"Poor man's", especially because you never hear "Poor man's Crosby/Ovechkin". It's always some solid but not world beating player that the prospect is a lesser copy of.
JonathanWashington
Hockey in Cairo
Sean Garrity
Quack Quack Quack!
The use of cliches doesn't primarily tell you something about the prospect, it tells you something about the writer. I don't really agree with most of the inferences you draw above though. You see "Competes", "two-way" and "Hard worker" used quite a lot about other kinds of players too, and they are good assets also for premier offensive players.
Legitimate red lights for me would include ”limited hockey sense”, ”decision-making problems”, “doesn’t use his team-mates well”, ”heavy-footed” and “weak skater”. Also, a description that emphasises “great tools.” And anything that smacks of being inclined to look positively at things because the prospect in question is big, such as "skates well for a big guy", or "decent puck skills for a player that large".
CaptainKishimoto
=-{Astral Finish}-=
Darryl Sutter must have misheard at his Drafting 101 class. This is the criteria list for any prospect that he ever drafted.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
sanityplease
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2011
- 1,096
- 0
irunthepeg
Board man gets paid
Not sure if this is what scouts mean by it but I would always interpret raw as something like this: the kid has a really powerful shot but doesn't have accuracy. He has the raw power but needs to be able to hone it more accurately.
Any NHL comparison to Brett Lebda is a kiss of death.
Jarick
Doing Nothing
"safe pick" = unremarkable. Almost every "safe pick" the MN Wild have taken is a bust.
"scoring upside"...if he can't score in juniors or college, how the hell is he going to score in the NHL?
Also when the prospect is big and athletic but has questionable hockey IQ. I could put Lebron James on skates and he'd be useless at a rec league game.
"scoring upside"...if he can't score in juniors or college, how the hell is he going to score in the NHL?
Also when the prospect is big and athletic but has questionable hockey IQ. I could put Lebron James on skates and he'd be useless at a rec league game.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
"future captain"
If you read that in a two-line description of a guy that features one or two positives and one or two negatives, you wonder how much there really is to the guy if that's one of the positives they could come up with.
If you read that in a two-line description of a guy that features one or two positives and one or two negatives, you wonder how much there really is to the guy if that's one of the positives they could come up with.
Any sort of skating issue has me walking away. The list of players who couldn't cut it at the NHL level simply because of their skating is quite a long one.
You're right. "At the very least, he'll be a top notch checking line player". History shows that so-called "safe picks", which is usually code for players with good overall qualities but a somewhat speculative offensive upside, are no safer than anything else. Eric Nystrom, Dan Tkaczuk and Jason Ward didn't turn into top notch cjecking line players, they turned into dime-a-dozen fourth-liners and busts. In the nineties, it was always mentioned that the Flames stuck to a "safe picks" philosophy with their firstrounders, on the basis that you couldn't squander firstrounders. Well, when you look at the success rate they had with their first-round picks....
Not sure if this is what scouts mean by it but I would always interpret raw as something like this: the kid has a really powerful shot but doesn't have accuracy. He has the raw power but needs to be able to hone it more accurately.
I don't think so. "Raw" simply means that the prospect has not progressed very far down his development curve. It's an important concept because youngsters develop at an uneven pace. At 17, some players have developed very far towards what they can become, while others are at a much earlier stage in the process, for all sorts of reasons. That means more insecurity, but it also means that there might be more upside that we haven't seen yet but which will become apparent as the player's game matures.
team_alex
Registered User
Jarick
Doing Nothing
Yep, I'd rather my team takes a kid who can skate and has good scoring instincts, even if he has size or defensive issues. Good skating can make up for lack of size and defense can be taught. If you get work ethic and size on top of that, that's a 1st overall pick.
i know. but when someone calls them "Boom or Bust" it seems they always end up right in between....on the third line.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Any time the work ethic, heart, guts, drive or motor is questioned.
Maturity, behavior, coachability, and attitude questions are a deal breaker too.
Basically, I can deal with any lacking "skill" but no questions about "will".
Hope that makes sense.
Maturity, behavior, coachability, and attitude questions are a deal breaker too.
Basically, I can deal with any lacking "skill" but no questions about "will".
Hope that makes sense.
Mojo19
Loyal since 1987
oilerbear
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2008
- 3,168
- 199
They are descriptions for people with limited attention spans. Who cannot look at each player for there unique individual play.
I call them britanny spears brains. Pierre Mcguire caters to this crowd. trite, not useful and not acurate.
Uncle Rotter
Registered User
EastonBlues22
Registered User
- Dec 2, 2010
- 11,393
- 31
"shies away from contact"
"questionable decision making"
These make me think twice.
"lanky"
"<basically every single prospect> has great compete level"
These make me laugh.
Just thought of one. Any prospect who gets by or is talked up mostly because they are really fast. I just think this screams Rico Fata or more recently Billy Sweat
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 3 Edmonton Oilers @ Los Angeles Kings - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 13Staked: $17,782.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Edmonton Oilers vs Los Angeles Kings - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 6Staked: $3,487.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-