I wasn't at all impressed with him at the scrimmages. His ceiling may be higher than some others, but out of all of the possibles in the "top 10" here...
Hell, I was more impressed with Seeler's "hockey IQ".
Oh wait, you voted for Coyle as #3 even though he had an even worse scrimmage than Dumba despite being two years older and having already had a couple under his belt...
I wasn't at all impressed with him at the scrimmages. His ceiling may be higher than some others, but out of all of the possibles in the "top 10" here...
Hell, I was more impressed with Seeler's "hockey IQ".
I understand the skepticism with Dumba but the scrimmages by themselves isn't the reason.
All year, his flaw in his game was his decision making and he didn't show any different during the developmental camp.
I do think Coyle and Larsson are better prospects, but understand that Dumba brings alot to like. We're just lucky enough to have some many talented prospects all in one go...
I understand the skepticism with Dumba but the scrimmages by themselves isn't the reason.
All year, his flaw in his game was his decision making and he didn't show any different during the developmental camp.
I do think Coyle and Larsson are better prospects, but understand that Dumba brings alot to like. We're just lucky enough to have some many talented prospects all in one go...
The word on the street is that his problem is that he tries to do too much sometimes.....which can be easily fixed.
I understand the skepticism with Dumba but the scrimmages by themselves isn't the reason.
All year, his flaw in his game was his decision making and he didn't show any different during the developmental camp.
I do think Coyle and Larsson are better prospects, but understand that Dumba brings alot to like. We're just lucky enough to have some many talented prospects all in one go...
Which is another reason why I'm not as high as others on him, as this is what I personally appreciate more in a player than most other aspects.
From the few streams I watched for some of the "top 10" that we are voting for here, when it comes to strong decision making, even while exhausted, my tops would be:
Brodin, Granlund, Coyle, Larsson, Phillips, Zucker and then Seeler.
From a pure skill combined with the IQ aspect, the only flip flop would be at the top between Granlund and Brodin. Seeler would drop a little because his skill isn't as great as his awareness.
As for Coyle not having a good scrimmage? His intangibles out weighed his scoresheet. Always in the right place, going into open areas, digging and winning board battles... I'd fault his linemates more than Coyle for occasionally being "invisible".
Tough to see on a steam, I bet, but he would go into the open area (or create that opening himself) ... I like that, because a nifty play maker would capitalize on that skill...
Again, though... I have given up trying to "argue" on the internet. That hearkens back to the WMB days when logic and reason would fall sloppy dead.
Anyone saying that Coyle's "intangibles" were good during the scrimmage didn't watch or is lying to themselves. He was bad, in every way imaginable. Most people have given him a pass on it because it's just a scrimmage, and one that's not really set up to take advantage of "his game" but he barely could handle any play against the incredibly weak competition in the scrimmage, and didn't make good decisions while there. But yeah, it's totally just the fault of the player you've voted for here that he did so poorly. Keep layering on the logic there...
Dude... You use less logic than anyone on these boards. Your policy style of debate is getting tired and worn out. The fact that you like to say more than anyone else in an argument, while taking cheap, illogical shots at other posters in order to twist the semantic meaning of an argument is more reminiscent of the old WMBs than anything else.
Were you in the arena or did you watch it on the stream?
Being in the arena, I saw Coyle;
Winning board battles.
Going into empty spaces.
Creating space for himself.
Granted, I was watching the defense more closely than the forwards.
Dude... You use less logic than anyone on these boards. Your policy style of debate is getting tired and worn out. The fact that you like to say more than anyone else in an argument, while taking cheap, illogical shots at other posters in order to twist the semantic meaning of an argument is more reminiscent of the old WMBs than anything else.
Were you in the arena or did you watch it on the stream?
Being in the arena, I saw Coyle;
Winning board battles.
Going into empty spaces.
Creating space for himself.
Granted, I was watching the defense more closely than the forwards.
Dude... You use less logic than anyone on these boards. Your policy style of debate is getting tired and worn out. The fact that you like to say more than anyone else in an argument, while taking cheap, illogical shots at other posters in order to twist the semantic meaning of an argument is more reminiscent of the old WMBs than anything else.
Were you in the arena or did you watch it on the stream?
Being in the arena, I saw Coyle;
Winning board battles.
Going into empty spaces.
Creating space for himself.
Granted, I was watching the defense more closely than the forwards.
Talking to yourself again I see.
As for the scrimmages, allegedly he was better in the Sunday scrimmage (which I didn't get to meaningfully watch) but I'll let GS make the point for me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gopher State
Charlie Coyle - While it's a scrimmage, he was mostly invisible outside of the occasional scramble along the boards or play with Johan Larsson. Things were so bad that after a five minute stretch in the second half I had to check and make sure Coyle wasn't injured. That's not what you want to see out of a player who led the QMJHL in playoff scoring and highlighted a bigger problem among Team White forwards, a lack of chemistry. Other than Kris Foucault and Tyler Groavac the last 5 minutes, no one seemed to find a rhythm and shows why they struggled in the first half.
Coyle played very poorly in the scrimmage. But yet you've laid blame for that (in your post) firmly at the feet of the player you're voting for now. Let's use logic for half a second here (although the lack of logic on WMB was clearly a symptom of your posting, not despite it).
My guess is that you didn't watch or are lying to yourself.
Everything else aside, he obviously wasn't playing with his full arsenal of physicality during the scrimmages. But he did do a lot of the little things right. His goal during the Thursday game was about him finding an open, soft spot beside the net for the cross-crease pass from Foucault.
i went with Zucker. I like larsson too but i guess i haven't seen enough of him. I liked how Zucker looked at the scrimmage and he dominated the beavers when we played them last fall. I'm just hoping he turns into a pure goal scorer that we've been lacking since Gaborik.
As for the scrimmages, allegedly he was better in the Sunday scrimmage (which I didn't get to meaningfully watch) but I'll let GS make the point for me:
So you didn't see him in any meaningful way on Sunday, where he was a helluvalot more dominate, and I'm the fool. Got it.
The white team was crap in the first half on Thursday. The second half, they were better, chemistry developed. However, since they announced Coyle's goal as Graovac, I suppose he didn't score either?
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz
Coyle played very poorly in the scrimmage. But yet you've laid blame for that (in your post) firmly at the feet of the player you're voting for now. Let's use logic for half a second here (although the lack of logic on WMB was clearly a symptom of your posting, not despite it).
You watched a stream of the Thursday scrimmage and you didn't (in a meaningful way) watch the stream of the Sunday scrimmage. I was in arena for both of them. Yet, you accuse me of not using logic?
You: I watched a stream. First half of Thursday, Coyle sucked, therefore Coyle played very poorly in ALL of the scrimmage. Anyone that disagrees with me is either lying to themselves or didn't watch.
I do not expect you to see the logic failure here, but I do expect you to fall back to name calling and arguing nothing but semantics. I also expect you to draw a concrete generality based on an extremely limited set of data.
Last edited by Jarick: 07-26-2012 at 12:14 PM.
Reason: flaming
Were you in the arena or did you watch it on the stream?
Being in the arena, I saw Coyle;
Winning board battles.
Going into empty spaces.
Creating space for himself.
Not trying to jump into anyone's argument, just IMO - I watched the Sunday scrimmage. I thought Coyle was solid; I'd use the same terms, won battles along the boards and used his size well. I thought the Larsen-Coyle-Brussiers was the best line on either team on Sunday.
Coyle leading Zucker at 2-1 ratio. So far no close battles. But where will the majority of the herd go next? I'm tipping my hand, not that anyone cares, but I'm anxious to vote for Bulmer next. Last year I don't think he got quite the love he deserved. IMO it's highly likely he's going to be a solid, physcial 3rd Liner who can chip in a few NHL goals for a long time.
I voted last night and can't really remember who I voted for. I think it was Larsson. I like rating prospects, but I take a pretty objective view to it as some people weigh different skills and positions differently.
How great is it though, that we're on the #5 prospect and we still have so many promising youngsters to choose from? If I was a FA, these prospects and $98,000,000 would definitely get me to sign here.
Last edited by Timothy Freitag: 07-26-2012 at 01:26 PM.
I voted last night and can't really remember who I voted for. I think it was Larsson. I like rating prospects, but I take a pretty objective view to it as some people weigh different skills and positions differently.
How great is it though, that we're on the #5 prospect and we still have so many promising youngsters to choose from? If I was a FA, these prospects and $98,000,000 would definitely get me to sign here.
You voted for Larsson, you can click on the vote number and see who voted for who.
His intangibles out weighed his scoresheet. Always in the right place, going into open areas, digging and winning board battles... I'd fault his linemates more than Coyle for occasionally being "invisible". 
