View Single Post
08-24-2013, 02:25 AM
Ronning On Empty
Formerly BleachClean
Ronning On Empty's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,313
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
To the bolded, yes it is:

So perhaps you made an honest mistake. That's okay. I don't see any more productive discussion resulting from this topic, seeing as it seems to have devolved into "who said what" as opposed to an actual difference of opinion.

Again this argument appears to not be one of any differing views related to hockey, so again I will decline to continue this further, for the sake of trying to trim the irrelevant discussions.

As to the bolded, that is a very good point. If I conveyed the wrong impression, then I apologize.

If I had to single out one aspect of his game that stands out, it's his ability to beat defensemen on-on-one. His ability to blow by them while protecting the puck is absolutely elite, in my opinion.

Without context I could not say, but once again I'd rather discontinue this line of discussion, as it does not really pertain to hockey.

There's no direct quote there.

Nich's ability to defeat dmen in open ice can be found among multiple forwards in the NHL, and these types aren't necessarily elite. But fair enough, his straight line speed is elite... So was Raymond's... Will that make him an elite player is the question.

On the other point about what opinion to put stock in: You are still not seeing the inherent contradiction in what you are becoming beholden to. As a fan, you have put yourself ahead of both scouting reports and team scouts by deciding when to follow opinion and when not to. Yet, you have chosen to dismiss the fan opinion here that does exactly this. Which means, they should be valued like your own. Your own bias is present when you supercede the opinion of the majority scouting reports, or even when you follow it. No different than any poster here. So how can the group be dismissed while you stay true to your opinion in the very same manner? Don't you see the contradiction?

Agree to disagree then. The trade was risky, but it might just as easily have gone the other way, and was seen as fair value by most for a 21-year old on pace for over 40 goals. That is the impression I got perusing some threads at the time, but if the argument will be a simple back-and-forth of "was so", "was not" then perhaps it's best to move on from this one as well.

To be clear, I think Toews is better than Backstrom. I just think it's still close between them. Toews winning the cup is a team accomplishment. He was not particularly good that playoff run, and it is very different than Duchene taking huge steps this season in multiple areas to improve his value to a team.

Totally disagree with your revisionist take on the Kessel deal. Unsigned RFA with two top 10 picks + high second was a hefty price. Don't really care what you have to say about it. Think about what unsigned RFAs garner and you'll have your answer. Well, if logic prevails that is.

Fans on the poll board (if you put stock into it), showed that it's not “close” at all between Toews/Backstrom. So you're still wrong.

[quote]Eric Staal, Johnathan Toews and Corey Perry definitely were considered to have very high offensive upside at the time of the draft(and are very good offensively now). I can't say for the others, but I'm not saying that two-way forwards don't get drafted in the 1st round. #1 defensemen get drafted in the first round too, like Karlsson, Suter, Pietrangelo, Doughty, Phaneuf, Ekman-Larsson just off the top of my head.

You made a comment that most #1 defensemen get drafted in the 2nd round or later, and I believe the same to be true about the gritty, less offensive two way forwards. That doesn't mean that no #1 defensemen get drafted in the first round, or that no lesser offensive two-way forwards get drafted there either.

Which is exactly why I'm against the exclusion or preference for one specific type of player, because any type of player can be successful.[quote]

But if the odds of drafting better forwards remain higher than that of defensemen, over the top end of the draft, despite what type of forward it is, then it's mistake to think all types can be successful at the same rate. Which is what the article attempts to outline. It is _not_ just as likely a high end Dman be drafted high up in the draft as it is a forward. So when you made the statement to go for a dman in the same position, this was brought up in contention to that belief.

The article takes into account the Dmen you listed.

Backes is the #1C due to St. Louis' lack of centre depth. O'Reilly isn't a #1C at all. That you think they're in the same category of players who have put up 100+ points like Henrik/Backstrom/Thornton is just absurd.

I'm not saying never to take a two-way forward. I'm saying it doesn't pay off to take a "safer" player at the expense of having significantly less offensive upside.

So a #1C is only one that puts up 100+ points? Your statement is absurd, and should enlighten everyone as to your mindset on the matter.

And you're also wrong about the second statement because teams have done exactly that at the draft. Why? Because drafting is as much about probabilities as it is upside.

I said that being outnumbered by Canucks fans doesn't bother me when the rest of the world outnumbers them. Not that I hold professional scouts as gospel and everyone elese's opinions as worthless. Just that trying to convince me to rethink my opinion just because most people here disagree isn't going to be an effective strategy.

But who outnumbers you when you take your opinion over independent scouts? When your opinion doesn't coincide with those of other scouts, why do you take your own opinion as being something greater? You still fail to realize that the majority of Canucks posters here take into account those same independent rankings, and while you stay beholden to them, these other fans have made their own, opposite assessments. Just like team scouts have this past draft.

So because I favour proven NHL talent over prospects, that makes my opinion regarding prospects invalid? I believe I must be missing something here... I know that this website is called "Hockey's Future", but this seems just a little bit overboard.

When did I ever say that other Canucks fans opinions were less valid then my own? Anyways, I believe this is answered in the paragraph above the previous.

Yes, not favouring prospect talent much at all does invalidate your opinion somewhat. Your focus on them is not as deep, not as learned, because prospects in general are not a concern for you. Meanwhile, some posters on here that have tracked these prospects more intently have a differing opinion. That speaks volumes.

They are not mutually exclusive. While I wouldn't label Nichushkin's playmaking ability "elite", it's certainly quite good. However, at times he tries to do too much with the puck instead of making a play to a team mate, hence tunnel vision. He has the ability to make good plays, but does not always exercise that ability, which is something he should and hopefully will improve on as he matures.

So not an elite playmaker. Those types need both.

I'm generally not a fan of counting chickens before they're hatched. There's no guarantee that Horvat can put on another 20 pounds without it hampering his game. It happened to Luke Schenn. It happened to Lapierre. Horvat is already quite built for his age, so I don't think it's wise to think he could, or should, bulk up to the degree you suggest.

EDIT: Seeing as I misread that slightly, I'd also like to say that I would consider a player 6'0.5", 215 pounds average sized as well.

How do you define "exceptional talent"? Was Giroux an exceptional talent in his draft year? If so why was he picked at 22? When we're talking about maximum upsides, you look at a player's play style and make a prediction as to how far he could go with it. Obviously not every Domi will become a Kane or Giroux, just like not every Horvat will become a Bergeron or a Backes.

9 lbs is not 20 lbs.

215lbs is not average, unless Kassian is below average at 214lbs.

Kane is an exceptional talent unlike the ones mentioned. If he is used as a marker for upside, then it's just as valid to use Kopitar for Horvat's. After all, if development is assumed, assume it for all. Or don't assume it for any.

I don't see why you see being NHL ready now as a negative connotation. Should Edmonton have let Yakupov play in junior longer so that he really "earns" playing in the NHL? Nicushkin would gain more from being in the NHL than developing in a lesser league, to say nothing of the positive contribution he can make right now as well.

When you said "these types" I wasn't sure if you referring to the type of player Nichushkin projected to be. If you were simply referring to rookies with suspect defense, then if guys like Hodgson and Del Zotto can make a name for themselves, then I'm sure Nichushkin can too.

Agreed. Lindholm and Monahan's offensive games are of a similar calibre to Nichushkin, which is why it makes perfect sense that a team use defensive ability, position, or KHL risk to pick either of those players over him.

I myself put next to no stock in those coppernblue comparables. That Horvat is being compared to Cam Neely and Michael Grabner while he's forced to use MHL numbers from 2011-2012(discounting an entire year of development) to make a projections for Nichushkin due to lack of comparables in the KHL should make the reasons seem glaringly obvious.

However if you can, in good conscience, use his methods for Nichushkin but discount them for Horvat, then that is your concern, but I myself won't use him for anything.

Who's talking about NHL ready? You said “earned”, end of story.

Coppernblue isn't definitive, but it bears mentioning how they rank forward prospects against one another. By their system, they favour the 1way forward putting up big numbers in their draft year, over 2way forwards playing near a PPG pace. It is interesting though that even amongst his 1way producing peers that Nich is seen as very suspect. In contrast, Horvat, like the other 2way forward comparables, isn't favoured. So disfavoured amonst disfavoured for Horvat; disfavoured amongst favoured for Nich.

Last edited by Ronning On Empty: 08-24-2013 at 02:37 AM.
Ronning On Empty is offline