HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Prospect Thread - Part XI (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1253919)

lindgren 08-30-2012 06:56 PM

Prospect Thread - Part XI
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Good Vibes (Post 53976879)
Just read the article. Seems like you guys decided to take out your vocabularies and measure them.

The article has a very poor start. He asks questions and does not answer them. Its meandering and a bit fluffy in the beginning.

However, rest of the article is quite good with interviews and to the point commentary.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between you two. Now, can we all just be friends?


"You guys"? I have nothing to do with the site or the article. There's simply nothing pretentious or awkward in the article's diction, and I challenge you, or the other few criticizing the article, to quote a single clumsy phrase or sentence.

hockeyfan125 08-30-2012 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiranis (Post 53981697)
I'm not saying Canucks Army regularly publishes crap, I'm just saying in the 100s (or 1000s?) of articles that have been published, there's been some pretty bad ones. I don't remember the exact ones.

This was just an extremely poorly written piece ó both in terms of the writing and content. I especially found it frustrating that the author found it necessary to spend so much time repeating that he didn't agree with ranking goalies highly, debating their value, etc. ó the whole time I felt like somebody was screaming "I told you so" in my ear.

Well I guess with a site that posts numerous columns per day, there are bound to be a few that don't please everyone. I think we strive to bring quality writing, so hopefully that is something that isn't an issue too often.

pitseleh 08-30-2012 07:33 PM

The first five paragraphs are completely out of place. Why is that so hard to see? The article is a profile of Eddie Lack based on Canucks Army's consensus rankings, not one author's soapbox to discuss his methodology for ranking prospects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anguscertified (Post 53981165)
As a very biased observer, I think we put out consistently great content. What are the faults you are finding?

Our number one prospect tomorrow won't be much of a surprise. We used a 50GP cap (Tanev not eligible).

He occasionally puts out some decent stuff but Thomas Drance's work, especially his forays into stats, can be really bad.

Verviticus 08-30-2012 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pitseleh (Post 53983689)
He occasionally puts out some decent stuff but Thomas Drance's work, especially his forays into stats, can be really bad.

which ones? drance's work is some of the best on the site

thefeebster 08-30-2012 08:35 PM

Chiming in here, i hate to put down people when they have put hard work into something but it just didn't translate well to the public. But this was the weakest of the series thus far. The first few paragraphs and then he went on to list who he had above Lack on his personal list... its just out of place in this piece and in this series. I'm sure Angus didn't agree with all the rankings for the articles he had to write, but you would have never really known because he didn't go on in detail about it, instead just told us about the progress of the prospect and gave us some good quotes. The previous articles seemed in unison based on consensus, whereas this one seemed individualistic in a way. You get a sense that someone is putting him in a headlock and forcing him to write about Lack as the #2 prospect.

As for the article, he mentions he has only seen Lack twice in NA. Even as a Canuck fan, you'd have seen him in more than that, counting preseason and prospects tourney or even the televised CBC moose games last last season. I'm not so sure he was the right choice in writing about this particular prospect if he doesn't have much experience with him.

-----

As for CA in general, i think Angus is the best writer and generally has the best content. Drance and Johnston, regarding the Wolves, have some inaccuracies in their past articles. It frustrates me immensely when Drance purports the Wolves as a trap team. And i'm here thinking some poor sap reading this will think the Wolves are the Devils of the AHL, suffocating our prospects of their offense/hindering their development or something to that effect.

me2 08-30-2012 08:41 PM

Is this English Literature Day? Please review this article on Eddie Lack. Marks will be awarded on the quality and depth of your review.


Off season hell really is upon us.

Might as well make a hockey team of the superstars of liturature. I'm going to start with
#1 C Lord Byron (mad, bad, and dangerous to know)

lindgren 08-30-2012 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 53985323)
Is this English Literature Day? Please review this article on Eddie Lack. Marks will be awarded on the quality and depth of your review.


Off season hell really is upon us.

Might as well make a hockey team of the superstars of liturature. I'm going to start with
#1 C Lord Byron (mad, bad, and dangerous to know)

It's ironic English Literature day, during which posters who can't use capital letters awkwardly criticize a well-written article.

The article is about Lack and it's about his ranking, which is bound to be controversial because he's a goalie. The article addresses that controversy. It doesn't make any point again and again, despite what some have said. It isn't verbose. It has no awkward sentences. These criticisms have been made several times, but no evidence has been presented to support them.

Luck 6 08-30-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindgren (Post 53986493)
It's ironic English Literature day, during which posters who can't use capital letters awkwardly criticize a well-written article.

The article is about Lack and it's about his ranking, which is bound to be controversial because he's a goalie. The article addresses that controversy. It doesn't make any point again and again, despite what some have said. It isn't verbose. It has no awkward sentences. These criticisms have been made several times, but no evidence has been presented to support them.

Okay, you've states this already, several times. This is your opinion and you're entitled to it. The masses, however, seem to disagree with you regarding the quality of the article. I also would disagree with you.

That being said, I do appreciate the effort and the quality of the previous articles was great.

Hansen 36 08-30-2012 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jevo (Post 53980341)
He was definitely an out there pick. And very questionable at the time because he hardly produced in junior at the time.

I just had a quick scan on the Sweden board. He could make the WJC team, but it's far from certain, he seems to be in the vicinity of the team right now. So he'll have to show himself during the fall if he's gonna be on the team.

I think we went into the late 4th with the intention of drafting Zach Yuen, but then Winnipeg took him just a few spots above us and we panicked and got Gradin to pull a name out of his hat.

Verviticus 08-30-2012 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefeebster (Post 53985167)
As for CA in general, i think Angus is the best writer and generally has the best content. Drance and Johnston, regarding the Wolves, have some inaccuracies in their past articles. It frustrates me immensely when Drance purports the Wolves as a trap team. And i'm here thinking some poor sap reading this will think the Wolves are the Devils of the AHL, suffocating our prospects of their offense/hindering their development or something to that effect.

yeah drance has done that in the past, but he also writes by far and away the most actual articles (ignoring the venn diagrams and crap), so i give him the occasional pass

maybe write to him and explain? i dunno if he reads this site like angus does

lindgren 08-30-2012 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luck 6 (Post 53987433)
Okay, you've states this already, several times. This is your opinion and you're entitled to it. The masses, however, seem to disagree with you regarding the quality of the article. I also would disagree with you.

That being said, I do appreciate the effort and the quality of the previous articles was great.

Well, you're certainly right that the masses have disagreed with me, and of course if I'm entitled to my opinion, the masses must be as well, even though they never accepted my challenge to produce evidence to support their opinions.

Verviticus 08-30-2012 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindgren (Post 53986493)
It's ironic English Literature day, during which posters who can't use capital letters awkwardly criticize a well-written article.

The article is about Lack and it's about his ranking, which is bound to be controversial because he's a goalie. The article addresses that controversy. It doesn't make any point again and again, despite what some have said. It isn't verbose. It has no awkward sentences. These criticisms have been made several times, but no evidence has been presented to support them.

its not controversial. lack ran away with 4th here on these boards and that list includes tanev

Verviticus 08-30-2012 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindgren (Post 53990423)
Well, you're certainly right that the masses have disagreed with me, and of course if I'm entitled to my opinion, the masses must be as well, even though they never accepted my challenge to produce evidence to support their opinions.

what the hell?

there are at least three people explaining in various ways what it was about the article that bothered them. can you actually read this language or are you just getting phenomenally lucky with a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters?

look, dmitiri, you might be a great writer, but this was a miss. give up the act

lindgren 08-31-2012 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verviticus (Post 53990469)
what the hell?

there are at least three people explaining in various ways what it was about the article that bothered them. can you actually read this language or are you just getting phenomenally lucky with a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters?

look, dmitiri, you might be a great writer, but this was a miss. give up the act

A poster claimed that the article is verbose, but hasn't come up with an example of verbosity. A poster implied that the vocabulary was pretentious, but did not come up with an example of pretentiousness. It's been claimed that the article repeats itself to excess: there's no example of such repetition.

You are the person with the reading comprehension problem, not I. Consider, furthermore, learning to use capital letters if you wan't anyone to think your comments about writing quality are anything other than laughable.

Verviticus 08-31-2012 12:04 AM

oh, he's trolling, furthermore, my bad for getting so engaged. i don't "wan't" anything more and I'll drop it

looking forward to kassian's article tomorrow, good work in general dude from CA

lindgren 08-31-2012 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verviticus (Post 53990673)
oh, he's trolling, furthermore, my bad for getting so engaged. i don't "wan't" anything more and I'll drop it

looking forward to kassian's article tomorrow, good work in general dude from CA

I'm not trolling; I'm disagreeing. If you think I'm trolling, you should report my posts. If you're right, a moderator will agree with you and remove them.

604 08-31-2012 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hansen 36 (Post 53952623)
This, and as many (including Jensen himself) have said, his game is more designed for pro-hockey and a more distinct systematic type of play, which is harder to achieve in Juniors. I think the 6 goals he scored in 8 games in the AHL at the end of the season really shows this; and while I don't expect him to continue with that scoring pace over the course of a year, he could have been successful in the AHL next season. We will see how being in the SEL changes the way he plays his game, and I think it will benefit his development.

I still remember thinking the same thing about Schroeder - yeah, he had a bad season in NCAA where he showed almost nothing, but he had a really good time in the AHL (15 points in 17 games, including 6 in 6 during the playoffs) so he's still going to tear it up as a pro...

I still have hope for Schroeder but he's not the dynamic offensive threat that we had hoped, and I doubt Jensen is either.

604 08-31-2012 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anguscertified (Post 53971921)
Eddie Lack is our #2 prospect. Personally, I had him as my #1, but we took a consensus from a few of the writers:

Thanks for the article. I've really enjoyed these so far.

Seems itís always the way on the internet to not give enough thanks when we appreciate something, which I am guilty of having enjoyed the first 18 articles without saying anything, and then saying something negative as soon as there is 1 negative thing to say - which I will also be guilty of right now.

I appreciate the insights in the article about Lack however I do wish the general sentiment about skaters vs. goalies, and rankings was left out of the article. That kind of stuff could go in an separate article about the rankings in general but I don't think it made sense to have it in a discussion about Lack as a prospect because it distracted from the main theme of the article IMO, which was to highlight Eddie Lack's strengths and weaknesses as a prospect and his potential future as a Canuck.

As previously stated, I've enjoyed all the prospect articles, including Lacks with the exception of the minor gripe identified.

Derp Kassian 08-31-2012 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 53993951)
I still remember thinking the same thing about Schroeder - yeah, he had a bad season in NCAA where he showed almost nothing, but he had a really good time in the AHL (15 points in 17 games, including 6 in 6 during the playoffs) so he's still going to tear it up as a pro...

I still have hope for Schroeder but he's not the dynamic offensive threat that we had hoped, and I doubt Jensen is either.

Most fans tend to overhype their prospects and project them to be better then they are. I don't think JS ever had the dynamic offense. A lot of the scouting reports pre draft and after compared him to Kane when he was closer to Gagner. I do wonder how he went from a guy who was too good for college to a guy who struggled in the AHL for almost 2 years. The last year with the Gophers seemed to be where he dipped.

I also think most fans don't expect Jensen to be elite but a probable 2nd line player who could net 25-30 a few times if everything goes right. I don't see the Jeff Carter production/defensive play that people seem to think he can reach.

hockeyfan125 08-31-2012 10:20 AM

Zack Kassian (to no surprise) is the top prospect on our list. Here is his profile from today:

http://canucksarmy.com/2012/8/31/ca-...1-zack-kassian

Quote:

The Canucks are in a position where they don’t need to rush him, so don’t expect him to be playing significant minutes unless he proves he is ready for it.

In researching the Kassian piece, I spoke with a lot of people who have followed his career through Windsor, Buffalo, and Rochester. The range of opinions was wide (to say the least), but there was common thought throughout each conversation – if Kassian can be brought up with strong leaders around him, the sky is the limit. And that should be really exciting news, as you aren’t going to find better leaders – on or off of the ice – than the Sedin twins or Malhotra.
Ben Kuzma with a solid read on Kassian today, too.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/08...e-time-player/

Kassian sure says the right things for a young player.

Quote:

“That stuff doesn’t bother me,” Kassian said of the comparison. “It comes with the game and if that bothers you, you’re not going to go too far. We’re different players and I wish him all the best. People are always going to criticize you whether you’re doing good or bad. You can’t really listen to what people are saying outside the rink. My goal is to make my teammates and my coaches happy. I’m prepared to do whatever it takes.”

lindgren 08-31-2012 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJOpus (Post 53993997)
Thanks for the article. I've really enjoyed these so far.


I appreciate the insights in the article about Lack however I do wish the general sentiment about skaters vs. goalies, and rankings was left out of the article. That kind of stuff could go in an separate article about the rankings in general but I don't think it made sense to have it in a discussion about Lack as a prospect because it distracted from the main theme of the article IMO, which was to highlight Eddie Lack's strengths and weaknesses as a prospect and his potential future as a Canuck.

As previously stated, I've enjoyed all the prospect articles, including Lacks with the exception of the minor gripe identified.

Now that is a perfectly reasonable, well expressed opinion (not that you need my approval).

Tiranis 08-31-2012 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindgren (Post 53998577)
Now that is a perfectly reasonable, well expressed opinion (not that you need my approval).

Because I'm sick of your posts on this topic:

Quote:

Personally, I would have had Lack somewhere in the 5-to-7 range. But that has nothing to do with the player in question, nor his skills. It's more of a testament to my philosophy, which I will get around to explaining in just a second. With that being said, I can clearly see the reasoning behind his ranking. In short, it has to do with the simple fact that he's extremely good at stopping pucks from entering his team's net. I'd say that's a relatively useful quality.
The transitions are cumbersome. Just do away with them. There is no need for so many in one short paragraph. The constant modification of adjectives is also grinding. It makes it feel as if the author has no actual opinion or is trying too hard to make it seem as if he's flexible. "simple fact", "extremely good", "relatively useful"?

But the biggest problem is that this paragraph doesn't tell me anything at all. Half the paragraph prepares us for the author sometime in the future telling us why he doesn't believe Lack should be ranked where he is. Why do I need that? If you want to tell me that you think he should've been lower, then just do that — don't spend a paragraph preparing me for it.

We already know that Eddie Lack is "extremely good at stopping pucks from entering his team's net" — that much is obvious from his #2 ranking. What's more, this whole sentence is only necessary (and even then, barely) because of what came before it.

It's a sign of an author that knows he's venturing into a territory he shouldn't but doing it anyway. If you're going to stick your opinions into pieces they don't belong in, at least do so authoritatively rather than by weaseling your way through it. It's why so many people had a negative reaction to it. It's not just about the information and opinions you present, it's how you present them.

If I had time, I could keep going but this article is not worth the effort.

lindgren 08-31-2012 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiranis (Post 53999053)
Because I'm sick of your posts on this topic:

The transitions are cumbersome. Just do away with them. There is no need for so many in one short paragraph. The constant modification of adjectives is also grinding. It makes it feel as if the author has no actual opinion or is trying too hard to make it seem as if he's flexible. "simple fact", "extremely good", "relatively useful"?

"Simple" in your example modifies a noun, not an adjective, but you're right that it's not really effective. "Extremely" is an informative modification of "good." "Relatively useful" in the context of the sentence is obviously supposed to be a gently humorous understatement. The author isn't trying to show he's flexible, he's showing he understands the other side of the argument, which is a good thing to do. Stylistically, you're right: the accumulation of those modifiers and the introductory phrases don't make great prose. (It could almost be considered evidence to support the claim that the writer is verbose, but I'd just call it wordy.)

But the biggest problem is that this paragraph doesn't tell me anything at all. Half the paragraph prepares us for the author sometime in the future telling us why he doesn't believe Lack should be ranked where he is. Why do I need that? If you want to tell me that you think he should've been lower, then just do that — don't spend a paragraph preparing me for it.

He does tell you something. He tells you that his disagreement with the ranking isn't an expression of doubt about Lack's ability but is connected to a theory about the value of goaltending, which he goes on to explain.

We already know that Eddie Lack is "extremely good at stopping pucks from entering his team's net" — that much is obvious from his #2 ranking. What's more, this whole sentence is only necessary (and even then, barely) because of what came before it.

It's a sign of an author that knows he's venturing into a territory he shouldn't but doing it anyway. If you're going to stick your opinions into pieces they don't belong in, at least do so authoritatively rather than by weaseling your way through it. It's why so many people had a negative reaction to it. It's not just about the information and opinions you present, it's how you present them.

I think people had a negative reaction because they wanted something different: an exclusive focus on Lack's ability, rather than a consideration of general ideas about ranking goalies, one which took up a bit less than a third of the article.

If I had time, I could keep going but this article is not worth the effort.

If you or someone else had responded earlier to my request for evidence to support an opinion, rather than just ramping up the rhetoric, you wouldn't have had to deal with my sickeningly repetitive posts.

The article isn't going to compete for a Pulitzer, but it's better than lots of articles routinely posted on sports web sites. It's more or less free of sports cliches. It doesn't have any significant writing errors. It's use of sources to comment on Lack's skills and his development is effective. (I particularly liked the reference to Lack playing as though he were 5'3".)

Luck 6 08-31-2012 01:42 PM

I'm not sure I like the Wheeler comparison listed in the article. Even in the article, two major flaws are listed with the comparison. If those flaws are already present, I don't see how Kassian projects to be anything like Wheeler at all. The comparison I would likely make as an on ice player is Shane Doan, I'd say that's his potential.

Proto 08-31-2012 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pitseleh (Post 53983689)
He occasionally puts out some decent stuff but Thomas Drance's work, especially his forays into stats, can be really bad.

I like a lot of Drance's stuff, but I think he sometimes focuses too intently on a single data point and doesn't see the forest from the trees. Still, I think his stuff is more interesting than just about anything the mainstream media types in Vancouver write about hockey. It's fair criticism though.

I think Cam Charron's stuff is usually pretty good, but he's mostly doing Leafs stuff these days (or blogging for the score).

I like Angus's stuff because I think he's the strongest writer on the site. He also seems to put the most legwork giving his stories a solid base. In short, he marries the good parts of blogging with the good parts of mainstream media writing -- he constructs solid narratives that are usually based on facts/good datapoints.

I think it's a good site, on the whole, and a great step towards better hockey coverage.

This is from someone who visits fangraphs every day. I love this sort of stuff, even if I suck at math in the most extraordinary of ways.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.