[Article] Winners and Hughes-ers

[saw234]

26 minutes ago, oldnews said:

not sure why you wouldn't simply edit this OP to comply with board rules.

are you wanting this thread to be locked?

Fixed

[Tre Mac]

Honestly that is the dumbest headline ever lol.  Quinners and Losers would've been better. 

[Alflives]

3 hours ago, saw234 said:

Fixed

Is this an article?  Isn’t this more a personal opinion, so (simply) a post for discussion?  Should be in the Highes’ thread, right? 

[Nave]

So, nobody loses?

[bloodycanuckleheads]

5 hours ago, saw234 said:

They will get a more mature and NHL ready player in a year

How is 40 games in the NCAA better for a player's development than 82 games in the NHL?  Does the player play more minutes in the NCAA?  No, he plays half as much overall.  Does the NCAA have better coaching?  No.  Does the NCAA have better off-ice training and facilities?  No.  Does the NCAA have a higher level of competition?  No.  Absolutely everything is better in the NHL.  The only benefit of going back to the NCAA is that he'll be higher on the depth-chart.

 

Players get better by playing against a higher level of competition, not a lower one.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the average career-length of an NHL player is 5 years.  So, by giving up your first year to go back to college, you could be cutting your career short by up to 20%!  Only 4% of players play over 1,000 games in their careers, so losing 82gms is actually a rather big deal.   By going back to college, a top prospect's NHL career will likely be 5 to 10% shorter than it would have been otherwise. 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

How is 40 games in the NCAA better for a player's development than 82 games in the NHL?  Does the player play more minutes in the NCAA?  No, he plays half as much overall.  Does the NCAA have better coaching?  No.  Does the NCAA have better off-ice training and facilities?  No.  Does the NCAA have a higher level of competition?  No.  Absolutely everything is better in the NHL.  The only benefit of going back to the NCAA is that he'll be higher on the depth-chart.

 

Players get better by playing against a higher level of competition, not a lower one.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the average career-length of an NHL player is 5 years.  So, by giving up your first year to go back to college, you could be cutting your career short by up to 20%!  Only 4% of players play over 1,000 games in their careers, so losing 82gms is actually a rather big deal.   By going back to college, a top prospect's NHL career will likely be 5 to 10% shorter than it would have been otherwise. 

Er.  How does playing 44+13 games in the SweHL benefit Pettersson?

'Everything is better in the NHL.'

How did it serve the Sedins?

How did a year of college serve Boeser?  

 

What it accomplishes is allowing the undersized/under-strength teenager a year to develop in a less physical, less risky context.

I think Hughes made the right call.

 

There's no need to rush any of these guys into the NHL - the team is not hinging on the short term contributions of these players - it's hinging on their longer term development - and durability - something that isn't necessarily enhanced by throwing them into an exhausting 82 game grind, with some really heavy opponents to handle - as teenagers.

 

Hughes will be fine - he doesn't need to rush 20% of his careeer prematurely lol.   One year of getting run as a 170lb 18yr old might actually hamper his career as much as add 5/10/20%...

[189lb enforcers?]

4 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

How is 40 games in the NCAA better for a player's development than 82 games in the NHL?  Does the player play more minutes in the NCAA?  No, he plays half as much overall.  Does the NCAA have better coaching?  No.  Does the NCAA have better off-ice training and facilities?  No.  Does the NCAA have a higher level of competition?  No.  Absolutely everything is better in the NHL.  The only benefit of going back to the NCAA is that he'll be higher on the depth-chart.

 

Players get better by playing against a higher level of competition, not a lower one.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the average career-length of an NHL player is 5 years.  So, by giving up your first year to go back to college, you could be cutting your career short by up to 20%!  Only 4% of players play over 1,000 games in their careers, so losing 82gms is actually a rather big deal.   By going back to college, a top prospect's NHL career will likely be 5 to 10% shorter than it would have been otherwise. 

Well, the kid can play, but he’s a baby still.

Did you see his face and torso in those interviews? 

 

He is a runt. Great player, but small.

The NCAA is a great place for him to grow, period.

 

 

Come back when your over the 170lb mark and lining up against Getzlaf, Quinn. 

[The Beagle had landed]

8 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

Honestly that is the dumbest headline ever lol.  Quinners and Losers would've been better. 

Lol, you Quinn some, you Hughes some.

[nucklehead]

Got to see him in action last night at the world junior showcase.

 

And taking two minutes for interference. 

 

Final USA 7 Canada  5

GWG 24 Q. Hughes

 

[nucklehead]

Listening to him in an interview talking about wanting to be in the best condition to step on the ice and make a difference for the Canucks right away I wondered, is he not playing this year in order to NOT help the Canucks? Is he staying back to give them a better chance of landing his brother at the next draft? Nah, I'm sure that can't be right...

[Phat Fingers]

23 hours ago, Puckster said:

I appreciate the article link, but.... why is everyone skating around the fact that a 5'10" 170lb "D" is gonna get crushed in this NHL league. I would expect that he concentrates on getting bigger/faster this year back in the NCAA. At 185 or 190 lbs he would survive much longer in his rookie year, maybe 60 Odd games, before injury gets him.

 

Lets face it, these kids coming into the league at 18/19 do get injured... the game is faster/heavier than what they are used to and.... longer season.

 

Let the kid mature physically before the punishment.....

Can’t hit what you can’t catech  

 

serriously, Hughes is a rover more than a traditional D man. He plays defence by keeping the puck away from the other team.  As for contact, it’s inevitable that he gets nailed, but he is shifty and an exceptional skater, so hitting Hughes won’t be easy.  Too me he seems to be a Patty Kane style d man. Brian Leetch or Brian Campbell are decent style comparables, both would be the all time best nucks d men had they been nucks. 

 

Adding strength a fitness with an improved shot is my hope for Hughes this year. Size wil never be an issue IMO as he will rarely get caught in the wrong position. 

[jmahyoung]

He's just not physically ready at this stage in his development. I think those of us who saw him play at the summer showcase, generally all saw the same thing.

He has the speed and the awareness, but he can't win puck battles against NHL calibre players, or even elite AHL calibre players.

He simply needs to grow bigger and stronger, while keeping his skills and skating ability.

I would feel comfortable putting him in the Canucks lineup if he gained an extra 10-15 lbs of muscle. Since he is a teenager, this might happen naturally anyway. I agree with Benning, (and even Hughes), throwing him to the NHL wolves at this stage is probably a mistake.

 

 

[flickyoursedin]

I feel like everybody wanted to rush Quinn Hughes except for......Quinn Hughes. There’s really no rush and I was one of the few that was hoping he’d go back to Michigan. It’s his best shot at hitting the gym and gaining the only thing he really needs (muscle/weight). He can’t do that in the NHL or AHL there’s too many games in the schedule to also fit in gym time.

[JeremyCuddles]

19 hours ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

How is 40 games in the NCAA better for a player's development than 82 games in the NHL?  Does the player play more minutes in the NCAA?  No, he plays half as much overall.  Does the NCAA have better coaching?  No.  Does the NCAA have better off-ice training and facilities?  No.  Does the NCAA have a higher level of competition?  No.  Absolutely everything is better in the NHL.  The only benefit of going back to the NCAA is that he'll be higher on the depth-chart.

 

Players get better by playing against a higher level of competition, not a lower one.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the average career-length of an NHL player is 5 years.  So, by giving up your first year to go back to college, you could be cutting your career short by up to 20%!  Only 4% of players play over 1,000 games in their careers, so losing 82gms is actually a rather big deal.   By going back to college, a top prospect's NHL career will likely be 5 to 10% shorter than it would have been otherwise. 

You also have to factor in readiness. Is he physically ready to handle the NHL? Skating is well and nice but he still needs to refine himself. So yes, it is better to do that in a lesser league. Getting shredded day in day out in the NHL is NOT better just cause it's a better league. It could ruin his confidence. He's a teenager, there is literally no need to rush him into the NHL. The next few years will be the most important to his overall development as he starts to get his man body, starts getting stronger etc. 

 

Willie D said it best when he said the NHL isn't a development league.

[Remy]

So, a few quick thoughts. I will try to be constructive and not mean or dismissive. 

 

I'll start with the article's title. "Winners and Hughes-ers" falls short mostly because it doesn't make sense. The expression it mimics is "Winners and Losers", and by putting Hughes' name in place of "losers" you're implying something that you probably don't intend: that Hughes is a loser. You have to be aware of the connotation of the phrase that you're trying to appropriate. 

 

Formatting is important. You have structured your article into paragraphs, but treat your paragraph heading as a sentence:

 

"Quinn Hughes. As much as he ..." This is a confusing layout and doesn't read intuitively. It would look better laid out like this: 

 

"Quinn Hughes

 

As much as he ..."

 

If you're serious about writing articles, you need to edit. 

 

"As much as he wants to be in the NHL and dress for the Canucks. He wants to make an impact when he does."  You've got back-to-back sentence fragments here. If you want people to take your writing seriously, you need to catch stuff like that. 

 

Lastly, you make some assertions that are simply unfounded. You can't make a statement like "Elite talents like Hughes don't just focus on making the NHL." There is no way you can know that to be true, and it's a blanket generalization that many readers probably find jarring. I would recommend focusing on doing some of your own analysis. In your article, you don't really introduce any information that isn't widely known. As someone that isn't an insider, it's difficult to get around this. What you can do, however, is analyze the situation or make educated predictions. It would take me too long to get into more detail, but study some reputable articles and focus on this, I think you'll see what I mean.