HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Rangers 2008 draft preview (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=525402)

HF Article 06-17-2008 11:15 PM

Rangers 2008 draft preview
 
The Rangers are in need of a big defenseman to add to their stable of prospects.

Read full article...

BBKers 06-18-2008 04:04 AM

Nice reading with some intersting assumptions/analysis:handclap::handclap::handclap:

Levitate 06-18-2008 06:20 AM

I have to say that I don't think Robak makes sense for the Rangers. Sanguinetti-lite, really? Does that really help fill their organizational holes at this point? The hole that Robak would fill is already filled by Sanguinetti, and the Rangers would be better served looking at a hard hitting defenseman (like was mentioned over and over) or a skilled winger, IMO.

I just kind of feel like if you're drafting for organizational needs, like the article says over and over, then you don't draft a redundant part. Yes, I know the next point is that maybe Sanguinetti doesn't pan out, or "you can't have too many of this type of player", but skilled wingers are a pretty weak spot for the Rangers too at this point. If a big defenseman isn't available, I'd look winger first, and then to a puck moving defenseman.

It's just kind of this feeling that the Rangers have a guy in Sanguinetti with a ton of offensive skill, and who's made some great strides in the deficient areas of his game, and then to go out and draft an inferior version of that player with more questionmarks (especially more on offense, jesus, his numbers aren't even close to Sanguinetti's and he has at least the same level of questions about his defensive and physical play) in an allegedly deep draft...eh, I'd like to pass.

edit: Basically the scouting reports on Robak remind me of Backman. Someone who's billed with offensive skill, doesn't manage to put up a lot of points though. Is big, but not terrible physical, and is hit or miss in his own end with the potential to be solid. And I'm not sure another Backman is really what the team needs.

Cherepanov 71 06-18-2008 08:27 AM

Good read, the more I see the more I like Del Zotto. I think if him or Carlson are there we are in luck. I would like Tedenby at 20, but it doesnt look like he will last.

Lion Hound 06-18-2008 08:45 AM

I think the article was spot on, even though I do not want to see the team draft Robak. I think there will be better players, that might fill a need moreso than he will. Still hoping Teubert will be avail, but lately in all the mocks, and speculation he is taken between 10-15 or so.


Can't wait for Friday. I watched the NHL Networks show on the 05 draft last night. They did a good job with it, and I hope there is something similar in Fridays draft.


Surprised the Rangers don't have more coverage on it? I mean, there isn't too much going on right now, why not run a draft special? Follow Sather, and Gordie Clark around the combine. Do something like the Blues did last year.

BDubinskyNYR17* 06-18-2008 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lion Hound (Post 14442856)
I think the article was spot on, even though I do not want to see the team draft Robak. I think there will be better players, that might fill a need moreso than he will. Still hoping Teubert will be avail, but lately in all the mocks, and speculation he is taken between 10-15 or so.


Can't wait for Friday. I watched the NHL Networks show on the 05 draft last night. They did a good job with it, and I hope there is something similar in Fridays draft.


Surprised the Rangers don't have more coverage on it? I mean, there isn't too much going on right now, why not run a draft special? Follow Sather, and Gordie Clark around the combine. Do something like the Blues did last year.

MSG usually has a show after the draft about the rangers and who they drafted. have not heard anything as of yet.

bagh 06-18-2008 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 14442264)
I have to say that I don't think Robak makes sense for the Rangers. Sanguinetti-lite, really? Does that really help fill their organizational holes at this point? The hole that Robak would fill is already filled by Sanguinetti, and the Rangers would be better served looking at a hard hitting defenseman (like was mentioned over and over) or a skilled winger, IMO.

I just kind of feel like if you're drafting for organizational needs, like the article says over and over, then you don't draft a redundant part. Yes, I know the next point is that maybe Sanguinetti doesn't pan out, or "you can't have too many of this type of player", but skilled wingers are a pretty weak spot for the Rangers too at this point. If a big defenseman isn't available, I'd look winger first, and then to a puck moving defenseman.

It's just kind of this feeling that the Rangers have a guy in Sanguinetti with a ton of offensive skill, and who's made some great strides in the deficient areas of his game, and then to go out and draft an inferior version of that player with more questionmarks (especially more on offense, jesus, his numbers aren't even close to Sanguinetti's and he has at least the same level of questions about his defensive and physical play) in an allegedly deep draft...eh, I'd like to pass.

edit: Basically the scouting reports on Robak remind me of Backman. Someone who's billed with offensive skill, doesn't manage to put up a lot of points though. Is big, but not terrible physical, and is hit or miss in his own end with the potential to be solid. And I'm not sure another Backman is really what the team needs.

No offence to the writer of the article, but to me thier analysis always seem a bit sketchy. I mean they did have us taking Maxin Mayorov in the first round last year.

Forechecker 06-18-2008 09:08 AM

Robak? Leslie, are you freakin' kidding me? He's as soft as they come!

Assuming you wanted the Rangers to take a defenseman, what we need in that area is a bone-crusher. I'd take Sauve, but if he's not your flavor Carlson or a big winger. The last thing this org needs is another Downy soft d-man.

The crazy thing is, you even alluded to the need for a crease-clearer in the article, and yet you picked a guy who, by all accounts, never takes the body!

No offense, but that's a terrible pick.

HockeyBasedNYC 06-18-2008 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 14442264)
I have to say that I don't think Robak makes sense for the Rangers. Sanguinetti-lite, really? Does that really help fill their organizational holes at this point? The hole that Robak would fill is already filled by Sanguinetti, and the Rangers would be better served looking at a hard hitting defenseman (like was mentioned over and over) or a skilled winger, IMO.

I just kind of feel like if you're drafting for organizational needs, like the article says over and over, then you don't draft a redundant part. Yes, I know the next point is that maybe Sanguinetti doesn't pan out, or "you can't have too many of this type of player", but skilled wingers are a pretty weak spot for the Rangers too at this point. If a big defenseman isn't available, I'd look winger first, and then to a puck moving defenseman.

It's just kind of this feeling that the Rangers have a guy in Sanguinetti with a ton of offensive skill, and who's made some great strides in the deficient areas of his game, and then to go out and draft an inferior version of that player with more questionmarks (especially more on offense, jesus, his numbers aren't even close to Sanguinetti's and he has at least the same level of questions about his defensive and physical play) in an allegedly deep draft...eh, I'd like to pass.

edit: Basically the scouting reports on Robak remind me of Backman. Someone who's billed with offensive skill, doesn't manage to put up a lot of points though. Is big, but not terrible physical, and is hit or miss in his own end with the potential to be solid. And I'm not sure another Backman is really what the team needs.

Agree.

Tough defenseman with good hockey sense.

Thats what they need, any offense is a bonus.

DontStepanMe 06-18-2008 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC (Post 14443092)
Agree.

Tough defenseman with good hockey sense.

Thats what they need, any offense is a bonus.

I don't think you waste a first round pick on a guy just becuase he is tough. To me you can find a good tough dman in later rounds as well. 1st round players should be the ones w/ the most offensive skill. You can always teach defense... you can't teach good offense.

Forechecker 06-18-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 14442264)
I have to say that I don't think Robak makes sense for the Rangers. Sanguinetti-lite, really? Does that really help fill their organizational holes at this point? The hole that Robak would fill is already filled by Sanguinetti, and the Rangers would be better served looking at a hard hitting defenseman (like was mentioned over and over) or a skilled winger, IMO.

I just kind of feel like if you're drafting for organizational needs, like the article says over and over, then you don't draft a redundant part. Yes, I know the next point is that maybe Sanguinetti doesn't pan out, or "you can't have too many of this type of player", but skilled wingers are a pretty weak spot for the Rangers too at this point. If a big defenseman isn't available, I'd look winger first, and then to a puck moving defenseman.

It's just kind of this feeling that the Rangers have a guy in Sanguinetti with a ton of offensive skill, and who's made some great strides in the deficient areas of his game, and then to go out and draft an inferior version of that player with more questionmarks (especially more on offense, jesus, his numbers aren't even close to Sanguinetti's and he has at least the same level of questions about his defensive and physical play) in an allegedly deep draft...eh, I'd like to pass.

edit: Basically the scouting reports on Robak remind me of Backman. Someone who's billed with offensive skill, doesn't manage to put up a lot of points though. Is big, but not terrible physical, and is hit or miss in his own end with the potential to be solid. And I'm not sure another Backman is really what the team needs.

Yes, a much more rational summation then my mini rant. So many of these "official" mocks are just terrible. You think I've gone off the deep end, see what Prospect Park has to say.

Quote:

Hockey's Future has the Rangers taking the very soft Colby Robak who makes Tom "I never met a body check in my life" Poti look like the greatest defensive defender of all time but our favorite has to be the one from The Hockey News where they have the Rangers taking Jared Staal who at best is a second round pick at 20.
I know there are some folks here who want Staal at #20, but I got to think if we really want him, we should trade down and hope he's at #28 - #35.

Levitate 06-18-2008 09:21 AM

I think a lot of it has to do with process of elimination and by how they have the players ranked.

If HF thinks that most of the other players that the Rangers would like are gone by the time they pick, they then figure the next highest ranked guy will be the pick

Or maybe they like Robak more than others, I don't know.

I'd rather take a chance on the small Tedenby and hope he grows up a bit and develops into a true offensive forward. Or a chance on Beach even, if he's still there

Forechecker 06-18-2008 09:24 AM

Here's who was left on the board:

Eberle
Cuma
Gratchev
Carlson
Gardiner
Sauve
Pickard
Karlsson
Dalpe
Ness

I'd take any of the names in bold over Robak.

Bluenote13 06-18-2008 09:25 AM

Not a Robak fan, to put it mildly.

I think we go with Karlsson or Tedenby if still there.

Bluenote13 06-18-2008 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forechecker (Post 14443216)
Here's who was left on the board:

Eberle
Cuma
Gratchev
Carlson
Gardiner
Sauve
Pickard
Karlsson
Dalpe
Ness


I'd take any of the names in bold over Robak.

Eberle is exactly the kind of guy we pass up and then the Devils take and he becomes a top two line guy.

Which Sauve? Max or Yann? I like Max Sauve for round two consideration.

Dalpe's stock is pretty high, I see him going in the early teens.

I'm a fan of Karlsson, wouldnt mind him at all.

Levitate 06-18-2008 09:32 AM

Again though, Karlsson seems kind of redundant. Meh, I think I like him better than Robak, but I feel like I'd rather the Rangers solidify their D with guys who can play the physical and defensive side of things, and then worry about adding another offensive defenseman on top of Sanguinetti

Could Eberle be converted to wing? He's listed as a center, and the Rangers are overstocked with those, but he sounds intriguing

Anthony Mauro 06-18-2008 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 14443223)
Not a Robak fan, to put it mildly.

I think we go with Karlsson or Tedenby if still there.

Knew there was a reason I liked you. HATE Robak

Though I don't understand why people are saying we can't use an offensive defenseman. Only one puck mover on the backend in Sangs, whose bread and butter is not passing but shooting? We still have to see what Staal can offer, but Girardi and Tyutin to me are lukewarm and in the middle of offensive/defensive defenders..

Anthony Mauro 06-18-2008 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 14443317)
Again though, Karlsson seems kind of redundant. Meh, I think I like him better than Robak, but I feel like I'd rather the Rangers solidify their D with guys who can play the physical and defensive side of things, and then worry about adding another offensive defenseman on top of Sanguinetti

Could Eberle be converted to wing? He's listed as a center, and the Rangers are overstocked with those, but he sounds intriguing

Eberle is a wing, or atleast I watched games with him on the wing. He's a pretty good PK threat off the right wing. Has that shnazzy one touch bank and slingshot past the defender move down.

Forechecker 06-18-2008 09:39 AM

I believe Eberle played wing most of this year. The Sauve listed is Yann, and most mocks have him gone in the top 15.

I have no issue drafting another puck-mover/offensive minded d-man, but he's got to have a strong defensive side, at least positionally. No converted forwards, no Potis.

DontStepanMe 06-18-2008 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levitate (Post 14443317)
Again though, Karlsson seems kind of redundant. Meh, I think I like him better than Robak, but I feel like I'd rather the Rangers solidify their D with guys who can play the physical and defensive side of things, and then worry about adding another offensive defenseman on top of Sanguinetti

Could Eberle be converted to wing? He's listed as a center, and the Rangers are overstocked with those, but he sounds intriguing

why is he redundant? b/c we have Sangs who has never played in an NHL game and we don' know if he will ever pan out. Would it be redundant to get a high scoring RW b/c we have Cherapanov? I don't believe in redundancies while drafting b/c you don't know how a player will actually develop.

That being said I would love to get Karlsson. You just cant teach offensive skill like that. You can always teach defense, but not really offense which you are just blessed w/.

Anthony Mauro 06-18-2008 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluenote13 (Post 14443288)
Eberle is exactly the kind of guy we pass up and then the Devils take and he becomes a top two line guy.

Which Sauve? Max or Yann? I like Max Sauve for round two consideration.

Dalpe's stock is pretty high, I see him going in the early teens.

I'm a fan of Karlsson, wouldnt mind him at all.

I'd love M. Sauve at 51..smart and skilled, any underrated Q guy makes me think of Bergeron.

Using your analysis, see I give credit, of birthdates...I'm not too sure I like taking an '89 BCHL'er in the first. We'll see, Ohio St. doesn't really excite me either

Anthony Mauro 06-18-2008 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forechecker (Post 14443371)
I believe Eberle played wing most of this year. The Sauve listed is Yann, and most mocks have him gone in the top 15.

I have no issue drafting another puck-mover/offensive minded d-man, but he's got to have a strong defensive side, at least positionally. No converted forwards, no Potis.

Cuma is a converted forward I believe, who happens to be very strong defensively. That's one of the reasons I like him. He might turn out to be one of the better defensemen in the draft, having the experience, instincts, talent of a forward and technique, head of a defender.

Gardiner's the guy I worry about.

Forechecker 06-18-2008 09:53 AM

After reading more about Cuma at THN, I like him a bit more. I think I'd take Y. Sauve over him right now, though:

Quote:

Tyler Cuma
PROFILE
Pos: Defence
Shoots: L
Height: 6'
Weight: 175 lbs.
Born: 01/19/1990
From: Bowmanville, ON
Team: Ottawa (OHL)
RANKINGS
TSN: 16
CSB: 19 NAS
ISS: 36
RLR: 18
McK: 17
THN: 28
Comparable: Steve Staios

From TSN: The Ottawa 67 is a strong two-way defenceman with leadership ability and a willingness to compete hard at both ends of the ice.

From NHL Central Scouting: Really adept at knowing when to pass the puck out of the zone or to put the wheels on and carry the puck out of the zone. He helps the Ottawa 67's power-play from the point and is really reliable. Equally adept at the defensive game.
Quote:

41. YANN SAUVE
image PROFILE
Pos: Defence
Shoots: L
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 209 lbs.
Born: 02/18/1990
From: Rigaud, QC
Team: Saint John (QMJHL)
RANKINGS
TSN: 41
CSB: 29 NAS
ISS: 53
RLR: 65
McK: 68
THN: 23
Comparable: Robyn Regehr

From TSN: The big, strong, physical blueliner who models his game on Dion Phaneuf's is sometimes too aggressive for his own good, taking himself out of position, but he is most certainly a work in progress. One of his claims to fame is that he fought Steven Stamkos in the CHL Prospects game. He started this season as a projected first rounder but will have to improve his decision-making to get back to that status.

From NHL Central Scouting: Yann is a defenceman who, when he is on, can be one of the best defencemen in all the Quebec League and all of junior hockey. With continued development and maturity, as well as experience on when to dish the puck and when not to dish the puck, projects to be a solid defenceman. He needs to improve on a little bit of poise and calmness with the puck. He is good with the puck but sometimes gives it away too abruptly and it results in turnovers.

Cherepanov 71 06-18-2008 09:56 AM

Whats everyone's thoughts on Coleborne? I saw on tsn's profiles they compared him to Joe Thornton, pretty lofty comparison.

DontStepanMe 06-18-2008 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewYorkRangers (Post 14443554)
Whats everyone's thoughts on Coleborne? I saw on tsn's profiles they compared him to Joe Thornton, pretty lofty comparison.

when profiles compare to other players it doesn't mean that they will turn into, or even has nearly as much skill, as those players.... it means that their style of play emulates that person. That's it. It's not a foresight of what that player will become, nor is it meant to be.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 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.