Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
Really ?? You are going to say that the NHL brain thrust.... many former players... are infallible judges of NHL potential from observing practices and scrimmages and non-NHL games?
|
Who said anything about "infallible"? That's a far cry from my expectation that the seasoned professionals who work with these kids on a daily basis have
a better inclination than both you and I do about their individual readiness at the NHL level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
Next you are going to tell me that coaches watching Giordano an a daily basis for years could tell he was not as good a hockey player as Bouwmeester and even if he was given the opportunity he would never ever be a #1 Defenseman.
|
No. But I will remind you that when Giordano rejected the Flames two-way contract offer and went to play hockey in Russia, he was not a NHL top-four defenseman by any reasonable measure. He showed potential that I am fairly confident the coaching and scouting staff were keenly aware of at the time, but it was a long road for Giordano to get to where he is today.
I guess I could be wrong. Perhaps we ought to defer to your better judgement—since talent assessment is such a crap shoot, who needs scouts and coaches?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricardodw
At the end of last season with Knight/Hankowski/Agostino/Van Brabant/Reinhart/Granlund rotating in the line-up replacing Stajan and Stempniak and Glencross the team did far better than the team did with the proven NHL players.
Is there some sort of artistic impression points that devalues these wins that I don't know about?
|
At the end of a losing season with nothing left to play for, jacked up on adrenaline and the euphoria of NHL success, in a limited window from which we must qualify the quality of the evidence relative to the sample size.
No artistic impression. Only a balanced and tempered review that recognises the many, many mitigating factors that can produce outliers in performance.