Once a Decade Prospects

[WADEugottaBELAKthat]

I think that scouts throw out the "player that comes around only once every 10 years" quote way too much.

Since 1991 Eric Lindros, Alexandre Daigle, Joe Thornton, and Ilya Kovalchuck have all had that pre-draft honour bestowed upon them. The same quote was said about Alexandre Ovechkin in a recent Hockey News editorial and by John Garette about Sidney Crosby on the Sportsnet panel.

The NHL must be a very lucky league to average a 'Once a Decade Prospect' every 2.67 years. Once every 2.29 if you include Vincent "Micheal Jordan" Lecavalier.

Click to read more...

 

[MentalPowerHouse]

I think that scouts throw out the "player that comes around only once every 10 years" quote way too much.

Since 1991 Eric Lindros, Alexandre Daigle, Joe Thornton, and Ilya Kovalchuck have all had that pre-draft honour bestowed upon them. The same quote was said about Alexandre Ovechkin in a recent Hockey News editorial and by John Garette about Sidney Crosby on the Sportsnet panel.

The NHL must be a very lucky league to average a 'Once a Decade Prospect' every 2.67 years. Once every 2.29 if you include Vincent "Micheal Jordan" Lecavalier.

Funny and true. Luckily everyone but Daigle has turned out to be somewhat worth the hype. Although Vinny is not close to being the "Michael Jordan" of hockey.

The saying is used by lame sportscasters for impact purposes trying to act all big and knowing....

 

[Deleted member 3032]

I think that scouts throw out the "player that comes around only once every 10 years" quote way too much.

Since 1991 Eric Lindros, Alexandre Daigle, Joe Thornton, and Ilya Kovalchuck have all had that pre-draft honour bestowed upon them. The same quote was said about Alexandre Ovechkin in a recent Hockey News editorial and by John Garette about Sidney Crosby on the Sportsnet panel.

The NHL must be a very lucky league to average a 'Once a Decade Prospect' every 2.67 years. Once every 2.29 if you include Vincent "Micheal Jordan" Lecavalier.

Not that I disagree with you, but did Thornton really get that kind of tag? I just remember that he was supposed to be a poor man's Lindros (at the time a huge complement), but don't remember him being a "once a decade" type of player. Just was wondering if scouts actually did call him that (or was it just a scout)?

 

[BrooklynCanuck]

The "Michael Jordan" comment was just the delusional owner of the team that drafted him. Impartial source, eh?

I don't think Thornton got all that much hype.

Lindros was unbelievable when healthy. To some degree he never had the chance to live up to any of the hype.

 

[Liquidrage*]

I think that scouts throw out the "player that comes around only once every 10 years" quote way too much.

Since 1991 Eric Lindros, Alexandre Daigle, Joe Thornton, and Ilya Kovalchuck have all had that pre-draft honour bestowed upon them. The same quote was said about Alexandre Ovechkin in a recent Hockey News editorial and by John Garette about Sidney Crosby on the Sportsnet panel.

The NHL must be a very lucky league to average a 'Once a Decade Prospect' every 2.67 years. Once every 2.29 if you include Vincent "Micheal Jordan" Lecavalier.

OMG, three posts about Lindros for me in 24 hours.

But none of those others had even close to the same hype that Lindros did, and for good reason. The only one I even see coming close in hype to Lindros is Sidney. And even then I still think falls a little short in the hype department.
The others were mightly hyped, but Lindros was being realistically compared to #99 and #66 before he ever played in the NHL.

But then I don't live in Canada so I could have missed out on what the press up there relayed. But down here certainly none of the others were even in the same league.

 

[FlyersGuy69]

Lindros was also the first real monster sized superstar were he was just killing the junior leagues because of his combination of size and skill. also, he was a kid that could score/pass like #99 & #66 but run you over and also beat the crap out of your tuff guy. so he was everything you want in a hockey player rolled into one prospect.

 

[ZombieMatt]

I think Lindros was rightfully hyped. The guy is incredibly skilled, understands the game, sees the ice, and has the physical component to be dominant.

And, while he was healthy, he was. I don't believe that any man who wins the Hart Trophy can be a flop or disappointment.

Maybe I'm in a huge minority, but I really do believe that Lindros deserved the hype he got, and I do think that, for the most part, he did live up to it until injuries slowed him down.

 

[PigPen]

Joe Thornton was one of only 2 or 3 perfect 10 prospects. One being Eric Lindros, the other being Mario Lemieux. I still have the hockey news draft preview from that year, and the recap issues buried somewhere in my room.
He was hyped for years before the 97 draft because of his size and speed. People knew he was going to be something special. He took a bit more time to develop than Lindros but in the end I think it's best for him and now just take a look at Thornton. 4 seasons straight he's at a point per game, with a 101 point season under his belt last year.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

I think that scouts throw out the "player that comes around only once every 10 years" quote way too much.

Since 1991 Eric Lindros, Alexandre Daigle, Joe Thornton, and Ilya Kovalchuck have all had that pre-draft honour bestowed upon them. The same quote was said about Alexandre Ovechkin in a recent Hockey News editorial and by John Garette about Sidney Crosby on the Sportsnet panel.

The NHL must be a very lucky league to average a 'Once a Decade Prospect' every 2.67 years. Once every 2.29 if you include Vincent "Micheal Jordan" Lecavalier.

Very true. I've heard that stuff way too often.

Other prospects who received an unbelievable amount of hype: Jason Spezza, Jay Bouwmeester.

It seems there is almost a once-a-decade player per draft. To be fair, we've been spoiled in 2001 because there were two super-hyped prospects in Spezza and Kovalchuk. A year before the draft, it was a close race in the hype department between the two and Jay Bouwmeester was ALREADY being talked about for 2002 in 2000.

In 2003, there was less hype until the WJC when Fleury caught on fire in hype, and even then he didn't reach the once-in-a-decade tag but Ovechkin has been hyped for a loooooong time now and will probably disapoint some. So we've already got our hype quota for 2004 and 2005 (Crosby).

Now we already have youth-obsessed individuals asking about 2006 and soon it will be 2007. It's probably only a matter of time before the hype machine gets going in these cases

 

[PanthersRule96]

Very true. I've heard that stuff way too often.

Other prospects who received an unbelievable amount of hype: Jason Spezza, Jay Bouwmeester.

It seems there is almost a once-a-decade player per draft. To be fair, we've been spoiled in 2001 because there were two super-hyped prospects in Spezza and Kovalchuk. A year before the draft, it was a close race in the hype department between the two and Jay Bouwmeester was ALREADY being talked about for 2002 in 2000.

In 2003, there was less hype until the WJC when Fleury caught on fire in hype, and even then he didn't reach the once-in-a-decade tag but Ovechkin has been hyped for a loooooong time now and will probably disapoint some. So we've already got our hype quota for 2004 and 2005 (Crosby).

Now we already have youth-obsessed individuals asking about 2006 and soon it will be 2007. It's probably only a matter of time before the hype machine gets going in these cases

Spezza is WAY overhyped. He is a great prospect and going to be a great player but no way will he be an 100+ point scorer.

Bouwmeester is somewhat overhyped as well, but the most overhyped prospects is....drumroll please.........Tuomo Ruutu.

The only guys who are worthy of this once a decade type thing from the past 10 years and the future are

Thorton (although he wasn't hyped when drafted)
Kovalchuk ( I really didn't hear much about him and though that Spezza and him were closer than in reality)
Ovechkin
Crosby

No one in 03 is like that. Bouwmeester could be added to that list as well. Pitkanen is more like a once every 5 years guy but JBO could be once every 10 years as there is not a dman that is close to having the potential he and Joni have.

Daigle has sucked. Lindros has sucked. Although they were tagged as the once a decade guys, they have sucked.

OMG, I remember Vinny Micheal Jordan Lecavalier and how he was gonna be the next Gretzky. He's not even one of the top 25 players in the league right now.

The thing with the 03 draft was that there were kids that were all at high levels ie Zherdev, Staal, Horton, but none of them were predicted to be SUPERSTARS ala Ovech and Crosby. Damn, chances are that the panthers'll suck this year and will lose the lottery. They'll probably rig it against the panthers cause they've won so much :p Anyways, we'll prolly run out of luck this year even if we finish 2nd worse. BTW, aside from Ovechkin, Malkin is better than Olesz everywhere except on the poll board where people voted for Olesz over Malkin. Malkin is probably on the same level Zherdev was and is predicted to go 1-2 with Ovech.

 

[FlyersGuy69]

Daigle has sucked. Lindros has sucked.

why has Lindros sucked is the question and you have to look at what he did before he was injured. Lindros won the hart trophy and scored 115 points by his 23rd birthday. also, he was 3rd behind only #99 and #66 in points per game with a minimu of 500 points. Lindros lived up to the hype he got coming out of junior until the concisions and could've been the best player in the game today.

BTW, agree with ya on Daigle

 

[gb701]

I agree with the comments that started this thread, and most of what was said about the previously hyped players. But having just watched Sportscentral's story on Crosby, I really don't think even Lindros got this type of press at 16 - not only is Crosby going to be as good as Gretzky, he is going to break the records despite everyone agreeing the game has changed.

I don't think there is any accident in all of this - it has a hell of a lot more to do with selling columns or making stories than to do with hockey or realistic predictions of what players are capable of or have the potential to become.

Another sign of the "sport" becoming "entertainment".

 

[icarus]

Bouwmeester is somewhat overhyped as well, but the most overhyped prospects is....drumroll please.........Tuomo Ruutu.

It seems to me Ruutu wasn't really hyped up until after he was drafted, unlike the other players being talked about here.

 

[Dr_Chimera*]

Very true. I've heard that stuff way too often.

Other prospects who received an unbelievable amount of hype: Jason Spezza, Jay Bouwmeester.

The kind of hype that surrounds Spezza, Bouwmeester and Robbie Schremp is pertinent to point out that it is what it is - primarily hype.

In each of the three cases, there are other players (mostly Euros) who have passed each of the three in terms of value.
For Spezza, it's Kovalchuk. For Schremp, it's (count them) Ovechkin, Olesz, Malkin, Barker, ehhh... For Bouwmeester - Pitkanen is a much better young blueliner and, of course Rick Nash.

Certain publications unprofessionally hype these kids when they're 13, 14, 15 - saying that they're the next big thing, but ironically it is almost every time that a few players come out of the "shadows" to get drafted ahead of these guys.

Which proves one thing - (if the Dan Cleary case tells us anything) - the first real read you get on the kids is when they're 17 (in a few rare cases 16). What is different about Thornton is that he started to get his dues mostly around the ages of 16 and 17.

You can also argue that Euros get less hype being overseas and out of the spotlight which is mainly existent in North America.

 

[Rattrick]

I totally disagree with the comment that Pitkanen is much better than Bouwmeester. You can't even compare the two because Pitkanen is playing on the best team in hockey and J-Bo is playing on one of the worst.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

The kind of hype that surrounds Spezza, Bouwmeester and Robbie Schremp is pertinent to point out that it is what it is - primarily hype.

In each of the three cases, there are other players (mostly Euros) who have passed each of the three in terms of value.
For Spezza, it's Kovalchuk. For Schremp, it's (count them) Ovechkin, Olesz, Malkin, Barker, ehhh... For Bouwmeester - Pitkanen is a much better young blueliner and, of course Rick Nash.

Certain publications unprofessionally hype these kids when they're 13, 14, 15 - saying that they're the next big thing, but ironically it is almost every time that a few players come out of the "shadows" to get drafted ahead of these guys.

Which proves one thing - (if the Dan Cleary case tells us anything) - the first real read you get on the kids is when they're 17 (in a few rare cases 16). What is different about Thornton is that he started to get his dues mostly around the ages of 16 and 17.

You can also argue that Euros get less hype being overseas and out of the spotlight which is mainly existent in North America.

You're right about the coverge/exposure they get here. That has been really unfair in the past and I've agreed with you on this. But IMO, this has ALL CHANGED since Kovalchuk.

I remember when Spezza was talked about, WAY before he was drafted. He was the talk of the hockey world and then slowly, a small lot of observers spoke of Kovalchuk. There was a LOT of resistance. But some folks listened. And the closer we got to the draft, the less resistance there was. And even at the draft, there was still resistance, but it was smaller. Even today, there is still resistance as some people have refused to see he is simply awesome but hey, that makes for good comic relief.

I think that whole acceptance of Kovalchuk as a big surprise (for many)has turned out to be one HELL of a player was painful, slow but that it opened a lot of eyes. I have sensed a DRASTIC change since then.

Now a lot of people are having an eye on Russia and Finland... and on a lesser scale all Europe. People are looking for those gems. And I am now seeing a slight turn of the table.

In effect, I think some people are now placing a little too much hope in some Euros. I've talked for months about Ruutu being one of them
He is a fine player, I love the tools and the way he plays but he's been overhyped and some of that has to do with the Euro mystique surrounding him.

I haven't made up my mind on Ovechkin because I haven't seen him enough but from the WJC sample I got on TV, I think he could disapoint some folks who have labelled him a messiah.

A website like this one, where we are reading comments from all over the world, has really opened things up, at least compared to a few years ago. We are witnessing, IMO, some important steps towards a true international platform for hockey.

Now, on to subject number 2: I strongly disagree with you on your Pitkanen/Bouwmeester read. They both look absolutely phenomenal but I don't think Pitkanen is a better player and most likely, he won't be as good as J-Bo when all is said and done. I know there is something you don't like about J-Bo but I just don't see it this way, even after close examination. He's a quiet type and the best hope to one day be a Lidstrom in the NHL, IMO of course.

I gotta give you some props. I remember you were an early believer in Nash. He is surprising me!

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

It seems to me Ruutu wasn't really hyped up until after he was drafted, unlike the other players being talked about here.

Exactly. Ruutu is not draft hype material. He is Hockey News hype material from their top prospects list. That happened after he was drafted.

 

[Kugel]

hype

The kind of hype that surrounds Spezza, Bouwmeester and Robbie Schremp is pertinent to point out that it is what it is - primarily hype.

In each of the three cases, there are other players (mostly Euros) who have passed each of the three in terms of value.
For Spezza, it's Kovalchuk. For Schremp, it's (count them) Ovechkin, Olesz, Malkin, Barker, ehhh... For Bouwmeester - Pitkanen is a much better young blueliner and, of course Rick Nash.


The reason why spezza was sooo hyped was because he was playing in the OHL at the age of 15...his parents moved to brapmton so he could play for them and not missuigia, but the icedogs drafted him when he was eliblgle the next year for the draft and selected him. The OHL has a rule where u can play in the OHL under 16 if u play for the team u live in or something liek that...it was unheard of a 15 year old playing so he got hype...J-Bo played on the Canadian world junior team as a 16 year old with spezza on a team that was weak but that is still tough to make and that is y he was hyped. J-Bo will be better than joni, bouwmeester is such a great skater, i think evreyone forgets he was name best defecman at the world championships this past year when canada won.

Schremp was lighting up jr. B hockey in the states, which isnt the toughest competition as a 15 year old, but he is a good player.

There is something to be said about being hyped early but these guys arent bad players.

 

[derbyfan]

"Schremp was lighting up jr. B hockey in the states, which isnt the toughest competition as a 15 year old, but he is a good player."

Actually, I believe Schremp was playing for Syracuse of the OPJHL (Jr. A) at 15. While this is a watered down league, a step down from the NAHL, it is still a step up from "B", and one hell of an accomplishment.
Robbie had 41 g, 47 a, 88 points in 47 games which led to his #1 draft status in the OHL. Playing "A" against guys as old as 20, and putting up those kind of numbers, I'd say the 'hype' was justified.

 

[icarus]

For Bouwmeester - Pitkanen is a much better young blueliner.

Too early to say this, IMO.

 

[Skylab]

Lindros has sucked. Although they were tagged as the once a decade guys, they have sucked.
QUOTE]

i don't possibly expect you to understand the hype when Lindros was drafted since you were only 3, nor do I fully expect you to understand just how good a pre-injury Lindros really was...
what I would like is that when you obviously don't know what you are talking about, just don't say anything

Eric Lindros was an incredibly gifted hockey player and an incredible combination of size, power and skill. His parents and some of the decisions he made as a young man, have not won him many fans and his post-concussion play has taken away from just how good he was.

It is a shame that his injuries happened and that we the hockey viewing fans were deprived of the opportunity to watch a truly special player, play the game in a manner that only he could. It is also a shame that a whole generation of fans, who don't take the time to learn about how good he really was, will remember him as the player that he is today and that some of that generation will spout off that he "sucked"

If like it says in your Bio you like everything about hockey, I would suggest that an important part of its game is the history. Take the time to read about it a bit. You might actually learn to appreciate this great game even more.

 

[derbyfan]

Lindros has sucked. Although they were tagged as the once a decade guys, they have sucked.
QUOTE]

i don't possibly expect you to understand the hype when Lindros was drafted since you were only 3, nor do I fully expect you to understand just how good a pre-injury Lindros really was...
what I would like is that when you obviously don't know what you are talking about, just don't say anything

Eric Lindros was an incredibly gifted hockey player and an incredible combination of size, power and skill. His parents and some of the decisions he made as a young man, have not won him many fans and his post-concussion play has taken away from just how good he was.

It is a shame that his injuries happened and that we the hockey viewing fans were deprived of the opportunity to watch a truly special player, play the game in a manner that only he could. It is also a shame that a whole generation of fans, who don't take the time to learn about how good he really was, will remember him as the player that he is today and that some of that generation will spout off that he "sucked"

If like it says in your Bio you like everything about hockey, I would suggest that an important part of its game is the history. Take the time to read about it a bit. You might actually learn to appreciate this great game even more.

Couldn't agree more with the Lindros sentiments. People may not always like him, or the way his parents handled affairs.
However, what CANNOT be disputed is that he was one hell of a dominant hockey player before injuries.
We covered the question not too long ago on these boards of "Who would you take - Lindros before injuries, or Joe Thornton?" and Eric was the landslide winner.
It's actually pretty amazing when you look at how amazing Thornton is now - yet Lindros was simply on another level.
As someone who watched Lindros since his St. Mike's days, I will still say that nobody - NOBODY - that I've seen ever dominated junior the way that Eric did. Not simply by scoring points, but by scaring the living **** out of everyone he played against in the process.

 

[Brock]

I agree with pretty much everything said so far.

I'd just like to add one thing.

While it is true that is is unfair to lable prospects as these "once in a decade" players whom could take over the game of hockey. It is also true that once these players hit around the 16-17 mark, the hype can begin to be justified.

Simply I'd just like to point out that we really have not seen for a very long time, the way a 16 year old like Sidney Crosby has dominated the CHL. 76 points in 33 games, on pace for around 160 points.

If there is one kid whom deserves this attention, it's him.

 

[Blane Youngblood]

I don't remember as many once in a decade player as you guys do. There was some question as whether Daigle (Pronger), Spezza (Kovalchuk), Bouwmeester (Nash), Fleury (Stall, Horton), and a lot of the other number 1s would go #1, clearly if you have to ask whether they would go number one, then they are not once in a decade. Thornton, Lecavalier, and all the other picks until 1990 weren't that hyped up. I think Lindros was the only person really hyped as the next one. IMO he pretty much lived up to the hype, dominating the league as soon as he entered it.

 

[Marchy79]

I agree that Lindros was awesome before the big hit by Stevens after Clarke egged on him to return...

But it is in my belief that the Big E is still one of the premier players in the league. All this talk about him being crap is nothing but poppy talk. That Rangers team is incredible in terms of their players resume's. And if you look at the players stats (almost all of them) before walking on that team, their spike down in play happened when they went to the Rangers. When Lindros goes UFA this summer, I am a believe wherever he lands, will get the best of what this summer has to offer, and not only that, his game is going to improve drastically.
In NY, I believe it's a problem of not knowing who to go with as a #1 guy. Kovalev, Carter, Lindros, etc.etc.. These guys all want to be that # 1 guy... He is still a game breaker though, Sather sees it and that's why he now gets frustrated watching his game.