HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2003 Draft Hugh Jessiman looks like a bust so far

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2006, 04:26 PM
  #226
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Have you heard/seen much of his size?

It's such a hard figure to find that's remotely accurate or current. I'm just wondering how big this kid could be. It's going to be a looong Summer - I can see it now.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2006, 04:31 PM
  #227
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,036
vCash: 500
eh, he has ok size at like 6'0 or 6'1, but his build is kind of slight. like I said, I think he just physically matured slower than some guys and will probably fill out to a standard 190-200 lbs

I guess I'd say he doesn't exactly look tiny or small out there, but in some ways just seems like he could get a little more solid

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2006, 04:41 PM
  #228
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
and focused a bit on the 1 point in 11 playoff games. But still, in fairness to him, there may be a good deal of adjustments needed. Some can come over here from overseas and be successful at 19 or 20 or 21. Some need more time to adjust. Doesn't make one better than the other.
He wasn't used in a scoring role in the playoffs at all. The points weren't a result of some inability to adjust. He adjusted just fine when he first came over, but they had guys who were with the team all year who were going to play as the scorers.

I just don't think that's a fair comment. The fact of the matter is that once again he proved he could play either style. He could score some points when asked and take a defensive and responsible role if asked.

What exactly are people expecting from him that I am missing? He's 19, played two years or a regular shift in a Finnish men's league and shown positive signs in the AHL.

Quote:
When I threw out Gherson's age I'm also saying that experience-wise, they were quite similar. He played a year as an overage junior a couple seasons ago and I think Montoya's college experience at that time was better. Then he played a season in the UHL while Montoya was in college. So in this case, I don't think 18 months is as much time as I normally would think it is.
I just don't think you can look at it the same. It's not a just a matter of the levels they were playing, but how long they were playing. Gherson was playing a higher level of hockey since 00-01 while Montoya didn't step into college till 02-03. That's two years of higher level hockey and development. That's a huge different at the age of 20-21. Yes Gherson played in the UHL but that's far different that college, even if the competition isn't the highest pro level. That's a year of more traveling, different rules and adjusting to the pro game. At this stage that's what goalies often make the adjustments to. The physical aspects usually come later.

18 months or a whole season of professional hockey is no small amount when it comes to younger players. It's the difference between Prucha as an undersized question mark and Prucha as a 30 goal scorer. The difference between Dwight Helminen as a defensive only center and a guy who scored at the AHL level and may bring a bit more, the difference between Moore being an okay college player and a hobey baker finalist.

We just cannot understimate what a difference even just one season makes for a lot of these players.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2006, 04:56 PM
  #229
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I don't whole-heartedly disagree, Edge...

but when I see 18 months and what the players did in the last couple years, I'd expect the two to be nearly the same developmentally. May sound odd, but it's likely that Gherson's a slower developer than Montoya given where he was the previous two years and the fact that he was returned to juniors. That's actually a positive in my mind on Gherson vs. Montoya. Much like Larbarbera was a slow grower. You're right that the age difference should mean something, but I don't think it's too significant and they were pretty close in their hockey development. And having said that, Montoya could (and hopefully will) develop at a quicker rate than Gherson and likely will be better in 18 months than now.

On Korpikoski...I hope he can score when asked, as we've both agreed that while a guy may be very good defensively and may hit everything in sight, if he can only score 5 goals at the NHL level, he's not going to play much. In regards to expectation - I don't have much of one now because of where he's played and his roles - but at the same time, it would be difficult for me personally to say he could be a 20 goal scorer at the NHL level because I both haven't seen him play and haven't seen him put up numbers at a higher level. To no fault of his own, since he is only 19, but I personally can't say that. At the same time, I cannot say that he won't - and I haven't. He seems to have a couple more years before we can really get our hands on what he'll end up being.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2006, 04:58 PM
  #230
bigblue21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Edge]He wasn't used in a scoring role in the playoffs at all. The points weren't a result of some inability to adjust. He adjusted just fine when he first came over, but they had guys who were with the team all year who were going to play as the scorers.

I just don't think that's a fair comment. The fact of the matter is that once again he proved he could play either style. He could score some points when asked and take a defensive and responsible role if asked.

What exactly are people expecting from him that I am missing? He's 19, played two years or a regular shift in a Finnish men's league and shown positive signs in the AHL.QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more. We knew when Korps was drafted that he was going to take a longer time to develop, after all he was only 17. He's done everything he's been asked to do. 2-3 more years and this kid could be a very good player, but it is going to take time. So far he has done nothing to show he was undeserving of the selection though.

bigblue21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2006, 11:11 PM
  #231
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
actually I'm being serious. It's not like he was lighting the world on fire or anything, but he was at least putting up some points when he was put on a line with Immonen and Giroux (I think it was). Then they bring in Smyth and bust him down to the 3rd/4th line, and he doesn't get as much playing time much less points.

players shouldn't exactly just be handed spots, but you have to put them in a position to succeed in the first place...I think Hugh was a victim of the Pack deciding they wanted to do whatever it took to win the Calder cup, at the expense of the best situation for developing a player like Jessiman.
So serious in a sense; thankfully you aren't in favour of handing spots over without question.

Yes, I'd agree that you have to put these guys in a position to succeed.

However, as a player you've got to grab the bull by the horns. Just look at Petr Prucha: I've been on him all year, but one thing I cannot deny is that after he was recalled from his brief stint in Hartford he forced his way into more playing time. Nothing was given to him, he earned it - every step of the way.

Hugh has put himself in the position of having to earn everything now. He didn't put up the numbers he should have coming out of college, he didn't put up the numbers he should have when he started at the AHL level, and thus he has to earn it with his play from here on out. That first round priviledge should and likely has been revoked.

I'll grant you the Smyth argument because even Petr Prucha can't produce from the stands, but this year if Hugh wants that kind of ice he's got to be on that level right from the get-go.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 09:16 AM
  #232
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
Funny, Levitate...

This: 'deciding they wanted to do whatever it took to win the Calder cup, at the expense of the best situation for developing a player like Jessiman' it what seemed to get McGill fired.

While it is true, the coach does need to do what's best for his team because he has other players on the ice, including prospects, who deserve the best shot at the Calder Cup. Hopefully Jessiman will take that as a confidence booster and bring that to camp to win a spot.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 09:21 AM
  #233
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
This: 'deciding they wanted to do whatever it took to win the Calder cup, at the expense of the best situation for developing a player like Jessiman' it what seemed to get McGill fired.
and I wasn't happy in either situation

It would have been one thing if Hugh was replaced by another prospect who did better...but it was a journeyman AHLer who was later benched in the playoffs and did not perform anywhere close to what was expected of him in the postseason. It was just annoying.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 09:24 AM
  #234
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
This: 'deciding they wanted to do whatever it took to win the Calder cup, at the expense of the best situation for developing a player like Jessiman' it what seemed to get McGill fired.
If McGill was still in charge of the team, no doubt that he would have been the primary reason that people would point to for Jessiman's lack of development.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 09:49 AM
  #235
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
I can empathize with your frustration...

seemed a little like goings-on at the big club when Prucha got to play 10 minutes a couple of nights when things got tight down the stretch. It is a tough balance, winning and developing, and the notion that winning helps the development of those contributing. Hopefully Hugh takes the slight as motivation to do better - get bigger in the offseason and become a force along the boards and in front of the net.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 10:35 AM
  #236
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,036
vCash: 500
very true, Fletch. This kind of thing always seems to boil down to an argument against giving a guy a spot and putting a guy in a position to succeed. There has to be a balance of a player earning the spot, but also being in a position to earn that spot as well. It's hard to develop your offense when you get 5 minutes per game on the 4th line, but that doesn't mean you should just get handed a spot on the 1st line.

I'd like to see Hugh earn a spot on a line with some scoring forwards this next year, and yeah it's gonna take the usual hard work and motivation to do it.

I was figuring out some numbers the other day about Hugh, and when he was called up from the ECHL and playing with Immonen and Giroux, he scored 14 points in 24 games before Smyth was brought in and Jessiman was relegated to a lower line. That doesn't sound amazing or anything, but extrapolated out over a full season and at that PPG average, that's almost 50 points on the season. A fantastic season? No. But hey, Parise scored 58 points as a rookie in the AHL and he was far more "developed" than Jessiman. I also tend to think that if that was his starting point of a season, he would have gotten better as the season went on and the PPG would have gone up some.

Yeah I realize that I'm dealing with a huge amount of speculation here, but I guess the point I'm getting at is that I think Jessiman can and will be productive if he gets his shot and hopefulyl will continue to get better. But once again, we're back to the fact that he's going to show he deserves that shot.

Yeah...and I'm pretty well aware this post can be ripped to shreds by someone who wants to do it, but oh well

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 01:20 PM
  #237
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
While I am not usually a fan of extrapolating...

I do realize that those numbers aren't bad - especially for a first year AHLer who missed the previous season (although Umberger kind of expelled my thoughts of what a guy can do coming off a missed season). And with Hugh, some sort of extrapolation is in order because his role was different throughout the rest of the season. I think we all would like him to succeed. And I think we're all on the same page with him. I do wonder what next season will look like for him. With Callahan possibly competing for a spot, and Korpokoski, perhaps Dawes and Giroux and others, all depending on who starts in the NHL, the competition doesn't get any easier for him.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 01:56 PM
  #238
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I don't think Hugh could have produced those numbers at the start of the year on any line in Hartford. The ECHL stint did exactly what it was supposed to for Hugh: acclimatize him to the faster, more physical, more strenuous pro game; while also putting some confidence back into him. I don't recall the exact comments, but several Ranger and Wolfpack brass commented on Hugh in his return as being quicker, more decisive, and more aggressive.

So maybe he ends up with 35-40 pts on the season; still good in my books because he got better from the season's start to its end. However, it's no time to rest on his laurels just because he showed a bit of resolve to get back up to the AHL.

I like his attitude and I think it'll serve him well. With that said, I'm not about to develop a soft spot for this kid just because he was a first rounder - if he doesn't produce, **** him.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2006, 04:20 PM
  #239
Taz
Registered User
 
Taz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Letchworth
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
I noticed hugh was alot better when he came back, more physical and involoved, This quickly went down hill as he kept on getting scratched or given about 3-4 mins a night, u just cant do anything with that, in the 8 pack games i saw he never got must time out there, and was normally on an energy line with huge gaps between shifts. Maybe next year he builds up more ice time. He did ok in Charlotte and his second stint. Lets wait until next season now

Taz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.