They're happy with their pick and their centre depth.
What's so good about Fowler? The guy is horrible defensively.
No he's not. I have seen every single Ducks game for the past 2 seasons and he's average defensively. He is also playing against top lines with Beauchemin at a ripe age of 20
I like Couturier, but you shouldn't have said that yet. 1 goal and 1 assist in 1 game makes it seem like he isn't doing a good job.
I meant he is used to shut down Malkin, not Crosby. Malkin had 0 points. I am sure Malkin is going to score when he is on the ice, but it is impressive than a rookie teenager is used to shut down the league's current leading scorer in the playoffs.
No he's not. I have seen every single Ducks game for the past 2 seasons and he's average defensively. He is also playing against top lines with Beauchemin at a ripe age of 20
and like I said in another thread, he's not suited for a top line role because the Ducks are a pretty bad team
Good because thats who I was talking about. Considering the post I was responding to was about Strome....
It's worth noting that Strome is a full 8 months younger than Couturier, and was clearly on a steeper development curve - he's obviously a kid compared to Couturier.
There is going to be a debate for a very long time whether the Islanders should have drafted Hamilton over Strome. But Couturier over Strome? I don't see it. The Islanders were and still are in a position to draft for high risk/reward at forward because of their prospect depth, especially at center. The question is whether they should have taken that risk on a D-man instead. The Islanders have an excellent big 2-way center prospect, Brock Nelson. I'm not saying that Nelson is as good as Couturier now, or that he's as much as a sure thing, but his upside isn't much lower.
Hard to compare these players. Strome, Huberdeau and Scheifele all played this year on their teams #1 line and on the top PP unit. Asking one of these three to join the Flyers 4th line and PK and do better than Couturier did is a tall order.
Offensive upside is the only reason those players were drafted ahead of Couturier.
Also whoever wrote "you can draft a guy like Couturier in the later rounds"...goodluck with that.
Aside from two very high profile free agents (Reggie White and Charles Woodson), Green Bay built and maintains their team through superior drafting. The Packers realized that unless they overspent on premier free agents, none would come to Green Bay if they had better options. Thus, the current regime opted to invest in scouting. The current team was built through the draft, undrafted free agents and a few small trades.
So while it might be nice to cultivate that winning attitude, it would be better to simply ignore free agents and build from within, especially in a geographic area that most players would consider unattractive (save for native sons).
It's worth noting that Strome is a full 8 months younger than Couturier, and was clearly on a steeper development curve - he's obviously a kid compared to Couturier.
There is going to be a debate for a very long time whether the Islanders should have drafted Hamilton over Strome. But Couturier over Strome? I don't see it. The Islanders were and still are in a position to draft for high risk/reward at forward because of their prospect depth, especially at center. The question is whether they should have taken that risk on a D-man instead. The Islanders have an excellent big 2-way center prospect, Brock Nelson. I'm not saying that Nelson is as good as Couturier now, or that he's as much as a sure thing, but his upside isn't much lower.
Cheers,
Dan-o
I think Couturier would've brought a lot to the Islanders' second line. He's a Travis Zajac like player with a whole lot more offensive flair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
Oops my bad. I didn't realize you were responding to the post about Strome.
aye, Couturier is a hard worker indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gifted88
Hard to compare these players. Strome, Huberdeau and Scheifele all played this year on their teams #1 line and on the top PP unit. Asking one of these three to join the Flyers 4th line and PK and do better than Couturier did is a tall order.
Offensive upside is the only reason those players were drafted ahead of Couturier.
Also whoever wrote "you can draft a guy like Couturier in the later rounds"...goodluck with that.
"The board" is prone to hyperbole in both extremes. I'd like to see someone point out who out of that draft was (since we're talking past tense, about the motives of GMs drafting nearly a year ago) predicted to be as good, but in rounds 2+...if anyone thought that guy existed, he'd have been drafted sooner.
It's worth noting that Strome is a full 8 months younger than Couturier, and was clearly on a steeper development curve - he's obviously a kid compared to Couturier.
There is going to be a debate for a very long time whether the Islanders should have drafted Hamilton over Strome. But Couturier over Strome? I don't see it. The Islanders were and still are in a position to draft for high risk/reward at forward because of their prospect depth, especially at center. The question is whether they should have taken that risk on a D-man instead. The Islanders have an excellent big 2-way center prospect, Brock Nelson. I'm not saying that Nelson is as good as Couturier now, or that he's as much as a sure thing, but his upside isn't much lower.
Cheers,
Dan-o
Really, you are going to say the 8 month gap is a men against boys thing....?
I guess Tavares should have went 2nd because Duchene had a steeper development.
I can understand the point, that a younger player may have more room to grow....Couturier had two consecutive 96 point seasons (the 2nd one he had mono) and was still +111 in those seasons.
Scheifele is only in the conversation because the Jets took him, I do not see any higher upside in Scheifele.
Strome and Huberdeau sure, but definitely not Scheifele.
Really, you are going to say the 8 month gap is a men against boys thing....?
I guess Tavares should have went 2nd because Duchene had a steeper development.
I can understand the point, that a younger player may have more room to grow....Couturier had two consecutive 96 point seasons (the 2nd one he had mono) and was still +111 in those seasons.
The eye test means something too. The physical maturity difference between Strome as a 16-17 y/o and Strome as a 17-18 y/o was obvious to the eye. The physical maturity difference between Strome as a 17-18 y/o and Couturier as a 18 y/o is similarly obvious.
Duchene was "thick" coming out - just as mature, if not more mature than JT. Still, you're getting at the risk factor, which I completely acknowledge. Strome may never fill out to the point where he can handle the pro-game effectively. Couturier already can.
people just need to stop saying things like "mono was the reason he dropped". Everybody was privy to his medical reports, that wouldn't be a reason anybody drops.
You just linked to a page on Strome. 
