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

Chris Kreider new top prospect for New York Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2010, 07:53 PM
  #201
TheRedViper
Registered User
 
TheRedViper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DelZottoFutureNorris View Post
Great post. You'll probably get flamed by morons even though you clearly covered yourself with the last sentence. But you're 100% right. We know his gifts. His hockey IQ and ability to have success in the pro leagues (AHL and NHL) are UNKNOWN. Give the kid a break. He's got tons of potential. That's ALL you can ask for unless you've got a Sidney Crosby prospect who's been putting up 200 points a year vs older competition since he was 10. The arguments in this thread are beyond pointless. Kreider is a great "PROSPECT." Wait til he plays his first AHL(which I think he has the potential to SKIP but if he doesn't, it's no knock on his development curve at all either) or NHL game and then you can start with the wild claims either way.
I don't see anybody saying Kreider is going to be a slam dunk top line forward. I do however see people arguing that Kreider DOES indeed deserve his 8.5C rating... All that rating is saying is that he HAS the POTENTIAL to become a top line all-star quality forward, BUT , ( and here is where the C comes in) if his developement doesn't go as hoped, at worst he has the skills RIGHT NOW to re a third line forward for his career. So it's a pretty accurate rating

TheRedViper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 07:57 PM
  #202
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangers1024 View Post
I don't see anybody saying Kreider is going to be a slam dunk top line forward. I do however see people arguing that Kreider DOES indeed deserve his 8.5C rating... All that rating is saying is that he HAS the POTENTIAL to become a top line all-star quality forward, BUT , ( and here is where the C comes in) if his developement doesn't go as hoped, at worst he has the skills RIGHT NOW to re a third line forward for his career. So it's a pretty accurate rating
Yet tender, sting and ola keep responding to people who are predicting he will be a top line forward. it boggles the mind they are literally argueing with no one.


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 09-21-2010 at 08:05 PM.
JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:00 PM
  #203
TheRedViper
Registered User
 
TheRedViper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
Yet tender, sting and ola keep responding to people who are predicting he will be a top line forward. it boggles the mind.
Yeah, I'm failing to see how he doesn't have top line potential...

TheRedViper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:05 PM
  #204
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangers1024 View Post
Yeah, I'm failing to see how he doesn't have top line potential...
He definitely has top line potential. But no one here is guaranteeing he will become a top line forward. We need to have more play from him to see how his development continues but he obviously has every single physical tool imagineable. Yet despite that very logical level headed way of looking at this situation the aforementioned keep acting like we are foolishly dubbing him the next Crosby.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:15 PM
  #205
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,138
vCash: 500
Give me a Bobby Ryan type and I'll be content!

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:35 PM
  #206
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
He definitely has top line potential. But no one here is guaranteeing he will become a top line forward. We need to have more play from him to see how his development continues but he obviously has every single physical tool imagineable. Yet despite that very logical level headed way of looking at this situation the aforementioned keep acting like we are foolishly dubbing him the next Crosby.
And that's it pretty much. Things have to break right. He has physical tools that most of even the best prospects don't have. A lot of signs look good. He transitioned very well in his first real step up in competition. He seems like a really good kid--willing to listen and willing to work very hard. He's getting good coaching in the fundamentals and when he makes the step into the pros there are a lot of younger Ranger players who look like they can help him enhance his game. I don't know what the Pittsburgh poster who started this debate really thinks of him. He seemed upset that Kreider was rated that high. He never said how he would rate Kreider himself. He never said anything about his top player Tangradi who is rated almost as high and who to be honest I don't think nearly has Kreider's upside.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:49 PM
  #207
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,732
vCash: 910
Awards:
Ok, everyone has made their point. Move on, stop bickering.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 09:47 PM
  #208
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyNX27 View Post
At best Sneep is considered to be a Dan Girardi like player at best if he fully develops. Good to hear that tanking 5 years in a row helped your picking of talent, epic taklent development, an winning.

I would not trade the Rangers current prospects for Pitts if I had to make 1 big huge team swap.
me either. problem is there young talent is already playing and winning cups

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 03:00 AM
  #209
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianJagr View Post
I agree with Ola in the sense that noone can say Kreider is a slam dunk can't miss prospect with elite level skills across the board. I think what most people are arguing is that he has elite level physical gifts that have got him through to this point, and that his hockey IQ is an unknown quantity.

I am NOT drawing comparison to ability or playstyle, but it is a similar in some respects to Eric Lindros. He oozed offensive talent, but when he was younger, you didn't see it as much because all he had to do was run the smaller kids over and score. He didn't need to make fancy plays or smart plays because his other gifts allowed him an easy way to dominate the opposition. That doesn't mean he doesn't have great hockey iq (obviously he did), but that he never really had to show it.

Lindros and Kreider are FAR different players, but I think there are some similarities in regards to their situations.
Great post!

Lets call it the Lindros and Daigle syndrome. I didn't see much of a teenage Lindros (I think I first saw him in the 92' Canada Cup or something like that when he smashed Ulfie...), but all a young Daigle needed to do was get a hold of the puck and drive up ice, nobody could keep up with him in juniors. Then the trapping era came -- cause I think its very likely that Daigle in the NHL today would be a star pretty much in the same neighboorhood as a say a Matt Duchene will become -- and Daigle couldn't play by his strengths and disapeared for long stretches. He were never forced to fight his way through the neutralzone in the CHL.

I am not trying to trash the kid (Kreider), IMO he is a fantastic raw talent. His engine is really world class. Heck I can't think of one prospect we ever have had that had one ability as outstanding as Kreider's engine. Its really on par if not above Brendls shot. Well, maybe Hanks lateral movement. But, the kid plays with his head under his arm.

Can he catch up, to a extent. I think its unfair to say anything else. If we draft a forward who can't skate, nobody expects him to become Pavel Bure II. If we draft a D like McIlrath, nobody talks about him becoming Brian Leetch II. Kreider will not become a smart offensive top 6 forward, but he could definitely become good enough to be a strong first line winger.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 03:11 AM
  #210
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
He doesn't and you know this based on the years of watching him? No you haven't because he hasn't played at a higher level for more than ONE YEAR. Right now he's been given low responsibilty in areas he was never expected to have any responsibility in and he excelled. He obviously is what 19 years old no duh of course he still has to develop but you have been making definitive statements which is why people are looking at you like you have 5 heads in this thread. Is it really so hard for your ego to just shut off and admit that there isn't enough evidence so you dont know yet? You wasted 3 paragraphs explaining how Jagr was an elite player and Sjostrom was not and pretty much had nothing to do with what we are talking about. All to make yourself sound smart about a question that has no answer yet.
I am sorry that you interpret it like that, wasn't my intention.

Look, I don't know how many times I've seen Kreider. Definitely more then 10 games but less ten 20. Thats more then enough. I am not saying that I am right or wrong, its just my opinion -- but I can guarantee you that I would have had the same opinion of him if I just had seen 2 games or 40 games. I wouldn't need more then 1 period to see that McIlrath isn't the second comming of Brian Leetch, and as underdeveloped as Kreider is in terms of creativity, I probably wouldn't need more then a couple of periods to see that he is a kid who lives on his fantastic engine but lacks in terms of smarts when it comes to creating offense.

Also, could you please explain to me how his previous roles/teams are relevant in this discussion? I've never said that its strange and what not, you take what you get and are thankful for it. Kreider is a great prospect. But world class creativity -- that he have not.


Quote:
No it does not make sense at all when you consider what we are actually talking about. But you have been loist in that regard for awhile now. And how but you acknowledge the people like myself who said that exact thing about 1000 times now. Instead you say it as if you're the first and only one to say it. I'm flattered you're imitating me but I don't appreciate the plagiarism.

Thank you for your blatant plagiarism.
Please explain?

Quote:
If you really believe what you just said you would realize how absolutely unneccassary your continued commenting is. Also again plagiarizing me and several others.Shows tremendous potential and yet "has none of that in him?" as far as creativity goes...how does that make any sense?
For a rangerfan who have followed this team for over 20 years, if someone shows 1st line potential -- thats tremendous potential. We aren't spoiled with that. I remember when Filip Novak was our nr 1 prospect. You know, the year after Jeff Brown was our nr 1 prospect. Which was the year after Christian Dube was our nr 1 prospect...


Last edited by Ola: 09-22-2010 at 09:02 AM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 04:31 AM
  #211
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
I don't know what the Pittsburgh poster who started this debate really thinks of him. He seemed upset that Kreider was rated that high. He never said how he would rate Kreider himself. He never said anything about his top player Tangradi who is rated almost as high and who to be honest I don't think nearly has Kreider's upside.
Like I said before - I am aware of the awesome futility of debating whether a prospect is half a grade, a full grade or a corresponding letter too high or low. Doing it 'against' a prospect of another team, in their forum.... of course that only makes it more of a waste of time.

Anyway - the only thing I found incomprehensible is that a prospect as up in the air and unrefined as Chris Kreider is ranked alongside the most refined "can't miss" talents we've seen in latter years, and above a score of players who are much closer to meriting that status than Kreider is. Among forwards, Duchene is the most recent example of someone rated 8.5C. Bobby Ryan was 8B - Evander Kane 8B and Paajarvi 8C.
You can say one shouldn't discuss a prospect rating relative to other such... perhaps not, but that's my premise. Seing Kreider rated above such guys is what I cannot abide.

Yet- I would never have been compelled to argue if he'd been among the clutter of prospects rated 7.5 or even 8C whatever. There are so many of those and its a crap-shoot anyway. I'm solely miffed by the idea that he has in any way justified himself as a prospect of the most elite order, and in tearing him down some for the weaknesses I see in his game, that is all I have been trying to disprove, OK?

As for your Tangradi-remark.... Tangradi is 1 years older than Kreider and has come a long way since being drafted. He was rated like 7C the year after his draft and was barely in the Ducks top10.
Since then he fully exploded in his last year at Belleville (yes, rising after he exploded. Not before in the expectation that maybe he would) and is now on the cusp of our top6 which more or less justifies his ranking.

But screw rankings and meaningless numbers - Tangradi's upside? He has what it takes to be a Todd Bertuzzi in his prime for instance, beyond that it'd be the stuff of dreams for us. But he might also never break out scoring wise and be a Taylor Pyatt, although his puck skills seems too good to not do better than that.

Whether that is more or less promising than Kreider... well, I really don't know. If all goes as you guys hope, Kreider could be better. Sure. But there's a lot of ground to cover before it is reasonable to expect it and right now it virtually makes no sense to make parallels for him because he is so far from playing the game of an NHL'er, IMO.

And for better or worse I better stop here as the mod suggests.


Last edited by Tender Rip: 09-22-2010 at 04:37 AM.
Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 09:11 AM
  #212
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Like I said before - I am aware of the awesome futility of debating whether a prospect is half a grade, a full grade or a corresponding letter too high or low. Doing it 'against' a prospect of another team, in their forum.... of course that only makes it more of a waste of time.

Anyway - the only thing I found incomprehensible is that a prospect as up in the air and unrefined as Chris Kreider is ranked alongside the most refined "can't miss" talents we've seen in latter years, and above a score of players who are much closer to meriting that status than Kreider is. Among forwards, Duchene is the most recent example of someone rated 8.5C. Bobby Ryan was 8B - Evander Kane 8B and Paajarvi 8C.
You can say one shouldn't discuss a prospect rating relative to other such... perhaps not, but that's my premise. Seing Kreider rated above such guys is what I cannot abide.

Yet- I would never have been compelled to argue if he'd been among the clutter of prospects rated 7.5 or even 8C whatever. There are so many of those and its a crap-shoot anyway. I'm solely miffed by the idea that he has in any way justified himself as a prospect of the most elite order, and in tearing him down some for the weaknesses I see in his game, that is all I have been trying to disprove, OK?

As for your Tangradi-remark.... Tangradi is 1 years older than Kreider and has come a long way since being drafted. He was rated like 7C the year after his draft and was barely in the Ducks top10.
Since then he fully exploded in his last year at Belleville (yes, rising after he exploded. Not before in the expectation that maybe he would) and is now on the cusp of our top6 which more or less justifies his ranking.

But screw rankings and meaningless numbers - Tangradi's upside? He has what it takes to be a Todd Bertuzzi in his prime for instance, beyond that it'd be the stuff of dreams for us. But he might also never break out scoring wise and be a Taylor Pyatt, although his puck skills seems too good to not do better than that.

Whether that is more or less promising than Kreider... well, I really don't know. If all goes as you guys hope, Kreider could be better. Sure. But there's a lot of ground to cover before it is reasonable to expect it and right now it virtually makes no sense to make parallels for him because he is so far from playing the game of an NHL'er, IMO.

And for better or worse I better stop here as the mod suggests.
FWIW the Rangers were pushing Kreider to sign over the summer. At least in their minds they seem to think he's close. The question is then--close to what? It's natural to assume they think he's close at least to being able to play 3rd line in the NHL or what would be the point?--whether he would make it or need to be sent down to the AHL is another question. In any case--it's at least almost the same with Stepan and McDonagh who they think are close and who they did sign. Like any other NHL team they respond to what they see before they make such decisions or at least you would think/hope. So at 19 it's somewhat safe to assume they think he's come that far already. To be honest I think Kreider returning to BC for at least another year is better. Personally I think he'd benefit more from another year of Jerry York rather than either of John Tortorella or Ken Gernander--but that's just my opinion--I'm not that crazy about our coaching and IMO Kreider would benefit more staying where he is for now.

Part of what sways my opinion is also the scouting staff the Rangers have. I have a lot more faith in them than upper management or their coaching. Gordie Clark is certainly not infallible but he's got one of the best track records going and he absolutely believes in Kreider--as well as McIlrath. I seriously doubt the Rangers management isn't pushing Kreider without talking it over with Clark first.

Anyway I'll pick up at a line in the first paragraph. 'So at 19 it's safe to assume they think he's come that far already'. The thing is I don't see his progress stalling. He's still growing into his body. He has the will to get better. Barring some major mishap he's almost certainly a top 6 forward and very likely a legit 1st liner--but in time. I think Ola might have something when he talks about on ice creativity. He did not show a lot as a playmaker last year. Even so--I think Ola who is usually a very perceptive (though sometimes hard to read) poster has unintentionally painted himself into a corner here. Kreider is where he needs to be and doing what he needs to do--learning how to play at a higher level. He's not going to be the next Freddy Sjostrom.

Offensively Kreider looks to be more of a shooter than a playmaker. He has the size, speed, puck skills and shot for all of that. At BC last year his goals--came from short range and long range--deflections, stuff ins, breakaways and wiring shots from far out. Yeah--he's going to need people to set him up when he turns pro but no player can do everything--even Crosby.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 09:41 AM
  #213
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Great post!

Lets call it the Lindros and Daigle syndrome. I didn't see much of a teenage Lindros (I think I first saw him in the 92' Canada Cup or something like that when he smashed Ulfie...), but all a young Daigle needed to do was get a hold of the puck and drive up ice, nobody could keep up with him in juniors. Then the trapping era came -- cause I think its very likely that Daigle in the NHL today would be a star pretty much in the same neighboorhood as a say a Matt Duchene will become -- and Daigle couldn't play by his strengths and disapeared for long stretches. He were never forced to fight his way through the neutralzone in the CHL.

I am not trying to trash the kid (Kreider), IMO he is a fantastic raw talent. His engine is really world class. Heck I can't think of one prospect we ever have had that had one ability as outstanding as Kreider's engine. Its really on par if not above Brendls shot. Well, maybe Hanks lateral movement. But, the kid plays with his head under his arm.

Can he catch up, to a extent. I think its unfair to say anything else. If we draft a forward who can't skate, nobody expects him to become Pavel Bure II. If we draft a D like McIlrath, nobody talks about him becoming Brian Leetch II. Kreider will not become a smart offensive top 6 forward, but he could definitely become good enough to be a strong first line winger.


The difference between Kreider and Daigle is Kreider has balls, Daigle was lazy, a partier and goof ball

for you to say he wont be a smart top 6 is laughable

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 10:47 AM
  #214
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,671
vCash: 500
Daigle believed all his hype and didn't put in the work he needed to. He had loads of talent--creativity too--but he was soft. And then he quit because he wanted to be a movie star--the goof ball comment is apt--that didn't work out and he tried to come back. He could get by on talent a bit but he didn't have a winner's mentality. He could have been a big star but he wasted it all for lack of determination.

None of which sounds like Kreider at all. And speaking of determination. It can get players past hurdles. Kreider has natural skills enough that enough determination can take him really far. One of my favorite examples of this would be Terry O'Reilly whose skill level and skating ability when he was a rookie with the Bruins was not much better than Colton Orr when he first showed up on Broadway. O'Reilly became one hell of a hockey player. Somewhere around 700 career points and he could really fight besides. O'Reilly became a very good coach as well and it all came down to perserverance.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 02:04 PM
  #215
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 19,022
vCash: 500
Not gonna come in and join the argument (plenty of that already ) but I will say that with Kreider having a shoot-first non-playmaking mentality, I think he and Stepan could very likely complement each other perfectly.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2010, 04:40 PM
  #216
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
I am sorry that you interpret it like that, wasn't my intention.

Look, I don't know how many times I've seen Kreider. Definitely more then 10 games but less ten 20. Thats more then enough. I am not saying that I am right or wrong, its just my opinion -- but I can guarantee you that I would have had the same opinion of him if I just had seen 2 games or 40 games. I wouldn't need more then 1 period to see that McIlrath isn't the second comming of Brian Leetch, and as underdeveloped as Kreider is in terms of creativity, I probably wouldn't need more then a couple of periods to see that he is a kid who lives on his fantastic engine but lacks in terms of smarts when it comes to creating offense.

Also, could you please explain to me how his previous roles/teams are relevant in this discussion? I've never said that its strange and what not, you take what you get and are thankful for it. Kreider is a great prospect. But world class creativity -- that he have not.




Please explain?



For a rangerfan who have followed this team for over 20 years, if someone shows 1st line potential -- thats tremendous potential. We aren't spoiled with that. I remember when Filip Novak was our nr 1 prospect. You know, the year after Jeff Brown was our nr 1 prospect. Which was the year after Christian Dube was our nr 1 prospect...
As far as please explain go read the comment you responded to. I quote myself from earlier saying the same exact "underdeveloped" comment that you blatantly steal. Several times was it mentioned and yet you quoted it as if it was your original thought. So either you didn't bother to read the responses (I wouldn't be surprised it would explain how your responses are so bad) or you just don't comprehend.

So again we get to your ridiculous point that his IQ is set in stone and won't develop which you said twice now you were not trying to say that and then you go and say it aagain so this is my last paragraph and then I'm done with you b/c clearly you're just clueless on the your own point let alone this topic

How are his previous roles credible? If his role is to simply learn behind the seniors and not screw up, D first, O second than of course he might not show much creativity. You definitely have NOT seen enough. 10 games in 1 season...a prospects FIRST season is a pathetic sample with which to judge a future NHLers career. What was the time frame in which you saw these games? You say 2 games are enough for you so if you had just happenned to oinly watch two ranger games where Hank got pulled in both Hank is a horrible goalie to you? Your comments make no sense whatsoever. Your method of sampling required to make an observation is wrong. Since prospects develop then common sense says you watch over years not 10 games in 1 year multiple games in multiple years.

I don't care about your listing of former number 1 prospects who panned out or didnt. Hank was also a number 1 so was Staal only unlike your horrible point this was more RECENT memory with THIS set of scouts and office. Anisimov, Cherepanov, Stepan, grachev< MDZ, etc. Comparing the guys you mentioned to them and the scout team that drafted them is just insane. So that's another horrible point by you. Your points are horrible and your opinion is ridiculous and ill thought out with no real evidence or common sense applied to it. I tried desperately to NOT attack your opinion but maybe you need to hear that your opinion on this is a joke. For further proof read the comment that I'm responding to. 2 games is all you need? Wow.

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-28-2010, 08:47 AM
  #217
gblitz11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South/Central NJ
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
I believe his ranking is deserved

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Like I said before - I am aware of the awesome futility of debating whether a prospect is half a grade, a full grade or a corresponding letter too high or low. Doing it 'against' a prospect of another team, in their forum.... of course that only makes it more of a waste of time.

Anyway - the only thing I found incomprehensible is that a prospect as up in the air and unrefined as Chris Kreider is ranked alongside the most refined "can't miss" talents we've seen in latter years, and above a score of players who are much closer to meriting that status than Kreider is. Among forwards, Duchene is the most recent example of someone rated 8.5C. Bobby Ryan was 8B - Evander Kane 8B and Paajarvi 8C.
You can say one shouldn't discuss a prospect rating relative to other such... perhaps not, but that's my premise. Seing Kreider rated above such guys is what I cannot abide.

Yet- I would never have been compelled to argue if he'd been among the clutter of prospects rated 7.5 or even 8C whatever. There are so many of those and its a crap-shoot anyway. I'm solely miffed by the idea that he has in any way justified himself as a prospect of the most elite order, and in tearing him down some for the weaknesses I see in his game, that is all I have been trying to disprove, OK?

As for your Tangradi-remark.... Tangradi is 1 years older than Kreider and has come a long way since being drafted. He was rated like 7C the year after his draft and was barely in the Ducks top10.
Since then he fully exploded in his last year at Belleville (yes, rising after he exploded. Not before in the expectation that maybe he would) and is now on the cusp of our top6 which more or less justifies his ranking.

But screw rankings and meaningless numbers - Tangradi's upside? He has what it takes to be a Todd Bertuzzi in his prime for instance, beyond that it'd be the stuff of dreams for us. But he might also never break out scoring wise and be a Taylor Pyatt, although his puck skills seems too good to not do better than that.

Whether that is more or less promising than Kreider... well, I really don't know. If all goes as you guys hope, Kreider could be better. Sure. But there's a lot of ground to cover before it is reasonable to expect it and right now it virtually makes no sense to make parallels for him because he is so far from playing the game of an NHL'er, IMO.

And for better or worse I better stop here as the mod suggests.


The 8.5C is based on potential. Chris has incredible physical gifts. This gives him a higher potential ceiling. He may be less inclined to reach that potential because he is not as developed right now, but he has that potential.
That being said, he played a conservative game for a conservative coach as a freshman. He got little ice time early and it grew as the season progressed. He was not asked to play a creative style, but to keep it simple and go to the neat offensively and get it out of the zone and think defensively 1st. Even then he did show some creativity when given the chance, and playing with better linemates, toward the end of the year.
We will see more from him when the coaches/team give him that opportunity, IMO.

gblitz11 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 07:24 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.