Kole Lind | RW

[DeNiro]

11 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

The good news for Kesler is he came through the NCAA ( Ohio state if I recall ) IMO there's not a long list of players coming from Utica to Vcr. The best prospect chnace we have are likely Rathbone, Rafferty, Hoglander and Podkolzn. We should be hopeful of Lind but if we're brutally honest the odds are stacked against him. Tryamkin avoided the AHL for good reason. By the way Bouchard & Bailey weren't always 26 & 24 once they too were 21once upon a time. Bouchard has been waring Utica colours since 2016 and Bailey has already played for 2 NHL teams and played 63 games. It's fingers crossed time and again if we're honest Lind has a ways to go  

Those players were obviously not able to adapt their games enough for coaches to give them a spot. Simply putting up big points is not enough for players to make the jump.

 

From the looks of it Lind has already made big improvements in his game after one offseason. If he continues to trend the right way, play aggressive, and work on his two way game he’ll get his shot. If he’s coach able no reason to think he won’t get there.

[Fanuck]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

 

From the looks of it Lind has already made big improvements in his game after one offseason.

This, and essentially this alone, is why I'm cautiously optimistic about Lind's development.   Forget point totals, he looks, albeit from my limited observations,  like a completely different player (in a good way), from last season. 

[ShawnAntoski]

The jump from juniors to the AHL, varies for different players cause it is mostly, a mental game that one has to overcome.  Iam still hopeful, that he can become a solid member of the core because of the way he has responded, after a season of adjustments last year.  Regardless, he still has to earn his way into the big club despite his current success.

Edited January 19, 2020 by ShawnAntoski

[Fred65]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Those players were obviously not able to adapt their games enough for coaches to give them a spot. Simply putting up big points is not enough for players to make the jump.

 

From the looks of it Lind has already made big improvements in his game after one offseason. If he continues to trend the right way, play aggressive, and work on his two way game he’ll get his shot. If he’s coach able no reason to think he won’t get there.

I'd prefer to reserve judgement. I see the book makers odds and I'm not willing to mortgage my house of Lind's likelihood of success in the NHL. They're long odds at this time. I've never seen him play regularly and I'd be foolish to think other wise IMO

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Law of averages that one pops through. I still maintain that we get better success with development in the NCAA. IMO Lind still has to get better, true he is pulling away from the pack, but then again so to is Bailey ….  again …. but can't quite make the NHL ( can we say Boucher ) 

Lind is a major success story this far in terms of improvement. But look at players like Juolevi, Jasek, Gadjovich, Brisebois, etc. Have they not all improved? That's called development, something critics suggested that Utica was incapable of simply because a few players weren't instant stars as soon as they stepped on the ice in the AHL and a couple of guys that didn't want to tough it out.

 

We are only just starting to have enough depth to force players to steep longer and have prospects that are decent enough to develop through our system as well (we will soon see the likes of Woo, Focht, Keppen, Lockwood, etc also go through the system).

 

Players like Boucher and Bailey are AHL veterans and they hold a different standard than those who are 20 or so entering their first season into the league. There are certainly players that don't have as good numbers as the AHL vets and perform better because it isn't linear in that context. Lind is performing almost as well as players 3-5 years older than him.

[stawns]

3 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Lind is a major success story this far in terms of improvement. But look at players like Juolevi, Jasek, Gadjovich, Brisebois, etc. Have they not all improved? That's called development, something critics suggested that Utica was incapable of simply because a few players weren't instant stars as soon as they stepped on the ice in the AHL and a couple of guys that didn't want to tough it out.

 

We are only just starting to have enough depth to force players to steep longer and have prospects that are decent enough to develop through our system as well (we will soon see the likes of Woo, Focht, Keppen, Lockwood, etc also go through the system).

 

Players like Boucher and Bailey are AHL veterans and they hold a different standard than those who are 20 or so entering their first season into the league. There are certainly players that don't have as good numbers as the AHL vets and perform better because it isn't linear in that context. Lind is performing almost as well as players 3-5 years older than him.

what about this guy hey?  Up to 11 goals now.

[theo5789]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

what about this guy hey?  Up to 11 goals now.

Apparently law of averages is what is making players successful, not development.

[zimmy]

Fred’s approach is actuarial in nature. My guess is that it stifles his enjoyment of the process of player development. Where many of us see hope and fall into an almost blind optimism, he feels a need to temper that emotion with rational analysis.

I, for one, find that his views give us a balance on these boards and I appreciate that. And I think secretly, when he lets his guard down, his rose coloured glasses are just as rose coloured as the rest of us! I’m not mortgaging my house either Fred, but it doesn’t cost anything to dream!

[Fred65]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Apparently law of averages is what is making players successful, not development.

Well Goldobin  has 14 goals and he's apparently aged out he's now 23, Boucher is old at 25 He played and put up stats when he 21, Bailey past it at 24. Lind of course is still young at 21. Talk about splitting hairs. You want to drop a bundle of money on his likelihood of playing NHL, no one can stop you but my money will stay in my pocket 

[Fred65]

4 minutes ago, zimmy said:

Fred’s approach is actuarial in nature. My guess is that it stifles his enjoyment of the process of player development. Where many of us see hope and fall into an almost blind optimism, he feels a need to temper that emotion with rational analysis.

I, for one, find that his views give us a balance on these boards and I appreciate that. And I think secretly, when he lets his guard down, his rose coloured glasses are just as rose coloured as the rest of us! I’m not mortgaging my house either Fred, but it doesn’t cost anything to dream!

Your correct in many ways. What really changed my view of hockey was coaching kids ( Bantam Rep) . You were no longer looking on as a fan but looking for flaws for opponents and your own roster. You owed that to the players and your team.  I then went onto delving deeper when I scouted, you're making a commitment when u offer a scholarship. You have to rationalise your views with others of your own people. I just can't fall prey to emotions. I still cheer when the Canucks score though 

[Comeback_Kings]

7 hours ago, higgyfan said:

I don't think that verterans 26yr old Bouchard and 24yr old Bailey (who is in his first season with Utica) are good examples for the Comets player development program.  Both players failed to take 'the next step' while playing for other teams, where their development age was at its prime.  Perhaps these players will one day make the NHL, but their chances are becoming slimmer as each season slides by.

 

On the other hand, Lind is just 21yrs (prime time for developing prospects) and is obviously still developing as a player; which his improvement implies.  This is the sort of player that Utica's development program should be judged by. 

 

Any player that joins the Comets as a rookie becomes a part of the developing program.  The rest are vets, who have pretty much completed their development elsewhere.

 

 

 

Comets seem to be doing the same thing as the Canucks, surround the young players with veterans, in this case, AHL pros.  

 

I don't think it is ever too late for players like Bailey, Goldobin, even Boucher.  How are the Pittsburgh Penguins so good with these 3 guys in their lineup?  

 

Teddy Blueger, 25 yrs old, 76 nhl games, 26 pts
Andrew Agozzino, 29 yrs old, 28 nhl games, 6 pts
Sam Lafferty, 24 yrs old, 35 nhl games, 10 pts

 

 

 

[RogersTowell]

7 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Frankly I get fed up with posters who see ( in this case Lind ) put up a few points in the AHL and suddenly fans go full Monty on his future in the NHL. I offer Boucher and Bailey as players who have looked good but can't take the next step. Percentage wise that is likely  projectory.   The AHL is full of players on the cusp, actually graduated few and far between

To create an equivalency, you must first prove that Lind is the same kind of player as Boucher or Bailey, otherwise you are merely making false equivalencies and using stats in ways you have pooh poohed others for using in the same post.  Boucher doesn't seem to be able to make the next step at all, Bailey might, but his window is closing.  Lind has made great strides this season and has pushed his way up the depth chart.  You don't do that without making improvements in your game.  Watch him play and then come back and tell us what you see as his deficiencies if that's your thesis.  For myself, I'm satisfied with his progress, although his defensive awareness could improve somewhat.  He forechecks well and has pretty good offensive vision.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

Well Goldobin  has 14 goals and he's apparently aged out he's now 23, Boucher is old at 25 He played and put up stats when he 21, Bailey past it at 24. Lind of course is still young at 21. Talk about splitting hairs. You want to drop a bundle of money on his likelihood of playing NHL, no one can stop you but my money will stay in my pocket 

The point was development. Many were dumping on Utica because a few first year prospects weren't "developed" into NHLers 10 games into the season as 20 year olds playing pro for the first time. Some suggest college players are developing better, but they are coming in a year or two older and playing against peers that are also a year or two older. But this stance seems to be dumping on the AHL system rather than Utica itself because if the argument is that college development is better, then we should just scrap Utica altogether in that case because what's the point of farm teams then?

 

However, we are actually seeing progression pretty much amongst every prospect right now going through our system. Will they all make the NHL? Who knows, but our prospects are young and we are only just starting to get a real influx of quality prospects going through the system (the previous quality ones like Demko and Jake are already graduated). How many prospects that have been willing to put in the work here have been failed by the Utica system?

[Pete M]

Kole Lind has heated up!

 

Keep er going Kole!

[zimmy]

2 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Your correct in many ways. What really changed my view of hockey was coaching kids ( Bantam Rep) . You were no longer looking on as a fan but looking for flaws for opponents and your own roster. You owed that to the players and your team.  I then went onto delving deeper when I scouted, you're making a commitment when u offer a scholarship. You have to rationalise your views with others of your own people. I just can't fall prey to emotions. I still cheer when the Canucks score though 

True fandom is never as narrowly defined as some would have it. I’m certainly not the same fan I was when I was twelve years old nor do I resemble the young man with a shaky professional outlook and no family to worry about who lived and died with every result. I am naive enough to believe, save for a few provocateurs, here at the CDC, we all cheer.

[Fred65]

21 hours ago, RogersTowell said:

To create an equivalency, you must first prove that Lind is the same kind of player as Boucher or Bailey, otherwise you are merely making false equivalencies and using stats in ways you have pooh poohed others for using in the same post.  Boucher doesn't seem to be able to make the next step at all, Bailey might, but his window is closing.  Lind has made great strides this season and has pushed his way up the depth chart.  You don't do that without making improvements in your game.  Watch him play and then come back and tell us what you see as his deficiencies if that's your thesis.  For myself, I'm satisfied with his progress, although his defensive awareness could improve somewhat.  He forechecks well and has pretty good offensive vision.

Frankly the concept that I must prove any thing it not true. I made the statement you need to disprove it. There was just as much hope for Boucher when he was 21 as there is for Lind when he's 21. In fact Boucher had already been promoted to the NHL with New Jersey. He currently looks like a tweener ( still leads the entire AHL in points) but in todays game it looks like he doesn't have the speed. We have no idea if the current Mr Lind will progress further or maybe he's reached his plateau. If you have a crystal ball that can read the future ….. tell me  what are the winning lottery tickets for the next draw

[Rob_Zepp]

On 1/19/2020 at 12:23 PM, Fred65 said:

Frankly I get fed up with posters who see ( in this case Lind ) put up a few points in the AHL and suddenly fans go full Monty on his future in the NHL. I offer Boucher and Bailey as players who have looked good but can't take the next step. Percentage wise that is likely  projectory.   The AHL is full of players on the cusp, actually graduated few and far between

What an odd thing to say (the bolded item).   In the past few years, the VAST majority of NHL players have played first in the AHL.    To start the 2018-19 season, 660 graduates from the AHL were on opening day rosters making up MORE THAN 83% of the initial pool of players for that season.   How is 83% "few and far between"???      For this season, the number dipped slightly to 622 grads so only 82% this year.    

 

https://theahl.com/ahl-grads-on-nhl-rosters-18-19

 

LOTS AND LOTS of AHL players get to the show.    It is by far the most likely place for a player to be before they get to the NHL actually (that is what >80% means).    

 

[Fred65]

660 grad from the AHL, over how many years ie 66 per year for 10 years? Lets take Utica, there are players on the down side of their careers ( Beartschi ) who end up in the AHL, there are players sent down for conditioning ( Roussel ), there are players called up to cover for injuries ( MacEwen type) Lets look at the Utica roster there are 37 players listed on the roster, if the  83% success was true we'd expect approx. 25 of them to play in the NHL, I call BS on that. During the lockout there were literally hundred of NHL players playing in the AHL. This is a promotional article from the AHL and should be treated as such …..   me thinks 

[dpn1]

13 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

What an odd thing to say (the bolded item).   In the past few years, the VAST majority of NHL players have played first in the AHL.    To start the 2018-19 season, 660 graduates from the AHL were on opening day rosters making up MORE THAN 83% of the initial pool of players for that season.   How is 83% "few and far between"???      For this season, the number dipped slightly to 622 grads so only 82% this year.    

 

https://theahl.com/ahl-grads-on-nhl-rosters-18-19

 

LOTS AND LOTS of AHL players get to the show.    It is by far the most likely place for a player to be before they get to the NHL actually (that is what >80% means).    

 

Hey Rob nice to to see you posting again. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by dpn1

[Chronic.Canuck]

10 hours ago, Fred65 said:

660 grad from the AHL, over how many years ie 66 per year for 10 years? Lets take Utica, there are players on the down side of their careers ( Beartschi ) who end up in the AHL, there are players sent down for conditioning ( Roussel ), there are players called up to cover for injuries ( MacEwen type) Lets look at the Utica roster there are 37 players listed on the roster, if the  83% success was true we'd expect approx. 25 of them to play in the NHL, I call BS on that. During the lockout there were literally hundred of NHL players playing in the AHL. This is a promotional article from the AHL and should be treated as such …..   me thinks 

You are using the statistics incorrectly. It doesn't mean that 83% of AHL players graduate to the NHL, it means that 83% of NHL players spent time there.

 

You can use numbers to tell whatever story you like but that doesn't mean it's correct.