HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospect Thread - Part XII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2012, 10:01 AM
  #326
BerSTUzzi
Registered User
 
BerSTUzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 500
Oh how getting a second pick in the 2013 draft could really change this whole conversation. If the "trade" can get us a pick anywhere in the mid-1st round we'll be a happy group. I just don't know why anyone expects us to produce top prospects, we all used to talk about Detroit but all they have pulled out of their depth is Helm (there are some coming but nothing amazing). It just comes with finishing first in your division for 5 + years.

BerSTUzzi is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:00 AM
  #327
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
he's already and effective NHL player, why discount that?
because admitting you're wrong on HF Boards means a giant bird will swoop down from the sky and devour your family.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 05:20 PM
  #328
thedavid
Registered User
 
thedavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
BerSTUzzi touched on this briefly the other day...Looks like Ben Hutton is riding a 3-game point streak, leading Maine defenders in points and has an even +/- on a team of mostly minus players. Not bad for a first year player given the team's scoring woes this year. He has 1G 2A on the PP as well so it's good to see he's being used there.

Has anyone had the chance to watch any U. of Maine games? Any thoughts on how he's been playing?

Obviously it's way too early to tell, but for a 5th round pick I am pleasantly surprised.

thedavid is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 05:45 PM
  #329
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Whats your point? I was responding to:

"Tanev's already THIS TEAMS #5, at 22"

I know who he is usually paired with. I was referring to ice time in the recent post season. And im sure that 20 percent with the top D man on our team increased his ice time average.

Tanev wasn't our 5th D man anytime previous to that
The point is that YOU specifically mentioned that "there are a lot of d-men that could play well for a string of games with Hamhuis," which implies that Tanev only looked good because he was playing beside Hamhuis. You discounted the fact that he also looked very good playing beside Ballard and Alberts - 2 d-men who are constantly harangued for playing poorly and not liable to make their partners look good.

The fact that Tanev looked good beside not just Hamhuis, but Ballard and Alberts as well, speaks to his talent and abilities.

B-rock is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:29 PM
  #330
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
The point is that YOU specifically mentioned that "there are a lot of d-men that could play well for a string of games with Hamhuis," which implies that Tanev only looked good because he was playing beside Hamhuis. You discounted the fact that he also looked very good playing beside Ballard and Alberts - 2 d-men who are constantly harangued for playing poorly and not liable to make their partners look good.

The fact that Tanev looked good beside not just Hamhuis, but Ballard and Alberts as well, speaks to his talent and abilities.
No I wasn't implying that at all. I was implying why they put a rookie with Hamhuis with no experience with Hamhuis, i was actually trying to point out how good Hamhuis is.

The main point from my posts that i was trying to make is why he barely received 5th most minutes. He was paired with our top D man because he is a right D and a rookie and Hamhuis is capable of carrying a rookie.

This all stemmed from somebody saying he was already a 5th d man on our team, the only time that was true was in the playoffs and i asked, dont you think he barely made it into 5th most minutes because he got the pairing that included Hamhuis (... who can make anyone look good). The pairing was made due to the need for natural RD and Tanev's little experience.

Not discrediting his skill, hes good. But to say he's already our 5th D isn't true. Thats rotated between Rome/Ballard and him still. He hasn't won that yet. The only reason hes more valuable is because his age and upside. I dont think hes there yet. At how he played last year, I dont think that alone is good enough to be a top 5 on a top team in the league. He will be a top 5 next season most likely if things go well.

I dont see him being in the top 4 until can get some strength and a shot, which isn't exactly a sure bet. Do you know how many forwards are just lacking that one thing and stay like that their entire careers, there are so many talented players who just aren't that strong on their feet so they cannot take it to the next level, there are alot of players who can't lift the puck very well, which is the only thign stopping them from being goal scorers. Im sorry but the ifs with Tanev are still there and they are big ones. You can only get so far being smart and timid as a D man.

The fact that we're talking about him being a 5th D on the back to back presidents trophy is already a big accomplishment.


Last edited by Pseudonymous: 11-26-2012 at 06:43 PM.
Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:40 PM
  #331
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
No I wasn't implying that at all. I was implying why they put a rookie with Hamhuis with no experience with Hamhuis, i was actually trying to point out how good Hamhuis is.

The main point from my posts that i was trying to make is why he barely received 5th most minutes. He was paired with our top D man because he is a right D and a rookie and Hamhuis is capable of carrying a rookie.

Somebody said he was already a 5th d man on our team, the only time that was true was in the playoffs and i asked, dont you think he barely made it into 5th most minutes because he got the pairing that included Hamhuis (... who can make anyone look good). The pairing was made due to the need for natural RD and Tanev's little experience.

Not discrediting his skill, hes good. But to say he's already our 5th D isn't true. Thats rotated between Rome/Ballard and him still. He hasn't won that yet. The only reason hes more valuable is because his age and upside. I dont think hes there yet. At how he played last year, I dont think that alone is good enough to be a top 5 on a top team in the league. He will be a top 5 next season most likely if things go well.
Except when he was paired with Hamhuis, it was our shutdown dpair that went out against the other teams top lines. For instance if we brought up K-Con, do you think he would be paired with Hamhuis even if he was right handed? Would they pair up against the other teams top lines?

racerjoe is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:45 PM
  #332
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Except when he was paired with Hamhuis, it was our shutdown dpair that went out against the other teams top lines. For instance if we brought up K-Con, do you think he would be paired with Hamhuis even if he was right handed? Would they pair up against the other teams top lines?
Why are you exaggerating things to make a point, have I said he is not good, did i ever say hes a minor leaguer not capable of playing in the NHL. K-Con is an ahl player with 0 experience and doesn't actually have the ability to play in the NHL yet. So no, i do not think that

Im saying an nhl player who is young and has upside still, who is naturally a RD is going to be the one who is going to be paired with Hamhuis. It only makes sense. This is also how you develop young players. He was playing well in the playoffs. It wasn't exactly a long playoffs, it was one series

Its premature to say this guy is our 5th D man. And still a far reach from a top 4 on the top team. Top 4 is a big jump

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:46 PM
  #333
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
"He played with Hamhuis, it doesn't count" is such a cop out. He excelled.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:48 PM
  #334
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
"He played with Hamhuis, it doesn't count" is such a cop out.
Holy crap, are you reading my posts at all? I never said that at all.

I said his average ice time in the playoffs (a short series) was boosted due to that, if it wasn't for his inexperience and natural ability to play the right side, he wouldnt' even have received 5th most minutes.

That has NOTHING to do with his play during that time not counting, jesus. What is with the people on this board lately

All I am saying is that he is not slotted in as our 5th D man yet. He'll get the chance this year.

You guys are acting as if im not a fan of him. Which is quite amusing. All because I claim that no he is not our 5th D man. He didn't not receive the 5th most minutes last season and barely made the 5th most minutes in a short playoff run that consisted of 5 games. Where he was paired with the top D man due to the reasons mentioned in previous posts. You are not the 5th D man until you play a season there

Ballard is naturally a left D man and playing behind a team stacked on that side. So yes. He got 1 minute less than Tanev in a short series. Is Tanev's one minute more per game due to him currently being our 5th best? I dont think so.


Last edited by Pseudonymous: 11-26-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:52 PM
  #335
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
What is with the people on this board lately
What's with us? Kid has played well in situations indicative of top 4 potential and you're insisting they don't count.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 06:58 PM
  #336
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
What's with us? Kid has played well in situations indicative of top 4 potential and you're insisting they don't count.
There are alot of players who play well and hey, maybe theyll get moved up for a bit (lapierre) but are they more than that? no, do you know why, because they weren't born with the natural abilities top players are. Lapierre will never be a top player.

I agree, there are exceptions but im saying the odds are not in his favor. There are not many D who excel when they lack strength and a shot.

I can sit here and say the same thing about hansen, hes got skill speed and plays with an edge, if he can only learn how to pick corners, i mean his scoring touch is increasing, will he become a goal scorer, probably not. but hey, i like how everybody is so positive about their prospects

Same how the boards are so high on corrado. hah - hes impressed so far but the projections are crazy. the likeliness he becomes a top 4 d are still slim

And BTW , I never said they dont count. Never once said that. Saying somebody has the ability to make anybody look good doesn't mean I was saying that is what he did with Tanev. I was saying thats why they put a rookie with him, he has that ability. you going to put him with Edler ? lol the type of game and his natural right side and lack of experience got him a pairing with hamhuis for a bit. that doesn't make him our 5th D.

Do we also label players as a 1st, 2nd or 3rd liner because they played there for a few games. Jesus

I hope he fights the odds and learns how to shoot and increases his strength. Because hes a great 5th D man who would be very good if he could obtain those other things. Same way i hope the undersized center Jordan schroeder can fight against the odds and be one of the few 5'9 players who make it into the nhl without a physical edge or crazy big numbers. Its possible, likely.. well stats would say otherwise


Last edited by Pseudonymous: 11-26-2012 at 07:06 PM.
Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:06 PM
  #337
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
Its more than few games. We've had mutliple looks, buddy, and he's impressed every time. Shut down vs top competition is a big deal even if you insist it isn't.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:13 PM
  #338
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,150
vCash: 500
I don't really get the "lacks strength" argument. Tanev has improved on his strength every offseason and given his age, he will continue to do so. Yes, his shot still sucks (better than last year, but still bad) but that's hardly mandatory for a Top 4 guy more than a half of Top 4 defensemen in the NHL don't have a remarkable shot. Other than that, I see nothing that would stop him from being a Top 4 D.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:14 PM
  #339
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Its more than few games. We've had mutliple looks, buddy, and he's impressed every time. Shut down vs top competition is a big deal even if you insist it isn't.
Hes impressed me everytime too, and what shut down vs competition shows me is that he played well and got moved up, is a natural RD and plays a sound game. But hey, maybe i should over analyze also

If he got put in the role for a couple games, chalk him up as our top D

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:16 PM
  #340
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
I don't really get the "lacks strength" argument. Tanev has improved on his strength every offseason and given his age, he will continue to do so. Yes, his shot still sucks (better than last year, but still bad) but that's hardly mandatory for a Top 4 guy — more than a half of Top 4 defensemen in the NHL don't have a remarkable shot. Other than that, I see nothing that would stop him from being a Top 4 D.
Lacks upper body strength is HUGE for players who can't put the puck in the net. You either have the ability to put up numbers or you have strength. Thats the NHL for you. Im sure you can find examples but thats not the point, the point is, its not common whatsoever. So to be super confident hes going to be, like most of you, is quite odd

If he had a shot, sure I could say, well the chances of him overcoming one flaw is okay, you put in another which is a SHOT, which is not some minor flaw, the percentage does get lower

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:24 PM
  #341
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Ok im done. Tanev is a sure bet to be a top 4 D. His strength will become decent and his shot will improve, he will be a guy who doesn't need above average strength or a good shot. He'll just be that one good D that relies on being sound and make good passes. lol you all got me, my criticism is laughable

Its like arguing with the Luongo homers from recent history, they got so much bashing from trolls that they have his frustration and need to defend somebody to the point of blindly suggesting everyone else is crazy and what they think is the solid truth

After all the criticism that player gets, anybody who hints at anything negative or not up to their idea of the player, automatically thinks that player is ****

But I guess it makes sense, its a natural human reaction to further believe their opinion the more you argue/debate with them. It ends up being sort of pointless

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:30 PM
  #342
14s incisor
Registered User
 
14s incisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Lacks upper body strength is HUGE for players who can't put the puck in the net. You either have the ability to put up numbers or you have strength. Thats the NHL for you. Im sure you can find examples but thats not the point, the point is, its not common whatsoever. So to be super confident hes going to be, like most of you, is quite odd

If he had a shot, sure I could say, well the chances of him overcoming one flaw is okay, you put in another which is a SHOT, which is not some minor flaw, the percentage does get lower
Good thing he's a great passer. You know, because he has to put up points somehow if he's going to be a top 4 D

14s incisor is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:34 PM
  #343
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,214
vCash: 500
pseudonymous01:

Nobody is saying it's a sure thing that he becomes a #4, they are saying he's already a #5 - that is the argument.

Considering he generally 'carried' the 3rd pairing, and did well playing with BOTH of our top 4 LS d-men (yes I think he played well with Edler too).

About the upper body strength point, Rob Scuderi isn't overly strong, Paul Martin, Mike Weaver (plays shutdown minutes). He's young, but also a late bloomer...the strength will come.

arsmaster is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:38 PM
  #344
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
the strength is already better. :p

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 07:41 PM
  #345
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
pseudonymous01:

Nobody is saying it's a sure thing that he becomes a #4, they are saying he's already a #5 - that is the argument.

Considering he generally 'carried' the 3rd pairing, and did well playing with BOTH of our top 4 LS d-men (yes I think he played well with Edler too).

About the upper body strength point, Rob Scuderi isn't overly strong, Paul Martin, Mike Weaver (plays shutdown minutes). He's young, but also a late bloomer...the strength will come.
You think Weaver is a top 4 D man on a top team? Hes a top 4 D man on Florida, barely. Give me a break. hes a top D man like Bob Essensa was a starter.

And Mike Weaver is also strong, hes stocky and strong. He just isn't tall.

I actually haven't watched a ton of Scuderi, well sort of have but didn't pay alot of attention to him. or else im sure i can argue that one too And im not saying there aren't a few exceptions, the fact is, its very rare

Also are soft D who you want in your top 4 anyway? (Paul Martin)

http://fans.penguins.nhl.com/communi...-goal-against/

I am NOT a fan of soft top 4 D's who can't score like Green, visnovsky, whitney etc

You also might want to check out Paul Martins numbers before he entered the NHL

And about the original argument, saying somebody is already something when they played 25 games in the league last year and was only 5th because we severely lacked on RD just seems strange to me, but ill respect that you think it. because hes good and i do think hes getting close. so i dont think its that far fetched.


Last edited by Pseudonymous: 11-26-2012 at 08:10 PM.
Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:09 PM
  #346
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,062
vCash: 500
you being a fan of them or not has little to do with their effectiveness. his ability to defend, move the puck out of his end, and keep it the other implies greater importance than you're giving credit.

Wisp is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:12 PM
  #347
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
you being a fan of them or not has little to do with their effectiveness.
Interesting because it appears pens fans also do not believe its been effective.

Also, i have said since the beginning there are exceptions as there are exceptions to every rule and tanev COULD also be one but the fact that some of the very few exceptions out there that have overcome those flaws to be put into top 4 role is still being criticized about that flaw and saying it was the reason for losing. well... that doesn't look good

Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:23 PM
  #348
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Interesting because it appears pens fans also do not believe its been effective.

Also, i have said since the beginning there are exceptions as there are exceptions to every rule and tanev COULD also be one but the fact that some of the very few exceptions out there that have overcome those flaws to be put into top 4 role is still being criticized about that flaw and saying it was the reason for losing. well... that doesn't look good
I think that you make some good points. There's a tendency among all fan bases to overrate their prospects. The only thing that makes Tanev unique, IMO, is the fact that he grew almost a foot around the year of the draft. Before he grew he was playing with the elite players but was forced to drop out because he was too small. I think that we can't apply the normal rules to him. If he can fill out and gain some strength then we could very well have a defensive gem. He's got the head for the game but needs to improve the physical element. Will he do it? Hard to say but I doubt that there is another prospect out there that we can compare him to. He has only been back to playing high level competitive hockey for the last few years.

vanwest is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:28 PM
  #349
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 16,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Lacks upper body strength is HUGE for players who can't put the puck in the net. You either have the ability to put up numbers or you have strength. Thats the NHL for you.
Kevin Connauton is as strong as an Oxe and shoots the puck as hard as alomst anyone in the game.

Who in your opinion is the better prospect, Connauton or Tanev?

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:38 PM
  #350
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Kevin Connauton is as strong as an Oxe and shoots the puck as hard as alomst anyone in the game.

Who in your opinion is the better prospect, Connauton or Tanev?
Tanev, simply because hes going to be a real good 5th D for sure, with a slight chance he makes the top 4.

Connauton right now isn't even a sure bet to make the nhl.

I think everybody would answer that question with Tanev.

Theres nothing wrong with not making into the top 4 or the top 6. I dont project Lapierre will become a 2nd liner but I am still super high on him

Pseudonymous 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 02:03 PM.

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.