C'mon folks, surely if you class yourself as "educated" hockey fans then you know how pointless it is to compare Sheifele to Couturier at this stage in their careers!?!
I must be in the minority (or maybe just quiet majority), but I think Scheifele's going to be a gem of a pick in a few years.
I'm with you, a lot of my friends (not on HF) are too. We see what we assume Chevy and the scouts saw with the on-ice stuff, and we like it. And we love the kid's attitude, he seems exactly like a character who will fit in well with the team chemistry we're guessing Chevy is looking to create. I think Couturier will have a great NHL career, but I also think that in the end both teams will have gotten the right player for them.
C'mon folks, surely if you class yourself as "educated" hockey fans then you know how pointless it is to compare Sheifele to Couturier at this stage in their careers!?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke49
I didn't want to say anything butttttt.... lol
There are a lot less people on this forum with that problem than all the geniuses that want to do it on the main boards.
There are only a few here that can't let a pick made not even a year ago go.
MOST people here want to see how it plays out over the course of 6-7 years before a judgment is made.
Just keep in mind that some simply would have preferred that Wpg took SC over Scheif regardless of current production, development, or potential 5 years down the road.
Doesn't mean they're/we're uneducated, impatient, stupid (at least on this topic haha)
Just keep in mind that some simply would have preferred that Wpg took SC over Scheif regardless of current production, development, or potential 5 years down the road.
Doesn't mean they're/we're uneducated, impatient, stupid (at least on this topic haha)
For sure. I'm sure by that token there are people that wanted Hamilton as well. Both are / will be good players.
Same thing as this year. Someone may like Reinhart when we are up, and someone else may like Faksa (if they are both available).
The frustrating thing is really the "Hey, Couturier is in the NHL now! why didn't we take him?" crowd that is annoying to listen to.
Every single person in hockey knew that Couturier was ready for the NHL this year. NHL readiness was one of his strengths. So people using something that was already widely known AT THE DRAFT, as some sort of new revelation to prove their point is beyond ridiculous.
We won't know how this decision turns out for at least 5 years.
Just keep in mind that some simply would have preferred that Wpg took SC over Scheif regardless of current production, development, or potential 5 years down the road.
Doesn't mean they're/we're uneducated, impatient, stupid (at least on this topic haha)
It is, however, illogical to be in favour of one guy over the other without taking all of those other things into account. What are you saying, you prefer Couturier because of the way he looks? His production, development and potential are pivotal factors in the decision to draft someone.
Just keep in mind that some simply would have preferred that Wpg took SC over Scheif regardless of current production, development, or potential 5 years down the road.
Doesn't mean they're/we're uneducated, impatient, stupid (at least on this topic haha)
This is the group I fit into. I was stoked when I saw the Sens picking, Z-bad and Couturier both on the board? Couldn't have turned out any better. I saw Scheifele as a 10-15 type of pick, a slight reach, but maybe(and given their profession, probably) they knew something I didn't.
Now we play the sit and wait game. This year in Barrie I got to see him play a few games. I was really excited to see him try to get more pucks on net, his goal scoring is greatly improved from last year. Points(per game) were also up, but I would've liked to see a more substantial improvement. All in all, it was a harmless decision sending him down. We've seen Burmi struggle for two years after being rushed, hopefully Mark will be ready for the big club next year and prove us right.
It is, however, illogical to be in favour of one guy over the other without taking all of those other things into account. What are you saying, you prefer Couturier because of the way he looks? His production, development and potential our pivotal factors in the decision to draft someone.
This is the group I fit into. I was stoked when I saw the Sens picking, Z-bad and Couturier both on the board? Couldn't have turned out any better. I saw Scheifele as a 10-15 type of pick, a slight reach, but maybe(and given their profession, probably) they knew something I didn't.
Now we play the sit and wait game. This year in Barrie I got to see him play a few games. I was really excited to see him try to get more pucks on net, his goal scoring is greatly improved from last year. Points(per game) were also up, but I would've liked to see a more substantial improvement. All in all, it was a harmless decision sending him down. We've seen Burmi struggle for two years after being rushed, hopefully Mark will be ready for the big club next year and prove us right.
Solid post, we won't know one way or the other for a couple more years. It seems that Dale had Mark really work on his play away from the puck this year, which may be a reason that his offense didn't improve as much as you thought it would. Even still his ppg place would have put him top 5 in the OHL which is really good.
Even still his ppg place would have put him top 5 in the OHL which is really good.
I've seen this mentioned but isn't it a top 5 pace only if you don't adjust for the other players who didn't play a full year of hockey?(being in the NHL as well) That said I'm happy with Mark.
I've seen this mentioned but isn't it a top 5 pace only if you don't adjust for the other players who didn't play a full year of hockey?(being in the NHL as well) That said I'm happy with Mark.
It is. Still I went through one day recently and did PPG pace for all the OHL players (wish that was easily searchable on their site) and Mark was still really nicely positioned there, especially for an 18/19 year old -- a number of the kids over him were undrafted overagers putting up huge numbers as they do. I wish I could remember where he was at and forgot to write it down, but he was definitely in the top chunk of all OHL for PPG. Just not Top 5. He's also pretty much same PPG pace as Strome (Strome was a hair above him) so that's a handy comparison. And of course he was also a healthy increase over last year's PPG even with a lot more grief from opposition defenders.
18th is not a late first. Glad to see you've given up already.
And what does hockey news know? Anything.
Funny how people complain about us not taking Couturier because he's playing in the NHL yet they'll sit here and complain about Burmi and Bogosian being rushed and not spending more time developing.
Hardly a fair comparison. Couturier looks like a veteran out there. It's not close. Burmi needed more time. Couturier is thriving.
Obviously we could say "we'll see how good Schiefele is in 5 years" but you could say that about any prospect. You could say...well Edmonton got RNH, but for all we know Huberdeau could be better. The BPA was clear, and he's paying instant dividends to the team that picked him.
Before the draft I figured it would be impossible for my team to get one of the stud forward prospects they desperately needed- RNH, Hubedeau, Landeskog and Couturier were going to go fast with only 2 standout D (Larsson and Hamilton). Then Devils won the lottery, making the chances even slimmer.
When Strome went off the board I got excited. Then Zibanejad went next and my jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe how lucky the Jets had gotten. Here was their chance to make the first player drafted in a Jets 2 uniform a franchise player, start the franchise off on the right foot. Then they took Scheifele.
Even if he turns out to be a solid NHLer, they looked a miracle pick in the eye and said, "No thank you."
It looked crazy then, it looks insane now. What are the odds it will look good in 5 years? Who knows, but if it's this hard to look back and wonder what might have been now, then I hate to even think about it.
Before the draft I figured it would be impossible for my team to get one of the stud forward prospects they desperately needed- RNH, Hubedeau, Landeskog and Couturier were going to go fast with only 2 standout D (Larsson and Hamilton). Then Devils won the lottery, making the chances even slimmer.
When Strome went off the board I got excited. Then Zibanejad went next and my jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe how lucky the Jets had gotten. Here was their chance to make the first player drafted in a Jets 2 uniform a franchise player, start the franchise off on the right foot. Then they took Scheifele.
Even if he turns out to be a solid NHLer, they looked a miracle pick in the eye and said, "No thank you."
It looked crazy then, it looks insane now. What are the odds it will look good in 5 years? Who knows, but if it's this hard to look back and wonder what might have been now, then I hate to even think about it.
Serious question DungeonK (not trolling). I really tuned into this process late last year right around draft time and it seems like you were all over it.
Why do you think The Isles, Ottawa, the Winnipeg all took centers above Couturier? Sean was a very high rated draft pick then slid? he does look good but I won't anoint him a miracle pick yet he put up Respectable 4th line numbers this year 13 goals 14 assists 27 points and with all the Flyers strengths they don't have amazing centers now that Richards and Carter left so Sean could be as high as 2nd line next year but we still need to see his offensive upside.
I am puzzled why he was passed over? Blues 10 mentioned Sylvain (Sean's dad) Was pulling a Carl Lindros and dictating who could and couldn't interview his son which would be one plausible explanation why slighted organizations might have wanted to save some head aches?
it should be fun to see how it plays out but the Atlanta Scouts were very high on Mark from all accounts?
Before the draft I figured it would be impossible for my team to get one of the stud forward prospects they desperately needed- RNH, Hubedeau, Landeskog and Couturier were going to go fast with only 2 standout D (Larsson and Hamilton). Then Devils won the lottery, making the chances even slimmer.
When Strome went off the board I got excited. Then Zibanejad went next and my jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe how lucky the Jets had gotten. Here was their chance to make the first player drafted in a Jets 2 uniform a franchise player, start the franchise off on the right foot. Then they took Scheifele.
Even if he turns out to be a solid NHLer, they looked a miracle pick in the eye and said, "No thank you."
It looked crazy then, it looks insane now. What are the odds it will look good in 5 years? Who knows, but if it's this hard to look back and wonder what might have been now, then I hate to even think about it.
oh boy. This is the problem. I wasn't going to do this as this argument is really like beating our heads against a cement wall in the hopes it will give.
what fortune teller has forecast couturier as a franchise forward? really, please tell me if you talked to miss cleo or what. is it becaue of his fantastic ohl numbers? the guys at arctic ice hockey posted a great article showing similar nhl players performance in the o, and while there was a couple franchise players there, there were run of the mill top 6 rers and even *gasp* a couple busts! Oh no, it must be his stellar and outstanding rookie nhl season? you know the one that doesnt even pace Sam Gagne's rookie season? that franchise player?
THIS is our problem. THIS is why this argument is insanity. People continue to say "its clear he was bpa" "it's clear hes a franchise forward". No. It's not clear that he was bpa, it won't be for 5 years when we see how they develope. by your standard hauberdau shouldn't have gone before him. and strome. and zibanejad. Its also not clear he's a franchise forward, it's not even clear RNH is franchise forward at this point!
Just stop with this please. I beg you. Stop saying he's a franchise forward, your doing a blind injustice to everyfranchise forward playing by saying that. stop saying he was bpa. people that know more then you decided he wasn't.
it's fine to be upset, it's fine to have "liked" him more, but stop making blind statements.
IMO Mark scheifele is the son of paul bunion and mother teresa. He'll win a stanly cup 2020 as well as every trophy in the league. he'll also save the planet...twice.
Before the draft I figured it would be impossible for my team to get one of the stud forward prospects they desperately needed- RNH, Hubedeau, Landeskog and Couturier were going to go fast with only 2 standout D (Larsson and Hamilton). Then Devils won the lottery, making the chances even slimmer.
When Strome went off the board I got excited. Then Zibanejad went next and my jaw hit the floor. I couldn't believe how lucky the Jets had gotten. Here was their chance to make the first player drafted in a Jets 2 uniform a franchise player, start the franchise off on the right foot. Then they took Scheifele.
This is pretty much exactly how I felt, too. Could not believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind
THIS is our problem. THIS is why this argument is insanity. People continue to say "its clear he was bpa" "it's clear hes a franchise forward". No. It's not clear that he was bpa, it won't be for 5 years when we see how they develope. by your standard hauberdau shouldn't have gone before him. and strome. and zibanejad. Its also not clear he's a franchise forward, it's not even clear RNH is franchise forward at this point!
I'm not going to argue on someone else's behalf, but I will say a few things here:
1. Scheifele was a reach at #7. This is fact. Looking at just about any other list out there going into the draft, he was a mid first-rounder. A "riser", but still no one had him going as high as #7. I'm not saying scouts knows everything, but if you go by the consensus at the time of the draft Scheifele would not have been taken at #7.
2. Couturier had mono in his draft year (according to Pierre Maguire, anyway) and that's why he fell. He was the #1 ranked 17 year old going into the 2010-11 season (again a fact)
3. Scheifele only had one year in the OHL going into the draft. Most players picked in the first round have two. Couturier had three. Any player with only one year of major junior is going to be a riskier pick than a player with two or three years under his belt: you've just had more time to evaluate them against tougher competition.
My conclusion from all this is that Scheifele was a risky pick at #7. Maybe it's a case of higher risk, higher reward, but don't forget that means higher risk. His upside might be Patrick Sharp, his downside might be Patrik Stefan. We don't know.
Couturier on the other hand is Philly's #3, and probably could have been our #2 this year (Little and Burmi are not Giroux and Briere). Just saying.
I'm not going to argue on someone else's behalf, but I will say a few things here:
1. Scheifele was a reach at #7. This is fact. Looking at just about any other list out there going into the draft, he was a mid first-rounder. A "riser", but still no one had him going as high as #7. I'm not saying scouts knows everything, but if you go by the consensus at the time of the draft Scheifele would not have been taken at #7.
My issue with this is no draft ever goes by the "consensus". Furthermore that consensus is what, independent scouting agencies? if their so valuable, why does every team in the league employ its own army of scouts? Furthermore, the "consensus" of scouting lists within an individual agencies scouting team is tenuous at best and often VERY hotly contested. Finally where did these lists have him? #3-#4 correct? How many lists is that? 4-5?. yet obviously the "lists" of 4-5 professional hockey teams whos scouting reports actually result in the picking of a player said "nope." your consensus has suddenly dropped to 50%.
Quote:
2. Couturier had mono in his draft year (according to Pierre Maguire, anyway) and that's why he fell. He was the #1 ranked 17 year old going into the 2010-11 season (again a fact).
All arguments stated above apply to this as well. I know I get it, he looked really good at 17. I was upset we didn't take him as well. My point is, if we're going off how he was at 17, why don't we hold the draft at age 17? That extra season can prove a lot. I know he had a mono, but you really don't think scouts take that into consideration?
Quote:
3. Scheifele only had one year in the OHL going into the draft. Most players picked in the first round have two. Couturier had three. Any player with only one year of major junior is going to be a riskier pick than a player with two or three years under his belt: you've just had more time to evaluate them against tougher competition.
I won't argue that he was the riskier pick, I certainly feel he was. My issue is that a lot of people speak as though that that fact in itself is failure, or that because couturier is doing what was expected (assumed to be a defensively responsible nhl ready player with high end potential), that it has already failed.
Quote:
My conclusion from all this is that Scheifele was a risky pick at #7. Maybe it's a case of higher risk, higher reward, but don't forget that means higher risk. His upside might be Patrick Sharp, his downside might be Patrik Stefan. We don't know.
Couturier on the other hand is Philly's #3, and probably could have been our #2 this year (Little and Burmi are not Giroux and Briere). Just saying.
Exactly, we don't know. Which is what the whole point of my post was getting at.
Yes he is phillys #3 and has done a good job of shutting down opposing players while chipping in. That does not make him a Franchise player.
In 4 years, if he's consistantly putting up 70+ point seasons while being a defensive whiz(a-la Toews), I will happily admit we passed on a franchise center. Until then, it's just reading tea leaves.
lol
18th is not a late first. Glad to see you've given up already. 
