Matt Carle vs Mathieu Carle

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

Rafalski?? He doesn't have the mental smarts or defensive skills to become a Rafalski. Raffy is an extremely, extremely smart player with awesome hockey instincts.

I COULD see him become a servicable defenseman like Brisebois, who I will admit does get **** on moreso than he deserves around here (although I think part of it is just for comedy).

lol

 

[Squeaky]

He has some awfully small brain it appears.

That made me laugh pretty hard.

 

[Sammy*]

He was just drafted. He's 18. How can you say without a shadow of doubt that he will never improve? He may not make the smartest decisions but he has years to work on that, and I see no reason why he can't. I don't see how anyone can say with such certainty that someone has no chance to make the NHL so soon after he was drafted. That's just... well, stupid.

Read closer. He never said that.
And even if he did its still just an opinion. And a heck of alot more likely to be true than some ridiculous opinions that at worst he'll be a fringe NHL'r.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

I'm a Sharks fan yes, but i'm not a stupid homer on this one.

Matt Carle is better now- already in the NHL, and has more upside as a player....and he's also the safer bet to reach that upside.

Matt Carle > Mathieu Carle

And remember,I had Mathieu in my top 60 pre-06 draft, so this is not a knock on him, as I like his game.

But to compare the too is silly IMO.

 

[TheHoser]

I'm a Sharks fan yes, but i'm not a stupid homer on this one.

Matt Carle is better now- already in the NHL, and has more upside as a player....and he's also the safer bet to reach that upside.

Matt Carle > Mathieu Carle

And remember,I had Mathieu in my top 60 pre-06 draft, so this is not a knock on him, as I like his game.

But to compare the too is silly IMO.

The only reason there's a comparison thread at all is because they have the same name and the Habs drafted him with a pick they got from SJ... A neat little coincidence, but I don't see why they made a thread for it...

 

[Le Tricolore]

ALL players drafted after rd 1 have a 15% chance of making the NHL.

Carle was a 2nd rd pick....therefore...saying his floor is a 7th D is laughable....

He COULD turn into a Rafalski type, but he could also be a career ECHL defensemen. And the odds of the former is quite slim.

I think it's more like 30%.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Is this even a debate right now? Mathieu Carle is 18 years old, and Matt Carle is the defending Hobey Baker winner who showed flashes (more than just a few) of brilliance down the stretch and in the playoffs.

This is not really a fair comparison right now.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Read closer. He never said that.
And even if he did its still just an opinion. And a heck of alot more likely to be true than some ridiculous opinions that at worst he'll be a fringe NHL'r.

Thank you, Sammy.

 

[BuppY]

Matt Carle. Not a fair comparison.

 

[AH]

Rafalski?? He doesn't have the mental smarts or defensive skills to become a Rafalski. Raffy is an extremely, extremely smart player with awesome hockey instincts.

I COULD see him become a servicable defenseman like Brisebois, who I will admit does get **** on moreso than he deserves around here (although I think part of it is just for comedy).

Brisebois is beyond seviceable. He has been a top four on a Stanley Cup championship team.

If Mathieu Carle turns out to play 17 years in the league, scores 400 points and plays a vital role in winning a championship, I'd he was a pretty good pick at 53rd overall.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

He was just drafted. He's 18. How can you say without a shadow of doubt that he will never improve? He may not make the smartest decisions but he has years to work on that, and I see no reason why he can't. I don't see how anyone can say with such certainty that someone has no chance to make the NHL so soon after he was drafted. That's just... well, stupid.

I have watched him since he was 15...he has shown little improvement since his rookie year in the Q. He has plateued...you cant tell that from watchin him 1 time at age 18...but when he broke into the Q...he hasnt improved that much.

Could Carle improve a lot from age 18 to age 22? Yes. But his development has been slow...which leads me to believe he has little room for improvement.

Why do you think teams like guys who come out of no where like Giroux, Pouliot, Burns? They came onto the scene and improved by leaps and bounds in just 1 season...

For me...Carle is a solid player, but i just havent seen the imporvement...not to mention he has already played 3 years in the Q because of his late bday.

 

[AH]

I have watched him since he was 15...he has shown little improvement since his rookie year in the Q. He has plateued...you cant tell that from watchin him 1 time at age 18...but when he broke into the Q...he hasnt improved that much.

Could Carle improve a lot from age 18 to age 22? Yes. But his development has been slow...which leads me to believe he has little room for improvement.

Why do you think teams like guys who come out of no where like Giroux, Pouliot, Burns? They came onto the scene and improved by leaps and bounds in just 1 season...

For me...Carle is a solid player, but i just havent seen the imporvement...not to mention he has already played 3 years in the Q because of his late bday.

And then they fell back to the pack from where they came ... Remains to be seen if Giroux will do the same.

 

[Beatnik]

Exactly. His chance of ever playing making the NHL is very, very slim. And his chances of been a Rafalski is about 1%.

Wow, you guys know so much more than NHL scouts.

 

[Sammy*]

Wow, you guys know so much more than NHL scouts.

I think the great unwashed's opinions are alot closer to pro scouts than some delusional hab fans.
Downside, #7 NHL defenceman
but unfortunatly predictable.

 

[AvengerK]

Both Carle and Carle are still young, so we will see in 5 or so years whether Carle is better than Carle.

 

[stardog]

lol

I always like these types of responses and usage of the smiley faces followed by no explanation. Especially when it is in response to a very legitimate post that has some decent reasoning.... as if the guy is really laughing out loud.
I would understand if it was something just stupid and remarkable outlandish like Endicott>Ovechkin.

Anyways I thought he brought up some decent points and I was wondering what was so outlandish or funny about them that they didnt warrant any type of a response other than the laughing guy?
I always think they just make the person look like they cant rebut the argument so they try to make the post they are disagreeing with seem stupid. Yet it only works if the post really IS stupid and nobody would consider agreing with it.

I would take Matt Carle any day of the week over Mathieu Carle and I would be surprised to find many (who arent Hab fans) who wouldnt. I dont even think this is close or a remotley good comparison IMO.

 

[stardog]

Wow, you guys know so much more than NHL scouts.

And tell me one NHL scout who would say that he has a good chance of becoming a Rafalski.
I freely admit that the guy could very well prove everybody wrong in this thread and come on strong. It isnt an exact science to get a read on an 18 year old player and project where his pro career will take him. And obviously there is a reason why he was drafted in the 2nd round which shows that he has potential.

But the comparison to Rafalski is a little much, just as saying that his downside is a fringe guy. Both of those are pretty outlandish and difficult to swallow. Just as is the question of who is better (or the better prospect) between him and Matt Carle because it really isnt even close.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

I always like these types of responses and usage of the smiley faces followed by no explanation. Especially when it is in response to a very legitimate post that has some decent reasoning.... as if the guy is really laughing out loud.
I would understand if it was something just stupid and remarkable outlandish like Endicott>Ovechkin.

Anyways I thought he brought up some decent points and I was wondering what was so outlandish or funny about them that they didnt warrant any type of a response other than the laughing guy?
I always think they just make the person look like they cant rebut the argument so they try to make the post they are disagreeing with seem stupid. Yet it only works if the post really IS stupid and nobody would consider agreing with it.

I would take Matt Carle any day of the week over Mathieu Carle and I would be surprised to find many (who arent Hab fans) who wouldnt. I dont even think this is close or a remotley good comparison IMO.

His post was indeed stupid. He talks about Matthieu like there's no room for improvement, like if he's never going to improve on his weaknesses and become a good player. He said that Matthieu can't become a Rafalski. But didn't Rafalski never got drafted and came into the NHL at 26 years old? That means he improved a lot since he's 18. But Matthieu Carle cannot improve, that's something beyond his reach. "some decent reasoning"

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

By the way, I would take Matt Carle over Matthieu. At this point, I agree it's not even close. But let's not forget that Matthieu is very young and full of potential. He could turn into a decent player and he has a bad reputation here and I learnt that it was all crap. I used to be dissapointed that we drafted him, but it seemed that what I have read about him was a load of crap after all.

 

[Sammy*]

His post was indeed stupid. He talks about Matthieu like there's no room for improvement, like if he's never going to improve on his weaknesses and become a good player. He said that Matthieu can't become a Rafalski. But didn't Rafalski never got drafted and came into the NHL at 26 years old? That means he improved a lot since he's 18. But Matthieu Carle cannot improve, that's something beyond his reach. "some decent reasoning"

I for one have never seen a stupid hockey player become smart.
Ever.

 

[Sammy*]

By the way, I would take Matt Carle over Matthieu. At this point, I agree it's not even close. But let's not forget that Matthieu is very young and full of potential. He could turn into a decent player and he has a bad reputation here and I learnt that it was all crap. I used to be dissapointed that we drafted him, but it seemed that what I have read about him was a load of crap after all.

Amazing how that always happens when your team drafts a guy, dont ya think.

 

[Beatnik]

I think the great unwashed's opinions are alot closer to pro scouts than some delusional hab fans.
Downside, #7 NHL defenceman
but unfortunatly predictable.

I'm sorry but when NHL scouts take a guy #53 overall is not because "His chance of ever playing making the NHL is very, very slim" like you said.

The original comment was dumb, but yours is even worst.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

I for one have never seen a stupid hockey player become smart.
Ever.

Well, maybe... But it's not like if Matthieu is a stupid hockey player. He has a really good vision. He just (from what I have read here and it often happens to be wrong) has a tendency to make defensive blunders and things like that. I'm sure the kid can improve on that, it's not like he has zero hockey sense, in fact it's the opposite. Let the kid some time to develop his defensive game, it's often the same weakness for many prospects.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

Amazing how that always happens when your team drafts a guy, dont ya think.

what are you talking about?

what I read about prospects here is wrong no matter what team they play for.

have a look a this : http://hockeysfuture.com/2001top50.php

So where did I said that players are only poorly rated only for my team? It's pretty much the same for every teams.

 

[NewHabsEra*]

Mathieu has alot to prove at higher levels. But he sure has some interesting skills, good second round pick IMO.