Prospect Profile: #3 Bo Horvat

Thomas Drance
August 28 2013 09:35AM


Image via Matthew Henderson

Bo Horvat was a surprise selection for the Canucks with the ninth overall pick at the 2013 NHL draft. He wasn't much of a reach at that point in the first round, but the circumstances surrounding his selection - what with Horvat being the return in the rather shocking Cory Schneider trade - will be remembered in by Canucks fans for a long time.

So needless to say Horvat enters the Canucks system with high expectations. He makes his debut on our Canucks prospect rankings at third overall, which many of you may think is one or two spots too low.

Read past the jump for more on the team's highest draft pick since Daniel Sedin back in '99.

Horvat was one of the fastest risers during his draft eligible season. Though his statistical profile - 61 points in 67 OHL games - is sort of uninspiring and his comparables are kind of depressing, the responsibilities he took on as an 18-year-old on a non-host Memorial Cup team opened a lot of eyes. For good reason.

The London Knights centre faced the toughest matchups amongst all forwards on his team according to both our in-house estimates, and independent ones, as well. That's pretty rare for an eighteen year old in the Ontario Hockey League, especially when that eighteen year old plays for a dominant club like the Knights.

Playing for the notoriously defensive-minded duo of Dale and Mark Hunter, Horvat was deployed in a shutdown role against players older than him all season long. He distinguished himself as a top-end OHL face-off guy and shot-blocker in the league - which will surely secure him a special place in John Tortorella's heart, assuming the bench boss is still there by the time Horvat is NHL-ready - and still managed to outscore opponents, despite his usage. 

"He's a really good faceoff guy," Sun Media sports editor John Matisz told Canucks Army, "Especially in (London's) defensive zone. They would throw him in there, even if he was dead tired at the end of a shift. The Hunter brothers just trusted him so much." Martisz was the Knights beat-writer for Metro News in London last season, and in one playoff game tracked Horvat extremely closely. Horvat won over 70% of his faceoffs in the contest, which by all accounts wasn't atypical for him last season.

Horvat finished second behind only Vincent Trochek (who is one year his senior) in the Western Conference OHL coaches poll for "best face-off man." Meanwhile the coaches named Horvat the best shot blocker, and he impressed in that area in particular on several high-profile occasions during the OHL playoffs. Although, as our esteemed readers have come to undestand, that particular skill is often vastly overrated in importance.

In the OHL playoffs Horvat often played on Max Domi's wing (though he'd still take all of the faceoffs). Horvat was named the MVP of said playoffs, and at the Memorial Cup he expertly batted one of the sickest saucer passes you'll ever see out of the air to complete one of last season's best hockey highlights:

While it wasn't his offense that made Horvat a top-10 pick, he was productive offensively last season. "He's got decent speed for how big he is, because he's kind of a bulky kid, and he has a good shot and hockey IQ," said Matisz, though projecting his offensive skillset to the NHL is "hard because he's more of a shutdown guy."

Wet blanket alert: Horvat has the skills, but the fact of the matter is that the Knights didn't even outscore opponents when Horvat was on the ice last season without Domi. Horvat helped make Domi more dominant in their limited ice-time together during the regular season, but the WOWYs make plain who was driving the bus offensively for the Knights (per @mattypfeffer):

Offensively, Horvat is a really strong finisher, though he's "more of a distributor than a scorer," says Matisz. Horvat relied heavily on power-play production to score his thirty-three regular season goals last season, which isn't something you generally like to see. His even-strength goals per game rate doesn't exactly jump off the stat sheet. 

Horvat's usage is critical for providing some context here: he faced tougher opposition than Domi did, and was the defensive-zone start ace for a dominant Knights team. And it's not like Horvant wasn't productive offensively, putting up nearly a point per game despite his role. While there's definitely some blemishes on his resume, it's hard not to be impressed with what he did last season all things considered.

Overall, I'd describe Horvat as the best prospect that the Canucks have had in the system since Henrik Sedin. I personally rated him first overall among all the prospects in the system, mostly because of his level of defensive responsibility on a team that just crushed opponents last season. It's rare for an 18-year-old to to play that type of role and do it as well as Horvat did in a pretty difficult development league like the OHL.

The Knights will be automatic entrants into the Memorial Cup tournament this Spring, since they're hosting the tournament. Horvat may well play in the World Junior Championships for Team Canada in addition to the Memorial cup next season too, while also taking on more offensive responsibility for a Knights team that is graduating some key pieces.

Between the opportunities that await Horvat next season in Major Junior, and his modestly inconvenient cap-hit, he'd have to knock everybody's socks off to earn a spot on the Canucks roster this upcoming season.

Horvat's time isn't now, but his future shines brighter than any other Canucks prospects has in a long, long time.

Other Prospect Profiles in This Series:

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 Wisp
August 28 2013, 09:49AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
3
props

Amateur hour at Canucks Army.

I can buy that Corrado is ranked ahead based on his NHL tour so far, but not Gaunce.

Are you guys box score scouting? Similar defensive game, but Horvat's offensive tools are flat out better than Gaunce's are.

Avatar
#2 Dimitri Filipovic
August 28 2013, 09:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

I had Gaunce 4th on my list, just FYI (which would put him below Horvat on my rankings). But still, I was probably down on Horvat in comparison to others, I think. I had Hunter Shinkaruk clearly ahead of him as a prospect purely based on upside.

Avatar
#3 antro
August 28 2013, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Great write-up! Any idea what his comparables might be, in the way that someone like Scott Reynolds defines them?

Avatar
#4 Adam
August 28 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
1
props

There's no way Canuck brass would tell you that thier highest selection in one of the deepest drafts in years is the team's #3 prospect.

So either the ink stained wretches who write for this blog don't know what they are talking about or Canuck mgmt goofed with Horvat.

Avatar
#5 Dan
August 28 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

Hey Thomas, didn't Horvat see a huge offensive spike in the 2nd hal of the season? I can remember the exact numbers, but IIRC he was absolutely tearing it up in the 2nd half/playoffs offensively.

Avatar
#7 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

for being such a statistical/analytic guy, i can't believe you have Horvat your #1 because his numbers are bad in comparison to most of the other top 5.

his strongest numbers come from FO% and shot blocking, both stats which 1) doesn't matter and 2) reflect poorly in any advanced stats matrices.

Avatar
#8 van
August 28 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

You guys should publish your individual rankings. Curious what prospects we didn't take (Nichushkin, Domi etc.) would have ranked higher than last year's 26th pick and a 5th rounder from 2011. Wasn't a top 10 pick in a deep draft supposed to look a bit better than this, especially in such a poor prospect pool?

Avatar
#9 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@antro

look it up on copper and blue, they did a whole series on the projected 1st round picks

spoiler alert: they look awful.

Avatar
#10 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@Wisp

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

Avatar
#11 Wisp
August 28 2013, 10:05AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

More strong words: I know Gaunce wears #16 and looks a lot like Trevor Linden in those Bellville Bulls colours, but he is in fact, not Trevor Linden.

Avatar
#12 Wisp
August 28 2013, 10:14AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
Mantastic wrote:

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

So stacked that Horvat also had to play the toughest minutes and competition as a second line center? He got the trench work.

The kind of stats available at the OHL level, sample sizes, and the fact that we're doing will progressing players (not finished products like we usually are in the NHL) makes a lot of the analytical work here questionable.

For example, Horvat's first 20 games, his production was not good. He changed his skates around then and his production sky rocketed.

His last 40-something regular season games and 20-something playoff games are probably where Horvat's true production lies. His playoff points are consistent with those last 40-something regular season games, so it wasn't a post-season hot streak, either.

Avatar
#13 antro
August 28 2013, 10:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

look it up on copper and blue, they did a whole series on the projected 1st round picks

spoiler alert: they look awful.

Thanks, I forgot about that series. They aren't good, but then again, it's all points-based. And the Coppernblue would be the first to admit they'd like other info to evaluate players.

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the questions about drafting anything other than good point-getters from junior is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I forget who it was on NHLnumbers, but they were using a stat based on ice-time, e.g., taking coaches to be good experts. If Horvat was getting that much icetime, esp. in the D zone, then there is stuff that using a points-based system of comparables isn't going to pick up. Patrice Bergeron was basically a ppg player in the Q, which is known for high scoring. He seems to have other talents.

In short, I've just convinced myself that I asked the wrong question in my previous comment! Thanks, Mantastic.

Avatar
#14 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 10:18AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Thomas Drance

How much did Horvat actually play with Domi, though?

Based on Matt Pfeffer's WOWYs, it looks like not much. (7.5% of goal events)

Avatar
#15 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:20AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Wisp

Guance played the toughs too....

Avatar
#16 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 10:27AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props
Mantastic wrote:

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

How much time was Horvat actually on the ice with those other good players?

It looks like Domi spent most of his time with two overagers.

Avatar
#17 Dan
August 28 2013, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
5
props

Who would win in a fight? Horvat or Gaunce? Winner gets to be #1 prospect

Avatar
#18 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
7
props

@antro

Horvat is no Sean Couturier, Couturier drafted in the same position, score well over a ppg and his ceiling is probably a 2nd line C. he played against the toughs in the Q and he dominated them. and to be honest, playing the toughs in Junior doesn't mean the same as playing against them in the NHL. the toughs in Junior is so very inconsistent and any elite Junior can easily score a ppg against them...

people obviously can't scout each draft eligible player evenly, that's why we resort to looking at box scores to actually get a "fair" comparision against different players but it obviously doesn't paint the full picture.

Avatar
#19 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
2
props

@JCDavies

how much time was Guance on ice with any good players? the bulls were just awful last season and the season before, Guance clearly stirs the pot for the whole team, like Monahan did for the 67's. clearly cannot say the same for Horvat

Avatar
#20 Cam Charron
August 28 2013, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
9
props

Ah, prospect series', where the gains made by picks of previous seasons are ignored because fans have a new guy to rest their hopes and dreams on.

Of course, you follow the sport long enough and come to realize that you have much better clues about how players are going to project when they're 19 or 20 as opposed to when they're 17 or 18. Remember that Team Canada "Dream Team" in 2005? Less than half of the players on that team are above replacement-level players in the NHL. Bo Horvat's admission onto that team is no guarantee of anything.

I tend to rank older guys higher because we know more about them (although the flip to that is that I also rank older guys lower because... same reason. We know more about them.).

Side note, if Horvat becomes a Hall of Famer, based on that picture, can Tobey McGuire's son play him in the biopic?

Avatar
#21 Dan
August 28 2013, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Cam Charron

I understand that guys like Gaunce/Corrado rise due to their recent play, and become more likely to be full-time NHL'ers but that's an unfair way to evaluate prospects. Your essentially ignoring age (giving a benefit to a 19-20 year old that wouldn't be afforded to an 18 year old).

Gaunce/Corrado will likely crack the roster before Horvat/Shinkaruk will... but 5-6 years from now I think its safe to say which duo you would rather have.

Avatar
#22 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Mantastic

"how much time was Guance on ice with any good players?"

You won't get any argument from me here.

But comparing Horvat and Gaunce aside, you are also making projections for Horvat's future based on PPG #s. QoT would have an impact on this.

Avatar
#23 Wisp
August 28 2013, 10:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

how much time was Guance on ice with any good players? the bulls were just awful last season and the season before, Guance clearly stirs the pot for the whole team, like Monahan did for the 67's. clearly cannot say the same for Horvat

That's disingenuous. For a guy supposedly his team's only good player, he found himself playing wing pretty quick when Graovac came on board.

You compare him to Monahan, but the Bulls were a Win Now team that made a decent run in the OHL playoffs. Can't say the same for Monahan and the 67s.

There's a lot to indicate Horvat is the better player with higher quality tools. Don't get caught up looking at box scores and team rosters.

Avatar
#24 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:53AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@Wisp

what better tools are you speaking of?

Avatar
#25 Unknown Comic
August 28 2013, 10:54AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
8
props
Cam Charron wrote:

Ah, prospect series', where the gains made by picks of previous seasons are ignored because fans have a new guy to rest their hopes and dreams on.

Of course, you follow the sport long enough and come to realize that you have much better clues about how players are going to project when they're 19 or 20 as opposed to when they're 17 or 18. Remember that Team Canada "Dream Team" in 2005? Less than half of the players on that team are above replacement-level players in the NHL. Bo Horvat's admission onto that team is no guarantee of anything.

I tend to rank older guys higher because we know more about them (although the flip to that is that I also rank older guys lower because... same reason. We know more about them.).

Side note, if Horvat becomes a Hall of Famer, based on that picture, can Tobey McGuire's son play him in the biopic?

Why is there even a need to rank prospects? It seems like it's just an old habit that allows more pretentious posturing on message boards.

I come to just collect info on these guys and could care less who is ranked above whom. Why not just pick the top 20 and review them alphabetically?

Avatar
#26 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

i would say QoT would have minimal impact in junior. there are a lot of bad teams in the junior as the talent on teams are cyclical as players graduate.

Avatar
#27 Ted
August 28 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
3
props

I think the top few prospects are interchangable but may favor Gaunce a bit because he is a bit older. Gaunce also had a good season and played through a shoulder injury. His playoff efforts were excellent which is something the Canucks really need.

We also have a larger sample size with Gaunce.I think he'll be a solid player with a ceiling of line 2 centre.

I like Horvat's upside a bit more but an unknown. I think his ceiling is line 2C but maybe even line 1 if he has the wingers.

Avatar
#28 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 11:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

i would say QoT would have minimal impact in junior. there are a lot of bad teams in the junior as the talent on teams are cyclical as players graduate.

I respectfully disagree with this, I think QoT matters at most, if not all, levels. However, I would be open to reading any sources that actually prove, or attempt to prove, that this might be true.

Avatar
#29 Peachy
August 28 2013, 11:06AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

@Unknown Comic

Because ranking is cool and gives us more to talk about. :P

I'm totally with you on how pointless the exercise is given the uncertainty surrounding each prospect, but it's still fun.

Avatar
#30 Wisp
August 28 2013, 11:11AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@Mantastic

Horvat has better skating, speed, creativity, puck skills. Gaunce's tools in these regards aren't as good, and he gets by offensively by being more physically advanced than the competition.

Hockey Prospectus on Horvat's offensive tools: "His creativity progressed throughout this season, and his puck skills, hand-eye coordination, and playmaking vision all rank as above average; he can flash high-end offensive skill. It is difficult to find a weakness in his game. "

And here's Hockey Prospectus on Gaunce: The Bad: Gaunce's skating needs work, as his speed is below-average. He's not a really gifted offensive player, either, from a creativity or puck skills standpoint. "

I think Gaunce has better tools than PRospectus gives him credit for (underrated playmaker, good shot), but I think Horvat's are undeniably of a higher quality.

Avatar
#31 antro
August 28 2013, 11:17AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
Mantastic wrote:

Horvat is no Sean Couturier, Couturier drafted in the same position, score well over a ppg and his ceiling is probably a 2nd line C. he played against the toughs in the Q and he dominated them. and to be honest, playing the toughs in Junior doesn't mean the same as playing against them in the NHL. the toughs in Junior is so very inconsistent and any elite Junior can easily score a ppg against them...

people obviously can't scout each draft eligible player evenly, that's why we resort to looking at box scores to actually get a "fair" comparision against different players but it obviously doesn't paint the full picture.

This is a very fair comment. I agree.

30 comments and no NM00. I'm missing him.

Avatar
#32 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
6
props
antro wrote:

This is a very fair comment. I agree.

30 comments and no NM00. I'm missing him.

Apparently I'm not needed when people have the top prospect crown to fight over.

It's too bad.

This appears to be a good opportunity to piss on Mike Gillis.

Avatar
#33 antro
August 28 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
2
props
NM00 wrote:

Apparently I'm not needed when people have the top prospect crown to fight over.

It's too bad.

This appears to be a good opportunity to piss on Mike Gillis.

You're back!!!!

I double prop your comment and take back when I said you didn't have a sense of humour.

Please piss away...

Avatar
#34 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:39AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
5
props

@antro

What's a guy to do when there are 30 comments before he has a chance to settle into his work day!

Avatar
#35 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:46AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
10
props

@Cam Charron

"I tend to rank older guys higher because we know more about them."

Signed

Mike Gillis

Avatar
#36 Peachy
August 28 2013, 11:53AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
3
props

@NM00

Lol, really?

That's brutally disingenuous.

Whatever the issues with Gillis' drafting, ranking drafted prospects is a completely different kettle of fish. As you've said so often, we're talking about lottery picks. Uncertainty as to their NHL potential declines as they age.

Avatar
#37 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
6
props

@Peachy

"Uncertainty as to their NHL potential declines as they age."

And so does the upside.

It's merely a reference to Gillis' backward belief on overagers among other things.

Avatar
#38 Peachy
August 28 2013, 12:03PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

@NM00

Which he appears to have changed his mind on.

Next?

Avatar
#39 NM00
August 28 2013, 12:20PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

@Peachy

He drafted Mallet ONE draft ago!

And used a 2nd round pick on him no less.

Up until this last draft, one could argue he was putting a higher premium on overagers.

Horvat, I'd argue, is another example of worrying more about a theoretical floor than a theoretical ceiling.

Not unlike the way JP Ricciardi built the Blue Jays "farm system" for many years.

Avatar
#41 acg5151
August 28 2013, 01:02PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

I liked the Schneider trade for basically Horvat. Looking at what was left, the only choices were Horvat, Nichuskin, Morin, Zadorov and Max Domi. This team hasn't been high on any Russians in a while and doesn't really have a pressing need for D either.

Ultimately I think Bo Horvat is going to end up being similar to Ryan Kesler. I like Nichuskin but you can't go wrong with Horvat. Max Domi is good but is smaller and had easier minutes. Bo Horvat is what the Canucks are moving toward. I think this is one of the few good choices that Mike Gillis has made in a while concerning the draft. The overage college prospects group has lead to basically Chris Tanev and Jordan Schroeder which isn't that impressive. I'm happy the Canucks have moved more towards CHL guys like Brendan Gaunce, Horvat and Shinkarik.

That being said, if this team is looking to replace Henrik and Daniel in another 5-6 years they'd better start getting some hits in the lower rounds. Corrado is a start.

Avatar
#42 Nateb123
August 28 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

@Wisp

Kind of unimpressed with this one guys. I get that data is sparse for a guy who has had one season in Junior and that he played in such different situations (shut down centre, scoring winger, 3rd/4th line grinder) that he effectively had 3 tiny seasons that can't be analyzed by statistics usefully. But the answer isn't to lazily lump it all together and draw conclusions.

The WOWY stats posted for example seem to drown out his success because he wasn't always playing an offensive role. In reality his WOWYs are more likely just a proxy for "Horvat with worse linemates and better competition" vs "Horvat with great linemates and easier competition". Giving all the credit to Domi is just silly unless you show what Horvat was like with his other linemates versus varying levels of competition. Something I know there isn't the sample size to demonstrate with any certainty.

Avatar
#43 Nateb123
August 28 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Nateb123

That wasn't supposed to be a reply to Wisp.

Avatar
#44 Nat
August 28 2013, 01:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

"Overall, I'd describe Horvat as the best prospect that the Canucks have had in the system since Henrik Sedin."

Okay, if people's expectations weren't high already, they sure are now! : )

Media/blogs ranking prospects seems to be a complete $%#&shoot...you haven't seen the guys play much (or in some cases, at all). So it's based on second hand knowledge (albeit it from guys who seem to know their stuff). Not trying to knock down Canucks Army, but I think people need to not take this ranking list so seriously. Unless you're a scout (and possibly a future seeing wizard) you just don't know how these guys are going to pan out. It's fun to speculate though!

Avatar
#45 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 01:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

@Nateb123

We definitely need better stats to work with at the Junior level.

Avatar
#46 Ted
August 28 2013, 01:54PM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Props
2
props
NM00 wrote:

He drafted Mallet ONE draft ago!

And used a 2nd round pick on him no less.

Up until this last draft, one could argue he was putting a higher premium on overagers.

Horvat, I'd argue, is another example of worrying more about a theoretical floor than a theoretical ceiling.

Not unlike the way JP Ricciardi built the Blue Jays "farm system" for many years.

@NM00

So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet? Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick.

Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress.

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you.

Avatar
#47 NM00
August 28 2013, 02:04PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
6
props

@Ted

"So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet?"

I'm criticizing the philosophy of taking a bunch of overagers.

Mallet just happens to be a noteworthy example since Gillis did it recently and devoted a 2nd round pick to this philosophy.

"Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick."

If the New Jersey Devils had used their 9th overall pick on Anthony Brodeur, it would have been a crap pick immediately.

Poor process that suggests a poor outcome.

"Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress."

ECHL.

"You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you."

I hope this was cathartic for you.

Avatar
#48 Ted
August 28 2013, 02:28PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
Props
3
props
NM00 wrote:

"So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet?"

I'm criticizing the philosophy of taking a bunch of overagers.

Mallet just happens to be a noteworthy example since Gillis did it recently and devoted a 2nd round pick to this philosophy.

"Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick."

If the New Jersey Devils had used their 9th overall pick on Anthony Brodeur, it would have been a crap pick immediately.

Poor process that suggests a poor outcome.

"Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress."

ECHL.

"You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you."

I hope this was cathartic for you.

I'm not looking to defend Gillis but you're reaching a bit when you slag him.

He took a couple of over aged players in a draft. I think it would be fine to hammer him if players taken AFTER those picks develop and his picks do not. The main point being, you have no idea what is going to happen with these picks.

Some of them may develop via ECHL. So what? I love how you make the ECHL route seem like it's where the busts only play.

You have got to be the most negative and ignorant person on these boards.

Avatar
#49 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 02:34PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
7
props

@Ted

oooooooooooooo, looked good at prospect camp and in scouting reports!! all players should be evaluated by this metric and nothing else

you should be hired for drafting players!!!!!

Avatar
#50 NM00
August 28 2013, 02:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
3
props

@Ted

It's usually not hard to beat me in a popularity contest...

Comments are closed for this article.