stawns Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 that's am interesting idea. I find that stupid rule is really crippling development in these kids. maybe Canadian goaltenders too. It is ridiculous and i think it stalls the development of a lot of players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Heès in an unfortunate situation and I agree, I think there is a very good chancehe goes back to Jr.........I just think it will be a step back for him. personally I think it will be better for him to be in Van, learning from kesler, Hank and the other guys, than to go back and play Jr. Sure, he will get big mins, dominate etc etc, but I think he needs to be with the big club learning from and playing against pros. Its too bad there isnèt an exemption rule for at least 1 underage player from each organization to play in the A The only way around it is doing something like we did with Jensen last year. The OHL has to make money too, or we risk losing them as a valuable development tool for Canadian youngsters. Even if difference would only mean one less OHL team because revenues dropped then it's one less team for young players to play on. Perhaps there could be a compensation from the NHL team for taking that one overage player, but then you have to factor in potential issues with teams doing it just for the money or other conflicts. How much is a junior eligible player worth as well, when the fan drop off could last more than just that one year. I'm sure it's been argued more in depth than that somewhere already but I can see the issues with allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 The only way around it is doing something like we did with Jensen last year. The OHL has to make money too, or we risk losing them as a valuable development tool for Canadian youngsters. Even if difference would only mean one less OHL team because revenues dropped then it's one less team for young players to play on. Perhaps there could be a compensation from the NHL team for taking that one overage player, but then you have to factor in potential issues with teams doing it just for the money or other conflicts. How much is a junior eligible player worth as well, when the fan drop off could last more than just that one year. I'm sure it's been argued more in depth than that somewhere already but I can see the issues with allowing it. I know why they do it, and to some degree I understand, especially as someone who played at that level. However, in the end its a development league that touts the best for the young players. IN the case of many, playing their last year of Jr eligibility is not good for them as players, even if it is good for the team and league they play for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 There's nothing wrong with going back to Junior and dominating. Then starting out in Utica next season and getting call-ups. Turned out pretty well for Getzlaf and Perry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 There's nothing wrong with going back to Junior and dominating. Then starting out in Utica next season and getting call-ups. Turned out pretty well for Getzlaf and Perry. They had no choice - it was a lockout year. And therefore a lot of 19 year olds that should have been in the NHL were stuck in the CHL - meaning higher level of competition. It did end up well for them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 They had no choice - it was a lockout year. And therefore a lot of 19 year olds that should have been in the NHL were stuck in the CHL - meaning higher level of competition. It did end up well for them though. Exactly.......had there not been a lockout, sending them back to Jr would have been a waste of a year for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) Exactly.......had there not been a lockout, sending them back to Jr would have been a waste of a year for them. I'm not sure his statement of "It did end up well for them" necessarily equals that conclusion. I can see how the competition being lower would have made it less effective, but considering the quality of that competition would only have been marginally lower I don't agree it would have been a waste if it was a regular year. Looking at the drafts in question (2003 and 2004), there weren't a so many players forced to go back to junior that were otherwise going to play in the NHL. The top 2 draft picks in 2004 were Ovi and Malkin who both played in Russia during the lockout, and of the two only Ovi could have played in the NHL that season (as Malkin chose to stay in Russia another year after that). Barker was #3 that year, and he played two more seasons in the WHL after being drafted so the lockout wasn't what was holding him back. The 2003 draft was stacked of course, and had some players that played in the NHL right away (Fluery, Staal, Horton and Zherdev) before the lockout - but they didn't go back to the OHL during the lockout. All four of those players played in the AHL (or went back to Russia in the case of Zherdev) because of age. Of the rest of the 1st rounders from that year Coburn, Phaneuf, Carter, Seabrook, Bernier, Fehr, Pouliot, Richards, Stewart and Belle played another season in junior during the lockout along with Getzlaf and Perry. And of those, only Phaneuf, Carter, Seabrook and Richards played the majority of the following season in the NHL (again along with Getzlaf and Perry). So that's 12 first rounders that played another year of junior (and of course much of the later draft picks) but only 6 of them actually played meaningful NHL time after the lockout. So even if all of those 6 players from the first round in the 2003 draft should have stuck with their NHL teams if there had been a 2004/05 NHL season but were forced to junior due to the lockout, they wouldn't have skewed the quality of competition in junior (spread between the WHL, OHL and QMJHL remember) that significantly. There might be more players that could be added to the 6 from 2003 and I can see adding maybe Ladd and Mezaros from 2004 (only looked into the first round, feel free to add if you want to research further) but that's not a lot to make the junior experience that much better so that guys like Getzlaf and Perry benefited only because it was a lockout strengthened group. Could some or all of those players benefited from AHL time instead of juniors in a regular year? Maybe, but I don't think it was that far off for any of them in their development curve over what a regular year of junior would have been. Edited September 17, 2013 by elvis15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Not sure what's worse. Putting him on spot duty on the 4th line, or going back to junior, crush his confidence, and have him really learn nothing at the CHL level. I guess lots of ice time would be ok. But it seems he has nothing left to prove in junior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Not sure what's worse. Putting him on spot duty on the 4th line, or going back to junior, crush his confidence, and have him really learn nothing at the CHL level. I guess lots of ice time would be ok. But it seems he has nothing left to prove in junior. Well he hasn't really dominated the OHL yet other than in the playoffs. I don't think being on the first line and having a 90+ point season would hurt him too much. He's still gotta work on keeping his feet moving, and being more consistent offensively. There's lots of good things waiting for him in junior if he can't cut it. Including being captain of the Bulls, hopefully making team Canada, and having another good shot at making the Memorial Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Not sure what's worse. Putting him on spot duty on the 4th line, or going back to junior, crush his confidence, and have him really learn nothing at the CHL level. I guess lots of ice time would be ok. But it seems he has nothing left to prove in junior. agreed. He won't learn anything from playing in junior this year. He needs mentors like Kesler and Hank to help him with his development. Europe or NHL would be best for his development IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 agreed. He won't learn anything from playing in junior this year. He needs mentors like Kesler and Hank to help him with his development. Europe or NHL would be best for his development IMO Offense and not watching the play is what he needs to work on. He needs to doninate the OHL over Horvat, Monahan maybe. Then we can see what he has to give from there, he needs go be involved alot more offensively from scoring goals to digging pucks. Defensive part of his game is more than exceptional, he always seems to be watching the play than creating it or being involved in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Offense and not watching the play is what he needs to work on. He needs to doninate the OHL over Horvat, Monahan maybe. Then we can see what he has to give from there, he needs go be involved alot more offensively from scoring goals to digging pucks. Defensive part of his game is more than exceptional, he always seems to be watching the play than creating it or being involved in it. Seems like watching the play and picking his spot worked well for him on Monday. Not everyone has to run around the ice 1000 mph. Hockey IQ and seeing the play before it happens is something that can't be taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I'm split on whether Gaunce should make the team and learn by getting the "sink or swim" treatment against the big boys or if he should go back to junior. Going back to junior could be great for Guance. He could score 90+ points and dominate...or he could be a PPG player again and only have marginal development because the level of competition does not force him to get better. Gaunce's biggest issue seems to be reading the play fast enough and keeping his feet moving, and I'm not sold that going back to junior and playing the game at junior level speed will help him with learning to read plays faster which seems to be part of his issue with why he is sometimes behind the play. I feel like Gaunce's game would benefit more from getting 12-14 minutes a night against soft competition in the NHL than playing 25 minutes in the OHL against top line competition which is still easier competition than "soft" minutes in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonny_Bohonos_14 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Tyson Giuriato @TysonGiuriato 3m Brendan Gaunce to play the wing tonight. Played there half of last season. He said it allows him to be more creative offensively. #Canucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Tyson Giuriato @TysonGiuriato 3m Brendan Gaunce to play the wing tonight. Played there half of last season. He said it allows him to be more creative offensively. #Canucks Any news on with who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Gaunce Santorelli DeFazio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_The_Schneid! Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I think Gaunce would benefit more from playing with the canucks this year. He's a big kid that needs to work on the physicality aspect of his game. Playing against kids won't further his development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'd rather he stick with the Canucks and learn from Kesler/Henrik. Plus, the conditioning and training staffs from the Canucks are probably better than in the OHL (with all due respect of course). A hands on coach like Torts and him most likely having some defensively reliable wingers will do wonders for his development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicky Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Having a heck of a game so far tonight, one of the few bright spots (on a rag tag team, I know). Good, high end speed getting back defensively, good forecheck, good goal. Making a case for himself for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now