Perhaps this should be in the recruiting thread, but since the quality of future recruits has become a topic here I thought some might be interested in this article: https://www.democratandchronicle.com...ts/2919336001/ My apologies to Ralph if it was already posted. It's interesting that her roommate is a big time recruit for Clarkson. Hopefully we'll be working toward making that a more interesting rivalry by the time she enrolls.
Regarding Neutral Zone ratings, my theory is that a high rating probably means something but a lower one is not necessarily accurate. I doubt they view a particular player very many times. If a player shows some more standout skills they get a high rating. But what about a player like Ture Linden who doesn't tend to stand out but just puts in a solid two way performance day in and day out (please forgive the use of men's comparables but I don't have enough experience with the women's team these days to do likewise)? He's not the kind of guy that's likely to draw a lot of attention if you just watch a few game. Then you have a guy like Savory, who was an absolute standout with his previous team, but had to overcome the "that was Junior B - how would he have done at a higher level" debate. It also appears that NZ doesn't really try to project how a player may develop as part of their grade. They give young players low ratings because they aren't ready yet and then raise them up through their development cycle. Obviously the farther out they are the less useful the ratings. Now that they've put limits on recruiting pre-schoolers (intentional exaggeration) perhaps that will be less of an issue.
As for Ms. Jahnke's size, we've generally had a few players in her size range on most rosters. The primary source of what little scoring we've had in recent years, Blake Orosz, is 5'2". In the lower contact realm of the women's game, if she has the skills she should be fine.
Regarding Neutral Zone ratings, my theory is that a high rating probably means something but a lower one is not necessarily accurate. I doubt they view a particular player very many times. If a player shows some more standout skills they get a high rating. But what about a player like Ture Linden who doesn't tend to stand out but just puts in a solid two way performance day in and day out (please forgive the use of men's comparables but I don't have enough experience with the women's team these days to do likewise)? He's not the kind of guy that's likely to draw a lot of attention if you just watch a few game. Then you have a guy like Savory, who was an absolute standout with his previous team, but had to overcome the "that was Junior B - how would he have done at a higher level" debate. It also appears that NZ doesn't really try to project how a player may develop as part of their grade. They give young players low ratings because they aren't ready yet and then raise them up through their development cycle. Obviously the farther out they are the less useful the ratings. Now that they've put limits on recruiting pre-schoolers (intentional exaggeration) perhaps that will be less of an issue.
As for Ms. Jahnke's size, we've generally had a few players in her size range on most rosters. The primary source of what little scoring we've had in recent years, Blake Orosz, is 5'2". In the lower contact realm of the women's game, if she has the skills she should be fine.
