|
Who should go #1 overall? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Nolan Patrick |
|
7 | 12.50% |
| Nico Hischier |
|
8 | 14.29% |
| Someone Else |
|
2 | 3.57% |
| Edmonton Oilers |
|
39 | 69.64% |
| Total: | 56 votes | ||
|
Jason Robertson continues to be hideously under appreciated. Also this would've been a very sensible year for the Canucks to go D with a top five pick. There are a bunch of decent defencemen available, and the forwards are of the meh variety. Instead Benning insisted on doing that last year when the opposite was true and now has to either once again delay drafting a centre and take a defenceman at 5th for the second straight year or reach for an underwhelming centre. You know he'll reach.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
corn on the cop posted:right in the canucks wheelhouse Riiiight in the wheelhouse. Now Benning's pointing to the ground. Is he indicating a bunt? Yes, he's bunting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bvdGPiORE8 Season 10 I know, but it had its moments
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I wanna add that after the Leafs decided to theme last year's draft on "large overagers," I'm not all too enthusiastic with what they'll do with their draft this year. At least they've been reliably good with their first pick, even during the dark years (except for Biggs gently caress that). With 11 picks and a prospect pool that deep you can start taking some risks. There's a bunch of evidence coming out now that says that second and third entry players that excel a bit later in junior leagues are dangerously undervalued. So much so that you saw a 2nd year eligible player go in the first round last year, and welp that Borgstrom pick is looking pretty astute by Florida right now. With that said, the Leafs made some puzzling selections.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
corn on the cop posted:Pretty much. For every Gaudreau or Keller there's about a dozen more Tedenby's and Grimaldi's. Well yeah, but a mid first round pick has an approximately 60-70% chance of producing an NHL player of any sort regardless of height or weight. If you have two players scoring at comparable rates and one is 6'3" 220lbs and the other is 5'8" 150lbs, take the big guy every time. However, as Hand Knit said you're very rarely comparing two players with similar scoring rates. More often it's the below PPG guy with size versus the well above PPG guy who's a bit smaller. I like to normalize scoring rates to see how players in the CHL actually stack up over the 72 games that the WHL plays (as compared to the 67 for the other leagues) Adjusted to 72 games and modifying slightly for differences in league scoring you have the following two players ranked around the same place and play the same position (end of the first round and LW/RW): Player 1: 72gp 47g 63a 110pts (involved in 46% of team's total offence) Player 2: 72gp 30g 28a 58pts (involved in 28% of team's total offence) Player two is half as effective in the CHL as player one. The difference between the two? Player 1 is 5'9" 160lbs (Kailer Yamamoto), the other is 6'6" 195lbs (Isaac Ratcliffe). Ultimately the chances of success for both players are essentially identical. However, players almost never exceed their PPG from junior in the NHL. It's not like the concept of "low ceiling/high floor" holds any weight, bigger players still fail to make the NHL just as frequently as smaller guys. So who do you take? The guy who has a 70% chance of being a 3rd/4th line checker who might break out as a top six guy or the guy who has a 70% chance of being a 2nd/3rd line point getting forward who might break out as a top line forward? To me, the answer is obvious. If you really need checkers, you can sign or trade for them a hell of a lot easier than you can for top six guys. The only time you should reach for the stars and hope that a player like Ratcliffe turns into a Lucic or Bertuzzi clone is if you have a really deep prospect pool already with a plethora of skilled forwards that will ultimately result in you being forced to trade one or two anyways, and even then it's a low percentage play. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 14:38 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
corn on the cop posted:
God no, they're hardly infallible. There's a reason they're ranked as late first round picks. Yamamoto's Weight/Height ratio is a pretty poor 2.32 right now so you're looking at a player who probably needs to add 20-25 pounds of muscle at the bare minimum, and that's no small feat. With that said, people get blinded by height very easily and overlook a lot of flaws that they're quick to spot in smaller guys. My issue is just that height alone is largely irrelevant, top scorers are rarely huge averaging 6'1 202lbs. Teams tend to project far too high in terms of weight for taller guys thanking that more is better, ignoring the fact that top scorers should sit around the 2.5-2.9 W/H ratio and there's an optimal weight for most players. What they're used to playing at should probably be used as a general starting point. Take Ratcliffe as an example, he's 6'6" but only 195lbs which is a W/H ratio of 2.5 on par with players like Pastrnak and Kucherov. Give him a couple years of growth and he might add 20lbs? which would push him to 2.76 the same area as McDavid or Seguin. AKA, he's not likely to be a punishing power forward of any variety. Tall does not automatically mean strong or go hand in hand with a bullish playstyle. Hell, a taller guy who doesn't rely on strength is probably less useful because their centre of gravity is higher (but I have no evidence to back that up). So what does that leave you with? A guy who's 6'6" sure, but unlikely to ever be an extremely physical player who's not really scoring at the junior level. That doesn't sound like an especially useful player to me. Certainly not worth passing up a guy who has at least already got the offensive side of things down pat.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 17:32
|
|
).
|
corn on the cop posted:flashback time That's actually surprisingly... Good? Four of those guys turned into very effective members of the team at its height (Edler, Hansen, Raymond, Schneider), one was traded for table scraps but still became half decent NHLer (Grabner) and one died. Patrick White was a giant bust and that was obvious the second he was drafted, but between 03 and 05 the Canucks had some decent drafts. That 07 draft... Well... The less said the better.  Simek
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Which of them died? Luc Bourbon. As the old SAS Wiki put it "Luc Bourdon was a Canucks prospect who thought he was stronger than a truck."
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Schremp Howard posted:Man, just going to your team's page on hockeysfuture and then going to the earliest articles is amazing. Who will lead the Penguins of the future, will it be Aleksey Morozov, Milan Kraft, or Robert Dome? Before they gassed their archives you could read HFboard threads dating back to 2002 (I think). I spent a delightful afternoon reading an entire thread about how Miroslav Satan was the untouchable young star of the Buffalo Sabres and how he and Taylor Pyatt were gonna the power line of the future.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
I'd be more than happy with Glass, Suzuki or Vilardi (in that order - I'm not so high on Vilardi). I'm glad Pronman put Suzuki so high, he scored at basically an identical rate to Hischier and Patrick this year.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
corn on the cop posted:He was also very complimentary of Jason Robertson's game. Considers his skating a major red flag. It's his biggest drawback sure, but I think the rate at which he scores on a very poor team is enough for someone to take a risk on him. Then again, he's a power winger and none of them skate particularly well. I don't see any major stride deficiencies when I watch him, he's just clunky. Have a power skating coach bust his rear end for a couple summers and he'll be fine. He's already got the knack for knowing when he step into holes or drive the net that all power forwards need, the rest can be worked on. He's not a sure thing, but he's a lot closer to being a decent 1st/2nd line winger than a good portion of the players ranked above him.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:i wonder why hes so down on pettersson I think it's wise to be cautious of players playing at a lower level than the rest of their peers. It's the same reason I'm not sole on Cale Makar. It's really easy to look great and get tons of ice time and primo opportunities when you're head and shoulders above your teammates. They're a worthwhile gamble for a team who can risk a potential bust, but the Canucks can't afford to miss on this pick. Not again.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:Patterson plays on Allsvenskan, the Swedish U20 league...he's playing at the same level as his peers in the draft. It's not a junior league, it's their second tier so vaguely comparable to their AHL. I like Dahlen as a prospect but 1) he was not a 5th overall pick 2) he still has a lot to prove. There are a bunch of youngsters that have put up good numbers in the Allsvenskan and gone nowhere. For every Filip Forsberg to come out of it there's a Fabian Brunnstrom. Petersson could well turn out to be a top quality NHLer, but it's hard to say from the stats and the Canucks specifically can't afford to mess this pick up. They need a hit, so taking a CHLer with a long track record of statistical analysis to back it up is their best bet.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Patrick is probably the most "NHL ready" prospect in this draft (although I hate that term) in that he probably wouldn't look out of place in an NHL lineup in October. With that said, he's missed a lot of hockey recently and another year in the minors won't hurt his development (tbf that's true of pretty much all players). I'd pencil him into the NHL for next year though.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:huh? its a mans league and pettersson was 17-18. hes playing at a higher level than his peers. brunnstrom was like, 22. pettersson's numbers are outstanding Sure it's a men's league, but it's not a good one. It's a noticeable step below the SEL in terms of ability. Furthermore, almost no players go from Allvsvenskan to North America, not enough to build a complete picture of the league's strength. NHLe isn't perfect, but the current (as of five years ago) method is to calculate the equivalency for the Allsvenskan to the SEL, then the SEL to the NHL which gives you a rate of about .36. That's slightly above the CHL's general score of .30, but a long way off most other pro leagues. So Petersson probably put up the equivalent of a 28-30 point NHL season this year in the Allsvenskan. Certainly not bad for a 17/18 year old. Then again, it's not spectacular and with the uncertainty over projecting out of the Allsvenskan there are a number of CHLers who put up equal or better seasons with much more evidence to back up their success. Petersson could turn out to be very good, I think he's a highly skilled guy and he could very well translate that to the NHL in a meaningful capacity. My only issue is that without a bevvy of evidence to back it up, it's a big risk. It's essentially taking eyeball scouting over statistical analysis which for a team like the Canucks is the last thing they should be doing.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:I can admit when I was wrong though, it happens to everyone. I also thought Yakupov was going to be really good! I thought Bo Horvat was a terrible pick at the time.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
^^^^^ NHLe isn't a stat I love, but it's actually not bad for the Allsvenskan. The current methodology is to calculate the equivalency between the jump from it to the SEL, then from the SEL to the NHL and there are hundreds of data points for that. You are right in saying that there are very few from the Allsvenskan straight to the AHL/NHL though. A Typical Goon posted:I remember you having some spicey McDavid takes back in the day Yup, I felt he wasn't as far along as Tavares at the same age (16) and didn't fully understand why he was getting all the crazy hype he was (despite being a very good player and obvious #1 pick). By about the mid-point of his draft season it was clear how wrong I was. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:he kinda was from our perspective. that his loving skates were holding him back 15kph was not a thing we were privy to To be fair he kinda was a bad pick in the sense that he was drafted to be a defensively responsible two way guy with skating issues and now he's an all offence quick rush player. He's an excellent player, but that's a one in a thousand shot to work out like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Someone finally put together an easy web version of the NHLe Calculator if you want to easily compare top prospects https://nhlecalculator.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-nhle-calculator-updated-24052017.html (huge disclaimer: NHLe isn't that great, but it gives you a decent starting point)
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I don't think NHLe works very well for European leagues. Laine was projected to get 17 points using NHLe. Laine put up 33 in 46 Liiga games which translates to an NHLe of almost exactly 25 points. He put up 64 in the NHL last year. NHLe isn't projecting into the future, just saying that what particular season would be equivalent to if they spent the season in the NHL. So taken like that, a jump from 25 points at 17 to 64 at 18 is quite reasonable. Laine also came on strong at the end of the year after being buried on the 4th line to start. If you use his playoff stats only, that's akin to a 30pt NHL season. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
The draft combine is this week. I mention it entirely because I picked up my brother from the airport on Saturday and I realized after a few minutes I was standing next to the folks tasked with meeting the prospects as they got off the plane so I eavesdropped on their conversation. They were all in agreement that Matt Martin was a big reason the Leafs were back in the playoffs this year. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Button released his final rankings. He's reaaallly high on Cale Makar http://www.tsn.ca/live/talent/craig-s-list-final-ranking-1.294692
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
a false posted:those are some weird rankings. i agree with being somewhat down on hague and rasmussen but i've never seen anyone THAT down on them He had Virtanen ranked as a mid second round pick at a time when everyone else had him pegged top ten because of hitz and goalz and if anything he was too kind to crap hole Jake.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Jedimastafez posted:Dibs on Nick Henry My problem with Nick Henry is that while he put up decent numbers for a first time draft eligible player, the Regina Pats scored a ton of goals. The most in the CHL if I believe at 353. He put up a bit over a PPG, but as a percentage his team's offence it was a pretty pedestrian 23% (actually below average for a player ranked by the ISS this year). Couple that with the fact that he was a regular linemate of Sam Steel and Dawson Ledahl who put up 131 and 89 points respectively and the fact that he's sub 6 foot (although not noticeably small) and I think he's a real risk of taking a step back next year. I value skill over anything else, so I find it kinda weird knocking him a bit but the fact he didn't score more is maybe indicative of something. If he'd put up similar numbers from the 3rd or 4th line then I'd say he would be a slam dunk top 15, but for now I think he is one of the rare players that is genuinely a direct product of his linemates. If you're set on a smaller guy who put up similar numbers, I'd say Heponiemi is a better bet. He's tiny (140lbs right now) but just as talented and much more of a driver of offence. I'd take the risk on him bulking up and turning into a Teuvo Teravainen type. Robert Thomas, Matthew Strome and Jaret Anderson-Dolan are all better bets IMO. There's also Jason Robertson ranked around there, but I haven't been quiet about my obsession with him so I won't get back into that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Kilza posted:Bob McKenzie released his final draft rankings, and he has Hischier over Patrick for 1st overall. Hischier will go #1. Still a chance the Canucks could take Robertson at 33.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Twin Cinema posted:I can't seem to find the 2009 rankings, but was Bob the one who pushed the suggestion that Hedman was close to being ranked over Tavares? I am fully aware that I am misremembering draft rankings from nearly 10 years ago. Bob had one scout rank Hedman 1st, so it wasn't like it was close, but he speaks like it's neck and neck (and I mean in retrospect Hedman is probably better but it certainly wasn't at the time). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4LssjnJSc Bob tends to play up the "who'll go #1!" thing each year even when his own rankings indicate there's a pretty clear consensus (TAYLOR VS. TYLER). I'm sure it's a corporate direction to drive TV viewers. Just like how he talks about every Canadian team "looking to jump into the top 5!" in his hyper enthusiastic "I know this to be true in only the vaguest sense of the term" falsetto. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Spring Break My Heart posted:I don't think Bob's misrepresenting anything in that video. Sure, he can't do it every year otherwise people would tire of it but he tries to drum up draft interest in some way each year. Take this for example: https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/745807605986013185 Or his constant flip flopping between Sam Reinhart or Aaron Ekblad at 1 in 2014. I understand why he does it, he's in the entertainment industry and as a prominent TV personality with a lot of sway his job is to drive eyeballs to TSN and page clicks to TSN.ca. I don't fault him for that, I'm just rarely surprised when his poll of anonymous scouts surprisingly reveals a headline grabbing change in order a week before an otherwise drab draft.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:i feel like the days of top 5 picks being traded are basically over A top 5 pick hasn't been moved since 2008 (excluding the Seguin pick which was not a top pick at the time) and even then it was the Leafs jumping from 7 to 5 to take Schenn. The last time top picks moved in a meaningful fashion was 2003. If something hasn't even twitched in a decade and a half, I think it's safe to say it's dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Yeah, that'd been the rumour for a while but I doubt Dallas moves the pick. They could just draft Makar or Heiskanen and hope they pan out in the next few years. It's not like Dallas are an especially old team. Seguin and Benn still probably have 3 or 4 years at the top of their game left. There's no reason to mortgage such an integral part of their future (and likely present) for a short term solution. It's not like they'd be moving it for a franchise guy. The rumoured returns are Tanev, Hamonic or Brodin. All very good players, but not the types of guy I'd sacrifice a shot at a young, cost controlled top line/top pairing guy for. I figure Nill holds onto the pick, takes a defenceman and then makes a run at Shattenkrik or Alzner on July 1st.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
That's not ever going to happen, but I was totally about to come here and post that anyways. FABRICATED DRAFT EVE DRAMA RIGHT ON CUE
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Wonderllama posted:Yea they do this every year. Ostensibly for draft hype, and possibly stoking the fires of draft trades https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/745807742741286912 I said it earlier, but it's a ratings thing. I don't think it's a coincidence that Pronman is saying that the Devils might take Makar at #1, and you can read all about it if you pay for ESPN Insider. I'm putting essentially zero stock in this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Now that I've said this he'll end up in Vancouver. There's talk that he's Benning's target. He announced the other day that they need a 50-60 point defenceman because apparently they grow on trees and we'll fashion a new 1st line centre from bits of old bark and Henrik's hair clippings or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:Just for curiosity's sake, who would you prefer? Glass? Suzuki? Glass or Suzuki are my #1 choices, leaning towards Glass. They're the safest bets, and after two whiffs on top-10 picks in a row the Canucks really can't afford to make a mistake here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:I know, but based on what ThinkTank's said they're grabbing a d-man I don't think anyone really knows what Benning's intentions are. The press have said that Benning likes Glass (which is good) but isn't sold on any other centres and will go D if he's gone before 5 (which is bad). Then again, that's just speculation and spitballing from media types. The whole Canucks organization has been uncharacteristically quiet this off-season. I figure they're finally learning their lesson. Although, if true this is hilarious: https://twitter.com/HockeyDipshit/status/877944824577392640
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
CMvan46 posted:It's hard to fault Benning on the Virtanen pick. If they had passed up on the home town kid who was not a reach at their pick we would have never heard the end of it from fans and media here. Unfortunately I just don't think he's smart or motivated enough to play his game to higher levels. I do, his stats were terrible compared to the guys ranked around the same place and no one gives a poo poo who's on the roster if they're winning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
CMvan46 posted:Barely anybody complained when they picked him at the time and every "expert" and mock draft had him going around where we took him as well. People do give a poo poo though and it was a marketing dream if it worked out and junior stats are a crappy argument for drafting a player especially considering the style of game he plays. Lots of people hated the Virtanen pick at the time, myself included. Adjusted to a full season, Ehlers (who was my choice on the day) outscored him while putting up 30ish more assists while being an inch shorter. Junior stats are the best indicator for future success for a player regardless of position or playstyle, like that has been objectively proven time and again. No one indicator is perfect, but if consider any draft pick a calculated gamble it's always safer to go with the higher scorer. As for rankings, Virtanen was below Ehlers and Nylander in essentially every ranking list except for bob. Some had him as a mid round pick, one or two had him outside the first round. In consensus rankings, Ehlers and Nylander were comfortably ahead of him. With regards to the local boy thing, who gives a poo poo if he'd worked out or not? If he had, the Canucks would have a 60-70 point skilled guy in Nylander or Ehlers to comfort them while Virtanen did his thing elsewhere as what a decent net crashing 2nd line forward? I don't think too many people would be that heartbroken. As for the idea of taking the local kid at all, answer me this: if he'd been from Humboldt, Saskatchewan would you have still drafted him? If the answer is "no" then it was a terrible decision. The most popular players in franchise history are from Sweden (Hank), Sweden (Dank), Sweden (Naslund), Russia (Bure), Sudbury (Bertuzzi), Medicine Hat (Linden), Detroit (Kesler), St. Paul (Smyl) and Montreal (Burrows). What do all those guys have in common? The fact that they put up big point totals at a time when the team was very successful. There were players from BC on the team each of those times: Morrison during the WCE era, Hamhuis during the 2011 cup run, Courtnall/Ronning in 94 and while none were ever outright unpopular, they were overshadowed by their more successful teammates. Canucks fans like one thing: winning. In fact, that's true of all fanbases in all sports. It doesn't matter how you do it, just win. Would it be great to have a Vancouver born superstar? Yeah, absolutely. Would I care if we won the cup without a BC born player on the roster? Not in the slightest, in fact I'd personally lend a hand in building a monument to whichever player led us there be they from Victoria or Siberia. Winning is what matters, and deliberately hamstringing yourself to I dunno fill a largely imagined want for your fans is a very bad way to go about it. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
CMvan46 posted:I agree it doesn't matter where a guy is from but for casual fans it does matter. It was a marketing dream for the Canucks and I think that played in to the pick as much as the skill. The Canucks have practically nothing to sell tickets right now and haven't for years now. It's the same reason the Blue Jays went after Brett Lawrie. Yeah, the Leafs tried this with Clarkson and other hometown boys that struggled through years of intense mediocrity and dwindling fan interest. The moment they shifted to a rebuild and picked up a bunch of fun, young kids they started to sell out again and they're the talk of the town for the first time in the decade I've lived here. I don't think there's one casual fan who gives the slightest poo poo that Matthews and Nylander are from Phoenix and Stockholm respectively, they just love watching them combine for sexy tic-tac-toe goals. Marner is from Toronto, but he's probably the lest popular of the three. It's almost like casual fans like fun, exciting teams and aren't so stupid as to think that a player is good and worth watching simply because they grew up in the same city as them. Fans want homegrown superstars, not just homegrown guys. If they can't have a homegrown superstar, they'll support other superstars before a mediocre hometown guy every day. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:a lot of casual fans really are that stupid. i talked to people that were inexplicably excited for the virtanen pick, partially because he's from here Oh I know that people were excited, he was a flashy new prospect and everyone loves those. The fact that he was a local kid was just icing on the cake and of course people liked that. Most people aren't obsessive nerds about prospects like I am so wouldn't have known there was such a glaring gulf in talent between Virtanen and Ehlers/Nylander that was obvious with one second of research. If management had selected Ehlers, I'm sure there would've been a bunch of angry "SHOULDA TAKEN DA ABBYSFURD KID" calls into local radio shows, but the moment Ehlers started scoring in the NHL everyone would've forgotten. It's not management's job to make people immediately happy at the expense of future success, it's about incremental improvement over time so you select the guys most likely to have the greatest amount o NHL success. In 2014, that was quite clearly Ehlers or Nylander and not Virtanen. No one would say Virtanen's name ever again if Ehlers skated around the rink in a Canucks uniform with a cup raised over his head. El Gallinero Gros posted:That hometown boy poo poo is useful if you have a minor league team sometimes because of small-town mentality, but it has no place in the major leagues in any sport. Like, I started rooting for Calgary because Theo Fleury was a Warrior first, but it certainly didn't hurt they were a successful team. Plus Lanny McDonald! And a guy with a 100MPH slapshot (back when that was more novel). Exactly, I wasn't born a diehard fan. I became one because of players like Naslund, Bertuzzi and Jovanovski kicking rear end and taking names way back when. I can tell you that at no point did I pretend to be Brendan Morrison while playing hockey in my driveway lifting the cup. The fact he was from Vancouver meant nothing to me, I'm pretty sure I didn't know he was when I was a kid. I just liked the guys who scored lots of goals and did rad poo poo and I tried to emulate that. I don't think things are fundamentally different for kids today, and they'll embrace whoever has success with the team. Look at Bo, he's the most (actually only) popular guy on the team and he's from London, ON which is a craphole and a very long way from Vancouver. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:my guess is his list looks like glass > makar > pettersson. pretty sure liljegren and heiskanen are off the table at 5 (which is whatever, i dont really like drafting D high) I wouldn't exactly be heartbroken if we took a D at five because well I'm not sold on Juolevi either and we have an abject lack of talent at any and all positions so anything helps. I just want a centre because flashy forwards are more fun to watch when the team is inevitably going to suck. quote:oh yeah, fully agreed. people would get the gently caress over it when nylander is a ppg player for 12 straight years. trust me, you dont need to describe in excrutiating detail to me how we should have drafted ehlers or nylander Hey, excruciating, pedantic detail is my thing okay  quote:back to the draft: i wonder if vilardi is gonna be the guy that inexplicably drops to 14 this year I doubt it, Vegas will probably take a forward at 6 because they need someone to sell to new hockey fans and that's not a defenceman or small Swedish kid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:good news (im sure you know this), glass is the single least flashy forward to ever exist. at least vilardi can stickhandle well Oh yeah, he's hardly a dangle factory. He's just the most likely to have success of anyone available and the Canucks can't be picky about how they score goals at the moment. Don't get me wrong, Petersson looks fun as poo poo, I wouldn't be upset if we drafted him I'd just be a bit worried that it wouldn't translate to the NHL. My only concern with him is that with so little translation between the Allsvenskan and the NHL, it's hard to say definitively how much his offence will translate and the Canucks really, really can't afford to make any more low percentage bets with high picks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Verviticus posted:honestly the dahlen connection is more fun than anything glass has to offer. Well I can definitely say I am intrigued by that idea, I thought the same about the Shinkaruk/Etem connection and well... hmmm...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 20:54
|
|