HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Lundmark & Falardeau (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=114508)

oliver 11-20-2004 01:46 AM

Lundmark & Falardeau
 
Just want to know:
Will Lundmark become what he's suppose to (1st liner) or is he officially a bust??
Is lee Falardeau any good and will he make the nhl??

Leetchie 11-20-2004 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oliver
Just want to know:
Will Lundmark become what he's suppose to (1st liner) or is he officially a bust??
Is lee Falardeau any good and will he make the nhl??


No and No to the Lundmark questions.

Maybe to the Falardeau one.

I know, I know... elaborate.

To me, Lundmark will end up being a 20-25 goal, 50-60 point, high-energy charismatic second line forward who can become a two-way player. He's got the willingness to learn and natural sniper's mentality, even though his confidence level has to be shot by now. Still, he's just 23 years old, and it takes a lot of players five years to develop into what they end up being.

Falardeau will make and stick in the NHL if he can skate and contribute defensively enough to warrant the stay. Look up the best defensive forwards in the NHL -- they either stick because they can skate fast or because they can contribute offensively as well. In my mind, Falardeau just doesn't have the offensive skill to do the latter, so he better be extremely good on the defensive side of the puck. No "defensive" forward makes it and sticks around if he can't do one or the other in today's NHL. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd love to hear the example.

in the hall 11-20-2004 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oliver
Just want to know:
Will Lundmark become what he's suppose to (1st liner) or is he officially a bust??
Is lee Falardeau any good and will he make the nhl??

he's not a bust, this year is make or break time

AG9NK35DT8* 11-20-2004 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oliver
Just want to know:
Will Lundmark become what he's suppose to (1st liner) or is he officially a bust??
Is lee Falardeau any good and will he make the nhl??

Lundmark is not a 1st liner , but nor is he a bust yet .He can be a good second line center who can score anywhere around the 20 goal mark with maybe same amount of assists to go with them goals.I dont think this year is MAKE OR BREAK as someone noted.
The kid been moved around from position to position and linemate to linemate, never really getting top ice time and playing 3rd and 4th line minutes.The kid needs to be given time on the top 2 lines or just basically a chance to play with guys like Murray and Balej and also with Jagr and Nylander, let him jel with the youth while getting some learning expieiences with the vets.Lundmark needs to play a good 15-20 minutes a night and to also be used constantley on the pp and pk with good even strength time . And when he makes a mistake still play him he needs to get confident and NYR has not done a good job bringing up the youth through the years, with the exception of a few guys(Mike York, Fedor Tyutin with guys like Amonte, Weight, Leetch ,Richter etc).It take a while sometime for players to become solid NHL'ers and in This case for Lundmark it might take a couple years but NYR has to stcik with him like all other teams do with there young guys. I guess thats all I can say.

As for Lee Falardeau I guess he could be a good 3rd liner or 4th, I dont really know much about the guy to say any thing.

AG9NK35DT8* 11-20-2004 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by in the hall
he's not a bust, this year is make or break time

What do you mean by make or break.

Maybe this season or next or whenever they play, if given a fair shot should put up a good 30 pts maybe 40 which is tough to see right now for him but I think that would be fair, as a start to his career.I see Lundmark a mid 50 pt player give or take.

What is make or break for you?

FLYLine24* 11-20-2004 09:32 AM

Lundmark is a HUGE bust for what he was predicted to be. But he will still be an ok NHLer.

Shadowtron 11-20-2004 10:09 AM

The word 'bust' is thrown around much too easily. It has lost its definition. How would you define someone as a bust? Shouldn't it indicate a player that not only failed to live up to his expectations, but doesn't possess enough skill to compete for a job in the NHL at any position? I think, if we take that definition and apply it to Lundmark, then it's safe to say he should never be considered a 'bust', but rather another player, among a myriad, who have failed to live up to their expectations. Lundmark may never become the solid offensive force that elevated his draft position to #9, but the worst he will be is a contributor that has to prove each and every night that he belongs. He'll have his bad season (likely getting him traded), and his decent seasons. He definitely won't be a bust in the traditional sense, but I don't see him becoming the player drafted.

AG9NK35DT8* 11-20-2004 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowtron
The word 'bust' is thrown around much too easily..

Same with the word "great", well not around here but all around the other pages of HF

AG9NK35DT8* 11-20-2004 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowtron
He definitely won't be a bust in the traditional sense, but I don't see him becoming the player drafted.

And what was the player NYR drafted suppose to be? I have always figured a 2nd line player witha a upside of 50 pts per season. I guess your saying he was projected as a superstar or something?

Levitate 11-20-2004 12:48 PM

i think he was drafted with the hopes of being a 1st line player...but i agree he's more likely to make it as a 2nd liner

he's got skills, he can score if he gets himself straight...but he's gotta work harder

Balej20* 11-20-2004 01:06 PM

Fair to say Alexandre Daigle was a "Bust." I think thats a good guy to look at when trying to define a bust.

NYRangers 11-20-2004 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej20
Fair to say Alexandre Daigle was a "Bust." I think thats a good guy to look at when trying to define a bust.

A 50 point player is hardly a bust. Yes, he didn't live up to high expectations. But hes a useful player.

Levitate 11-20-2004 01:42 PM

he wasn't useful until last year though...

FLYLine24* 11-20-2004 01:48 PM

Yea but next season he wont put up as many points. It was unexpected by other teams so they didnt focus in on him as much. He will definitly drop about 20 pts at least next time theres a season.

Levitate 11-20-2004 02:25 PM

daigle? ehh yeah he still has a lot of skill and all...as long as his coach keeps him playing hard he'll put up some points...dunno if he'd drop 20 points next year but he's always gonna be a guy his team has to watch to make sure he doesn't start slacking

NYRangers 11-20-2004 02:30 PM

Was Daigle injured a lot? I dont remember. But I still think hes a useful player.

When he played at least 70 games...

50 points, 51 points, 51 points.

Balej20* 11-20-2004 02:33 PM

The uy was touted as the next amazing player. He was supposed to put up atleast 100 points a year and score atleast 40...The guy was a bust. He never put any effort into his play and just didnt care. yes, he has all the talent in the world, but if you dont put up the numbers you are supposed to put up (projected top put up) you are a bust.

klingsor 11-20-2004 02:57 PM

The Internet Hockey Database
Address:http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...y.php3?pid=476

Prucha73 11-20-2004 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AG9NK35DT8
And what was the player NYR drafted suppose to be? I have always figured a 2nd line player witha a upside of 50 pts per season. I guess your saying he was projected as a superstar or something?

No, he was drafted to be a 1st/2nd line 60-80 point gritty player who would not shy away from physical play and in fact initiate some and agitate other teams.

basically a bust is when a player turned out to be way off from what he was projected.

Shadowtron 11-20-2004 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AG9NK35DT8
And what was the player NYR drafted suppose to be? I have always figured a 2nd line player witha a upside of 50 pts per season. I guess your saying he was projected as a superstar or something?

This reply seems a bit snippy to me. If I'm wrong forgive me, but if I'm right I just don't see the reason for it.

In any event, I always got the impression that Lundmark was supposed to be an impact player. Not a superstar, but definitely a well-rounded player and team leader. And offensive threat. It doesn't appear as though he'll be any of these things, so I guess the final question that remains is what type of player will he be? Or, better yet, of what use is he going to be.

Leetchie 11-20-2004 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balej20
The uy was touted as the next amazing player. He was supposed to put up atleast 100 points a year and score atleast 40...The guy was a bust. He never put any effort into his play and just didnt care. yes, he has all the talent in the world, but if you dont put up the numbers you are supposed to put up (projected top put up) you are a bust.

I hate how everyone thinks Daigle had "all the talent in the world".

He wasn't all that talented. He's fast, he can stickhandling fairly well, and he was a decent playmaker. However, he wasn't strong on the puck, played much smaller than he was, had an AHL-caliber shot, and wasn't very creative offensively. His repertoire consisted of carrying the puck into the offensive zone and pulling up to make a play or try to beat the defenseman wide with speed. He put up monster numbers in the QMJHL -- but so did a lot of other players who didn't have NHL-translated skills.

He never warranted being #1 overall in a draft year that had Paul Kariya and his 100 points in 39 NCAA games and Chris Pronger and his physical tools. I mean, yeah, Daigle had some decent numbers (45G, 137 pts in 53 games) but so did Matthew Barnaby (44G, 111 points) on the same team.

Shadowtron 11-20-2004 08:02 PM

Excellent point, Leetchie! :handclap:

Leetchie 11-20-2004 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowtron
Excellent point, Leetchie! :handclap:

Thanks :)

The way I see it, if a normal size guy (6'0"ish, 190-200 lbs) scores a goal-per-game in the QMJHL, he has potential to be a 25-goal scorer in the NHL.

See: J.P. Dumont, Daniel Briere, Alex Tanguay, Simon Gagne, Mike Ribeiro, Brad Richards.

Obviously, some have had and will have more success than others, but in general, the QMJHL doesn't produce too many offensive NHL players. Want to know why? Well, in my opinion, the QMJHL is kind of an oxymoron. Players score a ton of points -- way more than in the OHL and WHL -- yet the league seems to not produce as many offensive stars (not named Lecavalier or Lemieux). Why is that? Because to me, the goals scored in the QMJHL aren't made of the same ingredients as the ones in the NHL. The WHL and OHL's goals are much closer to the NHL's types. However, because of the amount of offense in the Q, the goaltenders get amazing training and therefore they manufacture a TON of talented netminders.

In any case, my point is that Daigle's 137 points in 53 games looks a lot better on paper than it ever was. For a comparison... Ian Laperriere scored 140 points in 60 games that year and Rene Corbet had 148 (including 79 goals) in 63 games.

bmoak 11-20-2004 10:01 PM

The grossly inflated Q scoring totals are starting to be things of the past. Q stats are starting to inch down to OHL/WHL levels (and regard for Q prospects are starting to increase.)

NYRangers 11-20-2004 10:19 PM

You cant say "40 goals in the Q will equal 25 goals in the NHL". That just doesnt make sense. Players aren't drafted for stats, there drafted for how they look. And the same goes for prospects. Prucha isnt putting up points, but could be a decent offensive contributor. Paiement is over a point per game in the Q as a D man, and he sint expected to become an NHLer. The Q is so high scoring it becomes inconsistent. Guys have more points than others that are obviously not as good in a lot of cases. Therefore, in the Q, you need to watch the players and scout them and watch improvement. For example, Graham was a possible first rounder and wasn't even a point per game in the Q. However, he has good vision, a good shot,etc. He still isnt scoring as much as some guys that arent as good of prospects as him. So stats aren't very important. Unless, you use them for comparison, then they are useful. I'll use Graham again. For a scout who saw him last year it might be hard to tell if and where he improved. But you can compare his stats all around (faceoff, goals, etc) and see if he shows statistical improvement. Yeah, it doesnt tell half the story there either. But it can be useful in some cases. Overall, the point is there is no formula for stats, one league to the next. Theres so many variables.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.