Jets Top Prospects Poll: #7 Prospect

Who is the Jets #7 Prospect?


  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .

Mortimer Snerd

You kids get off my lawn!
Sponsor
Jun 10, 2014
57,187
28,768
Long term there is more potential for Kraskovsky, IMO. He has a nicer set of hands, bigger, slightly better skater. Harkins is more of a north south player and grittier. Jets also hold Kraskovsky's rights indefinitely. Kraskovsky though might not even come over for another 3-4 years or more and Harkins is likely out of the organization by then.

Disappointed in Kraskovsky's lack of progress. He also seems to have backed off coming to NA. IIRC he had said he would be doing that about a year ago. As it stands now, I'd be surprised if we ever see him here. Always subject to change without notice, of course.
 

Joe Hallenback

Moderator
Mar 4, 2005
15,358
21,342
He was really well thought of because because he was really big.

No matter how fast you get, or skilled you get or how many points you get or how good you think the game the one thing they can't teach you is size so yes he was well thought of because of his size because that is the one thing they don't have to worry about him getting
 

puck stoppa

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
12,905
6,440
Winnipeg
No matter how fast you get, or skilled you get or how many points you get or how good you think the game the one thing they can't teach you is size so yes he was well thought of because of his size because that is the one thing they don't have to worry about him getting
Joe, what have you heard about Nathan Smith? He seems to be flying under the radar a bit here.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
No matter how fast you get, or skilled you get or how many points you get or how good you think the game the one thing they can't teach you is size so yes he was well thought of because of his size because that is the one thing they don't have to worry about him getting

What's the actual value of size, though. Evan for defense, where it's traditionally valued. For every freak like Chara, you have a trail of mistakes like Valabik, Thelen, Rogers, Pokuluk, Oleksiak, Morin, Finley, Wishart, Reinhart, Plante, Teubert, Gudbranson, McIlrath, Tinordi and Siemens. All overdrafted based on size, all complete busts save for maybe Gudbranson and Oleksiak, who would be classified more as disappointments.

Also note how many of those were drafted around 10-15 years ago. Seems like NHL teams are slowly figuring out that size alone isn't much of an asset, even though "it can't be taught".
 

puck stoppa

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
12,905
6,440
Winnipeg
What's the actual value of size, though. Evan for defense, where it's traditionally valued. For every freak like Chara, you have a trail of mistakes like Valabik, Thelen, Rogers, Pokuluk, Oleksiak, Morin, Finley, Wishart, Reinhart, Plante, Teubert, Gudbranson, McIlrath, Tinordi and Siemens. All overdrafted based on size, all complete busts save for maybe Gudbranson and Oleksiak, who would be classified more as disappointments.

Also note how many of those were drafted around 10-15 years ago. Seems like NHL teams are slowly figuring out that size alone isn't much of an asset, even though "it can't be taught".
It's always been the same thing with the Dub draft, if you're small you're out. It's ridiculous. It's why so many smaller/late bloomer guys go college route and succeed from there. Id say Dub scouts are more archaic than NHL scouts, I get they are looking at 14 year olds but if you're 6'2 you're drafted in the Dub for sure.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
Also don't forget that Chara was drafted in the third round, and never really panned out with the team that drafted him.

3rd-4th round is the point where I think it's acceptable to roll the dice on size and hope you wind up with the next Chara or Parayko.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
What's the actual value of size, though. Evan for defense, where it's traditionally valued. For every freak like Chara, you have a trail of mistakes like Valabik, Thelen, Rogers, Pokuluk, Oleksiak, Morin, Finley, Wishart, Reinhart, Plante, Teubert, Gudbranson, McIlrath, Tinordi and Siemens. All overdrafted based on size, all complete busts save for maybe Gudbranson and Oleksiak, who would be classified more as disappointments.

Also note how many of those were drafted around 10-15 years ago. Seems like NHL teams are slowly figuring out that size alone isn't much of an asset, even though "it can't be taught".
I agree that size is likely overvalued by many, but I think it is also undervalued by many, who now seem to think it has become irrelevant, or close to it.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
It's always been the same thing with the Dub draft, if you're small you're out. It's ridiculous. It's why so many smaller/late bloomer guys go college route and succeed from there. Id say Dub scouts are more archaic than NHL scouts, I get they are looking at 14 year olds but if you're 6'2 you're drafted in the Dub for sure.

To me that's a bit more understandable. If you're 6'+ as a bantam and can skate reasonably well, chances are pretty good that you're dominating your peers and putting up numbers that justify being picked high in the Dub.

Although you're right, anecdotally it seems WHL scouts are still hesitant to take a chance on tiny kids that put up crazy numbers. Those are the players that most often end up taking the college route.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
I agree that size is likely overvalued by many, but I think it is also undervalued by many, who now seem to think it has become irrelevant, or close to it.

I don't think it's irrelevant, but it's pretty close, at least if you're talking skaters.

Two D, one is 6', the other is 6'5". All things being relatively equal (PPG, level of competition, quality of teammates, hockey sense, etc.) you obviously take the kid that's 6'5". That player is likely going to have an easier time defending at the NHL level than his 6' counterpart.

Where is starts getting stupid is the 0.5 PPG 6'5" kid over the PPG 6'0" kid. Where it starts getting batshit crazy is the 0.25 PPG kid *cough Stanley* over the PPG kid. Take a flyer on the 0.25 PPG kid in the middle rounds, FFS. Let the dumb teams trip over themselves to nab him in the first round.

We're also talking about size in relative terms. You're probably going to have a hard time cutting it as a pro if you're below average height in population terms, so 5'9" or less, unless you're a phenom. The distinction between 6' (which would be like 85-90th percentile for Canadian males) and 6'5" at the NHL level? Pointless fetishization. I'm at the point where I think goalie is the only position where it's relevant. Or maybe in bantam hockey, where the discrepancies in skill and size are massive.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
I don't think it's irrelevant, but it's pretty close, at least if you're talking skaters.

Two D, one is 6', the other is 6'5". All things being relatively equal (PPG, level of competition, quality of teammates, hockey sense, etc.) you obviously take the kid that's 6'5". That player is likely going to have an easier time defending at the NHL level than his 6' counterpart.

Where is starts getting stupid is the 0.5 PPG 6'5" kid over the PPG 6'0" kid. Where it starts getting bat**** crazy is the 0.25 PPG kid *cough Stanley* over the 1 PPG kid. Take a flyer on the 0.25 PPG kid in the middle rounds, FFS. Let the dumb teams trip over themselves to nab him in the first round.

We're also talking about size in relative terms. You're obviously going to have a hard time cutting it as a pro if you're below average height in population terms, so 5'9" or less, unless you're a phenom as a junior. The distinction between a 6' (which would be like 85-90th percentile for Canadian males) and a 6'5"? Pointless fetishization. I'm at the point where I think goalie is the only position where it's relevant.
I agree it's overvalued but I think your are understating things. Buff and Chara and Lowry are examples of players who use their size as an asset. Obviously, other assets are more important, but size isn't meaningless.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
I agree it's overvalued but I think your are understating things. Buff and Chara and Lowry are examples of players who use their size as an asset. Obviously, other assets are more important, but size isn't meaningless.

Yep. Third round Chara, third round Lowry, eighth round Buff. The latter who actually put up impressive numbers as a 17 year old and likely got passed over because of weight/conditioning issues. There's a point in the draft where it makes perfect sense to roll the dice on size. Not in the first round.

And to be clear, it certainly becomes more of an asset in the rarified air of the NHL, like it is for those three you mention. As an 18 year old? Scouts haven't a damn clue how that size is going to translate, and they're lying if they say otherwise.
 

Joe Hallenback

Moderator
Mar 4, 2005
15,358
21,342
What's the actual value of size, though. Evan for defense, where it's traditionally valued. For every freak like Chara, you have a trail of mistakes like Valabik, Thelen, Rogers, Pokuluk, Oleksiak, Morin, Finley, Wishart, Reinhart, Plante, Teubert, Gudbranson, McIlrath, Tinordi and Siemens. All overdrafted based on size, all complete busts save for maybe Gudbranson and Oleksiak, who would be classified more as disappointments.

Also note how many of those were drafted around 10-15 years ago. Seems like NHL teams are slowly figuring out that size alone isn't much of an asset, even though "it can't be taught".

The value in size should be apparent when you look at NHL teams

Again I am not talking about giants like those guys but you got to remember someone at 16 or 17 who is already 6'3 or bigger isn't going to shrink. I have seen a ton of guys at 15/16/17 that were 5'7 and stay 5'7.

You can count on one finger how many guys in the NHL are 5'7

Look at the Jets a small player is Toby Enstrom. There top 9 forwards the small guy is Perrault and hes 5'10 190.

You have to be careful that you don't fall in love with a guy who is too small because the reality is in sports size matters
 

truck

Registered User
Jun 27, 2012
10,992
1,583
www.arcticicehockey.com
No matter how fast you get, or skilled you get or how many points you get or how good you think the game the one thing they can't teach you is size so yes he was well thought of because of his size because that is the one thing they don't have to worry about him getting
But size is just one attribute. He still needed to figure out skating, thinking and scoring - where as many others didn't.
 

garret9

AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Mar 31, 2012
21,738
4,380
Vancouver
www.hockey-graphs.com
I agree that size is likely overvalued by many, but I think it is also undervalued by many, who now seem to think it has become irrelevant, or close to it.

I think it’s irrelevant in terms of using it as an output like so many do.
Size is an input. A player is good as they are in part due to their size. There are situations where size is a positive, and there are situations where it’s a negative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GJF

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,828
30,966
What if I said *some* scouts on the Jets were really high on Morin, and those same scouts had him above Morrissey.

At this snap shot in time I would say they f***ed that up didn’t they. Practically speaking I would need to know what their larger body of scouting work is like and what their track record has been...if this is a one off mistake then I wouldn’t sweat it because it happens to every scout. If these are the same guys who loved Stanley then I would be concerned about what they prioritize since they already have the Morin over Morrissey mistake to defend.

Who knows maybe one day Morin might be a serviceable NHL defender but we know today Morrissey is top pairing D man. I would hope the scouts that made the mistake would reflect and grow from it.
 

TorJet

Registered User
Jun 27, 2016
313
201
For all the crap he takes here, this is clearly Stanley. Here are the D+2 scoring percentsges for other guys seen as “defensive defencemen” in their draft year.

PlayerPPG in CHL
Coburn.733
Weber.745
Fistric.483
Hamonic.805
Staal.642
Phaneuf1.018
Letang1.3
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Stanley, including the playoffs:
.725

Letang aside (as he clearly doesn’t belong here), Stanley’s numbers compare well to the guys on this list.

He was voted Playoff MVP for Kitchener as well. He’ll likely take awhile but I think he can be a net-positive defensive contributor at the NHL level in future.
 

GJF

Beaver Jedi
Sep 26, 2011
8,811
2,491
Heidelberg, GER
I think it’s irrelevant in terms of using it as an output like so many do.
Size is an input. A player is good as they are in part due to their size. There are situations where size is a positive, and there are situations where it’s a negative.

It always astonishes me that this is barely ever talked about. How many times, especially in today's NHL, do you see big players get outplayed with skill and/or quickness and agility by a more agile and quicker player? Size definitely plays a part in this. It's just natural. Patrik Laine is an example for it IMO. He has the skill to do amazing things with the puck but just can't convert what he is trying to do because of his lankiness. It is a disadvantage for him in those moments.
 

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,804
3,015
YFO
The value in size should be apparent when you look at NHL teams

Again I am not talking about giants like those guys but you got to remember someone at 16 or 17 who is already 6'3 or bigger isn't going to shrink. I have seen a ton of guys at 15/16/17 that were 5'7 and stay 5'7.

You can count on one finger how many guys in the NHL are 5'7

Look at the Jets a small player is Toby Enstrom. There top 9 forwards the small guy is Perrault and hes 5'10 190.

You have to be careful that you don't fall in love with a guy who is too small because the reality is in sports size matters

You seem to be agreeing with the reply I gave to Whileee. Yes, size in absolute terms matters for pro hockey. 6' is considered on the small side in the pros, yet that's taller than 80-85% of North Americans. It just becomes a numbers game: a super skilled 5'7" player is competing against other super skilled players 6' and above.

Yes, size becomes a key asset for guys like Buff and Lowry, but they've already distinguished themselves as skilled in many other areas. Size is just one part of what they bring to the table.

Which of those guys I listed got picked for reasons beyond their size? I guess Siemens had pretty decent production his draft year, and as a late birthday to boot. Honestly I didn't see him busting as bad as he did.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->