HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Phaneuf or Jackman

View Poll Results: Phaneuf or Jackman
Dion Phaneuf 105 66.04%
Barret Jackman 54 33.96%
Voters: 159. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-28-2004, 10:22 AM
  #126
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roughneck
If he was when he was in the CHL, he would have been drafted higher. He learned his good positioning just like everyone else. Give Phaneuf 4 more years, and he'll make huge leaps as well.
17th overall pick for a defensive defenseman with limited offensive skills is to low of a draft pick? Once again, these are all assumptions you are making... Phaneuf in a few years will do this, he will do that... what does that mean? Absolutely nothing... he has to actually learn it, and he actually has to do it. You saying he will is a pretty weak thing to toss around in an argument. If Phaneuf was Scott Stevens in the WHL, he wouldn't have been the 3rd defenseman picked in his draft...

Boy that's a dumb argument isn't it?

Quote:
You seem to lead on that Phaneuf is a free role, uncontrollable defenseman when he's out on the ice. He's the guy who is front of the net, the guy hanging back when his partner skates up into the play. In the junior leagues, he is rarely beaten. Almost unbeatable 1-on-1. Yes it is junior, but its the same level that Jackman was playing at 19 and Phaneuf is far ahead of where Jackman was at the same age.
Once again... ... once again, you read only what you want to read, which is highly annoying. Did I say Phaneuf spends all day looking for big hits? No I didn't. Does he get caught out of position a lot because he is going for big hits? Yes he does. And again, you are comparing Phaneuf's more brash and noticable style vs what Jackman was, which was far less flashy... and you are coming up with the conclusion that Phaneuf is far ahead of where Jackman was...

What works for Phaneuf in the WHL, won't be nearly as effective in the NHL. What Jackman did in the WHL, was effective in the NHL. That's the point you need to grasp, which is completely eluding you. You are going by fans perspective on who did what... fans aren't scouts.

Quote:
Regehr, Warrener, Leopold, Lydman, Ference, Eriksson, Montador and Commodore (my mistake, there are 8. Phaneuf is the 9th). And what point have I proven, that as of right now, Phaneuf is higher on the depth chart than 2 defensemen who stepped it up when the blue-line was battered by injuries.
Eriksson, Montador and Commodore are NHL defensemen? Yeesh... that's stretching it isn't it? How is it different from Jackman making the team when they had Pronger, MacInnis, Khavanov, Finley, Salvador and Van Ryn (which is a tougher top 6 to crack than one involving Eriksson)?

Quote:
And if Phaneuf plays with Rhett Warrener, that should give him the freedom to use his explosiveness on the blueline more freely rather than having to cover for his lacklustre partner. And it will give him more time to learn his good positioning.
Sure it will... but he still has to learn it. I have no idea what the hell you are arguing about... I really don't. My comment is Phaneuf has a lot to learn positionally, and he needs to do that to become a better defenseman that Jackman. What are you arguing? When did I say Calgary had no one to pair him with to allow him to focus on his own game? Just because you have that, it doesn't mean you are going to learn it, it just means the environment is conductive to learning it. Seriously man, pick a topic, and stay on it. You are going all over the map with some pretty useless arguments here.

Quote:
Jackman had a year in the AHL playing alot and learning alot before making his jump. If he had the positioning of a 10 year vet when he came out of the WHL, he would have gone straight to the NHL. Like all young defensemen, he had stuff to learn. Yes maturity has always been a plus of Jackman and that helped him along, but if you think Phaneuf's positioning and adjustment is less, if a downgrade at all from when Jackman was still in the WHL, you are mistaken.
Well now you've done it. You've actually brought your argument down to "if he was so good, shouldn't he have been in the NHL..." Nice. Couldn't the same thing be said about Phaneuf? If he was so good shouldn't he have been in the NHL at 18? It's a very stupid argument, because it's not necessarily if you are good enough, it's what is better for your development, and how much patience do you have. Sutter isn't a stupid man. I'd be willing to venture that Phaneuf would spend a lot of time in the WHL this year, simply because it would be better for his development than bouncing around in and out of the lineup in the NHL. Jackman's strength has always been his positioning, and that has widely been recognized as Phaneuf's weakness. This stuff isn't made up, it's in every scouting report you read.

Quote:
The question of the thread is which player is/will be better. Anybody is stupid to think Phaneuf is better now, but he does have far higher upside than Jackman in pretty much every facet of the game. As said, positioning and adjusting to speed and strength is learned. Something Phaneuf WILL learn because seeing how much he has progressed throughout junior, he learns fast, and learns well. Intimidation, that killer instinct is what sperates good and solid defensemen and great defensemen.
Once again, I am not sure what you are arguing. I've touched on everything you've said and sided with it... except for your certainty that Phaneuf will learn it. Tonnes of guys progress well through junior. Kyle Brodziak went from a moderate WHLer to one of the best forwards in the league last year... so while development and progress in the WHL is important, to think it means that it will result in guaranteed development in the NHL is simply short-sighted. Most players display tremendous growth and development through Junior, especially after their draft year... it's nothing new. If ever player developed in the NHL like they did in junior, there would be no such thing as draft busts...

Quote:
I know what playing defense means, but by reading this it seems you don't think Phaneuf can. At 18, Dion was never scored against in the WJCs, where he won top defenseman. At 18, he led his junior team, that always allows some of the fewest goals against, in ice time and points. Phaneuf plays defense better than anybody in the WHL. Yes Jackman is good, may even be a great defensive defensemen, but as I keep trying to say, these are things that Phaneuf can do, it is the other things that make him so special. If Phaneuf couldn't play defense, he wouldn't be a defenseman for a Sutter, nor would he be drafted by the Flames as a defenseman by a Sutter and he wouldn't be considered a top 5 prospect for his defensive abilities.
See, these are points you should use... the last WJC was one of the weakest tournaments in history. There was little to no competetion for Canada, up until the last game (where a hot goalie and a stupid goalie formed a bad mix for Canada). Yes it was the best junior players in the world, but Canada was leaps and bounds better than every single team there. So while it's impressive, there was only one game where Canada faced a single challenge, and that was the US game. It's not like he did it against the Ovechkins or Kovalchuks or some of the other great players who have killed Canada in the past.

What you aren't understanding, is that Phaneuf is a man playing against boys. He is physically superior to almost everyone, and he is a mean SOB to boot. That will have a huge influence on how good you look. He isn't terrible defensively by any means... but for him to translate his abilities to the lofty standards many have set for him, he needs to get better positionally.

Phaneuf cannot do the things Jackman could do, which is what you aren't realizing... but his physical superiority and out-right killer instinct is what makes him look so good, and be so dominating. In the WHL, that makes him look incredible, and it makes him a good defenseman... he needs to do more than that in the NHL though.

He isn't much different than most young defensemen coming up in terms of what they need to do and learn to be effective at the NHL level. What sets him apart from most young defensemen are those special skills he has, which if he learns the first part, will vault him past all those other defencemen. If Phaneuf could do what Jackman already could, and had those other gifts, he would have been the Flames #1 defensman this past season.

Now you are the one who seems to be cheapening Jackman. What Jackman did, and how quickly he learned and adapted to the NHL level is not common. It is extremely rare.

Quote:
Fans don't watcht eh little things because it is what all NHL defensemen do. The biggest difference is that the Stevens', Prongers and Blakes of the league dont make mistakes in the little things. But its not the little things that make them great NHL defensemen. And if you think Jackman never made mistakes when he was 19, or a 20 year old in the AHL, you are mistaken.
A). Not all defensemen do it. If all defensmen did them all the time, there wouldn't be mistakes made, and goalscoring wouldn't happen.

B). You seem to think there are 2 tiers of defencemen. Pronger and everyone else. You couldn't be more wrong. There are elite level defencemen (Prongers, Stevens, etc...), Top defencemen (Smiths, Jackmans), Good defencemen (Warreners, Klees), etc... there are so many different calibres of defencemen, each with more tools than the other level. Elite defencemen have them all, and are the most rare. Some of the top defencemen have a mix of different skills, stronger in some, weaker in others. The difference between an Elite defencemen and the top defencemen are the things you are talking about... but the difference between all the different tiers are the little things.

And I'm not dumb enough to think Jackman didn't make mistakes in the AHL... hell Pronger makes mistakes in the NHL too... they happen, no defenseman is perfect.

Quote:
As stated MANY times in posts ahead of me, the Stevens/Phaneuf comparison was made by NHL SCOUTS, something you don't seem to understand. It is Phaneuf's positioning and anticipation that give him this comparison (as well as devastating hits to M.A. Pouliot and Rostislav Olesz in the Prospects Game and WJCs).
Comparison, and saying the guy has Stevens-esque instincts are completely different things, which is what you don't understand. How can scouts say Phaneuf has Stevens-esque instincts and then at the same time say he needs to improve his positioning for NHL level competetion? That's like saying this chair is pretty light, but too heavy to move... Stevens instincts are being in the right place at the right time all the time. While he reminds scouts of scott stevens, or his upside is scott stevens, that doesn't mean he has instincts like scott stevens.

There is a big difference between comparing the way they look and how they play

Quote:
Well when we are comparing these players, we have to go on potential. If they were the same age and not 4 years apart then it would be much easier to make this distinction. And the thing that makes Phaneuf such a great prospect is that alot of work doesn't hav to be done. He has the size, the instincts, the shot, the strength. All that needs to be worked on are the same things that Jackman had to work on when he came out of the WHL and needed to adjust to the new defensive game of the NHL, which wasn't much. But he also didn't have as much to work with as Phaneuf does.
Why do you have to go on potential? I don't understand that. Why would it be wrong to take the guy who already has proven himself to be a very good NHLer? Are you telling me you'd take Ovechkin right now over Kovalchuk, only because Ovechkin could be one of the best Russian players of all time?

Jackman had a different set of tools coming out of the WHL than what Phaneuf has. Instincts are more than just going for the kill (which Phaneuf is very good at), it's also things like knowing where to go and where to be, which Jackman had his first year in the NHL, which 99% of young NHL defencemen don't.

Positioning, reaction, and decision making are all things that young defensemen struggle with at the NHL level, no matter how good they were in junior, or college. Not all defensemen learn it, because it's a huge jump to the NHL. Lots of great prospects haven't been able to make the necessary adjustment, and defencemen have always required much more patience.

When you have a rookie step in and do it, it's very rare, and you aren't giving Jackman much credit for it.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 11:38 AM
  #127
BlueBleeder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Looking for others
Country: United States
Posts: 1,677
vCash: 500
Like I said before if Jackman had been on the Flames, he would have made them at 18 too. He impressed enough at his first camp that we almost kept him up, but the Blues have been very patient with most prospects, because we had the payroll to afford go out and get somebody. It's not fair to compare them in this respect because it was too diffrent situations. Jackman could have beat out Salvador and Finley at 18.

Also for everyone who says he won a soft calder. He beat out Zetterberg and Nash.

BlueBleeder is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 11:46 AM
  #128
Hunter74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
I cant beleive the discussion in this thread.


Last edited by Hunter74: 10-28-2004 at 11:52 AM.
Hunter74 is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 11:54 AM
  #129
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBleeder
Like I said before if Jackman had been on the Flames, he would have made them at 18 too. He impressed enough at his first camp that we almost kept him up, but the Blues have been very patient with most prospects, because we had the payroll to afford go out and get somebody. It's not fair to compare them in this respect because it was too diffrent situations. Jackman could have beat out Salvador and Finley at 18.
Slam-a Lam-a Ding Dong!

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 12:03 PM
  #130
Hunter74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBleeder
Like I said before if Jackman had been on the Flames, he would have made them at 18 too. He impressed enough at his first camp that we almost kept him up, but the Blues have been very patient with most prospects, because we had the payroll to afford go out and get somebody. It's not fair to compare them in this respect because it was too diffrent situations. Jackman could have beat out Salvador and Finley at 18.

Also for everyone who says he won a soft calder. He beat out Zetterberg and Nash.

Im sorry after reading alot of your posts in this thread you have lost all credibility on any subject regarding anything to do with the Blues.

On different posts.

If you think Phaneuf isn't gonna amount to anything more than a 5th or 6th pairing D than thats fine its your opinion. If thats the case then it makes sense that you would choose Jackman over Phaneuf if you think Phaneuf is gonna be a bust. Of course most professional scouts and Hockey people woudl very much disagree with you, yes you can point out Daigle or who ever but everyone makes mistakes and they dont do it that often when it comes to this highly rated of a propsect. But if you are one of the guys that agree with the majority of the experts who think Phaneuf will be a Stevens or Blake type defenseman and at worst a bigger more physical Barret Jackman than why wouldn't you take that gamble?? If you do not understand the logic in the takeing a risk on a prosect for higher long term rewards than yu shouldn't be in a thread that compares a prospect to a "proven player as you simply dont understand the theory.

Stating that I wont pick a prospect over a proven player until that prospect is proven is ludicrus imo. Its like saying i wont buy a lottery ticket until the winning numbers come out, then i will go buy a ticket with those numbers...come on get with it. Now if you just dont think Phaneuf is gonna be much in the NHL then thats different at least have the B's to say so.

Hunter74 is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 01:24 PM
  #131
sunb
Registered User
 
sunb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Yale University
Country: China
Posts: 3,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Hunter74
Phaneuf will be a Stevens or Blake type defenseman and at worst a bigger more physical Barret Jackman than why wouldn't you take that gamble??
No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Hunter74
Its like saying i wont buy a lottery ticket until the winning numbers come out, then i will go buy a ticket with those numbers...come on get with it.
Bad, bad, bad analogy.
A better analogy would be: you winning the $100,000 lottery prize and having the choice to trade it in for another ticket yet to be scratched, that has the potential to win you $1,000,000.

Do you keep the lottery ticket that guarentees you $100,000 or do you throw it all away and gamble it on the other ticket that may or may not win you $1,000,000.

sunb is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 01:30 PM
  #132
BlueBleeder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Looking for others
Country: United States
Posts: 1,677
vCash: 500
Jackman is the player i'd build my team around, Phaneuf would have to really impress me to get me to change my mind. And that is not gonna happen until the lock out ends and play resumes.

I never said he was gonna be a bust, I just said i'd take Jackman regardless.

BlueBleeder is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 02:10 PM
  #133
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
I have heard nothing but good things about Phaneuf but we should let him play a bit before we vote.

c-carp is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 04:01 PM
  #134
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBleeder
Like I said before if Jackman had been on the Flames, he would have made them at 18 too.
Well what makes you so sure of that?

Are you Darryl Sutter?

FYI, Phaneuf was easily the 5th best defenseman in training camp at 18, and in his first and only pre-season game was 1st star, but was sent back to junior not because he wasn't good enough, but because Sutter doesn't believe in having 18 year olds in the NHL and wanted him to dominate at the WHL and develop there properly. Tim Ramhoult, 2nd round pick that year, was sent to the QMJHL with instructions to be the best defenseman in that league (and he was) and probably could have made the team as well, but was sent down for the exact same reason.

So for your leap of logic to GUERENTEE that he'd make the team... well I personally think its stupid for you to make such a statement, but thats just me.

(Note: Again, for the record, I'm not saying that you SHOULD vote for Phaneuf, or that you're stupid to vote Jackman; either way, its just an opinion and I can respect that. What I can't respect, however, is the continuous leap of logic used by a few in this thread.)

(Note 2: Sorry for the grammer mistakes. Too many to fix now that I read back.)


Last edited by Phanuthier*: 10-28-2004 at 04:04 PM.
Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 04:02 PM
  #135
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,637
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovanovski = Norris
No.
It wasn't a yes or no question genius.

Quote:
Do you keep the lottery ticket that guarentees you $100,000 or do you throw it all away and gamble it on the other ticket that may or may not win you $1,000,000.
Well, if the analogy is that the $1,000,000 ticket can bring in anything from zero, up to and including $1,000,000, I think it is a pretty good bet. Phaneuf has too many tools to be a hit-or-miss prospect. Especially when his bust status is considered a 5th defenseman.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 04:45 PM
  #136
Roughneck
Registered User
 
Roughneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Calgary
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,637
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Roughneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Once again... ... once again, you read only what you want to read, which is highly annoying. Did I say Phaneuf spends all day looking for big hits? No I didn't. Does he get caught out of position a lot because he is going for big hits? Yes he does. And again, you are comparing Phaneuf's more brash and noticable style vs what Jackman was, which was far less flashy... and you are coming up with the conclusion that Phaneuf is far ahead of where Jackman was...
He doesn't just go and look for big hits. Not anymore (since he was drafted) because he is learning the game more. How often have you watched him? I was at every Red Deer@Calgary game last season and it was annoying how hard it was for Hitmen players to penetrate Phaneuf. And yes he does play a more noticable style, he is also far more involved in the offense, something Jackman never did, and it is something that limits Jackman's potential as a hockey player and is an added reason why I consider Phaneuf as the better defensemen (not right now naturally because he is 4 years younger). Jackman didn't have all the skills he has now that he did in the WHL, when he was in the WHL, yes he did his job, and he did it well. But he did it no better than Phaneuf does his currently. And Jackman didn't and doesn't have Phaneuf's hard shot, his outlet pass, nor did he get his numbers. If their defensive accomplishments are the same, and another player is clearly superior offensively, it would be like choosing an Adam Foote with 20 points, or Adam Foote with 40 points. Phaneuf is just as good, if not better at playing stay-at-home defense as Jackman was in juniors.

Quote:
What works for Phaneuf in the WHL, won't be nearly as effective in the NHL. What Jackman did in the WHL, was effective in the NHL. That's the point you need to grasp, which is completely eluding you. You are going by fans perspective on who did what... fans aren't scouts.
So I guess the Flames scouts were in complete dilusion that what Phaneuf has won't work in the NHL. Maybe they should move him to the wing then. As said many times, what Jackman did from the WHL to the NHL can be learned. If Jackman can learn it, so can Phaneuf. Jackman didn't have the same positioning he does now in junior, it is unfair to think Phaneuf will.

Quote:
Eriksson, Montador and Commodore are NHL defensemen? Yeesh... that's stretching it isn't it? How is it different from Jackman making the team when they had Pronger, MacInnis, Khavanov, Finley, Salvador and Van Ryn (which is a tougher top 6 to crack than one involving Eriksson)?
Eriksson was Columbus' best defenseman for a large portion of last season. And Montador showed in the playoffs (where he played a solid 20 minutes a game) that he is clearly an NHL caliber defenseman. And as YOU said, Jackman got moved up because of injuries, he wasn't a top pairing defenseman when he broke into the lineup, it fell onto him.

Quote:
Once again, I am not sure what you are arguing. I've touched on everything you've said and sided with it... except for your certainty that Phaneuf will learn it. Tonnes of guys progress well through junior. Kyle Brodziak went from a moderate WHLer to one of the best forwards in the league last year... so while development and progress in the WHL is important, to think it means that it will result in guaranteed development in the NHL is simply short-sighted. Most players display tremendous growth and development through Junior, especially after their draft year... it's nothing new. If ever player developed in the NHL like they did in junior, there would be no such thing as draft busts...
Now we are comparing top level prospects to junior scorers. Why not bring up Brad Moran and discuss why he wasn't as good a prospect as Joe Thornton. Brodziak can score in junior, he doesn't have the stuff that makes him into a good prospect for the NHL. Phaneuf does, simple as that.

Quote:
See, these are points you should use... the last WJC was one of the weakest tournaments in history. There was little to no competetion for Canada, up until the last game (where a hot goalie and a stupid goalie formed a bad mix for Canada). Yes it was the best junior players in the world, but Canada was leaps and bounds better than every single team there. So while it's impressive, there was only one game where Canada faced a single challenge, and that was the US game. It's not like he did it against the Ovechkins or Kovalchuks or some of the other great players who have killed Canada in the past.
Call it weak, but Phaneuf was still named the tournament's top defenseman because like some of his other blueline partners, didn't make some of the same mental mistakes they did. He also had the hit of the tournament despite his lack of positioning.

Quote:
What you aren't understanding, is that Phaneuf is a man playing against boys. He is physically superior to almost everyone, and he is a mean SOB to boot. That will have a huge influence on how good you look. He isn't terrible defensively by any means... but for him to translate his abilities to the lofty standards many have set for him, he needs to get better positionally.
I take it your opinion of WHL offenses isn't that high if you think a poorly positional defenseman can be its premier blueliner. Especially one that leads one of the most disciplined defenses in the WHL.

Quote:
Phaneuf cannot do the things Jackman could do, which is what you aren't realizing...
And Jackman can't do the things Phaneuf can do, and since Phaneuf is incapable of learning, I guess you're right. He wont be a good NHLer. We should scrap him now.

Quote:
He isn't much different than most young defensemen coming up in terms of what they need to do and learn to be effective at the NHL level. What sets him apart from most young defensemen are those special skills he has, which if he learns the first part, will vault him past all those other defencemen. If Phaneuf could do what Jackman already could, and had those other gifts, he would have been the Flames #1 defensman this past season.
Jackman went through the same thing. What you are failing to realize is that Phaneuf is 4 years younger than Jackman. Nobody expects him to be better than a 2 year NHLer right now, we are saying he will BECOME a better NHLer than Jackman is.

Quote:
Comparison, and saying the guy has Stevens-esque instincts are completely different things, which is what you don't understand. How can scouts say Phaneuf has Stevens-esque instincts and then at the same time say he needs to improve his positioning for NHL level competetion? That's like saying this chair is pretty light, but too heavy to move... Stevens instincts are being in the right place at the right time all the time. While he reminds scouts of scott stevens, or his upside is scott stevens, that doesn't mean he has instincts like scott stevens.
Okay, so they compared his to Stevens because of what then? If he doesn't have the instincts or the positioning, did they just pull the name out of a hat, or just to stir up discussion. I suppose Kyle Brodziak is a young Joe Sakic minus the shot and offensive production.

Quote:
There is a big difference between comparing the way they look and how they play
Oh so that's the comparison. But I don't really think they look the same. The smile is different. And I think they have a different eye colour.

[/quote]
Why do you have to go on potential? I don't understand that. Why would it be wrong to take the guy who already has proven himself to be a very good NHLer? Are you telling me you'd take Ovechkin right now over Kovalchuk, only because Ovechkin could be one of the best Russian players of all time?[/quote]

Because the question is asking who would you take now/IN THE FUTURE

We aren't saying that we'd take Phaneuf right now, but Stich up there said that any GM would be stupid to trade Jackman for Phaneuf. Seeing as Jackman isn't considered one of the best, if not the best current Canadian defenseman (like Kovalchuck to Russia), and Phaneuf is considered the best defense prospect in the world, it is a safe bet that more than a handful of GMs would make the trade.

Roughneck is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 05:02 PM
  #137
Flames Draft Watcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Sutter isn't a stupid man. I'd be willing to venture that Phaneuf would spend a lot of time in the WHL this year, simply because it would be better for his development than bouncing around in and out of the lineup in the NHL.
“We feel that if the season was in place Dion Phaneuf would be playing on our hockey team,” said Sutter

http://www.calgaryflames.com/cgi-bin...num=0000000342

You sure like to type eh? Basically from my point of view your long winded rant boils down to you thinking Jackman was crazy good at positioning and that Phaneuf is mediocre at it. Both are exaggerations.

Phaneuf is not as poor positionally as you seem to think and Jackman was not quite as dominant in junior as you seem to think.

I've read all the same scouting reports as you have and yet I don't agree with your interpretations.

Flames Draft Watcher is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 05:46 PM
  #138
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
“We feel that if the season was in place Dion Phaneuf would be playing on our hockey team,” said Sutter

http://www.calgaryflames.com/cgi-bin...num=0000000342

You sure like to type eh? Basically from my point of view your long winded rant boils down to you thinking Jackman was crazy good at positioning and that Phaneuf is mediocre at it. Both are exaggerations.

Phaneuf is not as poor positionally as you seem to think and Jackman was not quite as dominant in junior as you seem to think.

I've read all the same scouting reports as you have and yet I don't agree with your interpretations.
Anyone remember Fleury last year?

I think Phaneuf would have had much of the same result. Spend some time in the NHL, get released for the junior team and then spend the rest of the season in the Dub.

Kevin Pendergrast said Rob Schremp was one of the few players in the 2004 draft who wouldn't look out of place in the NHL.

Do they necessarily mean that both guys should be in the NHL? Certainly not. Phaneuf probably would get a shot at the start of the NHL season... would he stick? Who knows. But it's all speculation at this point, and if that's all you got, you don't have much.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 06:05 PM
  #139
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Anyone remember Fleury last year?

I think Phaneuf would have had much of the same result. Spend some time in the NHL, get released for the junior team and then spend the rest of the season in the Dub.
Fleury was an 18 year old goalie.

Phaneuf is a 19 year old defenseman.

Big difference

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
10-28-2004, 06:09 PM
  #140
weaponomega
Registered User
 
weaponomega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,563
vCash: 500
phaneuf

weaponomega is online now  
Old
10-29-2004, 03:25 PM
  #141
Flames Draft Watcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Anyone remember Fleury last year?

I think Phaneuf would have had much of the same result. Spend some time in the NHL, get released for the junior team and then spend the rest of the season in the Dub.

Kevin Pendergrast said Rob Schremp was one of the few players in the 2004 draft who wouldn't look out of place in the NHL.

Do they necessarily mean that both guys should be in the NHL? Certainly not. Phaneuf probably would get a shot at the start of the NHL season... would he stick? Who knows. But it's all speculation at this point, and if that's all you got, you don't have much.
Why not do a more accurate comparison and look at Bouwmeester or Pitkanen and not Fleury? It's acknowledged by everybody that goaltending is the position that takes the longest to develop.

And what does Schremp have to do with anything? You're really reaching with that comment. Schremp is 18, Phaneuf is 19. Phaneuf went top 10 in a very, very strong draft year. Schremp went bottom third of the first round in a much weaker draft year. If anything bringing Schremp into this makes the argument for Phaneuf being in the NHL even stronger.

Calgary's coach/GM has said he's be on the team if the season were starting. I watched him last year in camp and he didn't look out of place at all. Most prospects of his calibre are not returned to junior for their 19 year old season, many think they won't learn as much dominating a lower level as they would playing up at a higher level. The Gauthier move looks like an obvious attempt to make room for Dion.

Think what you will but Phaneuf would be playing in the NHL this year. Both Morris and Regehr played in the NHL at age 19, don't see why you think Phaneuf is a stretch when he's better now than they were at that age.

Flames Draft Watcher 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 05:42 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.