HFBoards

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

Bo Horvat Discussion and Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2013, 08:20 AM
  #751
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
I think MG and Torts have a clear plan to inject more youth into the lineup.
If they're ready or close enough, they'll get their shot.

I think it'll mean expanded roles for current youth (Kassian, Tanev, Schroeder) and a chance for others to compete in depth roles (Gaunce, Corrado).

I think he'll get a look, maybe 9 games, but will be sent back.
Unless what he brings to the team NOW, vastly outweighs the potential of affecting his development,
I reckon he'll be sent back.

hockeywoot is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:16 AM
  #752
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,224
vCash: 500
I don't see how Horvat makes the team this season. He needs to outplay Gaunce and Schroeder by a clear margin to be considered. If he can't do that beyond a shadow of a doubt he'll be sent back. Now, ask yourself, do you see Horvat outplaying Schroeder? Personally, I do not, not this season. Horvat won't be kept on to fill a role as a winger or a 4th line center.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:22 AM
  #753
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesler2Burrows View Post
Uh what? Like FAN mentioned draft eligibility is based on age not health. Also wasn't Kessel diagnosed with cancer after he was drafted? Lastly no chance in hell Kessel was ranked ahead of Crosby, zero. Crosby was dubbed as one of the best if not the best prospect of all time.

He's off on the timing of the cancer but I think the Leafs poster means that in Crosby's draft year (2005) Kessel was considered the #1 prospect for 2006, then fell during his actual draft season. They were never in the same draft year so there was obviously no direct Crosby-Kessel rankings.

Don't get the relevance of this point, but that is what I think he meant.

Edit: though I re-read and he makes the comment about cancer making Kessel ineligible for the 2005 draft which is, uhm, puzzling to say the least ...

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:26 AM
  #754
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I don't see how Horvat makes the team this season. He needs to outplay Gaunce and Schroeder by a clear margin to be considered. If he can't do that beyond a shadow of a doubt he'll be sent back. Now, ask yourself, do you see Horvat outplaying Schroeder? Personally, I do not, not this season. Horvat won't be kept on to fill a role as a winger or a 4th line center.
I see him making it.

Nuck This is online now  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:38 AM
  #755
PRNuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I don't see how Horvat makes the team this season. He needs to outplay Gaunce and Schroeder by a clear margin to be considered. If he can't do that beyond a shadow of a doubt he'll be sent back. Now, ask yourself, do you see Horvat outplaying Schroeder? Personally, I do not, not this season. Horvat won't be kept on to fill a role as a winger or a 4th line center.
Honestly, I don't think him outplaying Schroeder and Gaunce is that out of the question. Still, I'd prefer he gets another year in London.

PRNuck is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 11:19 AM
  #756
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,448
vCash: 500
Interesting to see that most posters indicate they would be satisfied with Horvat more or less repeating his draft season next year. Given that he is expected to move up to the top line and play major offensive minutes with Domi, I have to admit I'd be somewhat disappointed if he 'only' put up 65-75 points (assuming 60 games). From the Horvat-Domi thread I got the sense that most posters think Horvat is capable of being a 50-60pt producer at the NHL level (which I concur with), but I think that expectation would have to be revised down based on a sub-80 point season. I obviously understand the weak correlation between junior scoring and NHL scoring, but it nonetheless exists and, as a fan watching Horvat progress, I don't think I could maintain an optimistic outlook (i.e. a reasonably productive 2C) if he didn't take a fairly large step forward offensively next year.

But that's why I wanted to start this thread, namely to get people's expectations in writing and then revisit next April. Should be interesting.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 02:25 PM
  #757
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,150
vCash: 500
Disappointed sub 1ppg
Satisfied 35g and 1.1ppg
Happy+ 40g and 1.25ppg (tho playoff success would also kinda be required to be happy since he's suppose to be clutch)

denkiteki is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 02:29 PM
  #758
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,273
vCash: 50
If he and Domi are split up, Horvat will be taking the tougher assignments so expecting a scoring increase of too much may not be in the cards.

Personally, I'm most excited for a good showing at the highest levels, namely the WJC, OHL Playoffs, and Memorial Cup. Rising to the occasion always seems like a good indicator.

stevecanuck16 is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 03:25 PM
  #759
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,626
vCash: 50
A Memorial Cup and WJC Gold Medal would be awesome.

__________________


Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose!
Horvat2Virtanen is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 04:20 PM
  #760
Socratic Method Man
Gillis' Last Remnant
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 622
Happy: If he improves his play/hockey skills from last year

Disappointed: If he doesn't

Satisfied: I duno - maybe if his play stagnates but he scores slightly more points than last year

Socratic Method Man is offline  
Old
08-23-2013, 12:14 AM
  #761
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,018
vCash: 500
there ssems to be a prevailing thought that bo would be better served by going to london based primarily on icetime, which in reality could be a concern and was with Hdgson.

So for those that do agree with this and think Bo would be better served being sent down and getting huge minutes do they think the same should be done with Corrado to Utica?

Personally I think it will be harder, and possibly more damaging for Frank to make the team than Bo, given the big 4 D we have and playing Tanev with Frank doesn't seen likely either.

Hardyvan123 is online now  
Old
08-23-2013, 03:21 PM
  #762
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I see giving younger players a chance as giving Kassian a more prominent role and really utilizing Schroeder. The first AHL call-ups will also likely be Jensen and Corrado, maybe Archibald. So that is giving the younger players a good shot.

Richardson and Santorelli are experienced NHLers. The net advantage may actually be even with raw rookies like Gaunce and Horvat. This year.

Horvat and Gaunce are likely to get better over time even at the lower levels. I guess I'm saying that I do not see sending either player back to the CHL as "hurting" them, while I do see potential for their development to be hurt if they are kept to depth roles on a still strong team.
The difference we have here is that there is a prime 3rd line centre spot open for the taking on this "strong" team. There's no established two-eyed Manny Malhotra entrenched in the role. It's up for grabs.

To be honest, I barely knew Richardson and Santorelli were even players in the NHL before they got signed by the Canucks. Schroeder is another candidate to fill that role but his size and skill set doesn't make him an "ideal" fit.

We've seen players of Hovart and Gaunce (to a lesser extent) skill set of size and defensive awareness have impact and be productive as 18 year olds i.e. Bergeron, O'Reilly, and Couturier to name three.

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 02:25 AM
  #763
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
To the bolded, yes it is: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=379

So perhaps you made an honest mistake. That's okay. I don't see any more productive discussion resulting from this topic, seeing as it seems to have devolved into "who said what" as opposed to an actual difference of opinion.

Again this argument appears to not be one of any differing views related to hockey, so again I will decline to continue this further, for the sake of trying to trim the irrelevant discussions.

As to the bolded, that is a very good point. If I conveyed the wrong impression, then I apologize.

If I had to single out one aspect of his game that stands out, it's his ability to beat defensemen on-on-one. His ability to blow by them while protecting the puck is absolutely elite, in my opinion.

Without context I could not say, but once again I'd rather discontinue this line of discussion, as it does not really pertain to hockey.

There's no direct quote there.

Nich's ability to defeat dmen in open ice can be found among multiple forwards in the NHL, and these types aren't necessarily elite. But fair enough, his straight line speed is elite... So was Raymond's... Will that make him an elite player is the question.

On the other point about what opinion to put stock in: You are still not seeing the inherent contradiction in what you are becoming beholden to. As a fan, you have put yourself ahead of both scouting reports and team scouts by deciding when to follow opinion and when not to. Yet, you have chosen to dismiss the fan opinion here that does exactly this. Which means, they should be valued like your own. Your own bias is present when you supercede the opinion of the majority scouting reports, or even when you follow it. No different than any poster here. So how can the group be dismissed while you stay true to your opinion in the very same manner? Don't you see the contradiction?


Quote:
Agree to disagree then. The trade was risky, but it might just as easily have gone the other way, and was seen as fair value by most for a 21-year old on pace for over 40 goals. That is the impression I got perusing some threads at the time, but if the argument will be a simple back-and-forth of "was so", "was not" then perhaps it's best to move on from this one as well.

To be clear, I think Toews is better than Backstrom. I just think it's still close between them. Toews winning the cup is a team accomplishment. He was not particularly good that playoff run, and it is very different than Duchene taking huge steps this season in multiple areas to improve his value to a team.

Totally disagree with your revisionist take on the Kessel deal. Unsigned RFA with two top 10 picks + high second was a hefty price. Don't really care what you have to say about it. Think about what unsigned RFAs garner and you'll have your answer. Well, if logic prevails that is.

Fans on the poll board (if you put stock into it), showed that it's not “close” at all between Toews/Backstrom. So you're still wrong.


[quote]Eric Staal, Johnathan Toews and Corey Perry definitely were considered to have very high offensive upside at the time of the draft(and are very good offensively now). I can't say for the others, but I'm not saying that two-way forwards don't get drafted in the 1st round. #1 defensemen get drafted in the first round too, like Karlsson, Suter, Pietrangelo, Doughty, Phaneuf, Ekman-Larsson just off the top of my head.

You made a comment that most #1 defensemen get drafted in the 2nd round or later, and I believe the same to be true about the gritty, less offensive two way forwards. That doesn't mean that no #1 defensemen get drafted in the first round, or that no lesser offensive two-way forwards get drafted there either.

Which is exactly why I'm against the exclusion or preference for one specific type of player, because any type of player can be successful.[quote]


But if the odds of drafting better forwards remain higher than that of defensemen, over the top end of the draft, despite what type of forward it is, then it's mistake to think all types can be successful at the same rate. Which is what the article attempts to outline. It is _not_ just as likely a high end Dman be drafted high up in the draft as it is a forward. So when you made the statement to go for a dman in the same position, this was brought up in contention to that belief.

The article takes into account the Dmen you listed.


Quote:
Backes is the #1C due to St. Louis' lack of centre depth. O'Reilly isn't a #1C at all. That you think they're in the same category of players who have put up 100+ points like Henrik/Backstrom/Thornton is just absurd.

I'm not saying never to take a two-way forward. I'm saying it doesn't pay off to take a "safer" player at the expense of having significantly less offensive upside.

So a #1C is only one that puts up 100+ points? Your statement is absurd, and should enlighten everyone as to your mindset on the matter.

And you're also wrong about the second statement because teams have done exactly that at the draft. Why? Because drafting is as much about probabilities as it is upside.


Quote:
I said that being outnumbered by Canucks fans doesn't bother me when the rest of the world outnumbers them. Not that I hold professional scouts as gospel and everyone elese's opinions as worthless. Just that trying to convince me to rethink my opinion just because most people here disagree isn't going to be an effective strategy.

But who outnumbers you when you take your opinion over independent scouts? When your opinion doesn't coincide with those of other scouts, why do you take your own opinion as being something greater? You still fail to realize that the majority of Canucks posters here take into account those same independent rankings, and while you stay beholden to them, these other fans have made their own, opposite assessments. Just like team scouts have this past draft.


Quote:
So because I favour proven NHL talent over prospects, that makes my opinion regarding prospects invalid? I believe I must be missing something here... I know that this website is called "Hockey's Future", but this seems just a little bit overboard.

When did I ever say that other Canucks fans opinions were less valid then my own? Anyways, I believe this is answered in the paragraph above the previous.

Yes, not favouring prospect talent much at all does invalidate your opinion somewhat. Your focus on them is not as deep, not as learned, because prospects in general are not a concern for you. Meanwhile, some posters on here that have tracked these prospects more intently have a differing opinion. That speaks volumes.


Quote:
They are not mutually exclusive. While I wouldn't label Nichushkin's playmaking ability "elite", it's certainly quite good. However, at times he tries to do too much with the puck instead of making a play to a team mate, hence tunnel vision. He has the ability to make good plays, but does not always exercise that ability, which is something he should and hopefully will improve on as he matures.

So not an elite playmaker. Those types need both.


Quote:
I'm generally not a fan of counting chickens before they're hatched. There's no guarantee that Horvat can put on another 20 pounds without it hampering his game. It happened to Luke Schenn. It happened to Lapierre. Horvat is already quite built for his age, so I don't think it's wise to think he could, or should, bulk up to the degree you suggest.

EDIT: Seeing as I misread that slightly, I'd also like to say that I would consider a player 6'0.5", 215 pounds average sized as well.

How do you define "exceptional talent"? Was Giroux an exceptional talent in his draft year? If so why was he picked at 22? When we're talking about maximum upsides, you look at a player's play style and make a prediction as to how far he could go with it. Obviously not every Domi will become a Kane or Giroux, just like not every Horvat will become a Bergeron or a Backes.

9 lbs is not 20 lbs.

215lbs is not average, unless Kassian is below average at 214lbs.

Kane is an exceptional talent unlike the ones mentioned. If he is used as a marker for upside, then it's just as valid to use Kopitar for Horvat's. After all, if development is assumed, assume it for all. Or don't assume it for any.



Quote:
I don't see why you see being NHL ready now as a negative connotation. Should Edmonton have let Yakupov play in junior longer so that he really "earns" playing in the NHL? Nicushkin would gain more from being in the NHL than developing in a lesser league, to say nothing of the positive contribution he can make right now as well.

When you said "these types" I wasn't sure if you referring to the type of player Nichushkin projected to be. If you were simply referring to rookies with suspect defense, then if guys like Hodgson and Del Zotto can make a name for themselves, then I'm sure Nichushkin can too.

Agreed. Lindholm and Monahan's offensive games are of a similar calibre to Nichushkin, which is why it makes perfect sense that a team use defensive ability, position, or KHL risk to pick either of those players over him.

I myself put next to no stock in those coppernblue comparables. That Horvat is being compared to Cam Neely and Michael Grabner while he's forced to use MHL numbers from 2011-2012(discounting an entire year of development) to make a projections for Nichushkin due to lack of comparables in the KHL should make the reasons seem glaringly obvious.

However if you can, in good conscience, use his methods for Nichushkin but discount them for Horvat, then that is your concern, but I myself won't use him for anything.

Who's talking about NHL ready? You said “earned”, end of story.

Coppernblue isn't definitive, but it bears mentioning how they rank forward prospects against one another. By their system, they favour the 1way forward putting up big numbers in their draft year, over 2way forwards playing near a PPG pace. It is interesting though that even amongst his 1way producing peers that Nich is seen as very suspect. In contrast, Horvat, like the other 2way forward comparables, isn't favoured. So disfavoured amonst disfavoured for Horvat; disfavoured amongst favoured for Nich.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 08-24-2013 at 02:37 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 04:33 AM
  #764
19canuck90
Registered User
 
19canuck90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
If the last few pages don't deceive me then this seems to have switched to a Horvat vs. Nichuchskin debate rather than Horvat vs. Domi.

That being the case while I do not claim to have a complete in depth understanding of both players I would lean towards Horvat still.

For arguments sake I would compare Nich to Semin, both strong(not elite) offensively while not being great defensively tho not due to a lack of effort just due to the player type that they are. I would also Compare Horvat to Kesler(injuries aside), both strong two-way centres who have a nose for the net while not having the elite playmaker ability of the "true" number one centres of the league but also seem to step up their game come crunch time.

So again for ARGUMENTS SAKE if I have the choice of the Russian highly skilled offensive forward or the north american reliable two way goal scoring second line centre which seems to be some of the most coveted players around the league, I will be taking the second option every time.

19canuck90 is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 09:02 AM
  #765
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Semin is a good defensive player who takes a lot of stick penalties. I don't know where this myth that he's a one-way player comes from.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 12:46 PM
  #766
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,828
vCash: 5555
You took just long enough to make me think that this discussion was finally over. Ah well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
There's no direct quote there.


Quote:
On the other point about what opinion to put stock in: You are still not seeing the inherent contradiction in what you are becoming beholden to. As a fan, you have put yourself ahead of both scouting reports and team scouts by deciding when to follow opinion and when not to. Yet, you have chosen to dismiss the fan opinion here that does exactly this. Which means, they should be valued like your own. Your own bias is present when you supercede the opinion of the majority scouting reports, or even when you follow it. No different than any poster here. So how can the group be dismissed while you stay true to your opinion in the very same manner? Don't you see the contradiction?
I'm very confused as to the contradiction you are trying to identify. As a fan, I have an opinion based on my own viewings, other scouts/posters views, etc. Just because I'm not always going to follow independent scouts opinions religiously doesn't mean that I value all fans' opinions more than scouting services.

Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't be a contradiction, because the majority of fans in general(i.e. not just Canucks fans) would prefer Nichushkin as well.

I'm not trying to convince you of something because the majority of people prefer Nichushkin, I'm just trying to say that you aren't convincing me just because the majority of Canucks fans say otherwise.

Quote:
Totally disagree with your revisionist take on the Kessel deal. Unsigned RFA with two top 10 picks + high second was a hefty price. Don't really care what you have to say about it. Think about what unsigned RFAs garner and you'll have your answer. Well, if logic prevails that is.
What's revisionist is making it seem like the picks were guaranteed top-10 picks at the time of the trade. There was a lot of risk for both sides, but it certainly wasn't overpayment.

Quote:
Fans on the poll board (if you put stock into it), showed that it's not “close” at all between Toews/Backstrom. So you're still wrong.
How does it show it's not close? In theory every single person could have Toews over Backstrom by a hair, and you'd get the same result. Anyways, I don't have to agree with the poll results. I wasn't speaking for everyone when I said I valued Backstrom similarly to Toews.

Quote:
But if the odds of drafting better forwards remain higher than that of defensemen, over the top end of the draft, despite what type of forward it is, then it's mistake to think all types can be successful at the same rate. Which is what the article attempts to outline. It is _not_ just as likely a high end Dman be drafted high up in the draft as it is a forward. So when you made the statement to go for a dman in the same position, this was brought up in contention to that belief.

The article takes into account the Dmen you listed.
Well you keep changing the bar. Do teams go for the lower bust factor? Or the higher upside? Because before you were claiming that teams should take the safer player with less high end upside.

I never said defensemen are as likely to be high end players as forwards are statistically. All I said was that they were safer, in terms of making the NHL in some capacity.

So why did your philosophy of taking the "safe" player with a lesser likelihood of becoming a high end player change when changing the discussion to forward vs defenseman instead of safer lower-upside forward vs riskier high-upside forward?

Quote:
So a #1C is only one that puts up 100+ points? Your statement is absurd, and should enlighten everyone as to your mindset on the matter.
I did not once say or imply that.

Quote:
And you're also wrong about the second statement because teams have done exactly that at the draft. Why? Because drafting is as much about probabilities as it is upside.
Teams have also done the exact opposite at the draft. Not sure what you're trying to prove. If anything that shows that there is no one type of player that is always better to draft.

Quote:
But who outnumbers you when you take your opinion over independent scouts? When your opinion doesn't coincide with those of other scouts, why do you take your own opinion as being something greater? You still fail to realize that the majority of Canucks posters here take into account those same independent rankings, and while you stay beholden to them, these other fans have made their own, opposite assessments. Just like team scouts have this past draft.
Discussed above.

Quote:
Yes, not favouring prospect talent much at all does invalidate your opinion somewhat. Your focus on them is not as deep, not as learned, because prospects in general are not a concern for you. Meanwhile, some posters on here that have tracked these prospects more intently have a differing opinion. That speaks volumes.
I really hope you don't expect me to answer this. It would be akin to me saying that since you were so dead set on having Schneider as the goalie of the future, you couldn't bear to see him traded for a pick where we didn't draft the best player.

It's a cheap shot which has no presence being in what I had thought was a discussion based on the merits of players, as opposed to trying to discredit one another as individuals.

Quote:
So not an elite playmaker. Those types need both.
Based on what, exactly?

Quote:
9 lbs is not 20 lbs.

215lbs is not average, unless Kassian is below average at 214lbs.
Why are you focusing entirely on weight? Horvat is currently 5 pounds heavier than and half an inch shorter than the average NHLer. Even if he puts on another 5-10 pounds, it's still not enough to call him more than average. Kassian is also two inches taller than the average NHLer as well as being heavier, so he is definitely above average. I don't see why you are ignoring the height difference. The difference between Kassian and Horvat in height is the same as the difference between Horvat and Domi, Just to give you some context. If someone were 6'2, 190 pounds I'd consider them average sized as well.

Quote:
Kane is an exceptional talent unlike the ones mentioned. If he is used as a marker for upside, then it's just as valid to use Kopitar for Horvat's. After all, if development is assumed, assume it for all. Or don't assume it for any.
Why should I assume that Horvat will develop into a player who is extremely skilled when Horvat plays a more gritty game similar to Backes? Horvat lacks the skill to be a true top-line offensive player. If he were really a Kopitar level prospect I would jump for joy if we had taken him over Nichushkin.


Quote:
Who's talking about NHL ready? You said “earned”, end of story.
What I was implying was that spending time in the minors "earning" it is irrelevant. All that matters is that a prospect is ready to play in the NHL, which Nichushkin is.


Quote:
Coppernblue isn't definitive, but it bears mentioning how they rank forward prospects against one another. By their system, they favour the 1way forward putting up big numbers in their draft year, over 2way forwards playing near a PPG pace. It is interesting though that even amongst his 1way producing peers that Nich is seen as very suspect. In contrast, Horvat, like the other 2way forward comparables, isn't favoured. So disfavoured amonst disfavoured for Horvat; disfavoured amongst favoured for Nich.
I put very little stock in Coppernblue even at the best of times, but especially when their projections ignore the most important development year for draftees, looking only at numbers in a league that very few people are experts on, that stock drops to zero.

Look at where guys like Drouin and Nurse were rated before this year, as mid-late 1st round picks. Or Nick Ebert, who was heralded as a top draft pick before falling off a cliff and getting selected last overall in 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Semin is a good defensive player who takes a lot of stick penalties. I don't know where this myth that he's a one-way player comes from.
His nationality, most likely. It's too bad we didn't take a flyer on him in UFA when he was reportedly looking for 10m over 2 years.

Interestingly enough, HF's write up on Nichushkin compares his defensive game to Semin's.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
08-24-2013, 01:56 PM
  #767
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Interestingly enough, HF's write up on Nichushkin compares his defensive game to Semin's.
That's just crazy. Nichushkin's defensive game is at Ovechkin's level — it doesn't exist.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 03:46 PM
  #768
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Basically, I'm curious what people are expecting for Horvat, production wise, in his upcoming CHL season. Of course that assumes he doesn't make the Canucks, but for the sake of this thread lets make that assumption.
To be honest, I would be unhappy if he doesn't make the Canucks. Especially when the Canucks traded their number one goalie for him. So, I hope we don't see him return to London and he produces at the NHL level this upcoming season.

I think this "assumption" that it is in best long term interest to go back to junior, is premature speculation.

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 04:44 PM
  #769
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,381
vCash: 500
Semin isn't exactly Bob Gainey either..

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:10 PM
  #770
Cody Hodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
Shinkaruk vs Horvat, Strenghts and Weaknesses

What are the pros and cons for each of these prospects when comparing the two against each other? Luckily for us we have both of them, the discussion shouldn't be about who we should have drafted or who you rather have. Its just a thread about how our two top prospects differ. I don't know much about the two prospects so I'll just list some of the obvious. I want to know more things like how their skill, compete, hockey IQ levels compare and etc. What difference does it make that they play in different leagues or is there no difference?

Horvat-

-physically bigger in build, body frame and ,muscle.

Shinkaruk-

-faster, more explosive, better agility

Other than that I don't really know what they differ in. I know that many fans and some draft rankings had shinkaruk going top 10 so I'm happy we picked both.

Cody Hodgson is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:13 PM
  #771
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,308
vCash: 500
I've never seen either of them play!!

But I'm pumped to change that soon when the camps get started!!!

lush is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:14 PM
  #772
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,381
vCash: 500
From my understanding (and using my brain from watching their highlite reels), Horvat is obviously quite stronger and probably has more of an NHL head on his shoulders. Shinkaruk is faster, more dynamic, better puck skills, better sniper, more natural mentality in the offensive zone.

I am exited we came away with both of them in the 1st round to say the least.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:24 PM
  #773
nameless1
HF's Poet Laureate
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,707
vCash: 500
They are 2 very different players.
It is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

Horvat looks to be a Bergeron type of player.
He looks to be a 2-way center...
With a knack to turn in up during big moments...
And whose game translate better to the pro-game.
Even if he does not pan out to be a top-6...
He should be ok in the bottom-6.

Shinkaruk is a scoring winger...
Plain and simple.
I really like his natural ability...
And his offensive instincts.
Unfortunately...
He is top-6...
Or bust...
So he comes with more risks.

I am happy with both...
But I don't think they should be compared with each other.

nameless1 is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:37 PM
  #774
Bieksa#3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 439
vCash: 500
I can't wait for the young stars tournament to finally see them play.

If we're going to go by the live prospect scrimmage, horvat just comes across as a player that's going to strive at the NHL level and the transition will look easy. Not the fastest skater but he just seems to be a real powerful skater.

Shinkaruk is a great pick. We finally have a legit blue chip sniper prospect that could turn into a better version of grabner. I just worry about him physically, he see to have a weird body shape and build.

Bieksa#3 is online now  
Old
08-24-2013, 05:43 PM
  #775
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 38,057
vCash: 50
Weaknesses- Drafted by the Canucks

:0

LPH 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 11:23 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.