I posted a piece I wrote on the last page on some of the character issues that have been linked to him.From what I'm reading, he may be the most toxic prospect? True?
I posted a piece I wrote on the last page on some of the character issues that have been linked to him.
Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitatingJust curious. Top 10 talent 7th round brain?
Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitating
He has good vision. I honestly question his hockey sense due to how often he makes boneheaded plays trying to do something fancy. So, the issue is trying to separate his ability to assess risk while on the ice, from his general apathy towards team play.Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitating
He has good vision. I honestly question his hockey sense due to how often he makes boneheaded plays trying to do something fancy. So, the issue is trying to separate his ability to assess risk while on the ice, from his general apathy towards team play.
He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.There are 0 issues with his hockey IQ on the offensive end, if you question that you're honestly clueless. The amount of chances he creates is absolutely insane.
You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.There are 0 issues with his hockey IQ on the offensive end, if you question that you're honestly clueless. The amount of chances he creates is absolutely insane.
He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.
His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.
I haven't seen him play live 25 times. I watch a bunch of OHL.You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.
I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.
You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.
I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.
Marner does that stuff, but he was never a massive detriment to his team and has a very high success rate. Merkley's issues show up with his offensive game. He'll try high-end moves when his team has an empty net, he's rushing the puck, and just directly turns it over and gives up. That isn't something that is an isolated incident in his game. When you do stuff like that, it makes me wonder what someones ability to assess risk on the ice is. In regards to his vision, I have no issues and he opens up stuff with his edge-work. But, he also does a lot of very stupid things when he's rushing up ice as the last man back.You wont see me arguing with you about how pitiful his defensive, and neutral game is without the puck. With that said I'd take some of the risks he takes in the offensive zone because more times than not he's making plays that puts the puck on his teammates stick in the slot, or back door with nobody on them. He's able to casually play keep away with the puck which draws so much attention that eventually defenders will make a mistake and he capitalizes on that. It sounds so simple, but it's very effective. Marner does the same thing. You'll notice that he's able to wait the extra second and just use space to be able to keep the puck and so much opens because of it.
With such players, it's always difficult to figure out the real reasons behind their decision making. Is it actually because he doesn't know any better? Or perhaps he just wants to attempt stuff that might or might not work, but when playing in a serious environment and when he decides that he needs to make smart plays, he's able to flip a switch and indeed just make those smart plays. It's something that's very difficult to know for sure. Personally, I'm not a fan of Merkley's play but if it turns out that he's able to actually play smart when he decides to... It's not a huge surprise. It's the challenge with evaluating such players.You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.
I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.
He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.
His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.
He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.
His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.
While I get staying away from them, the under any circumstances part is moronic. Like, really, he's available in the 4th round and you don't take him because he comes off as a *****ebag?
Look, I get teams scare away from "me-first" players with Egos, especially at his age, but unless there is some truly revolting stuff that hasn't come to light yet, if you have a chance to draft this guy past the second round (I'd argue even top 35 picks), you do it. If he's a bad influence on the other prospects, kick him to the curb, but at least roll the dice.
Also, if you're that worried of him poisoning other young player's attitudes, if the other prospects were that easily influenced, they probably weren't going to find much success anyways.