HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Polls - (hockey-related only) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   Jordan Staal: Draft bust already? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=551320)

Mortal Fear* 09-13-2008 03:50 PM

Jordan Staal: Draft bust already?
 
Let's see who Pittsburgh could have taken instead:

Toews
Backstrom
Kessel
Brassard
Okposo
Mueller

Most teams would probably rather have ANY of these players except maybe Brassard. Staal is always going to be a third liner as long as he's in Pittsburgh, and even on other teams he's just barely good enough to be a 2nd liner. Just doesn't have the same offensive skills as the players taken before him. His rookie year he got lucky with a high shooting percentage and a lot of shorthanded chances. He will probably end up being a 45-50 point player in his prime, paling in comparison to the players taken after him, and hardly the numbers one would expect from a #2 overall pick. I think it's fair to say that Staal was both a draft bust AND a poor choice considering who went after him.

Modo 09-13-2008 03:53 PM

3.....

Wheatking 09-13-2008 03:56 PM

I think when you have Crosby and Malkin, a Staal type of player fits the team better than a Toews. The offensive capabilities of the Pens would be even more insane than it they already are with Toews but speaking in terms of needs over wants....Staal is probably the better fit.

russmatuss 09-13-2008 03:58 PM

Poor choice maybe, but only because the Pens are so stacked at center that he won't really have a decent chance to get on the top lines. I think he would get on most 2nd lines but he's still young so he could end up as a first liner but could also end up as a perennial 3rd liner if he stays in Pitts and gets used to not being needed that much.

Grub 09-13-2008 04:00 PM

I rather have toews and backstrom :D

EagleBelfour 09-13-2008 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheatking (Post 15436259)
I think when you have Crosby and Malkin, a Staal type of player fits the team better than a Toews. The offensive capabilities of the Pens would be even more insane than it they already are with Toews but speaking in terms of needs over wants....Staal is probably the better fit.

You're right, but there's no way right now they passed on Toews, who I think it's head and shoulders (well at least half a head) above the others. But Perhaps they take him at #3.

Captain Awesome 09-13-2008 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheatking (Post 15436259)
I think when you have Crosby and Malkin, a Staal type of player fits the team better than a Toews. The offensive capabilities of the Pens would be even more insane than it they already are with Toews but speaking in terms of needs over wants....Staal is probably the better fit.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. You draft the best player available. Especially at #3, which they probably thought Staal was.

TheDaysOf 04 09-13-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox (Post 15436219)
Let's see who Pittsburgh could have taken instead:

Toews
Backstrom
Kessel
Brassard
Okposo
Mueller

Okposo - 9 NHL games
Brassard 17 NHL games

and other than Kessel, the other players listed have only played a year, while Staal has played 2. Who's to say one of these players points will drop and have a sophmore slump too? Staal just turned 20, he had a bad season in terms of stats, but still has plenty of time to get better.

Equinox 09-13-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wheatking (Post 15436259)
I think when you have Crosby and Malkin, a Staal type of player fits the team better than a Toews. The offensive capabilities of the Pens would be even more insane than it they already are with Toews but speaking in terms of needs over wants....Staal is probably the better fit.

You can always make a trade later. Taking the best player available should be the only option when drafting. Otherwise, you're not thinking in the best interest of the team's future.

Blades 0f Steel 09-13-2008 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox (Post 15436219)
I think it's far to say that Staal was both a draft bust AND a poor choice considering who went after him.

Was this intended to read "I think it's far too early to say that Staal was both a draft bust AND a poor choice" ? If so, I agree.

I think he'll bounce back and if he saw 18 minutes a game he'd hit 75 points regularly.

But...yeah, Okposo is obviously better with 9 games under his belt and all. Typical HFboards mentality.

WpgPens 09-13-2008 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox (Post 15436219)
Let's see who Pittsburgh could have taken instead:

Toews
Backstrom
Kessel
Brassard
Okposo
Mueller

Most teams would probably rather have ANY of these players except maybe Brassard. Staal is always going to be a third liner as long as he's in Pittsburgh, and even on other teams he's just barely good enough to be a 2nd liner. Just doesn't have the same offensive skills as the plyaers taken before him. His rookie year he got lucky with a high shooting percentage and a lot of shorthanded chances. He will probably end up being a 45-50 point player in his prime, paling in comparison to the players taken after him, and hardly the numbers one would expect from a #2 overall pick. I think it's far to say that Staal was both a draft bust AND a poor choice considering who went after him.

If all rookie players could have such "luck". By luck the other teams just gave up and offered no resistance as Staal scored 29 lucky goals on unsuspecting opposition goalies. Luck!, get real.

The only player I would have chosen instead would have been Toews.

Interesting how you speak as if your words were fact based. Staal is and has been far from a bust. If you truly believe this you either, don't know squat about evaluating player talent, especially beyond point production or you have little exposure to watching Staal and his play. In both instances you are extremely ignorant (look up the definition before you get offended).

Staal is still raw in several areas but has the necessary attributes to succeed as a very good two-way centre. To even consider a player so young as a bust shows true ignorance, whereas with your rating system you should be considering most of the other players you listed as busts, since they have not even reached the level of success that Staal has, at the NHL level.

Educate yourself.

Randall Graves* 09-13-2008 04:08 PM

In hindsight...I think Toews would've been a better pick, but Staal is by no means a bust, this poll is retarded.

The Fuhr* 09-13-2008 04:10 PM

Bust? Are you serious?

The guy is 6'4 and 220lbs
He already anchors a PK at this level (3:27SH last season)
Has the hands to score 30+ goals (29 two years ago)

Championships are run on the back of this type of player.

Randall Graves* 09-13-2008 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WpgPens (Post 15436359)
If all rookie players could have such "luck". By luck the other teams just gave up and offered no resistance as Staal scored 29 lucky goals on unsuspecting opposition goalies. Luck!, get real.

The only player I would have chosen instead would have been Toews.

Interesting how you speak as if your words were fact based. Staal is and has been far from a bust. If you truly believe this you either, don't know squat about evaluating player talent, especially beyond point production or you have little exposure to watching Staal and his play. In both instances you are extremely ignorant (look up the definition before you get offended).

Staal is still raw in several areas but has the necessary attributes to succeed as a very good two-way centre. To even consider a player so young as a bust shows true ignorance, whereas with your rating system you should be considering most of the other players you listed as busts, since they have not even reached the level of success that Staal has, at the NHL level.

Educate yourself.

Well his rookie season was an aberration.

He had a ridiculously high shooting percentage, especially for a rookie.

Blades 0f Steel 09-13-2008 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall Graves (Post 15436385)
Well his rookie season was an aberration.

He had a ridiculously high shooting percentage, especially for a rookie.

Aberration? Compared to 1 other year? :laugh::facepalm::laugh:

Sophomore slump anyone? People never learn. I sweah god.

C-Saku Koivu MTL 09-13-2008 04:13 PM

I said they should have picking Toews at the draft, I would have, I stand by that and I think it would have been a better fit and player for Pitsburgh but that doesn't make Jordan Staal anywhere near a bust.

Will he ever be a high offensive point producer, maybe not, we'll see but he sure has the potential and talent to do it. Jordan Staal is and will be a great player for Pitsburgh.

Randall Graves* 09-13-2008 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blades 0f Steel (Post 15436404)
Aberration? Compared to 1 other year? :laugh::facepalm::laugh:

Can you read?

I was merely pointing out the reason he had so many goals was because his shooting percentage was abnormally high, especially for a rookie. Please tell me where I am wrong. kthx

EroCaps 09-13-2008 04:18 PM

#3.

They should have taken Toews or Backstrom and flipped them for great package of players.

CrossbarSniper* 09-13-2008 04:20 PM

I've been saying since day 1 he is overrated, but time will tell.

On Axis 09-13-2008 04:23 PM

Way, way, way too earlier to call him a bust. He didn't have a great offensive season last year, sure, but it was only his second season in the league. If his offense is still down 3 seasons from now, maybe we can talk again, but Staal still brings a valuable defensive presence up front for his team.

Bird Law 09-13-2008 04:27 PM

Dumb pick over Toews and Backstrom, but hindsight is 20/20.

Though at the time I did feel he was picked quite a bit early. Still do.

H382 09-13-2008 04:29 PM

Well I think the fact he has shown he has the potential to score 30+ goals, and already plays a very strong defensive game and is great on the PK is pretty good for someone his age.. But, that's just me. He just needs to gain consistency.. I mean... damn, he is what, 19?

Blades 0f Steel 09-13-2008 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall Graves (Post 15436414)
Can you read?

I was merely pointing out the reason he had so many goals was because his shooting percentage was abnormally high, especially for a rookie. Please tell me where I am wrong. kthx

Yeah, you called it an aberration. In order to have some basis of comparison to the norm, he'll have to play at least another season of hockey. Otherwise I could say 07-08 is an aberration. :facepalm:

Btw, that high shooting percentage argument is lame.

Paralyzer008 09-13-2008 04:29 PM

He's not a bust, but Pittsburgh should still trade him.

Super Sniper Cele 09-13-2008 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox (Post 15436219)
Most teams would probably rather have ANY of these players except maybe Brassard.

You may be right, but the Pens had no need for another top line center with Crosby and Malkin already here. Staal was/is very good defensively and is an ideal third line center already at just 19 years old.
Quote:

Staal is always going to be a third liner as long as he's in Pittsburgh
Not true. Therrien is likely to start him on Malkin's wing this season. You know, the position he was playing when he scored 29 goals as an 18 year old rookie.
Quote:

even on other teams he's just barely good enough to be a 2nd liner.
I bet he'd be a first or second line center on more than half the teams in the league.
Quote:

His rookie year he got lucky with a high shooting percentage and a lot of shorthanded chances.
How do you get "lucky" having a good scoring percentage? I don't think it's a coincidence that the same players are usually among the league leaders in that category every season. Some guys just like to pick their spots rather than taking eight shots every game like Ovechkin.
Quote:

He will probably end up being a 45-50 point player in his prime, paling in comparison to the players taken after him, and hardly the numbers one would expect from a #2 overall pick.
42 points as an 18 year old rookie and you're claiming he'll only score, at most, eight more points in a season in his prime? :shakehead
Quote:

I think it's far to say that Staal was both a draft bust AND a poor choice considering who went after him.
Calling a 19 year old kid a bust a mere two years after he was drafted is ludicrous, especially considering he's played two full seasons in the NHL and still has a lot of growing and maturing to do.

I think it's fair to say that you have no idea what you're talking about.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.

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.