Quote:
Originally Posted by druetetective
I don't think team success is necessarily the ultimate measuring stick in this situation. I mean
a team like Ontario can sign 4 UFA defencemen and a goalie and win the division due to having older depth.
I think playing against as many elite players as possible throughout the season would be the ideal situation. Think Nylander and Rantanen. We get the Goldobins, Kempes And G. Reinharts of the league.
Anaheim has a good system but Van, Edm, L.A and S.J are the absolute bottom of the barrel prospect wise- Especially at the AHL level.
Anyways realistically I'm not that concerned about it. The elite prospects will rise to the top regardless. Just something to discuss in August.
|
Actually I disagree with your entire position.
Playing the same five, six or seven teams over and over means more chance to look at mistakes in video against certain players and keep improving on those weaknesses without "forgetting" them. Learning to hone in on opponent tendancies rather than just guesswork. Remember what Regehr once said, when he moved to the Sabres he had to learn the tendencies of every new eastern opponent he faced, something he had a pretty good book on for western opponents. At a micro level, this is a method of development for a kid like Kylington.
I also didn't think the Pacific had any legitimate bottom feeders. As an rookie, Poirier seemed to rack up the points against a few terrible teams (Iowa and Rochester come to mind) but as a Sophomore Poirier struggled more consistently. That is only good for his development because he doesn't get "break" games. Every opponent played tight checking hockey except for the Oilers farm team, but they got strong goaltending out of Brossoit. Poirier's stats might have gotten worse but he was playing more of a professional game resembling a Mike Cammalleri type than a Nail Yakupov type because he had to adapt.
I do however think playing the same 5-7 teams makes cross-division stat comparisions meaningless.