View Single Post
Old
07-21-2013, 03:26 PM
  #757
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,920
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I said they look to have important roles. It's not guaranteed, but as things stand now, they figure to.
All 3 are quite far from being impact players at the NHL level. Lets wait and see before making assumptions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
It's not irrelevant. Do you think it's a coincidence that 4 of our first 6 picks that year were 6'2" or taller? And were all above 6'0"? And three of them were 6'4" or taller? It was Tallon's first draft. He was setting the foundation. He went heavy on size and character in 2010.
It's irrelevant when discussing the merit of the draft on it's own. Tallon shapes our identity, not this draft. This draft may form a part of our identity, but it's niether where the ideals of this identity derive from, nor as of yet, is it a source of success and impact for this identity.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Yes, Brickley and even moreso Basaraba are longshots to make the NHL, and they fill a role that has a large pool to choose from, but Brickley could be an NHLer someday. Only three years have passed since the draft and you're already writing him off. If he finds a way to contribute to our organization, then it's not a wasted pick. And you can't just draft trying for top 6 forwards with every pick. Bottom 6 types that are developed within the organization are valuable too, namely because they are cheap. Also, who cares if he's years away? Since when is there a deadline? It's understood that most draft picks outside the 1st round are going to be years away.
3 years have passed and he's struggled at the NCAA level. Limited offensive abilities. Does he make the NHL? Unlikely, but plausible. Do we care if he makes the NHL at this point? Not particularly.

Developing and finding 4th line players isn't particularly hard. Developing and finding very good bottom line players is much harder and i'm afraid Brickely is a million miles away from that.

Yes, it is understood draft picks outside of the 1st round take years? Your point? Brickely has shown absolutely no development curve and has extremely limited projectability.










Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I don't know what you're talking about here. The term boom/bust will continue to be used by GM's, scouts, and experts. Who cares if it's cliché? It continues to be used because it makes sense. Quinton Howden is a safe prospect. Rocco Grimaldi is a boom/bust prospect. Howden was thought to be a likely NHLer when he was drafted. And as of right now, it's pretty safe to say he will be an NHLer. Grimaldi has certain qualities, some of which are out of his hands, that make him much less likely of a bet to be a longtime NHLer. He'll either be a top6/9 scorer, or he won't be in the NHL. He won't be able to adapt to a bottom 6 defensive/grinding role. It really has little to do with personality. It's usually more of a playing style, and sometimes mother nature that makes a prospect boom/bust.
Sigh. Boom or bust is a generic phrase blasted out because you're too lazy to go into further analysis. Buchnevich may be seem as a classic "boom or bust pick" from this draft. On it's own, what is the use of this tag? What does it tell us? Not a lot. It means absolutely nothing. Analyse the player and tell us the upsides/downsides. It's hilariously lazy.

You said this "My preference is for boom/bust players to be taken in rounds 3-7.". Which seems bizarre, uneducated and frankly stupid. Assess players on their own merit and the other players available instead of living by a generic cliche.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
I agree that it will be an uphill battle for Brittain, but you can't say it was a bad pick. Some factors have hindered his development that were out of his control. He still looks like a decent prospect. I think we should just take a wait and see approach this season with him. We'll be able to much better assess him in a year.

Did i say it was a bad pick? I simply said he's very far from the NHL, and unlikely to make the NHL. Which seems fair. Of course we shall wait and see.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Oh I'm sure we've have an abysmal late round draft history with the nightmare drafts we had in the late 90's/early 2000's. I'm just saying I don't think we can look at our late round picks from 2010 and declare it "just another Panthers draft" yet. And even if none of them turn into anything, we have had what looks to be a little bit of recent success in the late rounds(for late round picks). Unless you expect a team to pull a Zetterberg or Datsyuk out of the late rounds every couple years. Being more realistic, I think we have done a decent(not good) job lately. Gaiduchenko may not be a bluechip prospect, but he's still a starter in the 2nd best league in the world, and has been for a couple years. He would obviously have some adaptations to make if he were to come over to North America and have success(which he won't), but it would be no different from most European goalies that come over and try their hand in North America.
Early 2000's? You mean up to 2007.

I'm simply assessing the draft 3 years later. It's not an accurate assessment because we don't have complete data. Still, we're at a point in time since the event where educated assessments can begin to be formed. It isn't unreasonable to write several of these players off. You can play the sitting on the fence game, but i'm happy to form stronger opinions now.

Never mentioned Zetterberg or Datsyuk. The data simply shows we have a poor record drafting in the later rounds.

Gayduchenko can't be used to counter that notion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Megan and Knight are obviously anything but proven yet, and are just embarking on their professional careers. Is it a sin to say they look promising so far, like they could possibly contribute to an NHL roster one day? I find it funny that you have such strict guidelines on this, considering you are so quick to write off Brickley. Megan is a projectable bottom six forward who had a pretty decent college career. Knight was a top 10 NCAA scorer last season and was highly sought after when it was made known he wouldn't sign with us. They look like decent late round picks so far, that's all. Which is all you can say only 3 years out from a draft.
To say they are promising? Sure. To use their names as some form of counter argument against a bad record of drafting in the later rounds? Yes, it isn't clever. We'll see how they turn out, but for now they can't be used as any proof that things have turned around.

Strict guidelines? I don't understand. Perhaps you missed the point.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline