HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Prospect Thread XIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2012, 10:25 AM
  #476
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
Sorry, it's early and this coffee is terrible, what exactly do you mean by conversion?


Having enough pieces to their game so that you can see them transitioning well to higher levels of play. Off the top of my head, Latta and Craig Smith off NSH represent this. They do enough useful things all over the ice that if they are able to carry a decent production rate to the NHL, they turn out to be very useful players overall. And even if they are struggling to produce, they can hang around for longer, doing other things, until they pick it up again. Contrast that with a player like Grenier, who will be hard pressed to make it in the NHL as a bottom6 forward, and you immediately question the pick. Yes there is size and skating, but what is the probability his game will convert --> Not very high IMO.



Actually, this last draft I like the _idea_ of going after players like Gaunce and Mallet. They represent this high conversion focus. Except in Mallet's case, you're not really sure what his spike in production means. Or how it factors into the strength of the league. He's struggling now to produce, so many are questioning it. Time will tell.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 10:36 AM
  #477
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,022
vCash: 500
Corrado>Ouellet,Wortherspoon

Nuck This is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 10:50 AM
  #478
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
You still get Taylor Ellington, Daniel Rahimi and Alex Friesen's when you look for smart, safe players...


I didn't think any of these players are high IQ players. More than that, they are not particularly skilled. I'm advocating smarts + skills rather than size + skating. Of course, you could luck out and get a big cerebral player like we did with Gaunce, so it's fluid.



Quote:
I would prefer Gillis swing for the fences with highly skilled, dynamic guys like McNally than draft safe players with limited upside. Detroit won championships on the backs of 2 high risk, high reward late rd picks in Datsyuk and Zetterberg...

Gillis went with the safer Sauve over the riskier Justin Schultz in the 2nd rd 4 years ago and that could haunt this franchise for over a decade. Playing a 'safe' game doesn't translate to it being a 'safe' pick.



Sauve wasn't "safe". His IQ was always suspect. It's odd but I think your last line is actually the crux of the argument. Does a high percentage game translate better to the pros? Will McEneny have a better time transitioning to the pros than McNally will? The former plays the game in a more intelligent manner. He doesn't have McNally's high-end offensive tools, but then McNally will have to become much safer in his play to be trusted in the NHL. Not so for McEneny.



Datsyuk and Zetterberg have uber high hockey IQs. They are not the McNally's of the Canucks pool. They are more the Schroeder's. And even though JS has severe question marks about his game, he thinks the game at a high level, so I feel much more comfortable with that type of pick than I do say a Connauten. Hope that clarifies my position.




Oh and Tiranis, I'm still curious to hear how the VAN prospect pool is evened out with DET's, and what the equivalents are to Nyquist and Jarnkrok are here.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 12-20-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 10:56 AM
  #479
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck This View Post
Corrado>Ouellet,Wortherspoon
I wouldn't mention this in the main boards if I were you. Apparently I'm imagining things, even though Ferraro said he had poor coverage on Finland's last two goals.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 11:16 AM
  #480
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
Discussion point: Would you say Sauve has a better set of tools to work with than Rome?

Yes, but not the mind. So not the same "toolbox" for those tools.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 11:39 AM
  #481
PRNuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Yes, but not the mind. So not the same "toolbox" for those tools.
Exactly what I was thinking. Discouraging that he hasn't made progress in his head. I wish they could get him a tutor. What's Murray Baron up to these days?

PRNuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 11:45 AM
  #482
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
Exactly what I was thinking. Discouraging that he hasn't made progress in his head. I wish they could get him a tutor. What's Murray Baron up to these days?


That's the danger when you draft lower IQ players that have the other tools. It's a methodology that you can teach these guys. Some guys pick it up, others don't. On the flipside, you can draft smaller players with less tools, but if they have the hockey IQ, the training targets building them up, which they will help with anyways as they mature, and less about teaching them how to think the game.



I'm definitely in the camp of taking the slighter, possibly slower skating players that have a high hockey IQ. At least you know that you can progressively attack a skating weakness through training, or a get a guy a personal trainer, but with the mind it's never a straight line.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 12:55 PM
  #483
Vankiller Whale
Maybe HE can score
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,141
vCash: 5555
I think Ouellet played rather well against Finland, although I'd certainly take Corrado over Wotherspoon.

Vankiller Whale is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 01:25 PM
  #484
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The advantage will be beat out of him when he gets to the Canucks. Rushing the puck frequently can be seen as adding undue risk to the play. Passing the puck is preferred. You can see it on this team when the forwards constantly blow the zone looking for that pass. It's a part of their style. They play "on top" of the opposition defense as strategy.

It's not about me wanting to take his advantage away from him, it's recognizing that this advantage will be curbed if/when he gets here. So why not try and draft a player that plays that way in the first place?
Did we not allow ehrhoff to rush the puck? We didn't beat it out of him, we embraced it and the other players didn't seem to have a hard time adapting to his style of play.

If McNally makes it, he will have to read the play to know when to make a pass and when to rush. Having both options in his arsenal makes him a more dangerous player and a tougher play to get a read on. Perhaps, he rushes a bit less at the next level and adjusts to passing more. But I must say, the way you've argued this sounds like you want to neuter his rushing ability rather than tame his urges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Assuming McNally develops to even end up where Corrado is now. This is far from a given. He will have to curb a primary instinct of his to get there. Many don't make that adjustment.

Maybe using this different strategy at the draft misses a Corrado. However, with those misses other things are "hits". Perhaps they pick up a Nyquist/Tatar/Oullete instead? I just prefer the high IQ players it seems.
Development isn't linear and I'm not guaranteeing McNally makes it. I'm simply saying he is not done yet.

Corrado was the exact kid of player you are advising against yet he has found early success and I truly believe he will become an impact player as do many here now. Just goes to show that maybe taking a chance on some of these riskier players pays off.

Tatar and Ouellet are not late round picks, far from it, and we have been focusing on 4th round onwards. Maybe we miss a Corrado and we get a Nyqvist. Maybe we miss a Corrado and we get someone even worse. Two sides of the coin here.

thefeebster is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 01:27 PM
  #485
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
I think Ouellet played rather well against Finland, although I'd certainly take Corrado over Wotherspoon.
Haha not to disagree with you again (sorry!) but I think Ouellet looked pretty rusty out there. He might need a game or two to get his timing back considering he hasn't played in 3.5 weeks. Reinhart was the only defenseman who played solid in all three zones IMO, but Murphy was easily the most electric.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 02:56 PM
  #486
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
No points for Jensen today. But he did have a goal called off for kicking the puck.

Jevo is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 03:10 PM
  #487
PRNuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jevo View Post
No points for Jensen today. But he did have a goal called off for kicking the puck.
Ahh thanks for that, I was just struggling through the AIK website to see if he got any points. I find it kind of fun guessing what means what.

PRNuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 03:37 PM
  #488
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
Did we not allow ehrhoff to rush the puck? We didn't beat it out of him, we embraced it and the other players didn't seem to have a hard time adapting to his style of play.

If McNally makes it, he will have to read the play to know when to make a pass and when to rush. Having both options in his arsenal makes him a more dangerous player and a tougher play to get a read on. Perhaps, he rushes a bit less at the next level and adjusts to passing more. But I must say, the way you've argued this sounds like you want to neuter his rushing ability rather than tame his urges.


I understand that he will have to pull back to play on the Canucks. He will have to make that adjustment. That's just recognizing how this team will force him to adjust.



IMO, Ehrhoff didn't rush the puck as much here as in BUF. Unsure about how he did in SJ. This system is built off the Dman making that great first pass, it's why the forwards blow the zone like they do.



Quote:
Development isn't linear and I'm not guaranteeing McNally makes it. I'm simply saying he is not done yet.

Corrado was the exact kid of player you are advising against yet he has found early success and I truly believe he will become an impact player as do many here now. Just goes to show that maybe taking a chance on some of these riskier players pays off.

Tatar and Ouellet are not late round picks, far from it, and we have been focusing on 4th round onwards. Maybe we miss a Corrado and we get a Nyqvist. Maybe we miss a Corrado and we get someone even worse. Two sides of the coin here.



Thinking on it further, I actually challenge that Corrado is the exact kind of player I am advising against. It comes down to scouts/evaluators judging him to have poor/good hockey sense. The caveat being that he can have good overall hockey IQ while still needing to clean up his Dzone play. So if he was good everywhere else, and thought to be smart enough to eventually clean up his Dzone play, does that mean he had good hockey IQ, or bad?



On your second point, let's put it this way: I would be shocked if this scouting staff could do worse overall than they have been, as in turning out less NHL players. They've set the bar pretty low as is... That said, I hope they start moving to the more smarter hockey player in general.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:30 PM
  #489
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Thinking on it further, I actually challenge that Corrado is the exact kind of player I am advising against. It comes down to scouts/evaluators judging him to have poor/good hockey sense. The caveat being that he can have good overall hockey IQ while still needing to clean up his Dzone play. So if he was good everywhere else, and thought to be smart enough to eventually clean up his Dzone play, does that mean he had good hockey IQ, or bad?
His strengths in his draft year were completely different than they are now. I don't know how you can argue against the McNally pick and then in the same breath argue that you would've picked Corrado. Seems to me like you're just picking and choosing whatever suits your argument the best.

If you think we shouldn't have picked McNally, then we certainly shouldn't have picked Corrado either. Their pre-draft strengths and weaknesses are not dissimilar.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 04:45 PM
  #490
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,032
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Except that it won't. The Canucks have placed a premium on PWFs and PMDs. So expect the Canucks to continue to reach for that bigger forward, especially early in the draft where they seem to target their forwards.



I think the Canucks need to simplify their process further: Just draft players that you think will make the NHL. That's it. Looking at characteristics like is said player a PWF or a PMD is nice, but when you have big question marks on your ability to produce NHL talent in general, one would think that you would try to take aesthetics out of the equation.

This is something NSH does well IMO. They continually target players that have a strong chance of conversion, especially on D. Their forwards tend to be 2way capable, and their Dmen poised and good defensively. Needless to say, their record speaks for itself. Granted, the downside for them is that they haven't been able to produce high-end offensive forwards because of this, but I'd take that trade off as a Canucks fan any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
On your second point, let's put it this way: I would be shocked if this scouting staff could do worse overall than they have been, as in turning out less NHL players. They've set the bar pretty low as is... That said, I hope they start moving to the more smarter hockey player in general.
Except I don't think there's as much of a tradeoff as it has been suggested. When you watch the games, you can see Mallet is a smart player - he does the little things well and you can see his offensive instincts as he can make plays. Now, is his IQ high-end? I don't know, but it seems to be enough in combination with his other attributes for the Canucks to have considered taking him.

The one thing you might be able to criticize with that pick is that he was taken too early, but that's not his fault, and given what MG has done with those picks he's traded you can certainly justify it.

On the whole, Mallet seems like he has the tools and the toolbox to become a pro, so there's still a decent chance of converting there as you like to put it... perhaps being a little more like NSH than you think. As long as you can get at least one good player from each draft, it shouldn't matter too much what round he's chosen in.

vanuck is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:25 PM
  #491
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I understand that he will have to pull back to play on the Canucks. He will have to make that adjustment. That's just recognizing how this team will force him to adjust.



IMO, Ehrhoff didn't rush the puck as much here as in BUF. Unsure about how he did in SJ. This system is built off the Dman making that great first pass, it's why the forwards blow the zone like they do.


Thinking on it further, I actually challenge that Corrado is the exact kind of player I am advising against. It comes down to scouts/evaluators judging him to have poor/good hockey sense. The caveat being that he can have good overall hockey IQ while still needing to clean up his Dzone play. So if he was good everywhere else, and thought to be smart enough to eventually clean up his Dzone play, does that mean he had good hockey IQ, or bad?



On your second point, let's put it this way: I would be shocked if this scouting staff could do worse overall than they have been, as in turning out less NHL players. They've set the bar pretty low as is... That said, I hope they start moving to the more smarter hockey player in general.
I agree with your general sentiment that you draft smart players because they're more likely to find ways to overcome their limitations. That said, McNally seems like a pretty smart kid, cheating aside. What makes you think he won't be able to adjust his game as the competition rises?

Secondly, I think there's a real danger in picking a player based on how he may or may not fit into the current configuration. Too many moving parts are subject to change and you run the real risk of talking yourself out of picking the better player based on false assumptions - ie. being too clever by half.

Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:34 PM
  #492
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,904
vCash: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I agree with your general sentiment that you draft smart players because they're more likely to find ways to overcome their limitations.
unless they get a brain transfer, that intelligence is part of the overall package and what they bring to the table when you draft them (the performances you're currently evaluating). the smarter they are while also being a 4th or 5th round pick, the more glaring their other weaknesses will be and they will have more to overcome. drafting only smart players is probably not more likely to result in nhl players than drafting only the most physically able, or the best shooters/skaters/etc

Verviticus is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:44 PM
  #493
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
On the topic of Detroit, in 2005 Igor Grigorenko was considered a can't miss prospect in their pool with 8.5C rating and a bright future ahead of him. He even had the production to back it up. How did that work out?

On January 1st 2008, Jakub Kindl was ranked 8.0C and Jan Mursak 7.5C. Neither has lived up to that. Johan Ryno was 7.5C and considered a future sure-fire NHLer, he even had the offensive production to match. Offensive skill was considered to be their strength at that point according to Hockey's Future — they've had zero offensive prospects make the NHL since and are still relying on all the same guys.

---

As of Oct 28th 2005, the 3rd strongest team in the NHL was considered to be the Chicago Blackhawks because of: Cam Barker (D), Brent Seabrook (D), Jack Skille (RW), Corey Crawford (G), Pavel Vorobiev (RW). The 6th strongest team was considered to be the Montreal Canadians: Alex Perezhogin (RW), Andrei Kostsitsyn (RW), Carey Price (G), Chris Higgins (LW), Yann Danis (G). Paul Stastny was considered a worse prospect than Wolski, Stoa, and Svatos.


Last edited by Tiranis: 12-20-2012 at 05:51 PM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:47 PM
  #494
ZenMaster*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
On the topic of Detroit, in 2005 Igor Grigorenko was considered a can't miss prospect in their pool with 8.5C rating and a bright future ahead of him. He even had the production to back it up. How did that work out?
'On May 16, 2003, Grigorenko was involved in a serious car accident. He suffered a broken left thigh bone and two fractures in his left shin bone. In addition, complications arose and he developed a fat embolism in his left lung, which is a potentially fatal condition."


Can you really blame him for that?

ZenMaster* is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:50 PM
  #495
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
His strengths in his draft year were completely different than they are now. I don't know how you can argue against the McNally pick and then in the same breath argue that you would've picked Corrado. Seems to me like you're just picking and choosing whatever suits your argument the best.

If you think we shouldn't have picked McNally, then we certainly shouldn't have picked Corrado either. Their pre-draft strengths and weaknesses are not dissimilar.



Really? His strengths were completely different in his draft year than they are now? Really Tiranis? Is that the argument you are making? I didn't know players could pull complete 180s in development. Didn't think that was possible. A poor IQ player can become a high IQ player in the span of two years.



Very interesting stance there Tiranis. Also, still waiting on your DET prospect pool breakdown and comparisons to VAN's pool.



Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Except I don't think there's as much of a tradeoff as it has been suggested. When you watch the games, you can see Mallet is a smart player - he does the little things well and you can see his offensive instincts as he can make plays. Now, is his IQ high-end? I don't know, but it seems to be enough in combination with his other attributes for the Canucks to have considered taking him.

The one thing you might be able to criticize with that pick is that he was taken too early, but that's not his fault, and given what MG has done with those picks he's traded you can certainly justify it.

On the whole, Mallet seems like he has the tools and the toolbox to become a pro, so there's still a decent chance of converting there as you like to put it... perhaps being a little more like NSH than you think. As long as you can get at least one good player from each draft, it shouldn't matter too much what round he's chosen in.


Don't want to come off as a Mallet hater because it's as you said: It's not his fault he got picked as early as he did. I have less a problem with Mallet than most others because of the conversion bit I laid out. Still, on the whole, 30-100 is not a good range for the Canucks it seems.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:54 PM
  #496
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Really? His strengths were completely different in his draft year than they are now? Really Tiranis? Is that the argument you are making? I didn't know players could pull complete 180s in development. Didn't think that was possible. A poor IQ player can become a high IQ player in the span of two years.
Small puck rushing defenseman with questionable defensive decision making and no physical play. Next year he finished 5th in best defenseman voting for his strong defensive play and grittiness. So yeah, he did as close to 180 as possible.

Interestingly enough, those are similar strengths to those McNally had in his draft year.

It's cute that you tried to misrepresent my position and completely failed at it.

Quote:
Very interesting stance there Tiranis. Also, still waiting on your DET prospect pool breakdown and comparisons to VAN's pool.
You'll be waiting a long time. I have no interest in continuing that discussion. I said what I had to say on the topic.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:56 PM
  #497
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMaster View Post
'On May 16, 2003, Grigorenko was involved in a serious car accident. He suffered a broken left thigh bone and two fractures in his left shin bone. In addition, complications arose and he developed a fat embolism in his left lung, which is a potentially fatal condition."


Can you really blame him for that?
I can't. I have nothing against the player. I'm taking an issue with prospect rankings that are favourites of some around here. As late as 2008, HF still considered him to be a big prospect for Detroit with 7.0C rating (as good as Schroeder and almost as good as Kassian right now). This was after he had 0 points in 5 AHL games and 10 points in 27 russian league games.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 05:59 PM
  #498
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocoa Crisp View Post
I agree with your general sentiment that you draft smart players because they're more likely to find ways to overcome their limitations. That said, McNally seems like a pretty smart kid, cheating aside. What makes you think he won't be able to adjust his game as the competition rises?

Secondly, I think there's a real danger in picking a player based on how he may or may not fit into the current configuration. Too many moving parts are subject to change and you run the real risk of talking yourself out of picking the better player based on false assumptions - ie. being too clever by half.


Your second paragraph is perhaps the best counter-argument to not taking a player on style. Actually, I did advocate that the Canucks not over-think things and just go BPA (conversion argument is further up). So in that respect, going smart while giving up size and skating can be seen as just another aesthetic that confounds the scouting staff. Good argument.



On McNally, I'm not saying he can't adjust his game. But what is the probability he will when his main weapon seems to be the rush game? I'm just leary of that type of player. StrictlyCommerical alluded to it as well... I hope he can. Isn't that the theory? That Gillis pick smart players, in general, because they show a propensity to adapt and overcome? So is McNally the smart poised player that can process the game at a high level? Or is he the smart player that plays more on instinct and will struggle to make the change, the end result being that he could go either way? Time will tell.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 12-20-2012 at 06:05 PM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 06:02 PM
  #499
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Small puck rushing defenseman with questionable defensive decision making and no physical play. Next year he finished 5th in best defenseman voting for his strong defensive play and grittiness. So yeah, he did as close to 180 as possible.

Interestingly enough, those are similar strengths to those McNally had in his draft year.

It's cute that you tried to misrepresent my position and completely failed at it.



I'm sure others will read what you posted and judge for themselves.



So your perception is that Corrado developed grit and defensive play out of thin air? Is that the gist? If so, while he was a timid, small PMD in his draft year, did he have poor hockey IQ, or good hockey IQ, and how do you determine the difference?



Quote:
You'll be waiting a long time. I have no interest in continuing that discussion. I said what I had to say on the topic.


Which is what I figured. No surprise. Also no surprise that many publications and fans disagree with your opinion.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 06:06 PM
  #500
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm sure others will read what you posted and judge for themselves.



So your perception is that Corrado developed grit and defensive play out of thin air? Is that the gist? If so, while he was a timid, small PMD in his draft year, did he have poor hockey IQ, or good hockey IQ, and how do you determine the difference?
I'm getting tired of your shtick.

Quote:
But let me ask you this, are you lamenting taking Corrado? Because he too had considerable concern about his defensive decision making when he was drafted and was known to skate with the puck ice quite often, much more often then he does now. He was very much a risk taker, a project. He was a small PMD who liked to rush and had defensive concerns, the exact type of player you said you would have avoided selecting. However, he adapted and learned to play a better defensive game. He credits his old defensive coach Jeff Beukeboom in helping him develop into a steady D-man that he is today. Corrado so far is looking like a hit that may have been overlooked under your criteria .
That was posted by thefeebster earlier in this thread. But I'm guessing you think we're both total morons for actually knowing something about the prospects and watching them play?

Whether you like it or not, McNally's and Corrado's pre-draft strengths were not dissimilar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Which is what I figured. No surprise. Also no surprise that many publications and fans disagree with your opinion.
Excellent. We'll see who was right in 5 years. I wouldn't bet on HF with their track record.

Tiranis 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 11:29 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.