Matt Carle or Jack Johnson

Status
Not open for further replies.

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
Caniacforever said:
I honestly don't see how Johnson has distinguished himself away from Ryan yet. I don't get how people say that. Both are top tier prospects right now and should be respected as such.

Anaheim drafted BPA, Carolina did as well. You can't fault either team for their choice. Ryan is going to be a stud.

I like Ryan too. If Ryan develops properly, then the Ducks will have absolutely no regrets. Also, I think the pick made sense positionally, since Anaheim had a plethora of quality blueliners and top 9 forwards but lacked a true game-breaking power forward.

Although Johnson would have developed very well with Scott Niedermayer as a mentor.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
phaneuf_fan_3 said:
Off the top of my head Smid, Suter, Weber, Phaneuf, Erik Johnson, Staal, Bourdon, Mezsaros, Whitney, Barker, Parent, Babchuck, Kronwall, Green, Seabrook.

well theres 15 to start.......I would argue that every one of them are closer as a prospect in terms of top end talent to Jack Johnson then Carle is.

I would agree with Kronwall, but he is too old to be considered. Some of the others you listed are playing in the NHL and producing (Mezsaros, Whitney, Seabrook), but that does not automatically make them better than Carle.
 

mytor4*

Guest
superroyain10 said:
I would agree with Kronwall, but he is too old to be considered. Some of the others you listed are playing in the NHL and producing (Mezsaros, Whitney, Seabrook), but that does not automatically make them better than Carle.


if you think that carle is better than Mezsaros, Whitney, Seabrook then i don't think you have watched enough hockey in your lifetime to have enough knowledge about the game and it's players.playing in the nhl does not make them automatically better BUT these three mention are all a LOT better than carle. if your carle is so great why isn't he in the nhl. there's got to be a reason. he's 22 yrs old and still on the outside waiting to get in. usually such GREAT prospects get in there a little early. whats carle's exc or your excuse. also i 'd take johnson and aki burg without blinking an eye.;)
 

Cardiac Jerks

Asinine & immoral
Jan 13, 2006
23,353
39,933
Long Sault, Ontario
Do you guys think staying another year in college at the least will help Johnson's development? I've always believed that in order to progress you need to challenge yourselves so I think he'd be best suited playing in the ahl but that won't happen. I've heard his style of play is too much for most of the college guys to handle and that's why he gets so many penalty minutes.
 

Letang fan 58

No More Fleury
May 12, 2004
5,814
1
Canada
Cardiac_Canes said:
Do you guys think staying another year in college at the least will help Johnson's development? I've always believed that in order to progress you need to challenge yourselves so I think he'd be best suited playing in the ahl but that won't happen. I've heard his style of play is too much for most of the college guys to handle and that's why he gets so many penalty minutes.

No I think that another year in College will not help his development at all.....he is as developed at this point in College as he is going to get before making the leap to the pros............I think this was kind of a let down hearing that he will not play in the nhl for at least another year......why is he waiting? he is the class of NCAA dmen right now and good enough to play pro.
 

Patty Ice

Straight to the Banc
Feb 27, 2002
13,854
3,339
Not California
mytor4 said:
if your carle is so great why isn't he in the nhl. there's got to be a reason. he's 22 yrs old and still on the outside waiting to get in. usually such GREAT prospects get in there a little early. whats carle's exc or your excuse.

First off, he is still 21 but that just semantics. Second off, he is in the NHL right now. This week...1 game live action, past two press box. Sharks are deep in the a playoff hunt and currently have more expeienced options on hand. The reason why he stayed at college 1) said options (ie depth) allowed the Sharks to tell him to get his education and develop in college and B) he was winning year after year.

Carle could have probably played in the NHL as a 19 or 20 year old but there were a few factors. He did not want to leave school and you can't play someone if they aren't signed to a contract. Then you have the miss seasoned. At this point you have a guy who has been one of the main factors in his team winning back-to-back national championships. This was the year where his leadership was key so why not let him develop more especially since there were bodies in the organization so his presence wasn't necessarily needed.

You attack the poster by saying he should watch a game (more or less) and go on to question Carle and his game. My suggestion to you would be try watching Carle's game not nitpick because he wasn't a first round pick and *GASP* barely entering the NHL at the age of 21 after an extremely successful collegiate career.

That said, I'd still prefer Johnson to Carle.
 

Jimmi McJenkins

Sometimes miracles
Jan 12, 2006
74,794
33,494
Alberta
Now I could be wrong but isn't that simlar to asking:

Evgeni Malkin or Bobby Ryan

I mean they will both be NHLers, but one will be far better then the other.
 

Puckhead

Registered User
Jun 13, 2004
703
0
Behind you!!!
superroyain10 said:
At least when I have seen him, Bourdon lacks the ability to take over a game. He doesn't have that "wow" factor, nothing in him that makes him seem really unique. He is not one-dimensional, which is good, but except for a good pass, nothing really stood out. On the other hand, Carle has superb hockey sense, and has excellent creativity which gives him that "wow" factor. When he is out there on the ice you just feel he is going to make a big play.

That is the beauty of Bourdon...he does all the little things very wellhe doesn't stand out, but he is steady and has all the skills and attributes to become a very good D man for Vancouver. For those same reasons, I choose JJ over Carle. I wont say its a no brainer, and no one can tell exacty how these young guys will translate to the pro game, but if you're asking who as the best all round game, Carle is below Johnson and Bourdon.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
mytor4 said:
if you think that carle is better than Mezsaros, Whitney, Seabrook then i don't think you have watched enough hockey in your lifetime to have enough knowledge about the game and it's players.playing in the nhl does not make them automatically better BUT these three mention are all a LOT better than carle. if your carle is so great why isn't he in the nhl. there's got to be a reason. he's 22 yrs old and still on the outside waiting to get in. usually such GREAT prospects get in there a little early. whats carle's exc or your excuse. also i 'd take johnson and aki burg without blinking an eye.;)

No question that Carle is not better now, but he will be in the future, and potential is what we are arguing about. Like Patty Ice mentioned, the Sharks have no problem allowing their players to develop on college before coming to the NHL. They do not see the need to rush their players. Also, they have seen what happens when you bring players too early (Jeff Jillson).
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
Puckhead said:
That is the beauty of Bourdon...he does all the little things very wellhe doesn't stand out, but he is steady and has all the skills and attributes to become a very good D man for Vancouver. For those same reasons, I choose JJ over Carle. I wont say its a no brainer, and no one can tell exacty how these young guys will translate to the pro game, but if you're asking who as the best all round game, Carle is below Johnson and Bourdon.

Do you mean that JJ will *eventually* have a better all-around game than Carle? That I totally agree with.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,390
1,189
Chicago, IL
Visit site
superroyain10 said:
No question that Carle is not better now, but he will be in the future, and potential is what we are arguing about.
Do you mean that he "could be" better in the future?

I haven't seen Carle play enough to say that doesn't have a better future than a guy like Seabrook. I would say thought that if you feel that confident that Carle is going to be hands down better than a guy like Seabrook, he's got to be an INCREDIBLE player. I say that because Seabrook is already acting like a top pairing guy as a rookie on a really bad team. He's producing offensively and is very solid in his own zone (actually a + player on a Hawks team where that is VERY difficult to accomplish).
 

Brandinho

deng xiaoping gang
Aug 28, 2005
14,804
1,405
República de Cuba
Ryan Whitney is much closer to Jack Johnson than Matt Carle is. Carle's good but come on, he's not the kind of elite prospect that Johnson and, to a lesser extent, Whitney are.
 

Letang fan 58

No More Fleury
May 12, 2004
5,814
1
Canada
superroyain10 said:
No question that Carle is not better now, but he will be in the future, and potential is what we are arguing about. Like Patty Ice mentioned, the Sharks have no problem allowing their players to develop on college before coming to the NHL. They do not see the need to rush their players. Also, they have seen what happens when you bring players too early (Jeff Jillson).

Carle will not be better then any of those in the future lol.........the guy is barely on the radar screen as far as prospects go........your talking about top end guys vs virtuously an unknown here..........it is not even close. Jack Johnson is head and shoulders above Carle as are many others.
 

Pure Rock Fury*

Guest
phaneuf_fan_3 said:
your talking about top end guys vs virtuously an unknown here
And we all know the quality of NHL scouts that post here :sarcasm:
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
Wow, I can't believe people (Mytor) are bashing a prospect and saying he's not good because he's coming into the NHL "late"... Wow.


Hundreads of examples but since he's hot right now i'll use Cheechoo, he played three full seasons in the AHL and didn't arive until age 23 and only had 9 goals his rookie season.


But oh yeah, he turned out bad right? What a joke of an arguament.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Matt Carle has come a very long ways the last couple of years. He's a solid young defence prospect who could be that power play QB the Sharks have been looking for. (Brad Stuart played the role well at times during his San Jose tenure). A very good, highly skilled defenceman. And he has two NCAA championships on his resume. Like the Memorial Cup and the RBC Royal Bank Cup, the NCAA tournament is incredibly difficult to win, because you only have a three or four-year window of opportunity, and there are so many teams from different leagues.

But he is not in Johnson's class. Keep in mind there is nearly two-and-a-half years in age gap. If Johnson stays in college two more years, he would tear the NCAA apart. Johnson is dominanting the NCAA as an 18/19-year-old. He might be the best defenceman in the nation next year. He has great skill and a tremendous all-round game.

Carle could develop into a solid top-pairing defenceman and a power play quarterback. Johnson has a good shot at developing into a perennial all-star.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
superroyain10 said:
No question that Carle is not better now, but he will be in the future, and potential is what we are arguing about. Like Patty Ice mentioned, the Sharks have no problem allowing their players to develop on college before coming to the NHL. They do not see the need to rush their players. Also, they have seen what happens when you bring players too early (Jeff Jillson).


Are you telling me that you believe Matt Carle has more potential than Jack Johnson?

I really hope you just misplaced pronouns, because it's the other way around. Carle and Johnson are in similar levels right now (with Carle having an edge perhaps), but no way does Matt Carle have Johnson's ceiling. Not even close.
 

OrrNumber4

Registered User
Jul 25, 2002
15,715
4,975
TransportedUpstater said:
Are you telling me that you believe Matt Carle has more potential than Jack Johnson?

I really hope you just misplaced pronouns, because it's the other way around. Carle and Johnson are in similar levels right now (with Carle having an edge perhaps), but no way does Matt Carle have Johnson's ceiling. Not even close.

Um, did you actually read my others posts? I said earlier that Johnson would be better than Carle. I was talking about Seabrook, Meszaros, and others being much better than Carle.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
superroyain10 said:
Um, did you actually read my others posts? I said earlier that Johnson would be better than Carle. I was talking about Seabrook, Meszaros, and others being much better than Carle.
My apologies then.
 

Hawkhead

Registered User
Jun 5, 2004
466
0
Canada
www.kiekko.tk
Wow, do you actually think Carle will be better then Seabrook, Mez and Whitney?

:shakehead



That it pretty ridiculus, have you even seen any of these guys play? Seabrook as a rookie is a top pairing d-man, will Carle ever be a top pairing d-man? Not to mention that Seabrook is 2 years younger.


Meszaros leads the league in +/- , sure he plays for the best team in the league... but come on, I doubt Carle will ever lead the league in +/-



These two rookies have accomplished so much already! Carle has played one game and OMGZORZ hes better then Seabrook and Meszaros....





Puhleez
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->