HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Notices

2012 Draft Discussion - Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2012, 12:08 PM
  #151
Sweech
COYS!
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,716
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Laughable. At best. Garbage. Urgh. Gaunce, Faksa, Trouba are EASILY 3rd tier and Collberg and Aberg should be nowhere NEAR this discussion. I'd be upset with a Dumba or Reilly pick if Trouba or Faksa are on the board.
Sorry Holden, but the list isn't actually that bad.

I know you have your opinions on certain players (especially Faksa) and this draft class as a whole, but to have such a strong opinion otherwise to shoot someone down like that seems a little over the top.

I hate to say it, but in all likelihood some of your favourite players may turn into busts and some of the ones you hate (the swedes) may turn out to be gems later on.

I know you and I watch a lot of junior hockey games to be able to make our own judgment calls, but you at least have to be open to certain suggestion.

Sweech is online now  
Old
06-08-2012, 12:44 PM
  #152
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
good enough! worst case scenario we sign jagre and put Pavelec at center. No way that can fail!
I think Pavelec would be more of a defensive center, but we need more scoring. .

Sorry, had to say it!

Bob E is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 01:18 PM
  #153
BigTuna49
RIP KevFist
 
BigTuna49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ATL
Country: Egypt
Posts: 23,039
vCash: 1165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Laughable. At best. Garbage. Urgh. Gaunce, Faksa, Trouba are EASILY 3rd tier and Collberg and Aberg should be nowhere NEAR this discussion. I'd be upset with a Dumba or Reilly pick if Trouba or Faksa are on the board.
.....really Holden? You realize your opinion on prospects is not the be all end all on this board correct?

BigTuna49 is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 01:49 PM
  #154
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,532
vCash: 1300
I recall leading up to the draft last year there was a lot of speculation that Strome would be the Jets' pick. Zibanejad was in the mix of possibilities as well - I suppose if Couturier hadn't fallen so far, one of those two would've been available at #7. RNH and Larsson were supposed to go 1-2. Couturier was ranked in the Top 5.

This year it seems like Faksa is the new Strome. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Gm0ney is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 01:57 PM
  #155
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gm0ney View Post
I recall leading up to the draft last year there was a lot of speculation that Strome would be the Jets' pick. Zibanejad was in the mix of possibilities as well - I suppose if Couturier hadn't fallen so far, one of those two would've been available at #7. RNH and Larsson were supposed to go 1-2. Couturier was ranked in the Top 5.

This year it seems like Faksa is the new Strome. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
I actually remember in an interview (shortly after the draft, i have no idea where it is) Chevy actually saying something along the lines of: "with Strome off the board, we thought Scheifele was the best one available"(paraphrasing)

I think they actually had Strome as their number 1

Grind is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 04:43 PM
  #156
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetNation View Post
I forgot your a certified NHL scout Holden. With your wealth of knowledge I will now laugh at this too..Muahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
Sorry Holden, but the list isn't actually that bad.

I know you have your opinions on certain players (especially Faksa) and this draft class as a whole, but to have such a strong opinion otherwise to shoot someone down like that seems a little over the top.

I hate to say it, but in all likelihood some of your favourite players may turn into busts and some of the ones you hate (the swedes) may turn out to be gems later on.

I know you and I watch a lot of junior hockey games to be able to make our own judgment calls, but you at least have to be open to certain suggestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke49 View Post
.....really Holden? You realize your opinion on prospects is not the be all end all on this board correct?
Sorry, forgot some other random poster is that much more correct than me. My bad. This was not mondo3's list. He copied it off the prospects board.

I did not like it. Was I am maybe a little to far over the top? Yeah sure, just making the point that I had no love for it. I did not like that list. Meh. There is going to busts, there is going to steals, there is going to be reaches, there is going to be fallers. That happens, I will be wrong, I will be right, NHL teams will be wrong, NHL teams will be right.

The whole point here is to discuss. I don't have much time right now, but I fail to see why Aberg and Collberg should be that high. Collberg is all speed, he depends on it completely, which is why he struggled some much at the men's level, IMO, despite his dominant juniors play with Sweden. Aberg is also pretty huge on speed, showed better at the men's level, but nothing with the juniors. What these guys have done to be above a Girgensons, I do not know. How Trouba could be a tier down from Dumba/Reilly, I don't know. If there was something of substance (reasoning, for discussion) I would have been able to make more a response to have a discussion on these discussion boards, but there was only the random poster's list that mondo3 put up for discussion amonst ours. I said I didn't care for it one bit. I don't see the problem.

__________________


Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 06:13 PM
  #157
Aerial
Registered User
 
Aerial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,284
vCash: 500
FWIW, that ranking is similar to Pronman's final. I know a lot of people disagree with Pronman, but at any rate he watches a ton of prospects and talks to a ton of scouts, so it's not like he's just throwing darts at a board:

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...articleid=1305

He actually has Aberg at 9 and Dumba over Rielly too, with Girgensons under Collberg and Aberg, lots of detail about why he ranked the prospects where he did too.

Aerial is offline  
Old
06-08-2012, 06:53 PM
  #158
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,445
vCash: 1190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
I like Faksa, but there's a lot of good players who I think will be available. Furthermore, unfortunately, no guarantees he can do that at the NHL level.

I"m just glad most of his goals didn't seem like "power through em" goals, as that's something to watch for, they seemed to be more the product of good positioning, which is great.

With this draft being so wonky, I'm fairly certain we'll end up with someone good.

As for the "would look good in a X uniform" does that actually mean anything? I don't think the jets jersey colors will bring out his eyes or accentuate is czech features...it really just means "i want this player on my team" doesn't it?

I mean hell i'm not watching a beauty contest...


(sorry bout that part, bit of a pet peeve)



Looking good in a Jets uniform is a pretty common expression to be a pet peeve
The boards must drive you crazy at times.

IMO Jets need top 6 potential talent, and as much as I would love the Jets to get some of the more obvious offensive talent in the draft, Faksa seems like a reasonable possibility and I liked as well his goal scorers positioning on a lot of those goals. Size and compete level are also positives.

KingBogo is online now  
Old
06-08-2012, 09:19 PM
  #159
Sweech
COYS!
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,716
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Sorry, forgot some other random poster is that much more correct than me. My bad. This was not mondo3's list. He copied it off the prospects board.

I did not like it. Was I am maybe a little to far over the top? Yeah sure, just making the point that I had no love for it. I did not like that list. Meh. There is going to busts, there is going to steals, there is going to be reaches, there is going to be fallers. That happens, I will be wrong, I will be right, NHL teams will be wrong, NHL teams will be right.

The whole point here is to discuss. I don't have much time right now, but I fail to see why Aberg and Collberg should be that high. Collberg is all speed, he depends on it completely, which is why he struggled some much at the men's level, IMO, despite his dominant juniors play with Sweden. Aberg is also pretty huge on speed, showed better at the men's level, but nothing with the juniors. What these guys have done to be above a Girgensons, I do not know. How Trouba could be a tier down from Dumba/Reilly, I don't know. If there was something of substance (reasoning, for discussion) I would have been able to make more a response to have a discussion on these discussion boards, but there was only the random poster's list that mondo3 put up for discussion amonst ours. I said I didn't care for it one bit. I don't see the problem.
Didn't mean to gang up on you there Holden.

It just seemed like the sort of thing that did the opposite of promote discussion. In my opinion the list didn't look that bad. You were obviously disgusted with it, but you weren't exactly discussing why it was bad, it just looked like a major put down.

This last post of yours went way more into the discussion factor which I enjoyed infinitely more.

I guess the other thing is whenever I see someone talking about prospects, especially undrafted ones, and they use "absolute" terms it just always makes a red flag for me.

Sweech is online now  
Old
06-09-2012, 03:20 AM
  #160
teucer
Registered User
 
teucer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Windsor, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
How about some photoshop of prospects in a jets jersey

teucer is offline  
Old
06-09-2012, 06:14 AM
  #161
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
Didn't mean to gang up on you there Holden.

It just seemed like the sort of thing that did the opposite of promote discussion. In my opinion the list didn't look that bad. You were obviously disgusted with it, but you weren't exactly discussing why it was bad, it just looked like a major put down.

This last post of yours went way more into the discussion factor which I enjoyed infinitely more.

I guess the other thing is whenever I see someone talking about prospects, especially undrafted ones, and they use "absolute" terms it just always makes a red flag for me.
Right now I have very very very little free time, so alot of my posts are very rushed and I have no near enough time to go into detail. My shift for work ends in 4 days and I have a week off so my posts will be back to normal Holden depth and quality

Yeah, I have a bad habit of speaking in absolutes. Trust me when you are not the first one to tell me this, I have been working very hard to stop doing this, but when I get rushed, sometimes I slip back into it. It happens.

Anyways, back to the normal discussion. Collberg sucks, Faksa is the man.

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
06-09-2012, 08:58 AM
  #162
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,994
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerial View Post
FWIW, that ranking is similar to Pronman's final. I know a lot of people disagree with Pronman, but at any rate he watches a ton of prospects and talks to a ton of scouts, so it's not like he's just throwing darts at a board:

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...articleid=1305

He actually has Aberg at 9 and Dumba over Rielly too, with Girgensons under Collberg and Aberg, lots of detail about why he ranked the prospects where he did too.
And TT at number 5. I've seen quotes on the Montreal board and other places where TT is talked about in the top 5.

If he slipped to 9 are people going to complain that he's too small?

Huffer is offline  
Old
06-09-2012, 11:57 AM
  #163
Wpgpage
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 817
vCash: 500
Starting to like Faska more and more at #9, I would be fine with Rielly as well. Adding Faska to Shief and Cormier gives you very good depth at C in the minors add in Burmi at the NHL level and the organization has created at least one area of strength.

Wpgpage is offline  
Old
06-09-2012, 12:14 PM
  #164
untouchable21
You've been TROUBA'D
 
untouchable21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Outer Limits.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,854
vCash: 500
If TT drops to #9, I personally will not be disappointed if he is the JETS pick. He may not be my favorite prospect, but he most definitely wouldn't make me wonder WHAT THE F--K were they thinking either. I think that by the time he is ready for the NHL (2-3 years) he should have added enough muscle to bring his weight up to 188 lbs or so. On a line with Scheifele down the road could be fun to watch.

For what it's worth, I hope he's gone by the time the JETS make there way to the podium. I'd hate to be the team that passes on what could be another Saku Koivu or Martin St. Louis and selects a player based on size that turns out to be more like a Rusty Olesz or Dan Focht.

Right now, Faksa is my favorite, but I can make a case for several others including ...... TT, Reinhart, Trouba, Lindholm, Ceci, Girgensons and even Reilly.

untouchable21 is offline  
Old
06-10-2012, 04:57 PM
  #165
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBogo View Post
[/B]

Looking good in a Jets uniform is a pretty common expression to be a pet peeve
The boards must drive you crazy at times.

IMO Jets need top 6 potential talent, and as much as I would love the Jets to get some of the more obvious offensive talent in the draft, Faksa seems like a reasonable possibility and I liked as well his goal scorers positioning on a lot of those goals. Size and compete level are also positives.
oh they do, all across hf i see it and then vomit a little. don't know exactly why, i just really really dislike that saying. I guess it's because you don't actualy think he'd look good in the uniform, and even if you did, you know that's a silly point. Eveyone involed knows all you mean is you like them, so lets just say that (the "you's" in the last two sentances are vague "you's" not specified towards you KingBogo)

but I agree, thus far i like faksa, but as i stated, i'm quite confident their will be a good selection of players at our spot. Position is not of a concern ad it will be interesting to see waht we get.

Grind is offline  
Old
06-10-2012, 05:41 PM
  #166
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,002
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
oh they do, all across hf i see it and then vomit a little. don't know exactly why, i just really really dislike that saying. I guess it's because you don't actualy think he'd look good in the uniform, and even if you did, you know that's a silly point. Eveyone involed knows all you mean is you like them, so lets just say that (the "you's" in the last two sentances are vague "you's" not specified towards you KingBogo)

but I agree, thus far i like faksa, but as i stated, i'm quite confident their will be a good selection of players at our spot. Position is not of a concern ad it will be interesting to see waht we get.
Pet peeve of mine: people saying draft for BPA not need...

I don't disagree with the essence of this statement but how people take it. Yes you don't know the NHL levels teams needs 5 years down the road but you can know what the prospects pool needs are. Plus you can trade down/up so that you are getting both BPA and need.

Some of this stuff is so subjective and postulation too. You look all over history and you get players who don't match their BPA level many years down the road; this is more the norm than the exception.

Two neat articles:
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...88-draft-class
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...87-draft-class

garret9 is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 12:51 AM
  #167
JAS 39 Gripen
Registered User
 
JAS 39 Gripen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Stockholm
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,249
vCash: 500
I just wants us to trade up and pick Forsberg

I dont get the hate coming from this Holden guy though. First he says that we shouldnt factor in Collbergs play vs juniors, then list guys like Faksa and Girgersons above Collberg, although theyve only played against juniors so far in their career :S

JAS 39 Gripen is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 06:13 AM
  #168
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
Perennial Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAS 39 Gripen View Post
I just wants us to trade up and pick Forsberg

I dont get the hate coming from this Holden guy though. First he says that we shouldnt factor in Collbergs play vs juniors, then list guys like Faksa and Girgersons above Collberg, although theyve only played against juniors so far in their career :S
I have NEVER said that we should discount Collberg's play against juniors. I said that Collberg has been unreal against juniors...but I have serious doubts about how his game will translate to the men's game, something which I can partially prove due to massive struggles at the SEL level last year. I think his speed only game will not translate that well (which is what I see from his game). Since Faksa and Girgensons have never played against men, there is no way to say for sure (hence the unpredictability in the draft), but both possess skill sets that will translate much better to the NHL game, IMO.

Holden Caulfield is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 10:17 AM
  #169
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,994
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
Pet peeve of mine: people saying draft for BPA not need...

I don't disagree with the essence of this statement but how people take it. Yes you don't know the NHL levels teams needs 5 years down the road but you can know what the prospects pool needs are. Plus you can trade down/up so that you are getting both BPA and need.

Some of this stuff is so subjective and postulation too. You look all over history and you get players who don't match their BPA level many years down the road; this is more the norm than the exception.

Two neat articles:
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...88-draft-class
http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2012/...87-draft-class
I'm firmly on the BPA camp. I would much rather take the BPA and then make a trade with either that prospect, or one of my other prospects down the road if I had too much of one position.

E.G. If there is a C at my spot who I think is a 90 (let's use EA sports grading for arguments sake), I'm not going to take a defenseman even if I have a bigger need for one in my system if the best one at my spot is an 80. The reason being is that if I really do need to trade someone a few years down the road to fill an actual positional need, I can probably get more for the guy who's value is 90. Instead of drafting a D at 80, I could probably trade the 90 forward for an 80 D man for instance. This is terribly simplistic, but you get the idea.

Where I differ slightly from the BPA camp on HF is that it seems like the BPA mantra comes from using 3rd party scouting services and guys like Button to come up with what is the "golden order" of draft picks. So any pick on this forum are criticized if they do not follow this list.

I subscribe to BPA, but I subscribe to what the scouting and management team feel is the BPA. This is after they factor in things like their interviews, their thoughts on less tangible things like leadership, work ethic, tenacity, dedication, etc.

Huffer is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 10:50 AM
  #170
Le Golie
...
 
Le Golie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,735
vCash: 500
This is why you don't draft for need:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/ATL/2009.html

So much change in three years, you can't even anticipate what your needs will be when the prospect is ready to take a roster spot from a veteran.

Sensing they were about to lose Kovalchuk and Kozlov, I'm pretty happy the Thrashers drafted who they felt was the BPA in Kane (who was a centre in junior) rather than the top left winger, Magnus Paajarvi.

At the time, the Thrashers were considered to have a very strong prospect pool, ranked 8th in the NHL, the center position was considered their main strength because it featured Riley Holzapfel, Daultan Leveille, John Albert, Angelo Esposito and Eric O’Dell.

Just take the player you feel has the best chance to become a really good player and let him develop. Sure not every player you think is the best available turns out to be but the chance of a player being a bust only increases when you limit your candidates to one position.


Last edited by Le Golie: 06-11-2012 at 11:07 AM.
Le Golie is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 12:48 PM
  #171
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
I agree with BPA too, and if it happens to fill an organizational need, all the better.

Last year, did the Jets do that?

They obviously thought highly of Scheifele, but did they look to add size and skill at C, rather than size and potential on D (Hamilton)? Did they pass on Hamilton because D was considered a 'depth' position and 'needed' forward prospects? Or did they like Mark over Dougie, anyway? Did they look at 2012 as being deep in D, and knew they would likely have a shot at a good d prospect this year? Or does all of that factor in.

If a top-rated C is still on the board at #9 (say faksa, etc) and jets pick him, then that's a pretty good indication they target BPA. If that top C is available but they select a Dman, could mean they think he the dman is the BPA or they are filling an organizational need (more high quality dman prospects).

Bob E is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 01:17 PM
  #172
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,994
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
I agree with BPA too, and if it happens to fill an organizational need, all the better.

Last year, did the Jets do that?

They obviously thought highly of Scheifele, but did they look to add size and skill at C, rather than size and potential on D (Hamilton)? Did they pass on Hamilton because D was considered a 'depth' position and 'needed' forward prospects? Or did they like Mark over Dougie, anyway? Did they look at 2012 as being deep in D, and knew they would likely have a shot at a good d prospect this year? Or does all of that factor in.

If a top-rated C is still on the board at #9 (say faksa, etc) and jets pick him, then that's a pretty good indication they target BPA. If that top C is available but they select a Dman, could mean they think he the dman is the BPA or they are filling an organizational need (more high quality dman prospects).
Your 1st paragraph is pretty much the age old question Bob E. IMO, without having inside knowledge of the meetings between the scouts, hockey operations, Chevldayoff, etc, it's impossible to know what the Jets ranking looked like. They easily could have had Scheifele as the highest ranked guy when it was their turn. It all depends on how they came up with their list. Either they had Scheifele ahead on their list over Hamilton and picked BPA, or they had Hamilton ahead of Scheifele and went with a perceived need. Without their list we are only speculating.

As for your second paragraph, I disagree with your premise. What would taking Faksa at 9 say about the Jets drafting philosophy of taking BPA or drafting by need? Without knowing the Jets final ranking, I don't think it tells us anything. IOW, Faksa COULD be the highest ranked guy on the Jets list when it is out turn at 9. If he was and the Jets picked him it would be a BPA pick (and a need but that's besides the point), but without the knowledge of where he is on the Jets list we wouldn't know that. Similarly, if the Jets picked Faksa at 9, but according to the Jets list they had say Reinhart ahead of him (and Reinhart was available), then this would be a case of drafting by need (or perceived need if the Jets felt that C was a bigger need than D). But again, without knowing the Jets list, we as fans won't have a clue.

Huffer is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 01:29 PM
  #173
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
Your 1st paragraph is pretty much the age old question Bob E. IMO, without having inside knowledge of the meetings between the scouts, hockey operations, Chevldayoff, etc, it's impossible to know what the Jets ranking looked like. They easily could have had Scheifele as the highest ranked guy when it was their turn. It all depends on how they came up with their list. Either they had Scheifele ahead on their list over Hamilton and picked BPA, or they had Hamilton ahead of Scheifele and went with a perceived need. Without their list we are only speculating.

As for your second paragraph, I disagree with your premise. What would taking Faksa at 9 say about the Jets drafting philosophy of taking BPA or drafting by need? Without knowing the Jets final ranking, I don't think it tells us anything. IOW, Faksa COULD be the highest ranked guy on the Jets list when it is out turn at 9. If he was and the Jets picked him it would be a BPA pick (and a need but that's besides the point), but without the knowledge of where he is on the Jets list we wouldn't know that. Similarly, if the Jets picked Faksa at 9, but according to the Jets list they had say Reinhart ahead of him (and Reinhart was available), then this would be a case of drafting by need (or perceived need if the Jets felt that C was a bigger need than D). But again, without knowing the Jets list, we as fans won't have a clue.
I guess what I'm saying is... Center may not be as high a need as other positions (which is debatable, I realize), with Little and young prospects as Burmi, Scheifele, Corimer, etc. If they still took him, it - to me - shows they do take BPA as they would have then taken a C - 3 yrs in a row with their 1st pick.

If they take someone else, a dman or winger, it could be for need or BPA - hard to know.

Bob E is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 01:37 PM
  #174
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
I guess the question is - is a big center an organizational need? Maybe, but with scheifele in the fold, my assumption is it isn't. Or at least, other areas are just as important.

You are 100% correct in saying its a completely based on the jets internal ranking to know for sure - I'm just assuming a center might not be picked if they are drafting by positional need. If they do, it seems to me they take the best guy, regardless.

Which I'm 100% for. In this case, i think Faksa is a great pick and a quality prospect. In 2+ yrs if you need to move a little or burmi (to wing or trade) sobeit.

Bob E is offline  
Old
06-11-2012, 02:21 PM
  #175
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,027
vCash: 500
Said another way... I'm assuming center isn't an organizational need (above other positions), right now - rightly or wrongly - with scheifele, burmi and cormier in the fold.

So with that said, the only time they would take a center is if the center is BPA, and they chose based on BPA.

In my logic, if a center isn't the BPA, they would choose another positional player, regardless if they choose based on BPA or organizational need.

They would also choose another positional player if the center was BPA, but they chose based on organizational need (as center isn't a priority - if my assumption is right).

So if they took a center - like Faksa - he would have to be rated as their BPA and they select based on BPA.

Now if center is deemed an organizational need (above or equal to other positions) - you can just throw this logic right out! As many of you likely have already.

Edit: conversely, if they thought C was a weak prospect area in the organization (which I think they did last year) then the only way they would pick something other than a center is if they picked based on BPA and a 'non-center' was the BPA on their list when they picked. If they picked by need - they would take a C, even if he wasn't their BPA.

This year, I don't think there is a glaringly weak position within the organization with very few quality prospects. Maybe RW?


Last edited by Bob E: 06-11-2012 at 02:49 PM.
Bob E 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 08:13 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.