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

We may've gone over this...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-22-2004, 07:29 PM
  #1
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,469
vCash: 500
We may've gone over this...

but I finally went onto ESPN.com to check out its draft coverage, and I really do get a kick out of how clueless (in my opinion) they are. We've argued in here what player should be picked. Most agree to BPA, some agree to a variation to that, and there are others. ESPN says goaltending or defense, pick one (to paraphrase). What makes this funny is that, I believe, ESPN is stating what the Rangers' problem was last season - goaltending and defense. Why I find that funny is it doesn't take into consideration what is currently in the system and where players in certain positions are in their development. One thing I think many of us will agree upon is that you don't typically draft for something that was deficient in your team the last season. ESPN is really sad.

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-22-2004, 07:39 PM
  #2
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but I finally went onto ESPN.com to check out its draft coverage, and I really do get a kick out of how clueless (in my opinion) they are. We've argued in here what player should be picked. Most agree to BPA, some agree to a variation to that, and there are others. ESPN says goaltending or defense, pick one (to paraphrase). What makes this funny is that, I believe, ESPN is stating what the Rangers' problem was last season - goaltending and defense. Why I find that funny is it doesn't take into consideration what is currently in the system and where players in certain positions are in their development. One thing I think many of us will agree upon is that you don't typically draft for something that was deficient in your team the last season. ESPN is really sad.
That's EJ Hradek. No homework whatsoever. What does Mike Dunham's poor showing last year have to do with drafting a player who probably won't be ready for another three to four years. AND, Blackburn's shoulder has been corrected. AND, Lundquist will be brought over next after at least a half a year of facing NHL talent that migrated to Sweden due to the lockout. Three biggest needs in the organization - #1-caliber center, #1-caliber wing and a #1 caliber d-man.

jas is offline  
Old
06-22-2004, 07:42 PM
  #3
Radek27
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,294
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but I finally went onto ESPN.com to check out its draft coverage, and I really do get a kick out of how clueless (in my opinion) they are. We've argued in here what player should be picked. Most agree to BPA, some agree to a variation to that, and there are others. ESPN says goaltending or defense, pick one (to paraphrase). What makes this funny is that, I believe, ESPN is stating what the Rangers' problem was last season - goaltending and defense. Why I find that funny is it doesn't take into consideration what is currently in the system and where players in certain positions are in their development. One thing I think many of us will agree upon is that you don't typically draft for something that was deficient in your team the last season. ESPN is really sad.

Well most teams while building or rebuilding try to build from the goal and blueline out first. Blackburn and Lundqvist are anything but NHL proven as is a lot of our defensive prospects. I agree though that ESPN should have done more research on this though cause they do a really in depth look at the NFL draft why can't it be that way for hockey?

Radek27 is offline  
Old
06-22-2004, 09:32 PM
  #4
Ocelot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
but I finally went onto ESPN.com to check out its draft coverage, and I really do get a kick out of how clueless (in my opinion) they are. We've argued in here what player should be picked. Most agree to BPA, some agree to a variation to that, and there are others. ESPN says goaltending or defense, pick one (to paraphrase). What makes this funny is that, I believe, ESPN is stating what the Rangers' problem was last season - goaltending and defense. Why I find that funny is it doesn't take into consideration what is currently in the system and where players in certain positions are in their development. One thing I think many of us will agree upon is that you don't typically draft for something that was deficient in your team the last season. ESPN is really sad.

Yeah I agree 100%/

Ocelot is offline  
Old
06-22-2004, 11:14 PM
  #5
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
ESPN is really sad.
You knew that heading in. I think the type of astute analysis you are looking for can only be found at some bar on 33rd, listening to bad 80's music.

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-22-2004, 11:46 PM
  #6
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radek27
they do a really in depth look at the NFL draft why can't it be that way for hockey?
If hockey had 10% of the fans that football had, then they probably would. Listen to sports radio or television - people constantly watch and discuss the NFL draft a month or more before it even comes up. Certain players are commonly discussed WAY before the draft.

I bet a day before the NHL draft you'll have practically noone outside the hockey world talking about it (In the US).

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 03:30 AM
  #7
Radek27
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,294
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
If hockey had 10% of the fans that football had, then they probably would. Listen to sports radio or television - people constantly watch and discuss the NFL draft a month or more before it even comes up. Certain players are commonly discussed WAY before the draft.

I bet a day before the NHL draft you'll have practically noone outside the hockey world talking about it (In the US).
Well also there are a lot of college football fans that know these guys getting drafted. I think I already expressed my frustration about trying to see college and jr games.

Radek27 is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 07:35 AM
  #8
donpaulo
Capt Barry Beck
 
donpaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: nihon
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,612
vCash: 500
the way ESPN has botched the job on Hockey is partially responsible for the terrible ratings on TV. Terrible just terrible... and clueless too. Tom Mees is rolling over in his grave about now.

donpaulo is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 06:07 PM
  #9
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Well blame the average american with their fascination with football.

It's ironic that the average person loves the sport that out of 4 major one's, probably requires the list skill.

Edge is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 06:17 PM
  #10
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
What about crappy Basketball, i dont understand how anyone watches Basketball. So boring and takes no talent. All you have to be is tall. The problem with hockey, is that it's too complicated for the average person to follow and understand, people like their activities dumbed down...like basketball. We need to start getting people to follow hockey more, best sport in the world.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 06:23 PM
  #11
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20
What about crappy Basketball, i dont understand how anyone watches Basketball. So boring and takes no talent. All you have to be is tall. The problem with hockey, is that it's too complicated for the average person to follow and understand, people like their activities dumbed down...like basketball. We need to start getting people to follow hockey more, best sport in the world.

I'm not a fan of basketball, but running around a court without a break can be tiring.

For me if you tried to replace any sport with srubs, football would be the easiest. That has been proved by all the indoor leagues and canadian leagues and XFL league's that have sprung up.

Edge is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 07:46 PM
  #12
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I'm not a fan of basketball, but running around a court without a break can be tiring.

For me if you tried to replace any sport with srubs, football would be the easiest. That has been proved by all the indoor leagues and canadian leagues and XFL league's that have sprung up.
I agree...But would u also agree that hockey is the most physically demanding and talent demanding sport out of the 4 major sports? The problem with watching hockey on TV, is that the fan does not see the skill involved in something like just shooting a puck, or turning or stopping on a dime. The average person cannot perform these tasks. Anyone can pick up a basketball and play, but it takes special talent to play hockey...This is a hard point to get across on TV, considering the players make it look so easy.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 08:55 PM
  #13
Unknownbutfamous
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Unknownbutfamous
I hate when tall, basketball a$$ wipes brag about how they are better than everyone else. Then I tell them, " Your two feet away from the basket, how do you not expect to score"

Unknownbutfamous is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 09:11 PM
  #14
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
wow, talk about a bunch of sour sports (no pun intended.) It takes no skill to play basketball? You try putting a ball in a basket from 23 feet away with a hand in your face, or trying to put a up past a guy 7 feet tall. Whether or not you like the sport, how can you say that it takes no skill? Not to mention the fact that basketball players are probably the best pure athletes in the world.

Hockey's my favoriet sport too, but lets not get rediculus.

xander is offline  
Old
06-23-2004, 09:39 PM
  #15
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,595
vCash: 500
Baseball takes the most talent IMHO. There are just TOO many players. You have to be so unbeilievably good to even have a remote chance to be in the bigs.

Barnaby is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:15 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.