HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New Jersey Devils (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Prospect Info: 2011 NHL Entry Draft Talk - Part IX - Intangibles are overrated edition (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=914166)

Getzo5 05-14-2011 06:34 PM

2011 NHL Entry Draft Talk - Part IX - Intangibles are overrated edition
 
Gabriel Landeskog smirked. Continue.

Feed Me A Stray Cat 05-14-2011 06:36 PM

More like it's inherently difficult to project the intangibles and mental makeup of 17 and 18 year olds.

kiwidevil 05-14-2011 06:38 PM

Title should be. Intangibles are not tangible.

AfroThunder396 05-14-2011 06:39 PM

I had a dream that Edmonton drafted RNH, Colorado and Florida both went WAY off the board and picked two random players I had never heard of, and then we drafted Murphy even though Larsson and Landeskog were both on the board. I guess you could call it nightmare actually.

Getzo5 05-14-2011 06:40 PM

I won`t change it, bad karma.

Jaysfanatic* 05-14-2011 06:40 PM

That would be great. Larsson at 5 and Landeskog at six.

Landeskog = Ladd

Laddeskog.

Getzo5 05-14-2011 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 (Post 33043493)
I had a dream that Edmonton drafted, RNH, Colorado and Florids both went WAY off the board and picked two random players I had never hear of, and then we frafted Murphy even though Larsson and Landeskog were both on the board. I guess you could call it nightmare actually.

Did you take some pills before you went to bed? :laugh:

AfroThunder396 05-14-2011 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Getzo5 (Post 33043539)
Did you take some pills before you went to bed? :laugh:

No but guessing by all those typos I can understand where youre coming from :laugh:

MasterofGrond 05-14-2011 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat (Post 33043460)
More like it's inherently difficult to project the intangibles and mental makeup of 17 and 18 year olds.

Bam.

Getzo5 05-14-2011 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AfroThunder396 (Post 33043555)
No but guessing by all those typos I can understand where youre coming from :laugh:

Perfect.

Jaysfanatic* 05-14-2011 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY (Post 33043562)
Daneyko over Bourque = massive fail.

Ladd was moved twice, we can get a player like Ladd on the market but we won't be able to land a #1 center or top pairing d-men with the same return... garanteed.

Ladd was moved because of cap reasons. They didn't want to move him in Chicago, but they had to.

There's no guarantee that your beloved Murphy or Couturier, Huberdeau or Larsson become top pairing or #1 C just like Landeskog is no guarantee to be a great player.

All these kids have + and - attributes.

It's all good.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* 05-14-2011 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zack Ryder (Post 33043626)
Ladd was moved because of cap reasons. They didn't want to move him in Chicago, but they had to.

There's no guarantee that your beloved Murphy or Couturier, Huberdeau or Larsson become top pairing or #1 C just like Landeskog is no guarantee to be a great player.

All these kids have + and - attributes.

It's all good.

Carolina didn't have any cap problems and if you are moving a key player for cap relief and picks, you are doing a terrible job. We would say the same if Lou would've moved Parise last offseason to fix our cap problems.

Bottom line is that Ladd was not a key player for the Hawks even if he played very well in the SCP's so they moved him and decided to keep Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook and of all players Campbell.

We'll get a bluechip prospect and that's all that matters I guess.

apice3* 05-14-2011 07:25 PM

This will be the second time I ever watch the NHL draft, and hopefully the last. The first and only time so far was when my boy vanRiemsdyk was getting drafted.

apice3* 05-14-2011 07:28 PM

Also, I think the Ladd/Skog comparison is pretty weird. They both are good at everything, do the little things, and have great leadership, but it's weird because I don't consider them to be similar players.

I still see the Zubrus in Skog, and even Zubs was a 1st rounder. Every team needs a Zubrus, but I don't want him at 4.

Larsson, SC, or Murphy+, please.

CerebralGenesis 05-14-2011 07:50 PM

Once we finsih with the kog we should move on to strome. He's gotten no love as of late

GM17* 05-14-2011 08:08 PM

We should really consider our 7th rounder. who we gonna get?

apice3* 05-14-2011 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GM17 (Post 33045507)
We should really consider our 7th rounder. who we gonna get?

Joki Ryan

Getzo5 05-14-2011 08:11 PM

Back to the topic - do you think Florida would pick Huber/Couturier > Landeskog if Colorado picked Larsson?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GM17 (Post 33045507)
We should really consider our 7th rounder. who we gonna get?

Future zamboni driver.

EliasR8 05-14-2011 08:12 PM

Ideal draft

1:Adam Larsson
3:Nikita Kucherov
4-7:Idgaf

kiwidevil 05-14-2011 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PariseR8 (Post 33045583)
Ideal draft

1:Adam Larsson
3:Nikita Kucherov
4-7:Idgaf

Is that Russian?

EliasR8 05-14-2011 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiwidevil (Post 33045641)
Is that Russian?

maybe

Ronnie Bass 05-14-2011 08:45 PM

If Edmonton passes on Larsson I can see Colorado passing on him too since they are well stocked in defensive prospects, it would be up to Florida to make the unbelievable believable.

Darius Dangleaitis 05-14-2011 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass (Post 33046252)
If Edmonton passes on Larsson I can see Colorado passing on him too since they are well stocked in defensive prospects, it would be up to Florida to make the unbelievable believable.

That's what I'm thinking. And apparently Tallon isn't looking to take a defenseman.

It's all smoke and mirrors at this point, but I could certainly see it happening.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* 05-14-2011 10:05 PM

I just don't see Larsson falling at #4. When you are a bottom feader like the Panthers, Oilers and to a lesser extent the Avs, you have to take the best player for the future of your franchise.

Who's to say that EJ won't suffer from another golf cart incident or Gudbranson will pan out as a top pairing d-men? When you are selecting in the top #5, you take the BPA and if you need to address some needs cause you picked a prospect at a position you didn't really need or got improved via trades/UFA, you can flip that prospect ala Runblad for Tarashenko and get another solid player in return.

BrodeursCups 05-14-2011 10:06 PM

I'm not even toying with the idea of Larsson sliding to us because i'll just set myself up for disappointment. There's just no way he gets to 4.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 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.