stickty111
Registered User
- Jan 23, 2017
- 26,696
- 33,033
Prospect Info: Leafs' 2019 2nd-round (#53) -- LW/C Nicholas Robertson -- OHL - 5' 9"/162lbs
- Thread starter uncleben
- Start date
- Status
acrobaticgoalie
Registered User
- Jun 18, 2014
- 3,360
- 3,396
Muzzin 6'3
Marchment 6'4
Mikheyev 6'2
Brazeau 6'6
All guys he has brought in and all could have a future spot at some point.
He is not anti size. He drafts for highest potential and trades and signs for size. Just because someone is 6'2 + , doesn't mean they'll make the NHL.
I would rather swing and miss on a more skilled, smaller guy than take a guy that can't skate, handle the puck or think the game at a faster rate but has size. Biggs, Devane, Schenn are good examples of this. I would rather go for a guy like Robertson and hope he grows ( he's only 17 and his brother is 6'2) than hope a bigger player like a Marincin grows a brain or learns how to skate in 3 years. We need to find those Marchand, Bergeron, Kucherov types of later steals. Draft for skill and potential and trade for size.
Pretty sure he was born 3 months pre-mature. I'm not medical expert, but I've been led to believe that babies who are born significantly pre-mature are unlikely to grow as big. Plus, statistically (yes, I know, everyone has a cousin who grew 4 inches in university), the average male does not grow another inch past the age of 17.
Yorkshire Leaf
Registered User
Not true regarding premature babies, most have caught up with their peers physically by the age of 2, as the father of a son who was born prematurely I got a lot of information on this subject. He is now 14 and 6 feet tall and has consistently been one of the tallest in his peer group through out school.
Glad your child is doing well. I just read this about babies who are extremely pre-mature (how that is defined I don't know but I assumed being born at 6 months qualified) that they tend to end up smaller on average. Babies who were born slightly pre-mature tended to catch up with their age group fairly quickly. More than willing to accept being wrong if I'm completely incorrect.
They play bigger because of there leaders.
They are first on the puck and always being physical on the opposition players.
In a 7 game series it will wear a team down.
Size is not the big factor it helps but it is the fight within that you need.
Moore has that type of fight inside of him.
Kappy is growing into that type of player.
Korshkov has a real mean streak in him with size.
We have alot of stick checkers
Yupp, Boston had 8 guys on their playoff roster that were under 6 feet tall and another 5 guys that were dead on 6 feet. We were a much bigger team than Boston and size isn't the reason why we lost.
DarkKnight
Professional Amateur
- Jan 17, 2017
- 32,293
- 49,900
While that is technically true. The average difference is 2.3 cm. So just under an inch.
Of course genetics are a mixed bag. But to be 5 inches shorter than a brother.... hopefully he closes the gap but it’s hard to predict to the individual.
For us I guess it doesn’t matter whether on average brothers are closer in height or premature babies are about normal height.
It matters how much if any this guy will grow... and we will wait and see on that one
Some lists had him at 18.
Great value pick
7even
Offered and lost
I think he's a good prospect at his current size but his brothers are 6'2 and 6'0. Interesting to see if he still grows an inch or two.
Ya really. It's getting better now that the league is more focused on skill, but so many people are still way to focused on height. I'll take a 5'8" guy that plays hard over a 6'4" guy that's soft any day.
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 21,598
- 6,179
and i'd take a 6'4'' that plays hard over a 5'8'' that plays hard any day
The problem isn't drafting or trading for smurfs , it's you can only dress so many of them regardless how hard they try and unless they're proven at the pro level they aren't worth much as trade chips ,
Of course, anyone would. But you don't draft the 6'4" guy with limited talent over the 5'8" guy with skill to waste just because he's bigger. Especially if that smaller player plays with the determination of Robertson. If the 6'4" guy has the skill of Robertson, he's gone in the first half of the 1st round and we're not even having this conversation.
He said he would take a 6'4'' guy that plays hard over a 5'8'' guy that plays hard any day ...
And both Crouse and Marner play hard.
Would you take Crouse over Gallagher? Or Marchand? Would you take Kassian over either of those guys? How about Lucic? What about Bjugstad? Boyle?
I'm pretty sure he means he will take the 64" guy with the same skillset over the 58" guy
kk87
Registered User
The issue is the guys that are both big AND skilled are off the board by the end of the first round. Therefore, if you want to find good value in later rounds, it’ll more often than not come in the form of smaller, skilled guys that have been overlooked.
The problem is that the 6’4 guy who works as hard as and who is as skilled as the 5’9 guy gets taken earlier than the aforementioned 5’9 guy.
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 21,598
- 6,179
Kelly
Registered User
- Nov 12, 2012
- 14,895
- 7,473
Great point. The 6'4" guys with lotsa skill are usually taken 1st OA, or very early.
Unreasonable to expect to draft one of them in the 2nd round.
hotpaws
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 21,598
- 6,179
the elite level smaller players like Kane/Marner/Hughes also get drafted at the top of the 1st rd
and i have no problem drafting smaller players , i do however have a problem with only drafting smaller players
- Status
