View Single Post
07-21-2013, 08:46 PM
Registered User
Mathletic's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,473
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Grant McCagg View Post
Watch Hugh Jessiman play sometime and get back to me..okay? You'd swear from the way you're describing him that he was an NHL star. What's his weakness then if all of this is apparently true? He is not a good skater and doesn't have good hands...period. Maybe a couple of incompetent scouts watching him play thought differently at the time..obviously they were wrong were they not?

Here's a little tidbit for you I dug up regarding how "enamoured" the Rangers were with him

"One of the best lunches I've had in the past year, was with a former scout of the New York Rangers, who was on the staff when they picked Jessiman. He told me that only ONE of the teams scouts ACTUALLY saw Jessiman play, but he convinced the top dogs that Hugh was the pick. BTW...the rest of the scouts were favouring Mike Richards as the pick.

Most of the other scouts, after seeing Jessiman play, first reaction was 'you gotta be kidding me. this kid will never play in the NHL'.

The scout, although I won't mention his name, was a former GM of the Kitchener Rangers, and is from Thunder home town."


What this fellow said very much goes in line with what I heard about Jessiman from other scouts when he was drafted...they couldn't believe that the Rangers chose him in the first round at all..let alone 11th overall.

Having no discernible weaknesses is good when you're 6-5 and have a physical presence.. We're not talking about a 5-11 kid here. Pro scouts and the likes of Mark Hunter have continuously talked about how well Mac skates and handles the puck for his size. There is plenty of upside to go with the no discernible weaknesses. Makes for a safe draft pick in my mind...certainly not a potential bust like Jessiman, who was not a good skater from all reports I recall, and still isn't. It's the main reason why he remains the only top 30 pick from that draft not to play in the NHL.

Hurley had one goal in 11 games...and played on the third and fourth line. Check out McCarron's goal stats his last 11 games...he scored more than once I can tell you. For a kid that was so hyped and dubbed a "power forward, Hurley disappointed a lot of scouts with his lack of offensive upside once he faced better competition. I heard from several scouts that he had "no hands"...haven't heard that about McCarron from anyone other than Grind your Gears.
Seriously, I get that you're passionate about the Habs and have infinite respect for Trevor Timmmis. I do to (maybe not infinite but a lot). Probably one of the best if not the best in the business. But this is a bit much at times.

First of all, I don't think I said any more about Jessiman than you said about McCarron. Simply using the same words you used. Good hands and good skater for a player his size. All I said. It's one thing to say that Jessiman hasn't developed over the years but back in 2003, people were saying almost the same thing about Jessiman.

As for your source, good for him. Easy to wash your hands afterwards. It's like the thing that came out a few years ago saying only TT wanted Kostitsyn while Savard wanted Carter.

Also, all scouts miss. TT drafted David Fisher of all people. Rangers had their share of good picks as well. It's not like they're the only ones who pointed out that Jessiman had good skating and good hands for a big man. There are other sources pointing out the same elements of his game.

Of course all prospects are different. For each and everyone of them you can build an argument saying that this prospect is unlike any other before who has come before him and you'd be right. That said, for me McCarron enters the category of big men at forward, though not unskilled (i.e. a pure goon) but still has a lot of development to do until he plays an important role in the NHL. But most of all, have to find their "chair" to sit in. That is a defined role in which they are successful. I like big men at forward who are solid defensively. That's how they can best use their size. Personally, I prefer prospects like Brouwer who had great defense but still had to develop offensively. That way, worst case scenario, if they conitnue to improve like everyone else, they'll still be solid in one area of the game and have their place on the team. Not sure where McCarron fits thus far. That's why I preferd Hayden as far as big men came in this draft. Of course, though not McCarron big, Hayden wasn't small by any means. However, Hayden is already a very good defensive player and plays tough defensive minutes.

I noted that there is a bust factor with McCarron. There is with any player in this draft. MacKinnon could bust, so could Drouin or Jones. Some are riskier than others. Several prospects similar to McCarron had troubles adjusting to the AHL (let alone the NHL). Even succesful ones, like Bickell, took quite a bit of time developing in the AHL.

I'll argue in the favor of the Canadiens saying that having so many good prospects like Galcheyuk, Hudon, Collberg, Bozon, Gallagher and list goes on that they can use one of their picks for a special kind of player like McCarron. Despite the risk/reward he represents, the risk can be considered lower since the Habs have good prospects. But similar players to McCarron have busted in the past. It's not true that big men have it easier than others adjusting to the NHL. Canadiens had their share in the 90's.

If you want to compare McCarron to Hurley, then in order to compare apples to apples and not apples and oranges, I'd rather compare Hurley's first 10 games to McCarron's first 10 games in the USHL. Their experience would be much closer. Most will agree that until midway through this season (his second USHL season), McCarron was considered a mid-round pick. It's not until the various tournaments and the U18 that McCaron rose in the rankings. Of course, could be that he was on Habs' radar for longer than that but still. Not a big fan of players who rise to fame during short tournaments and playoffs. I think it leads to what we discussed in a different thread, people pay (in the case of playoffs performers) for statistical anomalies more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Lebowski View Post
This whole bust argument is really going nowhere if people don't share the same view of the word bust.

If McCarron turns out into a Brandon Prust, i.e. serviceable 3rd liner/ideal 4th liner that can chip in from time to time and isn't afraid to drop 'em against pretty much anyone... Should he be considered a bust? I for one wouldn't be ecstatic, not because McCarron wouldn't help the Habs if that's how things turned out, but simply because this draft class has been shoved down our throats for quite a while as the second coming of the 2003 draft, in which you had stars popping out from everywhere. So put into context, would he end up as a fringe 3rd liner, I would tend to consider him as an underwhelming pick, at worst a "bust".

I'm personally not much of a fan of that pick, mostly because there were much more naturally gifted players available at that spot. There's however many more things to consider when it comes to drafting a player, character and maturity being some of them, and these are the sort of things scouts/NHL team's management are much more aware than us fans.

Anyway, to not consider McCarron a bust, he would need, for me, to become at least a decent top 6 player. By that [my] definition, his bust ratio is rather high, because like I said, I don't see all that much natural skills in him, compared to Zykov, for example. I certainly do hope he proves me wrong though, in a similar fashion to what Pacioretty did in the last couple of years.
I see it pretty much the way you do. Hope he proves me wrong.

Last edited by Mathletic: 07-21-2013 at 09:10 PM.
Mathletic is offline