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

Bo Horvat Discussion and Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-24-2013, 06:54 PM
  #776
Pseudonymous
Registered User
 
Pseudonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,498
vCash: 500
Horvat has great puck possession (nothing stands out more when i watch him), a big body who has a frame which can handle even a bunch more weight, real good vision, a smart player. not too flashy, more like a bull

Shinkaruk is no different than most undersized forwards, sick hands, great moves/flashy, has a great backhand... he plays with alot of passion and im pretty confident he will overcome the lack in strength. and im not usually high on weak small players. im very high on this kid..

they couldn't be any more different

oh and horvat will most likely be a pretty good defensive player, while shinkaruk will most likely never be

Both have high hockey IQ and both compete hard. Though Shinkaruk less in the defensive zone.

As far as speed, are they really that different? I didn't notice Shinkaruk to look any faster, Horvat's stride is much stronger so his legs aren't moving as quickly. I can't say for sure though, haven't watched them enough to be sure


Last edited by Pseudonymous: 08-24-2013 at 07:02 PM.
Pseudonymous is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 07:09 PM
  #777
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
To be honest, I would be unhappy if he doesn't make the Canucks. Especially when the Canucks traded their number one goalie for him. So, I hope we don't see him return to London and he produces at the NHL level this upcoming season.

I think this "assumption" that it is in best long term interest to go back to junior, is premature speculation.
I realize this is what you "hope" for given the trade that brought us Horvat, but I don't see how that is relevant to the decision to send Horvat back to junior or keep him up. If he isn't able to produce as an 18 yo on the 3rd line - a very unlikely scenario - why risk stunting his long term potential just to "justify" the trade? Talk about a lose-lose outcome for the Canucks ...

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 07:21 PM
  #778
Bieksa#3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
What about the same question posed to hunter shinkaruk?

Bieksa#3 is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 07:46 PM
  #779
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bieksa#3 View Post
What about the same question posed to hunter shinkaruk?
Good question, depends a lot on returning players like Curtis Valk (should be back no?) though I think guys like Pearce will graduate from major junior.

Shinkaruk didn't show a huge progression from his 16/17 year to his 17/18 year (last year) in part due to the graduation of Etem but also, I assume, because Hunter was already playing top minutes, PP, etc since his pre-draft year.

Without being traded to a loaded team like Portland or an influx of talent on the Tigers, I wouldn't expect a huge step up in production from Shinkaruk. Maybe he could get back up to the 45-50 goal range and crack 100 points in a best case season, but as it is likely to be just him and Valk as the main offense, that might be best case.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 08:00 PM
  #780
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
I realize this is what you "hope" for given the trade that brought us Horvat, but I don't see how that is relevant to the decision to send Horvat back to junior or keep him up. If he isn't able to produce as an 18 yo on the 3rd line - a very unlikely scenario - why risk stunting his long term potential just to "justify" the trade? Talk about a lose-lose outcome for the Canucks ...
Well, it's relevant in the sense that that thread (before it got merged here) was already coming from a "negative" point of view ... IMO, a viewpoint that already presupposes Horvat doesn't make the NHL team.

Especially in light of the fact, that most people here didn't know much about him and had barely paid much attention or watch him play actual games other than the few who may have watched the Memorial Cup. But how many did so in a more studious manner (given the fact that he was rated much higher than where the Canucks were pegged to select and would have not have been available if the Canucks didn't make the trade for that top 10 pick.)

So however "unlikely" the scenario is ... this scenario exists because we don't have a healthy, two-eyed Manny entrenched as the de facto third line centre.

It's an open competition. From how I see things, Horvat has four legitimate candidates he's competing for a 3rd line centre role:

2 journeymen: Richardson and Santorelli (who in the NHL seaons have hovered around the 10-13mins per game when they did play)

Schroeder who has a physical frame and skill set makes him more suitable for a top-6 offensive role and is coming off, shoulder surgery, IIRC

Gaunce, a year older, has a similar frame and defensive skills as a Horvat but not the offensive upside

Now as for "stunting" long-term potential, that's always a risk, but there's always a risk of playing it safe when you have clear cases of guys like a Linden, Bergeron, and most recently O'Reilly doing the opposite of that and having very productive careers/seasons in the NHL.

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-24-2013, 08:52 PM
  #781
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
Well, it's relevant in the sense that that thread (before it got merged here) was already coming from a "negative" point of view ... IMO, a viewpoint that already presupposes Horvat doesn't make the NHL team.

Especially in light of the fact, that most people here didn't know much about him and had barely paid much attention or watch him play actual games other than the few who may have watched the Memorial Cup. But how many did so in a more studious manner (given the fact that he was rated much higher than where the Canucks were pegged to select and would have not have been available if the Canucks didn't make the trade for that top 10 pick.)

So however "unlikely" the scenario is ... this scenario exists because we don't have a healthy, two-eyed Manny entrenched as the de facto third line centre.

It's an open competition. From how I see things, Horvat has four legitimate candidates he's competing for a 3rd line centre role:

2 journeymen: Richardson and Santorelli (who in the NHL seaons have hovered around the 10-13mins per game when they did play)

Schroeder who has a physical frame and skill set makes him more suitable for a top-6 offensive role and is coming off, shoulder surgery, IIRC

Gaunce, a year older, has a similar frame and defensive skills as a Horvat but not the offensive upside

Now as for "stunting" long-term potential, that's always a risk, but there's always a risk of playing it safe when you have clear cases of guys like a Linden, Bergeron, and most recently O'Reilly doing the opposite of that and having very productive careers/seasons in the NHL.
Sure, if he "earns" it and isn't overwhelmed at this level then of course. But you indicated that you would "expect" Horvat to be on the team considering we traded a number one goalie for him. I would hope fervently that we don't let the circumstances of the trade play any role in decisions regarding Horvat. Beyond that I am agnostic to whether he stays up or returns to junior, provided the decision is made with consideration for his development first and foremost.

Edit: oh and for the"negative" presupposition that Horvat returns to junior in the original thread, that was merely for the sake of the thread topic, which asked what offensive production we fans would be happy with in junior. Kind of an essential assumption to keep the thread on topic and was not intended to be a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the decision.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 05:43 AM
  #782
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
You took just long enough to make me think that this discussion was finally over. Ah well.


Oh I see that reading comprehension is now at the fore.

“They're opinion doesn't matter anyways” is now a direct quote of the above?



Quote:
I'm very confused as to the contradiction you are trying to identify. As a fan, I have an opinion based on my own viewings, other scouts/posters views, etc. Just because I'm not always going to follow independent scouts opinions religiously doesn't mean that I value all fans' opinions more than scouting services.

Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't be a contradiction, because the majority of fans in general(i.e. not just Canucks fans) would prefer Nichushkin as well.

I'm not trying to convince you of something because the majority of people prefer Nichushkin, I'm just trying to say that you aren't convincing me just because the majority of Canucks fans say otherwise.[

What's revisionist is making it seem like the picks were guaranteed top-10 picks at the time of the trade. There was a lot of risk for both sides, but it certainly wasn't overpayment.

You're wrong, it was an overpayment. I don't care what you have to say on the matter. No one does. TOR was a bad team that drafted 5th and 7th overall the 2 years prior to 2010 (Seguin draft). That's the backdrop. And they moved those picks for an unsigned, disgruntled RFA who likely wasn't getting interest equivalent to that value outside the division. The divisional trade itself should clue you in.

Canucks fans are just a different majority, which you have dismissed due to bias. Not realizing that your own bias has you superceding the opinion of independent scouting services when it suits you. And yet, going with the majority when it suites you. So it's ironic to be picky, and then dismiss the opinion of those that have the same information you do and have the opposite opinion. You are the only one that has dismissed a sub-section of fans due to bias. The _only_ one. It's not about convincing you, it's about pointing out the ludicrous contradiction you are perpetrating to come to your conclusion.



Quote:
How does it show it's not close? In theory every single person could have Toews over Backstrom by a hair, and you'd get the same result. Anyways, I don't have to agree with the poll results. I wasn't speaking for everyone when I said I valued Backstrom similarly to Toews.

Well you keep changing the bar. Do teams go for the lower bust factor? Or the higher upside? Because before you were claiming that teams should take the safer player with less high end upside.

I never said defensemen are as likely to be high end players as forwards are statistically. All I said was that they were safer, in terms of making the NHL in some capacity.

So why did your philosophy of taking the "safe" player with a lesser likelihood of becoming a high end player change when changing the discussion to forward vs defenseman instead of safer lower-upside forward vs riskier high-upside forward?

Lol. When your opinion goes against the majority, then it doesn't mean anything. But when Canucks fans opinions go against the larger majorty, then it means something. When you make a poll it means something. I (and arsmaster) show opposing evidence from 47 games ago... irrelevant. Yet, when I make a poll to show the majority is completely against the opinion you hold, it doesn't mean anything? Can anyone find a consistent thread through this spurious logic? Anyone?

What is throwing off your assessment of the forwards/dmen NHL succession probabilities is that a “safe” 2way forward that becomes a top6er “graduates” to become a "high end" forward, and so doesn't meet your safe low-upside critera. If he doesn't top out as a 4th liner, it throws your argument out of whack. A safe player can also be “high end” though, which is what the article indirectly states, as it has both types of forwards in its comparison.

That said, if you wanted to compare safe 2way forwards vs. Defensive/2way Dmen, then there's also damning evidence that way. Simply put, forwards are safer than Dmen to draft overall. For probabilities to make the NHL, and when comparing safe forwards to safe 2way/defensive dmen. There was an article posted here about the sub .5 PPG Dman and his succession to the NHL = not good. So there's evidence there too. Defensive Dmen have on hell of a time making the pros.




Quote:
I did not once say or imply that.

Teams have also done the exact opposite at the draft. Not sure what you're trying to prove. If anything that shows that there is no one type of player that is always better to draft.

Discussed above.

Here's your quote: “Backes is the #1C due to St. Louis' lack of centre depth. O'Reilly isn't a #1C at all. That you think they're in the same category of players who have put up 100+ points like Henrik/Backstrom/Thornton is just absurd.”

The article describes #1Cs. Backes and O'Reilly fit the article's criteria. When you say that they aren't in the category of Henrik/Backstrom, you are essentially saying they don't belong in the grouping of 1Cs. What's more absurd? A statement that is already refuted by the article itself, or those made by the article?




Quote:
I really hope you don't expect me to answer this. It would be akin to me saying that since you were so dead set on having Schneider as the goalie of the future, you couldn't bear to see him traded for a pick where we didn't draft the best player.

It's a cheap shot which has no presence being in what I had thought was a discussion based on the merits of players, as opposed to trying to discredit one another as individuals.

Based on what, exactly?

What elite playmakers are regarded as having "tunnel vision"?

Except the trade doesn't have anything to do with me tracking prospects. I'm not sure what your statement even means? It isn't a cheap shot to say that someone who doesn't follow prospects as much as more avid followers should pay more heed to the opinions of those that do... Not caring much at all to now having a Nichushkin crusade... If you can do it for independent scouts, you can do it for some of the posters who _still_ have more knowledge in this field than you do. The same principle applies.

This is just my opinion, but I don't put an ounce of stock into your take on this draft, and part of that is due to tracking your opinion across the entire season on prospects, in general, and not just around the draft. Where as I could not say that for some of the other posters on here who have had better insight throughout, and more viewership.

Edit: And let's be clear on something: You have already discredited the opinion of a swath of Canucks fans simply due to your own impressions of their bias. Blanket stereotype. Favouring the independent scout more, who may or may not have watched certain players more than random posters here. Or who's insights some would say aren't even worth more. Again, have you seen what some of the posters here think of Pronman?


Quote:
Why are you focusing entirely on weight? Horvat is currently 5 pounds heavier than and half an inch shorter than the average NHLer. Even if he puts on another 5-10 pounds, it's still not enough to call him more than average. Kassian is also two inches taller than the average NHLer as well as being heavier, so he is definitely above average. I don't see why you are ignoring the height difference. The difference between Kassian and Horvat in height is the same as the difference between Horvat and Domi, Just to give you some context. If someone were 6'2, 190 pounds I'd consider them average sized as well.

Why should I assume that Horvat will develop into a player who is extremely skilled when Horvat plays a more gritty game similar to Backes? Horvat lacks the skill to be a true top-line offensive player. If he were really a Kopitar level prospect I would jump for joy if we had taken him over Nichushkin.

What I was implying was that spending time in the minors "earning" it is irrelevant. All that matters is that a prospect is ready to play in the NHL, which Nichushkin is.

Read the bolded quote up there and see if it makes sense. Horvat is already 5 lbs heavier than average, and yet we can't call him more than average?

Weight is the only thing I'm concerned with, primarily. Height isn't as relevant. As such, my initial statement holds. The introduction of height is an interesting one by you though. So a player has to be both taller and heavier than average to be considered of above average size? I'm wondering how many NHLers would adhere to this? Booth doesn't fit, despite being considered of PWF size. Brown, Hossa, Landeskog and others... All of these players are of average size? Interesting take. Weight is far more relevant IMO, usually anyways. I would hate to think Brown and Raymond are both of NHL average size.

I don't care that earning time is irrelevant to you. That's not what I am contesting. You said that Nich had “earned” it as much as any non-NHL prospect, and he most definitely has not. That's the only statement I contested. It doesn't matter to me what you were implying. Like I said earlier: Convey what you wish to convey.


Quote:
I put very little stock in Coppernblue even at the best of times, but especially when their projections ignore the most important development year for draftees, looking only at numbers in a league that very few people are experts on, that stock drops to zero.

Look at where guys like Drouin and Nurse were rated before this year, as mid-late 1st round picks. Or Nick Ebert, who was heralded as a top draft pick before falling off a cliff and getting selected last overall in 2012.

His nationality, most likely. It's too bad we didn't take a flyer on him in UFA when he was reportedly looking for 10m over 2 years.

Interestingly enough, HF's write up on Nichushkin compares his defensive game to Semin's.

The coppernblue article simply tracks numbers at the same age. It is the best comparison there is because Nich isn't easily compared in his draft year due to playing in the KHL. This was explained in the article. Did you read it? I doubt that you did because you ask a question that is answered within it.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 08-25-2013 at 08:39 AM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 06:51 AM
  #783
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudonymous01 View Post
Horvat has great puck possession (nothing stands out more when i watch him), a big body who has a frame which can handle even a bunch more weight, real good vision, a smart player. not too flashy, more like a bull
A big body? A frame that can handle a bunch more weight? Like a bull? Do you know Horvat is of average height, and therefore can never be considered of above average overall size? These "bulls" seem to be common place in the NHL it seems.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 07:48 AM
  #784
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,368
vCash: 500
can hunter shinkaruk be compared to another smallish skilled winger with 2 stanley cups already. patrick kane? shifty winger top 6 scorer.

David71 is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 07:55 AM
  #785
Linden
[hello] :)
 
Linden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 46,846
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
can hunter shinkaruk be compared to another smallish skilled winger with 2 stanley cups already. patrick kane? shifty winger top 6 scorer.
I don't see it, Kane was a far superior Junior player.

Linden is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 08:14 AM
  #786
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 9,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
can hunter shinkaruk be compared to another smallish skilled winger with 2 stanley cups already. patrick kane? shifty winger top 6 scorer.
Kane came in and absolutely dominated in his first and only year in the OHL.

Went on to score a bit under PPG in the NHL the following year. Scores over PPG in his third year, went off in the post season, scored the cup winning OT goal and won the Conn Smythe.

Whereas Shinkaruk likely won't play a full season for the Canucks until next season.

Just based junior pedigree alone, Kane is in a completely different league.

Wilch is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 08:15 AM
  #787
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilch View Post
Kane came in and absolutely dominated in his first and only year in the OHL.

Went on to score a bit under PPG in the NHL the following year. Scores over PPG in his third year, went off in the post season, scored the cup winning OT goal and won the Conn Smythe.

Whereas Shinkaruk likely won't play a full season for the Canucks until next season.

Just based junior pedigree alone, Kane is in a completely different league.

For Shinkaruk, it seems. But not so for Domi, it appears...

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 08:30 AM
  #788
David71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilch View Post
Kane came in and absolutely dominated in his first and only year in the OHL.

Went on to score a bit under PPG in the NHL the following year. Scores over PPG in his third year, went off in the post season, scored the cup winning OT goal and won the Conn Smythe.

Whereas Shinkaruk likely won't play a full season for the Canucks until next season.

Just based junior pedigree alone, Kane is in a completely different league.

okay true. maybe in2-3 years hunter can be the same if he adds a bit more to his size. kane is a very lethal hockey player IMO. he turns it on the playoffs.

David71 is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 08:59 AM
  #789
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 9,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
For Shinkaruk, it seems. But not so for Domi, it appears...
I kind of ignored everything said about Shinkaruk after we took him. Only really paid attention to what was said before hand. Had we not traded Schneider and the Devils took him at 9, everyone would be singing his praises and calling him the next 40g-40a superstar winger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David71 View Post
okay true. maybe in2-3 years hunter can be the same if he adds a bit more to his size. kane is a very lethal hockey player IMO. he turns it on the playoffs.
If he can get anywhere close to Kane's level, that'd be a major over-achievement.

Could happen, but unlikely.

Wilch is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 12:49 PM
  #790
Vankiller Whale
Spread the love
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,653
vCash: 1212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Oh I see that reading comprehension is now at the fore.

“They're opinion doesn't matter anyways” is now a direct quote of the above?
When you said that isn't a direct quote of yours(without any specification), I assumed you were talking about the actual quote I used instead of when I was paraphrasing you on this:

Quote:
Answer: the vote doesn't really tell us anything, and there is evidence both ways.
Why bother mentioning how Avs fans feel about O'Reilly vs Duchene if when they unanimously choose Duchene, you dismiss it?

Quote:
You're wrong, it was an overpayment. I don't care what you have to say on the matter. No one does. TOR was a bad team that drafted 5th and 7th overall the 2 years prior to 2010 (Seguin draft). That's the backdrop. And they moved those picks for an unsigned, disgruntled RFA who likely wasn't getting interest equivalent to that value outside the division. The divisional trade itself should clue you in.
This is ridiculous. You have shown nothing to back up your opinion. I showed you a thread from the time, where the general sentiment was nothing like the overpayment you suggest. Just saying "I don't care" isn't much of an argument. And the line of thought here is pretty circular as well. Divisional trades don't happen unless it's massive overpayment. Look at the Kessel trade. How can I prove it was overpayment at the time? It was a divisional trade.

Yeah, I'm not buying that.

Quote:
Canucks fans are just a different majority, which you have dismissed due to bias. Not realizing that your own bias has you superceding the opinion of independent scouting services when it suits you. And yet, going with the majority when it suites you. So it's ironic to be picky, and then dismiss the opinion of those that have the same information you do and have the opposite opinion. You are the only one that has dismissed a sub-section of fans due to bias. The _only_ one. It's not about convincing you, it's about pointing out the ludicrous contradiction you are perpetrating to come to your conclusion.
What conclusion are you referring to? I'm saying that I have no problem being in the minority with my opinion on a Canucks forum. Why is it somehow better to simply "dismiss" everyone except Canucks fans opinions as opposed to "dismissing" just Canucks fans opinions?




Quote:
Lol. When your opinion goes against the majority, then it doesn't mean anything. But when Canucks fans opinions go against the larger majorty, then it means something. When you make a poll it means something. I (and arsmaster) show opposing evidence from 47 games ago... irrelevant. Yet, when I make a poll to show the majority is completely against the opinion you hold, it doesn't mean anything? Can anyone find a consistent thread through this spurious logic? Anyone?
My opinion doesn't necessarily go against the majority. If in a poll of Toews vs Backstrom there were an option "Toews, but it's close" then that would be what I would vote for. Just because the vast majority choose Toews over Backstrom doesn't mean the vast majority value Toews far more than Backstrom. But either way it doesn't matter, because I was stating it as my opinion, not for other people.

The difference is that you said that there are Avs fans who value O'Reilly the same or more than Duchene. You said that in the context of high end offensive talent vs less offense, more defense in the present tense. When I showed that right now, no Avs fans feel that way, you were forced to go back to a time period where Duchene was injured and producing less offensively in order to try and salvage your statement. Obviously a 55-point O'Reilly is better than an on-pace for 40 point Duchene. That's because O'Reilly was better both offensively and defensively. That brings nothing to help the discussion.

The only way it has any context is if Duchene is outproducing O'Reilly offensively, which he did this year, and the results among Avs fans were unanimous.

Quote:
What is throwing off your assessment of the forwards/dmen NHL succession probabilities is that a “safe” 2way forward that becomes a top6er “graduates” to become a "high end" forward, and so doesn't meet your safe low-upside critera. If he doesn't top out as a 4th liner, it throws your argument out of whack. A safe player can also be “high end” though, which is what the article indirectly states, as it has both types of forwards in its comparison.
Absolutely a safe player can have high end talent. The question only arises when we have a safe player with less offensive upside vs a riskier player with high offensive upside.

Quote:
That said, if you wanted to compare safe 2way forwards vs. Defensive/2way Dmen, then there's also damning evidence that way. Simply put, forwards are safer than Dmen to draft overall. For probabilities to make the NHL, and when comparing safe forwards to safe 2way/defensive dmen. There was an article posted here about the sub .5 PPG Dman and his succession to the NHL = not good. So there's evidence there too. Defensive Dmen have on hell of a time making the pros.
Link?

But if all you'r saying is that defensive defensemen are less likely to make the pros, then maybe we should focus on offensive defensemen? If they are a "safer" bet? The Canucks should have targeted one of Ristolainen or Nurse instead with the Oilers pick, or even Morrissey.



Quote:
Here's your quote: “Backes is the #1C due to St. Louis' lack of centre depth. O'Reilly isn't a #1C at all. That you think they're in the same category of players who have put up 100+ points like Henrik/Backstrom/Thornton is just absurd.”

The article describes #1Cs. Backes and O'Reilly fit the article's criteria. When you say that they aren't in the category of Henrik/Backstrom, you are essentially saying they don't belong in the grouping of 1Cs. What's more absurd? A statement that is already refuted by the article itself, or those made by the article?
The article describes who they feel is the best centre on each team. That isn't a "category". Some teams have much better #1 centres than others. Is Malkin a #1C? If so why isn't he on the list?

All they're doing is a simplified version of best centre on each team vs best defensemen on each team. That doesn't mean that all the players listed are in the same category. Which I think should be fairly obvious.

Quote:
What elite playmakers are regarded as having "tunnel vision"?
Nichushkin isn't primarily a playmaker, he's a goal scorer, so I don't really see the relevance.

Quote:
Except the trade doesn't have anything to do with me tracking prospects. I'm not sure what your statement even means? It isn't a cheap shot to say that someone who doesn't follow prospects as much as more avid followers should pay more heed to the opinions of those that do... Not caring much at all to now having a Nichushkin crusade... If you can do it for independent scouts, you can do it for some of the posters who _still_ have more knowledge in this field than you do. The same principle applies.

This is just my opinion, but I don't put an ounce of stock into your take on this draft, and part of that is due to tracking your opinion across the entire season on prospects, in general, and not just around the draft. Where as I could not say that for some of the other posters on here who have had better insight throughout, and more viewership.

Edit: And let's be clear on something: You have already discredited the opinion of a swath of Canucks fans simply due to your own impressions of their bias. Blanket stereotype. Favouring the independent scout more, who may or may not have watched certain players more than random posters here. Or who's insights some would say aren't even worth more. Again, have you seen what some of the posters here think of Pronman?

Me valuing proven talent over prospects has nothing to do with me tracking prospects either, though. It's not like I've come out of the blue and started going on about Nichushkin. I've been fairly vocal about taking higher upside players in the past(Mantha vs Erne discussions come to mind). The impression I get is that I've seen Nichushkin more than you have. But if you feel me an inferior poster, then I'd like you to kindly keep it out of the discussion and focus on the actual arguments, as it isn't likely to go anywhere productive.

Quote:
Read the bolded quote up there and see if it makes sense. Horvat is already 5 lbs heavier than average, and yet we can't call him more than average?

Weight is the only thing I'm concerned with, primarily. Height isn't as relevant. As such, my initial statement holds. The introduction of height is an interesting one by you though. So a player has to be both taller and heavier than average to be considered of above average size? I'm wondering how many NHLers would adhere to this? Booth doesn't fit, despite being considered of PWF size. Brown, Hossa, Landeskog and others... All of these players are of average size? Interesting take. Weight is far more relevant IMO, usually anyways. I would hate to think Brown and Raymond are both of NHL average size.
Why is weight the only thing that matters to you? Height gives you better reach and makes it easier for you to protect the puck. Of course it's relevant.

I'm not saying a player has to be both taller and heavier than average to be above average. I'm saying if the difference is marginal either way, then I'd still consider them average size. I'd consider Landeskog, Hossa, Brown, and Booth average size as well. In fact, according to the narrow definition you seem to be setting, Landeskog would fit the "average" NHLer exactly, at 6'1 and 204 pounds.

Quote:
I don't care that earning time is irrelevant to you. That's not what I am contesting. You said that Nich had “earned” it as much as any non-NHL prospect, and he most definitely has not. That's the only statement I contested. It doesn't matter to me what you were implying. Like I said earlier: Convey what you wish to convey.
It doesn't matter how long a player toils away in the minors. "Earning" a spot has to do with how well you are playing, not how long you are playing in the minors.

Quote:
The coppernblue article simply tracks numbers at the same age. It is the best comparison there is because Nich isn't easily compared in his draft year due to playing in the KHL. This was explained in the article. Did you read it? I doubt that you did because you ask a question that is answered within it.
Even the "best" comparison relying entirely on numbers can still be lousy. I never saw him play in the MHL, and I don't think anyone here did either. I couldn't care less about his MHL numbers from the year before last, I don't think they are at all a useful indicator of a prospect's chances of success.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 02:22 PM
  #791
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Sure, if he "earns" it and isn't overwhelmed at this level then of course. But you indicated that you would "expect" Horvat to be on the team considering we traded a number one goalie for him. I would hope fervently that we don't let the circumstances of the trade play any role in decisions regarding Horvat. Beyond that I am agnostic to whether he stays up or returns to junior, provided the decision is made with consideration for his development first and foremost.
Not really "expect" him specifically as it relates to Horvat but for either him or Guance to make it on the roster past the nine game mark and remain on the team. If both fail to make the roster, it would be a fairly big disappointment, IMO. Because they are competing against an undersized and ill-suited skill set for a 3rd line centre with Schroeder, and two NHL journeymen players and to repeat they are not trying to knock off an established high quality 3rd line centre that the Canucks once had with a two-eyed Manny.

Quote:
Edit: oh and for the"negative" presupposition that Horvat returns to junior in the original thread, that was merely for the sake of the thread topic, which asked what offensive production we fans would be happy with in junior. Kind of an essential assumption to keep the thread on topic and was not intended to be a judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the decision.
That thread and another Horvat themed thread (may be this one) where people just say best course of action is to follow the "Detroit Model" and that line of thinking etc.. was what I was getting at ... the accumulation of "assumptions" being made on said player when he hasn't even played in the Prospects Tournament or even competed in Training Camp and Preseason games. Why don't we reserve judgement until then.

John Lennon wrote a song with the title "Give Peace a Chance."

All I am saying is "Give Bo a Chance."

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 02:33 PM
  #792
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
Not really "expect" him specifically as it relates to Horvat but for either him or Guance to make it on the roster past the nine game mark and remain on the team. If both fail to make the roster, it would be a fairly big disappointment, IMO. Because they are competing against an undersized and ill-suited skill set for a 3rd line centre with Schroeder, and two NHL journeymen players and to repeat they are not trying to knock off an established high quality 3rd line centre that the Canucks once had with a two-eyed Manny.



That thread and another Horvat themed thread (may be this one) where people just say best course of action is to follow the "Detroit Model" and that line of thinking etc.. was what I was getting at ... the accumulation of "assumptions" being made on said player when he hasn't even played in the Prospects Tournament or even competed in Training Camp and Preseason games. Why don't we reserve judgement until then.

John Lennon wrote a song with the title "Give Peace a Chance."

All I am saying is "Give Bo a Chance."

Ya I wasn't thinking about the other thread but I can agree with you on that point, only in the sense that I believe the player's performance should dictate their progression, and not arbitrary schedules a la the "Detroit Model" or the "We need to show the fans something for Schneider" approach either. If Horvat comes to camp and blows people away to the point where Tortorella believes he can play 10-14 meaningful minutes a night, then by all means do it. But I don't want him doing spot duty or platooning it with other players whereby he is getting minimal minutes and stalling his development. Have to trust Tortorella to make the right call on that one I guess ...

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 03:58 PM
  #793
n00bxQb
Registered User
 
n00bxQb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,090
vCash: 500
The average NHL forward is 6'1" and 197 lbs.

Horvat is 6'0" and 206 lbs at age 18. He'll probably grow another 2-3" and add another 10-20 lbs. 6'2" 216 lbs is a big guy.

n00bxQb is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 03:59 PM
  #794
TacitEndorsement
Registered User
 
TacitEndorsement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
Not really "expect" him specifically as it relates to Horvat but for either him or Guance to make it on the roster past the nine game mark and remain on the team. If both fail to make the roster, it would be a fairly big disappointment, IMO. Because they are competing against an undersized and ill-suited skill set for a 3rd line centre with Schroeder, and two NHL journeymen players and to repeat they are not trying to knock off an established high quality 3rd line centre that the Canucks once had with a two-eyed Manny.



That thread and another Horvat themed thread (may be this one) where people just say best course of action is to follow the "Detroit Model" and that line of thinking etc.. was what I was getting at ... the accumulation of "assumptions" being made on said player when he hasn't even played in the Prospects Tournament or even competed in Training Camp and Preseason games. Why don't we reserve judgement until then.

John Lennon wrote a song with the title "Give Peace a Chance."

All I am saying is "Give Bo a Chance."
John Lennon was a talentless, lazy, hack.

TacitEndorsement is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 04:07 PM
  #795
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganja View Post
John Lennon was a talentless, lazy, hack.
Uh, okay ... so what is your opinion on Bo Hovart's ability to make the Canucks this season?

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 04:31 PM
  #796
TacitEndorsement
Registered User
 
TacitEndorsement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post
Uh, okay ... so what is your opinion on Bo Hovart's ability to make the Canucks this season?
I think he has the ability but I think management will return him to junior.

The fact that the Canucks have 3, natural, NHL level Centers signed, a prospect who has just come of age and shown NHL ability, and a first round pick who is one year older and plays a similar role will justify keeping him down for one more year. Every year of that ELC counts.

TacitEndorsement is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 04:53 PM
  #797
Betamax*
YOU MAD, BRO?
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganja View Post
I think he has the ability but I think management will return him to junior.

The fact that the Canucks have 3, natural, NHL level Centers signed, a prospect who has just come of age and shown NHL ability, and a first round pick who is one year older and plays a similar role will justify keeping him down for one more year. Every year of that ELC counts.
ELC does matter ... but so does the optics of trading away your number one goalie for "futures" that is not "now." Not a great message to send to their veterans on the team.

On paper, it's retaining Bobby Lu + Bo Hovart vs. Cory Schneider.

Now straight up, most people will believe, including myself, that ceteris paribus at this point in time:

Cory Schneider > Bobby Lu or to put it bluntly, Schneider is a better goalie that Bobby Lu ... if we were going to have one or the other.

but if its

Cory Schneider vs. Bobby Lu vs. a Hovart that can pull off a Patrice Bergeron or Ryan O'Reilly rookie type year and ultimately be that 3rd line centre spark to this "older" team ... that kind of trade might be closer to equal particularly if Horvat somehow manages to show that he's better than two NHL journeymen forwards, Schroeder and a one year older Gaunce (with a similar skill set to Bo).

Betamax* is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 04:58 PM
  #798
Linden
[hello] :)
 
Linden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 46,846
vCash: 50
Horvat's development>>>Saving face for the Schneider trade.

If his play warrants it, then by all means keep Horvat up, but I don't want to force anything and the Schneider trade should make zero difference on what we do with Bo

Linden is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 05:43 PM
  #799
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betamax View Post

Cory Schneider > Bobby Lu or to put it bluntly, Schneider is a better goalie that Bobby Lu ... if we were going to have one or the other.
This is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion going forward since Trading 1 goalie > Keeping both goalies and Luongo was emphatically un-tradeable and owners were unwilling to buy out. Hence the return for Schneider should not be compared to the non-existent possibility of keeping Schneider, but merely other potential returns that may have been gotten for Schneider. That is all that can be held against Gillis at this point.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-25-2013, 06:48 PM
  #800
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,292
vCash: 500
Honestly no offense to the guy that started this thread... but I'm glad someone changed the title.

Being my naive self I thought the topic would just go away after a few days.

Eddy Punch Clock 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 07:45 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.