Prospect Thread XVI

[701]

Not trying to be Argumentative Guy, but I don't recall ever seeing see that in a report on Schroeder. I don't suppose you have a link do you? (Not asking you to go searching, just if you happen to bookmark stuff like that).

Haha, no I don't have the source or sources, now . . . it was way back in the day. I joined the Gopher fan board to follow Jordan's U of M career, same as I did with the UMD fan board to follow Raymond's (and Garrison's though I didn't appreciate it at the time) career. Getting lots of diverse input has the downside of losing the sources in the fog of war.

That phrase about slowing down the game first struck me when it was used about Gretzky, and with him it was a very positive thing, of course. So it has got my attention ever since. When applied to Schroeder I thought that's great, look at the footsteps he's following (though never claimed to be in the same degree as 99). When in Schroeder's case it turned out badly, at first, and when the player himself admitted he had to learn to make things happen, get his nose dirty, get the puck himself, and go to the net . . . that phrase lost a bit of its lustre for me.

With JS there's been a transformation, and he seems to be steadily improving still. His is a good story now. Whatever slowing the game down means in the case of Gaunce--maybe good, maybe bad--he's proud, determined guy and I think in the end he'll be fine too.

 

[Tiranis]

Haha, no I don't have the source or sources, now . . . it was way back in the day. I joined the Gopher fan board to follow Jordan's U of M career, same as I did with the UMD fan board to follow Raymond's (and Garrison's though I didn't appreciate it at the time) career. Getting lots of diverse input has the downside of losing the sources in the fog of war.

That phrase about slowing down the game first struck me when it was used about Gretzky, and with him it was a very positive thing, of course. So it has got my attention ever since. When applied to Schroeder I thought that's great, look at the footsteps he's following (though never claimed to be in the same degree as 99). When in Schroeder's case it turned out badly, at first, and when the player himself admitted he had to learn to make things happen, get his nose dirty, get the puck himself, and go to the net . . . that phrase lost a bit of its lustre for me.

With JS there's been a transformation, and he seems to be steadily improving still. His is a good story now. Whatever slowing the game down means in the case of Gaunce--maybe good, maybe bad--he's proud, determined guy and I think in the end he'll be fine too.

I just don't think that slowing the game down and pushing the pace rule each other out. Schroeder still slows the game down these days, he just knows when to do it and when to be more active.

 

[vanuck]

What does 'slowing the game down' even mean? To me that doesn't sound like the same as not getting your nose dirty and not going to the tough areas - the former seems to apply when you have the puck and the latter is when you're without.

 

[Verviticus]

What does 'slowing the game down' even mean? To me that doesn't sound like the same as not getting your nose dirty and not going to the tough areas - the former seems to apply when you have the puck and the latter is when you're without.

i think it mostly describes being able to create space for yourself to make a more calculated pass/action? it's not a very specific thing, but i think people associate it with 'good hockey sense'

 

[vanuck]

i think it mostly describes being able to create space for yourself to make a more calculated pass/action? it's not a very specific thing, but i think people associate it with 'good hockey sense'

For sure I think that's part of it. Doesn't seem to be one of those phrases that are very well-defined. IMO "slowing the game down" sounds like it could be one of two things:

i) The guy's able to process what's occurring at such a speed that the game has literally slowed down for him in terms of his mental game - he can read and react to plays faster than anyone else out there. Or:

ii) He's able to somehow control the pace of the game such that he can lower the tempo to one that he operates best at.

The key part here is that to me these refer to when he has the puck on his stick.

Obviously #2 indicates a much, much higher level of ability compared to #1 so that's probably being over-optimistic. Whichever the case, that's still a positive trait in my mind.

----------

But talking about Schroeder here more specifically now, being able to read plays quicker and better than others doesn't preclude him from upping his intensity level in other areas, namely without the puck - like battling and defense, which are all things he's worked on and incorporated into his arsenal. To me those are different things. It seems like more of the improvement he's shown over the past few years has been without the puck rather than with it.

And even if you don't think that's what the term means, those flaws in my opinion were still separate from this particular aspect of his game.

I'm not going to deny that for a player of his skating ability, it's mightily tempting to want to see him in 'go go go' mode all the time. Of course, when the long bomb is there he'll go for it and make that pass. But for so many north-south off-the-rush-type players, I think it's a benefit having a guy on your line who can create offense in more than one way, as in with just speed alone. He's capable of doing so IMO, and to me that's a good thing, having that versatility. Especially when you consider this coach...

But that's just my opinion. I just thought "is able or likes to slow the game down" was being used as a bit of a misnomer for the weaknesses he had to improve on. Maybe I have a different definition of it than others.

 

[mrbitterguy]

For sure I think that's part of it. Doesn't seem to be one of those phrases that are very well-defined. IMO "slowing the game down" sounds like it could be one of two things:

i) The guy's able to process what's occurring at such a speed that the game has literally slowed down for him in terms of his mental game - he can read and react to plays faster than anyone else out there. Or:

ii) He's able to somehow control the pace of the game such that he can lower the tempo to one that he operates best at.

The key part here is that to me these refer to when he has the puck on his stick.

Obviously #2 indicates a much, much higher level of ability compared to #1 so that's probably being over-optimistic. Whichever the case, that's still a positive trait in my mind.

i agree with your definitions but disagree with your hypothesis.

the first case you mention means to me that the player always seems to be ahead of the play. that player understands the game better than his peers and his anticipation makes him quicker on the ice and his vision and skills combine to allow him to find a play where others would not see one. if a player is elite in this there is good reason to believe that his skills will translate to higher leagues.

i think the second case refers to players who have good puck protection and can slow the game down by hanging onto the puck in the face of aggressive checking. those are exactly the type of player that can have a hard time adapting to higher level play, especially if they are not big enough or skilled enough to have the same ability at that higher level. also, if they "slow the game down" because they are poor skaters and/or not fast enough to keep up to the play otherwise that phrase should be a huge red flag.

in general, gretzky/pat kane are the first player, thornton/sedins are the second and crosby/toews are both. and FYI david booth is the exact opposite of a player that slows the game down. i honestly don't know where gaunce fits into all this.

 

[quat]

What does 'slowing the game down' even mean? To me that doesn't sound like the same as not getting your nose dirty and not going to the tough areas - the former seems to apply when you have the puck and the latter is when you're without.

Watching either of the Sedins carrying the puck is probably your best example. Henrik in particular has a way of drawing players to him while still keeping full control of the puck. If the player fully commits to a particular path, or even holds back, Henrik uses him as a blocker against his own team mates and either continues ragging the puck himself or passes to open ice.

They have a ton of ways of exploiting their opponents simply using positioning, passing and stickhandling. However, they also really benefit from a player with good puck retrieval skills.

The best defense against he and Daniel is to interfere or physically remove them from the play, often with clear or boarder line illegal moves. If the refs actually called the penalties they way they were written, the Sedins would be a much more dominant offensive force.

In my opinion, Schroeder does have that ability to read the ice, but he also has the speed to exploit opponents as well. Obviously he lacks size, but so far playing center I haven't seen that as too big an issue for him. I'm really hoping we see him back with the team in the playoffs, as I think he's a perfect fit between Raymond and Hanson, and makes them a much more offensive threat.

 

[vanuck]

i agree with your definitions but disagree with your hypothesis.

the first case you mention means to me that the player always seems to be ahead of the play. that player understands the game better than his peers and his anticipation makes him quicker on the ice and his vision and skills combine to allow him to find a play where others would not see one. if a player is elite in this there is good reason to believe that his skills will translate to higher leagues.

i think the second case refers to players who have good puck protection and can slow the game down by hanging onto the puck in the face of aggressive checking. those are exactly the type of player that can have a hard time adapting to higher level play, especially if they are not big enough or skilled enough to have the same ability at that higher level. also, if they "slow the game down" because they are poor skaters and/or not fast enough to keep up to the play otherwise that phrase should be a huge red flag.

in general, gretzky/pat kane are the first player, thornton/sedins are the second and crosby/toews are both. and FYI david booth is the exact opposite of a player that slows the game down. i honestly don't know where gaunce fits into all this.

When you put it that way - for #2, I mean - I could see it that way as well actually. My take on #2 - especially when you put it in context of being used to describe what a prospect can do - might be unrealistic, so this probably works better I think. It's also pretty much like what quat said:

Watching either of the Sedins carrying the puck is probably your best example. Henrik in particular has a way of drawing players to him while still keeping full control of the puck. If the player fully commits to a particular path, or even holds back, Henrik uses him as a blocker against his own team mates and either continues ragging the puck himself or passes to open ice.

They have a ton of ways of exploiting their opponents simply using positioning, passing and stickhandling. However, they also really benefit from a player with good puck retrieval skills.

The best defense against he and Daniel is to interfere or physically remove them from the play, often with clear or boarder line illegal moves. If the refs actually called the penalties they way they were written, the Sedins would be a much more dominant offensive force.

Sucking opponents in and making use of the open ice that's available when they commit is one trait you see in quite a few playmakers, and that's a very good point. We see that from the Sedins all the time. The Weise goal against the Blues was a perfect example too. It makes more sense now if the phrase involves holding onto the puck and freezing opponents with time and space to make a play. It speaks to an ability to throw opposing defenses off balance in that you're slowing the pace of the play locally - wherever you're controlling the puck - enough to create a gap or disparity in coverage so you can get it to a teammate and keep the play alive. That requires patience, vision and passing - which are all things you need as a playmaker to succeed. If Gaunce is described as a player who does that too, by extension, then IMO that can only mean good things for him. Having that innate ability is a positive to me, as everything else can be worked on.

In my opinion, Schroeder does have that ability to read the ice, but he also has the speed to exploit opponents as well. Obviously he lacks size, but so far playing center I haven't seen that as too big an issue for him. I'm really hoping we see him back with the team in the playoffs, as I think he's a perfect fit between Raymond and Hanson, and makes them a much more offensive threat.

Exactly. IMO he makes that line go with not only his speed but an ability to set up plays in-zone as well. Would like to see them reunited at some point if Roy and Kesler are kept together.

 

[HalfPastDan]

Gaunce 1 assist +1 in a 5-4 overtime loss.
Belleville now trailing Barrie 2-1 in the series.
Gaunce 4th in playoff scoring behind Scheifele, Trochek, and Graovac.

 

[Golden Boy]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

 

[Bleach Clean]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

Point totals for him are very strong, I'm curious myself.


As an aside, how do people here rank the prospect pools now, based on what we have seen this season? Any change from the 25th place HF has them ranked at?

Based on what I have seen, I would rank 8-9 teams behind them. So a move up of about 2-3 spots from where they were. Agree/Disagree?

 

[604]

Point totals for him are very strong, I'm curious myself.


As an aside, how do people here rank the prospect pools now, based on what we have seen this season? Any change from the 25th place HF has them ranked at?

Based on what I have seen, I would rank 8-9 teams behind them. So a move up of about 2-3 spots from where they were. Agree/Disagree?

Honestly, too tough to tell. Team prospect rankings rarely if ever actually impact team success.

IMO, prospects need to be considered at a micro level, not a macro level.

 

[thefeebster]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

Yes. Quite arguably the best player in the league this season. Transformed Plymouth from a middling playoff contender into a legit championship calibre team. Too bad they have to go through London.

Drafted him in a couple mock drafts that year. :S

 

[y2kcanucks]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

Without even looking I'd say yes we should regret it. Honzik is garbage.

 

[ginner classic]

Point totals for him are very strong, I'm curious myself.


As an aside, how do people here rank the prospect pools now, based on what we have seen this season? Any change from the 25th place HF has them ranked at?

Based on what I have seen, I would rank 8-9 teams behind them. So a move up of about 2-3 spots from where they were. Agree/Disagree?

The Canucks are comfortably in the bottom third in the league. That won't change until we have more picks and produce worse results. I am far more concerned with where with are in the standings. Gravity will catch up with us.

 

[Lundface*]

The Canucks are comfortably in the bottom third in the league. That won't change until we have more picks and produce worse results. I am far more concerned with where with are in the standings. Gravity will catch up with us.

Gravity will catch up to almost every team with the way the league is set up now. You won't see teams dominating as much anymore which I hate but it is what it is.

If Gillis can manage to trade Bieksa for offence, he has basically built the entire d through UFA and drafting. Moving forward as early as even next season

Hamhuis Garrison
Edler Tanev
Andersson/Alberts Corrado

We also have Price, Tommernes, McNally, Hutton, Polasek who could all improve enough to make the step. Goaltending is not an issue with Lack and Cannata as well.

Offence is the pools weakness, but with so many guys signed moving forwards we wont be able to add much. If we manage to retain Roy, I won't be too worried moving forwards with our offence. In the next few years sprinkle in Schroeder (can learn from Roy), Gaunce (Kesler) and Jensen (Sedins). We look okay as long as the Sedins stay semi effective and when they leave I have faith Gillis/Gilman will be able to pluck some UFA's to replace them...but that's at least 5 years down the road in my opinion.

 

[ginner classic]

Gravity will catch up to almost every team with the way the league is set up now. You won't see teams dominating as much anymore which I hate but it is what it is.

If Gillis can manage to trade Bieksa for offence, he has basically built the entire d through UFA and drafting. Moving forward as early as even next season

Hamhuis Garrison
Edler Tanev
Andersson/Alberts Corrado

We also have Price, Tommernes, McNally, Hutton, Polasek who could all improve enough to make the step. Goaltending is not an issue with Lack and Cannata as well.

Offence is the pools weakness, but with so many guys signed moving forwards we wont be able to add much. If we manage to retain Roy, I won't be too worried moving forwards with our offence. In the next few years sprinkle in Schroeder (can learn from Roy), Gaunce (Kesler) and Jensen (Sedins). We look okay as long as the Sedins stay semi effective and when they leave I have faith Gillis/Gilman will be able to pluck some UFA's to replace them...but that's at least 5 years down the road in my opinion.

We don't have a blue chip prospect on D. Gaunce and Jensen are likely second liners. Schroeder may be a second liner but I think will fall in as a third line scoring center on a team with a dominant checking center (Like we have with Kesler and then maybe Gaunce).

Roy will not be retained.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

We don't have a blue chip prospect on D.

Not anymore anyways... he's been called up.

 

[Tiranis]

Corrado is about as close to a blue-chip D prospect as you can get. He's the only D outside the Top 20 draft picks to make an NHL debut (as far as I can tell anyway).

 

[WetcoastOrca]

We don't have a blue chip prospect on D. Gaunce and Jensen are likely second liners. Schroeder may be a second liner but I think will fall in as a third line scoring center on a team with a dominant checking center (Like we have with Kesler and then maybe Gaunce).

Roy will not be retained.

Correction. We don't have a highly drafted blue chip prospect on D. Corrado looks to be pretty blue chip in junior. The fact that he's a 6th rounder shouldn't change that. I'd rank him above many other higher picks. If he was a first round pick we'd probably call him a blue chipper.
(Trying desperately not to overhype him after last night's impersonation of a Bobby Orr/ Chris Pronger combination performance )

 

[PhilMick]

We don't have a blue chip prospect on D. Gaunce and Jensen are likely second liners. Schroeder may be a second liner but I think will fall in as a third line scoring center on a team with a dominant checking center (Like we have with Kesler and then maybe Gaunce).

Roy will not be retained.

It amuses me that the first sentence here is the only one people have responded to, not the other three that are stated as if you're Mike Gillis himself.

 

[thepuckmonster]

We don't have a blue chip prospect on D. Gaunce and Jensen are likely second liners. Schroeder may be a second liner but I think will fall in as a third line scoring center on a team with a dominant checking center (Like we have with Kesler and then maybe Gaunce).

Roy will not be retained.

Uhm. Andersson might not be a blue chipper but he's blowing the hell out of his draft status and actually showing legit NHL potential.

That's two probable NHL defensemen drafted in late rounds (Frankie and Andersson).

Roy will be retained if we offer him competitive salary and give him the best chance to win. I have no disillusions of him taking some fabled hometown discount for no reason.

 

[arsmaster*]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

Trocheck isn't the only pick that makes us regret Honzik.

I'd have like Mario Lucia (who Minny took with our pick), Adam Lowry (the guy I wanted), and in hindsight, I would have taken Harrison Ruopp, Camara, Leivo, amongst others.

Yes. Quite arguably the best player in the league this season. Transformed Plymouth from a middling playoff contender into a legit championship calibre team. Too bad they have to go through London.

Drafted him in a couple mock drafts that year. :S

Best player in the OHL doesn't always translate though. What is he going to be in the NHL? Is his upside better than Gaunce's? I'd say no, not at that size.

Also, it's not like Plymouth didn't have a good team before Trocheck, but a 19 year old #1C will boost anyones chances.

Glad to see them giving London all they can handle.

 

[Barney Gumble]

How good is Trochek exactly? Enough to make us regret trading our 2nd rd pick to Minny for basically Honzik?

Looks like some things never change (re: Quebec amateur scouts do seem suck - having alot more swings and misses than hits).

 

[thefeebster]

Best player in the OHL doesn't always translate though. What is he going to be in the NHL? Is his upside better than Gaunce's? I'd say no, not at that size.

Also, it's not like Plymouth didn't have a good team before Trocheck, but a 19 year old #1C will boost anyones chances.

Glad to see them giving London all they can handle.

No the best player in the OHL doesn't always translate but that wasn't what we are debating. We are comparing one of the best players in the OHL to a quasi starter in the Q. If given a choice, there is no question who I would take.

I think Trocheck has similar upside to Gaunce and if you don't believe that, you'd be under selling Trocheck. They both have 2nd line upside with the type of games to play in the bottom 6. Trocheck is a good defensive player who can bring energy to the bottom 6 with his willingness to get to the corners and imitate battle with opponents.

One only need watch a game pre trade to post trade to see his effect on the team. Yes, they added a 1C and were already a fairly good team, but they were not a championship calibre team IMO, just like Kitchener was not a championship team as I argued. Plus I believe he truly made those around him better.

If we are so willing to give Schroeder a chance in the bottom 6 with his size, why is Trocheck's size seen as such a detriment? Matt Read isn't too far off as a comparable in size or style of play and he has handled this league alright.