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

Leaf Rumours

Artnes said:
I would be equally as pissed because I dont want anything to do with McCauley jr
Click to expand...

maybe on an injury-proneness level. hodgson has been a better producer than mccauley was, though. and in a lower scoring league, too.

mccauley's pre-draft stats weren't particularly good. they shot up the season after he was drafted, and only got into hodgson territory when he was an overager.
 
in his draft year he exceeded ME's 'magic' level of productivity of 1.2 ppg (hodgson was at 1.25) and in the following season boosted that into elite territory -- about 1.74 ppg (142 points per 82 games) -- a figure identical to seguin and hall's production for this season. that would tie him for second behind only eberle in ppg amongst jr. players this season.

the kid's a good friggin prospect. i think he might have some growing up to do and clearly there are enormous concerns over his back. but calling him overrated, comparing him to flameouts and suggesting that he isn't such a great prospect is silly. the kid has a ton of potential.
 
17 yrs old:
Hodgson: 63 gms, 23 gls, 46 pts (82 gms, 30 gls, 60 pts)
Kadri: 68 gms, 25 gls, 65 pts (82 gms, 30 gls, 78 pts)

18 yrs old:
Hodgson: 68 gms, 40 gls, 85 pts (82 gms, 48 gls, 103 pts)
Kadri: 56 gms, 25 gls, 78 pts (82 gms, 37 gls, 114 pts)

19 yrs old:
Hodgson: 53 gms, 43 gls, 92 pts (82 gms, 67 gls, 142 pts)
Kadri: 46 gms, 27 gls, 77 pts (82 gms, 48 gls, 137 pts)





Hodgson's a pretty comparable prospect to Kadri. Similar numbers, similar draft position, similar size and position.

If the Canucks throw in their 1st or another prospect, you'd have to strongly consider a deal like this (if everything is okay with Hodgson from a health standpoint)
 
Just for the sake of clarity. The "magic" number of 1.2 is to show the ability to be an offensive "impact" player in the NHL, and I define "impact" in this case as 30/60, one or the other. I've loosened that criteria in other arguments, but that was the original criteria I had set when I did the digging on it.

and how's my favourite outlier doing? (as in, the one everybody uses against my assertion, as if I wasn't the first one to point him out in my arguments with CNeely over Lucic)

James Neal: 24G 21A 45PTS ( 33G 63PT pace). He's on pace to be the first outlier
 
I still see Hodgson as the next Stajan. Good player, but without the elite natural skillset to make him special.
 
Well Hodgson went 10th overall, whereas Stajan was a 2nd round pick (57th overall), so he obviously had a higher pedigree pre-draft. I agree with Mbow, yeah there are some people that overrate him (like people overrate just about every prospect and draft pick), but he's still a top prospect and I'd love to get him in here. Certainly not for Kabs straight up though.
 
18yrs - Year After Draft

Hodgson: 53gms, 43gls, 92pts (82gms, 67gls, 142pts)
Stajan: 57gms, 34gls, 94pts (82gms, 49gls, 135pts)

Playoffs

Hodgson: 21gms, 11gls, 31pts (82gms, 43gls, 121pts)
Stajan: 7gms, 5gls, 13pts (82gms, 59gls, 152pts)


17yrs - Draft Year

Hodgson: 68gms, 40gls, 85pts (82gms, 48gls, 103pts)
Stajan: 68gms, 33gls, 85pts (82gms, 40gls, 103pts)

Playoffs

Hodgson: 5gms, 5gls, 5pts (82gms, 82gls, 82pts)
Stajan: 11gms, 3gls, 11pts (82gms, 22gls, 82pts)


16yrs - Year Before Draft Year

Hodgson: 63gms, 23gls, 46pts (82gms, 30gls, 60pts)
Stajan: 57gms, 9gls, 27pts (82gms, 13gls, 39pts)

Playoffs

Hodgson: 4gms, 1gls, 4pts (82gms, 21gls, 82pts)
Stajan: 7gms, 1gls, 7pts (82gms, 12gls, 82pts)




Both acknowledged for their very good hockey sense and two-way all-around play, but both with serious question marks on their natural skillsets - speed, skating, toughness, shot.


Remarkably similar, really - with Stajan's lower draft position likely explained by the fact that at age 16, Stajan didn't do much (but appeared to earn opportunity over the course of the season ending up an impact player come playoff time), while Hodgson was a good 16 year old.....so Stajan was more coming out of nowhere in his draft year, and was much more suspect as a result.
 
hodgson isn't the fastest skater, but he's a good skater. probably comparable to stajan in that regard.

he has a better shot than stajan and better hands.
 
msun30 said:
maybe on an injury-proneness level. hodgson has been a better producer than mccauley was, though. and in a lower scoring league, too.

mccauley's pre-draft stats weren't particularly good. they shot up the season after he was drafted, and only got into hodgson territory when he was an overager.
Click to expand...

Hodgson is a step and a half too slow off the mark. He succeeds in the OHL because he's got off the charts extraordinary hockey sense that allows him to bring the game down to his pace. He anticipates rather than reacting, which is also a product of his hockey sense. But let's all remember, Hodgson was considered a "safe" pick in '08. "Safe" is universal scouting lingo for "if he meets potential, he'll be a really good second line centre but probably an average second line player"

Also, Alyn McCauley never played overage year. His stats can be compared rather directly to Hodgson's on an age basis. His last year in the O was his 19 year-old season.
 
always thought the year they turned 20 was considered hte overage year (which would mean i thought this year was hodgson's overage year).

we obviously cannot compare mccauley's 19/20 year to hodgson's now given the injury and hodgson's lack of games played.

but over the previous two seasons (season prior to getting drafted and season after) hodgson's numbers were markedly better than mccauley's.
 
zeke said:
thing is, mccauley wasn't very good.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't true in the OHL. In the mid-late nineties, the only player I saw at the OHL level who was more dominant game-in, game-out than McCauley was Joe Thornton. McCauley and Hodgson played the same kind of game, have the same build and the same flaws.
 
cody's skating itself isn't bad. his footspeed isn't great, but he is solid on his skates, he's hard to get off the puck and he has decent acceleration. his top speed isn't very good, though (which again, isn't unlike stajan).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top