo & Erik Johnson).

As Denver proved this year though, you can have all the talent and blue chippers, etc. in the world and still not win because they sure aren't a team loaded with blue chippers.

I am confused by your post. R.J. Anderson, Justin Bostrom, Jeff Frazee, Ryan Stoa and Blake Wheeler and Kessel are the recruits coming in the fall. Mueller, Okposo and E. Johnson the next year. I think this is correct?
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
gbl1p said:
Double standards! In that case, then we can't say 100% that Crosby's numbers in Richards year wouldn't be even greater. You acknowledge that scoring is down, yet forget to acknowledge a relative decrease in Richards number. Would Gretz have a 137 pt rookie year these days?

Nobody has tried to say it lol! If they did, they'd be right, they could be much higher. It'd only be a double standard if I disputed that fact.

We're talking about scoring down in the QMJHL, it's down in the NHL as well but we're not talking about that!! You're crossing over just like others were.

FWIW, Gretz had 182 points in his rookie year in the OHL(A) at 16 years old.

And based on your avatar... you'll try to defend Crosby until you're blue in the face.

HE'S AN AMAZING TALENT! You people are trying to draw me into debates about Crosby, I won't take the bait. He's an AMAZING talent but as good as he is, you can't use his junior accomplishments as a bench mark for determining pro success! Even if he goes on to break Gretz's numbers (which would be sweet) you STILL can't because for every Crosby there's 1000 dominant junior players who won't be big time NHLers. You can't say Crosby is a better prospect than Kessel JUST because what he's accomplished at the junior level (talent wise, I feel Crosby is better)!!!! Argue Crosby is better on talent alone and back it up w/his numbers & accomplishments but you can't say simply because he's accomplished more at this level, he's better.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
policegopher said:
I am confused by your post. R.J. Anderson, Justin Bostrom, Jeff Frazee, Ryan Stoa and Blake Wheeler and Kessel are the recruits coming in the fall. Mueller, Okposo and E. Johnson the next year. I think this is correct?

BAH! I'm an idiot... I copied Duluth's (I was going to say re: Raymond he must've switched his committment from Duluth).

Yes, you're right. This year's class is better than next year's (so far).
 

pei fan

Registered User
Jan 3, 2004
2,536
0
Schlep Rock said:
Right because I'm an idiot.
Don't be so hard on yourself.If it makes you feel better I now have something I
agree with you on.(just kidding)
Seriously let's see if we can find common ground.
As far as the post goes that you are quoting me on with regards to benchmark
up until that time the majority of posts are still comparing the 2 players now and
even the posts that refer to their NHl potential have to do so based on their
present ability.Regardless the initial topic was about comparing them now so my
post was the one on topic which was part of what my point was anyway.Crosby
is the best 17 year old hockey player on the planet.If Kessel wants to be the best
there's no better benchmark for him.What I was saying is how ironic you don't
want to compare 2 players of the same age and you want to compare Kessels potential to an NHl star but then say you can't predict how good a player Sidney will be.What I think happened is you read some things into the earlier posts(not just mine ) that weren't really there.BUT it doesn't matter,lets move on and
discuss what our opinions are.

I understand and AGREE that junior hockey is not an infallible predictor of NHl
potential.I have never disagreed with that.However it can be a good indicator
and if it wasn't the draft would be meaningless.IN RARE instances when a junior
player has played at a RARE level (ie Orr & Gretzky) then it becomes more predictable almost to the point of being infallible.IMO Sidney Crosby is one
of those rare players (one of the best 16/17 year olds ever if not the best).
For that matter he only has Gretzky and Orr to compare to as a hockey
prodigy showing up on the radar at a very young age.

I find it ironic you say points matter to me so much.Actually I think you use them alot more than I do .I don't know if I listed a point total this entire thread.What
matters to me is "relative dominance".I use scoring races to stress that point but
there is alot more to Sidney than scoring races. Have you ever seen Sidney play
live.If you did i don't think we'd be having this same discussion.You have to see
him live to fully understand how good he is.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,220
5,933
Halifax, NS
Rabid Ranger said:
How are phenomenal hands and elite speed going to be less of an advantage in the professional ranks?
Ask Jeff Friesen that question. One silly tourney won't change my opinion on the Kessel Frolik debate. Frolik just looked more impressive at the WJC and I feel his hockey sense/skill set will make him a better player in the NHL.
 

Le Golie

...
Jul 4, 2002
8,541
464
Jason MacIsaac said:
Ask Jeff Friesen that question. One silly tourney won't change my opinion on the Kessel Frolik debate. Frolik just looked more impressive at the WJC and I feel his hockey sense/skill set will make him a better player in the NHL.

Sounds familiar. A year and a half ago several people who had seen Crosby and Brule play two or three times decided it would be fun to pretend they are smarter than the general concensus and say things like 'Brule will be the better player in the end'.

Those people look pretty stupid now. It's very obvious to people inside hockey circles that Kessel is on a different level than Frolik, but believe whatever you want.
 

Schlep Rock

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
2,732
0
USA
pei fan said:
Don't be so hard on yourself.If it makes you feel better I now have something I
agree with you on.(just kidding)
Seriously let's see if we can find common ground.
As far as the post goes that you are quoting me on with regards to benchmark
up until that time the majority of posts are still comparing the 2 players now and
even the posts that refer to their NHl potential have to do so based on their
present ability.Regardless the initial topic was about comparing them now so my
post was the one on topic which was part of what my point was anyway.Crosby
is the best 17 year old hockey player on the planet.If Kessel wants to be the best
there's no better benchmark for him.What I was saying is how ironic you don't
want to compare 2 players of the same age and you want to compare Kessels potential to an NHl star but then say you can't predict how good a player Sidney will be.What I think happened is you read some things into the earlier posts(not just mine ) that weren't really there.BUT it doesn't matter,lets move on and
discuss what our opinions are.

I understand and AGREE that junior hockey is not an infallible predictor of NHl
potential.I have never disagreed with that.However it can be a good indicator
and if it wasn't the draft would be meaningless.IN RARE instances when a junior
player has played at a RARE level (ie Orr & Gretzky) then it becomes more predictable almost to the point of being infallible.IMO Sidney Crosby is one
of those rare players (one of the best 16/17 year olds ever if not the best).
For that matter he only has Gretzky and Orr to compare to as a hockey
prodigy showing up on the radar at a very young age.

I find it ironic you say points matter to me so much.Actually I think you use them alot more than I do .I don't know if I listed a point total this entire thread.What
matters to me is "relative dominance".I use scoring races to stress that point but
there is alot more to Sidney than scoring races. Have you ever seen Sidney play
live.If you did i don't think we'd be having this same discussion.You have to see
him live to fully understand how good he is.

I've seen Crosby live twice and three times on TV. I know how good he is.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,463
11,443
parts unknown
Jason MacIsaac said:
Ask Jeff Friesen that question. One silly tourney won't change my opinion on the Kessel Frolik debate. Frolik just looked more impressive at the WJC and I feel his hockey sense/skill set will make him a better player in the NHL.

Jeff Friesen has the head of a rock. Kessel has great hockey sense.

End of discussion. Friesen can't even read the play as Kessel can now. And Kessel is what, 10 years or more younger?
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,417
Vancouver, BC
Kessel is almost a carbon copy of Alex Daigle circa 1992-93. This is not, of course, to say he'll have the same level of NHL success. But when people wonder what Ottawa was thinking when they took Daigle #1, it's because he showed that sort of skill.
 

espo*

Guest
Schlep Rock said:
I've seen Crosby live twice and three times on TV. I know how good he is.
Where did you see him live at? you live in Maine and go to Lewiston games?
 

espo*

Guest
MS said:
Kessel is almost a carbon copy of Alex Daigle circa 1992-93. This is not, of course, to say he'll have the same level of NHL success. But when people wonder what Ottawa was thinking when they took Daigle #1, it's because he showed that sort of skill.
Same type of skill i guess but Daigle i don't think ever was as mature and refined in that skill as Kessel is at the same age...not from what i remeber of seeing him in junior anyway.Some might dispute this but i don't remember him ever being as sharp as Kessel at the same age.
 

ajsonor

Registered User
Jun 11, 2003
1,454
0
Orlando, FL
Visit site
Kritty said:
I don't see Kessel as being on the same level as Crosby. ...Crosby ... has destroyed the CHL playing against players 2-3 years older than him. When Kessel is doing that, then I'll start thinking about putting him on that level. ...

Kessel stats from the US Development program are impressive. Their schedule is against US College Teams, so he's out there against some guys who may be 22-23 years old, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->