HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012/2013 Bruins Prospect Thread (Part 3)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-18-2012, 09:27 PM
  #351
00BW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Framingham, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 71
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiss The Ring View Post
There is nothing suspect about projecting junior stats into NHL stats, and it's nothing new.

http://www.behindthenet.ca/projecting_to_nhl.php
Quote:
Quote:
If he’s 20, on average, he’ll retain just 26% of his scoring
Cherry picking text? This is the full paragraph from that article.

Quote:
So in a qualitative sense, it’s obvious in this case that a 17-year-old player’s performance predicts a much better career than a 20-year-old’s stats. But there is also a strong quantitative relationship between past and future performance. Based on the performance of thousands of drafted players, we can predict how many points a player will score in the NHL when he’s 21-years-old. If he’s 17, four years later, we expect him to score at 72% of his junior rate. But if he’s 20, on average, he’ll retain just 26% of his scoring.
So this is Knight's 17-18 yr old season we should predict from at a 72% scoring rate according to your reference site.

Code:
Season 	Team 	 	Lge 	GP 	G 	A 	Pts 	PIM 	+/- 	GP 	G 	A 	Pts 	PIM
2009-10 	London Knights 	OHL 	63 	36 	21 	57 	39 	16 	12 	10 	7 	17 	12
I like a guy scoring 10 goals in 12 playoff games as an 18 year old. Shows up when the game matters most.

Unless Chia is playing doggo and a bunch of trades happen, we will see how Knight plays in the AHL and gauge him then.

And stats don't always project. Bergeron's only year in the Q (as a 17 year old) saw him score 23 goals. He has scored 22 three times in the NHL and 31 in his 2nd NHL year. 31 vs 23 = 134% goal scoring rate from 17 to 20 year stats.

00BW is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:23 PM
  #352
Rookie Chargers
Registered User
 
Rookie Chargers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Quebec
Country: Azores
Posts: 7,751
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Rookie Chargers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
I'm putting together a Knight hate list that will make Keyser Soze look like Dale Carnagie.

Here is a video of some of Knight's goals- sure looks like a mucker to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUyxPRa4Vt0

i'm probably one of the few people who doesn't run and hide around here when they are wrong and will take my medicine. That said, if Knight ends up as many of you bashers think I'll own up- hope you guys will do the same

just to add, this year when he got the concussion he was the leading +/- forward at the time in the OHL and T-O-L-D by Dale Hunter his role would be changing as more a shut down guy....

I'll get jake77 to weigh in on this since he has forgotten more than I'll ever know
Reminds me of Skinner.

Rookie Chargers is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:40 PM
  #353
reffree
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ste-justine québec
Posts: 1,734
vCash: 500
Brock posted this in the prospect board, an amazing read for all of us who like prospect talk.

http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/2012...on-bruins.html

reffree is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:46 PM
  #354
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reffree View Post
Brock posted this in the prospect board, an amazing read for all of us who like prospect talk.

http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/2012...on-bruins.html
He already posted it here a couple of pages back, and it has sparked the current Knight debate.

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:50 PM
  #355
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
I'm putting together a Knight hate list that will make Keyser Soze look like Dale Carnagie.

Here is a video of some of Knight's goals- sure looks like a mucker to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUyxPRa4Vt0

i'm probably one of the few people who doesn't run and hide around here when they are wrong and will take my medicine. That said, if Knight ends up as many of you bashers think I'll own up- hope you guys will do the same

just to add, this year when he got the concussion he was the leading +/- forward at the time in the OHL and T-O-L-D by Dale Hunter his role would be changing as more a shut down guy....

I'll get jake77 to weigh in on this since he has forgotten more than I'll ever know
After watching that video...anybody have a problem with the B's trying to get Kadri away from TOR and teaming him back up with Knight?

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 11:10 PM
  #356
BigBadBruin8
@rsox1221
 
BigBadBruin8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Shrewsbury, MA
Country: Ireland
Posts: 8,733
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BigBadBruin8
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
After watching that video...anybody have a problem with the B's trying to get Kadri away from TOR and teaming him back up with Knight?
Kadri for Thomas?

Do it

__________________
"The only thing that beats winning [in Toronto] is winning in Montreal.--Aaron Ward

"I've gotta go run some little French guys over."--Shawn Thornton

BigBadBruin8 is online now  
Old
07-19-2012, 04:34 AM
  #357
Alan Ryan
Registered User
 
Alan Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8,053
vCash: 500
Good news . . . Bad news . . .

From Kirk Luedeke on twitter:

Good news for Bruins fans: Red Line calls selection of Seth Griffith 6th-best value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...

Now for the bad news: RLR has Malcolm Subban (24) as the 4th-worst value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...


http://twitter.com/kluedeke29#

Alan Ryan is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 06:36 AM
  #358
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Ryan View Post
From Kirk Luedeke on twitter:

Good news for Bruins fans: Red Line calls selection of Seth Griffith 6th-best value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...

Now for the bad news: RLR has Malcolm Subban (24) as the 4th-worst value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...


http://twitter.com/kluedeke29#
I just asked Kirk this on Twitter, and I wasn't being sarcastic, but how exactly does RLR determine this? Is it based on the player's stats, where RLR has them ranked, combination?

Say the B's liked Matt Finn, as had been speculated, but that he was the 10th best d-man on their board. Now, say they had Subban as the #1 rated goalie on their board. They get to #24 and both of those guys are there.

The next highest rated goalie was probably Dansk, who went only 7 picks later, so I'm not sure why RLR considered Subban such a bad value? Unless they had Subban rated much lower than most? I don't have a RLR subscription, so I will have to ask DKH

Classic case of a team going for the highest rated guy on their board imo. B's obviously felt that Subban has a much better chance of potentially becoming a Top 5 or 10 player at his position than the other players that were left on the board.


ps I don't buy any of that, "this was a PR move by the B's after the Ward stuff". What a load of horse manure...

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 06:46 AM
  #359
reffree
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ste-justine québec
Posts: 1,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
He already posted it here a couple of pages back, and it has sparked the current Knight debate.
Oups, didn't get back far enough. Sorry

reffree is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 07:11 AM
  #360
Beesfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
I just asked Kirk this on Twitter, and I wasn't being sarcastic, but how exactly does RLR determine this? Is it based on the player's stats, where RLR has them ranked, combination?

Say the B's liked Matt Finn, as had been speculated, but that he was the 10th best d-man on their board. Now, say they had Subban as the #1 rated goalie on their board. They get to #24 and both of those guys are there.

The next highest rated goalie was probably Dansk, who went only 7 picks later, so I'm not sure why RLR considered Subban such a bad value? Unless they had Subban rated much lower than most? I don't have a RLR subscription, so I will have to ask DKH

Classic case of a team going for the highest rated guy on their board imo. B's obviously felt that Subban has a much better chance of potentially becoming a Top 5 or 10 player at his position than the other players that were left on the board.


ps I don't buy any of that, "this was a PR move by the B's after the Ward stuff". What a load of horse manure...
Yeah, Subban was considered a legitimate first round pick. Not sure why there's criticism over this one. He was actually one of the few potentially elite players left.

Beesfan is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 09:22 AM
  #361
5 minutes a Knight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 3,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
I just asked Kirk this on Twitter, and I wasn't being sarcastic, but how exactly does RLR determine this? Is it based on the player's stats, where RLR has them ranked, combination?

Say the B's liked Matt Finn, as had been speculated, but that he was the 10th best d-man on their board. Now, say they had Subban as the #1 rated goalie on their board. They get to #24 and both of those guys are there.

The next highest rated goalie was probably Dansk, who went only 7 picks later, so I'm not sure why RLR considered Subban such a bad value? Unless they had Subban rated much lower than most? I don't have a RLR subscription, so I will have to ask DKH

Classic case of a team going for the highest rated guy on their board imo. B's obviously felt that Subban has a much better chance of potentially becoming a Top 5 or 10 player at his position than the other players that were left on the board.


ps I don't buy any of that, "this was a PR move by the B's after the Ward stuff". What a load of horse manure...


Geez Joe, did Wayne Smith write that for you

Running out the door but we can get into this later

5 minutes a Knight is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 09:54 AM
  #362
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saxon Eric View Post
[/B]

Geez Joe, did Wayne Smith write that for you

Running out the door but we can get into this later

No Wayne Smith didn't write it for me, he didn't have to, it's common sense. Nothing to "get into", LOL.

I'm not sure how much you are into other sports, but this isn't just a hockey philosophy. There are basically two ways to draft players, either for need, or using the BPA (best player available) approach. Of course this can change a bit from round to round or depending on how badly a team needs help at a certain position, but typically organizatons don't deviate from their philosophies much.

If I take Chia at his word, the B's have always been a BPA team, so that's what they did, take the highest player on their board. I didn't say that I agreed with it, (I actually would have preferred that they went with Finn or Gaunce) but I understand why they did it. My personal opinion is that in all but the most dire situations, teams should always go BPA.

If the B's really did have Subban rated highly, for arguments sake, let's say #15, and when they got to #24, he was still available, I have no issue with the pick. You can question how they rate their players, but I don't question the philosophy. I think the Patriots would have done the same thing.

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 01:10 PM
  #363
agreen23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
No Wayne Smith didn't write it for me, he didn't have to, it's common sense. Nothing to "get into", LOL.

I'm not sure how much you are into other sports, but this isn't just a hockey philosophy. There are basically two ways to draft players, either for need, or using the BPA (best player available) approach. Of course this can change a bit from round to round or depending on how badly a team needs help at a certain position, but typically organizatons don't deviate from their philosophies much.

If I take Chia at his word, the B's have always been a BPA team, so that's what they did, take the highest player on their board. I didn't say that I agreed with it, (I actually would have preferred that they went with Finn or Gaunce) but I understand why they did it. My personal opinion is that in all but the most dire situations, teams should always go BPA.

If the B's really did have Subban rated highly, for arguments sake, let's say #15, and when they got to #24, he was still available, I have no issue with the pick. You can question how they rate their players, but I don't question the philosophy. I think the Patriots would have done the same thing.
I agree with all of your post except the last sentence. This year, the Pats drafted for need not BPA. Do you think it just happened by chance that the BPA was on the defensive side of the ball for 7 picks straight? I sure don't.

And they drafted Tavon so high (still think its shocking) because the Pats pinpointed him because of his ST play and versatility. Hes great at stopping the run and.. adequate in pass protection but the Pats are going to utilize him as a linebacker in passing situations to cover TEs and RBs more effectively in space. BB knows this is how you stop the spread attack with 2 TEs that he has created. Hes always a step ahead of the game.

Anyways, I agree that the Bs were drafting with the BPA philosophy but Im not a fan of drafting goalies in the first round. I would have much rather seen them go with Finn or Skjei. I think they would have given us more bang for our buck but I guess only time will tell.

agreen23 is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 01:15 PM
  #364
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
 
Kirk- NEHJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CAV Country!
Country: United States
Posts: 12,745
vCash: 500
Joe, we didn't have Subban highly rated-- he was 68th on our list-- and that is the issue/why he's seen as one of the poorer value picks.

Just RLR's view-- folks can take issue with it if they want. But we're not "wrong" to have Subban 68th any more than Boston is "right" by having him in their top-10. The proof is in the pudding and we won't find out the answer for a few years yet.

To characterize RLR's position on Subban as anything other than a difference of opinion however is another matter. Just because Central has him as the #1 NA goalie doesn't mean our scouts saw it the same way. Boston obviously takes a different view, but far too much concern/emotion placed on these things, IMO. I mean, do fans really get bent out of shape because every pick isn't a slap on the back? Conversely, questioning the wisdom of a pick isn't necessarily criticism either. Come on, now.

If we declared Boston "winners" on the day after the draft, it still doesn't change the fact that the players are the ones who will ultimately determine the team's success or failure.

To paraphrase an Anaheim scout I walked back to the hotel with after the 2nd day- everyone is a winner right now-- the coming season and likely another 2-4 beyond that will determine who really "won" or "lost" at the draft. How RLR feels about the 2012 draft in July has zero bearing on that. Fwiw- RLR called the Bruins "winners" in 2000 and 2002-- how'd that work out for the team? 2012 could prove to be one of Boston's most productive drafts yet, but nobody is right or wrong right now.

Kirk- NEHJ is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:26 PM
  #365
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 19,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Ryan View Post
From Kirk Luedeke on twitter:

Good news for Bruins fans: Red Line calls selection of Seth Griffith 6th-best value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...

Now for the bad news: RLR has Malcolm Subban (24) as the 4th-worst value pick in entire 2012 NHL draft...


http://twitter.com/kluedeke29#
Good to see that RLR agrees with my evaluation of Chiarelli's draft.

Fire Julien is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:50 PM
  #366
Son of Donegal
Registered User
 
Son of Donegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Watertown, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 697
vCash: 500
Hockey's Future - Bruins Draft Review

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...2-draft-review

Welp, this HF writer had favorable things to say about Subban and the Bruin's draft, in general.

Enjoy.

Son of Donegal is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 06:13 AM
  #367
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk- NEHJ View Post
Joe, we didn't have Subban highly rated-- he was 68th on our list-- and that is the issue/why he's seen as one of the poorer value picks.

Just RLR's view-- folks can take issue with it if they want. But we're not "wrong" to have Subban 68th any more than Boston is "right" by having him in their top-10. The proof is in the pudding and we won't find out the answer for a few years yet.

To characterize RLR's position on Subban as anything other than a difference of opinion however is another matter. Just because Central has him as the #1 NA goalie doesn't mean our scouts saw it the same way. Boston obviously takes a different view, but far too much concern/emotion placed on these things, IMO. I mean, do fans really get bent out of shape because every pick isn't a slap on the back? Conversely, questioning the wisdom of a pick isn't necessarily criticism either. Come on, now.

If we declared Boston "winners" on the day after the draft, it still doesn't change the fact that the players are the ones who will ultimately determine the team's success or failure.

To paraphrase an Anaheim scout I walked back to the hotel with after the 2nd day- everyone is a winner right now-- the coming season and likely another 2-4 beyond that will determine who really "won" or "lost" at the draft. How RLR feels about the 2012 draft in July has zero bearing on that. Fwiw- RLR called the Bruins "winners" in 2000 and 2002-- how'd that work out for the team? 2012 could prove to be one of Boston's most productive drafts yet, but nobody is right or wrong right now.
Yeah, I get that.

Almost all of this is subjective. I was mostly wondering how RLR came to their determination on the value rating they were giving and not questioning the difference of opinion.

Obviously, all of this is just speculation (some more informed than others ) and we will not know anything until these kids have developed for a few years and then make their mark (or don't) in the Pros.

I have an issue with people who criticized the pick because of the process and called it a PR move, not with people who disagreed about the player selected, if that makes sense.

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 06:15 AM
  #368
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiss The Ring View Post
Good to see that RLR agrees with my evaluation of Chiarelli's draft.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Let's check back in and see how the draft looks in 3-4 years and we will have a much better idea about Chiarelli's draft.

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 06:36 AM
  #369
GloryDaze4877
Stone Clode 3:17
 
GloryDaze4877's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Sticks (West MA)
Country: United States
Posts: 24,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by agreen23 View Post
I agree with all of your post except the last sentence. This year, the Pats drafted for need not BPA. Do you think it just happened by chance that the BPA was on the defensive side of the ball for 7 picks straight? I sure don't.

And they drafted Tavon so high (still think its shocking) because the Pats pinpointed him because of his ST play and versatility. Hes great at stopping the run and.. adequate in pass protection but the Pats are going to utilize him as a linebacker in passing situations to cover TEs and RBs more effectively in space. BB knows this is how you stop the spread attack with 2 TEs that he has created. Hes always a step ahead of the game.

Anyways, I agree that the Bs were drafting with the BPA philosophy but Im not a fan of drafting goalies in the first round. I would have much rather seen them go with Finn or Skjei. I think they would have given us more bang for our buck but I guess only time will tell.
I have no idea why the Pats went for D 7 picks in a row, I didn't have access to their draft board, but I would be pretty surprised if they went away from it to draft for need. The Pats have a long history of looking at the CB position differently than anyone else. The Wilson pick, while surprising based on his ratings by mainstream scouting services, should not have been that much of a shock given the way that the Patriots do business.

Picking BPA doesn't mean that you can't target specific areas of need, just that you don't reach to do it. If the Pats had a need for LB's and they had a WR on their board and he had an 81 rating, and they had a LB at 80, taking the LB still falls into the BPA category. If that LB had a 70 rating, that's drafting for need.

As recently as two years ago, the Pats were still taking BPA. When they drafted Gonzalez in the 4th round, they had already drafted Gronk, so was there an overwhelming need for a TE? Probably not, but Gonzo had fallen because of the pot stuff and when he was still there in Round 4, they just could not pass him up because of where they had him rated.

GloryDaze4877 is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 12:05 PM
  #370
agreen23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDaze4877 View Post
I have no idea why the Pats went for D 7 picks in a row, I didn't have access to their draft board, but I would be pretty surprised if they went away from it to draft for need. The Pats have a long history of looking at the CB position differently than anyone else. The Wilson pick, while surprising based on his ratings by mainstream scouting services, should not have been that much of a shock given the way that the Patriots do business.

Picking BPA doesn't mean that you can't target specific areas of need, just that you don't reach to do it. If the Pats had a need for LB's and they had a WR on their board and he had an 81 rating, and they had a LB at 80, taking the LB still falls into the BPA category. If that LB had a 70 rating, that's drafting for need.

As recently as two years ago, the Pats were still taking BPA. When they drafted Gonzalez in the 4th round, they had already drafted Gronk, so was there an overwhelming need for a TE? Probably not, but Gonzo had fallen because of the pot stuff and when he was still there in Round 4, they just could not pass him up because of where they had him rated.
I understand the concept of BPA. I just do not believe the Pats utilized it in the most recent draft. Just like the Packers, the offense was stacked and the D was questionable at best. They needed to address the area of concern and they did so with 7 straight picks.

I like to think that BB not only drafted Hernandez (not Gonzo?) because of BPA but he wanted to create the duel tight end threat. The Jets have two all pro corners in Revis and Cromartie and I think BB wanted to exploit this by adding elite athletic talent up the seems.

agreen23 is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 04:35 PM
  #371
JoeIsAStud
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,378
vCash: 500
Teams use a mix of BPA and drafting for need.

It isn't as easy as a score, but they have lists, and those lists are ordered.

If you are drafting with pick #104, and your board has #83, 84, 87, 88, 97, 102 on you list available. You don't necessarily draft #83 because he is the BPA, because really there is likely no difference in your rankings between #83 and #88. So you analyize that group, and then look at organizational needs, etc. and you can make the argument you are picking BPA if you pick anyone from 83-88. You probably have people at your table arguing over who is the best from this group. Now if #102 is a real need, then you are likely taking somone that the consensus feels is not as good as the guys in the 83-88 range

In terms of The Bruins and the NHL draft, we are told they had Suban rated inside their top 10. i would suspect Finn or whomever the D-man they liked the most was probably in the 16-22 range on their board.

JoeIsAStud is online now  
Old
07-22-2012, 03:50 PM
  #372
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
 
Kirk- NEHJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CAV Country!
Country: United States
Posts: 12,745
vCash: 500
Had a long talk with Jared Knight this afternoon...

Will have an update on hockeyjournal.com soon: we talked his healing ankle, d-camp, workout & boxing regimen, bromance with Ryan Spooner (yes we used that term ) and his growth in the last couple of seasons since the B's drafted him.

Speaking of Spooner-- he's vacationing in Cuba, but will catch up with him to get his take when he returns.

Other updates forthcoming on: Grzelcyk, Trotman, Koko & Gothberg.

Kirk- NEHJ is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  #373
JoeIsAStud
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk- NEHJ View Post
Speaking of Spooner-- he's vacationing in Cuba, but will catch up with him to get his take when he returns.
.
Vacationing in Cuba. Those crazy Canadians. It is just funny how absurd that sounds to this America.

JoeIsAStud is online now  
Old
07-22-2012, 05:05 PM
  #374
Kirk- NEHJ
Registered User
 
Kirk- NEHJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CAV Country!
Country: United States
Posts: 12,745
vCash: 500
Seriously. He was nice enough to send me a text telling me where he was...hope he doesn't regret that when he gets his bill next month...

Kirk- NEHJ is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 07:57 PM
  #375
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,736
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk- NEHJ View Post
Had a long talk with Jared Knight this afternoon...

Will have an update on hockeyjournal.com soon: we talked his healing ankle, d-camp, workout & boxing regimen, bromance with Ryan Spooner (yes we used that term ) and his growth in the last couple of seasons since the B's drafted him.

Speaking of Spooner-- he's vacationing in Cuba, but will catch up with him to get his take when he returns.

Other updates forthcoming on: Grzelcyk, Trotman, Koko & Gothberg.
Spooner is in Cuba? did his parents go with him? wow, this I got to hear

DKH 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 10:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.