That's not a rational take at all, it's very rosy. Again strome, who has nothing to do with Nylander, and who always has been far more impressive than Nylander at every single level. Again assuming Jokiharju doesn't have much of an upside despite playing in NHL at 19. Saying Nylander's improved every season when his improvement has been far, far slower than expected. Players tend to improve, they rarely go backwards at 20. Yawn.
Expect anything more than a middle pairing D out of Jokiharju and you'll be disappointed. There are some players that are more physically developed at a younger age. Jokiharju is one of those guys. Imagine he is 25 when you watch him play instead of 20. Then evaluate him. He's peaking younger. It just happens. NHL history is littered with players that looked like stars at 20 and were out of the NHL by 29.
Stupidest thing I've read on HFBoards in....well, in like 24 hours but still pretty stupid.
If people think Joker is a franchise level defenseman, they will be rudely awakened.
No. People are different, and athletes are a subset. It is no different than that guy who was taller than everyone else in 8th grade and ended up being below average in height by HS graduation.
People are different. That doesn't change the fact that men hit their physical peak in mid-late 20's and that the brain develops until 25 years of age. If you think that Henri Jokiharju has peaked after 38 games in the NHL at the age of 19, then I do not know what to tell you. Whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose.
Do you even understand that learning the ins and outs of being a defenseman takes a long time in NHL and even the top defensive prospects tend to develop well into their twenties, heck many of them have peaked closer to 30? This is such an uninformed opinion I hope no one else shares it.
That, sir is a bell curve that is is the average.
But Jokiharju peaked at 19? It's a shit trade that makes no sense, you're in denial.
This isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the Blackhawks scouts. It was reported by the best insider have that a source said that they think there is very little room for growth in his game. He's a jack of all trades and a master of none. They believe they have 3-4 D in the system that are already better.
Outliers exist. NHL history is littered with players that came in at an early age like gangbusters and were in the AHL by 28-29. It isn't as uncommon as you think.
No wonder they've been making such bad trades.
Have you ever heard of outliers?
I know about statistics. Apparently more than you do?
That's what they say they think*
And also, I also view him as a top 4 guy. But I do not think that he has "Peaked". Not even close. But trading an almost surefire top 4 guy to 21 year old A. Nylander who couldn't even break Buffalo's weak forward core....that's not good.
No, I don't think that either. Do you want me to go quote myself earlier in the thread so that you can see what I had to say? Go read the thread in the Hawks forum. Kneejerk reaction is that it was an awful move. After thinking about it more, I think HF is severely overvaluing Jokiharju.
Jokiharju was terrible in his own end. There were several changes made when Q was let go one of which was to get Joker off the 1st pairing. The problem with that was nobody else on last years back line was good enough to cover for him. He tops out as a good 2nd pair guy and I wish him well. I just think he was falling in the system with guys like Boqvist, Michell and Beaudin being clearly ahead of him (in the Hawks eyes) add Krys, Maatta (who is still young) and DeHaan (who is under 30) and this years 2nd rounder and it was obvious they have moved on. ... Though I wish they would have gotten more but have to wonder why nobody offered more.
