Do We Need To Pump Ryan Nugent-Hopkins' Tires?
by Derek Zona on Sep 5, 2011 5:45 PM MDT
Email
Print
Photo by Lisa McRitchie, all rights reserved.
Throughout the run-up to the 2011 NHL Draft and in the months since, Scott Reynolds has spent an inordinate amount of time sorting through the numbers to find a comparable player for Ryan Nugent-Hopkins. The numbers haven't delivered astounding comparables like they did with Taylor Hall, and the reader reaction has been...grouchy, to say the least.
Scott's had a tough time finding high overall picks with low goal totals, but the readers think it's not a cause for concern. We've had responses talk about his skills that don't translate to the scoresheet, and his high-level play-making ability. We've also heard about Red Deer's fourth line, the fourth line with apparently the most time on ice in CHL history, though Scott dispelled that narrative to a large extent. There's also the matter of the early-season slump, a slump in which he totaled "only" 47 points in 35 games. Then he caught fire. Through his last 35 games, he totaled 59 points, and caught everyone's eye, including scouts everywhere. I've seen a number of people at HF, Lowetide and ON posit that the "real" Nugent-Hopkins is the player of the second half, not the first, and somehow tie his rise in the draft rankings to an unstated scouting opinion that he is the second half player rather than the whole-year player.
Andrew Cogliano scored 7 points in his first 33 games last year, but stepped up to score 28 points in his final 39. Which player is the "real" Cogliano? Is he the .212 P/G player of the first 33 or is he the .718 P/G player of the second-half? Or is he closer to the .427 P/G player he was for the entire year?
The need to inflate Hopkins' numbers is bizarre, but understandable, to an extent, to me. He's the newest, brightest prospect and his ascension to greatness is the final piece to hauling this franchise out of the gutter. But when we're trying to predict his numbers, predict his eventual level of production, or put a stake in the ground to measure his development, aren't we better off taking the honest approach and finding the realistic comparable, rather than tying our wagons to the completely unrealistic wish and hope approach?
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t really see much need to find a comparable. Just let the kid play, see if he sticks, then analyze what he does. Why bother predicting at all? We’ll never truly know what he’s capable of until he actually does it
Insert Witty Comment Here
by VanillaAcid on Sep 5, 2011 8:21 PM MDT via mobile reply actions
Nothing at all, but it is hard to find them for RNH, TC starts right away, lets see how he does and if we rally need to make comparables make them after this year (Being in the dub or first year in the NHL)
I think looking at comparables is most helpful when we have the least information (i.e. right now). Once we’ve all seen him play for a year at the NHL level, it continues to be a fun and useful exercise (especially for tracking progress), but we’ll also have a year of observations to draw on. Saying that he might be “like” (for example) Vincent Damphousse isn’t quite as helpful when I know Nugent-Hopkins’ game better than Damphousse’s!
As to the “need” for comparables, I think it’s a very good way to set and manage expectations, and a helpful tool in tracking progress.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Sep 6, 2011 10:54 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
couldnt have said it better myself.
After watching him play we will get a decent idea about the player and what to expect out of him. Right now we dont know anything, so it is kinda fun to see who was the last guy to have such pre nhl career and how he did in the nhl.
Then we see how RNH does in his 1st season and if the comp was a good one or not. Its a fun excercise and peple shouldnt take comp as a line in the sand career path.
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
Yes : Don’t you know that it is not acceptable to present a comparable for low goal totals cause it is a small sample size. Blah blah blah. RNH is the greatest. BLah Blah Blah.
Thank heavens we selected Klefblom.
After stating the poor goal ratio for months before the draft. I revisited the #1. While it is best to select high ratio goal scorers cause they affect the game the most and are paid accordingly. I noticed that afterbeing selected #1 most players were entering there 19 year old season in the NHL. Guys like gagner were the few that plated in there 18 year old season. RNH will be playing his 18 year old season.
He should not be in the NHL until his 19 year old season like:
Hall
Tavares
Kane
johnson
Ovechkin
Why not invest our hope in Lander instead, figuring that breaking in a new centre this year and next year is going to be hard enough without doing it in the wrong order?
Hard for me to see how rushing RNH and holding Lander back is good asset management.
Because RNH is an elite talent, and I don’t think anyone doubts he will have a career of some sort, regardless of how well (or poorly) his development is handled. Lander, on the other hand, is a good prospect by all means, however it will require time, proper development and a little bit of luck to ensure that he has a career. They’re both great prospects and I couldn’t be happier that we have both, but RNH is in a different class as a prospect than Lander is.
That being said, I don’t necessarily disagree with you that Lander should be in the NHL this year instead of RNH, however I think we should let training camp and preseason show us that, as opposed to having a preconceived notion (one way or the other) before we even get a chance to see them compete for a job. People often bash the Oilers for not having true competition for spots, and yet many have already decided whether or not they think RNH should go back to the WHL or where Lander should play. I don’t mean to single you out, I just think we need to let them compete for a job, and that the 23 man roster that will allow Edmonton to win the most games should be kept.
by bhommy on Sep 6, 2011 2:29 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
however I think we should let training camp and preseason show us that, as opposed to having a preconceived notion (one way or the other) before we even get a chance to see them compete for a job
Because training camp means everything:
see – Linus Omark; Theo Peckham
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
I never said it was. Although with Peckham you can argue the coaching staff saw something in him that we missed, because I don’t think anyone would be willing to send Peckham down now, knowing what we do. But as for the competition, I said that WE (ie fans) should allow training to make our opinions instead of rather uneducated (for the most part, some have actually seen these players a lot) guesses before we’ve seen both players play at the same level of competition. This has nothing to do with the roster decisions, merely our opinions on what the roster decisions SHOULD be.
Oh i wasnt making fun of you…i was making fun of the process→ competing for jobs in TC.
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
Oh yeah, I know that. I just wasn’t meaning to talk about the process of actually competing for jobs, because frankly, that’s not really a reasonable thing. I mean we’ve seen stretches in seasons for 5-10 games where Cogliano or Torres or someone else plays far better than Hemsky, but if, say, Lander plays better than Hemsky for the 3-5 games they play in preseason, does that mean that he should get Hemsky’s roster spot? Absolutely not. Preseason is good to evaluate, which was my point with Lander vs RNH, since most of us have rarely, if ever seen them play (and never at the same level). So it’s a good way for us to make a basic evaluation of the players, however I think it’s unfair to expect the team to run a completely “open” training camp where every spot is up for grabs.
Can’t disagree about the “let them compete” approach. But confirmation bias affects everyone, and in the back of an evaluator’s mind the idea that a job is someone’s to lose and someone else’s to win will influence how each of those players is evaluated.
I don’t have a dog in this fight either way. But just based on where these guys have played in the past year, and age & size, and role, I would think Lander should start camp as a more credible option for 4C than RNH. That definitely is not the tone on the few boards I follow.
Don’t worry. If he sucks we’ll be able to pay him less.
by Yeti# on Sep 6, 2011 8:02 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
I dont think many RNH fans expect him to be as good as Hall/Stamkos/Kane.
However they expect him to be much better than an average forward. I think if he can put up close to 70 points season in and out, I am sure everyone will be happy.
Success is not a goal..its a byproduct
Not if other players that the Oilers could have picked end up being better.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
This is the key. How good RNH becomes shouldn’t be relevant, the Oil should be judged on whether or not he is better (or at least comparable) to the other top prospects (Larsson, Landeskog, Huberdeau, Strome, Couturier, Hamilton). If Nugent-Hopkins ends up being a 50-60 point second liner, but the others are all specialists or fringe guys, then that was an excellent selection. But if Nugent-Hopkins ends up scoring 80 points a year as a complementary somewhat one-dimensional player while some of the others end up being world-beaters against tough opposition, playing in all situations, leading their teams and scoring too… well then there’s gonna be some angry Oiler fans.
Well said. I think Larsson and Huberdeau have legit shots at being better NHL players than RNH, and maybe Courturier. Gonna be hell to pay if the difference is material.
I think Huberdeau does have a shot to be better than RNH, but so does every player, if you follow me. I think Huberdeau vs RNH there’s nothing distinguishing them were you could say before the draft “Huberdeau has this quality that will allow him to be better than RNH”. Whereas with Larsson, Landeskog and Couturier they do have qualities where you can look back and say we should have taken them. Hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say, basically that Huberdeau and RNH have similar talents/flaws, but it was essentially unanimous that RNH>Huberdeau because it was easy to compare them, unlike comparing say RNH and Larsson.
Of coarse he is not Hall/Stamkos/Kane he can not score.
Gagner 2.25PPG CHL
RNH 1.55PPG CHL
Need to adjust expectations. Maybe he becomes selfish in Jr this year. He showed signs of scoring late last season. Ring up the goals will make him a better player.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
- For Los Angeles Kings, when does rest become rust for Stanley Cup Final?
- Dominik Hasek wants NHL return; Tortorella on Game 6; Nash to Boston? (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Scotty Bowman receives Order of Canada
- Simon Gagne enjoying LA Kings' success, returns to practice after concussion absence
- Gagne back at practice, enjoying Kings' success
- First-place Knights go sight-seeing while awaiting Memorial Cup final
- NHL Network and NHL.com unveil comprehensive coverage plans for the 2012 Stanley Cup Final
