HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Compare your picks vs Trevor Timmins

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2009, 09:00 AM
  #51
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The point of the guys you quoted is that none of us have a much of a clue how any of the guys picked played.
Most people didn't even see any of our picks play one single game.

So to sit here and blurt out names is simply useless.

I'm not gonna pretend to know about all the players drafted and say I'd have picked him or him instead.

Some people are entertained differently I guess...
It's just for fun...in a few years, we'll be able to take a look at this thread and really laugh about it. It's fun for the future

Freaky Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 09:02 AM
  #52
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freaky Habs Fan View Post
It's just for fun...in a few years, we'll be able to take a look at this thread and really laugh about it. It's fun for the future
No it's not....because when someone was lucky enough to put the names of 2-3 good players on their lists they start believing they are better then the team's scouts.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 09:10 AM
  #53
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babyfart McGeezax View Post
Am I the only one that think there must be a problem with Schroeder? You don't drop that much when you're ranked that high. Must be a reason he was passed over so many teams after the good combine he had.
Teams also passed on Zach Parise and Ryan Getzlaf. It's not that simple.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 09:17 AM
  #54
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
No it's not....because when someone was lucky enough to put the names of 2-3 good players on their lists they start believing they are better then the team's scouts.
no need to worry about that, we've got the habs board police here to make sure no one gets out of line, in the name of entertainment or otherwise

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 09:42 AM
  #55
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
No it's not....because when someone was lucky enough to put the names of 2-3 good players on their lists they start believing they are better then the team's scouts.
So call me stupid if sometimes I belives that you and some other insightful posters seemed to have better ideas than some professionnals that we have that run or ran this team. At one point, people will understand that being a "professionnal" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be free of being stupid. We saw that a whole lot with our past managements.....

As far as this exercice is concerned, I will always praise the posters who are honest enough to tell us their good moves they would have make but also let us know the bad ones. That way, I don't see how anybody can pretend they'd be superior.

At one point, people in here should just acknowledge that this draft exercice we're having is just based of things we know. Surely we are knowledgeable as Mr. Timmins. But we are not paid to do so either. We cannot travel so we'd be more knowledgeable. We give our opinions based on what we know. Might be very little but it's better than nothing. 'Cause if you are against that exercice, you should be against having a draft thread in the first place. 'Cause what's the point of having one if our opinions don't matter, it's not like Timmins need them to make his own opinion, and it's not like we know a whole lot as well.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 10:04 AM
  #56
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
So call me stupid if sometimes I belives that you and some other insightful posters seemed to have better ideas than some professionnals that we have that run or ran this team. At one point, people will understand that being a "professionnal" doesn't necessarily mean that you can be free of being stupid. We saw that a whole lot with our past managements.....

As far as this exercice is concerned, I will always praise the posters who are honest enough to tell us their good moves they would have make but also let us know the bad ones. That way, I don't see how anybody can pretend they'd be superior.

At one point, people in here should just acknowledge that this draft exercice we're having is just based of things we know. Surely we are knowledgeable as Mr. Timmins. But we are not paid to do so either. We cannot travel so we'd be more knowledgeable. We give our opinions based on what we know. Might be very little but it's better than nothing. 'Cause if you are against that exercice, you should be against having a draft thread in the first place. 'Cause what's the point of having one if our opinions don't matter, it's not like Timmins need them to make his own opinion, and it's not like we know a whole lot as well.
The problem is that people are making "Decisions" with limited and incomplete information. It's one thing to gather information from the net and other media and get an opinion (that might be justified) it's an other thing to actually be in the position and have all the first hand information and to actually live the process. Your decisions are only as good as the data you have. The further away from the source the less precise the end result will be.

I think it's naive to think that one person would come out with the same conclusions by following both processes. So I dont mind people having ideas, giving suggestions and commenting on management decisions. But to often people seem to forget that they form an opinion a different set of data then management. So I wouldnt take to much pride in pick lists and such unless you actualy went through a process that's similar to what management did.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 01:30 PM
  #57
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
The problem is that people are making "Decisions" with limited and incomplete information. It's one thing to gather information from the net and other media and get an opinion (that might be justified) it's an other thing to actually be in the position and have all the first hand information and to actually live the process. Your decisions are only as good as the data you have. The further away from the source the less precise the end result will be.

I think it's naive to think that one person would come out with the same conclusions by following both processes. So I dont mind people having ideas, giving suggestions and commenting on management decisions. But to often people seem to forget that they form an opinion a different set of data then management. So I wouldnt take to much pride in pick lists and such unless you actualy went through a process that's similar to what management did.
i'd love for someone to take the time to go through a random draft year, and pick a player for each team going solely on a comparison of 3-4 prospect report rankings, going with the BPA according to those rankings... and then see how many of those picks would've theoretically been better than the picks that were actually made by management teams who performed vastly superior data collection/comparison.

i think you'd be surprised at how much better the random sampling would be then the actual "pro's" (that's my feeling, though i could be wrong).

it's a useless exercise in itself because the success of a given player would not necessarily translate to a different organization, or even a different draft position (we can't ignore the "motivation" or other mental factors that impacts a guy picked late/early).

they call the draft a crapshoot for good reason. an exercise like this one is fun and useful because it can highlight just how much chance/luck play into drafting, and how the "pro's" are, for the most part, not likely to have a success rate any better than a monkey picking names out of a hat.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 01:48 PM
  #58
Rise from the Ashes
@JoelGabbayNHL
 
Rise from the Ashes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dollard-Des-Ormeaux
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,929
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Rise from the Ashes
They research because its a passion.

Rise from the Ashes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 03:00 PM
  #59
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
The problem is that people are making "Decisions" with limited and incomplete information. It's one thing to gather information from the net and other media and get an opinion (that might be justified) it's an other thing to actually be in the position and have all the first hand information and to actually live the process. Your decisions are only as good as the data you have. The further away from the source the less precise the end result will be.
Which is the reason why I decide mostly to scout the Q. Because I have the chance to see some games live and see some games through TV and the net. Surely, for some other players, I do gather the infos through reliable news info and posters that have seen the players in action. But it the end, while people are making decisions as you say it is, it is still decisions made by computer armchairs. Nobody said otherwise. We are fans who with the time and the knowledge that we have discuss matters that we like the best way possible. 'Cause what's you are saying can be applied to everything. Why were we discussing Carbonneau's line combinations? Isn't he the pro? Do we have ALL the infos we need in order to understand his thinking?

We will never have first hand infos. So while you are saying that we are making decisions, well I will say that we are still only giving opinions. 'Cause as far as I'm concerned, the decision that I took to take Getzlaf in the first round in 03, or Green in 04 or Berglund in 06 or Grachev in 08 didn't give us the actual players. I fail to see how I decided anything.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 03:49 PM
  #60
mad_hab'er
 
mad_hab'er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The point of the guys you quoted is that none of us have a much of a clue how any of the guys picked played.
Most people didn't even see any of our picks play one single game.

So to sit here and blurt out names is simply useless.

I'm not gonna pretend to know about all the players drafted and say I'd have picked him or him instead.

Some people are entertained differently I guess...
It's not about pretending to know something. If you're a fan of hockey, and/or know anything about hockey, you should have an opinion about players if you've seen them play a few times.

If you follow reputable scouting reports throughout the draft year, that helps too.

Fact remains, there are A LOT of teams in the NHL that seem to draft almost entirely according to the pre-draft rankings. If they don't pick the player projected for that spot, they tend to deviate very little one way or the other. Whether they are following the pre-draft rankings closely or things just play out that way by chance, there tend to be few major suprises on draft day if you follow things close enough.

mad_hab'er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 04:01 PM
  #61
Vasculio
Booya !
 
Vasculio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: La Tuque
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Which is the reason why I decide mostly to scout the Q. Because I have the chance to see some games live and see some games through TV and the net. Surely, for some other players, I do gather the infos through reliable news info and posters that have seen the players in action. But it the end, while people are making decisions as you say it is, it is still decisions made by computer armchairs. Nobody said otherwise. We are fans who with the time and the knowledge that we have discuss matters that we like the best way possible. 'Cause what's you are saying can be applied to everything. Why were we discussing Carbonneau's line combinations? Isn't he the pro? Do we have ALL the infos we need in order to understand his thinking?

We will never have first hand infos. So while you are saying that we are making decisions, well I will say that we are still only giving opinions. 'Cause as far as I'm concerned, the decision that I took to take Getzlaf in the first round in 03, or Green in 04 or Berglund in 06 or Grachev in 08 didn't give us the actual players. I fail to see how I decided anything.
I agree with everything you say, I don't quite understand the frustration of some posters here, it's not like this thread is serious to begin with. It's all for fun, I myself litterally love everything that's about prospects and up-and-coming players in the NHL, to the Habs or other teams. I also like to 'inform' my friends about these facts, facts that I read and learn mostly here, cause this forum is, IMO, one of the only source of real informations and knowledgeable persons, around the web, on this particular subject...

It's not like I put any stock in the 'wishlist' I made, cause I make one every year. I, too, had different hopes for different years since 2001. That year, I wanted Ruutu and Spiller as 1st rounders, in 2002 it was Babchuk, in 2003 I think I wanted Brown or Getzlaf, but was perfectly happy with Kostitsyn... but it's all a game for me, and it's not like I will brag about anything I happen to say about this. And if there are some who brag about their 'choices' being better than an NHL scout, well, that's just bad faith from people who probably suffer from an inferiority complex...

Anyway, I don't understand what the fuss is about this thread... ain't we on Hockey's Future Board ? Future as in 'Prospects', 'Draft' and such ? I think so...

Peace guys...

Vasculio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 06:00 PM
  #62
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,454
vCash: 500
If I was running the draft, I would have gone with, (granted I see more USHS/USHL guys then CHLers)


18th- Chris Kreider
65th- Mike Lee
79th- Toni Rajala
109th- Seth Helgeson
139th- Anders Lee
169th- Erik Haula or Danny Mattson
199th- Benjamin Casavant
211th- Marshall Everson

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 06:39 PM
  #63
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
If I was running the draft, I would have gone with, (granted I see more USHS/USHL guys then CHLers)


18th- Chris Kreider
65th- Mike Lee
79th- Toni Rajala
109th- Seth Helgeson
139th- Anders Lee
169th- Erik Haula or Danny Mattson
199th- Benjamin Casavant
211th- Marshall Everson
And it would have been pretty good as well. I really don't get the non-selections of Everson and Mattson. And in the category of "the local guy that again we let go and should not have" Casavant is right up there.

I do believe that Mike Lee is probably the best goalie of the bunch.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 07:16 PM
  #64
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
i'd love for someone to take the time to go through a random draft year, and pick a player for each team going solely on a comparison of 3-4 prospect report rankings, going with the BPA according to those rankings... and then see how many of those picks would've theoretically been better than the picks that were actually made by management teams who performed vastly superior data collection/comparison.

i think you'd be surprised at how much better the random sampling would be then the actual "pro's" (that's my feeling, though i could be wrong).

it's a useless exercise in itself because the success of a given player would not necessarily translate to a different organization, or even a different draft position (we can't ignore the "motivation" or other mental factors that impacts a guy picked late/early).

they call the draft a crapshoot for good reason. an exercise like this one is fun and useful because it can highlight just how much chance/luck play into drafting, and how the "pro's" are, for the most part, not likely to have a success rate any better than a monkey picking names out of a hat.
I'd try to speak for many of us here in saying that we *have* been doing those kinds of drafts with that kind of information at our disposal. My keeper FHL has been doing an entry draft for almost two decades now. And I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a random draft guide peruser to pick better than the teams of professionals. But that's kind of a shallow and incomplete metric. Sure, mostly by chance, armed only with the CSB rankings and a copy of The Hockey News draft guide, some FHL GM can draft better than the best NHL team of pros. Once or twice...? Or consistently? Hmm. There *is* a large degree of crapshoot factor in the NHL draft. But I think we also shouldn't ignore the development factor either. It's all very well for our lucky draft guide geek to say he picked 7 or 8 players who panned out better than the 7 or 8 picked by the pros. But. The picking is only the first part of a prospect's journey to the show. Especially today teams invest so much in preparing and developing the players, and that's probably at least as much of a factor as the initial picking. And a good deal more of the work. Which is something us draft geeks should have absolutely no way of deluding ourselves into thinking we could handle or take any pseudo-credit for.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 07:41 PM
  #65
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I'd try to speak for many of us here in saying that we *have* been doing those kinds of drafts with that kind of information at our disposal. My keeper FHL has been doing an entry draft for almost two decades now. And I know for a fact that it's entirely possible for a random draft guide peruser to pick better than the teams of professionals. But that's kind of a shallow and incomplete metric. Sure, mostly by chance, armed only with the CSB rankings and a copy of The Hockey News draft guide, some FHL GM can draft better than the best NHL team of pros. Once or twice...? Or consistently? Hmm. There *is* a large degree of crapshoot factor in the NHL draft. But I think we also shouldn't ignore the development factor either. It's all very well for our lucky draft guide geek to say he picked 7 or 8 players who panned out better than the 7 or 8 picked by the pros. But. The picking is only the first part of a prospect's journey to the show. Especially today teams invest so much in preparing and developing the players, and that's probably at least as much of a factor as the initial picking. And a good deal more of the work. Which is something us draft geeks should have absolutely no way of deluding ourselves into thinking we could handle or take any pseudo-credit for.
absolutely... that's sort of the point I was trying to get at by saying that it's useless to look back and judge since a player that turns into a good player may not have the same career path if taken by a different organization.

i really do wonder though, if a team actually had the *balls* to say "forget this scouting department budget, we are going to go with the red line report/mckeens/whitesnake-BG-Montreal mock draft from now on", how would they do compared to the rest of the league over 4-5 drafts.

in the end I think the player development side of things is an even greater determinant of "draft" success than the actual quality of players picked. aside from the handful of straight to the NHL talent picked every year, the "difference" between the bulk of the prospects is so minimal at their age that it probably isn't totally insane to think that such a system might work (even if it would be borderline media suicide given the negative backlash all who follow the team would unload on the organization...

come to think of it, I wonder if what really separates the best scouting departments from the rest is not so much their talent i.d skills as it is their ability to identify the type of athletes that can thrive within the organization they work for, given the expectations, development stages, market (fan/media) pressure or lack thereof, distraction control, etc etc.


anyhow, i'm certainly not saying that I would do a better job than any of the pro's... heck I'm lucky if I watch more than 4-5 non-NHL games/year... this thread just seemed like an interesting idea, because even with my limited knowledge, I found myself on draft day excitedly cheering for this guy or that, based entirely on the reports I could find and my idea of what we lack/need. Wether hindsight shows that I would have been right or wrong (and again, it's a virtually impossible claim to make unless said player jumps into the NHL and immediately makes a big impact) certainly doesn't or wouldn't make me a better "scout" or talent judge than any of the guys that do it for a living in the NHL... hope my posts weren't giving that impression.

*** though I should say that I'm still pretty sure Snow is a bit of an idiot... even if the TSN guys were drooling over his first round wheeling and dealing, it looked like a huge reach to trade away later picks to move up a few spots and grab a guy that wasn't on the radar yet. Either he knew another team between 12-16 was going to make the same reach, or he was doing his best Al Davis impression!

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2009, 07:50 PM
  #66
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
i really do wonder though, if a team actually had the *balls* to say "forget this scouting department budget, we are going to go with the red line report/mckeens/whitesnake-BG-Montreal mock draft from now on", how would they do compared to the rest of the league over 4-5 drafts.
You could try to compile the past lists of all these reports (and maybe old HF polls from the past) and compare them to he results these prospects have made since.

And by the way, there are at least some evidences that such an idea isn't as stupid as it's sound. I read some years ago a book called "the wisdom of crowds" on how large numbers of relatively uninformed peoples can make surprising good aggregated judgments in some circumstances.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2009, 08:30 AM
  #67
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
And it would have been pretty good as well. I really don't get the non-selections of Everson and Mattson. And in the category of "the local guy that again we let go and should not have" Casavant is right up there.

I do believe that Mike Lee is probably the best goalie of the bunch.
I saw Lee when in the USHS and USHL, big fan of his and I wanted us to get a good goalie prospect since Desjardins is likely our top goalie prospect right now. I know people will say we are set since we have Price/Halak but you never know what can happen down the road, a trade could change that and then we aren't looking too good at the most important position imo. Plus I'm not a fan of Mayer and don't know what to make of our two projects, they are big boys and I'm willing to see how they pan out.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2009, 09:48 AM
  #68
Skyblaze
Registered User
 
Skyblaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 740
vCash: 500
I'm entirely satisfied with Timmins' picks but given what I know from the easily available scouting reports (which is admittedly not that much); my pick from the available players at #18 would've been Josefson.

Scoring-wise, Leblanc and Schroeder are most likely better picks but I think Josefson would have had an easier time developing in our system and could've been a surer shot at getting a really solid player.

Skyblaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2009, 11:43 AM
  #69
TinordiandSubban
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by montreal View Post
If I was running the draft, I would have gone with, (granted I see more USHS/USHL guys then CHLers)


18th- Chris Kreider
65th- Mike Lee
79th- Toni Rajala
109th- Seth Helgeson
139th- Anders Lee
169th- Erik Haula or Danny Mattson
199th- Benjamin Casavant
211th- Marshall Everson
That would have been a great draft!

TinordiandSubban is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2009, 11:48 AM
  #70
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
i really do wonder though, if a team actually had the *balls* to say "forget this scouting department budget, we are going to go with the red line report/mckeens/whitesnake-BG-Montreal mock draft from now on", how would they do compared to the rest of the league over 4-5 drafts.
Watch how Buffalo's prospects pan out. Or did they change back? Weren't they the ones who made the change-over to largely video scouting as a way of cutting costs? I don't think even us draft geeks go purely on Whitesnake's Draft Guide, though, we do still watch some games on TV or occasionaly step foot in a junior rink. An NHL GM or director of player development or whatnot will too, even if they have a scouting department comprised of a couple video scouts and a VCR.
Quote:
in the end I think the player development side of things is an even greater determinant of "draft" success than the actual quality of players picked.
Especially at the lower end IMHO. The NHL teams don't have complete control over that development either, however. (Hence why some will say oooh, we drafted this guy because he's going to UND and they have a GREAT PROGRAM there, or, yikes, this other guy is going to Harvard so drop him down a few spots in your rankings... )...
Quote:
*** though I should say that I'm still pretty sure Snow is a bit of an idiot... even if the TSN guys were drooling over his first round wheeling and dealing, it looked like a huge reach to trade away later picks to move up a few spots and grab a guy that wasn't on the radar yet. Either he knew another team between 12-16 was going to make the same reach, or he was doing his best Al Davis impression!
I would want to extend the benefit of the doubt there. Snow's NOT an idiot. Moving up to get De Haan absolutely must have been influenced by knowledge he had. (Or misinformation another team scammed him with, either way). And I don't think it will turn out to be much of a reach. De Haan is that good, IMHO. It's not a "reach" if he really is that good and at least 2 teams in the league are aware of it, regardless of where the player sits in the Whitesnake's Draft Guide rankings.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-18-2009, 11:06 AM
  #71
bopeep
Registered User
 
bopeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: habcouver
Posts: 613
vCash: 500
I've seen every single game that every single prospect has ever played - not on video but live - no nosebleeds but really good seats, even for ballhockey. That being said, this year's draft was intriguing and if I had my drothers it would have gone as follows:

#18 - Suprised Schroeder fell this far. Kreider, Moore and Josefson still on the board. "The Montreal Canadiens are proud to select Chris Kreider with their first overall pick". Best skater in the draft, did great at the combine - big kid who dominated in a lesser league. I've seen him listed as both a LW and C. Is he the big centre we've been waiting over a decade for? If I could have traded up at a reasonable price then Scott Glennie was the player I was looking for, but at 18 I'm happy with this selection.

#65 - Pissed that my darkhorse tough guy pick Kyle Clifford was taken so early and that one of my homerun swing selections, Ben Hanowski was taken two picks earlier by Pittsburgh. Not that I would have taken either one of them @ 65, just thought they would be available a bit later in the draft. No brainer that Joonas Nattinen was my next pick. Is he the big centre we've been waiting over a decade for? The easy answer is probably not, but in the third round I believe his selection is excellent value - a big framed, reliable two-way centre who's great in the faceoff circle. Not certain of his offensive upside at this point, but he's a surefire NHL'er as far as I'm concerned.

#79 - Taylor Beck, Braydon McNabb, Andrej Nestrasil, Mike Lee, Marcus Foligno ..... So many names, so little time. My next selection would have been the other swing-for-the-fences type pick: Alex Avstyn. Big, strong and gifted - again, dominated in a lesser league. He's Russian so there is an associated risk but the reward could be worth it. Willingness to come to NA for the draft where he's not selected on the first day, attends prospect camp. He's saying all the right things - let's just get him over here as soon as we can.

In hindsight, I'm really happy that TT didn't call me up on this one, as I think the Mac Bennett selection was perfect and we ended up getting Avstyn later anyway @ 109 (it can be bothersome you know, trying to cook or clean or work and Trevor phones, again, bugging me about my opinion on such and such prospect). Anyway, I see a growth spurt in young Mr. Bennett's future.

#109 - Nick Oliver? Alex Fallstrom??? Naw, Seth Helgeson all the way. Bigger and tougher to play against were a couple of themes for me in this draft and this big stay at home d-man fits the bill to a tee. Not that I want our defensemen being our only fighters, but if push comes to shove I think it's a good insurance policy that at least he has the ability to drop 'em when necessary.

#139 - Curtis MacKenzie. See above for the being big and tough to play against part, but he's a winger who can actually play and pot a few goals (30 i think this year in the BCHL) as well as fight.

#169 - From what I've seen on YouTube, I mean, er my extensive scouting of this prospect - I really like Walsh. Didn't know too much about him, but I think he looks like a keeper.

#199 - Tough spot here. Max Tardy, Ben Casavant, Tommy Kivisto and David Gilbert still on the board. Go Cichy go.

#211 - At this rate, I think the Raptors are going to start calling us on the availability of our goalies. Hope Simila is a keeper - literally.

bopeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 11:33 PM
  #72
Habsrule
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
OK so I had started this thread last year just after the draft and I got a whole lot of flack for it. Their is no way that I am saying that I would be a better draft than the Hab's brass is. How would I have done?

REAL MONTREAL PICKS:

18-Louis Leblanc
65-Joonas Nattinen
79-Mac Bennett
109-Alexander Avtsin
139-Gabriel Dumont
169-Dustin Walsh
199-Michael Cichy
211-Petteri Simila


MY PICKS:

18-Jordan Schroeder
65-Joonas Nattinen
79-Toni Rajala
109-Olivier Roy
139-Jerry D'Amigo
169-Steven Anthony
199-Cassidy Mappin
211-Beau Schmitz

Habsrule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:04 AM
  #73
LMFAO
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
OK so I had started this thread last year just after the draft and I got a whole lot of flack for it. Their is no way that I am saying that I would be a better draft than the Hab's brass is. How would I have done?

REAL MONTREAL PICKS:

18-Louis Leblanc
65-Joonas Nattinen
79-Mac Bennett
109-Alexander Avtsin
139-Gabriel Dumont
169-Dustin Walsh
199-Michael Cichy
211-Petteri Simila


MY PICKS:

18-Jordan Schroeder
65-Joonas Nattinen
79-Toni Rajala
109-Olivier Roy
139-Jerry D'Amigo
169-Steven Anthony
199-Cassidy Mappin
211-Beau Schmitz

Better than Timmins, your 139th pick is better than Timmins's 18th pick..

LMFAO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:12 AM
  #74
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Way too early to tell, its been one year, and none of these guys are even in the NHL yet.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 08:04 AM
  #75
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMFAO View Post
Better than Timmins, your 139th pick is better than Timmins's 18th pick..
Yea sure he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
OK so I had started this thread last year just after the draft and I got a whole lot of flack for it. Their is no way that I am saying that I would be a better draft than the Hab's brass is. How would I have done?

MY PICKS:

18-Jordan Schroeder
65-Joonas Nattinen
79-Toni Rajala
109-Olivier Roy
139-Jerry D'Amigo
169-Steven Anthony
199-Cassidy Mappin
211-Beau Schmitz
Roy and D'Amigo look good so far. I liked Schroeder after his freshman year but really soured on him this past season, he looked like a shell of himself, although against Hamilton in the playoffs he had a couple points. Nattinen I don't know what to make of just yet, wasn't too impressed with him at the wjc's but hopefully next one he has a better tourny.


Last edited by montreal: 06-10-2010 at 08:12 AM.
montreal 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 05:02 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.