Tweet
Re: Wisconsin Hockey XXIX: Yes, this is the Rumpel Rink!
It's funny to think of stuff like that. When I think of all the forwards I saw in my days in Madison that I knew were destined to have an honest crack at regular NHL work, the names that pop into mind are: Joe Pavelski, Derek Stepan, Rene Bourque, Adam Burish, Jack Skille, Robbie Earl, Blake Geoffrion and Kyle Turris. There's probably a lot to talk about with all four of those guys (who was ready, who wasn't, who spent more/less time in the AHL than we expected). The short version is that the first four found regular NHL work with (I think) less than a season of AHL experience, and the second four either never really got regular NHL work, took a long time to get there or rode the NHL/AHL rollercoaster up and down the entire time since leaving Madison.
I don't think there should be any surprise that the two players on that list that lacked a true two-way game the most (Turris and Earl) belong in that second group and not the first.
But the reason I find this topic funny: No matter how much Kerdiles could or could not use another year of defensive development (and for the record: I think he's a better two-way player than some are giving him credit for), I don't expect it to factor much into his decision to sign a contract. He either stays because he feels he has something to prove, or he bolts because he thinks he can work his way into an NHL lineup.
Not long ago, I tried to envision a "what if" alternate history wherein a few of the recruiting/early departure events had happened differently. Not necessarily some of the stuff that, in hindsight, couldn't have happened any other way (should we really be that surprised that McB, McD, Schultz, Brendan Smith, Goloubef and Gardiner didn't stay for four years?). More like if Ryan Suter had stuck around instead of going pro during the lockout, or if "x" player or "y" player had stuck around, or if we were ever actually able to land some of the recruits that went elsewhere (Patrick Kane? Sam Gagner? Probably not likely. But someone like Brock Montpetit, who still could've played at least a solid role?).
The "what if" of Brendan Woods not bolting when he did is probably one of the most interesting ones. If only because it definitely did leave a hole in our lineup that would've been really nice to have had filled. Just think of how much nicer Chuck's recruiting chart would look with Brendan Woods filling a spot for one more year?
Post-script: I feel like there are some committed names missing from Chuck's recruiting chart. Am I on acid, or does that need updating?
Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton
View Post
I don't think there should be any surprise that the two players on that list that lacked a true two-way game the most (Turris and Earl) belong in that second group and not the first.
But the reason I find this topic funny: No matter how much Kerdiles could or could not use another year of defensive development (and for the record: I think he's a better two-way player than some are giving him credit for), I don't expect it to factor much into his decision to sign a contract. He either stays because he feels he has something to prove, or he bolts because he thinks he can work his way into an NHL lineup.
Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton
View Post
The "what if" of Brendan Woods not bolting when he did is probably one of the most interesting ones. If only because it definitely did leave a hole in our lineup that would've been really nice to have had filled. Just think of how much nicer Chuck's recruiting chart would look with Brendan Woods filling a spot for one more year?
Post-script: I feel like there are some committed names missing from Chuck's recruiting chart. Am I on acid, or does that need updating?
Comment