U20 tournament - Junior Evaluation Camp (Sieloff, Gillies, Monahan, Poirier & Janko)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If he takes longer to develop, by the time he gets to those UFA years, he's not making max dollars because gasp he's not done cooking yet.

I have no idea why you're talking about max dollars. When a guy gets to his UFA seasons, you're not really getting value out of having been the team that drafted him (whether he's getting "max dollars" or not).

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by MattyC

As it stands Sieloff is considered a beast in Junior and is favorite to captain the US WJC team.

A quick search for the last 10 American WJC captains:

Jake McCabe
Jason Zucker
John Ramage
Derek Stepan
Jonathon Blum
Brian Strait
Kyle Lawson
Nathan Davis
Mark Matiera
Mark Stuart


I know there's still time for some of these guys, but it looks like being a team USA captain isn't much of a predictor of NHL success.

(I didn't go back any further because Im on my phone and couldn't find any easy to browse source further back than that)

[Coach]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

A quick search for the last 10 American WJC captains:

Jake McCabe
Jason Zucker
John Ramage
Derek Stepan
Jonathon Blum
Brian Strait
Kyle Lawson
Nathan Davis
Mark Matiera
Mark Stuart


I know there's still time for some of these guys, but it looks like being a team USA captain isn't much of a predictor of NHL success.

(I didn't go back any further because Im on my phone and couldn't find any easy to browse source further back than that)

Jury's out on Ramage, but I think he can be an NHL player. Stepan is looking pretty darn good. Blum is a serviceable dman in Nashville. Mark Stuart has moulded himself a decent niche.

But to be honest, no one is really going to convince me of anything concrete with any of these players. I'm just happy because I feel like there are enough good prospects in our system that we're going to see some unexpected players come from late rounds in the next few years. I'm honestly pretty game to just sit back and watch what happens. A lot of people seem convince about a lot of players and I feel like it's all so random. I know its not, and higher picks tend to be better players, but not always. And there's a lot room for improvement in any player from the age of 17-25.

[Vinny01]

This thread is missing Ricardw to say that we drafted size in Janko, and toughness in Sieloff which is worth way more than the skill of TT. In all seriousness I think the flames made the right call in a mediocre draft to snag a high boom bust prospect and add another top 50 pick we didn't have heading in

[dammage79]

^^Agreed. Grigensons may be an average NHL player in the future but the Flames did not need that. They needed that big home run pick that could if developed properly end up being a top tier number one center. He may bust but the pay off if he doesn't will make him far more valuable to this organization for many years.

I wouldnt have complained much if they took him but I side with the Flames decision here. Riskier pick but the top end pay off was worth the risk.

Add to that even if Seiloff does not produce at the junior level, every team needs a Sarich type gritty player which is more where I see Seiloff ending up.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Add to that even if Seiloff does not produce at the junior level, every team needs a Sarich type gritty player which is more where I see Seiloff ending up.

You are completely missing the point.

If you want a gritty defensive defenceman in the NHL, you need to start with a kid who puts up huge numbers in juniors.

Case in point; Sarich was a point-per-game player in the Dub.

The two-way All-Stars with huge numbers in juniors lose some offence when they go to the AHL/college level, and lose more when they get to the Big Show, and if there's any offensive production left at the NHL level, that's a bonus.

The gritty defensive kids who can't produce big numbers in juniors don't become gritty defensive NHLers, they become welders and car salesmen.

The gritty defensive NHLers (like Sarich) come from the junior kids who put up huge performances as both ends of the ice (like Sarich).

[metroneck]

Not doubting that, but do you have any examples of gritty D that were significantly less than point per game player in jr, that are descent in the NHL?

Just curious. I can't think of any.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by metroneck

Not doubting that, but do you have any examples of gritty D that were significantly less than point per game player in jr, that are descent in the NHL?

Just curious. I can't think of any.

Robyn Regehr. And Zdeno Chara is more than decent.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You are completely missing the point.

If you want a gritty defensive defenceman in the NHL, you need to start with a kid who puts up huge numbers in juniors.

Case in point; Sarich was a point-per-game player in the Dub.

The two-way All-Stars with huge numbers in juniors lose some offence when they go to the AHL/college level, and lose more when they get to the Big Show, and if there's any offensive production left at the NHL level, that's a bonus.

The gritty defensive kids who can't produce big numbers in juniors don't become gritty defensive NHLers, they become welders and car salesmen.

The gritty defensive NHLers (like Sarich) come from the junior kids who put up huge performances as both ends of the ice (like Sarich).

Your saying this like it's a fact. What about guys like Robyn Regher that never put up huge numbers? Zdeno Chara also never did.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CarlW

Your saying this like it's a fact. What about guys like Robyn Regher that never put up huge numbers? Zdeno Chara also never did.

As an 18 year old Regehr put up 32 points in 54 games (49 pts/82 game pace) and led his team's defense in goals and points per game. Sieloff only scored at a 20 point pace and was 4th on his team's defense in goals and points per game.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

The two-way All-Stars with huge numbers in juniors lose some offence when they go to the AHL/college level

Players can't go from Juniors to College. Playing Major Junior hockey makes a person ineligible to play NCAA hockey. Making such a simple mistake evidences a lack of experience with hockey and renders the rest of your analysis suspect.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by opendoor

As an 18 year old Regehr put up 32 points in 54 games (49 pts/82 game pace) and led his team's defense in goals and points per game. Sieloff only scored at a 20 point pace and was 4th on his team's defense in goals and points per game.

That also happened to be Regehr's third year in the CHL, while this was Sieloff's first. That makes an incredible difference.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by driveway

Players can't go from Juniors to College. Playing Major Junior hockey makes a person ineligible to play NCAA hockey. Making such a simple mistake evidences a lack of experience with hockey and renders the rest of your analysis suspect.

Not all Junior is Major Junior.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You are completely missing the point.

If you want a gritty defensive defenceman in the NHL, you need to start with a kid who puts up huge numbers in juniors.

Case in point; Sarich was a point-per-game player in the Dub.

The two-way All-Stars with huge numbers in juniors lose some offence when they go to the AHL/college level, and lose more when they get to the Big Show, and if there's any offensive production left at the NHL level, that's a bonus.

The gritty defensive kids who can't produce big numbers in juniors don't become gritty defensive NHLers, they become welders and car salesmen.

The gritty defensive NHLers (like Sarich) come from the junior kids who put up huge performances as both ends of the ice (like Sarich).

Well I guess we should tell Seiloff this so he doesn't even been bother eh? I mean really, he doesn't put up tons of points in junior so he should just pack it up and go get that welding ticket.

I'm not missing your point. I disagree with your assessment based on following stats. Compile them all you want, fact is any individual at any time can defy statistical analysis. It's your best guesstimate, that's all it is. Doesn't mean your right or wrong. What you are wrong about, is your effort to write off a person so early in their career. All the power to you but I don't buy it.

I mean really, there's plenty of professional hockey people who do this for a living and make careers out of scouting and developing that disagree with your assessment simply by adding him to national development camps and signing them to ELCs. They get paid to make those decisions and obviously he's doing something right.

Only time will tell I guess.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

That also happened to be Regehr's third year in the CHL, while this was Sieloff's first. That makes an incredible difference.

Add to that he missed a good chunk of time with that groin injury.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

The gritty defensive kids who can't produce big numbers in juniors don't become gritty defensive NHLers, they become welders and car salesmen.

Your logic seems very flawed. You claim the inability to produce points in junior somehow magically removes the grittiness of players once they turn pro? I can see logic if you claim that he will never become more than a below average point producer in the NHL.

Even if what you are saying is true, 45 games is not a big enough sample size.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You are completely missing the point.

If you want a gritty defensive defenceman in the NHL, you need to start with a kid who puts up huge numbers in juniors.

Case in point; Sarich was a point-per-game player in the Dub.

The two-way All-Stars with huge numbers in juniors lose some offence when they go to the AHL/college level, and lose more when they get to the Big Show, and if there's any offensive production left at the NHL level, that's a bonus.

The gritty defensive kids who can't produce big numbers in juniors don't become gritty defensive NHLers, they become welders and car salesmen.

The gritty defensive NHLers (like Sarich) come from the junior kids who put up huge performances as both ends of the ice (like Sarich).

Calling Cory Sarich a point-per-game player is stretching the facts, a lot. He only did that in his last season, as a 19 year old. And only after being moved towards the end of the season to a better team. Not to mention playing two previous years in the CHL. He was a point-per-game player over a 46 game stretch, that's it.

Patrick Sieloff isn't 19 yet but league standards. He will play his 19th this upcoming season.

Cory Sarich had 33 points as an 18 year old in the WHL, that's after a full season as a 17 year old the year before. Please lord I hope you aren't really using Sarich as an example of "If you want a gritty defensive defenceman in the NHL, you need to start with a kid who puts up huge numbers in juniors."

Huge numbers? Larf.

Sieloff obviously has a huge season of development ahead of him but you're acting like he was playing his last year in juniors after 3-4 seasons this year, and not his first of two. Pretty bizarre fact-skewing comparing a guys 18 year old season vs a guys 19 year old season.

[tempz]

Originally Posted by Fire

Your logic seems very flawed. You claim the inability to produce points in junior somehow magically removes the grittiness of players once they turn pro? I can see logic if you claim that he will never become more than a below average point producer in the NHL.

Even if what you are saying is true, 45 games is not a big enough sample size.

He is saying defencemen who can't put up points in Junior do not have enough hockey IQ to be able to play regular minutes in the NHL, in any role. And statistics back his statement. So how is that very flawed?

Originally Posted by sureLoss

There is a strong correlation between defense man scoring in junior and NHL success.

Read this analysis of all the CHL dmen taken in the first 3 rounds from 1999 to 2008:

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...and-draft.html

The author went on to show that dmen who had low scoring in their draft year but still went to have NHL success as he defines it had significant scoring in their junior years after being drafted:

http://thats-offside.blogspot.ca/201...eman-post.html

Everyone arguing with Backcheck needs to read what Sureloss linked a few pages back, copied above for ease of clicking. Those blog posts explain the theory very clearly, it has to do with .6 PPG in your draft year or within two seasons of your draft year. Meaning statistically speaking this is a massive year for Sieloff.

[Vulcan]

Forget Sarich, look at Denis Gauthier's stats the year after he was drafted. 74 points in 53 games.

1995-96 Drummondville Voltigeurs QMJHL 53 25 49 74 140 6 4 4 8 32

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php?pid=19321

It's an interesting argument although there are anomalies and scoring in the 90s was way up compared to now.

[BlueCharlton]

Originally Posted by tempz

He is saying defencemen who can't put up points in Junior do not have enough hockey IQ to be able to play regular minutes in the NHL, in any role. And statistics back his statement. So how is that very flawed?



Everyone arguing with Backcheck needs to read what Sureloss linked a few pages back, copied above for ease of clicking. Those blog posts explain the theory very clearly, it has to do with .6 PPG in your draft year or within two seasons of your draft year. Meaning statistically speaking this is a massive year for Sieloff.

Look, if equating junior points, statistically, to becoming an nhl player was real and actually proven, then scouting would become very, very easy. Yes, they are important,no doubt in my mind, and the numbers do tell a story. However, with everything, correlation between two things does not prove causality. There Are other intangible, not measurable factors which play massive roles in whether a player will make the NHL and become a regular. Determination, hockey iq ( which also cannot be equated to points), leadership are some qualities which follow this point. There is a reason we gave this kid a contract, and there is a reason why you and I and everyone here are posting on a forum and feaster and his scouts are getting paid to make hockey decisions. Not saying your wrong, or backcheck is wrong, in fact I really enjoy the fact that you have strong proof to backup your statement, but I would like for you and backcheck and whoever else to consider that maybe, just maybe, getting points isn't the make or break point for a player, especially depending on his/her role. If anything, you are looking for a decline. Then you can be a little more worried about him. But again even that is a crap shoot. The reality is, we won't know hat he can do u less he puts on a flames jersey and is given a chance. Everything else is simply speculation.