HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2013 NHL Entry Draft Thread | "Don't Be A Moran, Draft Monahan"

View Poll Results: Who Would You Draft Of These Options?
Sean Monahan 141 52.61%
Elias Lindholm 26 9.70%
Valeri Nischushkin 34 12.69%
Darnell Nurse 45 16.79%
Rasmus Ristolainen 8 2.99%
Curtis Lazar 14 5.22%
Voters: 268. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2013, 03:16 PM
  #26
Hugo Stiglitz
Registered User
 
Hugo Stiglitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,121
vCash: 894
Our season is in a hearse, draft Nurse!

Hugo Stiglitz is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 03:21 PM
  #27
The Nuge
Farewell Smytty
 
The Nuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,729
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo Stiglitz View Post
Our season is in a hearse, draft Nurse!
I was thinking that exact same one

__________________
"The Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it" - dnicks17
The Nuge is online now  
Old
04-14-2013, 03:24 PM
  #28
40oz
..........
 
40oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
From a hockey perspective yes but from a business perspective Jones is huge. He is Popeyes son, an American, and well spoken kid. He will sell tickets in the US. That is huge.

Yeah we would have to send something else with Jones but we need an experienced #1 dman with our team makeup.

You guys may laugh at the ideas but Saving money for some teams is huge. PHX is bleeding cash. The NHL hasn't given them unlimited budget to run team. So would they be interested in saving almost $10 million (potentially) for the next couple yrs? I would have to think so. Are they downgrading so much for OEL to Jones? IMO no....

For others managing the cap is important because they get to ice a stronger lineup with the cap savings ELC provide
It'll get awkward when Jones asks for a trade out of Quebec City.

40oz is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 03:40 PM
  #29
Cerebral
Registered User
 
Cerebral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jadeddog View Post
if we draft around 8th, which seems pretty likely with our tough schedule and the fact that the team has all but checked out for the season, and monahan is there, we'd be fools not to take him.... he will be a perfect 3rd line center in a couple years... a guy who does everything fairly well, and has enough of a scoring touch to maybe play 2nd line center in a pinch (injury relief or what have you).... tough SOB to play against according to all reports, gritty, very good on faceoffs... the only real negatives in his game are his average skating and his only slightly better than average offence

i agree that lindholm looks good as well though, and i'd be perfectly happy if we ended up with him as well
I love what Monahan provides and I also disagree with your assessment of his offensive potential (he took a big step forward this year - his numbers look the same but the help around him was non-existent).

Despite that, I think I'd side with Lindholm if we had a choice of the two (which would be an absolute dream - I'd love either of them). People sometimes get a little too hung up on size - the best one-two centreman duo in recent memory is Sakic-Forsberg and they were both under 6'0 tall.

Lindholm is a gritty player and he's superb along the boards. He's the kind of player who could carry a second line long-term while Monahan is more of a complimentary player.

I'm praying we end up drafting 7th or lower. My worst case scenario at 7 would be like this:

1-Jones
2-Drouin
3-Mackinnon
4-Barkov
5-Nurse
6-Lindholm
7-???

That would leave us with one of Monahan or Lindholm for sure IF a team was sold on Nurse's potential. We could also go big and take Nichuskin if we wanted a bit more risk.

Dropping down another pick or two would likely result in us taking one of the 3rd tier forwards (Shinkaruk or Domi) or 2nd tier defencemen (Ristolainen, Pulock, or Zadorov).

I'd be perfectly happy walking away from the draft with one of Monahan or Pulock but I'd be ecstatic if we could add a guy like Lindholm. I just don't think we'll be in a position to make that happen.

__________________
Burn Girl Prom Queen
Cerebral is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 03:55 PM
  #30
puckfan13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
From the other thread but got closed right after I posted:

D Tommy Vannelli - Toolsy and smooth defender from Minnesota high school that has lots of filling out to do, noted for a eye-popping outlet pass and PP QB abilities. Could take a Petry like development in the US system. Supposed to go to University of Minnesota. Might be one of my favorite prospects I've heard about from on paper without actually seeing him play. Got invited to NTDP but turned it down to return for his senior year at Minnetonka. He is with NTDP for the U-18's so keep an eye on him

D Dylan Labbe - defenseman playing out of Shawinigan, a godawful team, high defensive and offensive IQ with a physical element, have heard comparisons to Letang on an a bad Val D'Or team in his draft year. He is part of Team Canada's entry at the U-18's so I'll be keeping my eye on him for sure there.

D Maxime Gravel - smooth skating, high offensive IQ d-man with a bit of a mean streak in him. Could be appealing after round 3.

F Marc-Olivier Roy - Slick hard-working forward with terrific stickhandling skills, IQ, and elusiveness, competitive but slight in size. Is lighting it up in the playoffs right now in the Q. Only his second year in the league as an 18-year-old but the skills are really intriguing to me here. Late 2nd to early 4th range for this guy.

F Vincent Dunn - intense, physical, agitator type who crashes the net playing for Val D'Or in the Q. Size is his minus at 5'11". Put up good points with 52 points in 53 games but got suspended for a racial slur against a native opponent earlier this year. Teams tend to fall in love with these types of players, could see him going as early as the 2nd because of his competitiveness. Have heard anywhere from Marchand to Kaleta with this type of guy. Love these types of prospects personally.

F Emile Poirier - This guy could be the Brandon Saad of this draft from the sounds of Q watchers, late birthday (Saad was too), but I'd keep my eye on him. Very skilled with some skating concerns but people are all over his clutchness and skills. His forechecking, intelligence and 2-way game seem to be raved about. Plays in Gatineau right across from Ottawa and played Halifax in playoffs, this guy is known by all scouts by now might be an early 2nd at this point. Have heard Pascal Dupuis kind of guy if things go right, sounds like a player with sense to translate to pros that you want on your team/system.

puckfan13 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 04:03 PM
  #31
Harley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,316
vCash: 500
Gauthier. Unless you can find another quality two way centre in this draft that is even bigger than he is. Of course if we are drafting in the top 5 I will probably have to set my sights a bit higher.

Harley is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 04:31 PM
  #32
40oz
..........
 
40oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilsp1ll View Post
From the other thread but got closed right after I posted:

D Tommy Vannelli - Toolsy and smooth defender from Minnesota high school that has lots of filling out to do, noted for a eye-popping outlet pass and PP QB abilities. Could take a Petry like development in the US system. Supposed to go to University of Minnesota. Might be one of my favorite prospects I've heard about from on paper without actually seeing him play. Got invited to NTDP but turned it down to return for his senior year at Minnetonka. He is with NTDP for the U-18's so keep an eye on him

D Dylan Labbe - defenseman playing out of Shawinigan, a godawful team, high defensive and offensive IQ with a physical element, have heard comparisons to Letang on an a bad Val D'Or team in his draft year. He is part of Team Canada's entry at the U-18's so I'll be keeping my eye on him for sure there.

D Maxime Gravel - smooth skating, high offensive IQ d-man with a bit of a mean streak in him. Could be appealing after round 3.

F Marc-Olivier Roy - Slick hard-working forward with terrific stickhandling skills, IQ, and elusiveness, competitive but slight in size. Is lighting it up in the playoffs right now in the Q. Only his second year in the league as an 18-year-old but the skills are really intriguing to me here. Late 2nd to early 4th range for this guy.

F Vincent Dunn - intense, physical, agitator type who crashes the net playing for Val D'Or in the Q. Size is his minus at 5'11". Put up good points with 52 points in 53 games but got suspended for a racial slur against a native opponent earlier this year. Teams tend to fall in love with these types of players, could see him going as early as the 2nd because of his competitiveness. Have heard anywhere from Marchand to Kaleta with this type of guy. Love these types of prospects personally.

F Emile Poirier - This guy could be the Brandon Saad of this draft from the sounds of Q watchers, late birthday (Saad was too), but I'd keep my eye on him. Very skilled with some skating concerns but people are all over his clutchness and skills. His forechecking, intelligence and 2-way game seem to be raved about. Plays in Gatineau right across from Ottawa and played Halifax in playoffs, this guy is known by all scouts by now might be an early 2nd at this point. Have heard Pascal Dupuis kind of guy if things go right, sounds like a player with sense to translate to pros that you want on your team/system.
Great post, Emile Poirier is really interesting.

40oz is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 04:58 PM
  #33
jadeddog
Registered User
 
jadeddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Posts: 12,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerebral View Post
I love what Monahan provides and I also disagree with your assessment of his offensive potential (he took a big step forward this year - his numbers look the same but the help around him was non-existent).

Despite that, I think I'd side with Lindholm if we had a choice of the two (which would be an absolute dream - I'd love either of them). People sometimes get a little too hung up on size - the best one-two centreman duo in recent memory is Sakic-Forsberg and they were both under 6'0 tall.

Lindholm is a gritty player and he's superb along the boards. He's the kind of player who could carry a second line long-term while Monahan is more of a complimentary player.

I'm praying we end up drafting 7th or lower. My worst case scenario at 7 would be like this:

1-Jones
2-Drouin
3-Mackinnon
4-Barkov
5-Nurse
6-Lindholm
7-???

That would leave us with one of Monahan or Lindholm for sure IF a team was sold on Nurse's potential. We could also go big and take Nichuskin if we wanted a bit more risk.

Dropping down another pick or two would likely result in us taking one of the 3rd tier forwards (Shinkaruk or Domi) or 2nd tier defencemen (Ristolainen, Pulock, or Zadorov).

I'd be perfectly happy walking away from the draft with one of Monahan or Pulock but I'd be ecstatic if we could add a guy like Lindholm. I just don't think we'll be in a position to make that happen.
yeah i largely agree with you here as well... my preference would be monahan because he plays in NA so we know what his game will look like on the smaller ice.... he is a little bigger as well, and i consider that a plus

like you said though, dropping down even 2-3 spots (to 10th for example) basically gets us out of the "tier-2" players (monahan, nurse, lindholm) grouping and into the "tier-3" players grouping.... this tier-3 group has a LOT more players in it, and likely extends down to the 14-16th picks... any of the players taken in that group has as good a chance as the next of being the best player picked of the group (IMO anyhow)... the tier-2 group all look to be at least NHLers at some point, whereas that tier-3 group will have a pretty decent "bust ratio"

i don't want us to tank, but i won't exactly be crying if finish with the 6th-8th overall pick, which would likely ensure us getting one of the tier-2 players

jadeddog is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:05 PM
  #34
Brewster
Registered User
 
Brewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 913
vCash: 500
Watch us draft Shinkaruk.

Brewster is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:06 PM
  #35
BarDownBobo
Registered User
 
BarDownBobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Yak City
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley View Post
Gauthier. Unless you can find another quality two way centre in this draft that is even bigger than he is. Of course if we are drafting in the top 5 I will probably have to set my sights a bit higher.
Gauthier has size, but apparently doesn't really use it, like Paajarvi. Don't really want him.

BarDownBobo is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:15 PM
  #36
Cerebral
Registered User
 
Cerebral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brewster View Post
Watch us draft Shinkaruk.
If Shinkaruk is the best player available, we should definitely draft him. If he develops into a top 6 forward, we then have the luxury of moving him or one of our other smaller forwards.

The last time we consciously turned away from a player in the draft because of a size deficit in our lineup, we lost out on Parise.

Fortunately, I don't think we'll have to make that decision as I doubt we drop far enough in the draft to where Shinkaruk is the best player available (unless the Oilers really don't like the second tier defencemen like Pulock, Ristolainen, and Zadorov).

Cerebral is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:18 PM
  #37
Qrispy
Registered User
 
Qrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerebral View Post
I love what Monahan provides and I also disagree with your assessment of his offensive potential (he took a big step forward this year - his numbers look the same but the help around him was non-existent).

Despite that, I think I'd side with Lindholm if we had a choice of the two (which would be an absolute dream - I'd love either of them). People sometimes get a little too hung up on size - the best one-two centreman duo in recent memory is Sakic-Forsberg and they were both under 6'0 tall.

Lindholm is a gritty player and he's superb along the boards. He's the kind of player who could carry a second line long-term while Monahan is more of a complimentary player.

I'm praying we end up drafting 7th or lower. My worst case scenario at 7 would be like this:

1-Jones
2-Drouin
3-Mackinnon
4-Barkov
5-Nurse
6-Lindholm
7-???

That would leave us with one of Monahan or Lindholm for sure IF a team was sold on Nurse's potential. We could also go big and take Nichuskin if we wanted a bit more risk.

Dropping down another pick or two would likely result in us taking one of the 3rd tier forwards (Shinkaruk or Domi) or 2nd tier defencemen (Ristolainen, Pulock, or Zadorov).

I'd be perfectly happy walking away from the draft with one of Monahan or Pulock but I'd be ecstatic if we could add a guy like Lindholm. I just don't think we'll be in a position to make that happen.
Totally agree with this. I love the combination of skill and grit Lindholm has but we need to get into the top 5. Jones, Mac, Drouin, Barkov are pretty much locks for the top 4 spots. The 5th spot is where things get pretty interesting. Krueg and the boys need to keep the tanks rolling.

Qrispy is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:20 PM
  #38
OilDrop37
Registered User
 
OilDrop37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up North
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 4620
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
I hope we win the lottery and then trade Jones to PHX for OEL (thy would save almost $6 million and might generate 1k - 2k more fans per game which will equal several million more for cash strapped team).

Or to Stl for Pie (they have lots of players to sign and are budget team) or to Nsh for Weber (Jones would be marketing dream for them).

That is what I am hoping for
There's a joke in there somewhere, can't seem to find it...

OilDrop37 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:49 PM
  #39
DousedInOil
Registered User
 
DousedInOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Katy <3
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
No matter how good Jones is (and he's awesome....love watching him dominate the whole ice when he is out there) he will have a learning curve. He is not going to be dominant right away (most likely). The stage the Oilers are we need an experienced guy more even if we might be giving up a tad over the long haul.

That's just my opinion.
People had this same argument when we first started drafting high in 2007. Each year it was "we need someone who can step in right away". I don't care how long it takes the player to come into the league. Even if its 4 years and he turns out to be the BPA then that's what I want. Jones Is the BPA and we would be insanely lucky to even have a chance at drafting him.

DousedInOil is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 05:58 PM
  #40
Brewster
Registered User
 
Brewster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerebral View Post
If Shinkaruk is the best player available, we should definitely draft him. If he develops into a top 6 forward, we then have the luxury of moving him or one of our other smaller forwards.

The last time we consciously turned away from a player in the draft because of a size deficit in our lineup, we lost out on Parise.

Fortunately, I don't think we'll have to make that decision as I doubt we drop far enough in the draft to where Shinkaruk is the best player available (unless the Oilers really don't like the second tier defencemen like Pulock, Ristolainen, and Zadorov).
I absolutely agree if Shinkaruk is the BPA we should take him, but where we will be drafting there is no way he is.

Brewster is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 07:21 PM
  #41
Soli
Moderator
Supervision Required
 
Soli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 13,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerebral View Post
I love what Monahan provides and I also disagree with your assessment of his offensive potential (he took a big step forward this year - his numbers look the same but the help around him was non-existent).

Despite that, I think I'd side with Lindholm if we had a choice of the two (which would be an absolute dream - I'd love either of them). People sometimes get a little too hung up on size - the best one-two centreman duo in recent memory is Sakic-Forsberg and they were both under 6'0 tall.

Lindholm is a gritty player and he's superb along the boards. He's the kind of player who could carry a second line long-term while Monahan is more of a complimentary player.

I'm praying we end up drafting 7th or lower. My worst case scenario at 7 would be like this:

1-Jones
2-Drouin
3-Mackinnon
4-Barkov
5-Nurse
6-Lindholm
7-???

That would leave us with one of Monahan or Lindholm for sure IF a team was sold on Nurse's potential. We could also go big and take Nichuskin if we wanted a bit more risk.

Dropping down another pick or two would likely result in us taking one of the 3rd tier forwards (Shinkaruk or Domi) or 2nd tier defencemen (Ristolainen, Pulock, or Zadorov).

I'd be perfectly happy walking away from the draft with one of Monahan or Pulock but I'd be ecstatic if we could add a guy like Lindholm. I just don't think we'll be in a position to make that happen.
I'd be super pleased if that was the board and we're at 7, it'd be fantastic to walk out with Monahan. Some may tend to overvalue size, but on the Oilers we need all the inches we can get. I wouldn't say they're very differently physically, but the bigger frame the better when your using it. Definitely would give Lindholm the edge offensively, but the other facets of Monahan's game and intangibles make him such an attractive option to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilsp1ll View Post
From the other thread but got closed right after I posted:

D Tommy Vannelli - Toolsy and smooth defender from Minnesota high school that has lots of filling out to do, noted for a eye-popping outlet pass and PP QB abilities. Could take a Petry like development in the US system. Supposed to go to University of Minnesota. Might be one of my favorite prospects I've heard about from on paper without actually seeing him play. Got invited to NTDP but turned it down to return for his senior year at Minnetonka. He is with NTDP for the U-18's so keep an eye on him.
I quoted it in the OP.

Kirk Luedeke had a few tweets about him this morning:

@kluedeke29
Tom Vannelli ain't vanilla. Minority view, but if I was picking in the last few spots of the 1st round, I'd take this kid. #upside
Tommy V- Hockey bloodlines, good size, skating and 2-way game. Raw? Yep. But if you're picking late, can afford to wait #rhymemaster


I'm interested.

Soli is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 07:28 PM
  #42
doubledown99
Registered User
 
doubledown99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DousedInOil View Post
People had this same argument when we first started drafting high in 2007. Each year it was "we need someone who can step in right away". I don't care how long it takes the player to come into the league. Even if its 4 years and he turns out to be the BPA then that's what I want. Jones Is the BPA and we would be insanely lucky to even have a chance at drafting him.
It's not about stepping in....Jones is good enough to play in the NHL. I'm just coming from the viewpoint that it will likely take him 3 years to be an impact defenseman most likely.

I am coming from the viewpoint that your dmen need to be more mature and experienced than your forwards due the complexity of the position. When I look at how Chicago was constructed their dmen were older and had more experience than their forwards. We don't have that luxury so I'd like them to copy that model through trade.

Yes young dmen can come in and make an impact but its more rare. Doughty did it but he still fights inconsistency. EK took about 3yrs. Pie as well. Heck it even took Pronger several yrs before he became impact player and in fact before his trade to Edm lots of people thought he was to immature to be impact player in playoffs (due to some early flameouts by the Blues and undisciplined penalties from Pronger etc during that time).

Most experts agree that is better to be patient with dmen no matter how talented. Detroit has the philosophy of really seasoning there dmen before they come up.

Again just an opinion and as with all opinions it's up for debate

doubledown99 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 07:48 PM
  #43
The Nuge
Farewell Smytty
 
The Nuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,729
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
It's not about stepping in....Jones is good enough to play in the NHL. I'm just coming from the viewpoint that it will likely take him 3 years to be an impact defenseman most likely.

I am coming from the viewpoint that your dmen need to be more mature and experienced than your forwards due the complexity of the position. When I look at how Chicago was constructed their dmen were older and had more experience than their forwards. We don't have that luxury so I'd like them to copy that model through trade.

Yes young dmen can come in and make an impact but its more rare. Doughty did it but he still fights inconsistency. EK took about 3yrs. Pie as well. Heck it even took Pronger several yrs before he became impact player and in fact before his trade to Edm lots of people thought he was to immature to be impact player in playoffs (due to some early flameouts by the Blues and undisciplined penalties from Pronger etc during that time).

Most experts agree that is better to be patient with dmen no matter how talented. Detroit has the philosophy of really seasoning there dmen before they come up.

Again just an opinion and as with all opinions it's up for debate
And look how well that's working for them. Their defense is ****

The Nuge is online now  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:04 PM
  #44
doubledown99
Registered User
 
doubledown99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nuge View Post
And look how well that's working for them. Their defense is ****
Fair enough but Nsh has same philosophy and their defense is fine and they are known for churning out dmen. There are examples every which way which can support any opinion

doubledown99 is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:06 PM
  #45
nabob
Hall for captain
 
nabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: HF boards
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
I approve of this thread title.

nabob is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:11 PM
  #46
nexttothemoon
The Drive for Nine
 
nexttothemoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
In regards to Jones... you aren't going to get that level of talent any other way but to draft, develop and wait. A team isn't going to trade you a Pietrangelo/Weber level defenseman in their prime for an 18 year old Jones.

Why would they when they have that franchise #1 d already?

If that deal is on the table then sure... but no team will give up that already developed #1 in their prime for a player that will take several years to get to that level... and obviously there is a risk that they never reach that level either.

nexttothemoon is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:15 PM
  #47
DousedInOil
Registered User
 
DousedInOil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Katy <3
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
Fair enough but Nsh has same philosophy and their defense is fine and they are known for churning out dmen. There are examples every which way which can support any opinion
To be honest, I've lost faith in our managements ability to trade for top four let alone top pairing defencemen. If we are going to revamp our defence it will be through the draft.

Defencemen take a long time to develop and we probably have some years of struggle ahead of us while we wait for them to develop. This doesn't mean we made the wrong picks. The only defenceman that really challenged any of our first round picks was Kulikov compared to PRV. Fans would be pissed if we had Carlson, Ellerby, Larsson and Murray.

DousedInOil is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:19 PM
  #48
nexttothemoon
The Drive for Nine
 
nexttothemoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
I know most do not want to "tank"... but I'm fully on-board with "letting the losses come".

They suck and are mediocre and a few wins at this stage do nothing... they don't deceive anyone into thinking they have suddenly found a way to win and improved their outlook on the future.

Lose... get it over with and pick top 5.

Simply put, picking at #8 gives you fewer options than picking at #7 or at #6 or at #5... the lower you go the more elite names will still be on the board to choose from. Will picking at #5 do some sort of short or long term damage to this team that picking #8 wouldn't have? Nope. They are likely damaged goods already if that's the case as they've lost for years and finished bottom of the heap year after year.

The results of these last 7 games has zero effect on making them a better team going forward. Win or lose, these games are forgotten by next year and hope springs eternal that they improve and have a better season next year.

nexttothemoon is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:25 PM
  #49
Seachd
Registered User
 
Seachd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Fail
Posts: 13,664
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubledown99 View Post
It's not about stepping in....Jones is good enough to play in the NHL. I'm just coming from the viewpoint that it will likely take him 3 years to be an impact defenseman most likely.

I am coming from the viewpoint that your dmen need to be more mature and experienced than your forwards due the complexity of the position. When I look at how Chicago was constructed their dmen were older and had more experience than their forwards. We don't have that luxury so I'd like them to copy that model through trade.

Yes young dmen can come in and make an impact but its more rare. Doughty did it but he still fights inconsistency. EK took about 3yrs. Pie as well. Heck it even took Pronger several yrs before he became impact player and in fact before his trade to Edm lots of people thought he was to immature to be impact player in playoffs (due to some early flameouts by the Blues and undisciplined penalties from Pronger etc during that time).

Most experts agree that is better to be patient with dmen no matter how talented. Detroit has the philosophy of really seasoning there dmen before they come up.

Again just an opinion and as with all opinions it's up for debate
But why would it matter if it takes him 3 years to be an impact defenseman?

Seachd is offline  
Old
04-14-2013, 08:31 PM
  #50
rockinghockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,606
vCash: 500
You don't pass up on Nischushkin if he is available when we pick unless one of the other top prospects are available. So what if he is signed for 2 yrs in the KHL, that means he will be better developed when he gets here. Big body with skill, yes that is what this team needs.

rockinghockey is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:39 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.