Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?

[CanaFan]

Yes it is a straw man argument because I never argued that "proven > not proven". My whole point - and you quoted it - is that degree of success at the NHL is an important element in evaluating a prospect. Further, I am arguing that it is being underrated by some here, and that a prospect's pie-in-the-sky ceiling of what he might become in some imagined future world is being overrated. Regardless, by purporting to disprove an argument I never made, you have committed a straw man, quintessentially. Clear enough?

Obviously not clear, since your first post on the subject was

Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"

Not much substance there, and about all one can glean from it is that you have a belief that the "Virtue of his [JS] having shown he can hang in the NHL" > anything anyone can say about Hunter Shinkaruk.

Even with that said, you simply cannot come up with an extreme example like "first overall pick with no NHL games is a better prospect than a guy who's had 3 years in the NHL and hasn't been able to stick" and use it as a comparable. For me, the closer comparable is Brodin vs Murray (or closer still, Brodin vs. one of the top defensemen taken in this draft). Either way, I take Brodin. But regardless of what analogy you want to use, it's debatable how close it is to a Schroder / Hunter situation and it certainly can't PROVE anything. Acting like you've just come up with some sort of hockey equivalent of a modal logic proof is absurd.

In response to your original post, yes it was a modal logic proof. Finding one exception is sufficient to disprove the rule and from there we can move on to debating the actual player merits, which you seem to be doing only now.

I feel like we're just going to have to disagree on this whole issue, but I maintain that the weighting of attributes that's being undertaken in this poll is skewed as a result of rose-coloured glasses. I'd rather have that dollar in my pocket - there's a reason they call the lottery the "idiot tax".

That is fine. The ideal weighting of "upside" and "performance" is tremendously subjective and I neither expect nor care if we agree on it. So long as we agree that it isn't 100% "performance" - which was my only contention way back with your first post - and that "upside" ranks in there at some degree, then we can leave it at that. I've debated the Schroeder-upside topic ad naseum with other posters and am now at a point where I prefer to simply see if he moves ahead or not, rather than bash it around further.

 

[arsmaster*]

Obviously not clear, since your first post on the subject was

And if you would have read my reply to his/her first post, you wouldn't be arguing with someone who entered a perfectly fine discussion with an absolutely ridiculous stance, where logical discussion would have no bearing.

Don't worry canafan....most of us like reasonable discussions.

 

[dave babych returns]

I voted for Gaunce but I kind of wish I'd voted for Schroeder. I probably will next time - the "I didn't vote for him because he's not a prospect" doesn't help the ranking, it hurts it because JS will end up on the list just above the group of prospects nobody really cares about rather than where he really belongs. Whether he belongs in the poll or not is immaterial at this point IMO.

Anyway I'll take Gaunce and Schroeder over Jensen at this point, Schroeder obviously has major limitations but both he and Gaunce are capable of playing at both ends of the rink and Schroeder is looking capable of dominating at the last level below the NHL now so he is a pretty safe bet to contribute in some way or another.

That being said, the type of player Schroeder will be at the NHL level is very much still up in the air at this point and that may be one reason why he should still be in this poll.

As I've said earlier I really like Jensen and he has impressed before but he is still a work in progress.

Gaunce of course has things to work on but as many have said he's probably pretty well certain to pan out as a top nine player, his skill level may not be elite but he's got no major holes and he has NHL size and then some.

Anyway, many have (justifiably) piled on this one but I thought this was pretty funny:

Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"

Schroeder is listed at 175 pounds, does that mean that if he has a particularly eventful trip to the bathroom that Shinkaruk leapfrogs him in the prospect ranking?

 

[dave babych returns]

While I am prattling on, can someone tell me why Eddie Lack is a significantly more tantalizing prospect than say, Joacim Eriksson at this point?

They've had similar levels of success at the same ages (Eriksson was probably better in the SEL by the numbers) and Lack is both older and coming off a major injury at this point..

 

[How Ya Drouin]

Schroeder is listed at 175 pounds, does that mean that if he has a particularly eventful trip to the bathroom that Shinkaruk leapfrogs him in the prospect ranking?

That would be next to Luongo's trip to the bathroom before overtime in legendary bathroom trips.

 

[dave babych returns]

That would be next to Luongo's trip to the bathroom before overtime in legendary bathroom trips.

"A standard red brick weighs about 6 pounds"

He might have lost that on draft day when the Canucks picked up two centers.

 

[CanaFan]

And if you would have read my reply to his/her first post, you wouldn't be arguing with someone who entered a perfectly fine discussion with an absolutely ridiculous stance, where logical discussion would have no bearing.

Don't worry canafan....most of us like reasonable discussions.

My fault really. I find I spend 10% of my time agreeing with well-reasoned posts and 90% of my time arguing futilely with posters who continually morph their position with each new post. I should really just learn to do more of the former and less of the latter.

 

[Wisp]

While I am prattling on, can someone tell me why Eddie Lack is a significantly more tantalizing prospect than say, Joacim Eriksson at this point?

They've had similar levels of success at the same ages (Eriksson was probably better in the SEL by the numbers) and Lack is both older and coming off a major injury at this point..

I am higher of Eriksson right now.

Poor Eddie in no-mans land. Still has a shot but we and he have to be patient.

 

[denkiteki]

I am higher of Eriksson right now.

Poor Eddie in no-mans land. Still has a shot but we and he have to be patient.

Its not only us that has no patient... its also the NHL rules. When you need to clear waivers (after next season), likely to be a UFA after next season (unless he plays 28 NHL games), then its hard to consider you a prospect still. His injury last season pretty much killed his value due to the conditions surrounding him.

Also as mentioned many time in past threads... the "new toy" like Eriksson will generally always do better in these polls since they get hyped up and less information to counter this hype (as i doubt too many members here actually follow SEL closely and there's a limit to the amount of info you can find online).

As far as this vote goes... went with Jensen who had a great start to the year before management/injury issues came up (guess giving him a perfect reason to struggle in the AHL/NHL). Gaunce on the other hand didn't have a great start but after his team added some talent, he had an outstanding season and a great playoff run. Of course an average start (or relatively same as last year) cost him my vote for #4 but his finish should make him a lock for #5.

#6 is going to be a tough vote since it should goto JS BUT i doubt i'll vote for him due to the simple fact he needs to clear waiver and at this point isn't really a prospect in my books anymore (he spent 1/2 the season here, would've been longer if we didn't get Roy and honestly he probably would have been just as productive as Roy...). Problem is if you take Lack and JS out of the equation, there is a clear drop too.

 

[PG Canuck]

By far Jensen - would've voted Jensen in the last poll even.

 

[Luck 6]

What a crock.

Accuse people of picking a shiny new toy and having "Hf logic" then admit you've never seen Shinkaruk play before. That's laughable.

Did you even watch the scrimmage? Shinkaruk didn't have a great scrim either and looked injured for the most part. And no one should be basing their decision solely on one summer scrimmage, not even a full game!

Then you admittedly say offensive stars in juniors overcome their size and lack of strength by being speedy and cerebral, two things that Shinkaruk possesses.

I did watch the scrimmage, yes. And my "accusations" were not targeted towards any sole individual, but rather HF logic as a whole. Would you disagree with me when I say, for the most part, that the masses on this message board tend to trend towards newer, unknown prospects, rather than existing prospects who in their opinion may not be progressing as well as they would have liked? I think that is a fair statement, and one that I've seen reinforced time and time again throughout my tenure here.

As such, I am skeptical on Shinkaruk's upside and his ability to reach that upside. Or re-phrased, I don't trust many of the prolific reviews that I am reading. I haven't seen him play outside of parts of the scrimmage and highlights, I think the same could be said for 90% of the people here that are voting him ahead of Jensen. So, the basis of my post was not to attack these posters, but to draw out some conclusions from other posters that have seen them both play extensively. If you have feebster, then please, I'd be enlightened to hear your opinion. I'll gage my own opinion as I have more opportunity to see Shinkaruk play, but up until now it wasn't a primary point of interest for me. I have no interest in listening to the masses, heck, a couple of years ago we had our own Toews and Kane in Hodgson and Schroeder according to many.

As opposed to you who has no idea what he's talking about either? Good one.

Jensen was ranked in mid-20s in his draft, which was significantly weaker than this one. Shinkaruk was ranked Top 10 or just outside for the whole year but slipped. It's pretty easy to see why one is considered the much superior prospect.

Maybe take a hint from all the people that have seen them both play? I have yet to see anyone who has watched them both, vote for Jensen.

---

As for what Jensen has shown, it's less than Schroeder at the same age, as of right now. His SEL performance was great statistically. Yet can you ignore him getting benched and getting bad reviews? His AHL performance has been below average so far.

Touch a nerve there did I?

If you've seen both play, and you believe Shinkaruk is a better prospect, then great! Those are the opinions I'm looking for. It would be nice if educated reviews and comparisons could be isolated, because they are often lost in baseless posts. I'll watch both and certainly make my own comparison now that we've drafted Shinkaruk and now that I'll have the opportunity to draw a comparison. I may have jumped the gun in saying "I don't see how a comparison could be made." It's frustrating reading reviews on prospects when you know 90% of the posters are basing their reviews off of highlights and articles. I'm more playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

 

[Burrows19]

Jensen. Would take him as a prospect over Corrado as well but the board has spoken.

 

[thefeebster]

I did watch the scrimmage, yes.

Then why did you ask "Is this based on the scrimmage?" If you watched it, you would know that neither Jensen nor Shinkaruk did much to affect their ranking.

And my "accusations" were not targeted towards any sole individual, but rather HF logic as a whole. Would you disagree with me when I say, for the most part, that the masses on this message board tend to trend towards newer, unknown prospects, rather than existing prospects who in their opinion may not be progressing as well as they would have liked? I think that is a fair statement, and one that I've seen reinforced time and time again throughout my tenure here.

No need for quotations, your accusations were clearly evident. You said twice for that matter "I just don't see how anyone can make a case for Shinkaruk over Jensen". That is not a target on HF logic, that is a target on anyone who voted for Shinkaruk instead of Jensen.

I find what sways people in these votes are people who express their opinions with arguments to back them up.

Is Corrado an unknown? He was leading poll #2 for the majority of the time, down to the last hour IIRC. Is he new?

Last year, Gaunce was the shiny new toy. Where did he end up? Ohhh that's right... #6 after all of our "old toys". This is a direct rebuttal of what you have seen in your tenure.

As such, I am skeptical on Shinkaruk's upside and his ability to reach that upside. Or re-phrased, I don't trust many of the prolific reviews that I am reading. I haven't seen him play outside of parts of the scrimmage and highlights, I think the same could be said for 90% of the people here that are voting him ahead of Jensen. So, the basis of my post was not to attack these posters, but to draw out some conclusions from other posters that have seen them both play extensively. If you have feebster, then please, I'd be enlightened to hear your opinion. I'll gage my own opinion as I have more opportunity to see Shinkaruk play, but up until now it wasn't a primary point of interest for me. I have no interest in listening to the masses, heck, a couple of years ago we had our own Toews and Kane in Hodgson and Schroeder according to many.

It's fine for you to have your opinion and be skeptical of Shinkaruk, but when you start out your post by calling out whoever voted for Shinkaruk as succumbing to "Shiny Toy Mentality" or "Hf boards logic", which we can only take as an insult, you will be called out.

I have made my arguments in the previous poll threads, where it would have made a difference in voting. I have seen both play and IMO, Shinkaruk is higher because of his upside b/c he thinks the game at another level, more skilled, and his on-ice work ethic. The last item is very important IMO, and people will know that i value this more than most if they followed the draft thread. It is difficult to transform a player's work ethic, a mental characteristic. They have to initiate the change themselves, force themselves to work harder than their opponents. And there are games when watching Jensen, he is not accomplishing much at all. His inconsistency has been an issue even in his draft year, and this year just re-affirmed that. That said, I voted for Jensen here and he has a great shot and unnatural knack of scoring with the man advantage.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

Just scanned the thread and noticed

Maybe take a hint from all the people that have seen them both play? I have yet to see anyone who has watched them both, vote for Jensen.

Tiranis, i've seen them both play and I voted for Jensen before him. NHL size and strength means alot. I put alot of weight into it. Theres been so many players with hands like his (Shinkaruk) who put up great numbers, playing vs men at the highest of levels typically weeds out those players. A guy who gets those points while having a big body and can skate well for their size, typically translates better into the nhl. Hes (Shinkaruk) not even all that strong on his feet like what was mentioned at the draft, hes pretty weak. However, i do have them #2 and #3 and it could go either way but to say, Hunter is the clear better prospect. Thats insane. HS has alot of flaws he has to overcome. Jensen just needs to show that the short stint with the AHL last year isn't all he can do. Add in his first 8 games and his numbers look alot better for his first half year in the AHL. But there was an off season cutting that off

You and your love for small players who might top out at 60pts on their best year and be traded a few times because theyre in and out of the 2nd - 3rd line. (raymond like)

I think people need to be realistic about small players on this forum, the likeliness they overcome their size is very slim, there are very few top players on top teams who reach success while being diminutive. most are players the team doesn't keep around and would have no problem letting go. And the guys who typically overcome it are built real strong

I recall Tiranis talking about Schroeder numbers a while ago, and how they were similar to so many other top prospects to show how good he was doing and that he wasn't struggling, however my argument was that his numbers for his size need to be HIGHER because they will drop more going into the nhl with bigger and better D men. Well its true, he matched the numbers in the ahl with alot of better players, and those players are doing much better in the nhl, why? because of size.

For every point Jensen gets in the AHL, schroeder or Hunter should be getting ATLEAST .25 more. Obviously exceptions but its a good general rule or way of looking at things

And regarding the scrimmage, while Jensen may have not done a whole lot, you could tell he was a better player. This guy has NHL vision and theres only so much you can do when every player on the ice is fighting to be noticed, they dont exactly play a typical NHL game. When Jensen got the puck, he looked for NHL types of plays, made great passes, etc - Hunter Shinkaruk on the other hand, skated as hard as he could and held onto it and tried to deke and dangle. Which impressed fans. It made him stand out more but it should hardly make you feel like hes the better prospect

 

[just22]

I think people need to be realistic about small players on this forum, the likeliness they overcome their size is very slim, there are very few top players on top teams who reach success while being diminutive and theyre usually players the team doesn't keep around and would have no problem letting go. And the guys who typically overcome it are built real strong

It's not like Shinkaruk is a midget, he's 5' 10.5" and only 18... not to mention I've seen more battle from Shinkaruk at his height and size than Jensen and his 6 '3" frame

 

[Pseudonymous*]

It's not like Shinkaruk is a midget, he's 5' 10.5" and only 18... not to mention I've seen more battle from Shinkaruk at his height and size than Jensen and his 6 '3" frame

Jensen's stride is much bigger, small players always look like theyre hustling. Also if youre referring to this scrimmage, which i assume you are since I highly doubt you watched his days in the OHL and followed him specifically, it was his very first camp and he has alot to prove for being a small guy who dropped in the draft and in production (even if it was a bit)

Jensen has done this all before. And he has already shown the team his abilities, his abilities are what got him a call up. Theyre well aware. Corrado didn't look like he was trying too hard either. Gaunce didn't either.

And its his (Shinkaruk) height combined with his soft weak body type, wellwood-esque

Jensen will be just fine. His AHL totals are currently 28 games, 8 goals. Thats very good for your first 28 games in a league. Especially since he wasn't their goto player and didn't log alot of minutes and played with pretty low caliber players from what i recall

 

[Luck 6]

Then why did you ask "Is this based on the scrimmage?" If you watched it, you would know that neither Jensen nor Shinkaruk did much to affect their ranking.

No need for quotations, your accusations were clearly evident. You said twice for that matter "I just don't see how anyone can make a case for Shinkaruk over Jensen". That is not a target on HF logic, that is a target on anyone who voted for Shinkaruk instead of Jensen.

I find what sways people in these votes are people who express their opinions with arguments to back them up.

Is Corrado an unknown? He was leading poll #2 for the majority of the time, down to the last hour IIRC. Is he new?

Last year, Gaunce was the shiny new toy. Where did he end up? Ohhh that's right... #6 after all of our "old toys". This is a direct rebuttal of what you have seen in your tenure.

It's fine for you to have your opinion and be skeptical of Shinkaruk, but when you start out your post by calling out whoever voted for Shinkaruk as succumbing to "Shiny Toy Mentality" or "Hf boards logic", which we can only take as an insult, you will be called out.

I have made my arguments in the previous poll threads, where it would have made a difference in voting. I have seen both play and IMO, Shinkaruk is higher because of his upside b/c he thinks the game at another level, more skilled, and his on-ice work ethic. The last item is very important IMO, and people will know that i value this more than most if they followed the draft thread. It is difficult to transform a player's work ethic, a mental characteristic. They have to initiate the change themselves, force themselves to work harder than their opponents. And there are games when watching Jensen, he is not accomplishing much at all. His inconsistency has been an issue even in his draft year, and this year just re-affirmed that. That said, I voted for Jensen here and he has a great shot and unnatural knack of scoring with the man advantage.

In the scrimmage Jensen looked disinterested, where as Shinkaruk looked as if he was putting in far more effort. Near the end Jensen really started to look good, very dominant. All I drew from it was that Jensen had been there and done that, he was going through the motions. Shinkaruk on the other hand looked like he had something to prove. What does this mean? Nothing. Why did I mention it? Because I don't think you can judge Jensen's work ethic from the scrimmage. I'm not saying you were, but a number of people were in the GDT for the scrimmage.

And my point on "shinny new prospects" isn't absolute. I don't even see how you can possibly argue against this as a trend. It's not just Canuck fans, its everyone. When a player is first drafted, they are often touted very highly. Most prospects often lose momentum with fans as they enter the AHL from Juniors, and newer prospects take their place. Schroeder is an example, although he came from college. In his AHL rookie year, he suddenly became a much less attractive prospect as he didn't dominate. Jensen is similar, its his poor AHL stretch that lowered his worth in the eyes of *MOST* fans. Heck, even Hodgson had this happen to him. The guy was deemed untouchable until after our finals run. Suddenly that offseason he was included in a ton of trade proposals. Why? Because he didn't make an immediate impact, and his worth as a prospect in the eyes of many fans lowered.

You seem to be taking my statements very personally where as you're one of the handful of people on this board that should not be. I don't see how you can defend the masses, when the masses often receive their knowledge of Canuck prospects from your highlight videos.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

In the scrimmage Jensen looked disinterested, where as Shinkaruk looked as if he was putting in far more effort. Near the end Jensen really started to look good, very dominant. All I drew from it was that Jensen had been there and done that, he was going through the motions. Shinkaruk on the other hand looked like he had something to prove. What does this mean? Nothing. Why did I mention it? Because I don't think you can judge Jensen's work ethic from the scrimmage. I'm not saying you were, but a number of people were in the GDT for the scrimmage.

And my point on "shinny new prospects" isn't absolute. I don't even see how you can possibly argue against this as a trend. It's not just Canuck fans, its everyone. When a player is first drafted, they are often touted very highly. Most prospects often lose momentum with fans as they enter the AHL from Juniors, and newer prospects take their place. Schroeder is an example, although he came from college. In his AHL rookie year, he suddenly became a much less attractive prospect as he didn't dominate. Jensen is similar, its his poor AHL stretch that lowered his worth in the eyes of *MOST* fans. Heck, even Hodgson had this happen to him. The guy was deemed untouchable until after our finals run. Suddenly that offseason he was included in a ton of trade proposals. Why? Because he didn't make an immediate impact, and his worth as a prospect in the eyes of many fans lowered.

You seem to be taking my statements very personally where as you're one of the handful of people on this board that should not be. I don't see how you can defend the masses, when the masses often receive their knowledge of Canuck prospects from your highlight videos.

I think you nailed it here. The problem with new prospects at last for most of us who haven't seen them play much is that we only hear their good points. What about their weaknesses. With Schroeder, Hodgson, Kassian, Corrado etc you get to see them play and then you can really see why most prospects take a few years to be NHL ready.

 

[arsmaster*]

The best player in the game has half an inch on Shinkaruk.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

The best player in the game has half an inch on Shinkaruk.

Hes also the same size and body type as wellwood, whats your point, whats more likely?

Martin St Louis is how tall, so would you be telling me guys his size that are drafted wont have a hard time?

Looking at exceptions is not the way to consider the likeliness of your prospects.

5'10 and physically weak, without superstar skills doesn't exactly make you a shoe in for the NHL

Im sure he'll be good but im only bringing up his flaws because to say Jensen is a worse prospect for sure and be so confident about it seems a bit strange. especially given the uphill battle shinkaruk has. as all undersized, weak players do

 

[arsmaster*]

I think you nailed it here. The problem with new prospects at last for most of us who haven't seen them play much is that we only hear their good points. What about their weaknesses. With Schroeder, Hodgson, Kassian, Corrado etc you get to see them play and then you can really see why most prospects take a few years to be NHL ready.

So to me that says if you don't believe you've seen enough to have a valid opinion don't post.

Especially with generic terms for "the masses", which could be interpreted as insulting for "prospect junkies".

I watch a ton of junior hockey and I don't feel I can adequately give reports or opinions on every and anyone.

But I do feel I and others do. It's why I often engage conversations with those people as opposed to those who don't.

I'm not trying to be all high and mighty either as I enter threads and comment on random stuff too. Just do my best to enter conversations respectfully and reasonably.

 

[StringerBell]

Hes also the same size and body type as wellwood, whats your point, whats more likely?

Martin St Louis is how tall, so would you be telling me guys his size that are drafted wont have a hard time?

Looking at exceptions is not the way to consider the likeliness of your prospects.

5'10 and physically weak, without superstar skills doesn't exactly make you a shoe in for the NHL

I don't think his height is the detriment you're making it out to be for a top 6 scorer. On average there's around 1-2 guys under 6 feet in each team's top 6, including some of the best players in the world: Crosby, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, St Louis, Parise etc. I'm much more concerned with his strength than I am with his height. He probably needs to add at least 15 lbs to that frame to be able to hold his own in the NHL, but he should be able to do that over the next couple years.

 

[arsmaster*]

I don't think his height is the detriment you're making it out to be for a top 6 scorer. On average there's around 1-2 guys under 6 feet in each team's top 6, including some of the best players in the world: Crosby, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, St Louis, Parise etc. I'm much more concerned with his strength than I am with his height. He probably needs to add at least 15 lbs to that frame to be able to hold his own in the NHL, but he should be able to do that over the next couple years.

When you can dominate your age group for two straight years I think the fact he's physically immature is actually a plus.

5'11" 185lbs is fine.

So want does he need? 10-15 pounds of muscle?

Is that not attainable?

It's incredible. You'd think 5'11 was 5'2" the way it's talked about on here.

One inch isn't a huge difference, it only starts making a difference IMO between really short players (5'7" to 5'9" ish.

Also, have a look at Hunter's dad. Guy is very tall. I'm not sure hunter is done growing, but I don't care if he is.

Plenty of very good 5'10ish players in the league (not sure I belief some of the NHL.com heights of some of these 5'11" guys either...I don't think P Kane is 5'11").

 

[Pseudonymous*]

I don't think his height is the detriment you're making it out to be for a top 6 scorer. On average there's around 1-2 guys under 6 feet in each team's top 6, including some of the best players in the world: Crosby, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, St Louis, Parise etc. I'm much more concerned with his strength than I am with his height. He probably needs to add at least 15 lbs to that frame to be able to hold his own in the NHL, but he should be able to do that over the next couple years.

Its the combination, not one or the other. And not just the weight and height but body type too.

And alot of you guys hoping he grows in height, while sure its possible, the likeliness of somebody growing in height after his age isn't all that high (at all) - Anytime you've seen a prospects height or weight change on sites, its because somebody has incorrect data (typically)

You also listed players with world class abilities. And there are few players like that, players who dont have world class abilities usually have to rely on being nhl size. And yes i know there are players 5'11, an inch when youre borderline is alot. it means your stickhandling and strength has to be that much better, you have less space to stickhandle in, shorter stride, it all adds up

do you notice from 5'11, to 5'10, the number drops a great deal? and even ALOT more going to 5'9, an inch makes a difference. Especially when its an inch combined with much less skill

Sure its possible he is still good, maybe even likely he turns out to be a real good player, but lets not pretend its all that common. and he wouldn't be going against the odds a bit. and it doens't drop him down atleast a peg when you compare him to a guy who has nhl ability and nhl size.

 

[StringerBell]

When you can dominate your age group for two straight years I think the fact he's physically immature is actually a plus.

5'11" 185lbs is fine.

So want does he need? 10-15 pounds of muscle?

Is that not attainable?

It's incredible. You'd think 5'11 was 5'2" the way it's talked about on here.

One inch isn't a huge difference, it only starts making a difference IMO between really short players (5'7" to 5'9" ish.

Also, have a look at Hunter's dad. Guy is very tall. I'm not sure hunter is done growing, but I don't care if he is.

Plenty of very good 5'10ish players in the league (not sure I belief some of the NHL.com heights of some of these 5'11" guys either...I don't think P Kane is 5'11").

I'm not sure, maybe a bit more. If he wants to get in the range of guys like Skinner, Parise Duchene, Crosby, etc he'll need to put on 20lbs. Some guys his height like Giroux and Eberle can excel at 175-185, but they're a bit more rare. Either way, he's got some work cut out for him in the weight room.

Its the combination, not one or the other. And not just the weight and height but body type too.

And alot of you guys hoping he grows in height, while sure its possible, the likeliness of somebody growing in height after his age isn't all that high (at all) - Anytime you've seen a prospects height or weight change on sites, its because somebody has incorrect data (typically)

You also listed players with world class abilities. And there are few players like that, players who dont have world class abilities usually have to rely on being nhl size. And yes i know there are players 5'11, an inch when youre borderline is alot. it means your stickhandling and strength has to be that much better, you have less space to stickhandle in, shorter stride, it all adds up

do you notice from 5'11, to 5'10, the number drops a great deal? and even ALOT more going to 5'9, an inch makes a difference. Especially when its an inch combined with much less skill

I listed the ones with world class abilities on purpose to prove that players can excel at that height. And if he measured 5'10.5" at the combine he'll be listed at at least 5'11" in the NHL, so I'm not really worried how much the number drops for guys 5'10" or shorter.