View Single Post
11-26-2012, 08:20 PM
Registered User
clay's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by timw33 View Post
Exactly. It wasn't that he was wrong, but that his analysis was purely based on offensive output and took nothing else into consideration. Simon Gamache must've been a can't miss in his analysis.
Read one of my prior posts. I said, generally speaking, strong statistical production at an inferior level is necessary (with the exception of the Lucics Franzens, Burrows) , but not sufficient, to translate into an NHL point producer.

Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Really, Lukas Kraijcek?

Throwing Lukas' name into the breakdown shows me he was just looking to ruffle feathers.

Kraijcek never displayed Tanev's poise or defensive awareness...he did have a better shot and possibly better offensive instincts, but I think its pretty telling AV coached both and seems to really like Tanev, and hardly ever played Kraijcek.

Tanev's already THIS TEAMS #5, at 22...count me in the group that doesn't think he's peaked.
Krajicek was probably the wrong reference in terms of playing style (even though he did show a lot more poise than you give him credit for), but my point was more that that they are two players who are strong skaters and smart around the ice who IMO simply don't have a complete enough package to translate their skills into a top 4 NHL role.

Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
I repeat: Tanev played shutdown vs top NHL competition at 22 and did well. Quality possession player.

Anyone who says he's Lukas Kraijcek doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
See above. He was the first person that came to mind in terms of a Canuck who at times appeared he could blossom into a top 4 player but just didn't have enough to do so.

It really seems like Tanev is probably someone who's better for people to agree to disagree on.

Someone used Willie Mitchell as a comparison as a guy who is top 4 with no offensive skills. Really?? Mitchell is a fierce competitor who strikes fear into any forward who comes close to his goalie, because they know they are going to have to stand up to him if they even knick him. I have not shown any competitive fire from Tanev at all in this regard.

Unless you think Tanev is somehow able to catapult his offensive game into a 30ish point d-man at some point in his career, can you think of a legitimate top 4 d-man in the NHL who tops out at about 20-25 points who shows very little in terms of physicality and toughness? That is the basis of my assessment of Tanev. He has the tools to be a solid bottom pairing guy, but on an elite team, I want my top 4 to bring more than Tanev does. Again, this is based on my assessment that he does not have the offensive tools to consistently hit 30 points from the blueline.

clay is offline