Kane is one year (to the week) younger than Little and outscored him by 38 points this season. I know Little is a better two-way player, but why exactly would anyone take Little over Kane? That's just nuts.
Little is solid in his own end compared to Kane, Kane needs a lot of work on his defensive play. Little has a decent frame, Kane has a small frame, lacks strength. Kane is slicker with the puck, he's really shifty but I'd be concerned about how he handles the pros.
Also London is a high powered offensive team and their top players get a lot of quality ice time. I think people put too much into stats.
But then again, I think this years first round stinks.
I agree that Little is solid in his own end, but this year's first round doesn't stink to the point that last year's No. 12 pick would be in the top two.
I'm a little puzzled as to why people think Mueller and Little are better then the top prospects this year. They were ranked 6th and 7th last year in the central scouting rankings in NA. Don't see a big difference this year. Why would Little - who has the late birthday - be ranked ahead of Gagner? Heck Chris Stewart was ranked 8th. Would anyone rank Chris Stewart 8th in this years draft?
Maybe I overrate Mueller, but I happen to think he's one of the top prospects in the CHL, so if I were picking 1st and he was back in the draft, then I'd pick him. I would take Little over Gagner cause I think he's a safer bet in the pros. It's not like Little isn't highly skilled, I like his wrist shot and would rather have him then Gagner. I can see why others would take Gagner who's a good setup guy, this is just one persons opinion.
But I think that's the problem with this whole question. Everyone is basing their opinion on what Mueller and Little are today, not what they were on draft day. The question is biased. Everyone's opinion would change if 07 drafties were a year older too. I just can't see how Little would be a highter draftie if he was actually in his draft year compared to the kids this year.
And I still don't think Mueller is number one overall talent (in his draft year!)
Why would you base your opinion on them last year when it's this year? I was thinking the person meant if they somehow rentered the draft but perhaps I understood it wrong. I also don't think Mueller is the number one talent, but he's who I would pick 1st. I think Cherepanov or Kane might be the most talented but I'd rather a safer pick that brings more then just skills. Certainly Mueller is one of the top prospects in the CHL imo. As for Little, I think he would easily be higher in this years draft, since last years draft was stronger top end wise imo.
Kane is one year (to the week) younger than Little and outscored him by 38 points this season. I know Little is a better two-way player, but why exactly would anyone take Little over Kane? That's just nuts.
Well, I don't suppose 18-22 year old guys get a lot of PK time as a sweeping generalization. But I would expect Little to be an everyday PKer when he hits his stride as an NHL regular.Now let's talk about Bryan Little in comparison with Kane. The "knock" on Kane is that he is too small. Don't give me crap about defensive awareness-- neither one of them are going to be PK'ing in the NHL anytime soon.
I guess this whole thread is based on speculation anyway. So as long as we're engaging in speculation, I'll say Little would have had around 170 pts this year, if he had played in Kane's spot on London.Pat Kane OHL listing: 5'10" 170lbs
Bryan Little OHL listing: 5'10" 175lbs [When drafted, currently listed at 195]
Now I guess you can talk about intangibles... because every Stat favors Kane (and by quite a bit, btw).
Well, I don't suppose 18-22 year old guys get a lot of PK time as a sweeping generalization. But I would expect Little to be an everyday PKer when he hits his stride as an NHL regular.
I guess this whole thread is based on speculation anyway. So as long as we're engaging in speculation, I'll say Little would have had around 170 pts this year, if he had played in Kane's spot on London.
I don't mean that as belittling Kane's perfomance in any way. Kane a year older
would probably get 170 pts on that London team too. Maybe even more. I just feel that the stats in the London system are inflated to that large an extent. FWIW.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how London looks. Kostitsyn would be gone. Some others might be. Depends on how the kids step up. Depends on where Hunter goes and what direction the team would take if he left. But I am saying that if you airlift Kane 1 year older onto this past season's London team, he would be a better player at 18-19 than he was at 17-18, enough to bump 140-some points up to 170.So you are saying that Kane is going to get 170 points next year?
The City has nothing to do with it. The style of play that gives a handful of ultra-talented players massive icetime, exceptional PP opportunity, and more green lights than they would get anywhere else certainly plays a part. It's a great opportunity for the star players who get to play there. The Knights *are* a point fest. I'm not exactly knocking that. It has certainly worked. But I don't think it's fair either to overlook the calibre of other players in the OHL. Bryan Little is an excellent player who would have had HUGE numbers if he had been utilised as the go-to guy on that London team. IMHO he actually compares more to Kostitsyn than to anybody else on London. And if Kostitsyn could get 130+ pts with a slow start, then I really don't have any doubt that Little could have significantly exceeded that. 170 does sound reasonable to me.NO WAY Little gets that many on any team. Some people think the Knights are a point fest. It has a lot to do with the caliber of talent more so then the city they play for.