I've watched a few Moose games. MacKinnon is light years ahead of Drouin in every department. Complete different level.... MacKinnon will likely go number one overall. If you watched the Moose you'd know MacKinnon is bigger than 5'11... Monahan before Barkov for me, but that's just my preference.
You sure have not watched as many Moose games as you pretend if you believe that "MacKinnon is light years ahead of Drouin in every department". He simply is not. Educated scouting opinion has it that Drouin has the better hockey sense and better hands. On the hand, MacKinnon has the edge in skating, shot and physical play. Don't get me wrong, I still have MacKinnon slightly ahead of Drouin and I believe it will stay that way.
Drouin is seen as a contender to be picked in the top-5 by folks at Redline and Craig Button amongst others. He is perceived as one of the fastest rising prospects in this year's draft. There is a reason why posters are excited by the prospect of the Habs drafting him.
Then how did Koivu not fail as well? Did he not go through the same system that couldn't develop young players?
Common, don't be intellectually dishonest after your tanking thread there. Koivu spent a couple of years in Finland and was developped by the TPS Turku organization and came to NA when he felt he could go straight to the NHL. The Canadiens simply reaped the benefits. For all the other prospects who had to pass through the process of playing with the Canadiens' AHL team, the experience was much different. You can read the interview given by one of our 1st round picks (Terry ?) to see what was going on during those years post-draft for the prospects chosen by Montreal.
Drouin is small. As for Lindholm, I won't say anything before the combine. But, in the end, you should always take BPA.
Lindholm is at least 6' and over 190 lbs.
Drafting for size over skill in the top 5 is absolutely idiotic but the one disadvantage Drouin has over the others talked about is they are all big and willing to use their size. We aren't talking Grigorenko here.
Common, don't be intellectually dishonest after your tanking thread there. Koivu spent a couple of years in Finland and was developped by the TPS Turku organization and came to NA when he felt he could go straight to the NHL. The Canadiens simply reaped the benefits. For all the other prospects who had to pass through the process of playing with the Canadiens' AHL team, the experience was much different. You can read the interview given by one of our 1st round picks (Terry ?) to see what was going on during those years post-draft for the prospects chosen by Montreal.
JAVO,
Koivu's development curve in 1993-1995 is not related to my assessment from a few months ago, made under the assumption that there would be a season, that the Habs brass should let the chips fall where they will rather than gun for a playoff spot.
Anyhow, the point that Habs had a development problem was made by other posts before your post, without need for non-sequitur insults. Their argument is that the Habs had a development problem and not a drafting problem.
Their argument is that the Habs had a development problem and not a drafting problem.
I think it has to be both... bottom line is that Savard was behind the curve in both areas. It gets impossible to really disentangle the two elements. Ryan's name gets used a lot on the draft side, but given his development path, I find that he's one of the worst cases to use for the draft argument. His was a pretty crappy draft anyway. But there were enough examples of failed top picks for us over a lot of years that clearly something was awry. It was a time when the whole industry was evolving into something more competitive and scientific anyway, so naturally there would be some leaders and some laggers. We lagged, but were not alone in that respect either, basically.
Anyone would be excited by the best ppg '13 draftee in the entire CHL... but hey, because he's Quebecer, we shouldn't be excited by him.
Stop insulting us, we know our hockey.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to insult you, nor anyone in this site. But I dare anyone to say that I'm wrong when I say that there's often some bias when evaluating the true value of quebecer players here. I don't deny Drouin skills because he has skills but the thing is people here talk of him like he was in the same class as MacKinnon, Barkov and Monahan and to me, that's just not true, at least not yet.
Congratulations to him for being the best PPG '13 draftee in the entire CHL but that to me, just doesn't mean everything. The QMJHL is the league where there's the most space on the ice for the forwards to do what they want because It's the less physical league of the 3 leagues of the CHL. As a result, some finesse players who avoids the physical play can really shine in that league. For example, a player like Grigorenko has a scoring pace of 2 PPG, for me It doesn't mean that he will be a better player in the NHL than what he projected to be at the draft. So, for me, while Drouin is dominating in the Q, I still have doubts about how his tricks and style of play will fare in the NHL.
I've often read that the 2013 top-5 would blow last year's top 5 out of the water, but that's the sort of hyperbole people write.
Where do you think Yakupov, Galchenyuk, Murray would be in this year's discussion?
If we draft top-5 this year, do you expect Galchenyuk to become our second best prospect, or do you think it will be too close to call?
Unless the Habs drafts in the top 3 in next year's draft, I think Gally will remain the best prospect of the team. At this point, I only consider MacKinnon (who I think is underrated in this board) and Jones as better prospects than him. I see Barkov and Monahan, all and all, as prospects as good as Gally but not better. At the end, I may be in the minority here but I think the top of the 2013 draft class will be slighlty better than the top of the 2012 draft class.
I've often read that the 2013 top-5 would blow last year's top 5 out of the water, but that's the sort of hyperbole people write.
Where do you think Yakupov, Galchenyuk, Murray would be in this year's discussion?
If we draft top-5 this year, do you expect Galchenyuk to become our second best prospect, or do you think it will be too close to call?
If anybody here is an "expert" then they have to be breaking some kind of rules with their employer. My armchair opinion is that MacKinnon > Yakupov, and Seth Jones > anybody on D from last year. As prospects go. It can of course all turn out totally different. I'd guess that Yakupov would slot into the top-5. Galchenyuk and Murray just out. I don't know this year's European crop except by hearsay, so I don't really have an opinion about how they compare to last year's top-5. Whatever any of us says now, I'm sure we'd be required to revise it 5 years from now.
I think if we draft #3-6 this year we're slam dunk getting another Galchenyuk-calibre prospect, at least. Then it's all down to development, chance, and the vagaries of player individuality whether that player or Galchenyuk turns into our #1 prospect.
Could be right, but I do agree with HF87 that he's overhyped because of playing with MacKinnon and because he's French. Just like all the Huberdeau and Couturier trade threads that appear regularly...
I'm just sick of fragile, small guys that continuously disappear during the tough games. Not saying that is/will be the case with Drouin, just overall in general.
MacKinnon/Jones/Monahan are the guys I think the Habs should target if they retain a top 3 pick.
You mean players like Briere and Giroulx as opposed to the Sedin twins?
I don't disagree that size is nice, but today I would pick Giroulx over players like Mueller, Sheppard, Okposo, or even Berglund any day.
I think most people would.
I've often read that the 2013 top-5 would blow last year's top 5 out of the water, but that's the sort of hyperbole people write.
Where do you think Yakupov, Galchenyuk, Murray would be in this year's discussion?
If we draft top-5 this year, do you expect Galchenyuk to become our second best prospect, or do you think it will be too close to call?
I'm obviously not an expert, but I love these projections type posts, so I'll give it a shot.
I think Mackinnon is the pretty clear #1, followed by Yakupov as the clear #2. Then Jones at #3 and from there it's up in the air. Murray, Monahan, Galchenyuk, Barkov, Lindholm, and Drouin could slot in any order. Reinhart, Rielly, Shinkaruk, Pulock, Ristolainen, and Lazar in the next tier.
Unless we draft Mackinnon or Jones than I think that Galchenyuk will still be our #1 prospect. Might not be as clear cut though. I feel that Monahan, Barkov, Lindholm and Drouin all are players with similar upside, but Galchenyuk is closer to reaching the NHL than all of those players (except Monahan), so the edge has to go the "superior" player at that point.
Drafting for size over skill in the top 5 is absolutely idiotic but the one disadvantage Drouin has over the others talked about is they are all big and willing to use their size. We aren't talking Grigorenko here.
Actually, I was making the same point. Drafting should always be done according to the chances of making the NHL, judging by their present talent and potential.
As for Lindholm, I'm just saying that heights and weights are almost always distorted. I remember posters saying that Galchenyuk was 6"3 and taller than Grigorenko, backing their claims with doubtful links. Now, if I can't measure them myself, I tend to wait until the combine for more "official" numbers.
You mean players like Briere and Giroulx as opposed to the Sedin twins?
I don't disagree that size is nice, but today I would pick Giroulx over players like Mueller, Sheppard, Okposo, or even Berglund any day.
I think most people would.
He would be chosen over 95% of all hockey players drafted in the last 10 years. He's one of the best hockey players to play in this league for a long time.
Actually, I was making the same point. Drafting should always be done according to the chances of making the NHL, judging by their present talent and potential.
As for Lindholm, I'm just saying that heights and weights are almost always distorted. I remember posters saying that Galchenyuk was 6"3 and taller than Grigorenko, backing their claims with doubtful links. Now, if I can't measure them myself, I tend to wait until the combine for more "official" numbers.
You are right, but Lindholm plays in a professional league, not a developmental one (meaning measurements are less likely to be generous, since they aren't trying to impress anyone), and it's clear Lindholm has at least decent size if you watch him playing with the other Swedish prospects to use as reference. He's not obviously a huge tank the way Barkov is, but he's comfortable playing physically against adults, something you can't say about Drouin.
Compare Lindholm to someone like Collberg, who puts in the effort but physically isn't able to force his way yet, that's not something you can judge from CHL prospects.
Numbers on the Q website are outdated. The numbers I posted were those of the U18 in August.
Mackinnon looks bigger than that. And he plays bigger than that too. Drouin isn't small, but he's a pure skill guy, no questions about it. MacKinnon plays like a power forward.
Mackinnon looks bigger than that. And he plays bigger than that too. Drouin isn't small, but he's a pure skill guy, no questions about it. MacKinnon plays like a power forward.
Both Drouin and Duclair confirmed on their Twitter account these were the good numbers. I think they're reliable (U18 numbers).
Actually, I was making the same point. Drafting should always be done according to the chances of making the NHL, judging by their present talent and potential.
As for Lindholm, I'm just saying that heights and weights are almost always distorted. I remember posters saying that Galchenyuk was 6"3 and taller than Grigorenko, backing their claims with doubtful links. Now, if I can't measure them myself, I tend to wait until the combine for more "official" numbers.
Lindholm is 184 cm (6'0) according to the team website and 184 cm according to the national team website that is updated for every U20 tournament. These measurements are usually very accurate and the combine measurements usually differ +/- 1 cm. He is definitely not shorter than 6'0 and 1 cm away from 185 cm (6'1).
I was just making 1st round projections... this has got to be one of the deepest drafts in a long time. Even if the habs draft out of the top 10, they are getting a pretty top prospect. say MacKinnon, Jones, Barkov, Monahan, Lindholm, Drouin, Ristolainen, Shinkaruk and Erne are taken in the top 10... the next top 10 has prospects like Mantha, Lazar, Gauthier, Rychiel, Domi, Duclair, Nichushkin, Nurse and Carrier. Ridiculous!!!
And as for where Galchenyuk would stand... I'd say he'd be out of the top 5 for sure. Monahan has just as many points as him on a crappier team while being a year younger and better defensively. Barkov and Linholm are already doing very well in their top tier leagues and would be ready for the big show as 18-19 year olds. MacKinnon and Jones that goes without saying
Mackinnon looks bigger than that. And he plays bigger than that too. Drouin isn't small, but he's a pure skill guy, no questions about it. MacKinnon plays like a power forward.
I wouldn't say he plays like a power forward but he has a bit of Taylor Hall in him.
Drouin is a better passer and playmaker a la Giroux/Richards. I think Drouin has a legit shot to end up the better NHLer.
I was just making 1st round projections... this has got to be one of the deepest drafts in a long time. Even if the habs draft out of the top 10, they are getting a pretty top prospect. say MacKinnon, Jones, Barkov, Monahan, Lindholm, Drouin, Ristolainen, Shinkaruk and Erne are taken in the top 10... the next top 10 has prospects like Mantha, Lazar, Gauthier, Rychiel, Domi, Duclair, Nichushkin, Nurse and Carrier. Ridiculous!!!
And as for where Galchenyuk would stand... I'd say he'd be out of the top 5 for sure. Monahan has just as many points as him on a crappier team while being a year younger and better defensively. Barkov and Linholm are already doing very well in their top tier leagues and would be ready for the big show as 18-19 year olds. MacKinnon and Jones that goes without saying
I don't think Carrier or Mantha go 11-20 based on what is known right now. Both look like really late 1st(26-30) or early 2nd's(31-40).
Monahan is also a late birthday 1994, so he is only a month older than some 2012 picks. Galchenyuk is also just getting going after a slow start after having missed most of last year. Last 7 games he is 8-9-17 and +10.
Could be right, but I do agree with HF87 that he's overhyped because of playing with MacKinnon and because he's French. Just like all the Huberdeau and Couturier trade threads that appear regularly...
I'm just sick of fragile, small guys that continuously disappear during the tough games. Not saying that is/will be the case with Drouin, just overall in general.
MacKinnon/Jones/Monahan are the guys I think the Habs should target if they retain a top 3 pick.
It hasn't been our small players dispearing in tough games, Cammalleri was great in the playoffs and Gionta and Koivu always did more than their part. It was not having enough "tough" players surrounding them who would use their size.
Koivu's development curve in 1993-1995 is not related to my assessment from a few months ago, made under the assumption that there would be a season, that the Habs brass should let the chips fall where they will rather than gun for a playoff spot.
Anyhow, the point that Habs had a development problem was made by other posts before your post, without need for non-sequitur insults. Their argument is that the Habs had a development problem and not a drafting problem.
I know it's unrelated. I only wanted to point out that you were calling out people for intellectual dishonesty in that thread and then, from my point of view, did the same thing by asking that question about Koivu not failling and it's relation to the Habs' development problems. I'll admit that I interpreted it more as a rhetorical question than an actual question which is probably my fault. All I'm saying is that Beendair laid out a good argument and you seemed to brush it aside by pointing out that Koivu developped fine with the Canadiens, when you could have easily checked that Koivu did most of his development in Finland.
By the way, I agreed with that assessment you made at the beginning of the season.
McKinnon (Just the complete package)
Lindholm (Looking forward to WJC to really confirm this)
Galchenyuk (I'm predicting a Marian Hossa like development, it will take some time, but when he arrives will becoming invaluable.)
Jones (No 2012 Ds are very close really)
Yakupov (I remain on my 2012 predictions that Gal will end up being more valuable than Yakupov over a 10 year career)
Barkov
Monahan
Rielly
Murray
Fucale
Lazar
Drouin
I'm known to go a bit more for the "total lifetime value" vs "performance at prime" in my prospect assessments.
My armchair opinion is that MacKinnon > Yakupov, and Seth Jones > anybody on D from last year. As prospects go. It can of course all turn out totally different. I'd guess that Yakupov would slot into the top-5. Galchenyuk and Murray just out. I don't know this year's European crop except by hearsay, so I don't really have an opinion about how they compare to last year's top-5. Whatever any of us says now, I'm sure we'd be required to revise it 5 years from now.
