Thread: Proposal: Dallas - Montreal
View Single Post
Old
09-16-2012, 01:24 PM
  #70
That
Registered User
 
That's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faidh ar Rud Eigin View Post
Beaulieu doesn't use his size particularly well anyway. Doesn't assert himself as a 6'2 200 lbs player. He's more of a finesse guy, always ways, probably always well be. Anyways, size is irrelevant to me in this discussion. Russell didn't fail because of his size, he failed because while his offensive talent was enough to dominate juniors (And dominate more then Beaulieu did), his offensive instincts weren't good enough to translate his game to the NHL level (And let's be honest, Russell was probably as good if not better than Beaulieu defensively at 19).

Saying he's absolutely progressed because his defensive game (Which will never be great) has slightly improved since he was 17 doesn't mean he's progressed. When you're looking for progression, you're looking for him to evolve as a player.

Beaulieu hasn't done that. His offensive game is identical to the game he played at 17 (The year before his draft year) and while his defense has improved, that's not progression. He's the exact same player he was 2 years ago, with the same critical issues in his game (Bad decision making, inconsistency in utliizing his size, medicore defensive game).
So you ignore how Beaulieu has improved, and instead just say that he hasn't. Instead constantly reiterating that he hasn't progressed because of his defence. Tell me why. I want to know why you don't think he hasn't improved.

He has improved on all of those critical issues.

No. When you look for progression in a player, you at if he has improved on areas on the game that he is lacking in. Honestly, I'm extremely pessimistic when it comes to Habs prospects. I disliked the Beaulieu pick from day, and I dislike it now, but to say he hasn't progressed is just crazy.

Quote:
When you look at comparable players from his draft class (Let's use Ryan Murphy as an example), you can see the progression. In his draft year, Murphy was prone to playing like a winger instead of a defender, he was prone to going for a big hipcheck instead of staying on his man. He would pinch when he should not have pinched. He would pick bad tiems to shoot the puck. His offensive decision making was questionable. However, he made incredible progression from age 17 to age 18. He played more like a defender, made better decisions in his own zone. Knew when to pinch, when to shoot, and when to pass. His defensive game has went from bad for the OHL to actually pretty good for the OHL, and while his numbers didn't improve, his offensive game evolved to one much better suited for the NHL. You look for the same evolution in Beaulieu's game, him adapting, and it's not there.
Murphy is not comparable. Murphy is much, much better at all facets of the game. He was in his draft year, and he is now.

Quote:
On Oleksiak, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Oleksiak is very good defensively, and his mobility allows him to utilize his defensive skills much better than someone who isn't as good a skater. Unlike Tinordi (A comparable player), Oleksiak has an offensive game. Not 40-50 points, but 25-30 point potential., which is you're great defensively (Which Oleksiak has the potential to be at the NHL level), that's more than enough.

I'm not sure why it's so black and white on these boards. If you post in support of a player, you"re "enthralled" with them, if you post against a player, you "hate" them. I'm posting about Oleksiak because he absolutely belongs in the group I posted, and he's incredibly underrated because for some reason people got in their minds he wasn't very good despite that opinion not being shared by the people who've seen him the most.

There's different degree's of how good an defensive game you can develop. How good depends on hockey sense. A "dumb" player can be solid defensively but can never be exceptional. A "smart" player can be. Going back to Beaulieu, one of his biggest knocks is his hockey sense.

I'm not sure why you decided to split the Oleksiak posts into different parts of your posts. You keep telling me I'm overrating Oleksiak, you're selling him incredibly short. You're dead wrong about Tinordi being better. Tinordi has one thing on him, one thing, and that's defense and Tinordi is by no means better by more than a hair. Oleksiak is a much smarter player, and Oleksiak's superior skating allows Oleksiak to use his defensive talent better than Tinordi.

I really think you're basing your opinions on Oleksiak on nothing (The world juniors mean's absolutely nothing in the long run). Oleksiak is an exceptional skater for his size, one of the best, on par with Tyler Myers (Who set the benchmark for huge guys being great skaters). If Oleksiak was 6'0 tall, he still would be a great skater. Skating isn't all about speed, big men will never have elite speed, it's everything else that goes into skating. Two can play this game, you're grossly overrating Tinordi, and gorssly underrating Oleksiak.
I know he offensive potential. I get it. Is he good defensively? Yes. Is he great? No. Does he have high offensive potential? No. He doesn't belong with those guys. He's not as good as them now and doesn't have the same potential. Simple.

You complain about everything being so black and white on these boards, but yet you do the same thing with Beaulieu. Yet the people who see Beaulieu the most, see progression.

The world juniors may mean nothing in the long run, but the OHL season and the playoffs do, and Tinordi was better, and was much better in the playoffs (I don't know why you ignored that). Based on my views of both Oleksiak and Tinordi, I believe Tinordi is the better player. You don't. Good for you. I'm not changing my mind.

This argument has no substance, I guess time will tell who's right.

That is offline