|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Jan 4, 2019 16:33:25 GMT -4
I’m really surprised that the league wouldn’t allow Alex Drover to stay with the team full time. He’s clearly good enough to play in the Q...
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 4, 2019 16:42:08 GMT -4
I’m really surprised that the league wouldn’t allow Alex Drover to stay with the team full time. He’s clearly good enough to play in the Q... No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by yoyomamajoe on Jan 4, 2019 16:56:00 GMT -4
I’m really surprised that the league wouldn’t allow Alex Drover to stay with the team full time. He’s clearly good enough to play in the Q... No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. Entertainment wise I would rather see 7 promising 16's than 2 or 3 19's that don't belong in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by dogsfan1978 on Jan 4, 2019 16:58:02 GMT -4
No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. Entertainment wise I would rather see 7 promising 16's than 2 or 3 19's that don't belong in the league. I agree 100%, to me it’s about skill not age. I would say he improves our team not helps us “tank” |
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Jan 4, 2019 17:02:06 GMT -4
I’m really surprised that the league wouldn’t allow Alex Drover to stay with the team full time. He’s clearly good enough to play in the Q... No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. I disagree when the players have clearly demonstrated that they’re of QMJHL caliber. Now instead of being allowed to dress a 16 year old that’s better, they have to dress an inferior player simply because he’s older. That hurts the product as much as icing 6 16’s would. I get the rule for guys out of training camp or if you’re trying to call a guy up from midget, a team could easily tank by dressing all young players but when a team acquires a 16 year old that’s clearly a Q caliber player, based on his first half season in the league, then it doesn’t make sense to limit that player. Luke Wilson or Aiden MacIntosh for example aren’t as good as he is but one or both of them is likely to be in the lineup almost every game... all because they’re 17. I’m not saying let the teams run buck wild and ice 6+ 16’s out of camp but when a guys already been in the league and showed he’s up to par, it’s stupid to make them send one of them back and dress inferior players. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 4, 2019 17:17:28 GMT -4
No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. Entertainment wise I would rather see 7 promising 16's than 2 or 3 19's that don't belong in the league. Why not roll the dice on 17/18yr olds that have been overlooked in the draft or in other leagues or who are in Jr A? It doesn't need to be the extreme of either dress 16yr olds or dress 19yr olds. As a big market finding free assets at this point in a rebuild should mean as much as developing what you have. Especially when there are rules against dressing so many 16yr olds. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 4, 2019 17:18:37 GMT -4
No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. I disagree when the players have clearly demonstrated that they’re of QMJHL caliber. Now instead of being allowed to dress a 16 year old that’s better, they have to dress an inferior player simply because he’s older. That hurts the product as much as icing 6 16’s would. I get the rule for guys out of training camp or if you’re trying to call a guy up from midget, a team could easily tank by dressing all young players but when a team acquires a 16 year old that’s clearly a Q caliber player, based on his first half season in the league, then it doesn’t make sense to limit that player. Luke Wilson or Aiden MacIntosh for example aren’t as good as he is but one or both of them is likely to be in the lineup almost every game... all because they’re 17. I’m not saying let the teams run buck wild and ice 6+ 16’s out of camp but when a guys already been in the league and showed he’s up to par, it’s stupid to make them send one of them back and dress inferior players. It's not like they just changed the rule. Saint John entered this season knowing what they were doing. |
|
|
|
Post by yoyomamajoe on Jan 4, 2019 17:35:28 GMT -4
Entertainment wise I would rather see 7 promising 16's than 2 or 3 19's that don't belong in the league. Why not roll the dice on 17/18yr olds that have been overlooked in the draft or in other leagues or who are in Jr A? It doesn't need to be the extreme of either dress 16yr olds or dress 19yr olds. As a big market finding free assets at this point in a rebuild should mean as much as developing what you have. Especially when there are rules against dressing so many 16yr olds. No, I understand the rule and why it is in place, but for entertainment purposes I don't agree with you. The Seadogs actually have 4 free agents on the team right now and that didn't help too much so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on Jan 4, 2019 17:51:28 GMT -4
Why not roll the dice on 17/18yr olds that have been overlooked in the draft or in other leagues or who are in Jr A? It doesn't need to be the extreme of either dress 16yr olds or dress 19yr olds. As a big market finding free assets at this point in a rebuild should mean as much as developing what you have. Especially when there are rules against dressing so many 16yr olds. No, I understand the rule and why it is in place, but for entertainment purposes I don't agree with you. The Seadogs actually have 4 free agents on the team right now and that didn't help too much so far. Because you went for an entire 2nd half with almost no returning players 2 years ago and are still seeing the effects from that. You might look back on this year in 3 years and think that rolling with all the 16yr olds didn't help too much, either. Or wish that certain ones played at a lower level for this season if their development doesn't go as expected. Players have plateaued at a young age in this league due to too much responsibility too soon. That's always a risk when dressing so much youth and adding rookie imports as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Slap Shooter on Jan 4, 2019 18:13:21 GMT -4
Its to bad they couldn't keep six of the 16 year olds and dress five each night. They could take turns scratching one of them and they would each get into close to 25 of the 30 remaining games.
On a brighter note the Armada just traded Teasdale. Hopefully they continue to drop in the standings and give us a lottery pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by sherwood1020 on Jan 4, 2019 18:15:32 GMT -4
Alex Drover is going to be joining the Valley Wildcats of MHL after this weekend Asked for a trade because of playing time and now he's out of the league altogether for the rest of the year... Not to say that he won't play well in Jr A but you would have to think that he may not see top 6 ice time there right away either because I'm guessing he's going to be the youngest player on the roster, and will have to earn his way up. |
|
|
|
Post by yoyomamajoe on Jan 4, 2019 18:18:03 GMT -4
Its to bad they couldn't keep six of the 16 year olds and dress five each night. They could take turns scratching one of them and they would each get into close to 25 of the 30 remaining games. On a brighter not the Armada just traded Teasdale. Hopefully they continue to drop in the standings and give us a lottery pick. Val d'Or can arrange that tonight. Go Gold Diggers |
|
|
|
Post by berner on Jan 4, 2019 19:25:23 GMT -4
No point in having the rule though if you give exemptions every time a team decided to tank and dress a pile of 16yr olds. Entertainment wise it should be against the rules to ice more then 5 16's in any game...affiliate or not...in my opinion. I disagree when the players have clearly demonstrated that they’re of QMJHL caliber. Now instead of being allowed to dress a 16 year old that’s better, they have to dress an inferior player simply because he’s older. That hurts the product as much as icing 6 16’s would. I get the rule for guys out of training camp or if you’re trying to call a guy up from midget, a team could easily tank by dressing all young players but when a team acquires a 16 year old that’s clearly a Q caliber player, based on his first half season in the league, then it doesn’t make sense to limit that player. Luke Wilson or Aiden MacIntosh for example aren’t as good as he is but one or both of them is likely to be in the lineup almost every game... all because they’re 17. I’m not saying let the teams run buck wild and ice 6+ 16’s out of camp but when a guys already been in the league and showed he’s up to par, it’s stupid to make them send one of them back and dress inferior players. Wilson and MacIntosh are only 17, merely one year older than the crew of 16s. They need playing time to develop too, and have had very little in the first half. MacIntosh was second star in a recent win against Bathurst, what’s the problem with that? |
|
|
|
Post by scotiahockey on Jan 4, 2019 19:34:07 GMT -4
I disagree when the players have clearly demonstrated that they’re of QMJHL caliber. Now instead of being allowed to dress a 16 year old that’s better, they have to dress an inferior player simply because he’s older. That hurts the product as much as icing 6 16’s would. I get the rule for guys out of training camp or if you’re trying to call a guy up from midget, a team could easily tank by dressing all young players but when a team acquires a 16 year old that’s clearly a Q caliber player, based on his first half season in the league, then it doesn’t make sense to limit that player. Luke Wilson or Aiden MacIntosh for example aren’t as good as he is but one or both of them is likely to be in the lineup almost every game... all because they’re 17. I’m not saying let the teams run buck wild and ice 6+ 16’s out of camp but when a guys already been in the league and showed he’s up to par, it’s stupid to make them send one of them back and dress inferior players. Wilson and MacIntosh are only 17, merely one year older than the crew of 16s. They need playing time to develop too, and have had very little in the first half. MacIntosh was second star in a recent win against Bathurst, what’s the problem with that? There’s no problem with that, as they need ice time to develop too but Drover is IMO better than them. Except Drover has to play Jr. A in the 2nd half due to his age, where as the other guys can play in the Q. The rule is there to protect the players, the teams from themselves and the fans, as far as on ice product is concerned but it doesn’t really help the product when better players have to go down because of it. MacIntosh/Wilson may not have been the best examples to use but the point remains, if the rule is there in part to keep the product on the ice stronger, sending down a 16 year old even though he’s proven he’s more than capable of playing in the league (better than a number of guys on his team) doesn’t really do that. The rule is what it is though, the rule is there to protect everyone and it very likely is never a real issue where the team could legitimately ice 7 Q quality 16 year olds in 1 season. |
|
|
|
Post by berner on Jan 4, 2019 20:23:07 GMT -4
Wilson and MacIntosh are only 17, merely one year older than the crew of 16s. They need playing time to develop too, and have had very little in the first half. MacIntosh was second star in a recent win against Bathurst, what’s the problem with that? There’s no problem with that, as they need ice time to develop too but Drover is IMO better than them. Except Drover has to play Jr. A in the 2nd half due to his age, where as the other guys can play in the Q. The rule is there to protect the players, the teams from themselves and the fans, as far as on ice product is concerned but it doesn’t really help the product when better players have to go down because of it. MacIntosh/Wilson may not have been the best examples to use but the point remains, if the rule is there in part to keep the product on the ice stronger, sending down a 16 year old even though he’s proven he’s more than capable of playing in the league (better than a number of guys on his team) doesn’t really do that. The rule is what it is though, the rule is there to protect everyone and it very likely is never a real issue where the team could legitimately ice 7 Q quality 16 year olds in 1 season. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m curious how you feel that Drover is better than either of the two players mentioned? Have you seen enough of any of them to form that opinion, or are you going based on draft position (not the best indicator by the way, look at Will Poirier). For my part, I’ve only seen Drover play in two games. I’ve seen more of MacIntosh and Wilson but primarily last season’s second half as their playing time has been extremely limited this season. I do know all three of the above mentioned players have shown me skills. However I can’t really say with confidence any of them are significantly better than the others. Personally I’d rather see Drover go to Jr A and hopefully get lots of playing time (which he should if he’s as good as some feel he is) and meanwhile develop our 17s and 18s here, along with our current stable of 16s. |
|
