Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Penguins #4 prospect

Empoleon8771

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,200
79,187
Redmond, WA
pensandcaps said:
Don't think so. a Dman who can barley score in Juniors doesn't spell well for success. He was a projected 5th round pick. It was an awful pick. Imo.
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at who was above him before making such rash judgements like that? Or why don't you look at what guys like Despres produced in the Q in a higher scoring time on a team with less in front of him?
 
Paulie Gualtieri

Paulie Gualtieri

R.I.P. Tony Sirico
May 18, 2016
12,328
3,062
Freeptop said:
I would have voted Archibald here if he was an option - so add him, please?
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you only think three of our prospects have a higher potential than Archibald.

Empoleon8771 said:
Why don't you look at who was above him before making such rash judgements like that? Or why don't you look at what guys like Despres produced in the Q in a higher scoring time on a team with less in front of him?
Click to expand...

Heck, not even Letang was a huge scorer in his draft year and look at him now.
 
PensandCaps

PensandCaps

Beddy Tlueger
May 22, 2015
27,647
18,019
Guys like Dumo and Cole produced better in their age 18 seasons vs tougher competition.

Maatta too.

Lauzon and Conor Hall will amount to nothing imo. Drafting defensive dmen in the first few rounds is stupid.
 
Empoleon8771

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,200
79,187
Redmond, WA
pensandcaps said:
Guys like Dumo and Cole produced better in their age 18 seasons vs tougher competition.

Maatta too.

Lauzon and Conor Hall will amount to nothing imo. Drafting defensive dmen in the first few rounds is stupid.
Click to expand...

Dumoulin: didn't play in the CHL
Cole: didn't play in the CHL
Maatta: Didn't play behind guys like Lauzon had to do

Swing and a miss. Let's actually compare Lauzon to some logical comparisons here in their draft years:

Harrington: 22 points in 67 OHL games
Despres: 32 points in 66 QMJHL games
Bortuzzo: 14 points in 63 OHL games
Muzzin: 4 points in 37 OHL games, followed by 18 points in 67 OHL games, followed by 29 points in 62 OHL games

Here's some more from other teams:

Scandella: 14 points in 65 QMJHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2008
Hamonic: 22 points in 61 WHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2008
Petrovic: 27 points in 57 WHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2010

Those guys vary from fringe NHLers to legit top pair D. Junior production isn't the be all end all on how to rate defensive oriented prospects. It's a grossly simplistic way to look at things.
 
Last edited:
PensandCaps

PensandCaps

Beddy Tlueger
May 22, 2015
27,647
18,019
Empoleon8771 said:
Dumoulin: didn't play in the CHL
Cole: didn't play in the CHL
Maatta: Didn't play behind guys like Lauzon had to do

Swing and a miss. Let's actually compare Lauzon to some logical comparisons here in their draft years:

Harrington: 22 points in 67 OHL games
Despres: 32 points in 66 QMJHL games
Bortuzzo: 14 points in 63 OHL games
Muzzin: 4 points in 37 OHL games, followed by 18 points in 67 OHL games, followed by 29 points in 62 OHL games

Here's some more from other teams:

Scandella: 14 points in 65 QMJHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2008
Hamonic: 22 points in 61 WHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2008
Petrovic: 27 points in 57 WHL games in his draft year, 2nd rounder in 2010

Those guys vary from fringe NHLers to legit top pair D. Junior production isn't the be all end all on how to rate defensive oriented prospects. It's a grossly simplistic way to look at things.
Click to expand...

Yah, cole and Dumo played in college. A tougher league. So it helps my point even more.

The pens could've gotten Lauzon in the 4th. Dont get this pick at all much like hall from last year. Puzzling. Just my opinion.

Also wouldn't call any of those guys top pair defenders. Especially petrovic. And Using Bortz as an example hurts your point.
 
ColePens

ColePens

RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
Mar 27, 2008
107,023
67,649
Pittsburgh
I've never seen Gust play, but I remember us drafting him and some of the people I trust the most were full of glee. So he's my pick. :laugh:
 
Empoleon8771

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,200
79,187
Redmond, WA
pensandcaps said:
Yah, cole and Dumo played in college. A tougher league. So it helps my point even more.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, because the two leagues aren't comparable. It's like comparing production of the CHL to Sweden junior leagues.

The pens could've gotten Lauzon in the 4th. Dont get this pick at all much like hall from last year. Puzzling. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

The rumor was Montreal was going to pick Lauzon in the 2nd round as well.

Also wouldn't call any of those guys top pair defenders. Especially petrovic. And Using Bortz as an example hurts your point.
Click to expand...

I said "those guys range from fringe NHLers to top pair defensemen". Muzzin and Hamonic are certainly top pair defensemen. You also said "I don't see either Hall or Lauzon amounting to anything", but them becoming NHL caliber players like Bortuzzo or Harrington is something.

The way you're judging Lauzon here is flat out not true. That's really what it comes down to. There are plenty of examples of highly drafted DFD who don't produce much in juniors that do well in the NHL, I just listed a couple.
 
jmelm

jmelm

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
13,412
3,822
Toronto, Canada
For a few days I was thinking it's kind of an automatic to vote for Gustavsson. I do also like Blueger and our new draft toy Lauzon. But at the last moment, my gut was telling me and I voted for Adam Johnson. He's closer to competing for the roster given his age and the fact he will be playing in WBS next year, he plays the all important C position yet is versatile enough to play any position, and our scouts are extremely high on him.


When doing these polls, the selection comes down to how much one ways upside vs. how quickly a player could contribute. Blueger may contribute a bit sooner, but I figure Johnson has higher offensive potential.


Either way, I think we are now in a tier/grouping of prospects that includes Gustavsson, Johnson, Lauzon. Because Blueger projects to be a 4th line C who at best may play on the 3rd line, I think he's one tier below.


That next tier would then include Blueger, Simon, Almari (based on how high Sexton was on him), Olund, and then perhaps one or both of Lafferty & Angello (depending on how the Pens' feel about their upside, specifically what they think of their offensive ceiling).
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,415
25,279
Went with Gustavsson. Feel like this is the end of the guys in their position who have a notable shot at making it big in their position in the NHL.

Looking at Johnson, Simon and Blugers next - and Almari and Olund if they make the cut - imo. Not sure what people are seeing in Lauzon's scouting reports.
 
Bumpus

Bumpus

Shhh ...
Mar 4, 2008
2,510
1,239
WV
At this point I'd simply be blindly throwing darts, so I'll abstain from voting further.
 
Dawkins

Dawkins

Registered User
Jan 20, 2013
32
5
UK
Voted for Teddy at #3 so logically bound to vote for him at #4. Looking at the polls, I'll be voting for him at #5 too.
 
Freeptop

Freeptop

Registered User
Jun 17, 2009
2,342
1,210
Pittsburgh, PA
TopKex said:
I'm surprised that you only think three of our prospects have a higher potential than Archibald.
Click to expand...

Higher potential upside? Not at all. Higher chance of achieving that upside? Well, that's a different story entirely.

I make my votes on a combination of both my perceived max potential for them as well as my perceived chance of them making it. Archibald has a pretty good chance of carving out an NHL career for himself, even if he maxes out as a fourth liner (though I believe he still has the potential to be a third liner who can fill-in higher up for short periods of time - basically a lesser version of Hagelin). Other prospects have the potential to do more as NHLers if they develop properly, but if they're farther away, the chances of them putting everything together is lower.

Honestly, though, I think it's mostly quibbling when it comes to exact ranking of many of these prospects. I actually prefer Steve Dangle's Prospect Pyramid system: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/toronto-maple-leafs-prospect-pyramid/
 
Sidney the Kidney

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,702
46,609
Freeptop said:
Higher potential upside? Not at all. Higher chance of achieving that upside? Well, that's a different story entirely.

I make my votes on a combination of both my perceived max potential for them as well as my perceived chance of them making it. Archibald has a pretty good chance of carving out an NHL career for himself, even if he maxes out as a fourth liner (though I believe he still has the potential to be a third liner who can fill-in higher up for short periods of time - basically a lesser version of Hagelin). Other prospects have the potential to do more as NHLers if they develop properly, but if they're farther away, the chances of them putting everything together is lower.

Honestly, though, I think it's mostly quibbling when it comes to exact ranking of many of these prospects. I actually prefer Steve Dangle's Prospect Pyramid system: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/toronto-maple-leafs-prospect-pyramid/
Click to expand...

We should make these prospect polls formulaic. Half the score for "potential" and half the score for "likely to play in the NHL".

So a guy like Archibald might score 2 out of 5 in potential, plus another 4 out of 5 in chances of being an NHL regular, for a combined score of 6. A guy like Simon might score 3 out of 5 in potential, but only 2 out of 5 in likelihood of being a regular, for a combined score of 5 out of 10.

I mean, who doesn't love doing math during the summer holidays? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom