EHM The Blue Line

Been thinkin' for the last couple of weeks what really is the best way to groom young prospect while they are still in juniors or college. From my excperience, prospects seems to develop faster while playing Major Junior than in the NCAA.

For example, I have played two separate games with the LA Kings. In one I kept Jack Johnson and newly acquired Erik Johnson in the NCAA for two seasons before giving them some solid NHL time. On the other save I signed Jack Johnson to an entry level contract and sent him down to the Tri-City Americans, who owned his CHL rights. On my first game, Jack Johnson developed slowly and needed at least one or two seasons before his play matched his skills. On the other game he came off a Memorial Cup winning season and broke into my ranks immediatly from the first exhibition game of the season. This was in 2007/2008 after only one season in the WHL.

What are your thoughts? Is it better to sign a college player (if a team still owns his CHL rights) and send him to play Major Junior?

If I've got a top notch prospect that's playing in the NCAA, I always check for CHL rights. If somebody has them, I'll sign him and send him down. It's just a better place to develop. If he's just an average prospect, I might keep him at his NCAA team until he's 20, then sign him and send him to the AHL or ECHL. If he doesn't look like he's got much potential at all, I'll just ignore him.

i also do this, i drafted JVR and i signed him in the 2nd season and sent him to Brampton, so he spent one year with New Hampshire, and one with The Battalion, am i correct in sayin that if i signed him straight after draft day, he wud only be allowed 1 year in Brampton,

also, i noticed that some of my extra config names were incorrect, such as Kyle Turris, and this made it so that he didnt go to college, would this affect his development as he stayed in the BCHL with Burnaby rather than with the Winconsin Badgers?

From my experience, he would have been better off goin' to the Badgers because then he would have had laced 'em up against tougher opposition. When someone as talented as Turris playes in a league as the BCHL he probobly ends up scoring tons of points put his attributes usually don't change that much. However, give him a year or two and he will be back on track, so to speak

ye, that was kinda my mindset, just checkin though, bit late now though, thanks white knight

also, i noticed that some of my extra config names were incorrect, such as Kyle Turris, and this made it so that he didnt go to college, would this affect his development as he stayed in the BCHL with Burnaby rather than with the Winconsin Badgers?

This is for the TBL:DB I bet...anyway I think that Version 1.1 should solve this. If it does not...or you have this already...let Devils88 know in the TBL:DB thread in graphics and addons forum.


Yeah I sign and send to junior if they have rights. If not and I am playing a team with ECHL or other affiliate the guys often play there.

My experience is a bit opposite of you guys.

I find that college players are often ready for the NHL straight out of college (or after 1 year in the AHL), whereas most CHL players need 2-3 years in the AHL. Of course the college players are often 21-22 years old when they sign, while CHL players are 19-20, so all in all they are ready for the NHL at about the same age in my experience.

No question that the 22-23 year old college kids may be closer to the NHL when they get out of college. As you said that is just age. I just look at the Junior coaches vs the College coaches. My guess is if the kids could play til they were 22-23 in Junior...they would have progressed more than the college ones. Will never know though, since they cannot.

Yeah, just look at the coaching staffs of the Major Junior teams and compare them to the NCAA ones...

But I regard the Major Junior leagues to have much better players overall than the college leagues which I think are way to unbalanced in that aspect. Sure there are some great players in the NCAA but they are spread out in different leagues, that's why I prefer to have my prospects play Major Junior instead of college.

batdad wrote:My guess is if the kids could play til they were 22-23 in Junior...they would have progressed more than the college ones.

Good point, that might be true.

Another thing I have noticed though, is that good players in the game don't make as extremely many points pr. game in the NCAA as good players do in the CHL, which leads me to believe that the NCAA is a harder level somehow. But again, this is just speculation

NCAA is undoubtebly a tougher league to score points in, look in real life, you rarely see 100 point scorers for any team in the NCAA, whereas in the OHL, WHL, n QMJHL there are multiple big scorers, granted they play more games, and don't have to study all round the clock for a degree at Harvard or wherever

Absolutely, in reality the NCAA is much tougher to get high scoring seasons than in Major Junior. However, the game doesn't reflect reality in that sens - I have had players scoring over 60 points in the NCAA which in reality would be unbelievable... And I think that the reason for this is the fact that the NCAA is way too unbalanced in the game... The top players may be as good as in Major Juniors but the complement players are way better in Major Junior than in the NCAA.

The main point that I can make is that every player or prospect you might have on your team will always develope better in the junior leagues. When they are playing for any college team, it just seems to take too long for them to get into a good groove.

Plus, I notice that sometimes those college players don't stay in college. They sometimes will leave and go play in the UHL, ECHL, or CHL. Overall, them having the CHL rights in order for you to send them down is possibly the best thing for that player or prospect.

I really enjoy grooming my players into NHL stars. I know that sometimes it takes a few years, but it is always worth it in the end.

white knight wrote:Absolutely, in reality the NCAA is much tougher to get high scoring seasons than in Major Junior. However, the game doesn't reflect reality in that sens - I have had players scoring over 60 points in the NCAA which in reality would be unbelievable... And I think that the reason for this is the fact that the NCAA is way too unbalanced in the game... The top players may be as good as in Major Juniors but the complement players are way better in Major Junior than in the NCAA.

This actually brings up another thing I have been wondering about.

Does the game even take opposition players into account in non-playable leagues?

When no games are played, maybe the game just generates stats for players based on their ability vs. the "toughness" of the league they are playing in. I mean, maybe the game does not even consider that most defenders and goalies from other teams than X forwards team are bad, and therefore X forward should produce many points

Excellent point... Does someone have a good answear for this one?

that is a very good point, and a very plausable reason as to how they might generate the points for non playable leagues, maybe it varies from the current ability of the player, and the reputation of the league

getzlaf15 wrote:that is a very good point, and a very plausable reason as to how they might generate the points for non playable leagues, maybe it varies from the current ability of the player, and the reputation of the league

That's my best guess. If you want a more concrete answer though... your best bet is to ask at the SI forums and hope that either GK or Riz give you an answer. I don't know how much they're over there anymore though.

Right, I agree with that what Getzlaf15 wrote sounds most plausible... I will drop a line over at the SI forums and see if someone there have a good answear.

let us know when you get a reply of the SI boards, im intrigued, but i dont check the SI forums oftenly, there not as friendly as TBL, thanks alot