Where is Sam Gagner playing this year?

WesternCollegeHockey

Registered User
Jul 13, 2006
603
1
Petrecki is also a defensive player first, and offensive one second.

He's not a Top 10 selection next year due to his offensive statistics in the USHL, it's due to his entire potential skill package.

Petrecki was pretty brutal on defense last year too. He'll have to play a lot better next season if he wants to hold onto that high ranking.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Petrecki was pretty brutal on defense last year too. He'll have to play a lot better next season if he wants to hold onto that high ranking.

I have confidence in him. He was young. Plus, he's a pick based almost totallly on that magic word "potential."

What school is he going to?
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
What's the guarantee that Gagner would receive the ice time on a scoring line this year with the Badgers that he would receive in London?

Wisconsin is the defending national champion, and they are a team that often caters more to upperclassmen than freshmen. They likely would not have close to the available opportunities next year as London. London just lost a lot of talent to graduation. Plus, they play a style much more conducive to Gagner's game.

This is dangerously approaching a NCAA-CHL debate, so I'll just say that for Gagner personally, I think the CHL is a better choice.

I agree this is approaching a CHL-NCAA debate...which is usually not started even though initiated by CHL supporters unsubstantiated and unanswered criticisms of the NCAAs.

What's the guarantee that Gagner would receive the same ice time at London that he would at Wisconsin? Skille gets plenty of ice time with far more upperclassmen than Sam would play with.

I have no idea what your talking about regarding WI catering to upperclassmen. '04-'05...5 of their top 6 scorers were underclassmen. And yes...the team's top 5 scorers have left to the NHL or graduation. So Sam would get plenty of playing time and doubtless top power play duty. Also Wisconsin has a history of mixing freshman with upperclassmen to create much more balanced lines. So please, what are you talking about?

I do know that at this point...London would include a much younger group of kids for Gagner to play with and against than a mature WI team playing in the WCHA. Maybe that's what he wants?
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
I agree this is approaching a CHL-NCAA debate...which is usually not started even though initiated by CHL supporters unsubstantiated and unanswered criticisms of the NCAAs.

That pisses me off too. I hate when people who have never seen a NCAA game talk **** about it. I was a season ticket holder for 4 years at Cornell. I love NCAA hockey, so I hope you don't think of me as a CHL homer.

5mn Major said:
What's the guarantee that Gagner would receive the same ice time at London that he would at Wisconsin? Skille gets plenty of ice time with far more upperclassmen than Sam would play with.

Skille is a noticeably better player than Gagner, though.

5mn Major said:
I have no idea what your talking about regarding WI catering to upperclassmen. '04-'05...5 of their top 6 scorers were underclassmen.

Perhaps I should have elaborated/considered using different words. When I said "Wisconsin tends to favor upperclassmen", what I meant to say is that "Freshmen are not catered to." At least I don't think so. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

5mn Major said:
And yes...the team's top 5 scorers have left to the NHL or graduation. So Sam would get plenty of playing time and doubtless top power play duty. Also Wisconsin has a history of mixing freshman with upperclassmen to create much more balanced lines. So please, what are you talking about?

Regardless, I believe Gagner would get more offensive opportunities in London.

5mn Major said:
do know that at this point...London would include a much younger group of kids for Gagner to play with and against than a mature WI team playing in the WCHA. Maybe that's what he wants?

A big advantage of playing in the WCHA is the physical and mental maturity of your teammates and opponents (although the NCAA as a whole is less physical than the CHL.) No argument there. More mature players is a key selling point of the NCAA to many.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
I think we're missing a huge point here though. Wouldn't Gagner have to play another year in the USHL then move onto the Badgers in the fall of 07?

I think for his draft stock, the move to the OHL would be the best thing, this is coming from a Badgers fan.

Purely for draft stock, I think it's hard to argue against that one.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Petrecki was pretty brutal on defense last year too. He'll have to play a lot better next season if he wants to hold onto that high ranking.

Your being a bit to harsh....his defensive game was sound. That alone though will not get him a spot in the top 10 let alone the top 5 for the upcoming entry draft.

You are right though in that he will have to improve and come out of the gate hard. My main worry is that his progression has stalled. Reports from the U-18 tournament were not good.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Your being a bit to harsh....his defensive game was sound. That alone though will not get him a spot in the top 10 let alone the top 5 for the upcoming entry draft.

You are right though in that he will have to improve and come out of the gate hard. My main worry is that his progression has stalled. Reports from the U-18 tournament were not good.

Again, off topic, but can someone tell me where Petrecki will be attending school?
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
I think we're missing a huge point here though. Wouldn't Gagner have to play another year in the USHL then move onto the Badgers in the fall of 07?

I think for his draft stock, the move to the OHL would be the best thing, this is coming from a Badgers fan.

Potentially valid. But only if you see Sam playing in the NHL in 2006-2007...do you? Otherwise, let the kids develop against more mature players in the WCHA.

Yes you say you believe this is the right path for Sam but you've already inferred you believe Pat Kane as an 18 year old should play against younger players in the OHL rather than continue to challenge himself against more mature players in the NCAAs...which if true makes little sense, unless you believe Kane should try to pad his stats.

So I can't help but discount your opinion on this point.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
I do know that at this point...London would include a much younger group of kids for Gagner to play with and against than a mature WI team playing in the WCHA. Maybe that's what he wants?

Funny that you would complain about the CHL-NCAA debate there Major, I would assume, judging by your posts, you like nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the NCAA at the expense of the CHL.

It always comes back to maturity with you though doesn't it? Why play in the CHL you say, you will be playing against weakling kids when you can be playing against strong broad shouldered MEN!!!

Exactly how many CHL games have you seen Major???? Those younger kids that you refer to are quite talented and larger on average, by the way, than your NCAA chaps.

He will play more games in the OHL, receive more ice time, be on the ice longer, have more practices and the quality of the competition will often be just as good, and sometimes better, than what he would have found in the NCAA. And perhaps the biggest selling point for him was that he did not have to spend another year in the USHL!
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
Potentially valid. But only if you see Sam playing in the NHL in 2006-2007...do you? Otherwise, let the kids develop against more mature players in the WCHA.

Yes you say you believe this is the right path for Sam but you've already inferred you believe Pat Kane as an 18 year old should play against younger players in the OHL rather than continue to challenge himself against more mature players in the NCAAs...which if true makes little sense, unless you believe Kane should try to pad his stats.

So I can't help but discount your opinion on this point.

Do you really think that one more year with the USNTDP then going to the NCAA will be more all the more beneficial long term than him going to London for the next two years? I think either way he'll come out as a hell of a player no matter where he goes for the next two years, and just because the NCAA offers some older players, doesn't nessacarily mean they're better, and if you think that is the case, I would gladly send you some OHL games on tape and you would feal differently. So to me the point of him going to London or USNTDP this year and the NCAA the next in terms of looking for the best developmental option is moot, because either way he'll develop IMO. So to me this descision comes down to draft status, and IMO putting up big numbers in the OHL will do both players better then putting up solid numbers in the USHL or USNTDP.... it's just the way it is at the moment. Guys like Okposo and Eric Johnson are helping but in the end the OHL at the moment does a better job of producing top 5 picks then the USHL or USNTDP.

Maybe not fair, but true.

So IMO, what's best for both Gagner and Kane in terms of them reaching their full potential? Either the college or the OHL route are fine. But in terms of raising their draft stock? The OHL would be best for them.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Funny that you would complain about the CHL-NCAA debate there Major, I would assume, judging by your posts, you like nothing better than to extoll the virtues of the NCAA at the expense of the CHL.

It always comes back to maturity with you though doesn't it? Why play in the CHL you say, you will be playing against weakling kids when you can be playing against strong broad shouldered MEN!!!

Exactly how many CHL games have you seen Major???? Those younger kids that you refer to are quite talented and larger on average, by the way, than your NCAA chaps.

He will play more games in the OHL, receive more ice time, be on the ice longer, have more practices and the quality of the competition will often be just as good, and sometimes better, than what he would have found in the NCAA. And perhaps the biggest selling point for him was that he did not have to spend another year in the USHL!


Come on man, let's not go through this again...
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Apparantly with a few of you, we have to go over it again and again and again until one day you just might realize that the NCAA is not the superior route to the CHL.

Hey, not with me dude. I prefer the CHL to the NCAA in terms of hockey development. You're preaching to the choir.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
As a rabid NCAA/USHL fan, I agree, the CHL is the way to go.

Let's not turn this to CHL vs. NCAA I agree.

SO Gagner is in London for sure ? hahaha.

I think it's hilarious that London fans were worried about this year...

Gagner's a definite for next year.
McRae is a very likely arrival.
And I believe Kane will sign with London as well.

Talk about an incredible incoming class...they'll be a threat again.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
As a rabid NCAA/USHL fan, I agree, the CHL is the way to go.

Let's not turn this to CHL vs. NCAA I agree.

SO Gagner is in London for sure ? hahaha.


Well two more converts thus far....do you think MNgopher and 5MNMAJOR will eventually flip too?:D :D

Seriously, posts like these shouldn't really degenerate into NCAA vs CHL but I just get so tired reading garbage from posters who in all likely hood have never seen a CHL uniform, let alone a game, tell us why the NCAA is better.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Well two more converts thus far....do you think MNgopher and 5MNMAJOR will eventually flip too?:D :D

Seriously, posts like these shouldn't really degenerate into NCAA vs CHL but I just get so tired reading garbage from posters who in all likely hood have never seen a CHL uniform, let alone a game, tell us why the NCAA is better.

I'm not a convert. I've believed the CHL is a better development model for NHL hockey for as long as I understood the game at all.

Just because I love NCAA hockey doesn't mean I don't look at it objectively. :)
 

X-SHARKIE

Registered User
The NCAA won't hurt a player, and the OHL can't make a lessar skilled player better than a more skilled player....In the end it's all up to the player, not where he is playing...so really at the most it's about preference as both are great places for a player to develop. I mean, Eric Johnson is better than Ty Wishart, and the just cause Wishart is playing in the Dub cannot change that fact. Also Phil Kessel is a better player than Kyle Chipchura but it's not because he played in the NCAA and not the WHL. So it's not worth arguing over as really it just comes down to preference.

London looks to be an exciting place for 07-08 prospects. McRae is a fantastic prospect who should challenge for a top 5 spot in 08.
 
Last edited:

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
So IMO, what's best for both Gagner and Kane in terms of them reaching their full potential? Either the college or the OHL route are fine. But in terms of raising their draft stock? The OHL would be best for them.

Its simple I only get involved when someone makes unstantiated claims that the CHL route is better than the NCAAs. I never claimed Sam would be better off in the NCAAs. After Juan criticized the USHL...I offered the benefits of the NCAAs as a balance. Then Upstater criticized Wisconsin as a path relative to the CHL as the second half of the path. I don't even want to get into the various unsubstantiated criticisms of the NCAAs on the Kane threads. Overall, I find fans of the NCAAs worse behaving than fans of the CHL...yet on this board, typically the reverse is true.

And VOB...for some reason the concept of drafts are based on future play (rather than actual on ice play) seems to be totally lost on some people. Frankly, we have absolutely no evidence that kids frequently 2-3 years younger are somehow a much bigger on ice challenge. I have little doubt a 16 year old would get blasted off the ice in a 18-23 year old WCHA.

So if someone posts about how the CHL is a much better (ie more challenging) developmental path than the NCAA path for a player...you can expect that I may ask for an once of evidence. However, if its strictly regarding the benefits of padding stats...I'll let it slide.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
And VOB...for some reason the concept of drafts are based on future play (rather than actual on ice play) seems to be totally lost on some people. Frankly, we have absolutely no evidence that kids frequently 2-3 years younger are somehow a much bigger on ice challenge. I have little doubt a 16 year old would get blasted off the ice in a 18-23 year old WCHA.
.

Depends of course what 16 year olds you are talking about. The fact is Major, there are few 16 year olds in the CHL. Most clubs only carry two, a few three and no more. Most play sparringly and for them it is a challenge to play in the best developmental league in the world against players up to four years their senior. Some of course excell.

The average age of London last year was around 18.5 (your typical CHL team), the average age of Moncton was 19. Kane would be playing against some older players and some younger players. By the age of 20 he would be where most elite players ought to be and that is certainly not in the NCAA. He will be either in the NHL or AHL. So for one or two years he will face players at roughly his age and against some players at roughly his talent level.

In the NCAA he would indeed face older competition during his first two seasons but does older automatically equate with being better? The crux of your argument centers on the age issue but I have been trying to tell you that age, while important, is not everything. The 21 to 24 year olds he will be facing in the NCAA ranks are, on average, your less skilled players and there is no credible evidence to suggest that they would present a greater challenge to Kane than players 18-20 years of age in the OHL who, while younger, are on average more talented, bigger and more physical.
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
Your case about older NCAA players being worse is (as we've already discussed) wrong. 9 of last year's top 10 NCAA scorers were too old for the CHL. Again its obvious that maturity pays off.

You make these vague comments about talent in the CHL. Frankly the big round robin of 60 teams in the CHL waters down talent where not many teams have a player drafted in the top two rounds. In the WCHA, teams are alot of players in the first two rounds (up to 8 players in some cases)...and these teams primarily play each other. The CHL is made up of players that are both younger and on average fewer solid draft picks the heart of the WCHA...how is that 'better' for anything other than padding stats?

I'm not looking to pro-long a debate on CHL vs. NCAAs...but there's this wierd preconceived notion on this board that the CHL is better than the NCAAs and there's no evidence.
 

VOB

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
1,692
0
Michigan
Visit site
Your case about older NCAA players being worse is (as we've already discussed) wrong. 9 of last year's top 10 NCAA scorers were too old for the CHL. Again its obvious that maturity pays off.

You make these vague comments about talent in the CHL. Frankly the big round robin of 60 teams in the CHL waters down talent where not many teams have a player drafted in the top two rounds. In the WCHA, teams are alot of players in the first two rounds (up to 8 players in some cases)...and these teams primarily play each other. The CHL is made up of players that are both younger and on average fewer solid draft picks the heart of the WCHA...how is that 'better' for anything other than padding stats?

I'm not looking to pro-long a debate on CHL vs. NCAAs...but there's this wierd preconceived notion on this board that the CHL is better than the NCAAs and there's no evidence.


I would argue that those top 10 players in the NCAA were no better than the top 10 players in the CHL (and that the top 10 CHL players had better pro potential). So again, despite the top NCAA players being a couple of years older, Gagner would face players in the CHL that would be their equal.

Yes, there are some teams in the WCHA that feature 8-12 drafted players on their team, but there is only a handful of them. The CHL has its talent, by and large, distributed rather equally amoung its teams. College hockey is different. You have 10-15 teams that collect the majority of the talent while the other teams aren't left with a whole heck of a lot. So had Gagner went the NCAA route, he would have been playing against top end talent that would have been similiar to what he would find in the CHL but many nights he would be playing against teams such as Tech, Mankato or Alaska, where NHL draft prospects and players are far and few between. And of course he would only be playing 1/2 of the games to begin with.

So again, there is no evidence to suggest that Gagner would have been better off or challenged more had he gone the NCAA route.

Rember Major, it is you, who is often implying that the NCAA is better and that is what fuels this debate. Just admit that the CHL is everybit as good as the NCAA, in terms of development and this will end it.
 

5mn Major

Registered User
Jan 14, 2006
938
0
Never have I said the NCAA is better...I only respond biased CHL posters who don't know the facts. For many kids, the CHL is a very good path. But for others the NCAAs is a very good path (for a guy like Kane)...but many posters will never admit it. So when posters say that the CHL is always a kids best option, I inform them:

- WCHA has more pro potential than the CHL on average
- WCHA is more mature than the CHL
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->