Entry Draft Thread: Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Habs76

Registered User
Nov 11, 2014
7,672
1,751
Fredericton, NB
He's not too far off from a guy like Kotkaniemi in playmaking.

Kotkaniemi never makes the impressive play, or the Drouin kind of plays, but he produces offense regularly and I find that much more impressive than stupid low percentage plays. Most of the best passers in the world are like that, if you don't account for McDavid and Crosby.
I see the KK comparison in terms of their playmaking, but I think Kotkaniemi has more willingness to try things (ex. spin-o-rama passes, banks) and is a slight bit quicker than JP in his ability to find the open man. The long stick also helps him find lanes easily.

There's a difference between stupidity and creativity. Pelletier just isn't a play driver and he rarely makes things happen on the rush. A lot of what I question about Pelletier comes down to his passive playstyle. Not that he's passive in terms of grit or willingess to engage. It's how he creates offense that will ensure he's a complimentary player at best in the future. You don't need to be Connor McDavid or Sidney Crosby to drive a line or be a main component. Max Domi can do it, Ryan Dzingel can, David Perron, etc. The list goes on and on, you don't need to be a superstar to be a play driver which Pelletier isn't.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
I see the KK comparison in terms of their playmaking, but I think Kotkaniemi has more willingness to try things (ex. spin-o-rama passes, banks) and is a slight bit quicker than JP in his ability to find the open man. The long stick also helps him find lanes easily.

There's a difference between stupidity and creativity. Pelletier just isn't a play driver and he rarely makes things happen on the rush. A lot of what I question about Pelletier comes down to his passive playstyle. Not that he's passive in terms of grit or willingess to engage. It's how he creates offense that will ensure he's a complimentary player at best in the future. You don't need to be Connor McDavid or Sidney Crosby to drive a line or be a main component. Max Domi can do it, Ryan Dzingel can, David Perron, etc. The list goes on and on, you don't need to be a superstar to be a play driver which Pelletier isn't.
I don't think that Pelletier projects as a worse passer than these.
 

Habs76

Registered User
Nov 11, 2014
7,672
1,751
Fredericton, NB
I don't think that Pelletier projects as a worse passer than these.
I didn't say that. Passing as a skill is something most if not all players are pretty good at, not a whole lot of variance either. Vision is a different story, and an area where Pelletier holds his own but isn't exceptional. What I was saying was about how they contribute to the play in a way Pelletier doesn't. They can beat defenders, get open infront, finish plays, etc., Pelletier is too laid back in his offensive approach for my liking when the puck is on his stick. Different story when the other team has possession though.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
I didn't say that. Passing as a skill is something most if not all players are pretty good at, not a whole lot of variance either. Vision is a different story, and an area where Pelletier holds his own but isn't exceptional. What I was saying was about how they contribute to the play in a way Pelletier doesn't. They can beat defenders, get open infront, finish plays, etc., Pelletier is too laid back in his offensive approach for my liking when the puck is on his stick. Different story when the other team has possession though.
I'm not sure we'll agree on that subject. I think Pelletier has the potential to be a 40 assist guy, which puts him in the territory of those guys.
 

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
Not to go all Atas2000, but do you guys still rate Q russians? I mean, since Radulov who's made it?

The Russians, when they send their players to the Q, they're not sending their best. They're busts, they're disappointments, and some, I assume, are decent players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anardil

WeThreeKings

Habs cup - its in the BAG
Sep 19, 2006
91,123
91,576
Halifax
Not to go all Atas2000, but do you guys still rate Q russians? I mean, since Radulov who's made it?

The Russians, when they send their players to the Q, they're not sending their best. They're busts, they're disappointments, and some, I assume, are decent players.

There's a guy on top of the scoring race in the NHL who played in the Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: philipsson

WeThreeKings

Habs cup - its in the BAG
Sep 19, 2006
91,123
91,576
Halifax
Yeah, but he wasn't drafted out of the Q, now was he?

No but he developed there, so while he wasn't drafted out of the league, him spending his formative years playing in the Q didn't hurt him at all.

I don't harbor an opinion one way or another, I just don't think it's an instant death sentence to be a Russian player playing as a teenager in North America.

You could make the same connection with Swedes out of the OHL (only Landeskog) or Finn's out of any CHL program.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
Not to go all Atas2000, but do you guys still rate Q russians? I mean, since Radulov who's made it?

The Russians, when they send their players to the Q, they're not sending their best. They're busts, they're disappointments, and some, I assume, are decent players.
Why do we pick forwards out of Khl ? Kuznetsov in 2010? 9 drafts since weve seen a decent russian forward come out of there.

Maybe the russians have a problem with developing talent.
 

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
No but he developed there, so while he wasn't drafted out of the league, him spending his formative years playing in the Q didn't hurt him at all.

I don't harbor an opinion one way or another, I just don't think it's an instant death sentence to be a Russian player playing as a teenager in North America.

You could make the same connection with Swedes out of the OHL (only Landeskog) or Finn's out of any CHL program.

He did not develop there. I'm really interested to hear your argument for how Sly wasn't responsible for the development of Brendan Gallagher, but the Q was responsible for the development of Kucherov.
 

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
But we cant credit Kuchs development to NA, right.

Like I told WTK, we can credit Kuch's development to the Q (I never said anything about the O, for example) if you're prepared to say that Sylvain Lefebvre ''developed'' Brendan Gallagher.
 

Pompeius Magnus

Registered User
May 18, 2014
19,661
16,119
Kanata ,ON
Didn't Kucherov spend like, a year total in the CHL before making his jump to the pros ? It's more of a footnote in his career than anything else, if you ask me.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
Like I told WTK, we can credit Kuch's development to the Q (I never said anything about the O, for example) if you're prepared to say that Sylvain Lefebvre ''developed'' Brendan Gallagher.

Difference being is that Panarin came in the NHL at 24, you seem to think he was developped there (rightful) but you dont think Kucherov, who, at 24, had 6 seasons under his belt played in NA was developped in NA.
 

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
Difference being is that Panarin came in the NHL at 24, you seem to think he was developped there (rightful) but you dont think Kucherov, who, at 24, had 6 seasons under his belt played in NA was developped in NA.

There is no difference, your argument is f***ed. First, I didn't say anything about NA in general. I am speaking specifically about the Q. If I were talking about NA in general, you would have counter examples of Russian players, and we wouldn't be arguing about Kucherov because you could just move on to the next example. The next example doesn't exist in this case, hence the inconsistent digging in of heels over Kucherov.
 

WeThreeKings

Habs cup - its in the BAG
Sep 19, 2006
91,123
91,576
Halifax
I did think that Kucherov had two full seasons in the QMJHL, but that's a case of misremembering because he was drafted by the Quebec Remparts then later traded to Rouyn-Noranda. So he "played" for two teams in the Q, but not in separate years.

But, I do think the point really isn't that the CHL is bad for European prospects, like I said, we don't see an abundance of Russians, Swedes or Fins coming from that league and being great. For the most part, the best import players from the CHL are those coming from countries with worse development histories, and in that case they are already highly regarded prospects for the most part (Hischier, Zadina, Voracek, Ehlers just on Halifax). If they are good prospects in good leagues, like Russia, Sweden, Finland, they tend to stay because they're getting ice time in good leagues.

I would say in this case, the theory that we shouldn't bother looking for X nationality prospects in the CHL leagues is kind of misguided, but for the most part, the good young players from good hockey countries tend to stay there because they get good development and good ice time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Le Barron de HF

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
There is no difference, your argument is ****ed. First, I didn't say anything about NA in general. I am speaking specifically about the Q. If I were talking about NA in general, you would have counter examples of Russian players, and we wouldn't be arguing about Kucherov because you could just move on to the next example. The next example doesn't exist in this case, hence the inconsistent digging in of heels over Kucherov.
The usual argument goes that every league in NA is bad for development.

Dont you think targetting one league with an already low success rate may be a bit too specific?
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
I did think that Kucherov had two full seasons in the QMJHL, but that's a case of misremembering because he was drafted by the Quebec Remparts then later traded to Rouyn-Noranda. So he "played" for two teams in the Q, but not in separate years.

But, I do think the point really isn't that the CHL is bad for European prospects, like I said, we don't see an abundance of Russians, Swedes or Fins coming from that league and being great. For the most part, the best import players from the CHL are those coming from countries with worse development histories, and in that case they are already highly regarded prospects for the most part (Hischier, Zadina, Voracek, Ehlers just on Halifax). If they are good prospects in good leagues, like Russia, Sweden, Finland, they tend to stay because they're getting ice time in good leagues.

I would say in this case, the theory that we shouldn't bother looking for X nationality prospects in the CHL leagues is kind of misguided, but for the most part, the good young players from good hockey countries tend to stay there because they get good development and good ice time.
Hischier and Zadina wouldnt count because they only played one season though.
 

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
I did think that Kucherov had two full seasons in the QMJHL, but that's a case of misremembering because he was drafted by the Quebec Remparts then later traded to Rouyn-Noranda. So he "played" for two teams in the Q, but not in separate years.

But, I do think the point really isn't that the CHL is bad for European prospects, like I said, we don't see an abundance of Russians, Swedes or Fins coming from that league and being great. For the most part, the best import players from the CHL are those coming from countries with worse development histories, and in that case they are already highly regarded prospects for the most part (Hischier, Zadina, Voracek, Ehlers just on Halifax). If they are good prospects in good leagues, like Russia, Sweden, Finland, they tend to stay because they're getting ice time in good leagues.

I would say in this case, the theory that we shouldn't bother looking for X nationality prospects in the CHL leagues is kind of misguided, but for the most part, the good young players from good hockey countries tend to stay there because they get good development and good ice time.

Yeah, this is the effect, IMO. It's also why Canadian Jr. A isn't very good. For one reason or another, the talent is going elsewhere. How many Q Russians would be playing in the NMHL? The top Finns and Swedes tend not to go to the CHL because they'd either rather play pro, or if they want a better junior league they go to the USHL to preserve their NCAA eligibility.

But for whatever reason, the O has managed to attract higher profile Russians to actually develop and play their pre-draft hockey. But there are a lot of Russians in the Q. There are 6 draft eligible this year compared to 5 in the rest of the CHL, and people here have gushed about all of them. I'm just asking the question, why are these jabronis different?
 

WeThreeKings

Habs cup - its in the BAG
Sep 19, 2006
91,123
91,576
Halifax
Yeah, this is the effect, IMO. It's also why Canadian Jr. A isn't very good. For one reason or another, the talent is going elsewhere. How many Q Russians would be playing in the NMHL? The top Finns and Swedes tend not to go to the CHL because they'd either rather play pro, or if they want a better junior league they go to the USHL to preserve their NCAA eligibility.

But for whatever reason, the O has managed to attract higher profile Russians to actually develop and play their pre-draft hockey. But there are a lot of Russians in the Q. There are 6 draft eligible this year compared to 5 in the rest of the CHL, and people here have gushed about all of them. I'm just asking the question, why are these jabronis different?

I'm not sure, I mean if we talk about recent highly touted Russian talents coming to the CHL, there's Sokolov, Grigorenko, the Svechnikovs.

The only one looking good is Andrei and is it because he came to North America earlier? I don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrb1p

NotProkofievian

Registered User
Nov 29, 2011
24,476
24,599
The usual argument goes that every league in NA is bad for development.

Dont you think targetting one league with an already low success rate may be a bit too specific?

But that argument doesn't hold water because you can give specific example against it. Provorov. Done. Dead argument. Two predraft seasons away from mother Russia's teat and he turned out fantastically.

That Q Russians do worse might be due to a number of factors. One could be that their scouts are bad. Another could be that they don't have enough pull to attract the higher profile players. But it could be significant that they're in the Q to begin with. It's like when people complain about how Danault doesn't get any power play time: yeah, his coach didn't choose him for PP time for a reason. The selection itself might contain information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->