View Single Post
10-01-2012, 01:40 PM
Nullus Reverentia
Registered User
Nullus Reverentia's Avatar
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Periphery
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 17,503
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
The point is valid about guys who are more polished and have had better coaching and development up until this point. However, I think "projectibility" is just a complicated way of saying that someone somewhere saw something in Campbell that they figured could be honed into the realm of the elite. But if Gibson's talent is already proven to be elite without nearly as much honing needed, isn't that a safer bet to succeed?

Projecting goalies at 18 years old has always been a crap shoot. Lots of guys who were considered raw but with lots of upside ended up flopping big time. I hope Campbell does develop and does end up a top-end guy, but there's certainly no proof or strong reasoning at this point to suggest he'll be better than Gibson.
That's like saying there's no proof or strong reasoning to suggest Connor McDavid will be better than Ryan Strome. It's not that projecting goalies is a crapshot, it's goalies have a lot more development to do then skaters, so they aren't safe picks.

Projectibility is all about what a player can do at the NHL level, and the only comparable goalie drafted since the lockout (2006 draft-present) is Andrey Vasilevski from the last draft. When talking before the 2010 draft, scouts talked about 3 players having franchise potential (That's probably expanded to 4 now with Skinner), Hall, Seguin, and Jack Campbell.

Gibson's been great and he's exceeded expectations but let's wait before saying he's better than Campbell just because he put up better stats in the OHL. Campbell looked pretty amazing when he went to the AHL last year, and he never had the benefit of playing for a strong defensive club.

Nullus Reverentia is offline