Which factors make a player a bust?

[Habsfan18]

I don't really know how to ask this question so I hope you guys understand. But why are certain players ranked so high in drafts..yet become nobodies? What causes a player to become bust? Can some factors be..the team that drafted him didn't give him a fair shot? Didn't have the heart to play in the big leagues? Scouts were just plain wrong with the assessment of the players talent?

I mean, I just find it strange that players who dominated offensively in junior (I'll just use Simon Gamache, Corey Locke, Duncan Milroy as examples) don't really amount to anything..yet players taken in the later rounds who didn't have very good junior careers can end up being very good pro players.

I know it's kinda a stupid question but how can a player dominate junior and be very touted..yet not even make the NHL? Which factors cause a player to become a bust?

I'll use the 2001 draft as an example...players such as the following were pretty highly touted:

Stanislav Chistov = was compared to Paul Kariya and was known to be "electrifying"....yet he had a decent rookie season, was awful the following year. Then played average in the AHL the next year..went back to Russia..came back and did a whole lot of nothing last year.

Fredrik Sjostrom = Was compared to Havlat by many and was touted as a skill player with a bright future in the NHL...yet he has NHL seasons of the following: 7,6,9 goals.

Igor Knyazev = was touted as a very safe prospect and was almost NHL ready. Was expected to be a d-man who plays many minutes per game...yet he played two average seasons in the AHL before returning to Russia.

Greg Watson = Had a decent junior career and was taken in the 2nd round...yet he hasn't played a single NHL game in 6 years. He's been in the AHL and ECHL.

Kiel McLeod = had a pretty good junior career...yet he also hasn't played an NHL game and has been stuck in the ECHL.


Of course this is just a few examples from one draft. But what do you think is the main factor in making a player a bust? His skills were overrated by scouts? His game just didn't develop as expected?

I hope you guys understand what I mean, and If not I apologize lol.

Click to read more...

 

[Jeffrey]

I would say it's a mix of bad situation(too many players like him in front of him or poor players around him that kill his confidence), not enough skill(some players just cant get to the upper echelon in terms of skills and get stuck at their level) or dedication(see Brendl & Daigle), bad management(see Doug Maclean) and finally the injury factor.

 

[Talent Analyst]

Habitually it is a player who has BIG talent , but it miss something . Sometime they work on the thing they miss and ''explode'' . Its like Andrei Kostitsyn , he has big talent , like everything you need to be a elite player . But it miss something in his game to be that ''Elite player'' . Sometimes its just a lack of confidence , work ethic or heart .

 

[montreal]

Lots of factors. For one, some players get underscouted, ask CSB how many full time scouts they employ and then try and figure how they can see 300 prospects all over the world. Then you have to remember that your dealing with 17-19 year olds for the most part. A LOT can happen to a kid at that age. While many might not get much taller, some will have a late growth or add a good deal of mass/strength. Others may have personal things that happen in their life that make them lose focus or not work harder to reach the next level. There's so many things that can happen, just think back to when you were 18 and the things you did.

Then there's the players development/progression. Scouts try to figure how a guy is going to develop/progress over the next 5 years or so, but some guys are late bloomers, others peak at an early age. It's tough to try and point out someone and say, they peaked or another kid that isn't that impressive now but think in a few years he'll be really good.

Others its' about getting the chances. Scouts might focus on a few players at a young age (say 15 or so) so that as long as they keep doing well, they will be known to the scouts and kept in their rankings, helping their chances to get drafted. Others may be slower in their development, not really show much in limited viewings, then scouts might not rank them high or at all, hurting their chances of ever getting a shot.

One thing I would point out is kids that were star players at a young age. They get into bad habbits on the ice, coaches overplay them cause they can score but neglect other parts of the game. Then when the star player moves up to the next level his bad habbits get exposed, the big fish in a little pond ends up a little fish in a big pond so to speak.

Look at Kostitsyn, when he was drafted, highly skilled offensive player, flat out brutal defensively and clueless without the puck. His development has been slow cause he had to work on his bad habbits.

 

[Anthony Mauro]

Lots of factors. For one, some players get underscouted, ask CSB how many full time scouts they employ and then try and figure how they can see 300 prospects all over the world. Then you have to remember that your dealing with 17-19 year olds for the most part.

Do you mean this as a jab to CSB?

I ask because I was just reading the media guide for draft day, and I thought their scouting reports were VERY generic. I got tired of reading their reports after reading five of them.

 

[Gutchecktime]

I ask because I was just reading the media guide for draft day

Where can I find this? Thanks

**Nevermind! Found it!

 

[montreal]

Do you mean this as a jab to CSB?

I ask because I was just reading the media guide for draft day, and I thought their scouting reports were VERY generic. I got tired of reading their reports after reading five of them.

Not really, just that I was surprised to hear how small their staff was at the time (this was something I was told a few years back so I don't know if their full time staff is still that small)

 

[PSUhockey34]

I know it will never happen but if they went back to a 20yr old draft instead of the current 18yr old draft, would you have less players becoming busts since scouts would have more time to watch them develop?

 

[Louis Houde]

I know it will never happen but if they went back to a 20yr old draft instead of the current 18yr old draft, would you have less players becoming busts since scouts would have more time to watch them develop?

yes

 

[Yann]

I know it will never happen but if they went back to a 20yr old draft instead of the current 18yr old draft, would you have less players becoming busts since scouts would have more time to watch them develop?

On one hand i think it would be good, on the other i dont, look at guys like Crosby and Ovie, they wouldve of been wasting time in the minors.

They could make a system where at 20 anyone is eligible, but players judqed to be ready or extremely close at 18 or 19 can be made eligible. Now thats just fantasy because obviously people wouldnt agree, some parents wouldnt agree, whatever the human factor makes it impossible but if it where possible that would be great because not nearly as many players would be busts and the NHL would be stronger overall

 

[Kevin Forbes]

Something that I've noticed you always hear about and is always mentioned both by the players and the coaching staff and anyone else around the league for junior hockey is that first NHL camp.
Up until that point, the players don't really get it. They don't understand the work required, the dedication needed, the desire they need to tap into. Being drafted is the easy part. But it really isn't until after that first camp that the players really begin to realise how much work is involved to make it to the NHL.
That's where I think a lot of them wash out. I'm not saying that drafted players who don't make it don't work hard enough for it. Just that some, due to a lack of drive, unwillingness to dedicate, not enough skill to make that jump and so on, can't cut it.

 

[NYR469]

the biggest reason for bust is that during the draft you are trying to predict what a player will look like in 5-10 years and unless you have a time machine or a crystal ball thats not an exact science.

very very few players are ready to be stars on draft day. the majority of players picked have something to work on. whether its learning to play defense, adding muscle, getting quicker, etc. when you pick the guy you are hoping that as he develops he can improve those things. teams will draft a guy that is 6'3 170 assuming that as he 'fills out' he'll be 215lbs and a beast, but maybe in reality the kid stops growing at 175lbs and is never strong enough to make it.

i heard someone once say that trying to pick the best future nhler from a group of 17-18 year olds is kind of like trying to pick the best future brain surgery from a 6th grade science class...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Something that I've noticed you always hear about and is always mentioned both by the players and the coaching staff and anyone else around the league for junior hockey is that first NHL camp.
Up until that point, the players don't really get it. They don't understand the work required, the dedication needed, the desire they need to tap into. Being drafted is the easy part. But it really isn't until after that first camp that the players really begin to realise how much work is involved to make it to the NHL.
That's where I think a lot of them wash out. I'm not saying that drafted players who don't make it don't work hard enough for it. Just that some, due to a lack of drive, unwillingness to dedicate, not enough skill to make that jump and so on, can't cut it.

Excellent point. Virtually every prospect has some element of their game that needs work before they are NHL calibre. In some cases, they just aren't phsyically capable of overcomming the flaw, and in other cases, the effort to overcome the flaw overcomes the player. And sometimes, players are in a catch 22. Anyone remember Rangers prospect Christian Dube? He was a top junior player, but too small, both in height and build. After failing on a few tries, he bulked up and had the size to make it, but, the cost of the size was his mobility, the element to his game that made him special. In order to solve his flaw, he had to sacrifice his strength and he never made it.

 

[brightscout]

I think the most important factor is dedication.

Many guys of that age are not that much serious into hockey, they have the girls they want in their junior town and lots of them prefer to pass time out of the ice then on the ice and in the training room. A dedicate player with less skills will go further then a more skilled player with less dedication. It's all about how commited you are to the game.

Don't get me wrong, many guys in juniors are not that commited to hockey...

Excellent point. Virtually every prospect has some element of their game that needs work before they are NHL calibre. In some cases, they just aren't phsyically capable of overcomming the flaw, and in other cases, the effort to overcome the flaw overcomes the player. And sometimes, players are in a catch 22. Anyone remember Rangers prospect Christian Dube? He was a top junior player, but too small, both in height and build. After failing on a few tries, he bulked up and had the size to make it, but, the cost of the size was his mobility, the element to his game that made him special. In order to solve his flaw, he had to sacrifice his strength and he never made it.

 

[PSUhockey34]

Excellent point. Virtually every prospect has some element of their game that needs work before they are NHL calibre. In some cases, they just aren't phsyically capable of overcomming the flaw, and in other cases, the effort to overcome the flaw overcomes the player. And sometimes, players are in a catch 22. Anyone remember Rangers prospect Christian Dube? He was a top junior player, but too small, both in height and build. After failing on a few tries, he bulked up and had the size to make it, but, the cost of the size was his mobility, the element to his game that made him special. In order to solve his flaw, he had to sacrifice his strength and he never made it.

is hockeydb.com wrong b/c they have him listed at 6'2 195?

 

[PSUhockey34]

On one hand i think it would be good, on the other i dont, look at guys like Crosby and Ovie, they wouldve of been wasting time in the minors.

They could make a system where at 20 anyone is eligible, but players judqed to be ready or extremely close at 18 or 19 can be made eligible. Now thats just fantasy because obviously people wouldnt agree, some parents wouldnt agree, whatever the human factor makes it impossible but if it where possible that would be great because not nearly as many players would be busts and the NHL would be stronger overall

I'm not sure how well that would work, the age limit has to be strickly black and white IMO...you start letting an 18 or 19 yr old slip into the draft, then you'll have an uproar from other players/agents that feel they're just as ready and that you're denying them the right to earn and income

 

[Yann]

I'm not sure how well that would work, the age limit has to be strickly black and white IMO...you start letting an 18 or 19 yr old slip into the draft, then you'll have an uproar from other players/agents that feel they're just as ready and that you're denying them the right to earn and income

another point that makes it impossible, once again it was just fantasy of how things could be perfect for the hockey world

 

[Leaf Army]

Most busts are players who were overrated in the first place because they were big or because they could skate fast.

Speed and size are factors to consider, but contrary to popular belief neither one of those attributes is going to carry a player to a successful NHL career.

 

[LeftCoast]

I think part of the reason is group think - and it is not just hockey, all sports do it. At least hockey doesn't have the problem Football does with the workout wonders who show up at the combine and run a 4:3 40 and everyone thinks they are the next Jerry Rice.

But a lot of mistakes have been made because GMs get wood over a big man. Think Montreal taking Doug Wickenhauser over Denis Savard.

Vancouver has more busts than Pamella Anderson. Pat Quinn and Harry Neal's first round picks in the 80's and 90's - all looking for the next Cam Neeley. Of big men Sandlack, Antoski, Linden, Stojanov and Polasek, Linden turned out to be a star, and Sandlack was a journeyman. Antoski, Stojanov and Polasek were complete busts.

Petr Nedved wasn't a bust, but he was no where near the player that Jagr, Premeau and Ricci, all chosen right after him, were. Jagr was overlooked because everyone thought he still had to do his military services in Czechoslovakia. I think even the Penguins were surprised when he came over.

I can't explain Dan Woodley - had 92 and 80 point seasons with Portland of the WHL and had an NHL grand total of 2 points in 5 games. He was chosen 7th, right after Vinny Damphouse and before Brian Leetch, Scott Young and Craig Janney. Leetch would have looked a lot better than ...

Jason Herter - well 1989 would have been a total bust if they hadn't have got Pavel Bure on a technicality.


Back to the group think thing. I think hockey is more complicated than other pro sports (except maybe soccer) because the players play in different leagues with different rules, different sized playing surface, different length of season and vastly different levels of competition. As a result when the scouting staff, who have all been watching different leagues, get together, there is little basis on which to compare opinions. The GM has to weigh the relative merits of his staff's evaluations. Not an easy thing to do. In Vancouver's case - I would ignore Ron Delorme and listen to Thomas Gradin.

That is why international tournaments such as the WJCs are so important - but only the top eligible players participate.

 

[octopi]

Well, theres the little factor of players being bigger, faste, stronger at NHL level. Maybe some of these guys had the wheels, but couldn't stand up to the more physical game/size of NHL opponants.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'd say that 95% of all busts fall in to one of four categories:

Size: Big or Small. Either a big kid with raw physical skills with limited hockey ability. The thinking is wow, when this kids hockey ability catches up to his body he's going to be a stud, the next: Lindros, Neely, Chara etc. .....Small - Could dominate lesser leagues, because just more talented than averyone else. In the NHL talent rarely dominates, and if you're small, you better have rockets for feet, because the NHL isn't the place for talented, but small players with average or below skating ability

Speed: This is a skating man's league, and if you can't keep up, you had better to ultra talented in some other skill to make it. Some are used to dominating on speed alone, and don't develop the proper skills ... other just don't have enough footspeed.

Hockey Sense: Great physical skills, but not a clue how to play the game. Can dominate lesser leagues because of physical gifts, but a lack of hockey sense and cluse as to how the game is played can be the death knell.

Desire/work ethic: Being a quality NHL player is an 11 month a year job, and if you don't love the game, really love everything about it, chances are you aren't going to put in the work to be a successful NHL player.

 

[Juan]

Lots of factors. For one, some players get underscouted, ask CSB how many full time scouts they employ and then try and figure how they can see 300 prospects all over the world. Then you have to remember that your dealing with 17-19 year olds for the most part. A LOT can happen to a kid at that age. While many might not get much taller, some will have a late growth or add a good deal of mass/strength. Others may have personal things that happen in their life that make them lose focus or not work harder to reach the next level. There's so many things that can happen, just think back to when you were 18 and the things you did.

Then there's the players development/progression. Scouts try to figure how a guy is going to develop/progress over the next 5 years or so, but some guys are late bloomers, others peak at an early age. It's tough to try and point out someone and say, they peaked or another kid that isn't that impressive now but think in a few years he'll be really good.

Others its' about getting the chances. Scouts might focus on a few players at a young age (say 15 or so) so that as long as they keep doing well, they will be known to the scouts and kept in their rankings, helping their chances to get drafted. Others may be slower in their development, not really show much in limited viewings, then scouts might not rank them high or at all, hurting their chances of ever getting a shot.

One thing I would point out is kids that were star players at a young age. They get into bad habbits on the ice, coaches overplay them cause they can score but neglect other parts of the game. Then when the star player moves up to the next level his bad habbits get exposed, the big fish in a little pond ends up a little fish in a big pond so to speak.

Look at Kostitsyn, when he was drafted, highly skilled offensive player, flat out brutal defensively and clueless without the puck. His development has been slow cause he had to work on his bad habbits.

The highlighted portion above describes EXACTLY what I think is going to happen to Tavares. I'm not saying he's going to bust, but I am saying he's not going to be nearly as dominant, as quickly, at the next level as some people are projecting.

You can all start flaming away, but I'm telling you that Tavares' 70+ goals would be closer to 40-50 goals (still very good obviously) if he played for a coach that didn't let him take 3 minute shifts, not backcheck at all and play on the offensive side of the puck during the PK. Yes, it works in junior, but at the next level, even the AHL... forget it.

And before I get the standard "you must have never seen him play" response... I've watched Tavares countless times since minor peewee right up through to his time in the OHL.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

The highlighted portion above describes EXACTLY what I think is going to happen to Tavares. I'm not saying he's going to bust, but I am saying he's not going to be nearly as dominant, as quickly, at the next level as some people are projecting.

You can all start flaming away, but I'm telling you that Tavares' 70+ goals would be closer to 40-50 goals (still very good obviously) if he played for a coach that didn't let him take 3 minute shifts, not backcheck at all and play on the offensive side of the puck during the PK. Yes, it works in junior, but at the next level, even the AHL... forget it.

And before I get the standard "you must have never seen him play" response... I've watched Tavares countless times since minor peewee right up through to his time in the OHL.

Just a note, but a lot of these concerns were raised when Crosby was in junior.

 

[Juan]

Just a note, but a lot of these concerns were raised when Crosby was in junior.

Certainly not by me. Crosby was never the kind of player to float around in the neutral zone for two minutes waiting for the puck to squirt out past a pinching defenseman. Crosby went down to block shots and helped out his D deep in his own end. And when Crosby did gamble, he had the explosive acceleration to recover and get back into position.

That is why he was a markedly different junior player than Tavares IMO. And, incidentally, these are the same attributes that put Crosby on the World Junior team at 16 years old, and stopped Tavares from even coming close.

 

[Wetcoaster]

It is known in the NHL as the "D Factor" named after Alexandre Daigle.