[News] With the 104th overall pick, the Flames select LW John Gaudreau

[stemit14]

It is funny looking back how many people did rip on this pick almost immediately. He still gets similar comments today about his size but he's become a pro at proving people wrong.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

The more I think about it, it would probably be best for Johnny to play in the AHL first so he can get used to playing an almost doubled schedule than what he was used to playing in college. But, then you have to take in consideration what he did in the WC, where you played every other day. And on top of that, he was playing against NHLers in the WC. Imo, he has better chemistry with established NHLers than the recent rookie tournament.

I'll be stoked if he makes it to the NHL this year, but won't be angry if he doesn't.

Minutes can be managed and he can be better protected in the NHL. Why bother? He's shown he's good enough to skate with the big boys at WC and his debut.

[Robbob]

You have to take everything with a grain of salt on a hockey board. There really is a reason posters don't work and are responsible for hockey decisions. At the end of the day it is the internet and things will be said that you might not agree with or make you angry especially when hindsight is used. Sometimes it isn't worth the effort to go down that road.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Minutes can be managed and he can be better protected in the NHL. Why bother? He's shown he's good enough to skate with the big boys at WC and his debut.

I agree. I guess I am just making sure I am prepared to assume he starts in the AHL first.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

I agree. I guess I am just making sure I am prepared to assume he starts in the AHL first.

And I just wouldn't understand the point if he did get sent down in October. There are significantly less than 9 forwards on the roster more skilled than him. In fact the only player that rivals him there is probably Hudler. Unless he shows he's over his head in camp there's no use in holding him down in the American league. I think it's cleat that he can help this team, so if we want to ice the best possible team, he should probably be on it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Really? I can't recall any thread necromancy on this site for the purpose of saying "I told you so" to all the people who made giddily optimistic projections about Dustin Boyd, or Leland Irving, or Matt Pelech, or Greg Nemisz, etc. etc. Not a single one.

No thread necromancy, but I have occasionally made reference to these players, because there are lessons to be learned.

Irving: goalies are crapshoots. Pick 'em later.
Pelech: defensemen who don't score generally aren't good players.
Nemisz: be wary of guys whose teammates might be making him look good.

Naturally, all those arguments are more convincing when presented with larger sample sizes, rather than anecdotally. In fact, the first and third may be totally wrong, whereas I think the evidence for the second is pretty strong.

[JiriHrdina]

The other thing is that it is easy to predict players to fail - most players do. So the half empty perspective will be right more often than the half full one. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't be optimistic though.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Not too many speak in absolutes. "I don't see him making any impact" is different than "waste of a pick"

Specifically, only a sith deals in absolutes.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by SebC

No thread necromancy, but I have occasionally made reference to these players, because there are lessons to be learned.

Irving: goalies are crapshoots. Pick 'em later.
Pelech: defensemen who don't score generally aren't good players.
Nemisz: be wary of guys whose teammates might be making him look good.

Naturally, all those arguments are more convincing when present with larger sample sizes, rather than anecdotally. In fact, the first and third may be totally wrong, whereas I think the evidence for the second is pretty strong.

I'll agree with all 3. We picked Trevor Kidd over Brodeur if I remember correctly. Dmen that can't score at all generally don't fare too well. And you just need to look at Arnold for proof of a player being elevated by his teammate. Arnold has heart and work ethic but his production will most definitely plummet the second he's taken away from Gaudreau.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Specifically, only a sith deals in absolutes.

Is that absolutely true?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by SebC

No thread necromancy, but I have occasionally made reference to these players, because there are lessons to be learned.

Irving: goalies are crapshoots. Pick 'em later.
Pelech: defensemen who don't score generally aren't good players.
Nemisz: be wary of guys whose teammates might be making him look good.

Naturally, all those arguments are more convincing when present with larger sample sizes, rather than anecdotally. In fact, the first and third may be totally wrong, whereas I think the evidence for the second is pretty strong.

Picking goalies in the later rounds used to be somewhat true, but it is not any more. Most of the best goalies and goalie prospects are the ones taken early.

Darren Haynes wrote a good article on this

http://flamesfrom80feet.blogspot.ca/...selection.html

Also, the only guys that played with "star" prospects that actually turned out to be great on their own from my recollection were Ray Whitney (Pat Falloon), Brad Richards (Lecavalier), and Ondrej Palat (Couturier) and none of them were taken early with good reason. It was a dumb pick by the Flames with Nemisz.

[Vulcan]

From the articles comments.

Furthermore, while acknowledging the small sample size, I think it's notable that of the 1st round picks you noted most of them aren't playing for the team that drafted them (and I'm pretty sure if you asked Pittsburgh if they'd like a do-over on MA Fluery they'd take you up on it). The teams that made those picks aren't the ones primarily benefitting from these players prime years.

This is the one downfall in my mind with drafting goalies, we don't get enough time to develop and keep them. This will be the last season (14/15) we can protect Ortio from waivers and if he can't unseat one of our NHL goalies next season, we could lose him for nothing. Still we need to draft them as we need someone on the farm.

[gunnner]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From the articles comments.

This is the one downfall in my mind with drafting goalies, we don't get enough time to develop and keep them. This will be the last season (14/15) we can protect Ortio from waivers and if he can't unseat one of our NHL goalies next season, we could lose him for nothing. Still we need to draft them as we need someone on the farm.

Ortio will be our starter next year. Hiller backing up. Ramo gone.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by gunnner

Ortio will be our starter next year. Hiller backing up. Ramo gone.

Uhh, I always appreciate hearing from someone who knows all the answers.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

From the articles comments.

This is the one downfall in my mind with drafting goalies, we don't get enough time to develop and keep them. This will be the last season (14/15) we can protect Ortio from waivers and if he can't unseat one of our NHL goalies next season, we could lose him for nothing. Still we need to draft them as we need someone on the farm.

The problem with goalies is that they usually take at least 6 years from draft day to make the NHL with any regularity. Unfortunately, that's too long. We're seeing that with Ortio as you mentioned. Even Kipper didn't lock down a job till he was 25-26 with the Sharks.

I could see Irving possibly making a return to the NHL although more in the backup/1B starter type role.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The problem with goalies is that they usually take at least 6 years from draft day to make the NHL with any regularity. Unfortunately, that's too long. We're seeing that with Ortio as you mentioned. Even Kipper didn't lock down a job till he was 25-26 with the Sharks.

I could see Irving possibly making a return to the NHL although more in the backup/1B starter type role.

I agree. I think he is a 2.0 version of Curtis McElhinney.

[Textcritic]

More Gaudreau.

That is all.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I don't think there is anything wrong with giving an opinion - good or bad. Creates discussion, and this is what this board is for after all - great discussion.

It is the extremes that become frustrating and annoying at times. For instance, I personally love Jankowski, and think he has the TOOLS to be a #1 center in the league. I also think he has a relatively small bust factor (IQ, skating ability, packing on size, and developing in an 'defense-first' environment). What I will not proclaim is something like: "I guarantee that Jankowski is going to come in here and become the first line center on this team, and be a superstar in this league." I would expect to get ripped for writing that down, though I am sure there would be a few posters agreeing as well. If I just continue saying something like: "Jankowski has the tools to possibly end up developing into a pretty good #1 center given his strengths, but he does have a long road to get there. He may only develop into a checker, though that in itself isn't guaranteed. I do think he will be an important piece for the Flames in their top 6, however." I don't think anyone who is 'down' on Jankowski would pull that up 5 years from now if Jankowski ends up busting and saying "Look at this idiotic post."

It is the same thing if I didn't like Jankowski and said: "This kid will never make it in the NHL. 6'3" and only 165lbs? Never in a million years will he make it. Total rubbish of a selection. Flames make yet another bust of a 1st round pick." People making these definitive statements can also expect to get 'ripped'. Why not just say: "Wow, that was a surprise. It seems like a risk move in my opinion, and I wonder what sort of chance this kid ever has to make it. Hopefully it will work out, but I do have my doubts given his lack of physical development and the league he was drafted out of.". That is a fair statement that will encourage discussion, not encourage a bunch of angry responses.

There is a difference - both positive and negative in terms of people's opinions - that illicit a particular type of reaction. If people can't figure out that difference, then it explains a whole lot as why they get so upset when they are suddenly met with a number of angry or snarly rebuttals. I swear that I think some people just enjoy getting a rise out of others, but keep denying it! haha

[Phanuthier]

^ Great post, thank you. Its only really annoying when people dig in their heals and start stating things as fact. Otherwise if you didn't have an opinion (good or bad) there's just not going to be a ton of discussion other than "well scouts know more than me so I have nothing to say" ......

saying that.... "Big=Good" is one of those legecy things, like dufus-for-dufus. Nobody a decade ago would argue "well how do you know he's not a dufus, what if he becomes a good player?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by MattyC

EDIT: A good example is Chris Lindberg's stance on Backlund that he was not and never would be an NHL player. A statement he stood by for multiple years and it became more ridiculous as time went on and Backlund progressed. The harder you dig in about an opinion on something that is completely unpredictable, the more backlash there will be when you are shown to be wrong and. It's a lesson in humilty for some people. And it does seem to be the same people who make absolute predicitions about players either way.

You've confused Chris Lindberg with Where R U Chris O'Sullivan.

Chris Lindberg was the opposite. He gauranteed Backlund would be an NHL'er by Christmas of Backlund's 19 yo season, IIRC.

O'Sullivan is the Backlund hater, that gauranteed Backlund would leave for the KHL by 2013, IIRC.