View Single Post
Old
08-21-2012, 07:56 PM
  #28
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,773
vCash: 500
Details

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
So is your point that traditional methods at the time didn't identify St. Louis as a future star? (And isn't that obvious?)

Iain's point is that the right things existed to be looked at (they just weren't being used at the time).
My point is that both St. Louis and Perrin chose paths in their hockey careers that were outside the the normal hockey path of the era. The scouting and drafting in 1994 reflected the skepticism of the day.

Specifically both players were very clear that if they chose the university path they would be a duo.Likewise if they chose the Q.

As a result they took a step back during their pre draft careers to retain eligibility for the American university option. Effectively both suffered from some incompletes - no significant international competition, short season schedules, limited systems experience both in terms of playing and playing against, in their hockey resumee going into their draft year. Then there was the question about how they would perform as individuals as opposed to a duo, needed some answers.

As a result they were not well perceived from a risk standpoint by the NHL scouting/GM establishment given the incompletes and questions. The same issues were considerations for other Quebec players, regardless of size, who missed a year of mainstream hockey development to retain their US university eligibility.This is unique and necessary to Quebec since high school ends at grade eleven.

As for Iain's point. Hard to comment without seeing his data and appreciating how the incompletes are viewed or accounted for in the rankings.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-21-2012 at 07:58 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote