Prospect Info: 16th Overall, Alex Newhook, Victoria Grizzlies, C, BCHL

NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS

Registered User
Feb 28, 2006
13,542
5,771
The Avs botched his development, yes, but this is the form Jost would’ve taken in the NHL regardless. There’s still a prevailing myth you can “ruin” a prospect’s development, when really, all an organization can do is delay or speed up the process.

He’s just not good enough.

No one:
Jost: you think this is my final form? I can be much much worse...
 

McMetal

Writer of Wrongs
Sep 29, 2015
14,052
11,946
I'm still a little hesitant to say he's doing well enough that another year in college wouldn't do him good. But if he keeps up this torrid scoring pace it's going to be more and more difficult for Sakic to resist bringing him straight to the big leagues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Balthazar

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
48,431
50,604
I'm still a little hesitant to say he's doing well enough that another year in college wouldn't do him good. But if he keeps up this torrid scoring pace it's going to be more and more difficult for Sakic to resist bringing him straight to the big leagues.
It's going to be up to Newhook IMO. He did it with Jost and tried with Makar after year 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

Iracundia

Registered User
Jun 19, 2011
1,326
458
It's going to be up to Newhook IMO. He did it with Jost and tried with Makar after year 1.
I hope Sakic was able to learn how important it is to give these players time to properly develop before bringing them up. It should be an Avalanche manta that prospects get an automatic 2 years of developmental time. Jost and Makar should be exhibits #1 and #2 for this.
 

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,142
37,285
Another full year as a 1C under York with a WJC tournament is going to be huge for his development. I’m getting really excited.

He’s also pals with Bowers and Steinburg. Hope he spends some time in Nova Scotia this summer skating with the gang.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
44,892
41,977
Caverns of Draconis
Another full year as a 1C under York with a WJC tournament is going to be huge for his development. I’m getting really excited.


Yup agreed. I was iffy on the pick when it was made as I really wasn't his biggest fan pre draft, saw him more as a late 1st then middle of the round.



But ya, York is doing wonders for this kid. The way he brought him into the lineup and slowly added more minutes and opportunities as he got more and more comfortable in his role has been fantastic. Give him that extra year as BCs 1C next year, and as a heavily leaned on player for Team Canada on home ice at the WJC.



Someone on the main boards compared his potential impact to recent similar 16th overall pick Barzal and I could see it. Barzal was a PPG+ player rookie after spending 2 years in the WHL post draft. I dont think Newhook has that kind of a rookie campaign but I could certainly see him being a impact Top 6 forward of the 55-60 point variety in his rookie year.
 

Gold Standard

Registered User
Sep 7, 2018
2,385
2,285
I'm counting on him being at the WJC centering a line that has as his RWer his Newfoundland compatriot, so, I'm hoping another year at BC is in the cards.

but lovin his progression. lovin it.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
44,892
41,977
Caverns of Draconis
I'm counting on him being at the WJC centering a line that has as his RWer his Newfoundland compatriot, so, I'm hoping another year at BC is in the cards.

but lovin his progression. lovin it.
That would be awesome as a Newfie :laugh:


When was the last time a Newfoundlander actually scored a goal at the WJC? Mercer didn't this time around obviously and I cant even remember who the last Newf to play in the tournament was.
 

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,273
5,586
Denver
I hope Sakic was able to learn how important it is to give these players time to properly develop before bringing them up. It should be an Avalanche manta that prospects get an automatic 2 years of developmental time. Jost and Makar should be exhibits #1 and #2 for this.
This is pretty ridiculous. Players are a case by case basis. Does this mean Byram has to go back too? Is he going to be ruined if he only has 1 year of development post draft? What about MacKinnon? He didn't even have 1 year of post draft development, did he turn ok?

I love this mentality, that had Jost stayed another year he'd been exponentially better. That's such trash, the guy simply isn't a good hockey player. He has average skating, average shot, average IQ, and isn't the type of player that can effectively play bottom 6. Another year of college wasn't going to fix these glaring issues.

Players should be evaluated on a case by case basis. For a guy like Byram, there is nothing of value he can learn at his current level if he isn't here is going to be a waste. Newhook probably could benefit from another year, he'll get big minutes in a decent league could have a decent shot at winning the Hobey Baker. That being said if he isn't interested in going back or wants to start his professional career, then you at least have to entertain the thought of signing him as he had already proven to be one of the best in the country for his age. The only reason Makar went back is because he wanted to.
 

Iracundia

Registered User
Jun 19, 2011
1,326
458
This is pretty ridiculous. Players are a case by case basis. Does this mean Byram has to go back too? Is he going to be ruined if he only has 1 year of development post draft? What about MacKinnon? He didn't even have 1 year of post draft development, did he turn ok?

I love this mentality, that had Jost stayed another year he'd been exponentially better. That's such trash, the guy simply isn't a good hockey player. He has average skating, average shot, average IQ, and isn't the type of player that can effectively play bottom 6. Another year of college wasn't going to fix these glaring issues.

Players should be evaluated on a case by case basis. For a guy like Byram, there is nothing of value he can learn at his current level if he isn't here is going to be a waste. Newhook probably could benefit from another year, he'll get big minutes in a decent league could have a decent shot at winning the Hobey Baker. That being said if he isn't interested in going back or wants to start his professional career, then you at least have to entertain the thought of signing him as he had already proven to be one of the best in the country for his age. The only reason Makar went back is because he wanted to.
How many players have been ruined by extra year(s) of development? I'll wait for your list? BTW Mac is the rare exception. Look how great Hughes and Kakko look right now, what a waste of a season and maybe longer. D take longer because they need more physical strength to do their job than a forward.

Jost put up good numbers in his pre-Av years but was brought up way too soon. Jost wasn't physically ready when he came up and that played a massive role in the player we have now. You can't teach man-strength and conditioning, you get that through time. His confidence was cracked because he couldn't compete and do the things he did in the past because he didn't have the strength and speed to create any separation.

Byram's bread and butter is being a physical in-your-face D. Byram needs man strength to do that and doesn't have that right now. Had you watched the WJC you would have seen the number of times he tried to initiate contact and was instead put on his ass. If that was against boys whats gonna happen 1 year later against men? We've already seen Makar get muscled out in front of the net and he had an extra year. Makar went back because he was SMART and realized his physical deficiencies despite the Avs ill-advised attempts to bring him up. Every educated hockey person has raved about how smart it was for Makar to have that extra year. I'll go with their insight and knowledge on the issue over yours.
 

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,273
5,586
Denver
How many players have been ruined by extra year(s) of development? I'll wait for your list? BTW Mac is the rare exception. Look how great Hughes and Kakko look right now, what a waste of a season and maybe longer. D take longer because they need more physical strength to do their job than a forward.

Jost put up good numbers in his pre-Av years but was brought up way too soon. Jost wasn't physically ready when he came up and that played a massive role in the player we have now. You can't teach man-strength and conditioning, you get that through time. His confidence was cracked because he couldn't compete and do the things he did in the past because he didn't have the strength and speed to create any separation.

Byram's bread and butter is being a physical in-your-face D. Byram needs man strength to do that and doesn't have that right now. Had you watched the WJC you would have seen the number of times he tried to initiate contact and was instead put on his ass. If that was against boys whats gonna happen 1 year later against men? We've already seen Makar get muscled out in front of the net and he had an extra year. Makar went back because he was SMART and realized his physical deficiencies despite the Avs ill-advised attempts to bring him up. Every educated hockey person has raved about how smart it was for Makar to have that extra year. I'll go with their insight and knowledge on the issue over yours.
You literally missed the entire point of my post. You're acting like every single player needs 2+ years of non NHL development to be good, which is simply not the case.

You want a list of players fine let's just look at our team, MacK wouldn't have helped him one bit to go back to minors for another season let alone 2. Same for for Landy he was ready to play NHL day 1, Rantanen probably could have played NHL day 1 but he was in the AHL for one year, another year would have been pointless.

I don't know what's the best path for our current prospects, there is no correct answer but it's ridiculous to assume that they need 2 years or more because that's what Cale did. Every single player is different. Right now I can easily say that Byram is ahead of where Cale was in his+1 season in terms of defense. Does this make him better, no. Just different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Kingslayer

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,984
19,055
w/ Renly's Peach
I agree that Jost's skating would've held him back even with an extra year. But having a season where he had to learn to make his own space, without Boeser there to draw attention away from him, could've better prepared him for dealing with the lesser space that's prevented him from enjoying the same kind of success he had his freshman year, at this level.
 

Iracundia

Registered User
Jun 19, 2011
1,326
458
You literally missed the entire point of my post. You're acting like every single player needs 2+ years of non NHL development to be good, which is simply not the case.

You want a list of players fine let's just look at our team, MacK wouldn't have helped him one bit to go back to minors for another season let alone 2. Same for for Landy he was ready to play NHL day 1, Rantanen probably could have played NHL day 1 but he was in the AHL for one year, another year would have been pointless.

I don't know what's the best path for our current prospects, there is no correct answer but it's ridiculous to assume that they need 2 years or more because that's what Cale did. Every single player is different. Right now I can easily say that Byram is ahead of where Cale was in his+1 season in terms of defense. Does this make him better, no. Just different.

I never said 2+ years so don't put words in my mouth. I want 2 years then a determination if the player is physically ready to compete against men. If the player is physically ready after 1 year fine, bring him up after 1, but thats usually the exception rather than the norm. My point that you missed is that you need man strength and conditioning to compete against fully grown men and you don't have that after a D+1 season (especially D who need to be stronger to deal with the much stronger forwards of the NHL).

The worse thing you can do for a player is put him in a position where he gets physically dominated and loses his confidence. (see Jost)

I'm glad you brought up Byram again. Did you watch any of the WJC? If you did you would have seen him getting physically owned way too many times. Thats a strength issue and not uncommon for a 18 yr old. You can't teach strength you get it through time.
 
Last edited:

TheRarestDangles

Registered User
Oct 1, 2019
1,501
2,565
Denver, Colorado, USA, Earth
I never said 2+ years so don't put words in my mouth. I want 2 years then a determination if the player is physically ready to compete against men. If the player is physically ready after 1 year fine, bring him up after 1, but thats usually the exception rather than the norm. My point that you missed is that you need man strength and conditioning to compete against fully grown men and you don't have that after a D+1 season (especially D who need to be stronger to deal with the much stronger forwards of the NHL).

The worse thing you can do for a player is put him in a position where he gets physically dominated and loses his confidence. (see Jost)

I'm glad you brought up Byram again. Did you watch any of the WJC? If you did you would have seen him getting physically owned way too many times. Thats a strength issue and not uncommon for a 18 yr old. You can teach strength you get it through time.
Just curious: do you think Elias Pettersson was physically ready for the NHL in his rookie year?
 

The Kingslayer

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
76,328
55,959
Siem Reap, Cambodia
You literally missed the entire point of my post. You're acting like every single player needs 2+ years of non NHL development to be good, which is simply not the case.

You want a list of players fine let's just look at our team, MacK wouldn't have helped him one bit to go back to minors for another season let alone 2. Same for for Landy he was ready to play NHL day 1, Rantanen probably could have played NHL day 1 but he was in the AHL for one year, another year would have been pointless.

I don't know what's the best path for our current prospects, there is no correct answer but it's ridiculous to assume that they need 2 years or more because that's what Cale did. Every single player is different. Right now I can easily say that Byram is ahead of where Cale was in his+1 season in terms of defense. Does this make him better, no. Just different.
Every prospect should be handled on a case by case basis. If Jost stayed in North Dakota 4 yrs it wouldnt make him a better NHL player. He sucks. Cale staying an extra yr makes all the sense since hes a dman and that extra yr imo benefited him and the Avs but he probably could have played after that first season at UMass just not sure how well he would have played so that extra yr was fine for him.

If Newhook shows hes outgrown the NCAA by the end of this season and he and Joe feel hes NHL ready then fine. I would say in most cases that an extra year to marinate and mature is a benefit to both the franchise and the player but obviously there are exceptions (Mikko one and done in the AHL, Mackinnon, Landeskog)
 

Iracundia

Registered User
Jun 19, 2011
1,326
458
Just curious: do you think Elias Pettersson was physically ready for the NHL in his rookie year?
Nope he wasn't physically ready. But lucky for him he had high-end skating and edgework that could be used with his elite hockey sense to create time and space.
 

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
48,431
50,604
Nope he wasn't physically ready. But lucky for him he had high-end skating and edgework that could be used with his elite hockey sense to create time and space.
He still gets hurt pretty often due to being underweight. Like that "late hit" the other day vs Boston...he knew it was going to happen but was still sent flying into the boards and got injured.

I don't think he's going to get a lot bigger, some people are just naturally very skinny.
 

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,273
5,586
Denver
This
I never said 2+ years so don't put words in my mouth. I want 2 years then a determination if the player is physically ready to compete against men. If the player is physically ready after 1 year fine, bring him up after 1, but thats usually the exception rather than the norm. My point that you missed is that you need man strength and conditioning to compete against fully grown men and you don't have that after a D+1 season (especially D who need to be stronger to deal with the much stronger forwards of the NHL).

The worse thing you can do for a player is put him in a position where he gets physically dominated and loses his confidence. (see Jost)

I'm glad you brought up Byram again. Did you watch any of the WJC? If you did you would have seen him getting physically owned way too many times. Thats a strength issue and not uncommon for a 18 yr old. You can't teach strength you get it through time.
This is just confusing, you say 2 years then a determination if they are physically ready. Then literally the next sentence say if they are physically ready after year 1 then fine bring them in.

You can't say one thing then contradict yourself a sentence later and say but that isn't the norm.

The fact is, is every single player is different. It's a case by case basis, and that's how NHL teams evaluate it. There's none of this BS 2 years then see if they are physically ready crap. It's can this player help us now, or does he need more time before he can help us out.

And to answer your question yes I did watch Byram at the WJC, he was Canada's best dman who played all situations, all while being the youngest player on defense. He was not overmatched, sure he got hit and out muscled some, but he also won plenty of battles a well. Another year of juniors will do nothing for him, he has learned all that he can from that level. He needs a step up in competition to continue to progress.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->