View Single Post
Old
06-30-2008, 08:48 AM
  #25
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
Problem is that it's not just the stats that make or break a player.

A few factors to keep in mind is that both Byers and Korpikoski are two years YOUNGER than Jessiman.

Byers projects as a fourth liner who aggrivates and pops in points, I'm not sure if Hugh would really fill that role the way Byers would. There's a certain mindset to that role, and I just can't see Hugh bringing that to the table.

Korpikoski has excellent hockey sense, which is not one of Hugh's strengths. He projects as a smart third line player who covers his own end and can put in around 20 goals if he progresses.

Heck for all the talk about Jessiman, why don't we mention Greg Moore in that conversation. He's a big guy who came from the college ranks and is the same age as Hugh. Moore is all of two days older and has out-performed him in two pro seasons by a pretty big margin. In fact he does one better than your fourth round comment about Hugh, he was a fifth round pick.

Yet somehow Moore has little shot at the NHL and never seems to get mentioned in these conversations. Ironic isn't it? Moore performs at a level we would gush over Hugh for and yet he's ignored.


Therein lies one of my big problems with most conversations about Hugh and why I can't help myself whenever he comes up in coversation. Stuff that would just not fly for ANY other prospect is acceptable for him.

There are just players this board can't help but that do that with and Hugh is one of them. I don't know but for the last 8 or 9 years we fall in love with a kid who really doesn't look like he's going to make it and we just latch onto them. We get into multi-page arguments over them and we insist that "they'll make it if we give them a chance."

Yet everytime a kid makes it, he shows the same thing. A higher level of performance at the AHL or the ability to bring one or two distinct abilities to the pro team. Additionally, we almost never have to make an excuse for them for very long or attempt to twist their game into something more than what they actually showed.

That's what seperates the Girardi's for the Baranka's. The Staal's for the Pocks, the Dubinsky's from the Immonen's and Lundmark's and the Dawes,Korpikoski's and others from the Jessiman's.
I understand where you're coming from regarding Moore - and I certainly hope he does make that next step to the NHL and becomes a productive 3rd/4th liner for us. He was one of my favorite prospects when he joined the Wolfpack from Maine and made a big splash a couple of years ago.

But to be fair to Hugh, in addition to his hot streaks Moore has also suffered some confounding slumps, and he didn't exactly set the world on fire when he did get callups to the big club. I'm looking from more from BOTH players this year.

If they do both continue to progress, I actually see more of an upside to Hugh's game. That's why I still support the big guy - he shows flashes of ability that I've never seen from Moore. For Moore, I hope that he continues to take incremental steps and bring the same style of game to the big club, whereas for Jessiman, I want to see the gaps filled in (if that makes any sense). I'm very curious to see what happens in training camp (assuming they sign Hugh as I hope that they will) with both of these guys.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote