HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

OT - Detroit drafting well a myth ??

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2008, 07:15 PM
  #151
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post


This is a Hall of Fame thread.

What kills me is that you think you've made solid arguments and supported them.
What kills me is that you keep repeating the same BS without even proving it, you never actually take arguments head on. The mark of a true loser. It's also very funny how you didn't even try to defend your own pathetic rating, which is far more biased and irrealistic.

You can keep on repeating the same BS again and again, be my guess.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 07:48 PM
  #152
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
What kills me is that you keep repeating the same BS without even proving it, you never actually take arguments head on. The mark of a true loser. It's also very funny how you didn't even try to defend your own pathetic rating, which is far more biased and irrealistic.

You can keep on repeating the same BS again and again, be my guess.
Yeah, I'll be your guess. Whatever the hell that means.

Speaking of things that are confusing ... Why you keep called me biased. You do know what the word means, right?

Because you are accusing me of being biased. For like the Detroit package of players better then the Canadiens package. And I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan.

You're a big confused on the meaning of biased. And judging from the other puzzling things you've saidin this thread, you're confused about a few other things too.

So keep getting aggressive, keep ranting, and keeping calling me names like "loser" because I don't agree with you. Because it sure makes you look classy, and it sure makes your points more valid.

Give yourself a hand.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 08:12 PM
  #153
Quiet Robert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
I agree wholeheartedly.

The only measuring stick I give a damn about is Stanley Cups.

Didn't the Wings trade Mathias to get Bertuzzi?
Ah, you're right, I had forgotten about that. He's going to be one hell of a player, but I can understand why Detroit made that move.

If anything, the fact that they were willing and able to trade a prospect like Matthias for questionable immediate help speaks to the confidence they have in their prospect depth and their ability to replenish their stock.

This thread has shown that too many people on HF lose focus of the ultimate goal. Take the LA Kings; they're probably the perfect HF team. Los Angeles has an amazing stable of prospects and has been drafting exceptionally well since 2000. Problem is they haven't progressed to rank of contender since then and instead have dumped some of those solid picks for more prospects. (Vishnovsky, Cammalleri etc...)

By contrast, the Wings pick shrewdly, aren't afraid to trade picks or prospects to make their team better. Essentially they use the picks and prospects to better the NHL team, not to build up a nice group of potential stars. That's what makes them so good. If they've drafted a solid player they know has no chance of making an impact in their immediate lineup, they aren't afraid to trade him to help fix a hole.

I get the feeling that this tactic scares a lot of people on HF who are used to thinking 5+ years down the line when player X "reaches his potential." Or this lineup is "going to be awesome in 3 years." The Wings want their lineup to be great right now, and Holland finds ways to do it.

Quiet Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2008, 09:01 PM
  #154
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet Robert View Post
Ah, you're right, I had forgotten about that. He's going to be one hell of a player, but I can understand why Detroit made that move.

If anything, the fact that they were willing and able to trade a prospect like Matthias for questionable immediate help speaks to the confidence they have in their prospect depth and their ability to replenish their stock.

This thread has shown that too many people on HF lose focus of the ultimate goal. Take the LA Kings; they're probably the perfect HF team. Los Angeles has an amazing stable of prospects and has been drafting exceptionally well since 2000. Problem is they haven't progressed to rank of contender since then and instead have dumped some of those solid picks for more prospects. (Vishnovsky, Cammalleri etc...)

By contrast, the Wings pick shrewdly, aren't afraid to trade picks or prospects to make their team better. Essentially they use the picks and prospects to better the NHL team, not to build up a nice group of potential stars. That's what makes them so good. If they've drafted a solid player they know has no chance of making an impact in their immediate lineup, they aren't afraid to trade him to help fix a hole.

I get the feeling that this tactic scares a lot of people on HF who are used to thinking 5+ years down the line when player X "reaches his potential." Or this lineup is "going to be awesome in 3 years." The Wings want their lineup to be great right now, and Holland finds ways to do it.
Agreed.

They draft well but Holland is also very good with asset management and Detroit has such trust in their abilities to find and develop guys that Holland is blessed with dealing from a position of strength and has the luxury of moving prospects to improve his lineup without giving up roster players.

After Detroits two-in-a-row Cups of the 90's, in the three-peat year, the Red Wings made trades to acquire Chris Chelios, Ulf Samuellson, Wendel Clark and Bill Ranford at the deadline.

While they didn't win a third cup that Spring, it's great for the fanbase of the club when their reigning two time champions have no plans to rest on their laurels and go all out like that at the deadline. And even a big deadline spending spree like that did little to hurt their pipe line of young players.


Last edited by FerrisRox: 07-13-2008 at 11:09 PM.
FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 10:45 AM
  #155
Ti-girl
Registered User
 
Ti-girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Merida, Mexico
Country: Mexico
Posts: 7,913
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Ti-girl Send a message via Yahoo to Ti-girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
I agree wholeheartedly.

The only measuring stick I give a damn about is Stanley Cups.

Didn't the Wings trade Mathias to get Bertuzzi?
Yes, though apparently the other player they wanted was Helm and the Wings weren't willing to give him up.

__________________
"I channeled my inner Morneau, took the stick and hit the mother****** to the moooon!"
Ti-girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 10:53 AM
  #156
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Yeah, I'll be your guess. Whatever the hell that means.

Speaking of things that are confusing ... Why you keep called me biased. You do know what the word means, right?

Because you are accusing me of being biased. For like the Detroit package of players better then the Canadiens package. And I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan.

You're a big confused on the meaning of biased. And judging from the other puzzling things you've saidin this thread, you're confused about a few other things too.

So keep getting aggressive, keep ranting, and keeping calling me names like "loser" because I don't agree with you. Because it sure makes you look classy, and it sure makes your points more valid.

Give yourself a hand.

Yeah... now try to defend your own rating that you gave.... we'll have a good laugh.

And also, I know precisely what bias means, don't tell me you're only a fan of the Habs because it doesn't seem so.

It also makes you look very classy, in your case, when instead of focusing on the arguments at hand, and instead of proving your point, with comparisons, examples and facts, you rather take the easy road and make only unsubstantiated statements and question my age as if this will give more validity to your hollow statements.

Now will you take on the arguments or again side-step them?

I won't hold my breath.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 11:18 AM
  #157
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helm1Crosby0 View Post
Yeah I'm sure Kariya, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Koivu, Gagner ect...agree.


(I'm just giving you a hard time.)
Same here.

Those players are all more skilled. Datsyuk and Koivu play with some grit too.

If Montreal got Mats, Koivu would be bumped down even more.

Kariya is a winger. When Zetterberg, Datsyuk play together, Datsyuk seems to be on the wing.

Sam Gagner is more skilled and more potential than Helm.

A good example of what you mean would be Philadelphia, with Briere and Carter. I think I heard Briere is moving to wing now, allowing Carter to move to the 2nd line.

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 08:33 PM
  #158
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Yeah... now try to defend your own rating that you gave.... we'll have a good laugh.

And also, I know precisely what bias means, don't tell me you're only a fan of the Habs because it doesn't seem so.

It also makes you look very classy, in your case, when instead of focusing on the arguments at hand, and instead of proving your point, with comparisons, examples and facts, you rather take the easy road and make only unsubstantiated statements and question my age as if this will give more validity to your hollow statements.

Now will you take on the arguments or again side-step them?

I won't hold my breath.
Your "facts" include saying things like Johan Franzen hasn't proven as much as Michael Ryder. If you actually believe that to be true, and you appear to, there's really nothing I can say to you.

I'm sure you're really passionate about hockey.

I'm sure you're a huge fan.

I'm sure you think you know a lot about the league and the players.

But seriously, I mean, there's some patently ridiculous things you've said, like the above comment, that really make it clear to me that I really don't want to engage in a "debate" with you about these things.

As for your age, I really don't care how old you are, but you seem to have the bluster and arrogance of youth, and your comments on Pierre Turgeon (that Mike Ribeiro had better vision, for example) make it quite clear that you never saw Turgeon play as a Sabre, Islander or even a Hab, so it was pretty clear to me you're probably a teenager at best.

That's not to say teenagers can't be great contributors to this site, merely that this thread isn't a solid example of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet Robert View Post
This thread has shown that too many people on HF lose focus of the ultimate goal. Take the LA Kings; they're probably the perfect HF team. Los Angeles has an amazing stable of prospects and has been drafting exceptionally well since 2000. Problem is they haven't progressed to rank of contender since then and instead have dumped some of those solid picks for more prospects. (Vishnovsky, Cammalleri etc...)

By contrast, the Wings pick shrewdly, aren't afraid to trade picks or prospects to make their team better. Essentially they use the picks and prospects to better the NHL team, not to build up a nice group of potential stars. That's what makes them so good. If they've drafted a solid player they know has no chance of making an impact in their immediate lineup, they aren't afraid to trade him to help fix a hole.

I get the feeling that this tactic scares a lot of people on HF who are used to thinking 5+ years down the line when player X "reaches his potential." Or this lineup is "going to be awesome in 3 years." The Wings want their lineup to be great right now, and Holland finds ways to do it.

This is an excellent post. Too bad it's in a thread where I think a lot of the great posters on this board have long ago left!


Last edited by Beakermania*: 07-14-2008 at 10:32 PM.
FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 09:41 PM
  #159
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
Your "facts" include saying things like Johan Franzen hasn't proven as much as Michael Ryder. If you actually believe that to be true, and you appear to, there's really nothing I can say to you.
Yeah, Franzen has scored how many 30 goal seasons? There is a difference in the type of players they are, here, that you've yet again completely overlooked. How many 30 goal scorers are there in this league, tell me? Yes, I know that stats aren't everything, yet to discount them all together to fit your pov is 'patently ridiculous'. Tell me, how many seasons of 60 points, how many seasons of 50 points has Franzen had? None. At the age of 28 he got his first season of 25+ goals this season. Ryder did that at 24 and had 3 seasons of 25+ goals. They bring different aspects to the game and Ryder did make more accomplishments. Also, again, you twist what I say. I said that Ryder had much more accomplishments, there is a big difference between that and "hasn't proven has much". You've got your head so way up the place the sun don't shine, that you've also forgot that I put almost the exact same rating for both players (Ryder 75 and Franzen 74). This goes into a long list of twisting my words and side-steping arguments. Still unable to prove your point, you make a hollow statement, twisting my words, so you can escape the arguments and shove them away.

Quote:
I'm sure you're really passionate about hockey.

I'm sure you're a huge fan.

I'm sure you think you know a lot about the league and the players.

But seriously, I mean, there's some patently ridiculous things you've said, like the above comment, that really make it clear to me that I really don't want to engage in a "debate" with you about these things.
Maybe it's just your age? Maybe you don't have the maturity needed, or the cognitive faculties needed to debate this, so you just evade the arguments, giving pityful excuses to dodge them, which I have grown accustomed to, it's becoming quite funny the way you always do this. It's quite easy to do like you did. I could've just taken your first utterly laughable 'rating' of "superstars" "good guys" and "sold support players" and I could just run away from the debate by saying, "oh, if you believe this, it's just not worth having this debate with you". Pretty childish of an attitude, if you ask me.


Quote:
As for your age, I really don't care how old you are, but you seem to have the bluster and arrogance of youth,
Yeah this from the guy who's only argument (without substance, which I am still waiting for) from the get-go was :

Quote:
"because the Detroit group of players is unquestionably better then the Montreal group."
It really takes supreme arrogance to say it's unquestionable, without bringing anything to back it up (besides your quick ratings that I've already shown were pathetic and which you even haven't tried to defend, even worst, you've lowered yourself into making fun of me for trying to give more explicative ratings. Now THAT takes arrogance). That is a form of rhetoric where the orator/writer puts himself in a place of authority, so that his statement may stand alone. It is unquestionable, so you cannot question it! Next time you try to portray somebody for something that he is not make sure you aren't doing exactly what you accuse the other of doing.

Quote:
and your comments on Pierre Turgeon (that Mike Ribeiro had better vision, for example) make it quite clear that you never saw Turgeon play as a Sabre, Islander or even a Hab, so it was pretty clear to me you're probably a teenager at best.
Do you actually realize that Turgeon had his best years in a totally different league that the one Ribeiro is playing. Do you even realize that Turgeon took advantage of his speed to create plays? Something Ribeiro can't do. Ribeiro has to rely on his wits and hockey vision way more.

And guess what, you can start questioning your poor sense of logic and deduction because I started watching hockey when Turgeon started playing. He was a player I always liked, far more than Ribeiro I might add. The second this league became more defensive minded as it did in the mid-90s, Turgeon's production started to decline. Not saying he was responsible for that because of weaker play, but rather because of the change the league had in its approach of the game. Ribeiro was raised into the defensive minded NHL and showed great hockey vision to be able to make such good passes with such an average speed. In this same NHL, the defensive one, Ribeiro has shown as much production as Turgeon (yet they are different players who use different abilities to attain the same ends). BTW, when I mentioned the differences between the two, it was to counter your, yet unsubstantiated, statement that Ribeiro was a poor man's Turgeon, which is left to opinion because they are different players. Just the fact that you compare Turgeon's heydays with the Isles and Buffalo with Ribs in the present day, in a totally different league, shows me just how little logical reasoning you have.

You see, this is once again your ploy of trying to make a hollow statement, without going into details, to yet again try to avoid confronting the issues at hand.


Quote:
That's not to say teenagers can't be great contributors to this site, merely that this thread isn't a solid example of it.
Yes, you are right on this one, you are proving exactly that, by acting as one. Now man up, confront the arguments, try to defend your own pathetic rating. Put up or shut up.

Come on, tell everyone how you equated Franzen, Filppula, but especially Fleishmman, Kopecky and Hudler to the likes of Ribeiro and Plekanec. Tell everyone how you've managed to rate Sergei Kostitsyn (and to a lesser degree, Ryder and Streit) on a lower level than Fleishmman, Kopecky and Hudler.... I'm still waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet Robert View Post
Ah, you're right, I had forgotten about that. He's going to be one hell of a player, but I can understand why Detroit made that move.

If anything, the fact that they were willing and able to trade a prospect like Matthias for questionable immediate help speaks to the confidence they have in their prospect depth and their ability to replenish their stock.

This thread has shown that too many people on HF lose focus of the ultimate goal. Take the LA Kings; they're probably the perfect HF team. Los Angeles has an amazing stable of prospects and has been drafting exceptionally well since 2000. Problem is they haven't progressed to rank of contender since then and instead have dumped some of those solid picks for more prospects. (Vishnovsky, Cammalleri etc...)

By contrast, the Wings pick shrewdly, aren't afraid to trade picks or prospects to make their team better. Essentially they use the picks and prospects to better the NHL team, not to build up a nice group of potential stars. That's what makes them so good. If they've drafted a solid player they know has no chance of making an impact in their immediate lineup, they aren't afraid to trade him to help fix a hole.

I get the feeling that this tactic scares a lot of people on HF who are used to thinking 5+ years down the line when player X "reaches his potential." Or this lineup is "going to be awesome in 3 years." The Wings want their lineup to be great right now, and Holland finds ways to do it.

I agree wholeheartedly. But the OP tried to compare the team's drafts, not the management of the clubs, which should be left for a different thread altogether.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 07-14-2008 at 10:33 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 10:25 PM
  #160
1111111111111000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
You guys are just taking it way too seriously !!

That's what amazed me the most with forums... you can't just bring up an idea whitout having a dude jumping on trying to destroy your statement.

I was wrong on many points and I didn't take some important factors in consideration, but there were poster here that did impress me by trying to find a constructive way to elevate what I brought here.

For those who felt humilated by this thread, I'm really sorry for that. I was taking a break at the office and while I was looking at some stats on hockeydb I thought I should share it with people here who are great fans of hockey and of their own thoughts.

1111111111111000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 10:45 PM
  #161
deandebean
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gatineau, cālisse
Country: uriname
Posts: 8,686
vCash: 500
This thread was a treat, really. Opposite views make a thread mucho interesting.

I'm a bit shocked about the Pierre Turgeon stuff. Turgeon, in his best days, was a PREMIER passer. Probably top 5 in the league. I know it's unjust to compare eras, but Pierre had magic hands (that's why his nickname was Le Magicien de Rouyn). His production dropped off only because his skating was not up to par, and the hook and grab era got to him. Right now, as of today, Mike Ribeiro doesn't compare to Turgeon in his best days. Not even close.

deandebean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 11:57 PM
  #162
Russeltown
Registered User
 
Russeltown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyven View Post
You guys are just taking it way too seriously !!

That's what amazed me the most with forums... you can't just bring up an idea whitout having a dude jumping on trying to destroy your statement.

I was wrong on many points and I didn't take some important factors in consideration, but there were poster here that did impress me by trying to find a constructive way to elevate what I brought here.

For those who felt humilated by this thread, I'm really sorry for that. I was taking a break at the office and while I was looking at some stats on hockeydb I thought I should share it with people here who are great fans of hockey and of their own thoughts.
Shut Up!


Russeltown's attempt #1 to destroy Keyven's statement

Russeltown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2008, 11:59 PM
  #163
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
This thread was a treat, really. Opposite views make a thread mucho interesting.

I'm a bit shocked about the Pierre Turgeon stuff. Turgeon, in his best days, was a PREMIER passer. Probably top 5 in the league. I know it's unjust to compare eras, but Pierre had magic hands (that's why his nickname was Le Magicien de Rouyn). His production dropped off only because his skating was not up to par, and the hook and grab era got to him. Right now, as of today, Mike Ribeiro doesn't compare to Turgeon in his best days. Not even close.
I agree, Pierre was felled by his skating and his lack of speed. He had decent wheels, but his total lack of grit meant that he was going to be slowed by hooks, holds and any kind of obstruction. He seemed unable to power through.

He was far and away a superior player to Ribeiro, in every single capacity. He was incredibly skilled offensively. Turgeon was a totally one-dimensional player, but the one dimension he had was truly elite. What was frustrating about Turgeon wasn't what he did, but what he didn't do.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 06:52 AM
  #164
1111111111111000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 350
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russeltown View Post
Shut Up!


Russeltown's attempt #1 to destroy Keyven's statement
Oh and I sure will !

1111111111111000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 07:42 AM
  #165
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deandebean View Post
This thread was a treat, really. Opposite views make a thread mucho interesting.

I'm a bit shocked about the Pierre Turgeon stuff. Turgeon, in his best days, was a PREMIER passer. Probably top 5 in the league. I know it's unjust to compare eras, but Pierre had magic hands (that's why his nickname was Le Magicien de Rouyn). His production dropped off only because his skating was not up to par, and the hook and grab era got to him. Right now, as of today, Mike Ribeiro doesn't compare to Turgeon in his best days. Not even close.
I was going to point that out to Ozy, Turgeon's wheels weren't elite, but his hands and offensive vision were. A lot of supremely talented players never had to learn attn. to detail and Turgeon imo, is a good example.

mcphee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 11:27 AM
  #166
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
I was going to point that out to Ozy, Turgeon's wheels weren't elite, but his hands and offensive vision were. A lot of supremely talented players never had to learn attn. to detail and Turgeon imo, is a good example.
He had much more speed than Ribeiro that's for sure. I've seen Turgeon play a lot and most players who were quick on their skates got slowed down by the hooking, only the supreme skaters like Bure and Fedorov could get away from it and the big players who were hard to take away from the puck. You even pointed out that getting hooked slowed him down, now doesn't that give weight to my assertion that he used his speed to make great passes? Ribeiro played in this era of hooking and slowing dow players, but already a slow player, he uses his vision a lot more to try and make plays. I sincerly wonder what Ribeiro would've looked like in those years. But anyway comparing results in the old and new NHL is like comparing apples to oranges and FerrisRox is the one who first made that comparison, I just tried to show that Ribeiro in his own way was able to produce at a high level using different aspects of the game and nobody can't deny that. We could argue for ages on the differences between the two. For whatever its worth, this started (about Turgeon and Ribeiro) by Ferrix saying Ribeiro wasn't close to a superstar, yet he finished 13th in the league in points, 13th over 850 players, best pointer of his team, as if his progression shouldn't be included like those of the other players mentioned (Franzen, Filppula), as if only those Detroit players aren't flukes in their progression and Ribeiro is. And then, even equating on the same level, players like Hudler, Kopecky and Fleishmman with the likes of Ribeiro and Plekanec and putting them all on a higher level than Ryder, Streit and especially Sergei Kostitsyn. Yet FerrisRox deviates the discussion to include his own comparison of Turgeon and Ribeiro, without defending his own statement (the ratings) that were meant to counter mine.

Anyway...

Keyven : "That's what amazed me the most with forums... you can't just bring up an idea whitout having a dude jumping on trying to destroy your statement."

Well that's exactly what FerrisRix did, and he didn't even try to substantiate his claim, he jumped on my opinion that the lot of players compared was CLOSE in OVERALL quality and quantity and made a feeble attempt at rating the players and then laughed at my own much more elaborate attempt to compare the players named, without even going into it again, but yet kept replying the same statement that my assertions weren't good, without much to back it up. This is a forum to discuss and debate hockey/habs related things and I am fully entitled to defend my own points especially in the weak way they were countered.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 12:21 PM
  #167
UWHabs
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
Well, there is a lot more to be said than just points. Ribeiro and Ryder are very 1-dimensional. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked GMs, just about all of them would take a guy like Franzen, even if he's never cracked 40 points in his career, ahead of a guy like Ribeiro, even if he was over a point per game last year.

As for overall which team has better drafting? I dunno. Both have been good. I'd certainly trade our results for the last 10 years for Detroit's, but we've got a lot of good kids coming up now.

UWHabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 05:14 PM
  #168
Quiet Robert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I agree wholeheartedly. But the OP tried to compare the team's drafts, not the management of the clubs, which should be left for a different thread altogether.
That brings up an interesting debate. How do we distinguish between solid drafting, solid development and solid management? I haven't really thought it through, but my guess is it's all pretty grey with few clear lines.

For me management is inextricably tied to drafting. A good draft is immensely helpful in roster management. You draft 5-10 players every year and on average maybe 2 become NHL regulars. So what you do with the rest of those picks can be just as important as how you develop your future NHLers. Take Grabovski for instance, was he a good pick because he was no.150? Because he he developed into an NHLer? Or because he got us an asset and a high pick?

The answer is probably that all three factors make him a "good pick." Gainey, knowing Grabovski had little future in the organization's plans, was able to trade an asset he acquired in the draft for defensive depth and a high pick.

Conversely, we lost a no.25 pick, Alexander Perezhogin to RSL, yet the team didn't hit a bump. Is Perezhogin a bad pick? Was his development off track? Did the team mismanage him? So there are many ways to go about this. It's a lot more complex than looking at 2001 and saying 2 out of 8 picks made it to the NHL. 25% =great draft. That is definitely a solid start but there's more to it.

We also picked up two solid AHLers, a part-time NHLer and a part-time AHLer. So we picked up assets in 6 of 8 picks. This helped our depth which down the line allowed to trade a guy like Grabovski and lose a guy like Perezhogin without it meaning much to the big club. So basically I'm just saying that when you look at whether or not Detroit "drafts well" you're looking at a complicated subject.

-But when you break it down to its simplest elements, you're looking Stanley Cup winning team that has 9/12 forwards, 4/8 dmen, 1/2 goalies that come from the system. That is amazing drafting no matter how complicated your analysis gets.

Quiet Robert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 07:11 PM
  #169
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UWHabs View Post
Well, there is a lot more to be said than just points. Ribeiro and Ryder are very 1-dimensional. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked GMs, just about all of them would take a guy like Franzen, even if he's never cracked 40 points in his career, ahead of a guy like Ribeiro, even if he was over a point per game last year.
Of course they would.

Franzen delivered in the PLAYOFFS and helped his team win games when it mattered most. Who gives a damn about 30-goal seasons when you've got a a guy who delivers with clutch goals in the most intense, pressure packed time of the year?

To suggest that Ryder and Franzen are even remotely close in terms of value, in my mind is absurd.

A one-dimensional goal scorer with a quick release and a knack for finding open ice, but no other attributes, or a solid all around player, with a good shot, plays defense, plays with good hustle, has some grit, and delivered huge goals in a march to the Stanley Cup?

I would honestly be shocked if even one General Manager selected Ryder over Franzen.

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 09:25 PM
  #170
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FerrisRox View Post
I would honestly be shocked if even one General Manager selected Ryder over Franzen.
I would honestly be shocked if even one General Manager selected either Kopecky, Fleishmman or Hudler over any of Plekanec, Ribeiro, Streit and S Kostitsyn.


BTW, by any chance, do you like Umberger too? Pretty similar cases. (8 of his 10 goals and 9 of his 15 points in the playoffs against the Habs) And because of one playoff series (not the entire run) we should all see him greater than most players on the Habs list right?

Franzen had 10 of his 18 points and 9 of his 13 goals, in the 4 games against Colorado, a series that saw Theodore be his usual self and completely crumbled, and the Avs allowed 21 goals in 4 games. The rest of the playoffs was a bit different, having 3 points in 5 games against the Pens which was close to his ppg production of the season and overall had 8 points in his 12 games outside of the series against Colorado. At this rate, S Kost produced 8 points in his first 12 playoff games at the age of 21 and had a similar season production in terms of PPG, yet he's 8 years younger, but you put him in a lower category in your ratings, you classified him as solely a "sold support player". And the only game of the series against Colorado that was close, was his less productive. Let's just see what he brings next season, because one great playoff run doesn't make a career (Zednik). In last year's playoffs, Franzen had only 8 points in 18 games and didn't play Colorado. You are putting all the emphasis on this year's playoff run. Quite the tunnel vision you have.

I wonder just how many GMs would chose Umberger or Franzen over S Kost, but that's not the point, you just seem easily impressionable and have a lot of love for Detroit right now, or else I can't explain how someone would rate Fleishmman and Kopecky on the same level as Ribeiro and Plekanec and on a higher level than Streit, Ryder and S kostitsyn.


Last edited by Ozymandias: 07-15-2008 at 09:59 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2008, 11:23 PM
  #171
FerrisRox
Registered User
 
FerrisRox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I would honestly be shocked if even one General Manager selected either Kopecky, Fleishmman or Hudler over any of Plekanec, Ribeiro, Streit and S Kostitsyn.


BTW, by any chance, do you like Umberger too? Pretty similar cases. (8 of his 10 goals and 9 of his 15 points in the playoffs against the Habs) And because of one playoff series (not the entire run) we should all see him greater than most players on the Habs list right?

Franzen had 10 of his 18 points and 9 of his 13 goals, in the 4 games against Colorado, a series that saw Theodore be his usual self and completely crumbled, and the Avs allowed 21 goals in 4 games. The rest of the playoffs was a bit different, having 3 points in 5 games against the Pens which was close to his ppg production of the season and overall had 8 points in his 12 games outside of the series against Colorado. At this rate, S Kost produced 8 points in his first 12 playoff games at the age of 21 and had a similar season production in terms of PPG, yet he's 8 years younger, but you put him in a lower category in your ratings, you classified him as solely a "sold support player". And the only game of the series against Colorado that was close, was his less productive. Let's just see what he brings next season, because one great playoff run doesn't make a career (Zednik). In last year's playoffs, Franzen had only 8 points in 18 games and didn't play Colorado. You are putting all the emphasis on this year's playoff run. Quite the tunnel vision you have.

I wonder just how many GMs would chose Umberger or Franzen over S Kost, but that's not the point, you just seem easily impressionable and have a lot of love for Detroit right now, or else I can't explain how someone would rate Fleishmman and Kopecky on the same level as Ribeiro and Plekanec and on a higher level than Streit, Ryder and S kostitsyn.


You just don't get it.

You do realize people are laughing about this, right?

FerrisRox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 07:02 PM
  #172
r0bert8841
Registered User
 
r0bert8841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,428
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to r0bert8841
Update on Detroit's part. But interesting thread, would be interested to see how much progress the Habs have made. Detroit's draft picks have improved alot over the year though.

1998
Datsyuk 6th round Detroits 1st liner, 97 points

1999
Zetterberg 7th round Detroits 1st liner, 73pts

2000
Kronwall 1st round Detroits 3rd Dman, 51 points
Kopecky 2nd round Detroits 3rd/4th liner, 19 points

2002
Meech 7th round Detroits 7th Dman
Ericsson 9th round Detroits 5/6th Dman, but will be top 4 in the near future
Hudler 2nd round Detroits PP specialist, 57 points
Fleischmann 2nd round Washingtons 2nd/3rd liner, 37 points
Filppula 3rd round Detroit 2nd/3rd line center, 40 points

2003
Quincey 4th round Los Angeles top 4 Dman, 38 points
Howard 2nd round Detroits backup goalie next season

2004
Franzen 3rd round Detroits 2nd line power forward, 34 goals 59 points

2005
Helm 5th round Detroits future 3rd line center

2006
Matthias 2nd round played 16 games with Florida Panthers, 2 points

Undrafted
2000 Sean Avery, DAL/NYR I don't need to explain
2001 Jason Williams, ATL/CBJ 47 points
2003 Matt Ellis, BUF 12 points
2003 Joey MacDonald, NYI http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3220
2005 Brett Lebda, DET 6th Dman 16 points
2009 Ville Leino, DET 3rd liner(that we don't have room for) 13gp 9pts

r0bert8841 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 08:03 PM
  #173
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 9,211
vCash: 500
As much as people say tanking helps you get top draft picks, perhaps the fact that your current team is solid, is a perennial contender due to a core of players, there is room to take a risk on those late rounders who have a low chance of blossoming but if they do would be killer. Maybe having a good enough team already and the room to maneuver if those Zets and Dats don't end up developing well (or ftm Franzens, Liljas, Filpulas, etc) lets you gamble a bit and wait to take them in later rounds (while other teams wouldn't be able to do that). This is an imperfect analogy cuz were talking early picks here, but we took a chance on Akost and of recent (due to an alleged attitude problem) Fischer. Akost has gotten over his medical disorder (although whatever medication it is seems to have a side effect of low motivation) and Fischer might turn out to be huge for us as an all-round good offensive D man.

still is unbelievable to me how all those guys have become SO dominant as late picks (does environment, organization development make the biggest difference?)

habtastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 08:04 PM
  #174
flappuck
Registered User
 
flappuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,263
vCash: 500
Detroit's strenght is not necessarely in their drafting but rather in their development program.

They manage to get the maximum out of the players they draft.

flappuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2009, 08:18 PM
  #175
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 9,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pam19 View Post
Detroit has been drafting very well.
Only recently we are starting to draft NHL players years after years and it pays:
  • Best offense in the league;
  • Very good defense;
  • Goaler who has potential to be among top-3 for many years.

But for now, Detroit is the regning Stanley Cup champion and is the only team that won two cups in a row in the last 20 years.

Goal for - Goals against
Detroit had 0.89 more goal than they were scored.
Habs were second with 0.5 goal than they scored (0.39 less than Detroit).
Third one had 0.4 goal more than they scored.

Detroit has the best defense in the league and their playing in the Stanley cup finals was a pleasure to watch.
Detroit has improved by adding Hossa to a line-up that was already well balanced.
Finally, they have Cup experience.

For next year, I expect Montreal to improve the best offense of the league (even more if we get Sundin).
To have a better defense (remove Streit and give more experience to O'Byrne and Gorges).
Price also should be able to improve. Price + Halak will be a better duo than Huet + First year Price.

I still give the edge to Detroit but I like the team spirit in Montreal.

With Sundin, I believe Montreal should be considered as the first contender and Detroit as the defending champion.

All in all, you are looking at teams that have four good lines and a good defense. These are both well balanced teams.
Wow, I just notice that this was an old thread. Reading this was pretty funny cuz we all sorta had the same idea last summer....oh how strangely things have shaped up.

-Streit leaving killed the PP....thankfully we got (imho) an upgrade but far too late for the season
-OB + ice time --> dissssasssster (Gorges has remained status quo, which is decent and filling in a big role, but by no means an absolutely solid D...still has lots of potential and work to do given his size, would love for him to somehow become a rafalski-type player)
-offense....strangely, we haven't been that bad...more so our goals against, but certainly that Mats plan didn't pan out...personally I would have preferred if we had gotten Robert Lang...oh wait
-Price + Halak...hmmmm...if you take away the unpredictable injury then I actually think that yeah, this duo has more goaltending power than Huet + Price. Let's just hope we don't have an economic collapse (if you know what I mean )

habtastic 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 04:11 AM.

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.