Two Ottawa Senators prospects among best players in QMJHL

[HF Article]

Photo: Francis Perron is currently on a 29-game point streak, scoring 56 points (24 goals, 32 assists) for the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies during that time. (Courtesy of Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images)


</p>The Ottawa Senators have a spotty history drafting from the QMJHL, but the team’s recent looks at the league have been rewarding—both for the current team, and for future iterations.

From 1992 until the turn of the century, the Senators drafted sixteen players from the Q—more than any other developmental league. Of them, just Antoine Vermette and Patrick Traverse would ever receive any love from the team’s fans. Some were derided, from colossal busts like Alexandre Daigle to enigmatic underperformers like defenceman Stanislav Neckar.… read more

The post Two Ottawa Senators prospects among best players in QMJHL appeared first on Hockey's Future.



More...

Click to read more...

 

[Hutz]

Stan Neckar was drafted out of the Q?

 

[Trevor Lahey]

Stan Neckar was drafted out of the Q?

Uhhh yeah, don't think so...?

Neckar played junior hockey with HC Ceske Budejovice in 1991-92 followed by two seasons with their pro team. He was chosen in the 1994 NHL Entry Draft by the Ottawa Senators and he signed with Ottawa in 1994.

Also, Patrick Traverse got more love than Stan Neckar?

 

[Kristopher Bras]

My apologies. When I wrote this article, I remembered Neckar as a CHL import. I was clearly wrong. Traverse was viewed as an underdog to make the team--so he was viewed much more positively by fans. Neckar, on the other hand, was viewed as overrated and jeered for every mistake. I thought Neckar's last year in Ottawa was decent, though.

 

[BonkTastic]

Neckar was ok. Good depth guy, nothing special but gave you a dependable game most nights, and was generally one of the guys you could plug into a lineup and forget about, which is a compliment as a defenceman.

He was a high pick, but back in his draft day, 2nd rounders were so hit-and-miss because scouting was so all over the place. Getting a 500+ game NHLer back then with your 2nd round pick was aceptable return on investment.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Would be interesting to know what the "success ratio" is for other CHL leagues, if the Q yields just 1 in 15 players (7%), at what rate does the WHL or OHL yield for Ottawa ?

 

[aragorn]

neckar was ok. Good depth guy, nothing special but gave you a dependable game most nights, and was generally one of the guys you could plug into a lineup and forget about, which is a compliment as a defenceman.

He was a high pick, but back in his draft day, 2nd rounders were so hit-and-miss because scouting was so all over the place. Getting a 500+ game nhler back then with your 2nd round pick was aceptable return on investment.

and he played a mean guitar.

 

[source]

I know points aren't everything, but how does Perron not make Team Canada?

 

[BonkTastic]

I know points aren't everything, but how does Perron not make Team Canada?

Because there are guys like him in all three junior leagues across the country, and the ones who actually made the team are for the most part better than he is, or play roles that Perron isn't suited for.

Perron might make the Canada B-team. Not being one of the best 12-13 forwards out of 60 teams isn't a slight on Perron. As a country, we are stacked. Even the 5th overall pick from the '14 draft (Dal Colle) didn't make the team, and he scored 93 points last season.

Who would you pull from the current WJC roster to replace with Perron?

 

[WhiteLight*]

Because there are guys like him in all three junior leagues across the country, and the ones who actually made the team are for the most part better than he is, or play roles that Perron isn't suited for.

Perron might make the Canada B-team. Not being one of the best 12-13 forwards out of 60 teams isn't a slight on Perron. As a country, we are stacked. Even the 5th overall pick from the '14 draft (Dal Colle) didn't make the team, and he scored 93 points last season.

Who would you pull from the current WJC roster to replace with Perron?

Crouse, Chartier, Perlini.

Arguably even Quenneville and Barzal

 

[WhiteLight*]

At any rate, it's not that he was left off the team that is the big omission. It's that he wasn't even invited to camp. He deserved to be there over a lot of invited players and he didn't even get his chance to make an impression.

 

[jbeck5]

Because there are guys like him in all three junior leagues across the country, and the ones who actually made the team are for the most part better than he is, or play roles that Perron isn't suited for.

Perron might make the Canada B-team. Not being one of the best 12-13 forwards out of 60 teams isn't a slight on Perron. As a country, we are stacked. Even the 5th overall pick from the '14 draft (Dal Colle) didn't make the team, and he scored 93 points last season.

Who would you pull from the current WJC roster to replace with Perron?

Am I wrong in saying team Canada picks guys who are more NHL bound as well? Maybe due to pressures from these clubs to put their top draft pick on the team.

I still haven't heard a good reason as to why Locke didn't make the junior team? I hear "because other guys were good at both offense and defense and had size and speed"... Never addressing the fact Locke produced way more at the junior level, almost twice some of the forwards on that team.

It's like a guy getting 110 points today in the nhl and not making team canada Olympics. Like "sorry Kane, you don't make team USA because other guys are bigger, stronger, and better defensively"

Not comparing Locke to Kane, but comparing their production in their respective leagues.

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

Crouse, Chartier, Perlini.

Arguably even Quenneville and Barzal

Why?

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

Am I wrong in saying team Canada picks guys who are more NHL bound as well? Maybe due to pressures from these clubs to put their top draft pick on the team.

I still haven't heard a good reason as to why Locke didn't make the junior team? I hear "because other guys were good at both offense and defense and had size and speed"... Never addressing the fact Locke produced way more at the junior level, almost twice some of the forwards on that team.

It's like a guy getting 110 points today in the nhl and not making team canada Olympics. Like "sorry Kane, you don't make team USA because other guys are bigger, stronger, and better defensively"

Not comparing Locke to Kane, but comparing their production in their respective leagues.

The difference between the average player in the CHL vs average player in World Juniors is massive; the difference between the average player in the NHL vs an average player in the Olympics is really quite small

 

[jbeck5]

The difference between the average player in the CHL vs average player in World Juniors is massive; the difference between the average player in the NHL vs an average player in the Olympics is really quite small

So you're saying Locke took advantage of the average or lesser CHL players to rack up 150 some points in a year...my question is, why couldn't those other players that made the team in an offensive role take advantage of the average or lesser CHL players to rack up just as many if not more points?

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Am I wrong in saying team Canada picks guys who are more NHL bound as well? Maybe due to pressures from these clubs to put their top draft pick on the team.

I still haven't heard a good reason as to why Locke didn't make the junior team? I hear "because other guys were good at both offense and defense and had size and speed"... Never addressing the fact Locke produced way more at the junior level, almost twice some of the forwards on that team.

It's like a guy getting 110 points today in the nhl and not making team canada Olympics. Like "sorry Kane, you don't make team USA because other guys are bigger, stronger, and better defensively"

Not comparing Locke to Kane, but comparing their production in their respective leagues.

Chances are Locke would have still produced at the world junior level. Just probably wouldn't have brought as much as other sure fire NHL prospects.(pretty much nobody thought Locke was going to be a huge success at the NHL level)

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Crouse, Chartier, Perlini.

Arguably even Quenneville and Barzal

Why.
There's a reason why some of these players were taken hundreds of spots before Perron.

 

[Cosmix]

At any rate, it's not that he was left off the team that is the big omission. It's that he wasn't even invited to camp. He deserved to be there over a lot of invited players and he didn't even get his chance to make an impression.

I don't know what the rationale was, but considering his point production, I wonder if it relates to his play without the puck. Anyone out there with a view based on observation?

 

[Viletho]

Why.
There's a reason why some of these players were taken hundreds of spots before Perron.

I don't follow junior very much, and while i kind of agree with you i have to disagree.

Stone was taken in what 5th or 6th Round? And was a 100 pts producer the next season in the CHL. So the rank they are taken, while it often result in having a greater potential and better player overall, doesn't mean you are going to be the best player.

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

So you're saying Locke took advantage of the average or lesser CHL players to rack up 150 some points in a year...my question is, why couldn't those other players that made the team in an offensive role take advantage of the average or lesser CHL players to rack up just as many if not more points?

Because not every player plays the same role. Literally every forward on that team became an NHL regular, and played at least 379 games. The guy with the least games (379, PA Parenteau) led that team in scoring. The average player on that team played 647 games and scored 280 pts. Locke played 9 NHL games and scored 1 points.

The team won silver, not a great result but not a disappointment. They already had Derek Roy, Pa Parenteau, Kyle Wellwood, Joffrey Lupul and Pierre Marc Bouchard - all relatively small guys, all offense only guys (at least at that point), and all better players. Would Locke have been a better contributor than Daniel Paille? Probably. But he was also small, weak and slow - all things Paille is not - and he could have been victimized at key times. They probably already had that worry around their top forwards, so adding Locke was seen as too risky. And, between Roy/Parenteau/Wellwood/Lupul/Bouchard/Locke, there is a clear outlier when it comes to "having a modicum of success against the worlds top players".

 

[Cosmix]

and he played a mean guitar.

Sign him up . . . For the space program!

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I don't follow junior very much, and while i kind of agree with you i have to disagree.

Stone was taken in what 5th or 6th Round? And was a 100 pts producer the next season in the CHL. So the rank they are taken, while it often result in having a greater potential and better player overall, doesn't mean you are going to be the best player.

Well stone did make a world junior roster. I don't watch Perron play much. But maybe it His two way game that let him down.

I think he probably should have been invited to canon but hoping that he would make the team was always a massive stretch

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

I don't follow junior very much, and while i kind of agree with you i have to disagree.

Stone was taken in what 5th or 6th Round? And was a 100 pts producer the next season in the CHL. So the rank they are taken, while it often result in having a greater potential and better player overall, doesn't mean you are going to be the best player.

Stone was a mid-2nd round prospect with questions about his skating who suffered a long term injury that made it so very few teams got to watch him and was significant enough to have potentially made his skating much more of a weakness. Once he proved those doubts wrong, he was seen as a legit NHL prospect and World Junior fit pretty soon after.

As for Perron, him being left off is no different than Dzingel being left off the US WJC in his 20 y.o season. Doesn't mean he can't still be a player, just means there are better guys available right now. If Perron was having this season back in 2003, he possibly would have made it and almost certainly, imo, would have been more seriously considered than Corey Locke. If anything, though, there is now less emphasis on future NHL ability, and more about "what can you do for me now" than there was back then.

 

[jbeck5]

Chances are Locke would have still produced at the world junior level. Just probably wouldn't have brought as much as other sure fire NHL prospects.(pretty much nobody thought Locke was going to be a huge success at the NHL level)

That's what I'm saying. I wonder if their NHL potential plays into it more than their current CHL play/production.

 

[jbeck5]

Because not every player plays the same role. Literally every forward on that team became an NHL regular, and played at least 379 games. The guy with the least games (379, PA Parenteau) led that team in scoring. The average player on that team played 647 games and scored 280 pts. Locke played 9 NHL games and scored 1 points.

The team won silver, not a great result but not a disappointment. They already had Derek Roy, Pa Parenteau, Kyle Wellwood, Joffrey Lupul and Pierre Marc Bouchard - all relatively small guys, all offense only guys (at least at that point), and all better players. Would Locke have been a better contributor than Daniel Paille? Probably. But he was also small, weak and slow - all things Paille is not - and he could have been victimized at key times. They probably already had that worry around their top forwards, so adding Locke was seen as too risky. And, between Roy/Parenteau/Wellwood/Lupul/Bouchard/Locke, there is a clear outlier when it comes to "having a modicum of success against the worlds top players".

So yes? I asked if their projected NHL success plays a part in the selection over current CHL production and you answered by giving their future NHL production.

So you're answer is yes? They do value NHL potential sometimes over current play? Do they take the 2nd overall guy, or the 103rd overall, if the 103rd overall is significantly outproducing the 2nd overall guy?