Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think the J. Staal comparison is WAY off.
Monahan is pretty clearly a better player and a better prospect, and I think that it is highly unlikely that his career taps out at the younger-Staal's level. Take a look at their juniour stats: Monahan has played three years of juniour, has well surpassed the point/game plateau each year, and he was the best player on his team by an obscene margin in his draft year. Staal's best season was his draft year in which he registered a point/game exactly, and was the fourth-highest scoring player on a championship team, surrounded by talent. Monahan's success from last season was entirely self-manufactured. Staal had help.
I get the desire to temper expectations, but this is not the right way to go about it. Monahan should project to a 70–80 point top-line centre, with the possibility that he surpasses that as a franchise talent. An unlikely possibility, but even if he does not meet his potential (he has been most ferequently compared to Jonathan Toews and the OTHER Staal), he should still be expected to be better than a really good #2 centre.
|
Staal fluctuated between second and third line center on the 2005-2006 Petes in his draft year. He was quite often behind Dan Ryder and Jordan Morrison on the depth chart. And he still put up a pile of points. Monohan got a ####load more ice time than him.
How can you say he's a better prospect when Staal was drafted second overall ahead of Toews, Backstrom, Kessel? There is absolutely nothing what so ever that gives an indication of Sean Mohohan being a better prospect/player than Staal was/is except for your homerism. Reality is he hasnt played a single minute in the NHL and he could very well turn into Daniel Tkaczuk for all we know.