The thing is, he seems to make a lot of high risk plays. I'm not sure how that will carry over into the NHL. That is one of the things I think is an advantage for a player like Murray. He already keeps it simple, and that should transition well in the NHL.
Ok, this is by far the most entertaining game of the series so far in my opinion. Maybe the 1st one against the Q is comparable. WHL playing a great brand of hockey minus the penalties. Yakupov looks pretty good so far...Morgan reilly to me looks awesome. Love that kid, even though i hate the leafs lol. He's gonna be a special special player! Not much from Murray which is good!
what do u guys think or Brousoitt so far? To me he seems a touch shaky
The thing is, he seems to make a lot of high risk plays. I'm not sure how that will carry over into the NHL. That is one of the things I think is an advantage for a player like Murray. He already keeps it simple, and that should transition well in the NHL.
I absolutely get what you're saying but I also think it's worth noting that those high risk plays tend to work out more often than not. Perhaps it's just my personal draft philosophy/preference for prospects, but I prefer a kid who can do that in juniors and has to be reigned in a little, rather than the "safe" option.
The thing is, he seems to make a lot of high risk plays. I'm not sure how that will carry over into the NHL. That is one of the things I think is an advantage for a player like Murray. He already keeps it simple, and that should transition well in the NHL.
The best players in the league play on the edge and that is what separates them from the pack
I absolutely get what you're saying but I also think it's worth noting that those high risk plays tend to work out more often than not. Perhaps it's just my personal draft philosophy/preference for prospects, but I prefer a kid who can do that in juniors and has to be reigned in a little, rather than the "safe" option.
Oh, I agree. That kind of dynamic capability says a lot about what kind of capabilities he has. I just meant that it's the type of thing that a player usually has to rein in a bit when he gets into the NHL. He'll find he has to pick his spots more, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him get burned a couple of times by those high risk plays when he does crack the NHL. The talent level is undeniable though, and I don't think it's a question of if he adjusts, but how well he adjusts. He's probably the best pure talent defenseman in the draft.
The best players in the league play on the edge and that is what separates them from the pack
Not causing an arguement, Rielly is a special player. But in general I agree with that statement. However risky players in CHL get weeded out in larger numbers than safe players. The risk takers that make it are very special and only smaller %'s can translate to the NHL.
A larger # of 'safer' players make the nhl but are not game breakers and 2-3-4 line talent.
Murray looks very poised, plays like nothing flusters him.
Murray looks like he's above this level. Guy's a flawless player, does everything well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourn
The thing is, he seems to make a lot of high risk plays. I'm not sure how that will carry over into the NHL. That is one of the things I think is an advantage for a player like Murray. He already keeps it simple, and that should transition well in the NHL.
Reilly reminds me of Brian Leetch. I think he'll be a great NHLer, more boom than bust. He won't be able to get away with a lot what makes him spectacular in junior, that's for sure, it remains to be seen how he'll adjust his game. But you don't want a guy like Reilly to play conservative hockey, you want him to be a dynamic player who can create plays and you live with the occasional brain cramps.
Now, someone tell Randy Carlyle.
On Murray, at WORST he'll be a very good, reliable defenseman who will have a long career. I don't see anything outstanding about his game, on how it translates to the NHL anyway. But both these dmen have a long way to go before they approach their peak.
The best players in the league play on the edge and that is what separates them from the pack
I'm not sure I'd agree with you, not when it comes to defensemen. Did Scott Niedermayer play on the edge at his best? Did Lidstrom? I think, in the NHL, simplicity breeds consistency, and it's about being smarter. Not riskier.
I would drool if he became like Foligno. But he doesnt put up the points to say he ever will be. Good shut down center who hits hard but Foligno a special prospect.
Not causing an arguement, Rielly is a special player. But in general I agree with that statement. However risky players in CHL get weeded out in larger numbers than safe players. The risk takers that make it are very special and only smaller %'s can translate to the NHL.
A larger # of 'safer' players make the nhl but are not game breakers and 2-3-4 line talent.
I think the caveat to this though is that if I'm picking in the Top 5, I'm not all that sure I want my pick to be referred to as "safe". I want a game breaker with my top 5.
Reilly reminds me of Brian Leetch. I think he'll be a great NHLer, more boom than bust. He won't be able to get away with a lot what makes him spectacular in junior, that's for sure, it remains to be seen how he'll adjust his game. But you don't want a guy like Reilly to play conservative hockey, you want him to be a dynamic player who can create plays and you live with the occasional brain cramps.
Now, someone tell Randy Carlyle.
On Murray, at WORST he'll be a very good, reliable defenseman who will have a long career. I don't see anything outstanding about his game, on how it translates to the NHL anyway. But both these dmen have a long way to go before they approach their peak.
I'd agree. I think Rielly is someone who needs some slack on his leash. I'm just not sure you want to let him off of it entirely, at least not at first. I think, if Carlyle is smart, he'll let him know when he's being too risky, but he'll give him enough flexibility to play the creative hockey game he needs to play to be at his best.
I think the caveat to this though is that if I'm picking in the Top 5, I'm not all that sure I want my pick to be referred to as "safe". I want a game breaker with my top 5.
I agree. Its not an absolute thats teams should go for the 'game breaker' over the 'safer' pick. Depends on where teams with their roster needs. Reilly was absolutely the right pick. But generally I go for the riskier/ high ceiling player. CBJ chose right to because they have been burned but those riskier picks. Murray is a steady player and you know what your getting. TML was burned by the "safer" pick (Schenn) on the other hand so Rielly makes sense. Also they have plenty of "safer" d prospects so they could afford to pick the riskier player
I'm not sure I'd agree with you, not when it comes to defensemen. Did Scott Niedermayer play on the edge at his best? Did Lidstrom? I think, in the NHL, simplicity breeds consistency, and it's about being smarter. Not riskier.
In fairness though, Niedermayer likely didn't get 82 points in 56 games with the Blazers by being a "safe" player when he was in the CHL. When you can get away with it, you do it.
I agree. Its not an absolute thats teams should go for the 'game breaker' over the 'safer' pick. Depends on where teams with their roster needs. Reilly was absolutely the right pick. But generally I go for the riskier/ high ceiling player. CBJ chose right to because they have been burned but those riskier picks. Murray is a steady player and you know what your getting. TML was burned by the "safer" pick (Schenn).
And to be fair to Murray, even if he might not end up as a game-breaker, he has the capability to be the backbone of your blue line for a very long time. He could be one of those guys who is just very good at everything, even if he doesn't excel at anything.
