Was Kyle Turris a risk?

[DaveG]

Turris proved he was of sufficient talent to be worth a top 5 pick in a draft that was really weak looking heading in. The real issue is that, despite his wiry frame, the Coyotes took him out of Wisconsin after his Freshman year. A guy of a slight build like Turris would likely have benefited more from the lighter NCAA schedule where he could focus on adding muscle mass to his frame instead of rushing him to the NHL.

So yes, he was a risk, but the risk was how he would pan out if he was rushed, not in whether he was worth being picked where he was in the first place.

 

[Gwyddbwyll]

Turris also had an illness in his year with Wisconsin. Instead of building up, he lost something like 15 pounds. It was also known that his parents (both top level sports players) were late developers and the same would be true for him. Which is one reason he was in the BCHL to start his draft year - he was just another prospect at that time.

 

[member 96824]

CSS had Turris over Kane. I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet.

Heinsight is always 20/20

 

[McIce Whole]

Turris did great in the playoffs against Detroit. He always stood out and I think that really should boost his confidence and on top of that he will be getting 1st or 2nd line minutes opposed to 3rd and 4th line mins. I fully expect Turris to break out next season and show people why he was selected third overall. JVR started to break out in the playoffs as well and I think both him and Turris will have breakout years.

 

[tfong]

I remember when there was the Sakic/Gretzky comparisons to Turris in his draft year about how cerebral and smart his game was.

Huge risk of course drafting Turris from where he was, but I mean the guy is young, he could still turn out. Development curves differ and Yotes really messed up his so he needs to get back on track the proper way.

 

[Hug Ben Laf]

I remember when there was the Sakic/Gretzky comparisons to Turris in his draft year about how cerebral and smart his game was.

Huge risk of course drafting Turris from where he was, but I mean the guy is young, he could still turn out. Development curves differ and Yotes really messed up his so he needs to get back on track the proper way.

He was compared to Sakic and Yzerman but from his elite shooting and his style is actually more Sakic even those Turris said Yzerman is his idol and is the one he try to play like.

And ANY pick is a risk, even Crosby and Ovechkin before they hit the NHL.

This time next year I bet someone gonna make a thread or else I will make one saying "Flyers should pick Turris 2nd"

 

[nowhereman]

He was the consensus #1. How many ranking organizations had Kane not ranked #1?

No, he wasn't a consensus #1. And how would anyone know where every organization had Kane ranked? They don't release that information. We only now know that Chicago had Kane ranked first. Paul Holmgren stated that Kane, Turris, and Van Riemsdyk were all interchangeable and that Van Riemsdyk was Philly's number one ranked player.

Central Scouting had ranked Turris as the number one pick. ISS had Cherepanov and Voracek ranked as the best players in that draft, throughout much of the year. That doesn't exactly sound like a "consensus" number one pick.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

I think it did.

It can make the kid look a lot better when he's playing against sub par players.

No way. It was all in how much he was rushed. Phoenix only had him in college for one year! That ruined him.

 

[Stephen]

That is funny. So you basically need 100% of hf posters to agree in order for it to be a slam dunk? Then Crosby wasn't either since there were posters claiming Kessel should go #1

Kane was not the consensus at all that year.

Here's a writer from McKeen's

http://www.sharkspage.com/2007_nhl_draftpreview.html

Here's THN ranking Turris number one

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=9494642

 

[Stephen]

Turris was an absolutely huge risk playing in Tier II, but they hype machine seemed to sweep those normal concerns to the side for whatever reason. Turris had 121 points in a lower tiered league, there's no way he should have been ranked higher than guys like Voracek who were scoring 100 plus in the QMJHL.

 

[tfong]

He was compared to Sakic and Yzerman but from his elite shooting and his style is actually more Sakic even those Turris said Yzerman is his idol and is the one he try to play like.

And ANY pick is a risk, even Crosby and Ovechkin before they hit the NHL.

This time next year I bet someone gonna make a thread or else I will make one saying "Flyers should pick Turris 2nd"

I always wondered if he meant Yzerman pre-cup or cup winning team leader Yzerman actually.

 

[Hug Ben Laf]

I always wondered if he meant Yzerman pre-cup or cup winning team leader Yzerman actually.

Which model that is better I guess

 

[Henkka]

Now, with all that being said, he's not yet 22 years old. Are we really calling him a bust already?

Yes, he is a bust.

Henrik Zetterberg was still playing in Sweden at same age...

 

[LoveHateLeafs]

Turris was an absolutely huge risk playing in Tier II, but they hype machine seemed to sweep those normal concerns to the side for whatever reason. Turris had 121 points in a lower tiered league, there's no way he should have been ranked higher than guys like Voracek who were scoring 100 plus in the QMJHL.

Voracek didn't score 100 points in his draft year-not in the regular season anyway. He had 23g+63a=86 in 59 games for 1.46 points per game in the Q regular season. Turris had 66g+55a=121 in 53 games for 2.28 points per game. Granted, it was in Tier II, but isn't the BCHL generally considered the best of the Jr A leagues in Canada?

 

[Dicky Dangles]

This time next year I bet someone gonna make a thread or else I will make one saying "Flyers should pick Turris 2nd"

We're all set with JVR, but thanks for your concern though.

 

[Connor McJesus]

Not really imo. I remember that the 2007 draft top3 was so clear cut. There's just no way you were picking another guy. Thomas Hickey went #4, that tells you.

 

[Connor McJesus]

Kane was not the consensus at all that year.

Here's a writer from McKeen's

http://www.sharkspage.com/2007_nhl_draftpreview.html

Here's THN ranking Turris number one

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=9494642

From what I remember, Kane was more of a consensus #1 than Stamkos, Tavares and Hall. He was that far ahead of JvR and Turris. There was just no debate at the time despite whatever links you can find.

 

[ummerr]

I don't think Turris was considered a risk at the time, at least no one was projecting he would be a bust. However, I do not think he's a bust yet at all. Look at the other players his age, that are just reaching the NHL or are still blue chip prospects/working their way in slowly (from the first round):

-Hickey
-Alzner
-Gagner
-Voracek
-Couture
-Ellerby
-Eller
-Shattenkirk
-Pacioretty
-Backlund
-Perron

I don't think there's a player outside Couture that Phoenix takes over Turris, even today. He'll get there. He just needed some time to get an NHL body.

 

[Haute Couturier]

From what I remember, Kane was more of a consensus #1 than Stamkos, Tavares and Hall. He was that far ahead of JvR and Turris. There was just no debate at the time despite whatever links you can find.

Wrong. Stamkos, Hall, and Tavares well all considering candidates for the #1 pick at least a year before the draft. They all had strong candidates to challenge them, but they pretty much carried #1 status all along.

Kane was more like RNH this year. He did not really become a candidate for #1 until later in the season. Cherpanov, Turris, and Voracek were all considered possibilities for #1 at some point. When the draft rolled around most felt Kane would be #1 because he was the most NHL ready, but there was a lot of talk that Turris would be better the better pick in the long run.

 

[Connor McJesus]

Esposito was considered for #1 "at some point" too. By the time we were in 2007 Kane had no competition and never looked back since.

 

[GetThePuckOut]

I remember the day of that draft vividly, and while Kane had seemed to step ahead of JVR and Turris, it was always close and in no way was Kane ever a consensus pick. He became the favorite right before the draft, but not the consensus. Apparently a lot of GM's liked Turris better.

 

[Hug Ben Laf]

From what I remember, Kane was more of a consensus #1 than Stamkos, Tavares and Hall. He was that far ahead of JvR and Turris. There was just no debate at the time despite whatever links you can find.

Dude, when the Lightning management have the slogan "Seen Stamkos" how much more consensus can you get?

And Kane was not a sure fire #1 pick, no. Like many had said, Turris and JvR also come in the play but I think it was more of a Kane or Turris kind of debate.

 

[HjamSandwich]

Why do we constantlky get such idiotic putdown of Tier 2 just because some guys choose to play there as 17 yr olds to keep their NCAA decision on track?


AGAIN--the WHL had MARK SANTORELLI of CHILLIWACK score 82 points as a rookie COMING FROM BURNABY OF THE BCHL --yes TURRIS's team--which wasonly 11 points less than the certain first round to be ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring champ...
SANTORELLI played the year prior in BUrnab y as a 17 yr old where he had a 0.9PPG -TURRIS on that same team as a 16 yr old was a 1.3PPG--but then TURRIS as a 17 yr old this year was a 2.3PPG ==meaning that at the same age he is 1.4 times better than Santorelli was ...if you extrapolate to what SANTORELLI did as an 1q8 yr old in the WHL this year take his 82 pts and add anothe 1.4x82 to that (THIS IS WITHOUT TURRSS EVEN IMPROVING from 17 to 18)..this means TURRIS could score
197 pts in the wHL if he played there this yras an 18 yr old! Even more if we factor some improvement for age! Santorelli improved from 17 to 18 from 0.9PPG in the BCHL to 1.1388PPG in the WHL ...if we take only that same improvement factor and add it to the extrapolated 197 pts for Turris if he played in the WHL this year we get another .2388 x 197 =47 more points..so 197+47 = 244 points ...

This would be 244-145 =99 MORE points projected for TURRIS than KANE got playing on a stacked OHL team in London...

I amsick of thes idiots who refuse to understand that SANTORELLI also was a BCHL'er who did very well in the WHL --no reason to believe TURRIS also would not tear up the WHL since he was WAY WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI at the same comparable age,so he should do WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI did in his WHL rookie year if given the same chance...

LOGICAL REASONING not insipid stupid putdowns of the WHL is so superier to Tier II ...it just doesn't matter--it is what individual hockey players do on the ice and there is ZERO reason put TURRIS down for what SANTORELLI prove a BCHL grad could do in the WHL --do VERY WELL --but we know TURRIS has even more talent than SANTORELLI,so why not ... EVEN IF you halved the 244pt "projection" (I do not se why,but if you still insisted on doing that because of some pre-concieved notion that that number was impossible in the defenseively tough WHL--then OK--
you must then discount KANE's 145 pts because of course the defensively tough
WHL is superior to the OHL --look how easily the 2 WHL mEM cUP teams beat on Plymouth which itsel handled KANE's loaded LONDON offen sive crew easily...doesn't all this indicate vast WHL superiority? Well then pretend Kane had to play in the WHL--cut his 145 pts down by at least 25..then deduct another amount (20? 40? --ok lets settle on 30 less points due to not having his prolific London linemates to play with on some "average " wHL team like Chilliwack) --so lets deduct 55 points from Kane;'s 145... he'd end up with 90 points= 3 less than ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring CHAMP! BUT TURRIS projects to 122 points EVEN WITH A GENEROUS 50% reduction in his EXTRAPOLATION based on SANTORELLI (I still don't have a reason for any reduction of the extrapolation except to pacify the incedulous shouts of the KANE
supporters in this argument and I wanted to be EXTREMELY graceful to them).


My point in all this: justshut up about putting down Turris because he only plays in the BCHL ..Santorelli showed that is a white elephant argument AND the counter is: KANE only plays in the inferior OHL where you can run up scores with 11 goal games
with putrid teams like Erie was this season.. ONe can make all kinds of arguments but REAL SCOUTS do not put down Turris just because he played in the BCHL...
IF Central Scouting has him as the #1 NA it is because their staff ranked him that way..so to let some amateur poster on these boards put CSS down to for their professional opinion on this just to satisfy some DISBELIEF that a mere BCHL'er could be that good is to allow hogwash reasoniong. The FACTS ARE THE FACTS.. IF we did not have the Santorelli performance as a linking comparison none of my arguments on behalf of Turris could stand scrutiny..BUT we do have the Santorelli numbers,so we can use them to project for Turris in thishypothetical..


BOTTOM LINE: if you support KANE a clear #1 over TURRIS that is one thing--BUT DO NOI USE THE BCHL argument..it doesn't stand upto muster given SANTORELLI.
Logic is on my side.

haha

 

[Haute Couturier]

Esposito was considered for #1 "at some point" too. By the time we were in 2007 Kane had no competition and never looked back since.

Voracek at the top of ISS April 07 rankings: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/9559/iss_top302007_prospects_for_april/

Cherepanov at the top of ISS March 07 rankings:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/9487/iss_top202007_prospects_for_march/

Cherepanov at the top of ISS Feb 07 rankings:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/9446/iss_top302007_prospects_for_february/

Cherapanov at the top of ISS Jan 07 rankings:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/9358/iss_top302007_prospects_for_january/

Woodlief had Kane for most of 07 but had Couture #1 in January
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/2007-01-20-woodlief_x.htm

Also in May 07 Woodlief mentions here that Turris could be the first #1 selection from Tier II so he certaintly didn't see it as some reach. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/2007-05-28-forwards-draft_N.htm

Central Scouting had Turris #1 in their final rankings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NHL_Entry_Draft


It certainly wasn't a consensus across the board that Kane was #1 for most of 07. I think when the draft rolled around there was little doubt Chicago would take Kane, but Turris was receiving the Sakic/Yzerman hype and there was a belief by some that he'd be better.

I followed that draft closely as my team finished 30th that year. Hall, Stamkos, Tavares were stand out talents much longer than Kane was.

 

[nowhereman]

From what I remember, Kane was more of a consensus #1 than Stamkos, Tavares and Hall. He was that far ahead of JvR and Turris. There was just no debate at the time despite whatever links you can find.

What? That doesn't even make any sense. How do links to reputable major scouting sources, including the NHL's very own NHL Central Scouting Bureau, claiming Turris as a number one ranked player, not add fuel to the discussion that their was a debate over the best player in the '07 draft? Numerous scouts, GMs, and NHL analysts claimed that all three players (Kane, Turris, James van Riemsdyk) were interchangeable.