Mike Komisarek

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
How many Komisarek threads do we need? :joker: Just kidding

Some people say he could be as good as Scott Stevens. That won't happen.

Jay(aka Mirzal) said he sees Komisarek being Ricahrdson.

If you ask me, I say a #2 defenceman on most teams, maybe even three. HE has the potential to be #1, it's just a matter of if he can reach it.
 

Sammy*

Guest
I doubt he will be as good a Richardson (who was also quite hyped as a kid) & certainly nowhere a Regehr .
I see him as a poor mans version of Mike Wilson when he finally tops out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

db23

Guest
Putting Komisarek's name out on the prospects board is like throwing well aged meat into an alley. It attracts all the rats. Too bad there is no way of nuking them while they're all in one spot. :D
 

ChemiseBleuHonnete

Registered User
Oct 28, 2002
9,674
0
db23 said:
Putting Komisarek's name out on the prospects board is like throwing well aged meat into an alley. It attracts all the rats. Too bad there is no way of nuking them while they're all in one spot. :D

It's gotta be the best line you ever posted on those board. :lol
 

Blackshad

Registered User
Oct 12, 2002
2,333
0
Too early for me to tell... It will all depend of the few next seasons. If he is able to make better plays defencively and have a better timing with his hits... He could be an awesome defencive defenceman with a rocket of a shot (He had a very hard shot in the AHL competition.. dont remember how fast it was.. over 100 mph i think).
Its all a question of timing and how much he can learn.
 

db23

Guest
Mike is years away from realizing his full potential. It always takes defensemen longer than forwards or goaltenders, it takes big players longer than smaller players, it takes U.S. college products longer than Canadian juniors or Europeans, and it definitely takes players who started playing hockey at the age of 12 in New York longer than anyone else.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Komisarek's development curve is at the point of most 18 or 19 year olds who came up in Canadian or European junior ranks. He is the equivalent of someone coming directly out of the draft to be an AHL All Star and part time NHLer. So, you can extrapollate his potential from there.
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
db23 said:
Mike is years away from realizing his full potential. It always takes defensemen longer than forwards or goaltenders, it takes big players longer than smaller players, it takes U.S. college products longer than Canadian juniors or Europeans, and it definitely takes players who started playing hockey at the age of 12 in New York longer than anyone else.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, Komisarek's development curve is at the point of most 18 or 19 year olds who came up in Canadian or European junior ranks. He is the equivalent of someone coming directly out of the draft to be an AHL All Star and part time NHLer. So, you can extrapollate his potential from there.
Not this stupid arguement where he started hockey at a younger age :shakehead

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
 

Postman

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,927
1
19bruins19 said:
Not this stupid arguement where he started hockey at a younger age :shakehead

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!
It doesn't? Didn't Jovanovski start playing hockey late too? And didn't he take a long time to develop?

I'd imagine it matters somehow.
 

Sammy*

Guest
Postman said:
It doesn't? Didn't Jovanovski start playing hockey late too? And didn't he take a long time to develop?

I'd imagine it matters somehow.
Age matters when your a kid. It doesnt matter more than a wit when you are in your early 20's. His point is frankly stupid. If Komisarek is no good now (not to sayhe isnt or he wont be later) it has nothing to do with the when he started playing hockey, though it could have something to do with his size.
And while I have no idea if Jovo started hockey late, he sure didnt develop slowly. He lit it up in his first 2 years of Junior & played regularly in the NHL starting when he was 19.
 

Vlad The Impaler

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,315
644
Montreal
Postman said:
It doesn't? Didn't Jovanovski start playing hockey late too? And didn't he take a long time to develop?

I'd imagine it matters somehow.

Ed Jovanovski didn't take any more time to develop once drafted than the average defenseman. In fact, I'd say he compares well or better to most of them.

This is just one myth where people expected Jovo to be less dumb as time goes by. Which he has done but not much.

Some numbnuts can continue to see Komisarek as the next Pronger but it's not going to happen. He has limitations that he will not get away with no matter if he spends 5 or 10 years in this league.
 

Postman

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,927
1
Vlad The Impaler said:
Ed Jovanovski didn't take any more time to develop once drafted than the average defenseman. In fact, I'd say he compares well or better to most of them.
It took Jovanovski 6 years to crack the 40 point mark. Is that average? I don't think I've ever stopped to do the calculations.

I see Jovanovski as very similar to Komisarek, as not having the greatest hockey sense (i.e. prone to those bad giveaways) but has great tools. If taught to minimalize on his mistakes, he could still turn out to be a pretty good defenseman.

Vlad The Impaler said:
This is just one myth where people expected Jovo to be less dumb as time goes by. Which he has done but not much.

Some numbnuts can continue to see Komisarek as the next Pronger but it's not going to happen. He has limitations that he will not get away with no matter if he spends 5 or 10 years in this league.
I agree with you, but like Jovanovski, he has the tools to make his mistakes somewhat bearable.

I don't see the Pronger upside, but at the same time, I don't see the Aki Berg downside either. I think he can end up somewhere in the middle (obviously that's a big gap) as a 2nd pairing defenseman.
 

Crusher20

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
4,645
0
Montreal
Vlad The Impaler said:
Ed Jovanovski didn't take any more time to develop once drafted than the average defenseman. In fact, I'd say he compares well or better to most of them.

This is just one myth where people expected Jovo to be less dumb as time goes by. Which he has done but not much.

Some numbnuts can continue to see Komisarek as the next Pronger but it's not going to happen. He has limitations that he will not get away with no matter if he spends 5 or 10 years in this league.

Dont underate the ability to ''learn properly''. Komi is the kind of player who could progress, it isnt like he dont have the physical/mental abilities, its all there he just doesnt know how and when to use them. but of course you probably notice that, right? hehe no, i think you noticed only his lack of confidence, wich he will learn how to control with time. Jovo isnt Komo.

Komi i believe will continue slowly his progression and one year out of nowhere he will explode, for what ever explode means, for me explode in his case would be a great 2 way defenseman with a great physical presence, around 40pts a year.

anyway, just my tought.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
Postman said:
It took Jovanovski 6 years to crack the 40 point mark. Is that average? I don't think I've ever stopped to do the calculations.

Pronger took 6. McCabe 7. Redden 5. Mara 6. So yeah, it's pretty average.

Jovanovski's highest development curve was between the ages of 15 and 19. In a couple years he went from a complete nobody to #1 pick overall, to a #2 or #3 defender on a Stanley Cup finalist at age 19. At that point, he was the best defender in his age group in the world. Since then, his development curve has been pretty gradual - he's taken some of the rough edges off defensively and developed quite a bit more confidence offensively (as everyone does), but overall hasn't made really huge strides. Most of his strengths and weaknesses are the same as in 1996. Just a bit better every year, for the most part. Certainly not the huge development spurt in his mid-20s that's being predicted here for Komisarek because of his late start. Jovo developed pretty much as most other top young defensive prospects did ... actually found his game earlier if anything.

Komisarek seems to be doing much of the same thing. He was improving by leaps and bounds between the ages of about 17 and 20, and seems to have leveled off quite a bit over the last year or two - still improving and adapting, but not at the incredible curve he showed previously, and I don't see any evidence that he'll have another developmental spike like what he had 3-5 years ago.


Postman said:
I don't see the Pronger upside, but at the same time, I don't see the Aki Berg downside either. I think he can end up somewhere in the middle (obviously that's a big gap) as a 2nd pairing defenseman.

Well, I agree there. The guy he reminds me of most is Dan McGillis. Same strengths - excellent size and strength, big shot, above-average puck skills for a big guy, huge hitter when he wants to be. Same weaknesses, too - lack of natural hockey sense and anticipation, iffy lateral mobility, lack of a natural mean streak. Komisarek is a bit bigger so maybe there's a bit more upside there, but similar players. McGillis has all the tools to be a quality #1 or #2 guy, but just doesn't have the hockey sense to put it together and play that role effectively - as a result he's spent most of his career as a solid #3 defender scoring 25-30 points/year. Right now I'd expect something similar from Komisarek.
 

db23

Guest
Komisarek developed in an atmosphere that focussed on fundamnetal skills without a lot of game time. He averaged about 40-50 games a year as a teenager, which is about half of what the Canadian kids play. So he is an exceptional athlete with great fundamental skills but not the game time and hockey sense that his peers have. It is only in the past two years, since he turned pro that Mike has played a lot of games. Defencemen like Hamhuis, Colaiacovo, Morrisson etc. from the same draft have likely played 5 times as many competitive hockey matches in their lifetime. Komisarek just needs time and he WILL continue to improve long after the others have levelled out.
 

ChemiseBleuHonnete

Registered User
Oct 28, 2002
9,674
0
Komisarek is actually way better than it's said on this thread. He reads the play pretty well, he just happens to make a few mistakes from times to times. Offensively, he's got all the tools, good hands, great tape-to-tape passes and one heck of a great shot. Let's wait a few years, I'm sure he'll blossom and become a 40ish point producer.
 

Winston Wolf

Registered User
May 15, 2003
12,089
6,690
Philadelphia
db23 said:
Komisarek developed in an atmosphere that focussed on fundamnetal skills without a lot of game time. He averaged about 40-50 games a year as a teenager, which is about half of what the Canadian kids play. So he is an exceptional athlete with great fundamental skills but not the game time and hockey sense that his peers have. It is only in the past two years, since he turned pro that Mike has played a lot of games. Defencemen like Hamhuis, Colaiacovo, Morrisson etc. from the same draft have likely played 5 times as many competitive hockey matches in their lifetime. Komisarek just needs time and he WILL continue to improve long after the others have levelled out.
Is this the same criteria that puts Matt Nickerson in your list of top-10 defensive prospects?
 

db23

Guest
flyers guy said:
Is this the same criteria that puts Matt Nickerson in your list of top-10 defensive prospects?

Nickerson was the best defenceman at the U.S. U20 tourney camp among a group that included Suter and Thelen. He scored more points than either of them and could crumple up Suter like a paper bag and drop him in the nearest dumpster.
 

SmokeyClause

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,999
0
Miami, FL
Visit site
db23 said:
Nickerson was the best defenceman at the U.S. U20 tourney camp among a group that included Suter and Thelen. He scored more points than either of them and could crumple up Suter like a paper bag and drop him in the nearest dumpster.

Just curious, did you watch the camp? I ask this because quite a bit of your opinions have little foundation in visual scouting. Was he better because he scored more points? Was he better because someone of note said he was better? Or was he better because he was bigger?

I've seen the big guy play, he's impressive physically, but if he continues to outplay either of those two, they might want to rethink their careers.
 

Geese_Howard*

Guest
Leafaholix said:
He's North America's answer to Aki Berg.

:lol :joker: :lol:

seriously, i am not too impressed with him and all these threads about him is starting to annoy me


:mad:
 

db23

Guest
SmokeyClause said:
Just curious, did you watch the camp? I ask this because quite a bit of your opinions have little foundation in visual scouting. Was he better because he scored more points? Was he better because someone of note said he was better? Or was he better because he was bigger?

I've seen the big guy play, he's impressive physically, but if he continues to outplay either of those two, they might want to rethink their careers.

I didn't see it first hand, but all the comments I read, including quotes from pro scouts, were that Nickerson and Jack Johnson were the two best defencemen for the U.S. at the tourney. If Matt can play for the U.S. national junior team under international rules on the big ice surface, given his size and style, then he is going to be a top NHL defenceman.
 

Sammy*

Guest
db23 said:
I didn't see it first hand, but all the comments I read, including quotes from pro scouts, were that Nickerson and Jack Johnson were the two best defencemen for the U.S. at the tourney. If Matt can play for the U.S. national junior team under international rules on the big ice surface, given his size and style, then he is going to be a top NHL defenceman.
No doubt, its a gimmee. Thats why he was picked 99th overall, cause hes such a sure thing to not only play in the NHL, but to be a top D-man. :joker: :joker:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->