A better and more valid question is how are they both franchise material? What evidence do you have that says they will definitively be franchise players?
It is hard to compare Eichel and McDavid as they play in very different leagues. What kind of competition has Eichel been subjected to? Even looking the tournament is limited but at least they are up against the same competition.
McDavid's performance in the tournament is hard to gauge coming off his injury but he has been a better player for his team than Eichel.
Is anyone actually impressed with Eichel's tournament? I would think a "generational talent" or "franchise player" would have been a little more prominent in the tournament. A single goal and three assists in five games is not all that impressive. Hell, Larkin was a better player for the US team in this tournament.
Calling McDavid and Eichel "franchise players" and especially "generational talent" is simply hype by the media. This blog is a perfect example. Like all potential #1 picks they may be great players, simply NHL regulars or they may be complete busts. Only time and trial by fire will tell.
You would think Oilers fans would be the first to agree that banking on a 1st round draft pick - or several 1st overall drafts picks for that matter - to make a team a contender is simply a pipe dream. These players are not even guaranteed to have a productive and successful NHL career. There have been plenty of 1st round and 1st overall busts. It has and will happen again.
Success in drafting outside of the 1st round, attracting/keeping quality free agents and making effective trades for players are all part of the equation. Edmonton has been poor at all of the above and that falls on management.
- HoweHatrick
I think its body of work.
beyond that its small instances where u see flashes of greatness.
theres not really much else one can guage when it comes to kids.
by your qualification, Crosby probably wasn't the best player on his Canadian team either.
one could certainly argue both Bergeron and perry were more dominant.
but there was no denying the ability he had to be a special player at the time.
same goes for mcdavid and eichel.
as far as connor, the power of his skating when he gets a step is absolutely reminiscent of Sidney Crosby. its pretty phenomenal actually.
and almost 3ppg before his injury in the O is unreal. and over a ppg as a 15 year old is pretty disgusting.
eichel may have been a little more tough to gauge, but its there. the numbers hes putting up on a dominant university team are pretty eye opening. the little things he does with that big frame and the hands he has are so slick. and he proved it a few times this tourney.
he plays a different game than larkin, but id bet alot hes in a different class when theyr both in the show.
no one is saying its a slam dunk no chance of failure. but both look pretty special.
of course you can question those claims. theyre not in the nhl yet so it seems you would probably have more ammo to back up your questions. but this also shouldn't suggest there aren't plenty of reasons to believe they can become those guys. plausible deniability doesn't make it right.
as far as attracting free agents, its a chicken and the egg.
Edmonton will never be a hugely desirable market in todays climate. and it still wouldn't be if they were contenders. but certainly a bit better than where it is right now at the bottom.
but your just basically saying offhand
"get better and they'll come"........weeell yeah!!
but for now he has to overpay for secondary guys, and cant trade for big name stars with ntc.
so its the draft. ---slow, painful rebuild
and furthermore, how can one say theyre drafting since they tore it down is so bad already.. don't later rounds guys take time...
the khairas, chases, gernats aren't busts yet. far from it. theyre developing. people say we rush our kids, but then when we don't, theyre busts cause theyre not up with the big club yet!!
but if u mean the earlier part of the decade where those later picks would be playing now, then yes, fine.
but two things;
that was a different scouting corp.
and mact wasn't management then
too many easy answers. not enough research
