If we learned something with the Lindholm pick, it's that our scouts really do watch ALL of these players play and make their OWN "draft board". They DON'T just listen to TSN and NHL.com. I'll never over-react to a Ducks draft selection again. I've learned my lesson twice in the last two years (Rakell and Lindholm).
Imo Rakell is not doing as well as expected this season.
I`ve watched only the higlights and seen score sheets, but i expected a lot more from him.
A lot of what Rakell does best won't show up on the score sheet. It's also a very different team than it was last year. They lost a bunch of players to injuries and graduation.
A lot of what Rakell does best won't show up on the score sheet. It's also a very different team than it was last year. They lost a bunch of players to injuries and graduation.
I know, but i hoped he`ll also lead his team in offense, not only in defensive game.
He`s almost leading the team in points but i guess i hoped for even more, after this offseason when he was (reported) great at prospect camp and signed a contract.
I know, but i hoped he`ll also lead his team in offense, not only in defensive game.
He`s almost leading the team in points but i guess i hoped for even more, after this offseason when he was (reported) great at prospect camp and signed a contract.
I'd much rather have an all around game developed than simply scoring more. I never visualized Rakell to be a scoring machine, but to be that next Sami Pahlsson type player. Except Rakell is scoring. Remember, it's only Rakell's third year playing center, AFAIK. There are lots of nuances to being a good defensive center.
How did Vatanen play? He didnt get any points but +1.
Not as bad as the game before, but made some poor decisions and had an all-around unimpressive game. Based on what Vatanen has shown so far, he really needs to be a force offensively, because the rest of his game just isn't quite there yet.
I know, but i hoped he`ll also lead his team in offense, not only in defensive game.
He`s almost leading the team in points but i guess i hoped for even more, after this offseason when he was (reported) great at prospect camp and signed a contract.
That all-around game of his is going to be more valuable to Anaheim at the NHL level than a few points.
I'd much rather have an all around game developed than simply scoring more. I never visualized Rakell to be a scoring machine, but to be that next Sami Pahlsson type player. Except Rakell is scoring. Remember, it's only Rakell's third year playing center, AFAIK. There are lots of nuances to being a good defensive center.
Me too, but in order to become an all-around player you have to score too. I`m not saying he`s ofensively zero, but he could do better against younger opposition.
I've been a little surprised with Holland and his newfound shoot-first mentality.
From what little I've seen of him before this year, I didn't peg him for a shooter. And his junior and last year's AHL stats reflect that. Yet this year, ever since training camp, he seems to be all about the goals. I wonder if he made a conscious decision to shoot more? Someone here once compared him to Jeff Carter. At the time I thought that was a decent comparable, except a mirror image one who passes instead of shoots. But maybe Jeff Carter really is spot on.
I've been a little surprised with Holland and his newfound shoot-first mentality.
From what little I've seen of him before this year, I didn't peg him for a shooter. And his junior and last year's AHL stats reflect that. Yet this year, ever since training camp, he seems to be all about the goals. I wonder if he made a conscious decision to shoot more? Someone here once compared him to Jeff Carter. At the time I thought that was a decent comparable, except a mirror image one who passes instead of shoots. But maybe Jeff Carter really is spot on.
I remember from what I saw of him in juniors he looked very much like a pass first player and his numbers right through to the end of last year season reflected that as well. But his wrist shot is all kinds of awesome and if the coaching staff can get him to use it consistently his game will be much better off. It may just be that it's a small sample size though and his numbers could go back to normal. So far in the limited sample size he's shooting slightly more than last season (2.63 shots per game compared with 2.55 shots per game).
I guess not everyone is like Getzlaf in the sense that even though they possess the best shot on the team they can't for whatever reason use it more often. Crosby is the perfect example of someone being able to change mentalities with no problems.
I guess not everyone is like Getzlaf in the sense that even though they possess the best shot on the team they can't for whatever reason use it more often. Crosby is the perfect example of someone being able to change mentalities with no problems.
Now when Parros is gone, Getzy could compete for the best shot on the team
If we learned something with the Lindholm pick, it's that our scouts really do watch ALL of these players play and make their OWN "draft board". They DON'T just listen to TSN and NHL.com. I'll never over-react to a Ducks draft selection again. I've learned my lesson twice in the last two years (Rakell and Lindholm).
All that pre-draft ranking stuff is just to sell magazines and keep a few pundits employed (and help make money for sites like this). Every team has its own draft board, and yet every year you get fans on these boards flipping out over a "reach" or getting pumped up over a "steal." But if the draft were really as simple as just taking the highest-ranked player according to the media, why would teams bother to employ scouts at all and send them all over the place to watch games, if they could do just as well or better by spending 7 bucks on a draft preview? If you don't trust your scouts, you should fire them.
Thing is, when one of those "off the board" picks turns out to be really good 6 years later, no one gives you extra credit for not going by what Bob McKenzie thought you should do. And if you don't pick Pierre Mcguire's latest man-crush and the kid fizzles out, no one remembers that you were smart enough not to buy into the hype. Years down the road, the only thing that's gonna matter is whether you got a good player or not, no one cares whether or not you went "by the book."
I used to keep old draft preview issues, and it was clear how dreadfully wrong most of the reports turned out to be. After seeing how much of a crapshoot the draft is, I stopped getting worked up about it either way.
Watched both games this weekend. Friday nights was as bad a team performance as you'll see, so can't blame it on Bobkov. Although I will say, Bingo hit at least 4 posts and may have been 6. That's a lot of shots getting by a goalie.
Looks like an interesting road trip this week. Springfield smoked Bridgeport 10-2 last night, I'm sure they'll be pissed on Wednesday. Then at Bingo, at Springfield who is on fire then Monday in Albany. 3 of 4 on this trip would be over the top.
All that pre-draft ranking stuff is just to sell magazines and keep a few pundits employed (and help make money for sites like this). Every team has its own draft board, and yet every year you get fans on these boards flipping out over a "reach" or getting pumped up over a "steal." But if the draft were really as simple as just taking the highest-ranked player according to the media, why would teams bother to employ scouts at all and send them all over the place to watch games, if they could do just as well or better by spending 7 bucks on a draft preview? If you don't trust your scouts, you should fire them.
Thing is, when one of those "off the board" picks turns out to be really good 6 years later, no one gives you extra credit for not going by what Bob McKenzie thought you should do. And if you don't pick Pierre Mcguire's latest man-crush and the kid fizzles out, no one remembers that you were smart enough not to buy into the hype. Years down the road, the only thing that's gonna matter is whether you got a good player or not, no one cares whether or not you went "by the book."
I used to keep old draft preview issues, and it was clear how dreadfully wrong most of the reports turned out to be. After seeing how much of a crapshoot the draft is, I stopped getting worked up about it either way.
Different GMs often bring their own Scouts. We, the fans, aren't privy to those scouting evaluations. Many of us not in Europe, Canada or near Canada have no idea who these players are aside from people on boards like these or those magazines you abhor. I like their scouting report. It may differ from what each respective teams have ranked, but the fact a majority of us are introduced to 60 or more prospects in some type of detail or description of play. For example, I had no idea who Rakell was. I just knew of the big names. So these preview magazine do give some info on many prospects that a majority of us don't know about. Also little information like Rakell asked to play center even though he was listed as a RW and still is listed as a RW on many prospect sites, including HF.
I like information. The more the merrier. But know that if you're not on boards like this, you may not know of many prospects. Heck, not a lot of us knew of Lindholm although one TSN person noted he'd be in the top 15. Lastly, we don't know what our scouts want nor do they want to tip their hand. At least we have some rough estimate of where some prospects should be or not.
Different GMs often bring their own Scouts. We, the fans, aren't privy to those scouting evaluations. Many of us not in Europe, Canada or near Canada have no idea who these players are aside from people on boards like these or those magazines you abhor. I like their scouting report. It may differ from what each respective teams have ranked, but the fact a majority of us are introduced to 60 or more prospects in some type of detail or description of play. For example, I had no idea who Rakell was. I just knew of the big names. So these preview magazine do give some info on many prospects that a majority of us don't know about. Also little information like Rakell asked to play center even though he was listed as a RW and still is listed as a RW on many prospect sites, including HF.
Information is fine. It's just silly for anyone to read up on scouting reports and assume that they know anything about where a guy "should" be drafted. Or even know what a player is truly like ... I can name a whole slew of guys who were picked higher than they were "supposed" to be picked, and some of them turned out to be brilliant picks. Given that, it's kind of silly for a fan who reads some web sites and a few magazines to think he knows better than teams that spent big money actually watching those players play.
Information is fine. It's just silly for anyone to read up on scouting reports and assume that they know anything about where a guy "should" be drafted. Or even know what a player is truly like ... I can name a whole slew of guys who were picked higher than they were "supposed" to be picked, and some of them turned out to be brilliant picks. Given that, it's kind of silly for a fan who reads some web sites and a few magazines to think he knows better than teams that spent big money actually watching those players play.
Then critique the fan, not the magazine. The magazine does the draft per their perspective. Each team has a certain narrative to follow. Some follow similarly to someone's predictions, but they're still predictions.
Before Burke, we nailed it with Getz and Perry along with FA's Andy Mac, Kunitz and Perry. During Burke all I can remember was drafting MacMillan in the first round and has not been seen since. Recently. we've got a slew of good prospects that extend down to the fifth round.
If you're sensible with the information, then you won't go spouting out like it's the end all document to abide by. That's how most people are in drafts for other sports as well. But it's a gamble in the draft after the couple of blue chippers.
I'll do both, thank you very much. I've bought enough of those draft previews in the past to know that the vast majority of the time, the information proves to be largely wrong. And given that, the conclusion is that they're basically selling die-hard fans a lot of crap.
If they told the truth ("most of these kids won't amount to much, so don't worry about it") there wouldn't be much interest would there? And a lot less money to be made for guys who make part of their living on TV or websites posing as draft gurus, because if they came out and said, "we actually have no idea if this was a good pick or not, and won't for another half decade or more," who the **** would watch?
Any fan who says, "what a stupid pick" on draft day is being an idiot. But that doesn't absolve the draft previewers from criticism when they're largely wrong.
Quote:
Before Burke, we nailed it with Getz and Perry along with FA's Andy Mac, Kunitz and Perry. During Burke all I can remember was drafting MacMillan in the first round and has not been seen since. Recently. we've got a slew of good prospects that extend down to the fifth round.
Ok, and this has to do with the topic of getting worked up over draft picks ... how?
Quote:
If you're sensible with the information, then you won't go spouting out like it's the end all document to abide by. That's how most people are in drafts for other sports as well. But it's a gamble in the draft after the couple of blue chippers.
It's a gamble even with the blue-chippers. I'm sure you can find a long, long list of very highly drafted "sure things" that amounted to diddly squat.
I'll do both, thank you very much. I've bought enough of those draft previews in the past to know that the vast majority of the time, the information proves to be largely wrong. And given that, the conclusion is that they're basically selling die-hard fans a lot of crap.
Don't presume die-hard fans are exactly like you, which is to be more informed. Although I believe you missed the point that the previews are called predictions. A majority of their projections are based on the kid's past work as well as their physical attributes. The magazine's scouts or whoever is making the predictions obviously falls in love with certain prospects like each team scouts fall in love with theirs. I see nothing wrong with the magazines and find it useful in a few different perspectives. I like it because, as stated many times before, we fans are not privy as to how our scouts make their projections on their boards and so we have insight onto how someone else does project it. I would read your projections if you made one and gladly thank you for it because I know I'm not that informed. I think that's why many fans purchase these magazines or look online at the many mock drafts that include some kind of description of the players. Would I make opinions based on what you wrote? You betcha! That is until after the draft to hear what our scouts say about the picks they picked and reveal so much more information to change my opinion. And then we wait to see if the player does fit what the scouts say. This is how everybody thought when we picked Lindholm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt
If they told the truth ("most of these kids won't amount to much, so don't worry about it") there wouldn't be much interest would there? And a lot less money to be made for guys who make part of their living on TV or websites posing as draft gurus, because if they came out and said, "we actually have no idea if this was a good pick or not, and won't for another half decade or more," who the **** would watch?
Ummm... are you making up information because I've seen the exact opposite illustration by some commentators. This goes for all sports drafting. They will state that this particular year there are a lot of specific prospects worth while or other years are just particularly weak. They state that. They will state there are only so few blue chippers and after that, nada. That's just in the first round of the NHL draft.
But these draft gurus and hockey commentators spend their whole lives watching and tracking players. This is their livelihood. They can be wrong as no one's perfect, but they've witnessed enough to carry some substantial weight on what to expect and project. They love this stuff. I won't knock on their passion, but we can disagree about their projections. You have to also take into account these people look at it as an NHL whole; not team specific nor do they have the luxury to cover so many prospects unless they have the resources. So you have a lot of info from many different people and you can make your own reasonings. Which is how you came to your conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt
Any fan who says, "what a stupid pick" on draft day is being an idiot. But that doesn't absolve the draft previewers from criticism when they're largely wrong.
I don't know about a fan being a complete idiot 100% of the time. We can be correct once in a while. Which is why I brought up MacMillan... Logan MacMillan. There's a reason why we're called fans because we're fanatical. (OT: isn't calling a die hard fan redundant or have we forgotten what fan actually means.)
As for absolving the criticism that they're largely wrong is in itself an Argumentum ad Hominem. Just because they are wrong on a few prospects doesn't mean they're always wrong. In the top 60 prospects, just about every one's predictions are similar. So the specific projections (rank) may be incorrect, but the area they were drafted in is within an acceptable range (say a top 15 pick or a late rounder).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt
Ok, and this has to do with the topic of getting worked up over draft picks ... how?
Seriously ? I mean that in the most confused way as in may be I didn't convey what I was trying to imply. The player names I cited or how the Ducks drafted partially agrees with your notion that we may not know about players after a while, but the track record of players as well as scouts do matter. In retrospect, we can deduce that during the Bryan Murray era, we had some great picks, especially Corey Perry. In that era, I believed that Lupul was more important to the Ducks than Getz and Perry. Then we were great at signing college FA's. (meaning a lot of pundits missed their mark on these talents) And when Burke took reign, we weren't as good at drafting as a lot of us didn't like some picks because it didn't fit what many pundits wrote about. Apparently, they were correct. Then with Murray in charge now, the pundits were proven correct with Cam Fowler, but were off on Lindholm except one who projected he become a top 15 pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmbt
It's a gamble even with the blue-chippers. I'm sure you can find a long, long list of very highly drafted "sure things" that amounted to diddly squat.
And that's why we play the game. Blue chip prospects have that greatness or bust mode. And how a prospect is considered a blue chip prospect sometimes is relative to locale or media props. We have that view in our system with Etem v Palmieri. But if you ask someone from a different part of the country and they'll probably say, "Who are they?" They're prospects. They are only three outcomes for prospects: 1) fall below expectation, 2) meet expectations, or 3) exceeds expectations. The pundits, based on info that they are able to acquire, set their projections for players to meet expectations. I know Redline has extensive scouting, but their scouting separates NA players from European players because the games are different. So projecting players specifically by rank is difficult because one has to take into account how the player will adapt to NA play. This is why Lindholm wasn't ranked so high.
I'm glad you know more than these pundits to put your info here on these boards. I'm thankful for your input. I could or may disagree with your position, but very grateful with the information you provide. Such as now, as I'm forced to think as opposed to saying, " yeah. okay." The more info there is, the merrier I am. Then it becomes my job to discern what I want to use to support my opinion or lack of one. LoL
? I mean that in the most confused way as in may be I didn't convey what I was trying to imply. The player names I cited or how the Ducks drafted partially agrees with your notion that we may not know about players after a while, but the track record of players as well as scouts do matter. In retrospect, we can deduce that during the Bryan Murray era, we had some great picks, especially Corey Perry. In that era, I believed that Lupul was more important to the Ducks than Getz and Perry. Then we were great at signing college FA's. (meaning a lot of pundits missed their mark on these talents) And when Burke took reign, we weren't as good at drafting as a lot of us didn't like some picks because it didn't fit what many pundits wrote about. Apparently, they were correct. Then with Murray in charge now, the pundits were proven correct with Cam Fowler, but were off on Lindholm except one who projected he become a top 15 pick. 
