HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Brian Boyle

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2005, 11:18 PM
  #76
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
im still curious, though, of why u think it was ok to bet on a long term prospect. the more i think about it, the less reasons i can think of to take a prospect that u know will take years to develop. is boyle's ceiling really that high? not really, he's mroe or less projected to be around what tambellini is projected to be, only difference is having 3-4 more years of development before reaching it.

this, i think, is the same reason why goalies are rarely taken in the first round. they just take too long to develop and are not worth drafting in the first round unless they have an extremely high ceiling.
Brian Boyle does have a high ceiling, for one. If you have a 6'7 moose parking himself in front of the net and taking face-offs, you have a lot of potential. They're also (on average) harder to knock off the puck than someone who's under 6'. Seriously, if Boyle starts playing physical on a consistent basis, you've got a beast. It was a problem with him in high school, being so big, because his physical play would lead to him taking penalties; the refs thought he went too far. It's not that he doesn't know how to play physical, but he needs to do it in a way which doesn't draw penalties.

And yes, we'd be touting Boyle as a great prospect if he was doing great now. He would be further in his development than we expected. As it stands now, though, some of us aren't expecting anything more than some marginal progress, because that's all we can hope for some of these prospects.

As to WHY such a longterm project would be taken, there are two reasons: 1, as you stated, the player would have to have a high ceiling. Another reason is because you don't want all of your prospects ready at the exact same time. ANY responsible organization is NOT going to ice a team full of rookies. You have players develop at different rates, are NHL ready at different times, so you can develop the younger kids with veteran leadership. The ones that don't pan out can be traded or unsigned; new picks, prospects, or players are acquired from them, and the new draft starts over again.

And goalies aren't taken in the first round that often because while there's a demand for a franchise goalie, there's only one goalie to fill that gap. The ratio in which goalies have been drafted in the first round hasn't been that unusual:
'04 - 4/30 (13%)
'03 - 1/30 (3%)
'02 - 3/30 (10%)
'01 - 4/30 (13%)
'00 - 2/30 (7%)
'99 - 3/30 (10%)
'98 - 2/30 (7%)

19 of the 210 players taken in the first round the past 7 years have been goalies. That's 9%. Considering there are only 2 goalies to a starting NHL line-up, the ratio of goalies drafted is pretty much in sync with the ratio of goalies on a starting NHL line-up.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 01:40 AM
  #77
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 34,148
vCash: 500
...Speaking of face offs, he won every single one I saw him take in those two most recent games.

__________________
I love you all.
Legionnaire is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 01:41 AM
  #78
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 34,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
im still curious, though, of why u think it was ok to bet on a long term prospect. the more i think about it, the less reasons i can think of to take a prospect that u know will take years to develop. is boyle's ceiling really that high? not really, he's mroe or less projected to be around what tambellini is projected to be, only difference is having 3-4 more years of development before reaching it.

this, i think, is the same reason why goalies are rarely taken in the first round. they just take too long to develop and are not worth drafting in the first round unless they have an extremely high ceiling.

Of course his celing is that high. He's 6'7 and skilled. If he maxes out his potential, he will be the best player in the draft.

Legionnaire is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 03:05 AM
  #79
Kingz4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Armenia
Posts: 2,105
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kingz4life
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire
Of course his celing is that high. He's 6'7 and skilled. If he maxes out his potential, he will be the best player in the draft.
Agree 100%

Kingz4life is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 09:41 AM
  #80
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 500
KPD, it's great that you are standing behind your position so strongly. Why you are so hard on a guy mid-way thru his sophmore year in college when he has at least 3 more years to go before we have to sign him is curious to say the least. If you remember Steckel had a great freshman yr. What point totals from him would make you happy? And I still don't quite hear the "right now" arguement as being important for a sophmore in school , please explain again. I'm bleeding too much purple and black to understand

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 11:21 AM
  #81
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Well I wasn't the one making the selection for the Kings, so you would be better off asking Al Murray or someone on the scouting staff.
I'm just trying to come up with a rational reasoning as to why the Kings made the pick. They had 3 first round picks, took two offensive wingers with average size and took a project who they are hoping could be a big impact center with above average size.

I've brought this up before, but teams with many first round picks in the past have taken one risky project. The Avalanche did so with Scott Parker in the first round. The Capitals did it last season with the two defensemen they selected late in the first round.

I've given you legit responses and explanations and examples... what more do you want me to say? "Brian Boyle SUCKS! He's a bust. What the hell were the Kings scouts thinking selecting him?! We could have had Patrice Bergeron!" ?

The Kings' draft philosophy has been to take the best player available. I guess Boyle was next up in their rankings and he was the best player available in the eyes of the Kings scouts.

Why not lineup another interview with Al Murray or a Kings scout who covers the D1 college east region (that would be Mike Donnelly I believe?). Maybe they have a better explanation than I do.

I don't have all the answers and neither do you since you are the one asking the questions. If we had all the answers we'd all be hired full-time scouts.

wasn't trying to rile u, just honestly wanted to know your thoughts.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 11:26 AM
  #82
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
Brian Boyle does have a high ceiling, for one. If you have a 6'7 moose parking himself in front of the net and taking face-offs, you have a lot of potential. They're also (on average) harder to knock off the puck than someone who's under 6'. Seriously, if Boyle starts playing physical on a consistent basis, you've got a beast. It was a problem with him in high school, being so big, because his physical play would lead to him taking penalties; the refs thought he went too far. It's not that he doesn't know how to play physical, but he needs to do it in a way which doesn't draw penalties.

And yes, we'd be touting Boyle as a great prospect if he was doing great now. He would be further in his development than we expected. As it stands now, though, some of us aren't expecting anything more than some marginal progress, because that's all we can hope for some of these prospects.

As to WHY such a longterm project would be taken, there are two reasons: 1, as you stated, the player would have to have a high ceiling. Another reason is because you don't want all of your prospects ready at the exact same time. ANY responsible organization is NOT going to ice a team full of rookies. You have players develop at different rates, are NHL ready at different times, so you can develop the younger kids with veteran leadership. The ones that don't pan out can be traded or unsigned; new picks, prospects, or players are acquired from them, and the new draft starts over again.

And goalies aren't taken in the first round that often because while there's a demand for a franchise goalie, there's only one goalie to fill that gap. The ratio in which goalies have been drafted in the first round hasn't been that unusual:
'04 - 4/30 (13%)
'03 - 1/30 (3%)
'02 - 3/30 (10%)
'01 - 4/30 (13%)
'00 - 2/30 (7%)
'99 - 3/30 (10%)
'98 - 2/30 (7%)

19 of the 210 players taken in the first round the past 7 years have been goalies. That's 9%. Considering there are only 2 goalies to a starting NHL line-up, the ratio of goalies drafted is pretty much in sync with the ratio of goalies on a starting NHL line-up.
k, now here is an intelligent response that i was hoping for, but a few questions on that. if projects are expected to take longer to develop, why did they draft him in the first round? first rounders notoriously ask for cap money even if they are only playing ECHL or AHL. so isn't it a risk in itself to take a project in the first round while knowing he is goign to develop over a much longer period of time then those who aren't?

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 11:34 AM
  #83
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KING ELVI
KPD, it's great that you are standing behind your position so strongly. Why you are so hard on a guy mid-way thru his sophmore year in college when he has at least 3 more years to go before we have to sign him is curious to say the least. If you remember Steckel had a great freshman yr. What point totals from him would make you happy? And I still don't quite hear the "right now" arguement as being important for a sophmore in school , please explain again. I'm bleeding too much purple and black to understand
i think by his sophomore year he should have been a consistent second liner who is breathing down the necks of the first liners. he should be scoring, at a minimum, of .75 points per game ratio. he should also be a beast out against NCAA players. if he can't be physical agaisnt them, i don't really see why he'll change in the NHL.

to rehash the arguments for the last time, boyle has to show at least some sort of dominance agaisnt NCAA players, whether it be his sophomore year or freshman year. he can't be a 1st rounder sitting as a 4th liner, it doens't matter how much of a "long term" project he is, he's still gota do something. i don't think he's a bust, but he is not doing as well as he SHOULD be doing, even management has to admit that. if we were to redraft today, i am positive the kings can let this guy go to the late 2nd round or farther and he'll still be there. and in part of the reason why i am so critical of this pick, the draft was THAT deep, we didn't have to draft him at the 26 mark. i felt this way at the time of the draft and i feel MUCH more strongly about it now.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 11:40 AM
  #84
Old Hickory
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Let me explain this another way KPD. This coming from someone who is tall, but not nearly as tall as Boyle. Tall kids that are Boyle's age and gawky, clumbsy and don't have complete control of their bodies. It takes years to "get used" to your bigger frame and be able to use to to your advantage. Years. That's why guys like Beruzzi didn't come into the league and immediately set it on fire. It takes time.

 
Old
01-04-2005, 01:39 PM
  #85
T2M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
i think by his sophomore year he should have been a consistent second liner who is breathing down the necks of the first liners. he should be scoring, at a minimum, of .75 points per game ratio. he should also be a beast out against NCAA players. if he can't be physical agaisnt them, i don't really see why he'll change in the NHL.

to rehash the arguments for the last time, boyle has to show at least some sort of dominance agaisnt NCAA players, whether it be his sophomore year or freshman year. he can't be a 1st rounder sitting as a 4th liner, it doens't matter how much of a "long term" project he is, he's still gota do something. i don't think he's a bust, but he is not doing as well as he SHOULD be doing, even management has to admit that. if we were to redraft today, i am positive the kings can let this guy go to the late 2nd round or farther and he'll still be there. and in part of the reason why i am so critical of this pick, the draft was THAT deep, we didn't have to draft him at the 26 mark. i felt this way at the time of the draft and i feel MUCH more strongly about it now.
Frankly the reason I think they took him is because they saw the most potential in him. If you look at our forward prospects and even some of the forwards drafted after Boyle then you're looking at a lot of good second liner/border line first liners. With the exception of guys like Tukonen, Frolov, and Brown who should be first liners. What the Kings saw in Boyle is a player who has a quality skill set that's still developing and an unbelievable physical frame to put all of that in. Like it was said above, if Boyle fulfils his potential, then he's going to be a top liner and everybody will wonder why he wasn't taken earlier. The Kings probably felt he wouldn't be available at 44 so they took him there. Boyle's a great example of an 18 year old who won't be a good pro until he's 25, but if you can get a top notch, HUGE centerman in your organization early, that's always the key. My beef isn't with Boyle, it's with college hockey. I just don't think it trains people for the harsh physical game of the pros. If they let in more rough stuff in US college hockey their game would be a much better training ground. That being said, Boyle looks like he's coming on strong now so kudos to him.

T2M is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 01:51 PM
  #86
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 500
KPD, you have to admit that maybe the top 5 in any draft no matter how deep are maybe good nhl bets. The rest are all projects and have to improve their game to make the nhl. No one has ever said that if you're drafted in the 1st round that you are a sure fire bet to make it. Goalies are drafted each year in the 1st round. At #26 you are still taking a flyer on somebody. It's not like we drafted him 10th. And you can have hindsight in every past draft and say we should-a got this guy instead. This is a strange beef you have against the pick when *no-one* knows how he'll pan out. I just don't understand your point

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 03:19 PM
  #87
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
k, now here is an intelligent response that i was hoping for, but a few questions on that. if projects are expected to take longer to develop, why did they draft him in the first round? first rounders notoriously ask for cap money even if they are only playing ECHL or AHL. so isn't it a risk in itself to take a project in the first round while knowing he is goign to develop over a much longer period of time then those who aren't?
Thanks for the props

The main reason he was taken where he was, was probably due to the fact the Kings didn't expect him to drop to the third round. We would be having the same discussion if the Kings took Pushkarev in round 1, when he was projected to be a darkhorse taken later. The only difference, we'd ask why the Kings didn't let Pushkarev drop.

As for signing him, I don't believe the Kings have to sign a collegiate player until one year after they graduate. The Kings own the rights to him, but don't have to sign him until 2008. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then that's a LOT of time for this kid to develop.

If he doesn't pan out by that time, then the Kings can either trade him or try to get a comp pick.

I admit ahead of time this is a stretch, but Brian Boyle has a very LARGE family (12 siblings, if I remember correctly). He undoubtedly has some concept of the greater good for a group/family, so he might not even demand first round money... especially if he's not playing up to snuff. Just one of those personality issues I try to key in on

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
01-04-2005, 05:52 PM
  #88
T2M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
I admit ahead of time this is a stretch, but Brian Boyle has a very LARGE family (12 siblings, if I remember correctly). He undoubtedly has some concept of the greater good for a group/family, so he might not even demand first round money... especially if he's not playing up to snuff. Just one of those personality issues I try to key in on
That's the other key with Boyle. He's just got a lot of character going for him. He's going to be the guy you want on your team when he's a little bit older and has some time to reflect on life.

T2M is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 12:12 AM
  #89
Fat Elvis
Registered User
 
Fat Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Money Pit
Country: United States
Posts: 5,239
vCash: 500
Just got an assist tonight to surpass last years point total in less than half the games played. That's considered improvement in most peoples book.

Fat Elvis is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 12:15 AM
  #90
maximil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 281
vCash: 500
Look at the B.C. roster and just think about how much ice he's gonna get next year...

maximil is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 12:59 AM
  #91
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 34,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KING ELVI
Just got an assist tonight to surpass last years point total in less than half the games played. That's considered improvement in most peoples book.
Nope. He should have already scored three hundred points and won two Stanley Cups.


Last edited by Legionnaire: 01-05-2005 at 04:52 AM.
Legionnaire is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 01:15 AM
  #92
Ralph
Stevehead.
 
Ralph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 1135
And at very least 30 Fighting Majors.

Ralph is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 07:46 AM
  #93
Jungle Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Recife, Brazil
Country: Brazil
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
I think that Boyle is having a slow and steady (slow because of the way the game is played on the NCAA and BCs depth) development. But someone Im starting to worry is Jeff Tambellini. I thought he would have a very suscesfull college career but the point production has been not very good, last season there was the injury, I know he had a great WJC last year but...
Another thing that makes me worry is the lack of centers in our system. We have three guys with the potential to be top 2 centers: Lehoux, Boyle and Cammy. Cammy has played in the NHL as a RW. Boyle is feeling more comfortable in the right side, next year he could be playing RW in a line centered by Dan Bertram, having lots of chances to succeed and after getting used to playing in the RW with less defensive responsabilities he wont want to go back and play center. this leave us with Lehoux, I know that he is having a great year, but he has to prove that this year is not a fluke.
We could have drafted Schremp last year and have this perfect line:
Frolov....Schremp.....Brown

Jungle Boy is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 12:44 PM
  #94
T2M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungle Boy
We could have drafted Schremp last year and have this perfect line:
Frolov....Schremp.....Brown
I worry about our center position too, but let's not jump to conclusions. I'd rather have Tukonen in the system then Schremp. Bpa, bpa, if we need to get a good young centerman we can trade one of those high scoring wingers we're loaded with.

T2M is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 01:41 PM
  #95
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungle Boy
I think that Boyle is having a slow and steady (slow because of the way the game is played on the NCAA and BCs depth) development. But someone Im starting to worry is Jeff Tambellini. I thought he would have a very suscesfull college career but the point production has been not very good, last season there was the injury, I know he had a great WJC last year but...
What are you worried about Tambellini? That he has 22 pts in 20 games played? What has he failed to do? Headstands on the ice? I've watched Tambellini play live a few times and I see no reason to worry about his development. He is constantly being played on a rotation with the top 2 lines in Michigan, and him and T.J. Hensick (who will be drafted in '05) are doing a good job along with Moss and Gajic. Tambellini and Hensick are the two most talented players on the Wolverines.

Last season Tamby had 27 pts and 15 goals in 39 games. This season he's already at 22 pts with 8 goals in 20. He might not reach his goal total from his freshman season but his play hasn't been anything to worry about. I don't see what you're seeing when you claim that Tambellini's point production has not been very good. I guess a point per game isn't consistent enough for ya?

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 02:00 PM
  #96
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,330
vCash: 500
I have seen Boyle a couple more times this year since I last posted, and I like his progression. His skating is better and he seems to look a lot more comfortable.

Reasoning for the pick? He was projected in the Top 50 by The Hockey News(I believe, I am going by memory), and if you have three firsts, taking a flyer on what could be the biggest home run of the draft is totally worth it.

I think Boyle is going to be fine.

Slats432 is online now  
Old
01-05-2005, 02:56 PM
  #97
Jungle Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Recife, Brazil
Country: Brazil
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
What are you worried about Tambellini? That he has 22 pts in 20 games played? What has he failed to do? Headstands on the ice? I've watched Tambellini play live a few times and I see no reason to worry about his development. He is constantly being played on a rotation with the top 2 lines in Michigan, and him and T.J. Hensick (who will be drafted in '05) are doing a good job along with Moss and Gajic. Tambellini and Hensick are the two most talented players on the Wolverines.

Last season Tamby had 27 pts and 15 goals in 39 games. This season he's already at 22 pts with 8 goals in 20. He might not reach his goal total from his freshman season but his play hasn't been anything to worry about. I don't see what you're seeing when you claim that Tambellini's point production has not been very good. I guess a point per game isn't consistent enough for ya?
Probably, you are right. but I expected more from Tambs, I dont know.. maybe its just me expecting too much of him. I always thought that by his sophmore year he would be leading the nation in scoring.

Jungle Boy is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 03:19 PM
  #98
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
Many college players who have led the nation in scoring have turned out to be mush. David Emma, Jim Montgomery, Brian Holzinger, etc.
Don't worry too much. Tambellini I think could turn out to be a player similar in style to Steven Reinprecht. They are both fairly responsible players who are good skaters with above average speed.

And if anyone should be worried about a players development it should be Flames fans with Eric Nystrom and his lack of production. When I saw him play he was invisible for the most part. The only times I noticed him on the ice was when the Wolverines were killing penalties. He may turn out to be a decent checking line forward but I don't see him filling out a spot in the top six in a scoring role.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 03:28 PM
  #99
Jungle Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Recife, Brazil
Country: Brazil
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
Steven Reinprecht???
he is a good player but he was a UFA signing, while tambs was a 1st rd pick

Jungle Boy is offline  
Old
01-05-2005, 03:34 PM
  #100
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 28,938
vCash: 500
UFA or not, Reinprecht I think is a valuable player who can net 50+ points in a good year. And I'd say Reinprecht snuck under the radar of many NHL GM's.
Curtis Joseph and Eddie Belfour were UFA signings as well and they have been better than many goalies who were drafted in the 1st round.

Ziggy Stardust 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 03:27 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.