2021 NCAA, CHL, OHL and European prospects thread - part II
- Thread starter NJDevs26
- Start date
- Status
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
December 28, 2021
---
Yes there were certain testing protocols in place this season, how to handle players that test positive, and so on. But wide-scale procedures for exactly how to handle postponements, and under what circumstances, don't really exist. Or it's loosely defined, and being left up to the schools to decide, with no oversight.
This week's example — where Michigan canceled its second of two Great Lakes Invitational games — is only the most obvious, but there have been others.
Whether Michigan's decision really is an egregious flouting of circumstances and/or poor sportsmanship, is up to debate. But the decision undoubtedly looks horrible.
In case you missed it, Michigan announced it could not play its Dec. 30 game against Western Michigan. Its reason? "(D)ue to health and welfare protocols." A phrase so vague as to be meaningless. Michigan has denied repeated attempts to elaborate.
Mean time, Michigan is still scheduled to play Michigan Tech on Dec. 29 — the day before — in the other GLI showcase game.
It begged — and still begs — the immediate question: If Michigan is in such bad shape, how is it able to play Dec. 29 and not Dec. 30?
The easy conclusion is that Michigan is ducking Western Michigan, a top-end Pairwise team that nearly swept the Wolverines earlier in the season. Michigan has five prominent players out at the World Juniors — major star players. WMU is intact. Taking a loss here could hurt its Pairwise, and Michigan doesn't want to take the chance.
When I suggested on Twitter yesterday that this is how it appears, I got a massive amount of positive feedback, including from WMU players. Clearly they think this is true. No one really disputed it.
And since Michigan and coach Mel Pearson won't discuss it further, this is the impression we're left with.
I really want to give the benefit of the doubt and say this isn't an obvious dodge. I've been trying to find something else that would explain this decision. Maybe it makes sense if you consider that, between missing players from injury and the WJC, then throw in a couple with COVID issues, Michigan would barely get through the first game, and then possibly be even more banged up the second night, and not capable of playing.
I dunno, that's all I have.
Note how, above, Michigan carefully sidestepped using the word "COVID" in its release announcing the decision. It cites a vague "health and welfare protocol." Is this to give plausible deniability to the real reason? Like, players aren't affected by COVID, but Michigan is just missing too many of them and is worried the remaining players will be too tired for the second game? Of course, these days, what else does "health protocols" mean? There is no other health protocol, besides COVID, that is even a valid reason to cancel going to a tournament, let alone one that's been on your schedule for 60 years.
A Michigan spokesperson told me that it was a decision made by medical personnel. That Michigan could play one game with a very short roster, but not back to back. Despite trying to give benefit of the doubt, this reason doesn't sound plausible.
I've been covering college hockey 33 years and I've never seen a team cancel a game for a short roster because of "medical reasons." Yale has been playing with a short roster all year — this season. Many teams play with short rosters all the time. I've seen women's teams play games with 15 players. Medical personnel at those schools never intervened.
But even if true, Michigan is a school that prides itself on being loaded up with star blue-chip NHL prospects. As a result, that means many of its players will be missing for the World Junior Championships every year. That's what it signed up for.
---
But in the past, Red Berenson played GLIs with depleted rosters. On more than one occasion, he had fowards playing defense in order to fill gaps in the lineup. But he played on.
The bigger issue here — getting back to the start of this conversation — is that there is no oversight. No one that can step in and make a decision on what is appropriate. Who would do that? The Committee? The NCAA?
Like I said, I want to give the benefit of the doubt, but there's a lot of ticked off people in college hockey right now. They are calling shenanigans.
---
Commentary: College Hockey (Still) Has a COVID Problem
---
Yes there were certain testing protocols in place this season, how to handle players that test positive, and so on. But wide-scale procedures for exactly how to handle postponements, and under what circumstances, don't really exist. Or it's loosely defined, and being left up to the schools to decide, with no oversight.
This week's example — where Michigan canceled its second of two Great Lakes Invitational games — is only the most obvious, but there have been others.
Whether Michigan's decision really is an egregious flouting of circumstances and/or poor sportsmanship, is up to debate. But the decision undoubtedly looks horrible.
In case you missed it, Michigan announced it could not play its Dec. 30 game against Western Michigan. Its reason? "(D)ue to health and welfare protocols." A phrase so vague as to be meaningless. Michigan has denied repeated attempts to elaborate.
Mean time, Michigan is still scheduled to play Michigan Tech on Dec. 29 — the day before — in the other GLI showcase game.
It begged — and still begs — the immediate question: If Michigan is in such bad shape, how is it able to play Dec. 29 and not Dec. 30?
The easy conclusion is that Michigan is ducking Western Michigan, a top-end Pairwise team that nearly swept the Wolverines earlier in the season. Michigan has five prominent players out at the World Juniors — major star players. WMU is intact. Taking a loss here could hurt its Pairwise, and Michigan doesn't want to take the chance.
When I suggested on Twitter yesterday that this is how it appears, I got a massive amount of positive feedback, including from WMU players. Clearly they think this is true. No one really disputed it.
And since Michigan and coach Mel Pearson won't discuss it further, this is the impression we're left with.
I really want to give the benefit of the doubt and say this isn't an obvious dodge. I've been trying to find something else that would explain this decision. Maybe it makes sense if you consider that, between missing players from injury and the WJC, then throw in a couple with COVID issues, Michigan would barely get through the first game, and then possibly be even more banged up the second night, and not capable of playing.
I dunno, that's all I have.
Note how, above, Michigan carefully sidestepped using the word "COVID" in its release announcing the decision. It cites a vague "health and welfare protocol." Is this to give plausible deniability to the real reason? Like, players aren't affected by COVID, but Michigan is just missing too many of them and is worried the remaining players will be too tired for the second game? Of course, these days, what else does "health protocols" mean? There is no other health protocol, besides COVID, that is even a valid reason to cancel going to a tournament, let alone one that's been on your schedule for 60 years.
A Michigan spokesperson told me that it was a decision made by medical personnel. That Michigan could play one game with a very short roster, but not back to back. Despite trying to give benefit of the doubt, this reason doesn't sound plausible.
I've been covering college hockey 33 years and I've never seen a team cancel a game for a short roster because of "medical reasons." Yale has been playing with a short roster all year — this season. Many teams play with short rosters all the time. I've seen women's teams play games with 15 players. Medical personnel at those schools never intervened.
But even if true, Michigan is a school that prides itself on being loaded up with star blue-chip NHL prospects. As a result, that means many of its players will be missing for the World Junior Championships every year. That's what it signed up for.
---
But in the past, Red Berenson played GLIs with depleted rosters. On more than one occasion, he had fowards playing defense in order to fill gaps in the lineup. But he played on.
The bigger issue here — getting back to the start of this conversation — is that there is no oversight. No one that can step in and make a decision on what is appropriate. Who would do that? The Committee? The NCAA?
Like I said, I want to give the benefit of the doubt, but there's a lot of ticked off people in college hockey right now. They are calling shenanigans.
---
Commentary: College Hockey (Still) Has a COVID Problem
BurntToast
Registered User
Shakir ONeal
Jimmy Hughes
- Sep 21, 2017
- 540
- 467
i believe he’s more of a Cohiba Behike guy.
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
| Cole Brady | 31 | 2 | 60:00 |
College Hockey Boxscore
Brady stops 29 of 31 in ASU's victory over Cornell.
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
Tao Jersey Jones
Registered User
Guadana
Registered User
AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
Considering how many recent graduates we've had and how tepid some of our other prospects have started this season, am I crazy to think Gritsyuk is top-5 in our prospect pool? Outside of Luke, Holtz, and Shak I'm not sure there's any other guy in the system I'd take over him right now.
Foote and Stillman have been meh. All of the Utica D have been varying degrees of mediocre. Tyce has looked good but has been hurt most of the year, Clarke has produced well enough but not at an elite level.
Foote and Stillman have been meh. All of the Utica D have been varying degrees of mediocre. Tyce has looked good but has been hurt most of the year, Clarke has produced well enough but not at an elite level.
Call Me Al
Registered User
- Aug 28, 2017
- 5,600
- 7,017
walsh has apparently been excellent in utica but i don't know where he stands overall on the depth chart
Classic Devil
Spirit of 1988
I think it's a safe bet he'll have first shot at replacing Subban starting next season.
Shakir ONeal
Jimmy Hughes
- Sep 21, 2017
- 540
- 467
Arseni with an assist today with 6 SOG in 17:40
Clam Jensen
Registered User
he’s really performing well this season which is extra nice based on his lack of performance last year.
Guadana
Registered User
from summer prospect pool themes #5
btw I did work around Edvinsson, Mercer/Holtz situation before, Gritsyuk watching. (There we’re so much bold’n’truth) it’s too bad I’v got no fuel in the tank to make more prospect watch job. You guys lost too much.
Last edited:
It's a shame that there is a mascot with the name since "Gritty" would be an obvious nickname for Gritsyuk.
Guadana
Registered User
Hope we will have sad Gritty and scoring Gritty.
I'd rank Walsh as the Devils #2 RD prospect after Case McCarthy.
Guadana
Registered User
AfroThunder396
[citation needed]
Walsh has definitely been putting up points but that's not necessarily the same as playing well. I think he has too many deficiencies in his game to be any more than a bottom pairing PP guy. Which is fine, those guys have value. But I think he'd really have to change his game in unanticipated ways to be anything close to an impact player at the NHL level.
Yep, I'd rank Walsh well below McCarthy. Walsh is a guy who, even if he achieves his potential, will always have to have his minutes sheltered a la Will Butcher or Shayne Gostisbehere. McCarthy has the upside of a bedrock defender who is also adept with the puck. Although it's unlikely McCarthy ever puts up significant offensive numbers, he can be a huge value player for an NHL team if he continues on his very encouraging development path.
- Apr 20, 2005
- 2,645
- 1,538
Is this view still correct?
My info on these guys comes from these boards only. The posters in the Utica thread seem to say that Walsh has really tightened up his defensive game this year. Is the view of Walsh still from prior years, or is it based on what he's doing these days?
Genuinely asking. I had my hopes up based on the comments in the Utica thread, but that's all.
Last edited:
Darkauron
Registered User
Yeah Id still rank Walsh below McCarthy. While Walsh has made some gains this season, I still wouldnt trust him in the D zone especially at the NHL level.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: WCF: Dallas Stars vs Edmonton Oilers (Series tied 1-1)- Latest: 2for1PizzaPastuh
-
-
GDT: Gold Medal game - Swiss vs Česko
- Latest: PanniniClaus
-
Celtics/NBA 2023-2024 NBA Playoffs: Round 3 - (1) Boston vs (6) Indiana- Latest: BigGoalBrad
