HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Jordan Schroeder

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2013, 06:08 PM
  #276
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
WHAT? Some of your ideas are good, but this one is way off base: Schroeder is not a good defensive player. His lack of size limits his ability to cover down low in the D-zone. He PHYSICALLY can't handle the bigger centers. He's too light, and not nearly agressive enough! These are the EXACT reasons why he fell so much in the draft. He is a soft and small center, with average offensive skills.

I'm not in agreement that his offensive skill is average, but that's besides the point.

Every player has limitations. I thought Wellwood was quite good defensively despite having similar limitations based on size. Did you think he was a weak defensive player? Being able to cover down low consistently is one aspect of being a good defensive player overall. Not the sole aspect.

Schroeder is good defensively. Your counter-argument does nothing to change my opinion on the matter.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 06:10 PM
  #277
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,900
vCash: 695
Patrice Bergeron known for his aggression and physicality

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 08:08 PM
  #278
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgy View Post
Honestly, and I don't say this to be offensive, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
It's quite simple, really. That point totals aren't the be-all, end-all when it comes to comparing two prospects.

Or, if you do use stats then you better make sure you know the context in which those numbers were produced.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 08:19 PM
  #279
Hodgy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
It's quite simple, really. That point totals aren't the be-all, end-all when it comes to comparing two prospects.

Or, if you do use stats then you better make sure you know the context in which those numbers were produced.
I never said they were the be all and end all, and I was taking context into consideration.

Hodgy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 09:35 PM
  #280
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm questioning this research. There's nothing _conclusive_ to suggest what you are suggesting. There are facts out there, but I think you are collecting those facts to fit your assertion, rather than making your assertion based on those facts. This is why I immediately questioned your usage of "sample size" and "large groups" in this instance. It raised immediate questions as to what context you were using because the cases are specific, and not all of them align with your assertion.
The players listed aren't research, I stated quite specifically that I was talking about players who later on become successful in the NHL and are small and skilled. It's naturally assumed that other players didn't make it.

The original position was asking the question about common characteristics of small skilled offensivie players in the NHL and I provided some samples, go look on any NHL roster in history and you will find the majority have had almost immediate minor league success





Quote:
When the premise for the argument is not balanced, that is cause for being dismissive. Sorry. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, and addressed with actual discussion, please provide a balanced account for all sides, not the negative of one versus the positives of others, as you have done.
It's not necessary to write a complete writeup of Jordan's entire career every post here is it? I have stated and will state once again that I was ecstatic when Jordan fell to us in 09 and since then his progression has for the most part been behind the "expected general curve" for his type of player.

Being dismissive is about manners, not context of other peoples posts.

There are different levels of intellect and time here and all POV should be be respected. If the level of discourse here is lacking perhaps a Mensa thread should be made?

Quote:
So this "large group" consists 5 players? 2 of which don't actually fit your criteria? So 3 players...
No they are examples of small skilled players, the actual group is all small skilled players who go onto alter NHL success.

Which two players don't fit the bill as small skilled players?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 10:19 PM
  #281
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The players listed aren't research, I stated quite specifically that I was talking about players who later on become successful in the NHL and are small and skilled. It's naturally assumed that other players didn't make it.

The original position was asking the question about common characteristics of small skilled offensivie players in the NHL and I provided some samples, go look on any NHL roster in history and you will find the majority have had almost immediate minor league success

I'm still trying to figure out what this "large group" of players is? Even if we were to pool together every "successful" (and this would have to be defined) small, skilled player, I'm betting we could find differing reasons for the advancement of each. For instance, does it matter more that a player produce more in minor leagues, or produce better at the NHL level, earlier on? Does play without the puck matter when judging success/failures? Does the age at which certain small players secure a spot matter? etc...

There's is no general distinctions to such things. The same way a player that is 5'11" succeed/fail when compared to other 5'11" players at a similar age. If the development of prospects is non-linear (which I hope we agree that it is), the probabilities for their advancement are also non-linear. Which just makes judging prospects all the more difficult.


Quote:
It's not necessary to write a complete writeup of Jordan's entire career every post here is it? I have stated and will state once again that I was ecstatic when Jordan fell to us in 09 and since then his progression has for the most part been behind the "expected general curve" for his type of player.

Being dismissive is about manners, not context of other peoples posts.

There are different levels of intellect and time here and all POV should be be respected. If the level of discourse here is lacking perhaps a Mensa thread should be made?

When comparing JS to three others from his draft class, yes, you do need that write up. Or at least, a current evaluation of the others to judge JS by comparison.

JS's production has not been behind the "expected general curve" because there is no "expected general curve". Not in any sense outlined here. Being dismissive of such an opinion isn't out of line because it makes it very difficult to pin down what criteria you are actually using, so there's no beginning point. That's why it gets dismissed. Something Tiranis alludes to being "moving goalposts". It's not about manners. Opinions that have no clear base from which to debate are often dismissed here. They just don't get entertained. To be sure, until such factors as "general expected curve" and "larger groups of small, skilled NHLers" are defined, one cannot actively address the argument being posed. Hence, it is dismissed/not entertained.


Quote:
No they are examples of small skilled players, the actual group is all small skilled players who go onto alter NHL success.

Which two players don't fit the bill as small skilled players?

What is the actual group?

The same two players that fit the bill as "small, skilled players" do not fit the criteria of producing more at an earlier age. As Tiranis cites, they produced less at the NHL level at a similar, or older age to JS. So they satisfy the height requirement, but do not satisfy the production differentials being cited here as differentiators. What now?

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2013, 11:23 PM
  #282
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hodgy View Post
I never said they were the be all and end all, and I was taking context into consideration.
Your use of the word "possibly" - as we've all seen - might as well not mean anything at all then, if you're going to haggle over decimal places just so you can try and justify the notion that Hodgson > Schroeder simply though the use of a few numbers. Which is why I brought up context.

So somehow... I doubt that.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 12:24 AM
  #283
Yossarian54
Registered User
 
Yossarian54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Australia
Posts: 867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
Patrice Bergeron known for his aggression and physicality
Pretty much.

Hell, even Raymond is pretty decent defensively and Schroeder might have a couple of pounds on him.

Yossarian54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 12:25 AM
  #284
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Conisidering Schroeder was a first round pick and Gillis traded Grabner and a 1st for Ballard, that's 3 first round picks that are not contribuiting (as support players) to the current core group, and not developing into the next core. Drafting Schroeder was a HUGE mistake.
He's already established himself as an NHL'er, however marginal some people may see it. How about waiting until he plays more than just 31 games before saying it was "a HUGE mistake"? And he hasn't even stopped progressing yet.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 12:51 AM
  #285
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
He's already established himself as an NHL'er, however marginal some people may see it. How about waiting until he plays more than just 31 games before saying it was "a HUGE mistake"? And he hasn't even stopped progressing yet.
Yeah.

At the very least, i think we've seen that Schroeder is capable of being a journeyman/spare forward/fringe NHLer type player at this point. It's hard to believe that's the ultimate 'ceiling' of his development, but at the very worst...he's shown that he can be an 'NHL Player' of some utility.

How much utility and upside is still there, is very debatable, but regardless...even if we actually have seen the absolute 'ceiling' of Schroeder in that 30 game sample (unlikely), it'd still be really hard to call that pick a 'HUGE mistake'. The best pick, the right pick, a steal of a pick, even a particularly useful pick for this franchise? No, probably not. But it's the draft, it's a bit of a crapshoot and i don't think you can fault Gillis for 'swinging for the fences' in a sense with that pick. It was never one of these Grenier/Mallet/etc. type 'reinventing the wheel' type picks. If those guys don't pan out, i think you can lay a lot more blame on that sort of 'trying to outsmart everyone' approach.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 01:05 AM
  #286
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm still trying to figure out what this "large group" of players is? Even if we were to pool together every "successful" (and this would have to be defined) small, skilled player, I'm betting we could find differing reasons for the advancement of each. For instance, does it matter more that a player produce more in minor leagues, or produce better at the NHL level, earlier on? Does play without the puck matter when judging success/failures? Does the age at which certain small players secure a spot matter? etc...
Okay so every player is uniquely different is what you are getting at here, I was pretty specific in my sample and group of small skilled players, most people here would know what that means.

But for your sake let's make it players under 5'9" and under 190lbs as well that have played, or will likely play at least 100 NHL games.

I made the assertion that for most of these players, and I'm guessing 75 plus %, that they have success, in terms of scoring, very early on in their initial AHL or minor pro experience after junior or college.

I listed 5 such examples of players from recent histroy, if you think my thoughts on it are incorrect name the players that don't follow this general rule. I'm willing to bet that the group of small skilled players
overall (samples of such players drafted in same year or the year before or after- 3 year periods) will be more in my description than not.


Quote:
There's is no general distinctions to such things. The same way a player that is 5'11" succeed/fail when compared to other 5'11" players at a similar age. If the development of prospects is non-linear (which I hope we agree that it is), the probabilities for their advancement are also non-linear. Which just makes judging prospects all the more difficult.
At the end of the day we do judge prospects though right? How do we judge them, there has to be some standard and criteria to do so and I laid it out, very generally above. Here it is again in case you missed it.

Most, and I'm guessing it's around 75%, of small skilled players that eventually succeed in the NHL (actually play in over 100 games, heck let's make it 150 or around 2 full seasons) have immediate or close to it success in terms of scoring production in their minor league career.
close to PPG over a 50ish game stretch or full season.





Quote:
When comparing JS to three others from his draft class, yes, you do need that write up. Or at least, a current evaluation of the others to judge JS by comparison.
Kreider has had some playoff success with the NYR at the NHL level and both Leblanc and Josefson have played in more NHL games so far, so unless Jordan increases on his NHL resume of 31-3-6-9 he won't pass them on the "success curve."

The other 3 players have a better chance as sticking as NHL regulars due to their size and 2 way play if their scoring doesn't work out.

Will it work out that way? We don't know yet but until Jordan actually passes them in terms of achievements he will be behind them or at best eqaul.

JS's production has not been behind the "expected general curve" because there is no "expected general curve". Not in any sense outlined here. Being dismissive of such an opinion isn't out of line because it makes it very difficult to pin down what criteria you are actually using, so there's no beginning point. That's why it gets dismissed. Something Tiranis alludes to being "moving goalposts". It's not about manners. Opinions that have no clear base from which to debate are often dismissed here. They just don't get entertained. To be sure, until such factors as "general expected curve" and "larger groups of small, skilled NHLers" are defined, one cannot actively address the argument being posed. Hence, it is dismissed/not entertained.[/QUOTE]

Well there is a general curve of expectations, it doesn't work like you are suggesting here. for a big power guy like Archibald Gillis will look at games and tape with his group and they will make comments and discuss how his game is developing, ie is he winning battles in the corners, hitting guys separating players from pucks ect... for a small skilled guy like Jordan they will look at how he is playing and the results of it as well.

How can they tell if a guy is ready for NHL action? Well they compare him and judge him of course. If they think he is worth keeping next year they will keep him, if not they will expose him to waivers.



Quote:
What is the actual group?

The same two players that fit the bill as "small, skilled players" do not fit the criteria of producing more at an earlier age. As Tiranis cites, they produced less at the NHL level at a similar, or older age to JS. So they satisfy the height requirement, but do not satisfy the production differentials being cited here as differentiators. What now?
All 5 guys I listed satisfied the AHL or minor league requirement, you are still trying to use the exception to prove the rule here.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 01:10 AM
  #287
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
Yeah.

At the very least, i think we've seen that Schroeder is capable of being a journeyman/spare forward/fringe NHLer type player at this point. It's hard to believe that's the ultimate 'ceiling' of his development, but at the very worst...he's shown that he can be an 'NHL Player' of some utility.

How much utility and upside is still there, is very debatable, but regardless...even if we actually have seen the absolute 'ceiling' of Schroeder in that 30 game sample (unlikely), it'd still be really hard to call that pick a 'HUGE mistake'. The best pick, the right pick, a steal of a pick, even a particularly useful pick for this franchise? No, probably not. But it's the draft, it's a bit of a crapshoot and i don't think you can fault Gillis for 'swinging for the fences' in a sense with that pick. It was never one of these Grenier/Mallet/etc. type 'reinventing the wheel' type picks. If those guys don't pan out, i think you can lay a lot more blame on that sort of 'trying to outsmart everyone' approach.
How he turns out doesn't really matter, a guy with his skill set was the best player available on draft day, that's the guy you take in that situation. It wasn't a case of reaching like the Grenier and Mallet picks were.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 01:28 AM
  #288
CanucksRollin
Canadagold2014!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,106
vCash: 500
I think Schroeder should put some muscle on for next season, it will make him more stronger. He can still battle but I think it would be easier if he strengthened up. I hope he turns out and can score 15-20 goals next season if we take him that is.

CanucksRollin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 01:50 AM
  #289
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksrool View Post
I think Schroeder should put some muscle on for next season, it will make him more stronger. He can still battle but I think it would be easier if he strengthened up. I hope he turns out and can score 15-20 goals next season if we take him that is.
Schroeder is 5'8" and ~180lbs range. Awfully close to the same weight as 6' Mason Raymond for example. Exactly how much more bulk do you figure Schroeder's compact frame is going to need, or be able to handle without seriously compromising agility, speed, flexibility, etc?

From what i can tell, Schroeder's 'size deficit' isn't a case of being 'underdeveloped' in terms of muscle mass...it's simply, he's 5 foot 8. Height and along with that, reach, are the limiting factor there. He's actually quite strong for his size and has that low center of gravity. But he's not going to be able to spend his summer on a Gary Roberts diet and workout regimen to grow 4 inches.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 04:25 AM
  #290
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksrool View Post
I think Schroeder should put some muscle on for next season, it will make him more stronger. He can still battle but I think it would be easier if he strengthened up. I hope he turns out and can score 15-20 goals next season if we take him that is.
Apparently Schroeder's already super buff as it is. He's short, but he's got a ton of upper body strength, so he plays bigger than he looks,.

Spectrefire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2013, 04:38 AM
  #291
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 9,246
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
Yeah.

At the very least, i think we've seen that Schroeder is capable of being a journeyman/spare forward/fringe NHLer type player at this point. It's hard to believe that's the ultimate 'ceiling' of his development, but at the very worst...he's shown that he can be an 'NHL Player' of some utility.

How much utility and upside is still there, is very debatable, but regardless...even if we actually have seen the absolute 'ceiling' of Schroeder in that 30 game sample (unlikely), it'd still be really hard to call that pick a 'HUGE mistake'. The best pick, the right pick, a steal of a pick, even a particularly useful pick for this franchise? No, probably not. But it's the draft, it's a bit of a crapshoot and i don't think you can fault Gillis for 'swinging for the fences' in a sense with that pick. It was never one of these Grenier/Mallet/etc. type 'reinventing the wheel' type picks. If those guys don't pan out, i think you can lay a lot more blame on that sort of 'trying to outsmart everyone' approach.
Gillis still made the right call at the draft. BPA who dropped and you have to snatch him up, just like we did with Hodgson when he fell.

As for next year I could see them targeting a center who can play the wing if needed, just like the possibility was there with Malhotra and Hodgson 3 years ago. That versatility leaves room for him to grow into that role if he shows he can handle full-time duties as a C (which I think he can).

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 07:02 AM
  #292
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 13,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Okay so every player is uniquely different is what you are getting at here, I was pretty specific in my sample and group of small skilled players, most people here would know what that means.

But for your sake let's make it players under 5'9" and under 190lbs as well that have played, or will likely play at least 100 NHL games.

I made the assertion that for most of these players, and I'm guessing 75 plus %, that they have success, in terms of scoring, very early on in their initial AHL or minor pro experience after junior or college.

I listed 5 such examples of players from recent histroy, if you think my thoughts on it are incorrect name the players that don't follow this general rule. I'm willing to bet that the group of small skilled players

overall (samples of such players drafted in same year or the year before or after- 3 year periods) will be more in my description than not.

At the end of the day we do judge prospects though right? How do we judge them, there has to be some standard and criteria to do so and I laid it out, very generally above. Here it is again in case you missed it.

Most, and I'm guessing it's around 75%, of small skilled players that eventually succeed in the NHL (actually play in over 100 games, heck let's make it 150 or around 2 full seasons) have immediate or close to it success in terms of scoring production in their minor league career.
close to PPG over a 50ish game stretch or full season.

My urge is to present cases like Gionta, Versteeg and McDonald as counter-points, and to cite differences in AHL team offense, as evidenced my the dampening affect on the production of both Hodgson and Kassian. Then, it would be to breakdown the positive parts of Schroeder's overall game, and then compare it to career minor leaguers like Ebbett/Haydar, thereby propping up Schroeder as a legit NHL _already_. So that success/failure would already be deemed irrelevant, since Schroeder has already "made" the NHL. But all of that is folly. It would be a mistake to contend your argument by playing into it, and I'll explain why.

Across the NHL, one could say the majority of NHLers, big or small, produced at a strong rate prior to reaching the AHL. So in that sense, this argument is already outside of the realm of being the standard for smaller players. It's the standard for all players.

Lastly, it's about growth. On the one hand, prospects like Hodgson, Desharnais, and St Louis, produced very well in lower leagues, but at the same age, Schroeder has shown he can match or exceed their production. What he does from now on is more important than anything he will do, because for prospects, the recency of data is most telling of how close they are to the NHL. Schroeder already being better than other journeyman, mixed with his work ethic and attitude, and his obvious hockey IQ all bodes well for the future. No counter-argument should supplant these things.


Quote:
Kreider has had some playoff success with the NYR at the NHL level and both Leblanc and Josefson have played in more NHL games so far, so unless Jordan increases on his NHL resume of 31-3-6-9 he won't pass them on the "success curve."

The other 3 players have a better chance as sticking as NHL regulars due to their size and 2 way play if their scoring doesn't work out.

Will it work out that way? We don't know yet but until Jordan actually passes them in terms of achievements he will be behind them or at best eqaul.

So far, you've listed their "achievements" as played more games, Kreider having "playoff success" (you will have to define this BTW), and they are bigger. These aren't achievements. Kreider's playoff performance was largely overblown, look at him now. All have struggled offensively, and Schroeder is as much of a 2way forward as any listed. To me, he's at or ahead of all listed. That's from watching each player recently, and from still being high on Josefson. I still like Schroeder's innate skill more.


Quote:
Well there is a general curve of expectations, it doesn't work like you are suggesting here. for a big power guy like Archibald Gillis will look at games and tape with his group and they will make comments and discuss how his game is developing, ie is he winning battles in the corners, hitting guys separating players from pucks ect... for a small skilled guy like Jordan they will look at how he is playing and the results of it as well.

How can they tell if a guy is ready for NHL action? Well they compare him and judge him of course. If they think he is worth keeping next year they will keep him, if not they will expose him to waivers.

All 5 guys I listed satisfied the AHL or minor league requirement, you are still trying to use the exception to prove the rule here.

I think this is largely based on each person's ability to evaluate talent and prospect development. It's completely subjective IMO. I look at Schroeder as already being better than a journeyman, so to me, there's no way he gets waived. If you think it's a possibility, then that tells me how you evaluate him. I disagree with that notion.

If you are unsure, and want to rely on stats pre-AHL, by all means do so. I've seen enough to know that he will at the very least carve out a career as a journeyman. At the very least. After that, it's just about how hard he works, and if he can get over his major hurdle of being too passive sometimes.

I'm all for stats/math. I'm a believer. I understand the argument of proving him to be outside the norms. Still, prospect development is anything but linear. Big or small players have different challenges to overcome. Schroeder's game has already grown a great deal. I'm willing to back him. It seems you will not, so at least we know where either of us stands on the issue. Feel free to call me on it should he bust.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 09:45 AM
  #293
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm not in agreement that his offensive skill is average, but that's besides the point.

Every player has limitations. I thought Wellwood was quite good defensively despite having similar limitations based on size. Did you think he was a weak defensive player? Being able to cover down low consistently is one aspect of being a good defensive player overall. Not the sole aspect.

Schroeder is good defensively. Your counter-argument does nothing to change my opinion on the matter.
I enjoy discussing hockey matters, and find your points interesting and thought provoking. I am not intending to change your (or anyone's) opinion. I believe I am a frustrated hockey fan, seeing his favorite team heading (once again) in the wrong direction.

I like Schroeder, but don't see a spot for him on a winning team:
Small and LIGHT and SOFT is really a bad combination for a center, who does not have top offensive talents.

Show me teams that win Cups with a center like Schroeder, and who are those players, and what is their role? Remember, the players must be SMALL, LIGHT AND SOFT and not have top-end offensive talents.

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 09:57 AM
  #294
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,582
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
I enjoy discussing hockey matters, and find your points interesting and thought provoking. I am not intending to change your (or anyone's) opinion. I believe I am a frustrated hockey fan, seeing his favorite team heading (once again) in the wrong direction.

I like Schroeder, but don't see a spot for him on a winning team:
Small and LIGHT and SOFT is really a bad combination for a center, who does not have top offensive talents.

Show me teams that win Cups with a center like Schroeder, and who are those players, and what is their role? Remember, the players must be SMALL, LIGHT AND SOFT and not have top-end offensive talents.
Anaheim won a cup with Andy McDonald as their 1C.

I disagree with you about Schroeder's offensive abilities. He was a 1st rounder for a reason. In the AHL he's focused on working on his defensive game and he's been very successful at that. Offensively he showed very well this season, especially on the back half of the season in the AHL. I'd like to see what he can do in the NHL being flanked by players who can finish.

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:00 AM
  #295
Samzilla
Registered User
 
Samzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 8,770
vCash: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Anaheim won a cup with Andy McDonald as their 1C.

I disagree with you about Schroeder's offensive abilities. He was a 1st rounder for a reason. In the AHL he's focused on working on his defensive game and he's been very successful at that. Offensively he showed very well this season, especially on the back half of the season in the AHL. I'd like to see what he can do in the NHL being flanked by players who can finish.
The dutch gretzky wasn't enough for you?

Samzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:04 AM
  #296
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Anaheim won a cup with Andy McDonald as their 1C.

I disagree with you about Schroeder's offensive abilities. He was a 1st rounder for a reason. In the AHL he's focused on working on his defensive game and he's been very successful at that. Offensively he showed very well this season, especially on the back half of the season in the AHL. I'd like to see what he can do in the NHL being flanked by players who can finish.
Is Schroeder's offense similar to Macdonalds? If Shroeder has that type of offensive skill, what do you think of him playing wing with Kesler?

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:10 AM
  #297
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alflives View Post
Is Schroeder's offense similar to Macdonalds?
How are people supposed to know? Andy McDonald didn't have offense similar to Andy McDonald until he turned 28... He scored 1 point in 16 games when he was a year older than Schroeder.

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:56 AM
  #298
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
How are people supposed to know? Andy McDonald didn't have offense similar to Andy McDonald until he turned 28... He scored 1 point in 16 games when he was a year older than Schroeder.
Apologies, no interest in the 'great debate' today.

Do you see Schroeder on the wing with Kesler?

Alflives is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:56 AM
  #299
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,582
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
How are people supposed to know? Andy McDonald didn't have offense similar to Andy McDonald until he turned 28... He scored 1 point in 16 games when he was a year older than Schroeder.
Exactly.

Obviously players who aren't producing much (big or small is irrelevant) aren't going to be in the top 6 of Cup winning teams. McDonald is an example of a smaller player who didn't really show much at the NHL level for several years before breaking out with the Ducks post-lockout.

y2kcanucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:02 AM
  #300
Alflives
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Exactly.

Obviously players who aren't producing much (big or small is irrelevant) aren't going to be in the top 6 of Cup winning teams. McDonald is an example of a smaller player who didn't really show much at the NHL level for several years before breaking out with the Ducks post-lockout.
I don't get this, maybe my medication is blurring my vision? If the Canucks' window to win a Cup is now, could Schroeder contribute more on the wing with Kesler, than at center on the third of fourth line? I like Schroeder too, but where does he fit?

Alflives 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 03:01 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.