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
05-25-2006, 07:09 PM
  #51
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
From what I remember in that draft, Philadelphia which picked the spot in front of us were split on Jessiman and Carter. Carter obviously won out. As much as I hate it, Philly seems to have had great success analyzing players potential(So have the Rangers "recently"). Yes, they and us could be wrong with Jessiman but I don't agree with those that say Jessiman would have fell to the bottom of the first round. He was highly though of as a player with great potential. We were not the only team.

Yes, it was always known as a high risk/high reward project player. Now people want instant results. Why was this thread started? This has been beaten to death.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 08:01 PM
  #52
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya
This is ridiculous to keep bringing up these players after the fact. This is pure hindsight and I'm getting pretty annoyed that people are pretending to know that these guys were going to be who they are today.
I'm not pretending to know anything, and you're defending a move that really wasn't too smart. Taking a player that plays in Canadian Junior is a MUCH SAFER bet than taking someone who plays in the NCAA, ESPECIALLY the ECAC. The ECAC is a JOKE of a conference. I could never look you straight in the face and tell you that I'd take someone from the ECAC over someone who's LIGHTING UP the OHL. Where does the largest percentage of drafted players come from? The answer is EASILY the CHL. The Euro leagues are not too far behind, and then the NCAA.

Here's a look at everyone's stats...

Corey Perry
2001-02 London Knights OHL 60 28 31 59
2002-03 London Knights OHL 67 25 53 78
2003-04 London Knights OHL 66 40 73 113
2004-05 London Knights OHL 60 47 83 130

Ryan Getzlaf
2001-02 Calgary Hitmen WHL 63 9 9 18 34
2002-03 Calgary Hitmen WHL 70 29 39 68
2003-04 Calgary Hitmen WHL 49 28 47 75
2004-05 Calgary Hitmen WHL 51 29 25 54

Steve Bernier
2001-02 Moncton Wildcats QMJHL 66 31 28 59
2002-03 Moncton Wildcats QMJHL 71 49 52 101
2003-04 Moncton Wildcats QMJHL 66 36 46 82
2004-05 Moncton Wildcats QMJHL 68 35 36 71

Anthony Stewart
2001-02 Kingston Frontenacs OHL 65 19 24 43
2002-03 Kingston Frontenacs OHL 68 32 38 70
2003-04 Kingston Frontenacs OHL 53 35 23 58
2004-05 Kingston Frontenacs OHL 62 32 35 67

Dustin Brown
2000-01 Guelph Storm OHL 53 23 22 45
2001-02 Guelph Storm OHL 63 41 32 73
2002-03 Guelph Storm OHL 58 34 42 76

Zach Parise
2002-03 U. of North Dakota NCAA 39 26 35 61 34
2003-04 U. of North Dakota NCAA 37 23 32 55

Mike Richards
2001-02 Kitchener Rangers OHL 65 20 38 58
2002-03 Kitchener Rangers OHL 67 37 50 87
2003-04 Kitchener Rangers OHL 58 36 53 89
2004-05 Kitchener Rangers OHL 43 22 36 58

Now, let's take a look at our boy Hugh's track record.

2002-03 Dartmouth College NCAA 34 23 24 47
2003-04 Dartmouth College NCAA 34 16 17 33
2004-05 Dartmouth College NCAA 12 1 1 2

Look at the recurring themes here...

1. They all put up better numbers than Hugh. I know that might not amount to anything in certain ways, but it is something to give attention to.

2. They all played in tougher conferences and leagues than Hugh. I'd love to meet you, and have you look at me straight in the face and tell me that you'd rather take a player from the ECAC over a Canadian major junior player. I know for a fact you couldn't do it.

3. The schedules of the players in the juniors are much more rigorous. Playing 60-70 games as compared to 40? The question with the NCAA players HAS TO BE durability. How can you trust the durability of someone who doesn't play a tough schedule? 40 games is not that tough compared to 70.

4. Hugh was picked because he grew up a Ranger fan. You can't do that. That is one of the ultimate mistakes. It doesn't matter if he was a fan of the Islanders, you have to pick the most talented player, not the player that roots for you. Money talks, and allegiances switch. Look at Darryl Sittler, lifelong Canadiens fan. The minute he played his first NHL game with the Leafs, that didn't matter anymore.

5. Even if you wanted to take a player from the NCAA, why not Parise? Someone who put up GREAT numbers on a LEGITMATE team in a LEGITIMATE conference. Not some crapshoot who had one good year in a conference that has produced how many national champions? The point is, the best talent usually goes to the best schools. Kessel and Vanek went to Minnesota. Parise and Bochenski to UND. The Kariyas went to Maine. Leetch to BC. Who even says that Jessiman was good enough to make any of those schools I just mentioned? Maybe that's why he was playing in Dartmouth. I'm not saying that's the reason, but it's more than possible.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, I'm going to give you an actual argument. You may have heard the argument before, but what I'm saying is true, and most hockey fans would agree, the Canadian junior players are usually the top talent. I know they could end up being like Daigles, but then again, did Alexandre Daigle ever have the drive that most NHL players did? No, he started worrying about whether he got the star role in his b-list films, while he was playing, and found himself out of the league not too long after. Pavel Brendl's 2nd home was McDonald's, that's why he showed up to training camp overweight and was traded the following year. Of course those kinds of players come along, but scouts have to be good enough to know which players are problem children.

I know the Rangers at the time were not in a rebuilding phase, but when you're trying to replenish your farm system, you can't afford to go drafting crapshoot players like that. It's not like he was even a project player, he was a crapshoot. That's why this is such a boneheaded move on the part of Slats.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 08:35 PM
  #53
bubba5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
vCash: 500
2 years from know someteam will pick up Jessiman hoping he will turn out to be something (which he won't) and we will forget he even was Rangers property.

bubba5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 09:13 PM
  #54
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GretzNYR99
I'm not pretending to know anything, and you're defending a move that really wasn't too smart. Taking a player that plays in Canadian Junior is a MUCH SAFER bet than taking someone who plays in the NCAA, ESPECIALLY the ECAC. The ECAC is a JOKE of a conference. I could never look you straight in the face and tell you that I'd take someone from the ECAC over someone who's LIGHTING UP the OHL. Where does the largest percentage of drafted players come from? The answer is EASILY the CHL. The Euro leagues are not too far behind, and then the NCAA.
Because I call you guys out for basically running down the list and naming everyone who played in '06 and sayi8ng that we should have drafted them instead, I am defending the pick? Where did I say that? He was taken too early. It was obviously not the best pick. I know that because it is now 2006. I'm not pretending to know that each and every one of these guys would be playing in the NHL by now. I'm not running around on a hockey forum beating a drum and screaming how smart and prophetic I am. The bottom line right now is that he is our pick and we have to try and develop him. It is stupid to abandon the project now because it is too early. He is not a bust yet.

You guys can say that you wouldn't have taken Jessiman with that pick, that's fine. But to trump it up and say you would have taken 20 specific other players that all happen to be playing in the NHL right now... come on, who are you fooling. Just come out and say that you are a better GM than half of the league.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 09:26 PM
  #55
bleedblue94
Registered User
 
bleedblue94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,241
vCash: 500
you people who are acting like the rangers were the only ones who wanted hugh high in the 1st round forget that not only was phili debating about picking him at 11 but sanjose almost picked him at i believe it was 6...or whichever pick it was they used to get michalek....hes boom or bust and people need to relax and leave it alone...forget hes even in the system and focuis on other prospects now like staal sauer dubinsky cliche ect. if jessiman pans out it wont be for a few more years (as was expected) and if he does he add a dynamic that not many organizations have....i am neither relying on his success nor am i preparing for his failture.....just let him be and let him develop...hes not getting traded this summer and we all just have to see how much work he puts in this summer and see how he shows up to camp....please lets all relax

bleedblue94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 10:45 PM
  #56
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States
Posts: 5,783
vCash: 500
To provide a little perspective on this pick, and to remind everyone of how highly thought of "Huge Specimen" was on the draft day:

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20030617001/tscript.htm

Quote:
Montreal, Quebec: What is Hugh Jessiman's upside? Can he be a top 10 pick?

Kyle Woodlief: Hugh Jessiman (aka Huge Specimen) is already a top 10 pick in Red Line's opinion. This guy has as much upside as anyone in the draft. If you saw the incredibly low calibre of competition he was playing against in a Division II prep school in Connecticut the past couple of years, you would understand how far he had to elevate his game in a very short period of time to do what he did as a true freshman at Dartmouth this season. Guys that big and with the hands and vision he possesses don't come along every day. And the last half of the season, he even started asserting himself and showing a mean streak -- if he starts doing that consistently, he's just scary. The one major problem is that he's never had to play a lick of defence in his entire life, so right now he's a basket case in his own end. But it's not because he's not willing to try or work hard. He's a very intelligent and coachable kid who just needs to be taught.

Synergy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2006, 11:19 PM
  #57
Son of Steinbrenner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,885
vCash: 500
Jort if you are going to bring this up at least give credit to the site and author of your "thought."

http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.c...shirtbulletin/

Jeez you almost posted word for word what was written on the blog..


Now on to the point at hand...

Jessiman needs time to develop and as singin said he missed a whole YEAR of hockey. He isn't Sather version of "Malhotra" I don't even see how that even comes into play? Malhotra was rushed while Jessiman is being taken with kid gloves..

Son of Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:14 AM
  #58
The Amity Affliction
Chasing Ghosts
 
The Amity Affliction's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 9,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya
Because I call you guys out for basically running down the list and naming everyone who played in '06 and sayi8ng that we should have drafted them instead, I am defending the pick? Where did I say that? He was taken too early. It was obviously not the best pick. I know that because it is now 2006. I'm not pretending to know that each and every one of these guys would be playing in the NHL by now. I'm not running around on a hockey forum beating a drum and screaming how smart and prophetic I am. The bottom line right now is that he is our pick and we have to try and develop him. It is stupid to abandon the project now because it is too early. He is not a bust yet.

You guys can say that you wouldn't have taken Jessiman with that pick, that's fine. But to trump it up and say you would have taken 20 specific other players that all happen to be playing in the NHL right now... come on, who are you fooling. Just come out and say that you are a better GM than half of the league.
I'm not running around and beating a drum, you called me out for "pretending that I knew" something. I wasn't trying to sound "smart and prophetic." I argue my point intelligently and thoroughly, and you get defensive? What for? I'm not attacking you. You're trying to make it seem like I'm some bad guy, definitely not the case. Someone needs to practice what they preach in ego emissions 101, thanks.

What I'm saying is that it was a dumb pick because he was a project player with some questions. I never said I saw the rule changes coming, whoever said that is full of themselves. What I said that picking a player who was playing in a joke of a conference in the NCAA, nonetheless is not a smart pick when you're trying to replenish your farm system after years of barely having one, if you even want to call it that. You go with the best player available, and a sure-fire pick so that you know you've got something for the future. It seems in the last 5 or so years, we've done our best drafting beyond the first round, and it takes GREAT scouts to find gems in the later rounds like we have, which pisses me off that we can't avoid making an obvious blunder like that, in the FIRST.

The Amity Affliction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:43 AM
  #59
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,860
vCash: 500
Few comments:

I've checked over and over and over and over again, I cannot find anyone who will confirm that SJ was going to take Hugh that high. I've asked ALL of my contacts in that organization and all I've gotten is strange looks.

That rumor simply will not die and I have no idea why it keeps popping up. I can find NO ONE who will confirm that SJ rumor.

As for Philly I can confirm they were interested but he was not even close to Carter in their eyes. Yeah they would've seriously considered him if Carter wasn't there, but one thing that gets left out of that conversation was that there were also other players inbetween Carter and Jessiman on their list. That one ALWAYS gets left out when people mention Philly.

So outside of Philly I can't find any other team that was going to take him before the 20's. I've checked into about a gazillion rumors (99% pf which always seem to come up on these boards as a "feel good" rumor when discussing Hugh). But I'm here to say I haven't found anyone who even years later has shown the interest that fans on here seem to want to believe there was.

Did Kyle like him? Sure, but we're cherry picking on that because Kyle had him rated higher than just about anyone on the planet. Kyle is also human, afterall he also rated LEgwand ahead of some guy who plays for Tampa once as well.

Hugh was a stretch, this wasn't a secret now and I can't believe the amount of people who are trying to treat it as hindsight now. This thread is the same thread we've seen for 3 years now. If you don't agree with the opinion that's one thing but some of the arguments I've seen for Hugh are pretty weak. Ranging from the spin to try and make this seem this is a "new" thing and no one felt this way before to comparisons to whom Jessiman isn't even close to at the same age. I mean Cmon, Bertuzzi at the age of 20? Others? Take one look at the numbers at the non-NHL numbers and the "pattern" they were going and tell me that's fair.

I have no problem if someone believes Hugh will make it and has an opposing view. But some of the arguments on his behalf are REALLY stretching it guys. I gotta be honest with you.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 02:55 AM
  #60
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,598
vCash: 500
Man this has just been done to death.

Let's remember late May '06 and look back two years from now. It could be interesting.

With so many folks saying this guy's not looking too good, it would make for a hellava good story if he could turn it around and blow some minds.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 06:34 AM
  #61
TexMurphy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 164
vCash: 500
Only ones with less patience then management is fans....

TexMurphy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 11:56 AM
  #62
KreiMeARiver*
Have Confidence
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,621
vCash: 500
We should give him time...

....
.......
.........

ok, that's enough time....trade this mess..

how about Spezza for Jessiman?

KreiMeARiver* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 12:26 PM
  #63
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexMurphy
Only ones with less patience then management is fans....

agreed but would u rather have a 21 year old player in the NHL helping ur team now, or waiting for a young kid to fill out and hopefully make the NHL by the time he is 25? id rather have the 21 year old kid in the NHL now helping the team. Then why is it that the GMs and scouts who have picked the players after Jessiman 16 out of 18 of them have all made the NHL???

BDubinskyNYR17* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 12:32 PM
  #64
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,634
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOrtmeyer41
agreed but would u rather have a 21 year old player in the NHL helping ur team now, or waiting for a young kid to fill out and hopefully make the NHL by the time he is 25? id rather have the 21 year old kid in the NHL now helping the team. Then why is it that the GMs and scouts who have picked the players after Jessiman 16 out of 18 of them have all made the NHL???
What's your point? If the Rangers could go back now and draft players then with the knowledge they have now, they probably would have drafted differently. So what?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 12:47 PM
  #65
RGF
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 274
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
What's your point? If the Rangers could go back now and draft players then with the knowledge they have now, they probably would have drafted differently. So what?

Hey at least we're having this conversation. I do remember times in the organizations history when the possibility of young kids playing or being called up was zero. Regardless, we have been fortunate with some kids who have progressed further than anticipated and should keep developing.

I agree with Edge's comments. I will admit I still support the pick considering 22 yrs old is still fairly young, and the team right now doesnt have a spot for him so what's the rush? There will be a lot of spots open in the next few seasons and if he doesn't make it then, considering the potential he has that he should focus on harnessing I will be disappointed. However, hopefully many other great young players will rise through the organization and we will continue to draft well which will make HUgh an unfortunate pick but nothing that set the Rangers back as Neil Smith 's drafts had

RGF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:02 PM
  #66
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexMurphy
Only ones with less patience then management is fans....
Sorry but that's a cop-out respose. Many of the people here have given reasons for their opinion and it's not because they are impatient. If the kid was moving forward at a steady clip, they wouldn't be commenting about how he isn't in the NHL but rather how he looks like he is getting there.

The reason (which Hugh supporters just seem to want to skip over because it's easier) is that there hasn't exactly been overwhelming progress since he was drafted. We're not talking about playing in the NHL here, we're talking about far more attainable goals like WJC's and the college game and showing a little more awareness then he did a few years ago. But we just have not seen that. We're not asking for him to be a 35 goal scorer at the NHL level right now, we're looking for some kind of sign of life and not an excuse as to why year after year Hugh never seems to take it to that next level.

In 03-04 it was because he "double teamed" and because of hit commitments to Frat life.

In 04-05 it was because of an injury, meanwhile he didn't exactly light the world on fire before the injury which NO ONE wants to address or always seems to forget.

In 05-06 it's obviously the coaching in Hartford that is holding him back. I mean forget about the progress of guys like Immonen, Dawes, Helminen and others, there MUST be a conspiracy against Hugh.

That doesn't include any Rookie camps where he was outplayed in every sense of the word by his Ranger prospect peers. It doesn't include WJC camps where he looked incredibly out of place (and once again this was BEFORE the injury that has apparently "derailed" him).

The issue here is not patience or impatience. It's looking at how he's developed. You can make a better case for Hugh if he really tore up the college level and really progressed at the pro game this year, but right now you can't. So when we compare that to kids who are producing better at the NHL level than Hugh is at the AHL level, YES it is going to cause serious concern. That is especially true when some of these kids are "power forwards" too and therefore subject to the same "they take longer" excuse that Hugh is. We can't use it to shield Hugh and then dismiss it for guys like Brown or Getzlaf. They also weren't exactly outofnowhere prospects back in 03 either. Both were widely considered better than Hugh by 90% of the observers out there. Sure there were some who didn't agree but they were in the far minority and so far history has proved that minority wrong.

It's not a case closed scenario here, but let's be fair when we look at what's happened the last 3 years. We can't just throw things out and dismiss them because we don't like what they show us.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:04 PM
  #67
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,634
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGF
Hey at least we're having this conversation. I do remember times in the organizations history when the possibility of young kids playing or being called up was zero. Regardless, we have been fortunate with some kids who have progressed further than anticipated and should keep developing.

I agree with Edge's comments. I will admit I still support the pick considering 22 yrs old is still fairly young, and the team right now doesnt have a spot for him so what's the rush? There will be a lot of spots open in the next few seasons and if he doesn't make it then, considering the potential he has that he should focus on harnessing I will be disappointed. However, hopefully many other great young players will rise through the organization and we will continue to draft well which will make HUgh an unfortunate pick but nothing that set the Rangers back as Neil Smith 's drafts had

But that's not the point.

I just don't know what the point of revisionist history is. Ryan Getlzlaf was drafted after Jessiman. And Patrice Bergeron was drafted after Getzlaf. What's the point of discussing what should have been done or what we do now?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:11 PM
  #68
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
But that's not the point.

I just don't know what the point of revisionist history is. Ryan Getlzlaf was drafted after Jessiman. And Patrice Bergeron was drafted after Getzlaf. What's the point of discussing what should have been done or what we do now?
I think the Hugh issue gets brought up more than most because most people knew it then as well.

This isn't 98 or 99 when most oberservers felt Malhotra, Lundmark and Brendl were good picks or possibly even steals at their position.

We're talking about a player who even at the time, was WIDELY considered to be taken too early. What I've seen since then is a a ton of rumors of teams who were supposedly "going to take Hugh" but whom I can't get one acknowledgement from. I've probably looked into those rumors over the years more than anything or anyone else and all I can say is that I can't find a single bit of evidence to support them.

This is situation for Ranger fans will linger, just like the Shane Doan situation for Oilers fans did for so long. Most oberservers felt Doan was the better pick, the fans at the time did and in the long run Doan was the better pick than Kelly. Everyone seemed to feel that way but the people drafting and the impact was felt for a VERY long time.

It's an eerily similar situation to this. The editors on here were screaming, most fans were screaming, most oberservers agreed.

It's easier to dismiss a "well we saw it like everyone else saw it" type pick rather than a "We really went out on a limb despite strong opposition" type pick.

It's also a little easier to dismiss in a not so deep draft and on a team that is stacked with youth. But right now Getzlaf (much like Stoll) would look mighty good on a team in need of some young top ling centers and some size/scoring combinations. And in both cases, there were A LOT of people who wondered what the Rangers were doing even as they did it.

THAT is why you see this kind of reaction.

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:18 PM
  #69
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,634
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I think the Hugh issue gets brought up more than most because most people knew it then as well.

This isn't 98 or 99 when most oberservers felt Malhotra, Lundmark and Brendl were good picks or possibly even steals at their position.

We're talking about a player who even at the time, was WIDELY considered to be taken too early. What I've seen since then is a a ton of rumors of teams who were supposedly "going to take Hugh" but whom I can't get one acknowledgement from. I've probably looked into those rumors over the years more than anything or anyone else and all I can say is that I can't find a single bit of evidence to support them.

This is situation for Ranger fans will linger, just like the Shane Doan situation for Oilers fans did for so long. Most oberservers felt Doan was the better pick, the fans at the time did and in the long run Doan was the better pick than Kelly. Everyone seemed to feel that way but the people drafting and the impact was felt for a VERY long time.

It's an eerily similar situation to this. The editors on here were screaming, most fans were screaming, most oberservers agreed.

It's easier to dismiss a "well we saw it like everyone else saw it" type pick rather than a "We really went out on a limb despite strong opposition" type pick.

It's also a little easier to dismiss in a not so deep draft and on a team that is stacked with youth. But right now Getzlaf (much like Stoll) would look mighty good on a team in need of some young top ling centers and some size/scoring combinations. And in both cases, there were A LOT of people who wondered what the Rangers were doing even as they did it.

THAT is why you see this kind of reaction.
I get that Edge. And I get that. We can discuss who we would have preferred to draft.

But the question is: Is it too early to call Jessiman and bust.

You're feelings about Jessiman are well known.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:26 PM
  #70
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,860
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
I get that Edge. And I get that. We can discuss who we would have preferred to draft.

But the question is: Is it too early to call Jessiman and bust.

You're feelings about Jessiman are well known.
I think it is too early to make it definitive, but it's getting awfully close to start penciling it in unless something REALLY dramatic changes.

We have very very little to point to from the past 3 years. And in my history, when the excuses outnumbers the accomplishments the kid almost never makes it to anywhere close to projected levels. Whether it's his fault or not, when we really look at history there aren't a whole lot of players we can point to who had more excuses than accomplishments in the several years following the draft who really "made it".

Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:34 PM
  #71
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
well, at least it's not like the Caps draft last year...

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:38 PM
  #72
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I like what Edge is saying here. And although I don't have the "contacts" that he does, the few people that I do know didn't like him at that draft selection either.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think the biggest reason this thread seems to keep popping up is because 2003 is perhaps one of the deepest drafts ever, and certainly the best since 1991 (a year that brought us Lindros, Forsberg, Kovalev, Naslund, Falloon, etc.). It hurts to think that we messed this first round up when seemingly EVERY team in the league got something out of it.

I hate dealing in what-ifs but imagine we end up with the 6th overall pick in '03 instead of '04. Christ.

But I digress, I'm not willing to open that can of worms any further - nor will I continue with that line of discussion.

As far as Hugh is concerned, the fan in me holds out some hope for him. The student of hockey which exists inside my head warns me of such temptations.

He's raw, sure, but how long is that going to continue to fly?

Next year is definitely his make/break year for development. If he's not bringing it in Hartford on a full-time 1st/2nd line basis, forget about it.

BigE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:44 PM
  #73
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I think the Hugh issue gets brought up more than most because most people knew it then as well.

This isn't 98 or 99 when most oberservers felt Malhotra, Lundmark and Brendl were good picks or possibly even steals at their position.

We're talking about a player who even at the time, was WIDELY considered to be taken too early.
I agree with this 100%. That is why Jessiman and Falardeau are always beaten to death on this board. Neither was a Manny/Lundmark/Brendl highly-regarded prospect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
But the question is: Is it too early to call Jessiman and bust.
A famous quote is "It gets late early". It may be too early right now, however, if he still cannot crack the Hartford lineup next year or still cannot take a step forward at the AHL level, would it still be too early then?

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 01:44 PM
  #74
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
Next year is definitely his make/break year for development. If he's not bringing it in Hartford on a full-time 1st/2nd line basis, forget about it.
that's what kind of annoyed me about this year. He gets back into the AHL, is put on a line with some decent teammates, and he starts putting up some points. Not huge amazing point totals or anything, but he's producing. Then it's like "oh wait, we gotta win the Calder Cup! Down to the 3rd/4th line with you while we bring in an AHL vet (who was later benched in the playoffs and did nothing to help the Pack)!"

He wasn't lighting the world on fire or anything, but it seemed like he was doing better and could have used the minutes instead of being pidgeon-holed.

But I don't know, maybe the coaches felt they wanted him to "work on some things" and felt the 3rd/4th line was the best position for that

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 02:04 PM
  #75
BDubinskyNYR17*
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 10,761
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BDubinskyNYR17*
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
I agree with this 100%. That is why Jessiman and Falardeau are always beaten to death on this board. Neither was a Manny/Lundmark/Brendl highly-regarded prospect.
At least we did not pick Jarett Stoll I guess Sather did not like him for some reason. I thought Sather always picks the best player available. But hey at least he is playing with the Oilers in the playoffs and has a chance to have his name on the Stanley Cup, while Falardeau who knows if he will make the NHL. Maybe Sather did not pick Stoll because he knew that he would go to Edmonton and maybe Sather wanted to help his buddy Kevin Lowe and Craig MacTavish.

BDubinskyNYR17* 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 09:22 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.