HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   AMERICAN [d] or canadian [o]? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=128330)

AG9NK35DT8* 02-08-2005 10:14 PM

AMERICAN [d] or canadian [o]?
 
Curious to know something, lets say if NYR gets the #2 pick overall Crosby will most likely definitly be gone. Now as a NYR fan who would you like to see NYR draft second.

Also this ? is pertaining to the Rangers most serious needs for the future, is top line offensive talent or top #1 d-man more valuable. So the question is not who is better though you cant really comapre defenseman to offenseman but Im sure you all get the point. Who would be better for the NYR"S this draft is suppose to be real deep and NYR has alot of picks so either way things should go good.

-G.Brule (Canadian)
-J.Johnson (American)
-other

There are a couple other names that are out there to go with in the top 5 like Ltandresse and Pinnoult, I think thats how thenames are spelt.

Basically choose one of the 2. And when choosing other state who u would like.

Firefly 02-09-2005 12:38 AM

I think our future offense needs a little boost moreso than our D.

Leetchie 02-09-2005 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blu3shirt
I think our future offense needs a little boost moreso than our D.


I agree. I do like Jack Johnson a great deal, though.

Can't go wrong -- I move the pick to the #3 team and take whoever they don't, while acquiring a later round selection.

John Flyers Fan 02-09-2005 10:22 AM

I haven't seen either play ... and as a team you should never let American/Canadian decide anything.

If the Rangers consider both to be dead even, I think they'd have to take Brule.

Rabid Ranger 02-09-2005 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I haven't seen either play ... and as a team you should never let American/Canadian decide anything.

If the Rangers consider both to be dead even, I think they'd have to take Brule.


I don't agree. I think if an U.S. based team, especially in New York, views an American and Canadian prospect equally, they should, and probably will take the American prospect. Jack Johnson could be another Brian Leetch (potentially), and you can bet the Rangers would take a long look at him, whether they *need* a defenseman or not (which they do, among other things).

John Flyers Fan 02-09-2005 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabid Ranger
I don't agree. I think if an U.S. based team, especially in New York, views an American and Canadian prospect equally, they should, and probably will take the American prospect. Jack Johnson could be another Brian Leetch (potentially), and you can bet the Rangers would take a long look at him, whether they *need* a defenseman or not (which they do, among other things).

I disagree, if Brian Leetch was from Thunder Bay, Ontario I don't think Rangers fans would have liked him any less.

Also I think the Rangers have a greater need for a 1st line forward than they do on defense at the moment.

Fish 02-09-2005 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I disagree, if Brian Leetch was from Thunder Bay, Ontario I don't think Rangers fans would have liked him any less.

Also I think the Rangers have a greater need for a 1st line forward than they do on defense at the moment.

Agreed...the Rangers have solid if not spectacular defensive prospects, but have significantly more questions at forward. That being said, I've not seen either player play and from what I've read of Brule, I've not been overly impressed.

Leetchie 02-09-2005 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
I disagree, if Brian Leetch was from Thunder Bay, Ontario I don't think Rangers fans would have liked him any less.

Also I think the Rangers have a greater need for a 1st line forward than they do on defense at the moment.


I agree on both points -- but it's just a bonus for me personally, being an American, to have Leetch also be a huge part of Team USA. It's a patriotic thing, and has nothing to do with New York Rangers hockey. It's just nice to be able to root for the same guy on both levels (NHL and internationally).

I like our defense prospects better than our forward prospects in terms of overall impact. A defenseman can be "solid" and contribute in a lot of ways to help the team -- a forward has to be spectacular to take this team to a whole new level. Basically, what I'm saying is, a team with six "average", yet solid defensemen and offensive wizards will likely go farther than a team with one or two superstar defensemen and no offensive firepower, barring a difference in team systems.

ATLANTARANGER* 02-09-2005 11:43 AM

I voted other. why? Because our choice depends on our greatest need.
 
-G.Brule (Canadian)
-J.Johnson (American)


Our selection could be one of these 2 players, however, with no CBA it is difficult to state who we would pick. we've shed an awful lot of $, so the pick could be dependent on what's available on the UFA market. Remember there is the real possibility that some quality drafted players that are unsigned could be declared UFA. That could greatly impact who we would pick if we held the #2 pick. Sorry to be so vague. In a perfect word with no outside influences, I would go for Brule. We need a bonafied top forward.

Bluenote13 02-09-2005 11:45 AM

I like JJ, he is dynomite! :D

Seriously, if i think Johnson is the better of the two i take him, case closed. Who cares if we have D-men in the prospect stable, building a solid defensive core is something this team has never done. Later we can trade a D-man for what we 'need'.

Onion Boy 02-09-2005 12:46 PM

Having seen neither play, I'm leaning towards Johnson. Both seem to have slipped a little bit lately though are still the consensus #2-3. Nevertheless, as cliche as it sounds, you do build from the goal out. Thus far, it seems anyway, we are set in goal in terms of prospect depth. Adding Johnson IMO rounds out the D-core perfectly and shores up another position. We'll still have alot of forward prospects, its just that the majority of them haven't gone pro yet. Even so, I'm convinced that when the time comes, it's easier to trade for forwards than quality defensemen.

bmoak 02-09-2005 12:49 PM

That's an either/or I would galdly live with. The problem is who to take if we draft in the 4th-6th pick range.

patnyrnyg 02-09-2005 01:05 PM

What happens when there is no draft because there is no season or CBA?

Taz 02-09-2005 06:03 PM

Dont we have like 5 2nd round picks?

i voted Brule simply because or future forward prospects and players now are very limited not many 1st or 2nd liners.

We DO have some very solid D prospects

The 2 Russians
Pock
Liffiton
Lampman
Rachunek

Taylor

Kaspar has a couple years in him. with all our 2nd round picks we could look at other bonafide O defence and mixture of quality forwards

rnyquist 02-09-2005 08:35 PM

I dunno, maybe I don't understand because I'm not american or from NY but who cares what country the guy comes from? Do you really think the Maple Leaf fans would kick Sundin out of his captaincy for Wade Belak because he's canadian? Or Saku Koivu out because Yanic P is French Canadian? Nah, you take the best player, and who cares about his country, you take the best player. That being said, I'm a Canadian, and would still take Jack Johnson for the Rangers or any Canadian team, because he's the better player IMO, plain and simple

Burberry Manning 02-10-2005 05:55 AM

I dont really put as much stock into the American/Canadian thing as I do with the North American/European split. I mean it is cool and all to have an American superstar who you can relate to (always loved Richter and Leetchie from the US) but it doesn't make too much differance to me. However I do put alot of bias into a choice of European and North American players. All things equal I would take the North American 9/10 times. Of course all things never are equal but I do prefer the tough brand of hockey that NA players traditionally bring rather than the soft, finesse style of hockey that accompanies many Europeans.

In this situation, with the Rangers landing the second pick in the draft, I do EVERYTHING I can to move up one spot and get Crosby. Throw in another 1st, a 2nd, Balej, whatever.........just do what is within reason to get the most marketable and potential loaded player that I have seen in years. In my mind I cannot really begin to state how much of an impact Sidney Crosby would have on New York. Bam, with one selection we would have the face of our organization for 17+ years.........thats orgasmic. Somewhat off-topic but I have heard many people dismiss the theory of trading soo much for one player based on the Eric Lindros example. Personally I see the Lindros example as a reason FOR acquiring a young phenom. Yea, it's easy to remember Eric going down like a lump of bricks when met by Scott Stevens, but you cant deny the TREMENDOES effect that Eric had in Philly. He almost singlehandidly put that franchise in contention for a decade, he was responsible for the Flyers getting a new Arena, he won a Hart and brought Philly to the Finals, he made John Leclair into a HoF caliber player, he put Philly on the map. Even with the injuries he helped create a buzz in Philly......imagine where the Flyers would have been had he not been concussed.

Ok, so if the Rangers absolutely cannot acquire the Crosby then I go with Gilbert Brule. I just think that the Rangers need an elite offensive prospect more than they need an elite defensive prospect. We already have a nice little stable of defensive prospects and it is always a tad easier to nab a good defenseman in the 2nd or 3rd round than it is to nab a future 1st liner.

mrnasty 02-10-2005 07:49 AM

We don't need anymore defenseman.

grinder 02-10-2005 08:44 AM

My choice would be to move down to around 4 or 5 and take the slovinian kid, Kopitar. He is a foward playing in Sweden. The draft will be deep with D prospects this time around. Of course, Crosby would be first choice.

AG9NK35DT8* 02-10-2005 03:59 PM

[QUOTE=John Flyers Fan]... and as a team you should never let American/Canadian matter

QUOTE]
I dont think anyone does, and I just put down what the countires they were from so I dont know if you are refering to my comment, if so I dont ever remember saying it did matter where they were from.

AG9NK35DT8* 02-10-2005 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish
Agreed...the Rangers have solid if not spectacular defensive prospects, but have significantly more questions at forward. That being said, I've not seen either player play and from what I've read of Brule, I've not been overly impressed.

Defense wins championships and while the NYR's do have some very good d-prospects they do not have a top quality #1 [besides Tyutin] and Johnson would be that. Not that you need great defenseman, look at TB with just a overall good defense thats just an example.

But overall IMO I would pass on Brule for an excellent d-prospect like Johnson, especially in a draft thats suppose to be so deep. Its also alot harder to develop star defenseman and it takes longer than FWD's once again IMO. In alot of cases 2nd,3rd,4th rounder's and higher picks become stars as well.So i would definitley not mind seeing NYR pass on a top 1st or 2nd line FWD for a top pairing #1-2 D-Man. Anytime in the future you can always move a couple good and average defenseman and picks for a good young first or second line fwd and picks..

Onion Boy 02-10-2005 04:19 PM

As I said before, I'd take Johnson, but assuming that there is no season this year (duh) and the draft is postponed to 2006, I highly doubt the Rangers pick higher than fourth. As much as the Rangers will suck, I can't see them finishing below Washington, Carolina, and Pittsburgh. Maybe we could beat out Pittsburgh, but not the other two. Not over the course of a full season anyway.

Bluenote13 02-10-2005 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnasty
We don't need anymore defenseman.

:shakehead

Taz 02-10-2005 08:08 PM

any Jack Johnson Stats>?

AG9NK35DT8* 02-10-2005 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjb3599
As I said before, I'd take Johnson, but assuming that there is no season this year (duh) and the draft is postponed to 2006, I highly doubt the Rangers pick higher than fourth. As much as the Rangers will suck, I can't see them finishing below Washington, Carolina, and Pittsburgh. Maybe we could beat out Pittsburgh, but not the other two. Not over the course of a full season anyway.

hey you never know, but in a sense I dont see NYR drafting higher than 4th so i do agree but even 3rd isnt out of the count. I mean they will be among the worst in the laegue.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 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.