#flower29

[sergeantbuckiebarnes]

Went back to my Flower piece and tested some new brushes

Flower my beloved 🌸😋

[hexyinuniform]

Flower-less NHL Rant Finale

No one is currently pulling a "Fleury." Flower wasn't just a talent; he was a statistical anomaly in his specific moment. He arrived at 18 with NHL-ready reflexes, size, and mental poise that defied the development timeline and dominated the junior world to prove it.

1. The "Closest Call": Pyotr Andreyanov (Russia)

Height: 6'3" (Normal range, actually).

Profile: Playing MHL (Russian junior) but already dominating against much older competition.

Why he's interesting: He has elite lateral quickness and a "cat-like" recovery speed that reminds scouts of younger Fleury or Brodeur.

Why he's NOT a Flower: He is 17/18 and playing in the MHL, not the NHL. Even if he jumps to the KHL next year (which is possible), he won't jump to the NHL immediately. The North American scouting system simply doesn't let European kids skip the AHL/CHL grind anymore, even if they are good. The risk management for teams has changed since 2003.

2. The "Size + Speed" Wildcard: Alexei Medvedev (Russia)

Height: 6'4".

Profile: Tall but surprisingly agile.

The Hype: Some scouts call him a "future #1" because he combines size with fluid movement.

The Reality: He is still raw. He hasn't faced the sustained pressure of top-tier North American juniors or college hockey yet. To pull a Fleury, you need to post elite numbers in a high-pressure league at age 18. Medvedev is too early in his career to have that resume.

3. The "Drafted Early" Group (Haskill, Plasek, etc.)

Status: These guys were drafted relatively early (or trending that way), but they are all on standard development contracts.

The Difference: Fleury signed an entry-level contract straight out of junior QMJHL and played 41 games in his rookie season.

Current Reality: Every single one of these prospects is being funneled into the AHL or ECHL first. Teams are terrified of repeating the "overexposed rookie goalie" mistake. If a kid struggles in June in the minors, they can be recalled; if they struggle in October in the NHL, the team loses playoff momentum.

Why No One Is Pulling a "Fleury" Anymore

Risk Aversion: In 2003, the Penguins were bad enough (SUX2BU) to justify trying an 18-year-old. Now, every team fights for playoffs. The margin for error is zero. They will not put an untested 18-year-old in net unless they are desperate (like the Sharks did with Askarov later, but even then, he spent time in the AHL first).

The "Junior Ceiling" Problem: Modern goalies in the CHL/OHL/QMJHL face shots fired by 22-year-old pros (since rosters expanded). It's harder to dominate now than it was in 2003. Fleury faced average junior shooters; today's prospects face future NHLers.

The "AHL Gatekeeper": The AHL has become the non-negotiable gatekeeper. Even Jesper Wallstedt (the most gifted young goalie we've seen in years) had to spend a full season in Iowa before getting his shot. He didn't skip it. He earned it. That is the Andersen path, not the Fleury path.

The Verdict

If someone does pull a Fleury in the next 5 years, it will likely be:

An undrafted free agent who dominates the NCAA so thoroughly that a team takes a gamble (rare).

Or a European prodigy (like Andreyanov) who gets drafted by a tanking team willing to take the risk. But right now? No. The pipeline is too standardized. The "Flower" era was a product of a specific window in time (early 2000s) where teams were more willing to gamble on raw teenage talent. Today, the "Grinder" (Andersen) or the "Delayed Specialist" (Roy) is the only viable model. MyHypothesis holds: Even the most talented goalies today cannot bypass the isolation training and developmental grind. The system itself prevents it now. (Insert meme of crashing out)

What about Wallstedt?

They definitely overlapped, but it wasn't the "passing of the torch" moment where they played head-to-head as equals. It was more of a mentorship handoff on the same team for a brief window.

The Overlap Window

Start: October 30, 2023 (Wallstedt's NHL debut).

End: September 26, 2024 (Fleury's retirement).

Duration: Roughly 11 months.

The Dynamic on the Ice

They were teammates on the Minnesota Wild during the 2023–24 season.

The Roles: Fleury was still a starter and a heavy workload guy at that point (he actually led the league in wins that season). Wallstedt was the rookie backup who got called up sporadically.

The Interaction: 

Wallstedt didn't get the "Flower treatment" (instant #1 status). He had to sit behind two veterans (Fleury and Filip Gustavsson) and learn the grind.

Fleury, at age 39/40, was essentially playing his farewell tour. He spent that year mentoring Wallstedt in the locker room, showing him how to handle travel, media, and the isolation of the position.

The Result: Wallstedt made his debut late in that season (Jan 2024) but didn't become the primary starter until after Fleury retired. In fact, Wallstedt only became the undisputed #1 when Fleury walked away in Sept 2024.

Did Wallstedt "Pull a Flower"?

No. The overlap actually proves why you can't pull a Flower anymore.

Fleury (2003): Skipped the mentorship phase entirely. He walked onto the ice at 18 with zero guidance from a veteran goalie because the Penguins didn't have one he could learn from (or they trusted him too much).

Wallstedt (2023): Had to spend a full season shadowing a legend. He watched Fleury work, listened to his advice, and waited for the older man to leave before he got the keys to the car. It was the exact opposite of Fleury's path. Wallstedt followed the Andersen/Roy model: respect the hierarchy, learn from the veteran, wait your turn, and then take over. So, while they shared an ice sheet for nearly a year, it was a classic "Old Guard holding the door open" scenario, not a "New Kid stealing the show immediately." Fleury actually prevented Wallstedt from becoming the starter prematurely, ensuring he learned the job properly first. Does that distinction feel like the key difference between the eras? The lack of a "senior partner" forcing a rookie to wait might be the biggest reason no one pulls a Flower today.

Wait, What Happened Between Roy and Flower?

They are both Quebecois legends, but the cultural environment that forged them was radically different. It explains why Roy needed a grind and why Fleury got a shortcut.

Patrick Roy: The "Saint" of the 80s (The Weight of History)

Cultural Context: 1980s Quebec. Hockey wasn't just a sport; it was the last bastion of French-Canadian identity in a rapidly modernizing, sometimes anglophone-dominated Canada.

Pressure Cooker: When Roy was drafted by the Montreal Canadiens in 1984, he wasn't just filling a spot; he was inheriting the throne of the greatest franchise in history. The expectation wasn't just to win; it was to be a hero.

"Old Guard" Path: In the 80s, the culture of goalkeeping was brutal. You had to suffer. If you were young and good, you still got sent back to junior or played limited minutes because the team feared losing the Stanley Cup to a rookie mistake.

Roy's Struggle: He debuted at 19 but was immediately pulled back. The Habs couldn't risk him failing. He had to prove he had the "cœur" (heart) to handle the pressure. His path was defined by proving resilience against the weight of history. He became "Saint Patrick" only after surviving the crucible of the Montreal media and fan base.

Mental Toll: This era produced goalies who were fierce, sometimes volatile, and deeply emotional (Roy throwing his stick). The culture demanded you be a warrior first, a technician second.

**Marc-André Fleury: The "Prince" of the New Century

Cultural Context: 2003. Quebec hockey was still huge, but the NHL had become a global entertainment product. The "identity crisis" of Quebec was less about survival and more about pride.

The Media Darling: Fleury was drafted #1 overall by Pittsburgh (not Montreal), which actually saved him from the immediate crushing weight of the Canadiens' expectations. However, being a "Quebecois" kid with that size and smooth style made him an instant marketing icon. (Of course, he's an icon; anyone who's heard of the pranks, mic'd up or interviews, or seen him laugh in the crease noticed the charisma.)

The "New Era" Path: By 2003, teams were more willing to gamble on "generational talents." The culture shifted toward celebrating the prodigy.

Fleury's Shortcut: Because he was viewed as the future face of the league (the next big thing), the cultural expectation was to let him play. The narrative wasn't "prove you belong," it was "look what we found."

Mental Shield: Fleury grew up in an era where goalies were treated with more psychological support. The isolation was there, but the "warrior" archetype was softer. He was allowed to be human, make mistakes, and learn without the immediate threat of being branded a failure by the entire nation.

Cultural Shift: "Warrior" to "Prodigy"

Feature Patrick Roy (1984)Marc-André Fleury (2003)Role in Culture A symbol of national survival/identity A global sports icon/entertainment asset Team Expectation "Don't lose us the Cup; earn your spot" "Let the kid play; he's the future" Development PathGrind: Sent back to junior, limited starts, high scrutiny Fast Track: Immediate NHL starter, protected by hype Public Reaction to Failure "He isn't Quebec material" / Relentless criticism "He's learning; give him time" / Patience due to talent Goalie Archetype The Warrior (emotional, fiery, suffering) The Athlete (smooth, confident, athletic)

Roy had to survive the culture. The culture demanded he be tough enough to take the hits, so he went through the "normal" developmental fire. The system forced him to be ready.

Fleury was protected by the culture. The culture saw him as too special to fail, so it smoothed his path. The system let him bypass the fire. The Irony: Roy’s path created a legend because he earned it under extreme pressure. Fleury’s path created a star because the culture gave it to him, allowing him to rely on natural gifts rather than forged toughness. If you look at the other guys in your list (Andersen, Wallstedt), they are closer to Roy’s path culturally. Even though they have talent, the modern NHL culture is again shifting back to "protect the veteran, make the rookie wait." The "Flower" era was a brief, unique blip in hockey history where the culture said, "This kid is too good to sit," and then changed its mind 15 years later. So, while they share the same French-Canadian roots, Roy was forged in iron, and Fleury was polished in glass. One survived the pressure; the other was shielded from it. That’s the cultural divergence. The NHL won't return to that state naturally. But not because it's impossible—it's because the entire ecosystem has shifted away from what made Fleury possible.

The Structural Barriers Are Real

1. The Salary Cap Changed Everything

In 2003, there was no hard salary cap. Pittsburgh could afford to experiment with an 18-year-old because they weren't fighting for every point to avoid luxury tax or roster crunches. Now: Era Risk Profile Pre-Cap (2003) "Try the kid—he's cheap if he fails" Cap Era (Now) "If he fails, we wasted a roster spot AND cap space"

A bad goalie costs the team $5-9M-ish in dead cap if they're locked into an entry-level deal that doesn't pan out. That's not just a lost season; that's a missed playoff window that affects revenue and fan engagement for years.

2. Analytics Killed the Gut Gamble

Modern front offices run everything through probability models. What Fleury represented was a human gut call: "He's special, let's see." Today:

Goalie performance is tracked obsessively (save percentage against expected goals, rebound control, high-danger saves)

Teams know exactly when a prospect's stats dip in juniors/AHL

There's no room for "wait and see" anymore—every game matters for standings

3. Goalie Prospects Are Too Valuable to Spend Too Early

Here's the irony: Fleury worked because he was treated like a throwaway risk. Now that teams know goalies can carry franchises, they hoard them. Look at the Vegas Golden Knights (booing and hissing can wait until the end of the essay)—they drafted multiple goalies early precisely to create depth. They'd never start an 18-year-old because they want to maximize his trade value or keep him as insurance. The system rewards accumulating options, not committing to one.

4. The CBA Locks Prospects In Longer

Current rules mean:

Entry-level contracts are max 3 years before hitting restricted free agency

Teams must navigate signing extensions at age 24-26 with no guarantee

If a kid plays at 18 and struggles, they get "burned" contractually even if they recover later So the safest play? Wait until age 21-23. Give them AHL time. Let them prove consistency. Only then do you commit long-term.

Could It Ever Happen Again?

Technically, yes—but only under specific, unlikely conditions: Condition Likelihood Catastrophic Injury to All Veterans — Team forces hand by having no choice Low (teams plan for this via depth signings) Once-in-a-Decade Talent — Prospect dominates every level so thoroughly that teams feel safe Possible (Wallstedt comes close, but still needs AHL proof) Management Shake-up — New GM tries to differentiate themselves with bold move Rare (most GMs play it safe to protect jobs) League-Level Rule Change — CBA revision allows faster path for elite youth Not happening soon; owners benefit from stability

My honest read: You'd need all four to align. That's the kind of real crapstorm convergence that happens once every 20 years—if ever.

The Real Issue: Systemic Shift

It's not just wrestling that Fleury's era has left—it's that the era of the franchise goalie is fading. In the Roy/Fleury days, teams signed one guy to a 7-year deal and built around him. Now, teams prefer:

Two 2-year backups

Or a 3-year bridge deal before committing That instability is baked into how the NHL operates now.

1. The Development Pipeline Is Slow and Fragmented

Everyone feels "too early." That's actually true for most of the league right now: Group Problem Elite Prospects (Wallstedt, Askarov) Still too young; teams won't commit until they prove durability over 2+ seasons Mid-Level Veterans Either backup roles or injury-prone; no clear "face of the franchise" status Tandem Systems Teams like Vegas, Minnesota, Boston all run two-goalie systems; no single personality dominates

There's no clear #1 goalie on every team anymore. That fragmentation means there's less reason to latch onto anyone emotionally—you don't know if they'll still be there next season, or if a trade will ship them away before you form an attachment.

2. Fleury Was Unique—Not Just as a Player, But as an Era

Fleury wasn't just a good goalie. (He's the best, and what will I do if the world never sees another goalie like him? Grieve on the interwebs, probably.) He was a living link to three different decades of hockey (2000s, 2010s, 2020s). The NHL watched him evolve from teenage phenom to Stanley Cup winner to veteran leader to retiree. That creates emotional weight that new prospects can't replicate yet. Andersen offered a similar stability—the "grinder" who stayed one place (Toronto) for years—but he was always injury-prone and never quite had that consistent "lockdown starter" reputation Fleury carried.

3. The Modern NHL Treats Goalies Like Disposable Assets

Teams are less patient than they used to be. A rookie goalie struggling in 20 games gets benched for a veteran instead of being given time to adjust. Trade value for goalies is high; even solid starters move after 2-3 seasons if another team offers draft picks or prospects. So, your brain keeps saying: "If I start liking this guy, will he be here in six months?" And that hesitation breaks the emotional investment. My noggin can barely keep this essay in line, nevermind goalkeep stats I'm not yet invested. The Fleury era was an outlier, not the standard. What you're experiencing is the natural consequence of an NHL that has become more transactional, less patient, and more prone to constant change.

What Would Actually Need to Change?

For another "Flower" to emerge, these things would have to shift:

Teams accept short-term pain for long-term gain. Current ownership expects playoffs every year. That kills patience.

Prospect evaluation becomes more holistic. Right now, a few bad months in AHL = "not ready." You'd need scouts who value intangibles over stats again.

The CBA loosens restrictions on young player movement. Currently, teams guard their contracts like property. You'd need a system that incentivizes developing your own first.

Fans stop punishing teams for rookie mistakes. Part of the problem is public pressure. If fans crucified a team for starting an 18-year-old who struggled, teams wouldn't take the risk. You need a cultural shift in fan expectations, not just front-office ones. I don't think the NHL will go back to the pre-cap mentality that Fleury thrived under. That era is gone—not because it was better, but because money changed how risk gets calculated. And maybe that's okay (lads, ladies, folk of hockey, no, it's not ok for the magic to disappear). Chasing that exact memory might leave you perpetually disappointed. The Fleury era was an unusually long period of stable, recognizable goalie personalities in the NHL, and now we're in a transition zone that leaves even seasoned fans adrift. The "Flower" experience was special, but it's okay to miss it without demanding the universe provide an identical replacement. But honestly? Maybe the "Flower experience" was always a rare accident of timing—a confluence of talent, management trust, and a less risk-averse league.

.... Incase you couldn't tell, I think I might be missing Flower. When the draft is over, I'll have to contemplate the lack of hockey until September 19th, 2026, anno domini....

[hexyinuniform]

Paths Rant

I think I can't estimate how the young goalies will do on this alone. I remember Flower started in the NHL proper really early. What about his skills or whatnot lead him to not need development time in the minors or college? Flower-less NHL Flower is actually a really interesting case study in goalie development, anyone could see that without a good intuition. Flower being exceptional is clear—he broke the typical mold.

Fleury's Unusual Path

The Timeline:

Flower was drafted #1 overall in 2003

Made his NHL debut at 18 years old (October 10, 2003)—youngest goaltender in the league that season

Had only a brief AHL assignment to Wilkes-Barre/Scranton before establishing himself as Pittsburgh's regular starter

Won Rookie of the Month for October 2003 after making 46 saves in his debut (even though it was a 3-0 loss) What Made Him Different: According to pre-draft scouting reports, Fleury possessed an unusually complete skillset for an 18-year-old:

Physical maturity — At 6'2", 210 lbs, he had the frame that modern NHL teams want, but more importantly, he looked physically ready to handle the NHL workload

Natural athletic base — Scouts noted "quick reflexes," excellent lateral movement, and smooth positioning that suggested he didn't need extensive technical refinement

Mental poise beyond his years — This is the big one. Goalie development isn't just about saves; it's about reading plays, controlling rebound pressure, and handling the isolation mentioned earlier. Fleury showed calmness in high-pressure situations that scouts said signaled NHL readiness

Butterfly fundamentals already locked in — Most prospects need years to develop proper technique. Fleury arrived with it essentially polished.

Hey, but what about that Initial One-off Stint?

Fleury was never sent down for development or because he was struggling during his rookie years (2003–2005). That brief assignment to Wilkes-Barre/Scranton in 2004 was actually unique—it wasn't a demotion; it was a consequence of the 2004–05 NHL lockout.

1. The Lockout Exception (2004–05)

When the entire NHL canceled its season due to the labor dispute, every NHL player under contract had to go somewhere.

Fleury was assigned to the AHL's Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins, where he played 30 games.

He also played 15 games in the ECHL (Wheeling Nailers) that same year to get ice time.

Crucial distinction: This wasn't a "send down" because he wasn't ready. It was a league-wide mandate. Once the NHL returned in 2005–06, he immediately resumed his starter role and didn't look back.

2. The Rest of His Career

Regular Season: From 2003 until his retirement in 2024, he remained an NHL starter for every team he played for (~ish: Pittsburgh, Vegas, Chicago, Minnesota). There were no further developmental demotions.

Conditioning Stints: In later years (e.g., 2015, 2018, 2022, 2023), he did take very short "conditioning loans" to AHL affiliates (Wilkes-Barre, Chicago Wolves, Rockford IceHogs, Iowa Wild). But these were standard medical/rehab protocols for veteran goalies who hadn't played in a while or were coming off injury—not because they needed to relearn the position.

Comparison to Roy and Andersen

Patrick Roy: Sent back to junior hockey after 11 NHL games as a rookie to finish his draft eligibility. He was explicitly not considered "ready" for the full load yet.

Frederik Andersen: Spent nearly a decade in European leagues and the AHL before breaking into the NHL.

Fleury: Skipped the "proving ground" entirely. Even during the lockout, he dominated the minors (winning the Calder Cup with WBS), proving he didn't need them to develop—he just needed to fill time.

Context: Why This Was Rare in Goalie Development

By the mid-2000s, the NHL shifted strongly toward structured AHL development—virtually every successful goalie of that decade logged 1-3 full AHL seasons first. Teams wanted to:

Refine rebound control at pro speed

Build mental resilience against consistent NHL shooting

Adjust to professional schedule demands without the immediate consequence of losing playoff runs Fleury jumped the line because the Penguins were desperate enough to try him immediately (they were rebuilding (sucked really badly)), but also because he genuinely outperformed the typical 18-year-old trajectory. Brodeur did something similar—vaulted straight from OHL to NHL in the late 90s—but Fleury remains one of the few who sustained it from day one rather than struggling through a rookie adjustment period.

Takeaway: Flower = Rare True "Instant Readiness"

Fleury's readiness wasn't about having less development—it was about having accelerated development through elite junior hockey combined with a rare combination of physical and mental attributes that translated immediately to NHL pace. Most goalies don't arrive with both pieces intact at 18 years of age. Fleury had such an advanced natural skillset and physical maturity (height + reflexes) that he effectively bypassed the isolation training phase that most goalies require.

Most goalies need that "minor league isolation" to learn how to handle the mental pressure of being the sole focus of criticism without a star teammate nearby.

Flower arrived at 18 already possessing (mostly) that mental armor, which is why he never needed to be sent down for a development detour to "figure it out."

My Other "Outliers"

The contrast between Fleury's "meteor" path and the more traditional developmental arcs of Frederik Andersen and Patrick Roy highlights that Fleury was a rare genetic and mental outlier ready for prime time immediately, and the others followed (or forced into) the grind of typical development. Those paths are as follows:

Frederik Andersen

Andersen didn't just take a "normal" path; he took the long road, which is actually quite common for European goalies who weren't drafted high or early.

Early Career: He played in Sweden (HockeyAllsvenskan and SHL) for years before coming to North America.

NHL Debut: He didn't make his NHL debut until 2013 at age 24.

The Journey: He spent significant time in the AHL (Toronto Marlies) refining his game. He was essentially an "undrafted" free agent journeyman who had to prove himself in lower leagues for nearly a decade before getting his shot.

Why it matters: His success came from maturity and experience gained over years of grinding, not instant teenage dominance. He fits the mold you described: specialized training over time to build the necessary resilience.

Patrick Roy

Roy is a fascinating middle ground, but definitely closer to the "normal" grind than Fleury, though his path was accelerated by being the first overall pick in a different era.

Draft & Debut: Drafted 3rd overall in 1984, he debuted at 19 (slightly older than Fleury's 18).

The "Normal" Part: Unlike Fleury, Roy didn't skip straight to being the undisputed #1 with zero prep. He played 11 games as a rookie in 1984-85, then was sent back to the QMJHL junior league to finish his eligibility and gain more confidence.

The Breakout: He didn't become the dominant force until his second season (1985-86), when he took over the playoffs and won the Conn Smythe Trophy as a rookie after having that brief junior encore.

Comparison: Roy needed the junior experience to finalize his mental game. Fleury arrived fully formed; Roy arrived talented but needed those extra months of refinement and playing time to click into "elite mode."

"Normal" vs. "Outlier"

Fleury (The Anomaly): Arrived at 18 with physical tools (size/reflexes) and mental poise so advanced he bypassed the minor league crucible. He is the exception that proves the rule of how rare true "ready-made" talent is.

Roy (The Accelerated Traditionalist): Debuted young but utilized the standard safety net (returning to junior, playing limited games) to mature. He represents the "high draft pick who still needs seasoning."

Andersen (The Grinder): Represents the vast majority of successful goalies—developed slowly, often internationally or in the minors, proving themselves over years before becoming stars. This reinforces my thoughts on "specialized isolation" and training.

Fleury had enough natural talent to overcome the lack of isolation training before the pros.

Roy and Andersen needed the isolation of pro-level goalie camps and minor leagues to develop the specific psychological resilience and technical adjustments required for the NHL. If you look at the "giants" list from earlier, most of them likely fell into the Andersen category: they spent years refining their craft in lower leagues or international play before landing in the NHL, using their size as an advantage that grew sharper with experience, rather than something that saved them from development. Fleury is the only one on that shortlist who truly skipped the line entirely.

Younguns

[hexyinuniform]

Younguns Rant

The Three Framework Archetypes

I ran them against the Flower (Accelerated), Roy (Refinement/Encore), and Andersen (Grind) framework, only to find:

Goalie development has slowed down – Teams aren't willing to gamble on untested 18-year-old netminders anymore, even if they look like Fleury did

Tall goalies take longer – There's something about 6'7"+ frames that requires extra technical work (positioning, angles, recovery speed) that shorter goalies might resolve faster

We're missing potential Flowers – Maybe there are goalies who could bypass the refinement stage, but the system doesn't let them prove it

Method Profile Mental Component Development Timeline:

Fleury Elite junior → Immediate NHL starter (18) Arrives with mental armor pre-installed Accelerated; bypasses isolation phase

Roy High draft pick → Brief NHL → Junior encore/refinement → Elite breakout (19-20) Needs final polish under pressure; junior encore completes mental game Moderately accelerated, but requires refinement stage

Andersen European/pro grind → Late NHL debut (24+) Builds resilience through years of lower-level testing Extended; success from maturity, not instant dominance

Actual development reality vs. the "giants on paper" list.

I've researched some of these goalies. This gets less and less organized as it goes; I wrote this over 12ish different lunches. Here's roughly where I think some of them stand and what trajectory they seem to be following compared to the Flower/Roy/Andersen framework:

On Track to NHL Starters (The Giant Group)

Michael Hrabal — 201 cm

Status: Already drafted (Rangers, 4th round, 101st overall), playing in AHL (Tucson Roadrunners/Utah system)

Path: NCAA route (UMass standout—won Hockey East Goaltending Champion) → AHL

Comparison: Mostly Andersen-like—took the college route, earned pro opportunity through sustained performance rather than skipping steps

Outlook: Strong chance to become NHL backup or starter. His college stats (.924-.937 SV%) show genuine progression.

Marcus Gidlöf — 200 cm

Status: Drafted (Islanders, 5th round, 147th overall, 2024), making jump to SHL at age 19

Path: Frölunda HC junior → SHL → NHL

Comparison: Roy-like accelerated path—young, moving quickly through senior leagues despite later-round selection

Outlook: One of the better prospects here. Scouts say he's technically sound with strong post-integration play. Projects more as tandem goalie than pure starter.

Hugo Ollas — 202 cm

Status: Signed 2-year entry-level (Rangers), made AHL debut April 2024, splitting time with ECHL

Path: College (Merrimack) → Entry-level contract → AHL/ECHL grind

Comparison: Classic Andersen grind—no shortcuts, working through lower-tier minors first

Outlook: Will likely fight hard for a backup spot. Recent stats (.899 SV% in ECHL) suggest he has work ahead before NHL consistency.

Early Development / Uncertain Future

Louis-Antoine Denault — 203 cm

Status: Undrafted, Columbus Blue Jackets added him as 2025 prospect, playing QMJHL with Quebec Remparts

Stats: .902 SV% over 41 games (decent but not elite)

Comparison: Too early to tell, but his size alone isn't enough—needs to improve numbers significantly

Concern: He's the tallest guy on the list (6'8") but .902 in major junior isn't screaming "Flower-ready." Size got him noticed; performance will determine if he sticks.

Trenten Bennett — 203 cm

Status: Signed 3-year entry-level (Devils, 2024), playing Owen Sound Attack (OHL) as floating affiliate

Limitation: Only allowed 10 games at OHL level while under NHL contract—interesting hybrid situation

Comparison: Unusual path—signed pro deal while still in junior, which suggests organization sees potential but won't fast-track him

Outlook: Devs have invested commitment, but limited ice time means slow development. Could become late-blooming backup if he improves reflexes.

Filip Růžička — 202 cm

Status: 2026 draft prospect, playing WHL (Brandon Wheat Kings), ranked #44 by some scouting services

Path: Czech junior → WHL → awaiting NHL draft

Comparison: Very early stage—can't really project yet

Outlook: High ceiling due to mobility for size, but must transition to North American play successfully. A lot of development still needed.

**At Risk / Unlikely to Break In

Talyn Boyko** — 202 cm

Status: Rangers invitee to development camp 2021-2024, WHL (Kelowna Rockets), unsigned

Stats: 3.55 GAA, .898 SV% in 40 games

Problem: Never drafted. Rangers kept inviting him, but no contract offer. Why? The numbers don't support NHL-level confidence.

Scouting Note: Reddit forums directly say "Boyko's WHL and ECHL numbers are not good at all"—one comment noted he's not even the Rangers' best 6'7" prospect

Verdict: Likely ends up in European leagues or CHL—not impossible, but statistically unlikely to reach NHL starting role.

Yegor Rybkin — 201 cm

Status: Playing Russian MHL (Nizhny Novgorod Jr.), eligible for 2026 NHL Draft

Strengths: Good agility, tight rebound control, top-100 European goalie rankings

Risk: Stuck in Russian system that typically retains players longer before allowing KHL/NHL move

Outlook: If he transitions to KHL first and dominates, NHL doors open. But many tall Russian goalies get stuck in mid-tier KHL roles forever. Moderate risk.

Colin Purcell — 200 cm

Status: USHL (Tri-City Storm), committed to UMass Amherst, appeared on Central Scouting lists 2 years but not drafted

Issue: Two consecutive years being evaluated for NHL Draft, both times passed over

Verdict: NCAA route might save him—college development often helps late bloomers—but right now he looks like a project who needs significant improvement to be NHL-relevant. High risk.

Key Takeaways:

Height doesn't bypass development. Even at 6'8", Denault and Boyko aren't getting automatic NHL consideration because their save percentages aren't elite.

The Andersen path dominates. Most of these guys are grinding through juniors/colleges/ECHL, not skipping lines like Fleury did. That's the normal story—even for giants.

Performance trumps pedigree. Hrabal got drafted after NCAA success, not just because of height. Gidlöf moved to SHL and earned attention. Ollas had to sign entry-level and earn AHL minutes.

Development isolation matters. Those who train separately from teams (junior goalie camps, dedicated AHL goalie coaches) seem to progress faster regardless of height. Height creates opportunity but doesn't guarantee outcome. Three of these nine look like they'll make the NHL (Hrabal, Gidlöf, maybe Ollas). Three are too early to judge fairly. And three—especially Boyko with those poor WHL numbers—may never crack NHL rosters despite matching the "giant goalie" profile perfectly. When we look at goalies in the normal range (6'0" to 6'5") who are currently on track or in early development, the pattern shifts dramatically. They don't rely on sheer mass; they rely on technical refinement, agility, and mental consistency—traits that often require more traditional development time than the giants get.

1. On Track Group (Non-Giants)

These guys are bypassing the "minor league purgatory" phase but not via Fleury's shortcut—they’re earning it through elite performance in their respective leagues.

Jesper Wallstedt — 191 cm (6'3")

Status: Minnesota Wild starter (signed extension). Made NHL debut Jan 2024, shutout April 2024.

Path: SHL (Sweden) → AHL (Iowa Wild) → NHL.

Comparison: Classic Andersen/Roy hybrid. He didn’t skip the minors entirely—he had a solid AHL stint—but his jump was accelerated because his SHL dominance (.908 SV% as a rookie) proved he didn’t need "size" to survive European pro hockey.

Key Trait: Elite positioning and calmness under pressure. Scouts say he’s "technically sound" rather than just a physical blocker.

Outlook: Likely long-term #1 starter if health holds.

Yaroslav Askarov — 188 cm (6'2")

Status: San Jose Sharks prospect, playing AHL (Barracuda), projected NHL breakout for 2025-26.

Path: KHL (Russia) → AHL → NHL.

Comparison: The "Andersen Grind" with elite talent. He spent years in the Russian system (KHL/MHL) before moving North. His path was slower than Wallstedt’s due to geography, but his agility and reflexes compensates for lack of height.

Key Trait: Incredible lateral mobility. At 6'2", he covers the net like a 6'7" goalie through movement.

Outlook: High ceiling as a tandem or #1 depending on Sharks’ front-office patience.

2. Early Dev Group (High Potential, Still Grinding)

These prospects are in junior/college systems, showing promise but needing more seasoning. They represent the true "normal" path—slower, steadier, less flashy.

Lucas Haskill — 193 cm (6'4")

Status: Undrafted but trending upward (USHL/Ontario Hockey League prospect).

Path: Junior (USHL) → likely NCAA or ECHL next.

Comparison: Traditional "Fleury-lite" but without the size advantage. His stats suggest strong potential, but he hasn’t gotten the "instant NHL contract" treatment yet.

Key Trait: Good rebound control for his size. Not a pure "blocker," relies on technique.

Outlook: Likely 3rd-round pick or undrafted free agent sign. Backup or 3rd-string trajectory unless he explodes in NCAA.

Pyotr Andreyanov — 190 cm (6'3")

Status: Russian junior standout (MHL), 2026 draft eligible.

Path: Russian MHL → KHL → NHL (potentially).

Comparison: Similar to Askarov’s early route. Developing in a system that values technical precision over size.

Key Trait: Strong glove hand, good tracking. Scouts note he’s "not afraid of traffic."

Outlook: Could be a mid-round pick if he transitions well to North American style.

Alexei Medvedev — 193 cm (6'4")

Status: Russian prospect (2025/2026 draft), sleeping giant in some circles.

Path: Russian junior → potential KHL move.

Comparison: The "sleeper" version of the normal path. Not drafted yet, but performance suggests he could surprise.

Key Trait: Quick recovery after saves.

Outlook: If he stays in Russia and dominates, NHL doors open later (similar to Sergei Bobrovsky’s path).

Karel Plasek — 188 cm (6'2")

Status: Czech junior standout, 2024/2025 draft eligible.

Path: Czech Extraliga juniors → NCAA or CHL.

Comparison: Textbook "small goalie" development. Needs to prove he can handle bigger, faster shots in North America.

Key Trait: Great angles, compact stance.

Outlook: Likely late-round pick. NCAA route might save him if he needs extra maturation time.

3. At Risk Normal-Sized Goalies

Even among "normal" sizes, some struggle because they lack the mental toughness or technical polish that height masks.

Joshua Ravensbergen (6'5"—borderline giant, but often grouped here): Struggled in WHL with inconsistent numbers. Size doesn’t fix bad habits.

Several 6'1"-6'2" prospects: Often get overlooked in drafts because teams prefer the "safer bet" of a taller goalie. Many end up in lower minors (ECHL/European second leagues) unless they develop elite speed.

Big Picture: Normal Size vs. Giant Size

Factor Giant Goalies (6'7"+) Normal Goalies (6'0"-6'5") Primary Advantage Net coverage, intimidation factor Agility, quickness, technical precision Development Path Often accelerated (size gets attention) Slower, requires proof of skill (no shortcuts) Failure Mode Lumberiness, slow recovery Getting screened, poor angle management NHL Success Rate Lower overall (many fail to adapt) Higher overall (more proven pipeline) Examples Fleury (rare exception), Bennett (at risk) Wallstedt (success), Roy (legend), Andersen (grinder)

Teams don’t give them "free passes" based on size; they have to earn every minute.

Giants can hide behind their frame for a while, masking technical flaws.

Normal goalies must have near-perfect positioning and reaction times from day one.

This creates a self-selection bias: only the best of the normal size make it, while many average giants get drafted on hype and then fade away.

Giants get isolated because their training focuses on using their frame (blocking, reaching) rather than sharpening fundamentals.

Normal goalies are forced into rigorous technical drilling because they can’t rely on size. This often makes them better developed overall when they reach the NHL, even if they arrive later. So, in short:

Who’s on track? Wallstedt, Askarov

Who’s in early dev? Haskill, Andreyanov, Medvedev, Plasek.

Who’s struggling? The ones who think size (or being "normal") is enough without elite technique—like some of the 6'4"-6'5" prospects with shaky numbers. The "giant" label might get you noticed, but it’s the normal goalies who have to work twice as hard to stay relevant—and ironically, that’s often why they end up being the better pros.

Sebastian Cossa | 201 cm (6'7") | Red Wings/Oilers Prospect

Debuted Jan 2025 at age 22/23 after extended AHL time

Never went back to junior for refinement—he stayed in pro system (AHL) Verdict: Closest to Roy, but with a twist. He had the high draft capital Roy had, but instead of a junior encore, he got prolonged AHL seasoning. The refinement element is there (he needed it), just in North American minors rather than QMJHL. Not quite Fleury because no immediate NHL immersion; not pure Andersen because he wasn't a European journeyman. Closer to the Roy middle ground. High draft selection and elite junior stats suggest natural readiness, but his path wasn't immediate NHL immersion—he spent 2+ AHL seasons refining before getting NHL looks. Not a true Fleury bypass.

Pillar Assessment Alignment Physical Maturity High – Drafted 15th overall in 2021 after WHL dominance (2.14 GAA, .923 SV%) Fleury-lite – High draft capital suggests physical readiness scouts saw early Technical Polish Mixed – Strong juniors base, but required AHL seasoning (Grand Rapids, then Bakersfield) Roy path – Had talent but needed time to refine Mental Poise Unknown at NHL level; debuts were brief injury replacements (Jan 2025 for Oilers) Unproven – Haven't seen him shoulder full starter pressure yet

Dennis Hildeby | 201 cm (6'7") | Maple Leafs

4th round pick (lower draft capital)

Swedish pro experience (SHL title winner with Färjestad) before coming to North America

NHL debut Oct 2024 at ~23 Verdict: Modified Andersen. The SHL experience is like Andersen's Swedish pro years, but he arrived younger. However, scout reports say he needs more AHL seasoning—no evidence of "pre-installed mental armor." Modified Andersen path. Made it through Swedish pro hockey before AHL/NHL transition. His scouting profile says "requires more time to season"—that's the opposite of Fleury arriving "fully formed."

Pillar Assessment Alignment Physical Maturity High – 6'7", good feet/balance per Sportsnet scout report Neutral-High – Size ready, movement questioned slightly Technical Polish Developing – Scout notes "needs more AHL seasoning," weak puck-playing Andersen-leaning Mental Poise NHL debut Oct 2024 at ~23 years old, backup role initially Neutral – Arrived via European pro route (SHL title winner), not junior jump

Cooper Black | 202 cm (6'8") | Panthers (AHL Charlotte)

Late-bloomer, unproven at any professional level above AHL

Still developing; no NHL action yet Undeveloped Andersen case. Still in AHL, labeled "late bloomer." His size creates intrigue, but he hasn't demonstrated whether he can handle NHL pace without extensive minor-league seasoning. Most compelling potential mystery here.

Pillar Assessment Alignment Physical Maturity Exceptional – 6'8", moves well for size per reports Fleury-tier – Rare mobility for frame Technical Polish Late-bloomer status acknowledged by DobberProspects Andersen-extreme – Still in AHL, no NHL debut as of 2025-26 Mental Poise Unproven at NHL level Unknown

Anton Sokolov | 200 cm (6'7") | Blackhawks Prospect

5th round pick (low draft capital)

Early in development; AHL assignment only Prototype Classic Andersen path ahead. Mid-round Russian prospect → AHL grind → potential late NHL debut. Nothing indicates accelerated readiness. Expect multi-year AHL grind before NHL consideration.

Pillar Assessment Alignment Physical Maturity Standard tall goalie frame – nothing exceptional beyond size Neutral Technical Polish Early-stage – Just signed entry-level after 2024 5th-round draft Andersen-path ahead Mental Poise Unproven – Russian pro system but no NHL exposure yet Unknown

Ivan Fedotov | Approx. 200+ cm (6'7"+) | Blue Jackets (ex-Flyers)

7th round pick (188th overall, 2015)

Military service delays, KHL career, NHL debut April 2024 at age 27+

Multiple seasons AHL/Cleveland Monsters after NHL callup Verdict: Pure Andersen extreme. If Andersen took 10 years to get his shot, Fedotov took nearly 12. The physical gifts existed, but everything external conspired against a normal trajectory. His path proves the framework holds—even elite European goalies can hit external blockers that force the long grind. Military detention, KHL contract disputes—external factors compounded the grind. If Fleury bypassed the isolation phase, Fedotov lived in it for nearly a decade before getting his NHL shot.

Pillar Assessment Alignment Physical Maturity High – 6'7" frame, KHL-tested physicality Neutral-High Technical Polish Extensive KHL polish (CSKA Moscow starting goalie) Mixed – Technically seasoned but older arrival Mental Poise NHL debut April 2024 at age 27+, after military/KHL delays Most Extreme Andersen case – One of oldest NHL goalie rookies ever

My Take

None of these modern tall goalies fit the Fleury mold. Teams rarely gamble on an 18-year-old netminder anymore, even if they're physically ready. You can see it in Cossa's delayed debut (22 years old) and Fedotov's absurdly late arrival (27+).

Somewhat Summary Table

Goalie Technical Path Framework Match Success Probability Fleury (Baseline) Immediate NHL starter (18) Fleury Rare exception Michael Hrabal NCAA dominance → AHL Modified Andersen High (strong stats) Marcus Gidlöf SHL at 19 → NHL prospect Roy-like Moderate-High Jesper Wallstedt SHL → AHL → NHL Roy/Andersen Hybrid High (signed starter) Dennis Hildeby SHL → AHL → Backup Modified Andersen Moderate (backup role) Sebastian Cossa WHL → AHL → Limited NHL Roy-lite Moderate (needs breakout) Anton Sokolov Russia → AHL Andersen Low-Moderate (early stage) Cooper Black USHL → AHL Undeveloped Andersen Unknown (too early) Ivan Fedotov KHL → NHL at 27 Extreme Andersen Low (late career start) Talyn Boyko WHL (poor stats) Failed Andersen Very Low Colin Purcell USHL (undrafted) At-risk pre-Anderson Low Louis Denault QMJHL (avg stats) Uncertain Moderate-Low Trenten Bennett OHL (limited ice) Wildcard Moderate (depends on breakout)

Hi. Thanks for reading this far. In case you want it in order:

Category 1: The "On Track" Group

Goalies showing clear trajectories, either via elite performance or accelerated path.

Michael Hrabal (201 cm / 6'7") | Rangers → Utah Mammoth (AHL)

Path: NCAA (UMass) → AHL

Stats: .937 SV%, 1.95 GAA (Junior year), Hockey East Goaltending Champion

Framework Fit: Modified Andersen. He took the college route (classic grind), but his dominance (.937 SV%) in NCAA is what's accelerating his NHL chance. He didn't skip steps, but he crushed the step he was on. Not Fleury because no junior/NHL leap; not pure Roy because no junior encore. He's the new standard: prove it in a high-level league (NCAA/SHL) and the NHL door opens.

Verdict: Strongest candidate for "Modern Accelerated" (just without Fleury's age).

Marcus Gidlöf (200 cm / 6'7") | Islanders → Frölunda HC (SHL)

Path: Junior → SHL at 19

Stats: 2.33 GAA, .908 SV% in SHL (2024-25), strong post-integration play

Framework Fit: Roy-like. Young, moved quickly to senior pro (SHL) despite being a 5th-round pick. Scouts note technical soundness and reverse-VH strength—traits that suggest he could handle NHL pressure sooner rather than later. Not Fleury (no immediate NHL jump), but definitely accelerated refinement.

Verdict: Best fit for Roy method among giants.

Jesper Wallstedt (191 cm / 6'3") | Minnesota Wild

Path: SHL → AHL → NHL

Stats: Debut shutout, extension signed

Framework Fit: Hybrid Roy/Andersen. Didn't skip AHL entirely, but SHL dominance (.908 as rookie) allowed him to bypass "minor league purgatory." His calmness under pressure mirrors Fleury’s mental armor, but arrived via European pro grind, not junior leap.

Verdict: Modern example of "earned acceleration."

Category 2: The "Early Dev / Uncertain" Group

Potential exists, but the path isn't clear yet.

Louis-Antoine Denault (203 cm / 6'8") | QMJHL (Quebec Remparts)

Status: Undrafted, Columbus prospect

Stats: .902 SV% over 41 games (QMJHL)

Framework Fit: Too early. Size got him noticed, but stats aren't "Fleury-ready." Needs to elevate performance significantly to even be considered for the Roy/Andersen paths. Currently at risk of fading due to average numbers.

Verdict: Needs breakout to move out of "uncertain" zone.

Trenten Bennett (203 cm / 6'8") | Devils (OHL hybrid)

Status: Signed entry-level, limited OHL ice time (10 games)

Path: Pro contract while still in junior (unusual)

Framework Fit: Unique anomaly. Signed pro deal but restricted ice time suggests the organization sees talent but won't rush him. If he breaks out in juniors next season, could shift to Roy; if he stays quiet, slides toward Andersen grind in ECHL/AHL.

Verdict: Wildcard path. Could go either way.

Filip Růžička (202 cm / 6'7") | WHL (Brandon Wheat Kings)

Status: 2026 draft prospect, ranked #44

Path: Czech junior → WHL → awaiting draft

Framework Fit: Pre-framework. Too early to project. If drafted high and given AHL exposure quickly, could be Roy. If stuck in junior/Europe, becomes Andersen.

Verdict: Awaiting next data point.

Yaroslav Askarov (188 cm / 6'2") | San Jose Sharks (AHL)

Path: KHL → AHL → NHL

Framework Fit: Pure Andersen with elite talent. Years in Russian system, delayed North American arrival. His agility compensates for size, but timeline is classic grind.

Verdict: Andersen archetype for smaller goalies.

Pyotr Andreyanov, Alexei Medvedev, Karel Plasek, Lucas Haskill

All Early Stage: Still in juniors/Russia/USHL.

Framework Fit: Pre-framework. All following traditional development tracks. None show Fleury-like acceleration yet.

Verdict: Standard Andersen pipeline unless something unexpected happens.

Category 3: The "At Risk / Unlikely" Group

Size alone hasn't translated to performance; development stalled.

Talyn Boyko (202 cm / 6'7") | Unsigned (Rangers invitee only)

Stats: 3.55 GAA, .898 SV% (WHL)

Framework Fit: Failed Andersen attempt. Even the long grind hasn't worked here. Numbers suggest fundamental issues size can't mask. Likely ends up in lower leagues (ECHL/Europe 2nd tier) or retires.

Verdict: Case study in why size ≠ success.

Colin Purcell (200 cm / 6'7") | USHL (Tri-City Storm)

Status: Drafted twice, passed over both times

Framework Fit: Pre-failure. College route might save him (NCAA has a track record for late bloomers), but right now he lacks the stats to be taken seriously. If NCAA doesn't lift his game, likely never NHL-relevant.

Verdict: High risk of becoming a cautionary tale.

Joshua Ravensbergen (6'5") | Struggled in WHL

Stats: Inconsistent numbers

Framework Fit: Mid-size failure. Borderline giant who couldn't overcome bad habits. Size didn't fix technical flaws.

Verdict: Proof that 6'5" isn't a free pass.

Ivan Fedotov (revisit) | Blue Jackets (AHL Cleveland)

Path: Military delay → KHL → NHL debut at 27+

Framework Fit: Extreme Andersen. Longest possible grind before NHL shot.

Verdict: Archetype of the "late bloomers who made it, barely."

Flower-less NHL Finale

[xnm8dx]

Marc-André Fleury makes incredible save vs Penguins. 🌸