Boom/Bust

Reaper45

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
37,160
5,273
Los Angeles
No, Kane will play not back down from going to the 'tough' areas on the ice. He can also make things happen when his time and space are minimized.

Schremp is only dangerous on the PP, because he's a perimeter player and needs lots of time and space to be effective offensively.

He will after he sustains a few concussions.
 

LeafsrGods*

Guest
No, Kane will play not back down from going to the 'tough' areas on the ice. He can also make things happen when his time and space are minimized.

Schremp is only dangerous on the PP, because he's a perimeter player and needs lots of time and space to be effective offensively.

who? Rob Schremp?
 

shaner8989

Registered User
Aug 6, 2005
22,831
4,761
everyone is boom/bust... never know how someone will develop. hindsight is always 20/20.

i'm hoping espo falls to the leafs :p

If Espo fell to the Leafs he would become a huge BUST as soon as the Leafs pick him. However most ppl are pretty good about Kumelin and Tlustly.
 

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
Pat Kane are you kidding ME? this guy is probably the most smart player without the puck and its obvious he can score with the puck, 145 points in the OHL will prove that especially when he does so well with out the puck. Id go with him number 1

And what is it that Pat Kane does without the puck?:help:

His whole game is "with the puck" (mind you he's exceptional with it)


As far as busts...any player in this draft can bust. There is no sure fire NHL star.
 

LeafsrGods*

Guest
As far as busts...any player in this draft can bust. There is no sure fire NHL star.

and if we always use "any player can be a bust/boom" sentence everytime in this prospects board, then we dont even need to talk about no prospects, and then this board should be closed.:damnpc:
 

Hello Johnny

Registered User
Apr 13, 2007
13,208
1,141
i got questions about gillies.

from what ive seen hes a big strong physical player with a dash of skill. how far could he drop and where could he realistically be taken(answer as best as you can). Also if he drops to the twenties or wherever, is he worth trading two second rounders for?

i also heard he was related to clark gillies, a former islander
 

mister lerock

Registered User
Jul 30, 2005
102
0
explain iam curios even tough hes projected as a first line player if he doesnt progress i still think he could play a role on the bottom lines
 

LeafsrGods*

Guest
i got questions about gillies.

from what ive seen hes a big strong physical player with a dash of skill. how far could he drop and where could he realistically be taken(answer as best as you can). Also if he drops to the twenties or wherever, is he worth trading two second rounders for?

i also heard he was related to clark gillies, a former islander

He is definately not a natural goal scorer, not a consistent offensive player, and he wont be able to put up great numbers in the NHL if he puts his mind to the physical play, which most scouts are drooling on.
 

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
and if we always use "any player can be a bust/boom" sentence everytime in this prospects board, then we dont even need to talk about no prospects, and then this board should be closed.:damnpc:

Why would we have to stop talking about prospects just because they might bust:help:

THIS DRAFT there is no sure fire NHL star. That's why its so wide open. I don't see a Crosby or Malkin that is for sure going to make it. Pick any player in this draft and he can bust. I was just answering a simple question with a simple answer.
 

le_sean

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
39,540
38,929
He is definately not a natural goal scorer, not a consistent offensive player, and he wont be able to put up great numbers in the NHL if he puts his mind to the physical play, which most scouts are drooling on.

I could see him as a Boom player though. He now has low expectations and no one thinks he will be more than a 3rd liner, but you never know, he has all the tools to become that great player he was once touted as. He had good production at the U-18.

Voracek is a Boom too, I don't think there is any doubt he will reach what he's supposed to eventually be, a smart 2-way player that can chip in the points. Granted he might not reach his ceiling of a 1st-liner, but he should be in the NHL a while. Same with Alzner.

Keaton Ellerby could be a huge bust too. Has a lot of raw talent, but can he put it together? Of course Esposito too.

A lot of Europeans that play overseas are iffy too, because we cannot compare them to the ones we see the most of over here. Often these players are judged in tournaments which are often misleading. Probably why you see a lot taken early bust and a lot taken late flourish.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
While Esposito is seen by many as a boom/bust prospect, imo he's actually one of the safer picks. With his speed and natural physical abilities, I think he will be able to play in the NHL even if he doesn't become a big scoring threat. After seeing him at the U18, I would say he could become a Todd Marchant like player if he fails to develop a big offensive game in the NHL.
 

Redwingsfan

Global Moderator
Jul 15, 2006
20,370
187
Pat Kane are you kidding ME? this guy is probably the most smart player without the puck and its obvious he can score with the puck, 145 points in the OHL will prove that especially when he does so well with out the puck. Id go with him number 1


you dont know what boom or bust is do you:shakehead
 

LeafsrGods*

Guest
I could see him as a Boom player though. He now has low expectations and no one thinks he will be more than a 3rd liner, but you never know, he has all the tools to become that great player he was once touted as. He had good production at the U-18.

And to add more for Gillies, he is a kind of player that is going to bring in championships rings for you in the playoffs, i believe that Gillies is a very, very, very physical player that can absolutely DOMINATE in the playoffs, and i estimate him to score lots of points, and goals in the playoffs. He is simply a first liner in the playoffs, but i dont like his ability to put up great or good points or goals in the regular season.:teach:
 

Tinalera

Registered User
Feb 3, 2007
6,522
50
The Known Universe
Question about Kane(and I'm NOT trying to troll, serious question)
Is there credence to the story that Kane(and Ganger) basically said that they won't report to any OHL team unless it was London-as a result they got picked up in the 5th or 6th round and were drafted by London because no one else wanted to pick up a player who wouldn't report?

IF the story is true, and say Kane gets picked up by Chicago(or another team "undesirable" to him) is there a chance he pulls a Lindros and basically forces a trade to a team he does want to go to(I don't know how much credence to put in the OHL story which is why I'm asking)
 

hawksfan50

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
13,980
1,962
HOLD ON: KANE may be one of the smartest without the puck--BUT ONLY in terms of offensive chances to pounce back on attack --ie. HE WOULD NOT KNOW A BACK-CHECK IN HIS CAREER SO FAR,and if he can't win the puck from you with his quick stick as you carry it through on your own attack,he will QUIT trying to get it back and just watch the play waiting for others on his team to get him the puck again...ie. WITHOUT THE PUCK DEFENSIVELY,HE IS A ZERO,A BIG RISK LIABILITY IN THAT ASPECT (but NHL teams have put up with ONE-WAY scoring talents before
because goal scorers sell tickets)--don't let KANE's +48 in the regular season fool you
--he got away with poor back-checking and leaving men uncovered in order to cheat
and leave his zone for the stretch pass early because London mostly played weaker teams and spent the bulk of the game in the attack zone anyway--but when tougher better teams challenged them and the zone dominations were more equal or tilted to the other side,if it were not for the heroics of goalie Mason,the oppnents in such games would have made London pay more for sloppy defense ---thus Kane's shortcomings (certailnly one of London's worst players DEFENSIVELY) got hidden or covered up for because: i) it was not exposed as much as it otherwise would have been if zone domination were more equal on the season,ii) Mason saved the day more often than not,iii) Kane scored plenty enough even strength to pad his +/- to the plus side.....WHEN the whole shebang was exposed in the Playoff series vs. Plymouth---when Kane's offense was stopped--the truth was shown and his -4 for the 5 game series was perhaps a better indcator of what is in store at the NHL level vs. better pro competition--HE won't get away with poor defense as a pro without his =/- reflecting it negatively also...
 

LeafsrGods*

Guest
HOLD ON: KANE may be one of the smartest without the puck--BUT ONLY in terms of offensive chances to pounce back on attack --ie. HE WOULD NOT KNOW A BACK-CHECK IN HIS CAREER SO FAR,and if he can't win the puck from you with his quick stick as you carry it through on your own attack,he will QUIT trying to get it back and just watch the play waiting for others on his team to get him the puck again...ie. WITHOUT THE PUCK DEFENSIVELY,HE IS A ZERO,A BIG RISK LIABILITY IN THAT ASPECT (but NHL teams have put up with ONE-WAY scoring talents before
because goal scorers sell tickets)--don't let KANE's +48 in the regular season fool you
--he got away with poor back-checking and leaving men uncovered in order to cheat
and leave his zone for the stretch pass early because London mostly played weaker teams and spent the bulk of the game in the attack zone anyway--but when tougher better teams challenged them and the zone dominations were more equal or tilted to the other side,if it were not for the heroics of goalie Mason,the oppnents in such games would have made London pay more for sloppy defense ---thus Kane's shortcomings (certailnly one of London's worst players DEFENSIVELY) got hidden or covered up for because: i) it was not exposed as much as it otherwise would have been if zone domination were more equal on the season,ii) Mason saved the day more often than not,iii) Kane scored plenty enough even strength to pad his +/- to the plus side.....WHEN the whole shebang was exposed in the Playoff series vs. Plymouth---when Kane's offense was stopped--the truth was shown and his -4 for the 5 game series was perhaps a better indcator of what is in store at the NHL level vs. better pro competition--HE won't get away with poor defense as a pro without his =/- reflecting it negatively also...

You think Kane and Gagner are sure0fire 1st liners?
Are there any franchise players in this draft?
 

Little Nilan

Registered User
Oct 29, 2006
8,209
0
Praha

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
Question about Kane(and I'm NOT trying to troll, serious question)
Is there credence to the story that Kane(and Ganger) basically said that they won't report to any OHL team unless it was London-as a result they got picked up in the 5th or 6th round and were drafted by London because no one else wanted to pick up a player who wouldn't report?

IF the story is true, and say Kane gets picked up by Chicago(or another team "undesirable" to him) is there a chance he pulls a Lindros and basically forces a trade to a team he does want to go to(I don't know how much credence to put in the OHL story which is why I'm asking)

The answer to your first question is no. And the answer to your 2nd question is no.
 
Last edited:

RUSqueelin*

Registered User
Nov 2, 2005
1,061
0
Kane reminds me a lot of Corey Locke when he was with the Ottawa 67's.

Locke won the scoring title 2 years in a row. Drafted in the 4th round by the CDNS but can't breakout of the AHL.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=59655

Also similar size but I guess the "new NHL doesn't care about size but then why is Locke still in Hamilton.

Corey Locke?? Come on. Size is the only thing Kane and Locke have in common. It was easy to see that Locke's game wouldn't translate into the pro level.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->