Man we are lucky to have so many skilled players come through Philly !
On a side note , on YouTube there used to be a Hextall video that was 12 minutes long. Pure mayhem. It was set to a crappy redo of Kashmir by PDiddy. My wife at the time wasn’t into hockey. She is now but when I showed her the video she couldn’t believe this guy played goal
- Angus4444

That was an awesome Hextalll video. PDiddy,s Kashmir only made it feel like 12 minutes long It’s a little under 7 min. Still a great watch considering.

Yes, that's what I thought. The feeder systems are a lot less high profile and lot less well developed than the NFL/NBA.
- PT21

While they may be less high profile, they are by no means less well developed. As Tomahawk mentioned, hockey is an international game and, as such, has a large number of pathways to make it into the NHL. If you know anything about USA Hockey or Hockey Canada, you'd know how detailed their player tracking really is, regardless of where a kid plays. Also, remember that the draft age for NHL players is 17/18 for most of them. So, the scouting happens through much of their teenage years which makes it pretty much a crap shoot for 90% of the players. NFL players really only have one path to the NFL and that's through the NCAA. They're drafted at 22 or 23 and have proven themselves as adult men. It's much less of a crap shoot.

The high end players that choose to go to college do so because even though they aspire to play in the NHL, most of them know that it can be a total crap shoot, but an education paid for by scholarship is not a crap shoot. I know this to be true first hand. Career ending injuries can happen. Interests can change. A lot of life circumstances can happen. Or maybe they have great skills but they just find out that they can't think the game at the NHL pace and they stagnate. That's just the way the game is.

While they may be less high profile, they are by no means less well developed. As Tomahawk mentioned, hockey is an international game and, as such, has a large number of pathways to make it into the NHL. If you know anything about USA Hockey or Hockey Canada, you'd know how detailed their player tracking really is, regardless of where a kid plays. Also, remember that the draft age for NHL players is 17/18 for most of them. So, the scouting happens through much of their teenage years which makes it pretty much a crap shoot for 90% of the players. NFL players really only have one path to the NFL and that's through the NCAA. They're drafted at 22 or 23 and have proven themselves as adult men. It's much less of a crap shoot.

The high end players that choose to go to college do so because even though they aspire to play in the NHL, most of them know that it can be a total crap shoot, but an education paid for by scholarship is not a crap shoot. I know this to be true first hand. Career ending injuries can happen. Interests can change. A lot of life circumstances can happen. Or maybe they have great skills but they just find out that they can't think the game at the NHL pace and they stagnate. That's just the way the game is.
- Letterkenney

Take the education unless your that sure fire stud who is a 1st rd pick. Many great D1 players just not good enough foe the NHL.

Recently the trend is lots of "older" college hockey players now. Some not going until 21/22. They are finishing out in the USHL or NAHL before going. As you said they track these kids at 13/14 years old. Nowhere near an exact science. Kids at 15 are getting verbal commits. Lots can happen between 15-19. The development curve is expanding in terms of age.

wasn't what you said though.
- login

That's exactly what I said.

Players choose the program that maximizes their chances of NFL success. Everything else is secondary.

Places like Stanford, Michigan, are great universities and great football programs. So could a player go to Stanford over 'Bama? Sure. (But even there, I suspect it is more to do with what kind of a position they play, what the strength of the school is that position and so on). But that's not a fair comparison, because the football part is kind of a wash, so no athletic sacrifice is necessary.

To look at players choosing academics over athletics you would have to see a blue chip recruit choosing a lesser program because of better academics. I dunno of any such cases in the NFL.

While they may be less high profile, they are by no means less well developed. As Tomahawk mentioned, hockey is an international game and, as such, has a large number of pathways to make it into the NHL. If you know anything about USA Hockey or Hockey Canada, you'd know how detailed their player tracking really is, regardless of where a kid plays. Also, remember that the draft age for NHL players is 17/18 for most of them. So, the scouting happens through much of their teenage years which makes it pretty much a crap shoot for 90% of the players. NFL players really only have one path to the NFL and that's through the NCAA. They're drafted at 22 or 23 and have proven themselves as adult men. It's much less of a crap shoot.

The high end players that choose to go to college do so because even though they aspire to play in the NHL, most of them know that it can be a total crap shoot, but an education paid for by scholarship is not a crap shoot. I know this to be true first hand. Career ending injuries can happen. Interests can change. A lot of life circumstances can happen. Or maybe they have great skills but they just find out that they can't think the game at the NHL pace and they stagnate. That's just the way the game is.
- Letterkenney

That's a good point. Goes back to Swami's point that the NHL draft should be set to a later age to prevent the crapshoot aspect.

Yes, I have no doubt you say this through personal experience given what you have said about your kids.

Get lost and go back to insulting people's wives and girlfriends over PM.

(frank)ing moron.
- PT21

you seem angry why? can you please provide these PM i have sent insulting peoples wives and GF?

Nah. It's just that all the various paths are actually viable. USHL/Junior A -> NCAA -> NHL is just as viable as Major Junior. European club team systems are just as viable as NA junior/college, etc. Auston Matthews went over to Switzerland before the draft, instead of playing college or WHL, and that was fine too.

There's really only one best path to the NFL. Not many players could avoid playing college ball. NBA is a bit more international, but still not as many options as hockey.
- Tomahawk

Usually when things are well developed, an explicit ranking system follows.

Its not usually '"well this could work, and so could that."...

That's exactly what I said.

Players choose the program that maximizes their chances of NFL success. Everything else is secondary.

Places like Stanford, Michigan, are great universities and great football programs. So could a player go to Stanford over 'Bama? Sure. (But even there, I suspect it is more to do with what kind of a position they play, what the strength of the school is that position and so on). But that's not a fair comparison, because the football part is kind of a wash, so no athletic sacrifice is necessary.

To look at players choosing academics over athletics you would have to see a blue chip recruit choosing a lesser program because of better academics. I dunno of any such cases in the NFL.
- PT21

Nope you said: where no one thinks about the quality of education (the College factor

Well if you dont know any such case it doesn't exist. Players choose education over a top football program all the time. Even blue chip ones. Could be 3rd string on Alabama start on school x; all while being a blue chip prospect.

Usually when things are well developed, an explicit ranking system follows.

Its not usually '"well this could work, and so could that."...
- PT21

all the paths to the nhl work.

you seem angry why? can you please provide these PM i have sent insulting peoples wives and GF?
- login

Sure, I was angry because nothing in my question had anything to do with my profession. Stop emulating MJL - there is nothing there that is remotely aspirational in his persona.

And I couldn't be less interested in your PM history, but man to man, its only fair to point out the obvious: that multiple people said publicly you had sent them PMs that were in poor taste, not to say bloody creepy, and I suspect that incident is not just at the back of my mind but also that of others.

That's all I have to say about the previous matter. You have a issue with the previous, take it up with those who made the accusation. My exasperation just brought it out in the open.

There are lots of academically average football powerhouses that churn out NFL players. Oklahoma, Clemson, Miss, Auburn, etc.

There are plenty of very good academic institutions that have decent football programs but not elite: UCLA, UC Berkeley, UT Austin, and so on.

Its true that technically you have to have higher academic records to get in to the latter category, those are usually relaxed - with a wink wink. Happens in the Ivy League too. I can tell you twenty horror stories of the top of my head. Though legacy admissions are far worse.

Anyway, you don't hear too many NFL blue chip recruits turning down 'Bama to go to Berkeley, do you?
- PT21

a scholar like you should have put stanford first

That's exactly what I said.

Players choose the program that maximizes their chances of NFL success. Everything else is secondary.

Places like Stanford, Michigan, are great universities and great football programs. So could a player go to Stanford over 'Bama? Sure. (But even there, I suspect it is more to do with what kind of a position they play, what the strength of the school is that position and so on). But that's not a fair comparison, because the football part is kind of a wash, so no athletic sacrifice is necessary.

To look at players choosing academics over athletics you would have to see a blue chip recruit choosing a lesser program because of better academics. I dunno of any such cases in the NFL.
- PT21

That is just not true. Many know they will never be an nfl plyer. Despite being a great college player.

Nope you said: where no one thinks about the quality of education (the College factor

Well if you dont know any such case it doesn't exist. Players choose education over a top football program all the time. Even blue chip ones. Could be 3rd string on Alabama start on school x; all while being a blue chip prospect.
- login

When you are making comparisons between qualities A and B, you have to make sure that is the comparison, and all other factors are largely the same.

Look at what you wrote (bolded above).

If school x is better academically but prospect starts there versus alternate on Alabama, then how do you know the prospect chose X for academic reasons and not because he has better chances to play in school X?

Name me one blue chip recruit who had the same chances of playing in the same position at a great football school and gave that up to play the same position at a better academic and worse football school?

Sure, I was angry because nothing in my question had anything to do with my profession. Stop emulating MJL - there is nothing there that is remotely aspirational in his persona.

And I couldn't be less interested in your PM history, but man to man, its only fair to point out the obvious: that multiple people said publicly you had sent them PMs that were in poor taste, not to say bloody creepy, and I suspect that incident is not just at the back of my mind but also that of others.

That's all I have to say about the previous matter. You have a issue with the previous, take it up with those who made the accusation. My exasperation just brought it out in the open.
- PT21

So you have zero proof, making accusations and the like. Less interested yet brings it up. That is what I figured. Yet those multiple people also have yet to provide these alleged Pm's that I asked them to share. Nothing but crickets.

Man to man? now that's the funniest thing you have ever said.

When you are making comparisons between qualities A and B, you have to make sure that is the comparison, and all other factors are largely the same.

Look at what you wrote (bolded above).

If school x is better academically but prospect starts there versus alternate on Alabama, then how do you know the prospect chose X for academic reasons and not because he has better chances to play in school X?

Name me one blue chip recruit who had the same chances of playing in the same position at a great football school and gave that up to play the same position at a better academic and worse football school?
- PT21

i mean Luck had to pick stanford because he was also and engineering major

a scholar like you should have put stanford first
- 2Real

Stanford is a great school in both areas. That's why it was excluded.

When you are making comparisons between qualities A and B, you have to make sure that is the comparison, and all other factors are largely the same.

Look at what you wrote (bolded above).

If school x is better academically but prospect starts there versus alternate on Alabama, then how do you know the prospect chose X for academic reasons and not because he has better chances to play in school X?

Name me one blue chip recruit who had the same chances of playing in the same position at a great football school and gave that up to play the same position at a better academic and worse football school?
- PT21

Stop. Not all blue chips players choose the better athletic school. To sit here and say they do is just flat out silly on your part. Especially being the scholar that you are.

So you have zero proof, making accusations and the like. Less interested yet brings it up. That is what I figured. Yet those multiple people also have yet to provide these alleged Pm's that I asked them to share. Nothing but crickets.

Man to man? now that's the funniest thing you have ever said.
- login

What do you mean zero proof? How could I have proof above and beyond what I said?

And what on earth is funny about man to man?

Stanford is a great school in both areas. That's why it was excluded.
- PT21

https://www.groupon.com/d...1d-4870-b45b-474774a77840

You know anyone who has used this before? Looking for some feedback

Stop. Not all blue chips players choose the better athletic school. To sit here and say they do is just flat out silly on your part. Especially being the scholar that you are.
- login

Again the moron in you is rising to the surface. Read what I wrote, this time carefully, once again.

What do you mean zero proof? How could I have proof above and beyond what I said?

And what on earth is funny about man to man?
- PT21

and what you said is false. Simple as that; not a fact in any way.

Again the moron in you is rising to the surface. Read what I wrote, this time carefully, once again.
- PT21

no need. you are wrong. Just say it; its ok. You will still be the board scholar.

no need. you are wrong. Just say it; its ok. You will still be the board scholar.
- login

Give me the name of ONE highly prized football recruit in the past 20 years who had the same projected position in college, with the same chances of starting, for the same scholarship help, and chose a lower tier football school that was better in academics because of academic reasons.

Take the education unless your that sure fire stud who is a 1st rd pick. Many great D1 players just not good enough foe the NHL.

Recently the trend is lots of "older" college hockey players now. Some not going until 21/22. They are finishing out in the USHL or NAHL before going. As you said they track these kids at 13/14 years old. Nowhere near an exact science. Kids at 15 are getting verbal commits. Lots can happen between 15-19. The development curve is expanding in terms of age.
- login

Correct. A lot of NCAA freshman are 19 or 20. No player is allowed to play in any juniors anywhere in the world past 20 years old. Many commit to a college when they're 16 or 17 and are told by that college that they need to spend time in the USHL and/or to a lesser degree the NAHL. For most, this is 3 years and then they go on to college, some D1 and some D3.

And yes, the development curve can be radically different for many players. Some hit their plateau early and never really go any higher. Others grow to their plateau more slowly but may have much higher potential long term than some of the stud players at 17. That's why I call it a crap shoot.

and what you said is false. Simple as that; not a fact in any way.
- login

I see. Fine. Man to woman then.