HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hugh Jessiman (merged)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2007, 08:22 AM
  #51
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
aren't you using hindsight? Seabrook was NOT rated as a top 12 in that draft. Neither were many of the players listed by TB. All that/this is irrelevant because as I've said, it can't be changed. Live with the pick and move on.

There were many questions with every one of those players mentioned and now with the benefit of hindsight it is being played off that it was crystal clear who would succeed and who would not. That is not the case in ANY draft.

The Coyotoes took a gamble MUCH(probably more) like the Jessiman pick when they took Blake Wheeler a few years ago. Wheeler is looking like he might be a good player. Teams take risks with these players because they can dominate. This year Colton Gillies was taken much higher because of his potential to dominate. There's at least one every year.

Teams take the player that they feel will be the best player 5-10 years from then.

I've watched all kinds of drafts for many years now and have seen "experts" and fans say certain picks were ridiculous only for them to be wrong in the long run.

Many fans here on these boards were upset at us taking Staal and Sanguinetti because they wanted a forward. Most would probably choose to deny that now. I admittedly was one.

The Rangers have had HUGE success in picking players recently, you can start with Jessiman's year. If they miss on the Jessiman pick I still believe they will have an outstanding success rate the last 5 years. I still believe Jessiman will make the NHL but if he doesn't I'm not going to wine and cry about it. They have MORE than made up for one slip up.
Actually I don't think I'm using hindsite. The knock on picking Hugh where they did has proven to be pretty right on. He was a boom or bust guy. And there were safer picks available.

I'm sorry, but I don't get any solace from the Coyotes reaching for Wheeler. That team has been a wasteland for years.

And I understand that they pick the guy who will be the best player in 5-10 years. But you can't look at Hugh in that kind of vacuum. The fact remains he was struggled to play in the AHL and has even spent time in the ECHL. That's not the progression you want to see from a first round draft pick.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 08:51 AM
  #52
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Actually I don't think I'm using hindsite. The knock on picking Hugh where they did has proven to be pretty right on. He was a boom or bust guy. And there were safer picks available.

I'm sorry, but I don't get any solace from the Coyotes reaching for Wheeler. That team has been a wasteland for years.

And I understand that they pick the guy who will be the best player in 5-10 years. But you can't look at Hugh in that kind of vacuum. The fact remains he was struggled to play in the AHL and has even spent time in the ECHL. That's not the progression you want to see from a first round draft pick.
My concern with the Jessiman pick wasnt that he was a project but the fact we were re-building and taking a chance on a high(ish) pick was exactly what we didnt need to do. We should have picked a player who at the very least would have turned into a trading piece, but who was a safe bet to play at the big club. Jessiman offered us none of that. I actually think he is a good talent and still has a chance to make it, but as i said... bad pick due to the timing. We could risk a pick like Jessiman now, but not then.

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 08:54 AM
  #53
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRJurgen88 View Post
My concern with the Jessiman pick wasnt that he was a project but the fact we were re-building and taking a chance on a high(ish) pick was exactly what we didnt need to do. We should have picked a player who at the very least would have turned into a trading piece, but who was a safe bet to play at the big club. Jessiman offered us none of that. I actually think he is a good talent and still has a chance to make it, but as i said... bad pick due to the timing. We could risk a pick like Jessiman now, but not then.
That's exactly what I've been saying.

I think the time to take a chance is now. And I think they did that to some extent with Cherepanov. Although I have more faith in Cherepanov now than I did with Jessiman then.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 08:58 AM
  #54
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
That's exactly what I've been saying.

I think the time to take a chance is now. And I think they did that to some extent with Cherepanov. Although I have more faith in Cherepanov now than I did with Jessiman then.
Cherepanov is less of a chance. The mere fact he broke Pavel Bure's record gives him an established hockey CV... To be fair, Jessiman has never had a great track record, especially considering his health...

HOWEVER, now we have this talented kid and we are fairly stacked lets give him plenty of ice time (initially in Hartford) and see if he pans out. Rather that than let him disappear, we have the talent in both NYR and the Pack to give him ice time as the mistakes will be minimalized by others...?

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 09:20 AM
  #55
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRJurgen88 View Post
Cherepanov is less of a chance. The mere fact he broke Pavel Bure's record gives him an established hockey CV... To be fair, Jessiman has never had a great track record, especially considering his health...

HOWEVER, now we have this talented kid and we are fairly stacked lets give him plenty of ice time (initially in Hartford) and see if he pans out. Rather that than let him disappear, we have the talent in both NYR and the Pack to give him ice time as the mistakes will be minimalized by others...?
What I like about Cherepanov is he's playing against men in arguably the best league outside of the NHL. Let him play another season then and let's see where he is next summer.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 09:27 AM
  #56
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
What I like about Cherepanov is he's playing against men in arguably the best league outside of the NHL. Let him play another season then and let's see where he is next summer.
I completley agree. Its why i am so excited about him. Scoring 18 goals as a rookie, against men in a very good league leaves him in very good stead for the NHL. If he pots similar numbers this year i'll be delighted. I think for him, the numbers this year in the RSL arent as important as much as qualtiy ice time in that league is...

He could very well tear up the NHL in 2/3 years time.

THN said they think he can be an 80 point player, that was their conservative guess!!! i hope he gets at leats 1 year with jagr on the team to learn from him...

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2007, 03:22 PM
  #57
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Actually I don't think I'm using hindsite. The knock on picking Hugh where they did has proven to be pretty right on. He was a boom or bust guy. And there were safer picks available.

I'm sorry, but I don't get any solace from the Coyotes reaching for Wheeler. That team has been a wasteland for years.

And I understand that they pick the guy who will be the best player in 5-10 years. But you can't look at Hugh in that kind of vacuum. The fact remains he was struggled to play in the AHL and has even spent time in the ECHL. That's not the progression you want to see from a first round draft pick.
Rebuilding is something that happens over period of time (usually 5 years). It is NOT dependent on any one player acquired. It would be great to be 100% right on everything in life but it does not happen.

Hugh was probably the beginning of the "rebuilding". Let's assume that he never makes it, we are still in GREAT shape and have EXCELLENT players. How is it that missing out on Hugh destroyed everything the Rangers set out to do? How is it that taking the risk on Hugh sabotaged the Rangers rebuilding?

I don't understand how you think that it was crystal clear how everything would turn out and especially that you are not using hindsight.

Then it's said that Jessiman is one of only two players to not make the NHL from his draft year. Well it's a given that over time most first round picks will make it. This does not mean that the 2003 draft was the best of all time. Looking at the previous year only 4 did not make the NHL.

Looking at the year after (2004) Hugh , after pick 12 there are more better players in the NHL than Hugh's draft currently (after pick 12). This is even with one less year of development. People make out that we missed out on the best draft of all time after pick #12. That simply is not the case.


Last edited by DarthSather99: 07-26-2007 at 03:28 PM. Reason: add content
DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 04:02 AM
  #58
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
Rebuilding is something that happens over period of time (usually 5 years). It is NOT dependent on any one player acquired. It would be great to be 100% right on everything in life but it does not happen.

Hugh was probably the beginning of the "rebuilding". Let's assume that he never makes it, we are still in GREAT shape and have EXCELLENT players. How is it that missing out on Hugh destroyed everything the Rangers set out to do? How is it that taking the risk on Hugh sabotaged the Rangers rebuilding?

I don't understand how you think that it was crystal clear how everything would turn out and especially that you are not using hindsight.

Then it's said that Jessiman is one of only two players to not make the NHL from his draft year. Well it's a given that over time most first round picks will make it. This does not mean that the 2003 draft was the best of all time. Looking at the previous year only 4 did not make the NHL.

Looking at the year after (2004) Hugh , after pick 12 there are more better players in the NHL than Hugh's draft currently (after pick 12). This is even with one less year of development. People make out that we missed out on the best draft of all time after pick #12. That simply is not the case.
We are definitely in great shape now prospect/depth wise and the Jessiman draft certainly didnt bust us, but its a big pick and could have helped alot and speed up the process. i think we'd have been even more competitive now if the Jessiman had panned out as hoped.

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 08:38 AM
  #59
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
Let's assume that he never makes it, we are still in GREAT shape and have EXCELLENT players. How is it that missing out on Hugh destroyed everything the Rangers set out to do? How is it that taking the risk on Hugh sabotaged the Rangers rebuilding?
You are either not understanding (which I doubt) or are refusing to acknowledge the point that Singin' and others (myself included) have made.

Yes, we know that the farm system is now better. However, it could have been THAT much better. There may not have been a need for a Straka or Shanny or Mara or Malik. NO ONE said that the Jessiman pick "destroyed everything". You will not find anything that even resembles such a post.
Quote:
I don't understand how you think that it was crystal clear how everything would turn out and especially that you are not using hindsight.
Again, you are either refusing to acknolwedge or not understanding the points of others. It has nothing to do with hindsight. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there were better, much safer picks on the board at the time. At a time when the farm was bereft of talent, picking Jessiman (like Falardeau in the previous year, for that matter) was not the right move to make.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 08:52 AM
  #60
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You are either not understanding (which I doubt) or are refusing to acknowledge the point that Singin' and others (myself included) have made.

Yes, we know that the farm system is now better. However, it could have been THAT much better. There may not have been a need for a Straka or Shanny or Mara or Malik. NO ONE said that the Jessiman pick "destroyed everything". You will not find anything that even resembles such a post.

Again, you are either refusing to acknolwedge or not understanding the points of others. It has nothing to do with hindsight. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there were better, much safer picks on the board at the time. At a time when the farm was bereft of talent, picking Jessiman (like Falardeau in the previous year, for that matter) was not the right move to make.
In more tangible terms, if the Rangers had Parise or Getzlaf or Richards they would have stood a much better chance of beating the Sabres last season.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 08:54 AM
  #61
NYRJurgen88
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: Wales
Posts: 1,334
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to NYRJurgen88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
In more tangible terms, if the Rangers had Parise or Getzlaf or Richards they would have stood a much better chance of beating the Sabres last season.
someone may have already said it but also, if we had Parise or Getzlaf we'd most likely be $7million better off right now or a quality D man richer... highinsight is a wonderful thing!!! :O)

NYRJurgen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 03:34 PM
  #62
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
You are either not understanding (which I doubt) or are refusing to acknowledge the point that Singin' and others (myself included) have made.

Yes, we know that the farm system is now better. However, it could have been THAT much better. There may not have been a need for a Straka or Shanny or Mara or Malik. NO ONE said that the Jessiman pick "destroyed everything". You will not find anything that even resembles such a post.

Again, you are either refusing to acknolwedge or not understanding the points of others. It has nothing to do with hindsight. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that there were better, much safer picks on the board at the time. At a time when the farm was berefet of talent, picking Jessiman (like Falardeau in the previous year, for that matter) was not the right move to make.
I'm saying it is "impossible" to know that there were better safer players AT THE TIME OF THE PICK unless you use hindsight. The draft is not that way. Picking any 18 year old kid is a huge risk.

The two players most people mention, Parise and Getzlef are great examples. Parise was drafted before the NEW NHL where smaller players usuualy did not make it. That is why all the teams at the top of the draft passed on him.

Getzlef had a tag of being lazy, which even now would totally turn the Rangers away from a prospect. Jessiman had/has an OUTSTANDING work ethic. Work ethic and character are MUST HAVES for any Rangers draft pick.

The talent level at the time of the pick was not thought to be that much of a difference between Jessiman and Getzlef. Parise had more talent than most in that draft but like I said he was small and it was the old NHL where SIZE was enormously important.

2003 was not the greatest draft of all time.

You can go to any draft over the last 10 years and say IF the Rangers drafted this player or that player we'd be so much better. I'm saying it is crazy to do that because it is a fantasy, not reality. We made the pick we made and you just have to live with what we did.


Last edited by DarthSather99: 07-27-2007 at 03:45 PM. Reason: add content
DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 03:58 PM
  #63
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
I'm saying it is "impossible" to know that there were better safer players AT THE TIME OF THE PICK unless you use hindsight. The draft is not that way.
It is impossible to know DEFINITEVELY who is going to be better, but there are safer choices than others. One can hazard an educated guess. Hugh was a known project. Other choices (including the two that you name) were not. The were "safer" picks.
Quote:
Picking any 18 year old kid is a huge risk.
Off course it is. But there are reasons why the Crosbys of the world go first overall. And there are reasons why the Jorday Footes and Dalyn Flatts are not first round picks. The draft is a crapshoot, but there are certain indicators of possible performance.
Quote:
You can go to any draft over the last 10 years and say IF the Rangers drafted this player or that player we'd be so much better. I'm saying it is crazy to do that because it is a fantasy, not reality. We made the pick we made and you just have to live with what we did.
You are still ignoring or just simply not acknowledging the basic argument here. By your theory, the Rangers could have just as easlily drafted Dalyn Flatt in the first round as they did Marc Staal. Don't you think that there is a reason that they did not? And what reason what that be, do you suppose? Wouldn't that reason be becuase Staal is a good deal better of a bet to make it to the NHL? There are reasons why this board was lit up with posts following the picks of Falardeau and Jessiman. Are we "experts"? No, but even we know that some choices are safer than others.

Going by your judgement, one could not take umbreage with the Rangers if instead of choosing Cherepanov, they took Carl Hagelin. After all, the draft is a crapshoot and you never know what 18 year-olds will do.

True Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2007, 04:05 PM
  #64
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
2003 was not the greatest draft of all time.
No. But it was a very good draft. And it's never a good thing when every player picked ahead of the guy you picked and all but one guy picked after the guy you picked in the first round have played in the NHL.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 07-27-2007 at 04:13 PM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 01:15 AM
  #65
Leslie Treff
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,224
vCash: 500
I have interviewed Hugh several times and he is well aware of the issues in his game, as well as what the Rangers are looking for him to do at this point. The Rangers want Jessiman to be tough (i.e., fight), grind on every shift, and be offensively productive when he can be. In other words, he needs to be a north-south player who has a real nasty edge and a consistent effort. He and the Rangers' former AGM both told me this more than once. There was definite progress along those lines this past season. There were flashes of real power forward potential that I saw late this season. But again no consistency of it. This upcoming year is the crucial year for Hugh. This is the last year on his NHL contract, and I suspect that he may become a career minor league player if there is no significant improvement soon.

Leslie Treff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 01:35 AM
  #66
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,465
vCash: 500
I think Hugh will eventually make it to the NHL--it's the when and with who which is in question or even if he'll be a top liner. The size, skating ability, overall tools are there. A change of scenery may be all it takes to get him to focus on what he needs to do. Unfortunately value coming back from moving him will be not be a lot. Hopefully he does start to put his game together this season but he seems a long way still from seriously competing for a spot on the Rangers.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 08:58 AM
  #67
HockeyBurd*
 
HockeyBurd*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I think Hugh will eventually make it to the NHL--it's the when and with who which is in question or even if he'll be a top liner. The size, skating ability, overall tools are there. A change of scenery may be all it takes to get him to focus on what he needs to do. Unfortunately value coming back from moving him will be not be a lot. Hopefully he does start to put his game together this season but he seems a long way still from seriously competing for a spot on the Rangers.
He doesn't need to compete for a spot on the Rangers. He needs to show some improvement... enough improvement for the team to re-sign him. They knew he was a long term project when they drafted him.

HockeyBurd* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 10:47 AM
  #68
N9Y4R
Bleed Blue
 
N9Y4R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Gold Coast
Country: United States
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Jessiman has the physical tools, his problem is between the ears. His hockey sense is sub-par, he has trouble reading the play and thus is not often enough in the correct position to make plays. From what I have seen (6-8 times for Hartford) this will prevent him from ever being a top 6 forward. I think he will play in the league eventually as a 3-4 liner and maybe a PP guy in front of the net with his size and hands (ala Tim Kerr, not saying he will ever score like Kerr did on the PP). Unfortunately I do not think it will be with the Rangers since he is up at the end of the year and will probably go free, unless he really shows us something this year.
Hopefully Gernander can help turn the light on because the physical tools are there.

Oh and to the point of the thread, Hugh was clearly a reach/project and at this point has turned out to be of poor value.
There were at least a dozen guys that would have been better for us in the 03' draft, but at this point I think the system is in good shape and we need to let it go and move on.

Shea Weber 49th overall, Ouch.
1st D Pairing
Staal/Weber

OK I'm over it!


Last edited by N9Y4R: 07-28-2007 at 11:03 AM.
N9Y4R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 04:21 PM
  #69
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
It is impossible to know DEFINITEVELY who is going to be better, but there are safer choices than others. One can hazard an educated guess. Hugh was a known project. Other choices (including the two that you name) were not. The were "safer" picks.

Off course it is. But there are reasons why the Crosbys of the world go first overall. And there are reasons why the Jorday Footes and Dalyn Flatts are not first round picks. The draft is a crapshoot, but there are certain indicators of possible performance.

You are still ignoring or just simply not acknowledging the basic argument here. By your theory, the Rangers could have just as easlily drafted Dalyn Flatt in the first round as they did Marc Staal. Don't you think that there is a reason that they did not? And what reason what that be, do you suppose? Wouldn't that reason be becuase Staal is a good deal better of a bet to make it to the NHL? There are reasons why this board was lit up with posts following the picks of Falardeau and Jessiman. Are we "experts"? No, but even we know that some choices are safer than others.

Going by your judgement, one could not take umbreage with the Rangers if instead of choosing Cherepanov, they took Carl Hagelin. After all, the draft is a crapshoot and you never know what 18 year-olds will do.
I think what your doing is taking what I said and making an exaggeration to make my point seem ridiculous. Of course there is a reason why players are drafted high.

We are talking about the difference between Jessiman and Getzlef/Parise here AT THE TIME OF THE PICK....NOT the absolute worst comparison of Crosby and Foote.

Jessiman/Getzlef/Parise were projected within 10 slots of each other. All three had previous success.

Jessiman was thought to be the greater risk because he put it together in the year before the draft. If you go by the premise as him being a high-risk player then Cherepanov and Korpikoski were high risk players also. Two of the favored prospects in the organization. I don't hear people complaining about those picks yet but 3-4 years from now we may have people saying they had a clear vision of how they would turn out.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 04:23 PM
  #70
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
No. But it was a very good draft. And it's never a good thing when every player picked ahead of the guy you picked and all but one guy picked after the guy you picked in the first round have played in the NHL.
Hindsight makes everyone a genius.

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 04:25 PM
  #71
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
Hindsight makes everyone a genius.
It's not hidsight when someone had concerns about the pick when it was made.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 04:27 PM
  #72
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It's not hidsight when someone had concerns about the pick when it was made.
You can pick out "concerns" for every prospect. Parise his size, Getzlef his work ethic ....

DarthSather99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 04:31 PM
  #73
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,831
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99 View Post
You can pick out "concerns" for every prospect. Parise his size, Getzlef his work ethic ....
We're going around in circles. It this point in time, it's very hard to defend the pick.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2007, 07:31 PM
  #74
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,112
vCash: 500
Huge Speciman will have a big year. 30+ goals in the A this year.

free0717 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-31-2007, 09:42 PM
  #75
MontanaTrout
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
Eat Crow

Not that you all deserve it but H will surprise this year. Agree with last guy he'll have strong year with Pack and will see ice time with the blues. Remember I have spoken. If you knew why he was in Union Square you would know what I'm talking about.

MontanaTrout is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.