HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Dallas Stars (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Is Jack Campbell a bust (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1136817)

prob22 03-16-2012 01:02 PM

Is Jack Campbell a bust
 
This guy just keeps giving us reasons to think that he wont live up to to goalie expectations. Can we call this kid a bust yet. I dont think he has chance to make the Stars roster anytime soon.

Stars99Lobo37 03-16-2012 01:08 PM

He's 20 and he plays on a terrible team...

MetalGodAOD 03-16-2012 01:31 PM

Wayyyy too early to say.

Cin 03-16-2012 01:36 PM

He has 5 more years until we'll actually know.

ReverendAlBundy 03-16-2012 02:18 PM

In my mind he has a pretty steep hill to climb not to be a bust. We basically gave up James Neal to draft him, and not only being the first goalie, but the first American drafted puts a pretty heavy weight on his shoulders.

txomisc 03-16-2012 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hecantscorefromthere (Post 46188421)
In my mind he has a pretty steep hill to climb not to be a bust. We basically gave up James Neal to draft him, and not only being the first goalie, but the first American drafted puts a pretty heavy weight on his shoulders.

When you put it that way, which I dont think is 100% unfair, its pretty sad. As much as I like Goligoski, I do think taking a Dman with that pick rather than Campbell sends us on a totally different path on which it is fair to guess that we dont trade Neal. Of course on that path we may not have gotten Oleksiak either.

LatvianTwist 03-16-2012 03:08 PM

But then again, we could have McNeill instead of Oleksiak.

txomisc 03-16-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LatvianTwist (Post 46190693)
But then again, we could have McNeill instead of Oleksiak.

Very true although people seem to be a bit down on McNeil right now.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin 03-16-2012 04:05 PM

No...He hasn't even played a single game of professional hockey, all the junior teams he has been on have horrible defensively, as well as run and gun systems.

piqued 03-16-2012 04:50 PM

The excuse that the teams he plays on are terrible defensively is beginning to wear thin. Shouldn't we be talking about how Campbell is elevating these teams with his own play and wallpapering over defensive shortcomings?

Faidh ar Rud Eigin 03-16-2012 05:07 PM

No such thing as a goalie carrying a team in junior.

We'll see what he does next year.

LatvianTwist 03-16-2012 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prophet of Glennie (Post 46195319)
No such thing as a goalie carrying a team in junior.

We'll see what he does next year.

This. Even the best junior goalies can't carry their team.

piqued 03-16-2012 05:42 PM

I didn't say carry, I said elevate.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin 03-16-2012 06:33 PM

For a goalie to elevate his junior team, there needs to be at least a decent defense and a system that allows that defense to operate in an efficient manner. Campbell hasn't had that in Windsor or Sault St Marie.

BigG44 03-16-2012 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 46196529)
I didn't say carry, I said elevate.

To be fair, most of the people who actually watch says he does elevate the team. Every comment is pretty much he was the best guy on the ice, and it would have been significantly worse if he wasn't playing.

The Goalie Guild is a rejected goalie guy, and he was one of those people not phased by his stats.

piqued 03-16-2012 08:12 PM

Alright. But I can already hear people blaming the Cedar Park defense next year.

Bennrocks 03-16-2012 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 46196529)
I didn't say carry, I said elevate.

fwiw his GAA is almost an entire goal lower than the other goalie on his team :dunno:

Saucechucker99 03-16-2012 09:25 PM

Way to early to call the guy a bust. He's still a junior goalie playing on a junior hockey team, most goalies are into their mid twenties by the time the develop. Look at guys like Jimmy Howard who is 27, guys like Price haven't even reached their full potential yet and he's 24. I think if he comes into the AHL next year and starts around half the games and does well he's going to be fine.

catters078 03-16-2012 09:27 PM

It can be much harder to be a goalie in juniors and the minors than it is in the NHL.

BigG44 03-16-2012 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigG44 (Post 46199581)
To be fair, most of the people who actually watch says he does elevate the team. Every comment is pretty much he was the best guy on the ice, and it would have been significantly worse if he wasn't playing.

The Goalie Guild is a rejected goalie guy, and he was one of those people not phased by his stats.

Yeah .... I was still on my phone when I posted this.

Rejected should be respected.

BigG44 03-16-2012 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piqued (Post 46203493)
Alright. But I can already hear people blaming the Cedar Park defense next year.

Just for example .... Nick Ebert was considered one of the best defensive prospects available in one of the best defensive drafts (2012) in a while as recently as last season. ISS still was listing him Top 10 at the beginning of the year.

He played with Campbell in Windsor, and this year he's struggled mightily. To start the year he just wasn't scoring, but his defensive stats looked ago. In the 2nd half of the season, his scoring has picked up, but his defensive play has fallen apart.

Once a top draft prospect, he's fallen to the 2nd and even 3rd round in some people's eyes (similar to Brandon Saad).

I've read several articles that claim his early season defensive play was nothing more than the Jack Campbell effect, and his play in his own zone is more accurate for the type of player he's been this year.

I will admit that I was a bit worried about Campbell. I think that's natural when most of us in Texas aren't getting to watch OHL games. When a guy like the Goalie Guild is endorsing him though ... I listen. That guy has a better opinion than my ability to read a stat line. Plus, scouts are obviously picking up on Campbell's effect on D prospects in this draft.

Faidh ar Rud Eigin 03-16-2012 11:32 PM

Love that you brought up Ebert, I didn't even think of that. Ebert was at least decent defensively when Campbell was still there, but now he's atrocious, seems like half the goals Windsor lets in can be traced back to him in some way.

OT but I used to think maybe we should take a flyer on him with one of our second rounders but no way now.

LatvianTwist 03-17-2012 12:05 AM

The Goalie Guild is probably the best place to go for anything goalie related, period.

If Ebert's there in the 3rd round, I'd risk it. Kind of a Kabanov type pick, I suppose.

Besides, if it's a Campbell effect, and we've got both of them... :naughty:

LohPilot 03-18-2012 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prob22 (Post 46184775)
This guy just keeps giving us reasons to think that he wont live up to to goalie expectations. Can we call this kid a bust yet. I dont think he has chance to make the Stars roster anytime soon.

I agree with the others! It is to early to make to tell! However, if we need a shutdown defenseman or that top forward and trade is the only course and that team needs a goalie prospect, Campbell should be available.

tjcurrie 03-18-2012 08:11 PM

When Ed Belfour turned 20, he just finished his season with the Winkler Flyers of the Manitoba Junior Hockey League. He finished with a GAA of 4.41 in 34 games.

I know Campbell is a high pick and people are expecting bigger things as he progresses, but like BigG44 says - watching him play and getting info from someone who knows what's up means more than just reading some stats online or in the paper. Like most are saying here though, it's too early to really give him a label other than "work in progress".

Besides, he gave me the blocker he used in this years WJrs so he CANT be a bust :yo:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.