• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Les Habitants Prospects Thread

There's always the exception that proves the rule.

I think the Habs felt good that KK might pull a Bergeron -- brainy, two way centre. The first year (both July birthday 18yr old kids) compares pretty well.

KK 34pts in 79g
PB 39pts in 71g

Obviously, PB had an excellent sophomore season.
 
CH1 said:
There's always the exception that proves the rule.

I think the Habs felt good that KK might pull a Bergeron -- brainy, two way centre. The first year (both July birthday 18yr old kids) compares pretty well.

KK 34pts in 79g
PB 39pts in 71g

Obviously, PB had an excellent sophomore season.
Click to expand...

KK might be fine still, I just feel it was an unnecessary gamble.
 
GrandWazoo said:
KK might be fine still, I just feel it was an unnecessary gamble.
Click to expand...

For sure it was a gamble, possibly motivated in part by Bergevin's need to show Molson some type of first round yield after many draft failures.

A new GM probably plays KK's development more conservatively.
 
Habsy said:
They drafted for need. Clearly.

A power forward on this team would do wonders.
Click to expand...

All of it were needs. Center, Power forward, goal scorer, puck moving d. But centers have been an organizational hole since we traded Turgeon.

Same with power forwards though.
 
CH1 said:
they needed a power forward as well, so not following your argument.
Click to expand...
The external optics of the C need a big bodied one at that (media & fan scrutiny) was far greater than power forward - except for a handful of years with Bobby Smith. Add to it, the org hasn’t had a power forward since LeClair and even he didn’t really become one till traded to Philly - it’s been a glaring weakness for actually longer than a C, and a big bodied C was one of the reasons they drafted Wickenheiser nearly 40-years ago.
 
Habsy said:
I’m of the opinion that they felt a #1 C was more urgent.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was. This was before trading for Domi and successfully converting him to center, or trading for Suzuki and also seeing him make the transition to center.

Also centers are more critical to contenders than power forwards, as useful as those might be.
 
GEEMAN said:
I understand this rush issue may hinder a prospect

However , the argument has to be made that if your going to be a good one the player figures it out and develops

I understand the plug and play types like BK who was physically ready at 17

KK was going to need 3-4 years . Many have sophomore slumps and injuries have hurt him this year

You can’t blame it all on the rush factor , some players simply don’t pan out

Plenty of players who weren’t rushed that never live up their draft position
Click to expand...

I Would like to see an analysis on this. I suspect your right that it is more than the rush factor. Is it true the percentage of players who play 18 have a higher failure rate? Tough to say based on small sample size but it seems intuitive.
 
Alan C said:
I Would like to see an analysis on this. I suspect your right that it is more than the rush factor. Is it true the percentage of players who play 18 have a higher failure rate? Tough to say based on small sample size but it seems intuitive.
Click to expand...

Need more than just one factor, players who play at 18 also tends to be the best prospects. There is also a greater chance that players who spent 4 years in the minors weren't that great to begin with.
 
Alan C said:
I Would like to see an analysis on this. I suspect your right that it is more than the rush factor. Is it true the percentage of players who play 18 have a higher failure rate? Tough to say based on small sample size but it seems intuitive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, interesting Alan. Not sure what type of design the analysis would follow. Would be easy to compare long term success rates of the guys who come in at 18 to those drafted but who don't come in right away. But the two groups wouldn't be equivalent from the start-one would assume perhaps that those who come in at 18 are in some ways more advanced or better players/picks anyway. So the results might scew in favour of those who come in right away. I suppose there may be a way to control for that variable in the design-perhaps by comparing players picked at #5,6 etc. who come in vs. others at same position,different years who don't.

There's probably a way, statistically, to design something of quasi-value.
 
Alan C said:
I Would like to see an analysis on this. I suspect your right that it is more than the rush factor. Is it true the percentage of players who play 18 have a higher failure rate? Tough to say based on small sample size but it seems intuitive.
Click to expand...

IMO , 18 year olds who play right away should be gifted elite /IQ like Bergeron or Mario , or be built like a tank like Tkatchuk or Landeskog who are plug and play .

The thing with KK is he played well in a sheltered role and held his own physically . I was worried about the injury factor but it wasn’t an issue.

A modest uptick in production and role wasn’t too much to ask ?

Was 45-50 points with a few extra minutes a night really out of reach ?

If he was completely lost I get it but he wasn’t at all.

He came into camp heavier and stronger with a year of acclamation blunder his belt .
 
My only concern with KK had to do with recency bias, and the eerie similarity to the way AKos shot up the draft charts in 2003 simply due to his World under-18 tourney performance.
 
Sal_Butera said:
My only concern with KK had to do with recency bias, and the eerie similarity to the way AKos shot up the draft charts in 2003 simply due to his World under-18 tourney performance.
Click to expand...

Good point , do you think he goes top 5 if not for the Habs

Ottawa wanted BK , Zona had the analytics all over Hayton

Wings probably not with Zadina falling on their lap at 6
 
GEEMAN said:
Good point , do you think he goes top 5 if not for the Habs

Ottawa wanted BK , Zona had the analytics all over Hayton

Wings probably not with Zadina falling on their lap at 6
Click to expand...

Probably.

www.tsn.ca

Kotkaniemi surges into top five of TSN Draft Ranking - TSN.ca

Finn’s strong performance at the World Under-18 Championships in April has some scouts believing he’s a potential future No. 1 centre, Bob McKenzie writes. His late push could make the top 10 of the draft more unpredictable than originally anticipated.
www.tsn.ca www.tsn.ca
 
CH1 said:
For sure it was a gamble, possibly motivated in part by Bergevin's need to show Molson some type of first round yield after many draft failures.

A new GM probably plays KK's development more conservatively.
Click to expand...
Which shows how stupid it was for Molson to self-proclaim himself a Hockey President. A real hockey president probably makes sure his GM doesn't rush the first true potential #1C prospect in decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top