Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.
Why do we constantlky get such idiotic putdown of Tier 2 just because some guys choose to play there as 17 yr olds to keep their NCAA decision on track?
AGAIN--the WHL had MARK SANTORELLI of CHILLIWACK score 82 points as a rookie COMING FROM BURNABY OF THE BCHL --yes TURRIS's team--which wasonly 11 points less than the certain first round to be ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring champ...
SANTORELLI played the year prior in BUrnab y as a 17 yr old where he had a 0.9PPG -TURRIS on that same team as a 16 yr old was a 1.3PPG--but then TURRIS as a 17 yr old this year was a 2.3PPG ==meaning that at the same age he is 1.4 times better than Santorelli was ...if you extrapolate to what SANTORELLI did as an 1q8 yr old in the WHL this year take his 82 pts and add anothe 1.4x82 to that (THIS IS WITHOUT TURRSS EVEN IMPROVING from 17 to 18)..this means TURRIS could score
197 pts in the wHL if he played there this yras an 18 yr old! Even more if we factor some improvement for age! Santorelli improved from 17 to 18 from 0.9PPG in the BCHL to 1.1388PPG in the WHL ...if we take only that same improvement factor and add it to the extrapolated 197 pts for Turris if he played in the WHL this year we get another .2388 x 197 =47 more points..so 197+47 = 244 points ...
This would be 244-145 =99 MORE points projected for TURRIS than KANE got playing on a stacked OHL team in London...
I amsick of thes idiots who refuse to understand that SANTORELLI also was a BCHL'er who did very well in the WHL --no reason to believe TURRIS also would not tear up the WHL since he was WAY WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI at the same comparable age,so he should do WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI did in his WHL rookie year if given the same chance...
LOGICAL REASONING not insipid stupid putdowns of the WHL is so superier to Tier II ...it just doesn't matter--it is what individual hockey players do on the ice and there is ZERO reason put TURRIS down for what SANTORELLI prove a BCHL grad could do in the WHL --do VERY WELL --but we know TURRIS has even more talent than SANTORELLI,so why not ... EVEN IF you halved the 244pt "projection" (I do not se why,but if you still insisted on doing that because of some pre-concieved notion that that number was impossible in the defenseively tough WHL--then OK--
you must then discount KANE's 145 pts because of course the defensively tough
WHL is superior to the OHL --look how easily the 2 WHL mEM cUP teams beat on Plymouth which itsel handled KANE's loaded LONDON offen sive crew easily...doesn't all this indicate vast WHL superiority? Well then pretend Kane had to play in the WHL--cut his 145 pts down by at least 25..then deduct another amount (20? 40? --ok lets settle on 30 less points due to not having his prolific London linemates to play with on some "average " wHL team like Chilliwack) --so lets deduct 55 points from Kane;'s 145... he'd end up with 90 points= 3 less than ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring CHAMP! BUT TURRIS projects to 122 points EVEN WITH A GENEROUS 50% reduction in his EXTRAPOLATION based on SANTORELLI (I still don't have a reason for any reduction of the extrapolation except to pacify the incedulous shouts of the KANE
supporters in this argument and I wanted to be EXTREMELY graceful to them).
My point in all this: justshut up about putting down Turris because he only plays in the BCHL ..Santorelli showed that is a white elephant argument AND the counter is: KANE only plays in the inferior OHL where you can run up scores with 11 goal games
with putrid teams like Erie was this season.. ONe can make all kinds of arguments but REAL SCOUTS do not put down Turris just because he played in the BCHL...
IF Central Scouting has him as the #1 NA it is because their staff ranked him that way..so to let some amateur poster on these boards put CSS down to for their professional opinion on this just to satisfy some DISBELIEF that a mere BCHL'er could be that good is to allow hogwash reasoniong. The FACTS ARE THE FACTS.. IF we did not have the Santorelli performance as a linking comparison none of my arguments on behalf of Turris could stand scrutiny..BUT we do have the Santorelli numbers,so we can use them to project for Turris in thishypothetical..
BOTTOM LINE: if you support KANE a clear #1 over TURRIS that is one thing--BUT DO NOI USE THE BCHL argument..it doesn't stand upto muster given SANTORELLI.
Logic is on my side.