Buds Board Keepers League

SuperMario wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLON

Nick wroteCOLONThe Rielly we need, is much like the Gardiner we need. An all-around skating dman. We have the physical bodies in Phaneuf, Franson and Fraser, but they should be complimented by guys that cover more ice, Gunner is efficient and I expect he'll find form again next to Dion, I personally have liked some signs between Franson and Gardiner... for this season that means there is no spot for Rielly, as like Shiv i think another year of development is a good thing. Fraser & Ranger/Percy would work fine for us.

The next step for our team is making our top pairing absolutely formidable. If Reilly can become that ideal partner for Dion we'd be a much hard team to play.

im not sure i'll ever understand this argument. how does sending him back to junior when he is good enough to play in the NHL good for his "development".

he's going to be playing against NHLers his entire career, not 17 year old kids. he's not going to develop the ability to defend against NHLers by playing against teenagers. he's going to develop into an NHLer by practicing and playing with and against other NHLers.

he had a rocky half (as did the whole team) in his 1st NHL game ever...then he went on to play excellently for 1.5 periods. let him prove himself at this level.

This is the same argument that can be made for almost any elite prospect who gets sent back. Some of the very best have been sent back. Huberdeau is one off the top of my head.

Sending players back, especially d-men, is never a bad thing. The most we lose is 1 year of Rielly on that roster. But in that time, he can put on muscle and focus on areas of his game to improve. it is EXTREMELY rare for a d-man to breakout at Rielly's age AND keep it up for his career without regressing. Most of the time, if a d-man breaks out, there is a regression/a plateau reached. Which is why most of the stud d-men you see come about around 23-24.

+1
Wasn't Alex Pietrangelo held back, even though he was like a man among boys?

alex pietrangelo was injured badly in his first training camp.

anton wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLON

Nick wroteCOLONThe Rielly we need, is much like the Gardiner we need. An all-around skating dman. We have the physical bodies in Phaneuf, Franson and Fraser, but they should be complimented by guys that cover more ice, Gunner is efficient and I expect he'll find form again next to Dion, I personally have liked some signs between Franson and Gardiner... for this season that means there is no spot for Rielly, as like Shiv i think another year of development is a good thing. Fraser & Ranger/Percy would work fine for us.

The next step for our team is making our top pairing absolutely formidable. If Reilly can become that ideal partner for Dion we'd be a much hard team to play.

im not sure i'll ever understand this argument. how does sending him back to junior when he is good enough to play in the NHL good for his "development".

he's going to be playing against NHLers his entire career, not 17 year old kids. he's not going to develop the ability to defend against NHLers by playing against teenagers. he's going to develop into an NHLer by practicing and playing with and against other NHLers.

he had a rocky half (as did the whole team) in his 1st NHL game ever...then he went on to play excellently for 1.5 periods. let him prove himself at this level.

This is the same argument that can be made for almost any elite prospect who gets sent back. Some of the very best have been sent back. Huberdeau is one off the top of my head.

Sending players back, especially d-men, is never a bad thing. The most we lose is 1 year of Rielly on that roster. But in that time, he can put on muscle and focus on areas of his game to improve. it is EXTREMELY rare for a d-man to breakout at Rielly's age AND keep it up for his career without regressing. Most of the time, if a d-man breaks out, there is a regression/a plateau reached. Which is why most of the stud d-men you see come about around 23-24.

they get sent back because they don't make the team. rielly made the team. he's played 1 game at the NHL level and looked excellent for half of it. let's give him an opportunity to prove himself in the NHL before arbitrarily sending him back to a junior league for his "development"

I think the numbers are SO staggering for young d-men that even if Rielly plays AMAZING over the next 6 games, he should still be sent back. This isn't about the short term. Teams have ruined prospects over and over and over by keeping players up. I don't care if Rielly has 10 points in the next 6 games and is a +5. Send him back. Not only that, there is no point in wasting a year on an ELC if this team can march on without him.

please show me all the young dmen that were so ruined because they started playing a full year after they were drafted.

Luke Schenn

anton wroteCOLONplease show me all the young dmen that were so ruined because they started playing a full year after they were drafted.

Instead of doing that, I think you should try to find the number of d-men at Rielly's age post 2005 lockout that have:

1. Broken out
2. Kept up their pace all season
3. Managed to keep up that pace over multiple seasons
4. Not regressed

I bet you will not be able to name 10 d-men. Maybe not even 5.

And on top of that, you will not be able to justify burning a year on an ELC when Rielly could come in next year instead.

Fair Deals Steve wroteCOLONLuke Schenn

luke schenn has developed into exactly what he was drafted as - a 20 min per night physical stay at home dman.

SuperMario wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLONplease show me all the young dmen that were so ruined because they started playing a full year after they were drafted.

Instead of doing that, I think you should try to find the number of d-men at Rielly's age post 2005 lockout that have:

1. Broken out
2. Kept up their pace all season
3. Managed to keep up that pace over multiple seasons
4. Not regressed

I bet you will not be able to name 10 d-men. Maybe not even 5.

And on top of that, you will not be able to justify burning a year on an ELC when Rielly could come in next year instead.

LOL you are the one who said the number of dmen who have been ruined is SO STAGGERING that we can't possibly keep rielly up. i think the onus is on you to prove this one bud.

Here I'll go:

Erik Johnson (and he started in 2007-2008 after being drafted in 2006)
Luke Schenn
Zach Bogosian
Viktor Hedman
Erik Gudbranson (wasn't rushed like Rielly but he's STILL not close to what he was projected to be. He will get there but just another example of how long it takes)
Adam Larsson

Won't touch last year's draft as it's too early to tell.

anton wroteCOLON

SuperMario wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLONplease show me all the young dmen that were so ruined because they started playing a full year after they were drafted.

Instead of doing that, I think you should try to find the number of d-men at Rielly's age post 2005 lockout that have:

1. Broken out
2. Kept up their pace all season
3. Managed to keep up that pace over multiple seasons
4. Not regressed

I bet you will not be able to name 10 d-men. Maybe not even 5.

And on top of that, you will not be able to justify burning a year on an ELC when Rielly could come in next year instead.

LOL you are the one who said the number of dmen who have been ruined is SO STAGGERING that we can't possibly keep rielly up. i think the onus is on you to prove this one bud.

It is actually very common knowledge. I am pretty surprised we are having this argument. D-men do not breakout at 18/19. The ones that do (e.g. Luke Schenn) usually don't pan out to their ceilings. Doughty was the exception not the rule. Your sig is clouding your judgment.

um if those players were all "ruined" then i have no problem "ruining" rielly by letting him play against NHLers.

SuperMario wroteCOLONHere I'll go:

Erik Johnson (and he started in 2007-2008 after being drafted in 2006)
Luke Schenn
Zach Bogosian
Viktor Hedman
Erik Gudbranson (wasn't rushed like Rielly but he's STILL not close to what he was projected to be. He will get there but just another example of how long it takes)
Adam Larsson

Won't touch last year's draft as it's too early to tell.

This is every draft year post 2005 btw. Ones where d-men were taken in the top 5. You should google it. The numbers are stacked against Rielly. And we lose NOTHING by keeping him in the minors. Everything to lose if we keep him up including 1 year on his ELC.

anton wroteCOLONum if those players were all "ruined" then i have no problem "ruining" rielly by letting him play against NHLers.

The argument isn't ruining. Josh Bailey was ruined. The argument is regression. And no one can argue that those players have regressed/not hit their ceilings/lived up to the hype.

And you should not be fine with that as a Leaf fan.

Btw - this phenomenon translates to Forwards as well. And it happens a lot as well. Just with forwards, it's easier to "succeed" so we don't notice it as much/there is a higher rate of success than d-men but the numbers are still stacked against the player.

those players are all still under 25 years old. you yourself said dmen dont reach their ceilings till then so im failing to see your argument.

you're telling me that all those players would be somehow signficantly better if they had played 1 more year of junior? thats a ridiculous claim. also, am i missing something or are all the players you just listed either great or excellent players for their age.

anton wroteCOLONthose players are all still under 25 years old. you yourself said dmen dont reach their ceilings till then so im failing to see your argument.

you're telling me that all those players would be somehow signficantly better if they had played 1 more year of junior? thats a ridiculous claim. also, am i missing something or are all the players you just listed either great or excellent players for their age.

It's not just about 1 more year of Junior. In some cases, it is better to keep the player in the AHL for longer as well. You are looking at this in "absolute" terms. E.g. "Erik Johnson is a pretty decent NHLer and he's still young and he still has time to hit his ceiling." This is a player that was taken ahead of Jordan Staal and Jonathan Toews. It is a running joke on the St. Louis organization because they rushed him. He is not expected to be a "good player for his age". Taken where he was taken, he was supposed to be a gamebreaker, one of the best at his position. The other guys listed are all similar in that they are good players (Top 5 picks seldom aren't) but to not live up to what they could have been has a lot to do with development.

anton wroteCOLON

Fair Deals Steve wroteCOLONLuke Schenn

luke schenn has developed into exactly what he was drafted as - a 20 min per night physical stay at home dman.

i'm actually on your side of this argument

i just dont like schenn

Btw remember the Hedman vs Tavares pre-draft debate as to who NYI should take first?

Gudbranson was the surefire #3 behind Hall/Seguin

Larsson was the most NHL-ready player outside of Landeskog and COL needing a d-man was supposed to be considering to take him

As Scotty Bowman use to say, "if you want a dman in the draft, take him in the second round, the first round is where you draft talent"

SuperMario wroteCOLON

anton wroteCOLONthose players are all still under 25 years old. you yourself said dmen dont reach their ceilings till then so im failing to see your argument.

you're telling me that all those players would be somehow signficantly better if they had played 1 more year of junior? thats a ridiculous claim. also, am i missing something or are all the players you just listed either great or excellent players for their age.

It's not just about 1 more year of Junior. In some cases, it is better to keep the player in the AHL for longer as well. You are looking at this in "absolute" terms. E.g. "Erik Johnson is a pretty decent NHLer and he's still young and he still has time to hit his ceiling." This is a player that was taken ahead of Jordan Staal and Jonathan Toews. It is a running joke on the St. Louis organization because they rushed him. He is not expected to be a "good player for his age". Taken where he was taken, he was supposed to be a gamebreaker, one of the best at his position. The other guys listed are all similar in that they are good players (Top 5 picks seldom aren't) but to not live up to what they could have been has a lot to do with development.

says who exactly? you have no idea what any of these players "could have been". you also have no idea how another year of playing in a lesser league would have affected their play. guys get sent down and become unmotivated and complacent too - negatively affecting their progress. brendan smith is a former 1st round pick who stewed for years in the AHL "developing" and has evolved into a below average bottom pairing guy.

the point is that it's ridiculous to arbitrarily send Rielly down without giving him a chance to prove he belongs in the NHL because playing another year against teenagers is somehow inherently good for development.