thecore
Registered User
Bleuger. Gustafson is too much of an unknown to this point, and Bleuger has as good a pedigree as any.
He's gonna be a stud.
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.
I would have voted Archibald here if he was an option - so add him, please?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Really like Blugers or Simon here.
I'm surprised that you only think three of our prospects have a higher potential than Archibald.
I actually prefer Steve Dangle's Prospect Pyramid system: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/toronto-maple-leafs-prospect-pyramid/
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/
Wikipedia has his name as Blugers fwiw
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.