scpa0305

Yep, he’s really good too

In Thompson’s case he could wait it out (which is very smart from a player standpoint) or he could commit to UND if sitting on an offer. For most I’d recommend to wait, but in Thompson’s case he’s a bit different. With fairly heavy GF ties, that’s obviously different. Growing up in GF/attending UND and being die hard Sioux fans, there’s legacy type stuff involved with that which many other kids around the country don’t deal with. Similar to Thoreson, there’s something extra special about playing for UND (beyond purely development). You never know with 15-16 year olds however he’s been top of the crop since he was very young. Even if there’s fall off it’ll be mostly minimal given the 2 way game he’s got. It would be an important commit on multiple fronts.

Haha not the first or last time unfortunately 🤣

Huh?

Such a good article. Really puts things in perspective. As good as 14-15-16 and even 17 year olds can be….things change. And when they do, it typically is a steep slope. Pushing the age back to say 17 (before sr year…although I would keep it to an age, not grade) would be beneficial for players and teams.

Not fun for the fans…but def smart for the players, and teams really.

Crazy considering just 3-4 years it was so hard for an ncaa guy to get a look for that team. Times have changed.

I’ve heard he’s an awesome guy to play for, lets the guys just play. One and done formats are tough….we should know that as much as any fan base

Agreed. 2011s too.

For sure…but to your previous message…those guys are the 1%, probably more like .5%. I’m assuming several of those guys will be very good NHL players at some point. There will be another crop that comes up at some point, it’s anyone’s guess at who those guys will be. Time will tell. For example, Jackson Blake wasn’t in that equation as he was too immature physically, but a lot of folks saw what was coming given his skill. He was 1-2 years behind physically from those early guys. It’s a moving target, but again I agree with your point.

100% And in all fairness some early bloomers actually play a very translatable game too and end up awesome. A smart guy once told me, wait until 16-20 and you should have a decent idea/trajectory for where a player is going.

Ya I get that, I was coming from more of a scouts angle. They need to watch the translatable moments/skills. Not only effectiveness…for the reasons I listed. in mn they play at grade level with cutoff being 6/1 (not HS). So if you’re a summer birthday it pays to hold back/start K when they’re older. Better for school too. If they turn out to be elite you just accelerate school. NHL draft cutoff is 9/15, so there’s that too for these kids.

Yep…but that happens all the way up. At youth ages the Q1 kids do better, at juniors the older guys do better. Some peewees/bantams hit puberty early and dominate. You have to watch between the lines. Kids that have translatable skills that work from level to level. Some have it all the way up. As far as the level you’re playing at, some kids need to be pushed up levels, some kids need some confidence to flourish. It’s a wild ride.

From my perspective, it’s smart. Be older for sport and school. The older you are (in theory) the more mature you are. The book outliers presents it in facts that are basically indisputable.

You may have missed my point…or maybe you weren’t even replying to me