Lol you cant compare the two until they are both in the NHL
Yet that is precisely what you attempted with the balance of your post.
The only way we'll know who is the better player and pick is when we've the benefit of hindsight, when we've seen the body of their work over their entire careers.
Yet that is precisely what you attempted with the balance of your post.
The only way we'll know who is the better player and pick is when we've the benefit of hindsight, when we've seen the body of their work over their entire careers.
Guess I should of used the instead of the hey?
Was just countering his points with other points for fun as work is boring
Just illustrating how irrelevent it is to compare the two when they are not in the NHL together.
Was just countering his points with other points for fun as work is boring
Just illustrating how irrelevent it is to compare the two when they are not in the NHL together.
fair deuce.
One thing to keep in mind, even when comparing their junior numbers, is that the Q is a historically higher scoring league then the O. If I've got time later I'll try and fine the article the guys at Arctic Ice Hockey (used to be Behind the net) did normalizing points across the W-Q-O. I believe the Q is the highest scoring of the three, but even comparatively, IIRC Couturiers numbers were still a fair cut above Scheifs.
Your ability to belittle his play is impressive. Everyone in pre-season is playing the same level of competition, if it was easy to do what he did, every rookie would do it.
Not saying it will translate to a great career, but I don't think its worth totally dismissing an impressive pre-season.
Don't think I'm belittling his play at all, I just pointed out that his pre-season success was against split squads and a lot of AHL and junior calibre players, when he did play in the NHL for a short spell he wasn't impressive and actually looked out of place.
Burmi didn't shine in the pre-season far from it, based on his performance should he have been sent to St. Johns?
The point being that you've been dabbling in exactly the above for much of this thread; the late disclaimers notwithstanding.
That avatar does your speaking for you as well, FYI.
have some fun Gump, this is a thread that has no merit or bearing what so ever and probably should be closed........but seems to be too entertaining to close
and yes I am cheering for the Flyers over Pitts....all day everyday
One thing to keep in mind, even when comparing their junior numbers, is that the Q is a historically higher scoring league then the O. If I've got time later I'll try and fine the article the guys at Arctic Ice Hockey (used to be Behind the net) did normalizing points across the W-Q-O. I believe the Q is the highest scoring of the three, but even comparatively, IIRC Couturiers numbers were still a fair cut above Scheifs.
Found this one from Behind the Net. Not to sure if this is the one you were talking about but here is the link
Don't think I'm belittling his play at all, I just pointed out that his pre-season success was against split squads and a lot of AHL and junior calibre players, when he did play in the NHL for a short spell he wasn't impressive and actually looked out of place.
Burmi didn't shine in the pre-season far from it, based on his performance should he have been sent to St. Johns?
No but I'm sure it factored into their decision as to how they were going to play him. No one is saying "well he did great in the preseason so he was nhl ready", so why are you comparing it to "he did poor in the preseason so he's not nhl ready"? Just saying it had to be a factor.
I think the issue taken was it read like, whether or not it was intentional, that his preseason performance was worthless. Very "any chump could do it", to which the response was "then why didn't 30 other chumps do it?".
Furthermore, we have a pretty small sample size to work with what Scheif was capable of doing in the regular season. 7 games on a team that looked quite lost as a whole for all of them.
Not saying he should have stayed up. He did look, as an individual, a bit behind and sending him down was probably the best idea.
Essentially i think the concern was with how it read like a complete dismissal. If his great preseason performance didn't peak your hopes for him at all, you've already made your mind up on him, so whats the point of the discussion?
BTW thanks for the Arctic Ice Hockey heads up. Pretty good page with lots of interestiing articles.
Not the exact one i came across. I did some digging on their site and did find something actually indicating the the OHL was higher scoring for the last two years, so I very well may have had my facts mixed up.
Either way, Couturier did put up considerably better numbers then scheif, I just thought they may not have been as drastically better as originally thought.
You can't even begin to count the chickens until Sch plays his first NHL season. As far as his contract goes he hasn't even played his first game.
He'll play another year of junior and dominate. The only thing that will keep him from winning the scoring title next year will be not playing enough games due to injury or world juniors.
Hello, first time poster here. I am not sure if this has been said yet, but, scouting organizations are not in the business of predicting the draft. They are merely giving their professional opinion on abilities of the players in the draft. That being the case there is plenty of room for differing opinions. I would be willing to bet that all scouts within the ISS are not in complete agreement of who is better than who. Given that schiefele was ranked with a fairly large variance between scouting organizations, it was likely the case many were in fact uncertain of his potential. Which is reasonable given his small body of work, one year of junior. just my 2 cents.
instead of the 
hey?
