View Single Post
Old
10-19-2004, 10:39 AM
  #19
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
i find the argument that because he started scoring later it won't translate, to be kind of curious....

so if a guy improves his game when he's a little older, then it doesn't matter cuz he still sucks? but if he's been good all along but doesn't really improve a lot, then he's still awesome?

maybe paiement is a steal and maybe he's not, but i'd rather have a player who continues to improve after his draft years than to have a guy who's good going into the draft and never progresses beyond that point
I'm not saying that this is the absolute truth; I'm just saying that this is a general trend believed in scouting (and of course it's all meaningless unless you've seen a prospect play). Scoring earlier tends to mean that the player is scoring on talent. The adjustment to Juniors is not as great as the adjustment to the AHL or the NHL. A talented player will still find ways to score. There are talented players that need a longer learning curve and pull it together later, but if you draft a player like that, you are taking the risk that he'll never pull it together (re: Dave Inman). Players that score later tend to do so because they've learned to score in Juniors. They use little tricks that won't work against older players and exploit miscues that won't be there in pro leagues. So as I just said, until Paiement shows that he can translate his game to (at least) the AHL level, I view him as more suspect than prospect.

Kodiak is offline