OHL4Life
Registered User
- Sep 6, 2017
- 3,674
- 3,049
What I said was Windsor has had "pretty solid history of finding talent in the later rounds, too." This goes back to when Rychel and Boughner took over. While there was a significant lull in the action during one stretch, they've still had success with later round players. To me, success is playing a regular OHL shift and contributing to the team. A guy like Locke was tremendous, but to say "a lot of teams" have had a player like him (late round + 40+g) is incorrect. Windsor hasn't been able to capitalize on all of their top-round talents but there is a history of finding talents in the later rounds. It doesn't make up for it, but it doesn't hurt them, either.
He posted this as I was posting; it furthers my point, though.
again, i left all rookies off, we could add more to other teams.
how do you efine pretty solid history. again, in the last 8 years they've had one player. other teams have more players this year. you have to admit thats pretty broad definition. probably no mistake that they didnt' have any high pics the last two yours that now all of a sudden late round pics make the team.
im not a sky is falling type, i like numbers and facts to look at points, i dont get how windsor has 'solid history' in finding late round talent, if they are solid, teams that have guys who are actually good, like formenton, durzi, holowell etc, what are they? are they great? im trying to understand the context of your statement.