BG44
Registered User
- Jul 19, 2021
- 4,022
- 3,124
I'm a bit confused on Morrow, I haven't dug or watched anything on him.. but how the hell is a 2002 born guy playing at Shattuck still???
Born in November.I'm a bit confused on Morrow, I haven't dug or watched anything on him.. but how the hell is a 2002 born guy playing at Shattuck still???
Ok, so if I've been following along, this would be the ultimate Riley Tufte pick, right?
Born in November.
Can't answer that, just like can't tell you why scouts thought a 6'7 player who dominated against high school competition, but struggled everywhere else, was first round material either.But why is he not playing USHL games if he is good?
Lol idk shit about these kids. Was just playing on the names being former/current stars. (Slightly different spellings)I'm a bit confused on Morrow, I haven't dug or watched anything on him.. but how the hell is a 2002 born guy playing at Shattuck still???
my dream is still aliveHere are the next sixteen on the aggregate. We pick 15/16 tomorrow AM
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
32 NIKITA CHIBRIKOV 33 AATU RATY 34 FRANCESCO PINELLI 35 LOGAN STANKOVEN 36 SIMON ROBERTSSON 37 SASHA PASTUJOV 38 SAMU TUOMAALA 39 STANISLAV SVOZIL 40 DANIIL CHAYKA 41 SEAN BEHRENS 42 SCOTT MORROW 43 AYRTON MARTINO 44 DYLAN DUKE 45 WILLIAM STROMGREN 46 JACK PEART 47 OLEN ZELLWEGER
they have hubris, but you don't? they have access to an almost unquantifiable greater amount of data that you never saw or will likely ever see. the opportunity to talk to coaches and players familiar with the player is the smallest example. the insight to know what he was capable of vs what role he was asked to fill. how well he adapted to various systems. opposing coach's perspectives. the list goes on. you really think they only watched the broadcast feed of those 7 games and decided to draft him? a whole staff working as their full time job to evaluate and compare talent. idk what you do for a living, but if you have any clue of the power of networking alone, you might consider just how much more the scouts/org can find out about a player that a fan never could.This probably got missed before in the flurry of posts, but my issue is with the methodology. We can all agree, that in general, scouts are very bad at projecting 17/18 year olds, at the best of times. Now they've decided, they'd like to take a crack at essentially projecting a 16/17 year old. That's basically what happened here. 7 games is too small a sample size to count for much of anything. I'm sure I could find 7 games where the Buffalo Sabres looked good this year.
Forget about the player, I'm mad that these guys have the hubris to think that they can make an incredibly difficult job even harder by adding a year of projection. I'm mostly annoyed that the Stars have this habit of thinking they are much smarter than they are during the draft. None of the cute reaches they make have ever panned out in their favor. Maybe this one does, but I wish the Stars weren't the team to take the risk in the first round.
All this data they have at their disposal and the first round success rate is worst than a random fan with a tsn pre-draft list.they have hubris, but you don't? they have access to an almost unquantifiable greater amount of data that you never saw or will likely ever see. the opportunity to talk to coaches and players familiar with the player is the smallest example. the insight to know what he was capable of vs what role he was asked to fill. how well he adapted to various systems. opposing coach's perspectives. the list goes on. you really think they only watched the broadcast feed of those 7 games and decided to draft him? a whole staff working as their full time job to evaluate and compare talent. idk what you do for a living, but if you have any clue of the power of networking alone, you might consider just how much more the scouts/org can find out about a player that a fan never could.
does it mean they made the right choice? only time will tell. but good lord to accuse them of hubris when all we get as fans is a handful of youtube highlights and the twitter feeds of reporters... well, i can't exactly call that evaluation sane.
Thank you for the info. A lot of us Stars fans had a handful of guys we were looking to get and our GM Nill went off the board again. In a pandemic year shutting leagues down this will be an interesting draft when we look back at it in 5yrs. Thankfully we did acquire an extra 2nd and 5th pick cause I believe there will more gems in later rounds than usual.Season ticket holder for the Windsor Spitfires here.
Now, I realize that taking a guy like Wyatt in the first round isn't exactly a sexy pick. Considering that he only played at the U-18's this past season, it's also somewhat risky.
But I thought I'd chime in with what I saw during his rookie year. He got off to a rocky start, to be sure. I think he came into training camp at about 155 lbs. On a Windsor team that was ranked 3rd in the CHL at times early in the season, he was utilized as a bottom six center. At the trade deadline in January, Windsor stood pat while other teams loaded up for a playoff run. This is when Wyatt's role started to increase, and he would get top six minutes with some regularity. I can't remember the exact numbers, but he was virtually a PPG player the rest of the way on a Spitfire team that was fading fast.
I think he was going to have an eye opening season if the OHL had returned to play this past year. During the second half of his rookie year, he was showcasing his talents much more frequently. His vision was becoming a real strength, and creativity was common. As has been mentioned, his defensive game stayed consistently great.
Honestly, I believe there's some serious untapped potential here. I wouldn't be shocked at all if he carved out a role as a second line center in the NHL. If you found this helpful, I'll try to pop in periodically to update you guys on his progress this coming season.
And yeah, some high end skill boom or bust type picks today pls.