|
Post by jimmy on Apr 15, 2007 8:35:48 GMT -5
For former Cat J-S Adam last night in B-C as the Drakkar fell 4-3 to V-D and lost the series 4-1. Adam scored his 5th and 6th goals of the playoffs after his team was down 3-0 ... nice to see him have a good end to his career, he was a solid d-man for us, albeit under the radar, troubled by injuries, and caught in a numbers game. Samson had 2 G, 1 A for the winners and Marchand added 2 assists.
Charles Bergeron is also done following Bathurst's elimination.
Remember a few years ago when it seemed like we always needed to trade for overagers each season because we couldn't develop our own? This year, in addition to our own three, Spencer, Bergeron, Adam and David MacDonald all made good contributions elsewhere in the league ... speaks well to the organisation's progress in player development.
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Apr 16, 2007 15:00:04 GMT -5
Spencer and MacDonald finished on expansion teams....Bergeron started the year on expansion, then when Bathurst decided to trade down, picked him up.......NONE of the 3 were real good 20's and none would be considered for a contending team........none really speak well for the organizations player development either, for the reason's listed above.....3rd liners and a number 6 dman.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 17, 2007 6:30:19 GMT -5
Spencer and MacDonald finished on expansion teams....Bergeron started the year on expansion, then when Bathurst decided to trade down, picked him up.......NONE of the 3 were real good 20's and none would be considered for a contending team........none really speak well for the organizations player development either, for the reason's listed above.....3rd liners and a number 6 dman. There was room for 56 overagers in the Q this year ... considering there are 18 teams (I will even give you 16 since the two expansion teams didn't have much chance to develop overagers, even though the Foggies had Gallant and Firlotte that they developed/discovered in-house), and we produced seven of them, 47 were developed by the other 15 teams, an average of 3.1 per team. I stand by my comment that seven overagers reflects well on our player development - and although the guys you mention weren't necessarily high end, don't forget, we kept the best three for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 17, 2007 7:42:20 GMT -5
Spencer and MacDonald finished on expansion teams....Bergeron started the year on expansion, then when Bathurst decided to trade down, picked him up.......NONE of the 3 were real good 20's and none would be considered for a contending team........none really speak well for the organizations player development either, for the reason's listed above.....3rd liners and a number 6 dman. There was room for 56 overagers in the Q this year ... considering there are 18 teams (I will even give you 16 since the two expansion teams didn't have much chance to develop overagers, even though the Foggies had Gallant and Firlotte that they developed/discovered in-house), and we produced seven of them, 47 were developed by the other 15 teams, an average of 3.1 per team. I stand by my comment that seven overagers reflects well on our player development - and although the guys you mention weren't necessarily high end, don't forget, we kept the best three for ourselves. And how many of those 7 were Captains or Asst Captains ? D. MacDonald - Captain C. Gaudet - Captain C. Bergeron - Captain (in SJ), Asst Captain (in Bathurst) T. Spencer - Asst Captain A. MacDonald - Asst Captain JS Adam - Asst Captain N. Welton - Asst Captain Only 7.
|
|
falcon
Junior Member
Posts: 168
|
Post by falcon on Apr 17, 2007 16:18:24 GMT -5
Spencer and MacDonald finished on expansion teams....Bergeron started the year on expansion, then when Bathurst decided to trade down, picked him up.......NONE of the 3 were real good 20's and none would be considered for a contending team........none really speak well for the organizations player development either, for the reason's listed above.....3rd liners and a number 6 dman. There was room for 56 overagers in the Q this year ... considering there are 18 teams (I will even give you 16 since the two expansion teams didn't have much chance to develop overagers, even though the Foggies had Gallant and Firlotte that they developed/discovered in-house), and we produced seven of them, 47 were developed by the other 15 teams, an average of 3.1 per team. I stand by my comment that seven overagers reflects well on our player development - and although the guys you mention weren't necessarily high end, don't forget, we kept the best three for ourselves. Your logic is flawed in a major way, statistically you are looking at one year and it just happens to be the year after you host the mem cup. Also since when does having a player play for you one year support your statement about being a development team, also while we are at it many teams appoint 20's as defacto "C"'s and "A"s and many teams use grinders as both (see your list for many examples). lastly, I submit that to be a development team you have to consider the following 1) drafted by your team 2) drafted or signed out of the Q to play echl/ahl/nhl (even the echl doesn't really count) 3) playing as a 20 in the Q doesn't necesarily mean you are developing, it could mean you haven't developed Your comment is a homer comment without an objectivity what so ever
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Apr 17, 2007 18:27:58 GMT -5
There was room for 56 overagers in the Q this year ... considering there are 18 teams (I will even give you 16 since the two expansion teams didn't have much chance to develop overagers, even though the Foggies had Gallant and Firlotte that they developed/discovered in-house), and we produced seven of them, 47 were developed by the other 15 teams, an average of 3.1 per team. I stand by my comment that seven overagers reflects well on our player development - and although the guys you mention weren't necessarily high end, don't forget, we kept the best three for ourselves. Your logic is flawed in a major way, statistically you are looking at one year and it just happens to be the year after you host the mem cup. Also since when does having a player play for you one year support your statement about being a development team, also while we are at it many teams appoint 20's as defacto "C"'s and "A"s and many teams use grinders as both (see your list for many examples). lastly, I submit that to be a development team you have to consider the following 1) drafted by your team 2) drafted or signed out of the Q to play echl/ahl/nhl (even the echl doesn't really count) 3) playing as a 20 in the Q doesn't necesarily mean you are developing, it could mean you haven't developed Your comment is a homer comment without an objectivity what so ever Ok, how about if we add Yandle, Pineault, Karsums who also are 20 this year?
|
|
|
Post by Dman on Apr 17, 2007 19:26:42 GMT -5
Your logic is flawed in a major way, statistically you are looking at one year and it just happens to be the year after you host the mem cup. Also since when does having a player play for you one year support your statement about being a development team, also while we are at it many teams appoint 20's as defacto "C"'s and "A"s and many teams use grinders as both (see your list for many examples). lastly, I submit that to be a development team you have to consider the following 1) drafted by your team 2) drafted or signed out of the Q to play echl/ahl/nhl (even the echl doesn't really count) 3) playing as a 20 in the Q doesn't necesarily mean you are developing, it could mean you haven't developed Your comment is a homer comment without an objectivity what so ever Ok, how about if we add Yandle, Pineault, Karsums who also are 20 this year? And Goulet.
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Apr 17, 2007 23:13:41 GMT -5
Your logic is flawed in a major way, statistically you are looking at one year and it just happens to be the year after you host the mem cup. Also since when does having a player play for you one year support your statement about being a development team, also while we are at it many teams appoint 20's as defacto "C"'s and "A"s and many teams use grinders as both (see your list for many examples). lastly, I submit that to be a development team you have to consider the following 1) drafted by your team 2) drafted or signed out of the Q to play echl/ahl/nhl (even the echl doesn't really count) 3) playing as a 20 in the Q doesn't necesarily mean you are developing, it could mean you haven't developed Your comment is a homer comment without an objectivity what so ever Ok, how about if we add Yandle, Pineault, Karsums who also are 20 this year? you developed Yandle?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 18, 2007 6:31:44 GMT -5
Ok, how about if we add Yandle, Pineault, Karsums who also are 20 this year? you developed Yandle? As much as the Titan developed P. Bergeron.
|
|
|
Post by forrest on Apr 18, 2007 6:41:12 GMT -5
The fact that we have Yandle, Pineault, Karusms, Goulet playing pro and Adam, Bergeron, Spencer, D. MacDonald, A MacDonald, Gaudet and Welton playing as 20 yrs old in the league only shows that we had 11 19 yrs old with our team last year. It doesn't show anything about development. I think Moncton is better at developing players since we got rid of Larue, but this doesn't support the argument at all.
Yandle wasn't developped here, he wasn't even drafted here and he only came here because they threw money at him and use the "Memorial Cup Host" card.
Pineault was drafted here, but only played two years and has been frustrating at times although he had great skills. But I'll give you that one.
I'll give you Karsums also and Goulet also. Although Goulet was traded to Moncton.
I Adam, was never better than a 7th defensman in Moncton.
Bergeron wasn't even good enough to protect for the expansion draft and wasn't developped in Moncton.
Spencer was a role player and I don't know if he would have chosen the Moncton (the Q) on other circumstances. The fact remains that he only played one year here and didn't have a great impact in SJ's other than enforcer. He wasn't developped much.
D. MacDonald was aquired for an 11th round pick to add depth on D and we got rid of him because we had too much depth on D and too many 20s. He only played half a season with Moncton and wasn't developped here.
A. MacDonald only played a year here also and has improved a lot from training camp in 05 to the playoffs in 07. However he hasn't developped enough to play pro at 20. It makes you wonder.
Welton was also acquired and I guess we could say he was developped in Moncton.
Gaudet, great Captain, and great role player. This year he was good, but wasn't great at the role of scorer in the Q.
So that is 5 out of 11 the year after a Memorial Cup. Wait until Moncton has 5-6 overagers playing in the Q for a few years in a row until making such a statement.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 18, 2007 7:00:48 GMT -5
My point is not that we are or aren't the greatest player development factory in the Q ... I was more pointing out how, for years, we never had enough quality home grown 20 year olds and were forced to trade for vets (Strozynski, Searles, Wathier, Douville, etc..) - and now all of a sudden we have seven former Cats playing as overagers in the Q ...
As to Forrest's point downplaying our role in developing certain guys, I think you are not giving credit to Nolan and Torchetti as deserved ...
- the Tim Spencer who arrived here in Sept 05 was not good enough to be an overager in the Q - so yes, we developed him. - David MacDonald was on his way out of the league at 19 ... clearly we played a role in his development if he went on to be a captain less than a year later. - J-S Adam was caught in a numbers game here and was a much better d-man than some people realize - once he went elsewhere and got the needed ice time, the skills he had worked on here began to shine. - Bergeron I will give you ... he didn't really improve much in the year we had him ... but I should point out that the reason he was not protected wasn't because he sucked, but because we legitimately had about 22 Q calibre assets and could only protect 16 of them (wait a minute - doesn't that speak well to our player development?) - Andrew MacDonald spent his entire Q career with us, and improved greatly while he was here ... granted we signed him as an FA, but still. - Welton, Gaudet, Goulet, Pineault and Karsums all spent multiple seasons here, and I think we can claim a part in their development. - As for Keith Yandle, think about how much his defensive game evolved while here - he was ultra talented before he came here, but the Cats put a lot of polish on him in the one year he was here - I am sure he would be the first to tell you that.
|
|
falcon
Junior Member
Posts: 168
|
Post by falcon on Apr 18, 2007 8:01:21 GMT -5
Your logic is flawed in a major way, statistically you are looking at one year and it just happens to be the year after you host the mem cup. Also since when does having a player play for you one year support your statement about being a development team, also while we are at it many teams appoint 20's as defacto "C"'s and "A"s and many teams use grinders as both (see your list for many examples). lastly, I submit that to be a development team you have to consider the following 1) drafted by your team 2) drafted or signed out of the Q to play echl/ahl/nhl (even the echl doesn't really count) 3) playing as a 20 in the Q doesn't necesarily mean you are developing, it could mean you haven't developed Your comment is a homer comment without an objectivity what so ever Ok, how about if we add Yandle, Pineault, Karsums who also are 20 this year? Yandle, you are kidding right? Pineault and Karsums you drafted and signed pro contracts, I will give you them (although Pinneault never flourished as much as his hype and was hindered by not reporting until his 18yo season).
|
|
falcon
Junior Member
Posts: 168
|
Post by falcon on Apr 18, 2007 8:07:23 GMT -5
My point is not that we are or aren't the greatest player development factory in the Q ... I was more pointing out how, for years, we never had enough quality home grown 20 year olds and were forced to trade for vets (Strozynski, Searles, Wathier, Douville, etc..) - and now all of a sudden we have seven former Cats playing as overagers in the Q ... As to Forrest's point downplaying our role in developing certain guys, I think you are not giving credit to Nolan and Torchetti as deserved ... - the Tim Spencer who arrived here in Sept 05 was not good enough to be an overager in the Q - so yes, we developed him. - David MacDonald was on his way out of the league at 19 ... clearly we played a role in his development if he went on to be a captain less than a year later. - J-S Adam was caught in a numbers game here and was a much better d-man than some people realize - once he went elsewhere and got the needed ice time, the skills he had worked on here began to shine. - Bergeron I will give you ... he didn't really improve much in the year we had him ... but I should point out that the reason he was not protected wasn't because he sucked, but because we legitimately had about 22 Q calibre assets and could only protect 16 of them (wait a minute - doesn't that speak well to our player development?) - Andrew MacDonald spent his entire Q career with us, and improved greatly while he was here ... granted we signed him as an FA, but still. - Welton, Gaudet, Goulet, Pineault and Karsums all spent multiple seasons here, and I think we can claim a part in their development. - As for Keith Yandle, think about how much his defensive game evolved while here - he was ultra talented before he came here, but the Cats put a lot of polish on him in the one year he was here - I am sure he would be the first to tell you that. By default when you have a shit pile of 19's you are going to end up with alot of 20's whether you are good at developing them or not. The Moose afer there 05 run put Picard/Sharrow/Vrana/Bernier/Guenette all into the pros and Cabana from that team along with 4/5 never had to play a 20yo season in the Q, all were drafted players, some might argue thats development
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Apr 19, 2007 6:40:41 GMT -5
you developed Yandle? As much as the Titan developed P. Bergeron. You picked Yandle up from the Q draft as a 17 year old?....I thought he was 19 when he played there?.........bit of a different situation ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Apr 19, 2007 7:09:31 GMT -5
As much as the Titan developed P. Bergeron. You picked Yandle up from the Q draft as a 17 year old?....I thought he was 19 when he played there?.........bit of a different situation ain't it? Bergeron played one year in Bathurst ... Yandle played one year in Moncton ... I see no difference. And ... you drafted Bergeron at 16 didn't you ... and then cut him at his first camp.
|
|