He's SIXTEEN. He turned SIXTEEN in September and put up 78 points in his first season in the CHL. 13pts in 8 playoff games to boot.
Crosby put up 133. Tavares had 134. Stamkos had 92. Taylor Hall had 84.
Of top level forwards who've played in the CHL at 16 since Crosby, Mackinnon is one of the LEAST impressive if you go just by stats. Only RNH had fewer points among potential first overalls.
Of course I'm not saying you should go just by stats, but every year it seems the "next one" is the "best prospect since Crosby" or something like that.
Crosby put up 133. Tavares had 134. Stamkos had 92. Taylor Hall had 84.
Of top level forwards who've played in the CHL at 16 since Crosby, Mackinnon is one of the LEAST impressive if you go just by stats. Only RNH had fewer points among potential first overalls.
Of course I'm not saying you should go just by stats, but every year it seems the "next one" is the "best prospect since Crosby" or something like that.
"Since Crosby" excludes Crosby from the comparison
2ndly, Tavares had a season in before that due to OHL's exceptional player status rule. (QMJHL doesn't have this)
3rdly, MacKinnon has the same pts/game than Hall did. 78pts in 58 games (1.34) vs 84 in 63 (1.33)
Whether they're as impressive as the others is debatable and irrelevant since that's not the argument I'm replying to. It's incredibly unintelligent to say his numbers aren't impressive.
"Since Crosby" excludes Crosby from the comparison
2ndly, Tavares had a season in before that due to OHL's exceptional player status rule. (QMJHL doesn't have this)
3rdly, MacKinnon has the same pts/game than Hall did. 78pts in 58 games (1.34) vs 84 in 63 (1.33)
Whether they're as impressive as the others is debatable and irrelevant since that's not the argument I'm replying to. It's incredibly unintelligent to say his numbers aren't impressive.
I agree they're impressive, but I believe the post you quoted was saying he was not impressive in the context of him being considered "the best prospect since Crosby".
I agree they're impressive, but I believe the post you quoted was saying he was not impressive in the context of him being considered "the best prospect since Crosby".
"I don't see how he is the best since Crosby when his numbers in the QMJHL are not impressive at all."
"I'm saying how is he looking like the best prospect since Crosby when his numbers aren't impressive"
I'm not convinced, at least not when I see "at all" which suggests to me that in any context he's unimpressive.
Hasn't it been stop winnin for MacKinnon for awhile now? That's what I go with.
93 pts in 67 games... Who said that was unimpressive again
i believe what he meant was that his numbers are good for a young player but not elite for a number one overall pick if he goes there like people have been saying he will. his ppg is almost identical to hall`s while not a bad number one overall pick he isnt on a crosby level like everyone keeps compairing mackinnon to
i believe what he meant was that his numbers are good for a young player but not elite for a number one overall pick if he goes there like people have been saying he will. his ppg is almost identical to hall`s while not a bad number one overall pick he isnt on a crosby level like everyone keeps compairing mackinnon to
He's a number one pick NEXT YEAR. He's started his junior career in the same manner as Tavares, Stamkos, etc. No reason to cut him down because he's not Crosby.
He's no Gretzky either. Glad we've got that out of the way.
