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
08-11-2013, 06:44 PM
  #151
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,223
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
His height isn't slightly below average though, it's average.
If his height is average than so is his weight. He weighs what, like less than 4 pounds more than the average forward? Probably even smaller difference if you narrow it down to only centremen.

Still besides the point though. It seems like you're just trying to find something to argue about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
It's pertinent when perhaps 80% of the guys listed at 6'1 are actually being rounded up as well. It might be 20%, too. All we know is it falls into the range of 'average.'

That aside, this is a super tiring discussion. You're being much more stricter with the word giant than i am and i don't really care to argue abot that. It's all semantics here on out. He's above average weight especially for a 17 year old and i'm more optimistic that he's going to get bigger.
Is it semantics to call Domi "average sized" as well? You called Horvat a giant centreman, and I said that he wasn't. If I had said Domi was average sized I'm sure people would be all over me for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
But you said "If you're 206 pounds at 6 feet". That specifically references height and your previous sentence reference height...
Quote:
his large frame with room to grow is why I used the term 'giant.' 206 at 6'0.5 is a lot of mass.
Here is the post I was replying to, if that helps clear things up. I don't think his frame has much room to grow, as he's already quite built as opposed to someone tall and lanky who weighed 206 pounds.

Quote:
Fine, half an inch for Domi and he becomes included in the top players you listed in terms of height. But half an inch less than the average height in the NHL and Horvat is decidedly below average in height?
Is this all about the word "decidedly"? "Decidedly" doesn't mean he's well below average. But if it's that big a deal I'll take it back. Horvat is slightly below average. Maybe that helps give a better positive connotation.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 06:47 PM
  #152
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,144
vCash: 500
You want to see a giant-sized forward prospect? Look at Frederik Gauthier or Michael mccArron.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:04 PM
  #153
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
 
Callhee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
There's a pretty big difference between 55 and 70 points. But regardless, Saying we shouldn't have taken Domi/Shinkaruk because we wouldn't have a future top line centre is pretty ridiculous, as there's very little chance Horvat becomes a future top line centre for us either.
Little chance? I'm not sure what you think I mean as top line centre, I'm not asking for a Crosby, Malkin, Sedin level pivot who wins Art Ross trophies. More like David Backes, a centre who produces around 65 points, while bringing many other aspects of play. Without lottery picks I don't think you'll be able to draft someone who produces more than that consistently.

Honestly, I can't see Domi produce more than 75 points at the NHL level if he hits his ceiling. He's not exactly Marty St.Louis level. The only other player I would have taken in the top 10 outside of the top 4 is Monahan. Some people laugh at 'intangibles' but Horvat seems to just ooze it, and I honestly believe it'll make up for the dip in offence.

Callhee is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:06 PM
  #154
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Is it semantics to call Domi "average sized" as well? You called Horvat a giant centreman, and I said that he wasn't. If I had said Domi was average sized I'm sure people would be all over me for it.
Why should I care about an argument I never had with you (Domi's size)? I was strictly talking about Horvat's size over here and didn't say a word about Domi's.

I don't care about the wider-argument you're having with the rhetoric of the room. I only have to be consistent with me, not everyone else you happen to disagree with at the same time.


Last edited by Wisp: 08-11-2013 at 07:15 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:13 PM
  #155
How Ya Drouin
12/08/13 GM GamesRIP
 
How Ya Drouin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,869
vCash: 500
Personally, I don't see why there have been two threads, both asking whether we should've drafted a different player (that "Is Nichushkin our next Kopitar?" and this one) have appeared within a couple months of us drafting Horvat. Right now, nobody has any idea. Horvat could turn out to be better than Nich and Domi, or he could be a bust and be the worse. We don't know... yet. I have no idea if we should've drafted Domi, because I have no idea what he is going to turn out to be. I like the BoHo pick, and I don't care who else was there. We're not going to change the pick... And FWIW, I trust our scouts and staff who have spent their life in hockey, and have expertise on analyzing young players and are paid to draft good players, especially with the 9th overall pick.

Thank-you

How Ya Drouin is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:23 PM
  #156
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JI123 View Post
Personally, I don't see why there have been two threads,
Meh, dog days of summer..... whatchya gonna do?

Better than continually beating the Kassian vs. Hodgson vs. Grabner vs. Raymond vs. Gillis vs. Nonis horse to death.

Eddy Punch Clock is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:24 PM
  #157
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,223
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callhee View Post
Little chance? I'm not sure what you think I mean as top line centre, I'm not asking for a Crosby, Malkin, Sedin level pivot who wins Art Ross trophies. More like David Backes, a centre who produces around 65 points, while bringing many other aspects of play. Without lottery picks I don't think you'll be able to draft someone who produces more than that consistently.

Honestly, I can't see Domi produce more than 75 points at the NHL level if he hits his ceiling. He's not exactly Marty St.Louis level. The only other player I would have taken in the top 10 outside of the top 4 is Monahan. Some people laugh at 'intangibles' but Horvat seems to just ooze it, and I honestly believe it'll make up for the dip in offence.
When we're drafting in the top-10 in supposedly the deepest draft in a decade, I do expect the player we draft to be a potential top line/top pairing. I would not be satisfied with someone like David Backes as our 1st line centre. Indeed, a high end centre is easily the greatest need for the Blues right now.

Even still, saying that we should have drafted Horvat because we won't have anyone else to play centre for our top line when Henrik starts slowing down is just absurd. No one can see that far into the future. What if Schroeder or Gaunce end up just as good? What if we land a high end free agent? What if Henrik plays well until he's 40?

Drafting for need, especially that high up in the draft, for a player who's still years away from making an impact, is just folly.


Last edited by Vankiller Whale: 08-11-2013 at 07:34 PM.
Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:33 PM
  #158
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,223
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Why should I care about an argument I never had with you (Domi's size)? I was strictly talking about Horvat's size over here and didn't say a word about Domi's.

I don't care about the wider-argument you're having with the rhetoric of the room. I only have to be consistent with me, not everyone else you happen to disagree with at the same time.
Fair enough. If you are being consistent with yourself then, if you consider Horvat a giant prospect, what does that make players like Gauthier, Mcarron, Nichushkin, Mantha, etc, all around 4 inches taller than him?

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:39 PM
  #159
Stories Tales Lies
and Exaggerations
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
Meh, dog days of summer..... whatchya gonna do?

Better than continually beating the Kassian vs. Hodgson vs. Grabner vs. Raymond vs. Gillis vs. Nonis horse to death.
You forgot to use this ">"

Stories Tales Lies is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 07:54 PM
  #160
Persons
Registered User
 
Persons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
If it wasn't Horvat I would have only accepted Nichuskin, but Domi is going to end up being a good player too. Picking Shinkaruk totally made me forget about Nichuskin though.

Persons is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 08:24 PM
  #161
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Fair enough. If you are being consistent with yourself then, if you consider Horvat a giant prospect, what does that make players like Gauthier, Mcarron, Nichushkin, Mantha, etc, all around 4 inches taller than him?
If I'm being consistent with myself I'm paying close attention to the weight as much as height. Horvat's combine numbers have him at 211 (more than the 206 I referenced earlier), which is more than Mantha and Nichushkin and only slightly below Gauthier ( 211 vs 215, http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/06/...s-and-weights/). McCarron is the only true clear cut mammoth in both categories here. All I was doing was using giant as a synonym for 'big,' so yes, giant would be an apt choice for all involved, and starts becoming literal where McCarron is concerned.

In any case, Horvat's frame is well-above average compared to his peers! He is big, which is why I grabbed onto the word 'giant' as a synonym for it! If you would like to pick a word you consider more apt, go right a head!

it is needlessly frustrating that you think this worth continuing to argue over.


Last edited by Wisp: 08-11-2013 at 08:53 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 08:25 PM
  #162
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
If his height is average than so is his weight. He weighs what, like less than 4 pounds more than the average forward? Probably even smaller difference if you narrow it down to only centremen.

Still besides the point though. It seems like you're just trying to find something to argue about.
Just offering my opinion on the player like everyone else in this thread

StringerBell is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 08:36 PM
  #163
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
There's a pretty big difference between 55 and 70 points.
Except most players fluctuate widely across their careers and it isn't at all unusual for a "70 point" player to have lower scoring years. Look at Kesler, who most would classify as a 70 point centre today, yet had just 49 points in 2011-12 and a pro-rated 63 points this year. You may put too much emphasis on scoring in defining what is a first line centre. Yes, Domi _may_ score more than Horvat in his career (though that is by no means a certainty) but he will also give up several inches and 10-20 pounds against most centres he goes against and he is a strictly one-way player right now. Reminds me a lot of a guy like Ribeiro, who has had 60+ points in 4 of the past 6 seasons, but gives you little else outside of scoring. Horvat could score 5-15 points fewer than Domi yet be a far better player overall.

CanaFan is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 08:46 PM
  #164
Callhee
Embrace the hate.
 
Callhee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
When we're drafting in the top-10 in supposedly the deepest draft in a decade, I do expect the player we draft to be a potential top line/top pairing. I would not be satisfied with someone like David Backes as our 1st line centre. Indeed, a high end centre is easily the greatest need for the Blues right now.

Even still, saying that we should have drafted Horvat because we won't have anyone else to play centre for our top line when Henrik starts slowing down is just absurd. No one can see that far into the future. What if Schroeder or Gaunce end up just as good? What if we land a high end free agent? What if Henrik plays well until he's 40?

Drafting for need, especially that high up in the draft, for a player who's still years away from making an impact, is just folly.
Drafting for current needs is definitely not the smartest way to go about drafting. Drafting based on current status of prospect pool is not unheard of though; we are lacking blue chip centre prospects in the system. Meanwhile we have Kassian and Jensen in the system on the wings.

Looking at the draft (based on central scouting, ISS): the later first round was loaded with offence-first wingers such as Klimchuk, Compher, Rychel, Carrier, and Petan (will likely convert to winger in NHL). There weren't any centre prospects at all in the latter first round anywhere near Horvat's caliber.

Speaking of Petan, why does everyone make a fuss about Domi but not Petan? They're both undersized centres with great hands and vision, what makes Domi so special? Sure, Domi's drafting report says he has a great work ethic and great vision. Petan far out-produced him, albeit on a strong team with Leipsic on his wing, but there is a huge 33 point disparity. Petan is slightly shorter and slighter of build, but how much of Domi's hype is because he's good, and how much of it is because he is Tie Domi's son? Why even put a spotlight on him? He's not the only undersized centre in the CHL that produced good numbers.


Last edited by Callhee: 08-11-2013 at 08:54 PM.
Callhee is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 09:36 PM
  #165
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
When we're drafting in the top-10 in supposedly the deepest draft in a decade, I do expect the player we draft to be a potential top line/top pairing. I would not be satisfied with someone like David Backes as our 1st line centre. Indeed, a high end centre is easily the greatest need for the Blues right now.

Even still, saying that we should have drafted Horvat because we won't have anyone else to play centre for our top line when Henrik starts slowing down is just absurd. No one can see that far into the future. What if Schroeder or Gaunce end up just as good? What if we land a high end free agent? What if Henrik plays well until he's 40?

Drafting for need, especially that high up in the draft, for a player who's still years away from making an impact, is just folly.
Then I think you may have too high expectations as to a late top 10 pick. The draft was deep but if you look back at other players drafted around the same position as Horvat in other drafts you would have to say that you have done really well if you get a David Backes type player. Everyone who drafted this year in the top 10 thinks they got a future first line star. But past history shows that this will not be the case especially outside of the top 5. A number of players will end up being decent second and third liners and one or two may bust. If Horvat ends up being Backes I'd be really happy.

vanwest is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 10:20 PM
  #166
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Here is the post I was replying to, if that helps clear things up. I don't think his frame has much room to grow, as he's already quite built as opposed to someone tall and lanky who weighed 206 pounds.
As i said previously, i don't see a lot of future growth either in Horvat or Domi. So I do agree with you partially. I guess the issue is that you contemplated Domi's potential growth of half an inch and the possibility of his entrance into a group of elite or top line players, grouped by height, yet at the time, Horvat is below average in height and you can't see him growing much more. There's a lack of consistency here.

Domi is even more built than Horvat, but both are noticeably thick and developed physically. I'd say Domi is even more built than Schroeder was at the draft and the past has proven that guys of this stature tend not to have much development left in terms of height or weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Is this all about the word "decidedly"? "Decidedly" doesn't mean he's well below average. But if it's that big a deal I'll take it back. Horvat is slightly below average. Maybe that helps give a better positive connotation.
I am not sure you understand what decidedly means then. Decidedly means he is undoubtedly below average in height. Considering that more than a couple of posters disagree, there is at least some doubt. Schroeder is decidedly below average in height. JSubban is decidedly below average in height. Domi is decidedly below average in height. It's not a matter of positive or negative connotation, more a misuse of a word. Sure, it is just a word but its a bit misleading and I think that's why you've gotten the response you have here.


Last edited by thefeebster: 08-11-2013 at 11:38 PM.
thefeebster is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 10:31 PM
  #167
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 44,622
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
When we're drafting in the top-10 in supposedly the deepest draft in a decade, I do expect the player we draft to be a potential top line/top pairing. I would not be satisfied with someone like David Backes as our 1st line centre. Indeed, a high end centre is easily the greatest need for the Blues right now.

Even still, saying that we should have drafted Horvat because we won't have anyone else to play centre for our top line when Henrik starts slowing down is just absurd. No one can see that far into the future. What if Schroeder or Gaunce end up just as good? What if we land a high end free agent? What if Henrik plays well until he's 40?

Drafting for need, especially that high up in the draft, for a player who's still years away from making an impact, is just folly.
My god, you are either really underrating Backes or have way too high of expectations for a 9th overall pick. The only assured top line players are the top few in any draft.

I Horvat turns out like Backes I would be very, very happy with the Canucks selection of him.

LPH is online now  
Old
08-11-2013, 10:48 PM
  #168
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,134
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
You want to see a giant-sized forward prospect? Look at Frederik Gauthier or Michael mccArron.
or valeri nichushkin...


jigsaw99 is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 10:54 PM
  #169
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigsaw99 View Post
or valeri nichushkin...

Horvat weighs 6 lbs more. *shrugs*

Wisp is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 11:00 PM
  #170
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Then I think you may have too high expectations as to a late top 10 pick. The draft was deep but if you look back at other players drafted around the same position as Horvat in other drafts you would have to say that you have done really well if you get a David Backes type player. Everyone who drafted this year in the top 10 thinks they got a future first line star. But past history shows that this will not be the case especially outside of the top 5. A number of players will end up being decent second and third liners and one or two may bust. If Horvat ends up being Backes I'd be really happy.
Well if this draft is in fact as deep as many believe it to be you'd best compare it more towards the 2003 draft. In that draft you could argue that 8 of the 10 were high end players, and there were a ton of first line or top pairing players drafted afterwards. To say that #9 selections are not usually top line players is very flawed, because many many top line players were drafted well after that.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 11:14 PM
  #171
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Well if this draft is in fact as deep as many believe it to be you'd best compare it more towards the 2003 draft. In that draft you could argue that 8 of the 10 were high end players, and there were a ton of first line or top pairing players drafted afterwards. To say that #9 selections are not usually top line players is very flawed, because many many top line players were drafted well after that.
Comparing the two drafts is interesting. Time will tell whether 2013 was anywhere as deep as 2003, but if it was, that bodes well.

Horvat was the 5th centerman selected in 2013, while in the 2003 the 5th center selected was... drum roll... Ryan Kesler.


Last edited by Wisp: 08-11-2013 at 11:22 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
08-11-2013, 11:16 PM
  #172
LPH
[hello] :)
 
LPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Granduland
Country: United States
Posts: 44,622
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Well if this draft is in fact as deep as many believe it to be you'd best compare it more towards the 2003 draft. In that draft you could argue that 8 of the 10 were high end players, and there were a ton of first line or top pairing players drafted afterwards. To say that #9 selections are not usually top line players is very flawed, because many many top line players were drafted well after that.
There's nothing flawed about saying that most 9th overal players are top line guys, which is not to say they cannot be, but it is ridiculous to expect one to be. There are franchise players drafted in the second round, yet the overwhelming majority of second round picks never reach that level.

LPH is online now  
Old
08-12-2013, 12:35 AM
  #173
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,521
vCash: 500
Saying Nichuskin is better By watching some highlight pack on YouTube and reading a couples articles is ridiculous.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
08-12-2013, 01:08 AM
  #174
Vankiller Whale
Propaganda Minister
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,223
vCash: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
If I'm being consistent with myself I'm paying close attention to the weight as much as height. Horvat's combine numbers have him at 211 (more than the 206 I referenced earlier), which is more than Mantha and Nichushkin and only slightly below Gauthier ( 211 vs 215, http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/06/...s-and-weights/). McCarron is the only true clear cut mammoth in both categories here. All I was doing was using giant as a synonym for 'big,' so yes, giant would be an apt choice for all involved, and starts becoming literal where McCarron is concerned.

In any case, Horvat's frame is well-above average compared to his peers! He is big, which is why I grabbed onto the word 'giant' as a synonym for it! If you would like to pick a word you consider more apt, go right a head!

it is needlessly frustrating that you think this worth continuing to argue over.
First you said you think Horvat is a giant. Then you said he's on the precipice of being a giant, if he fills out his frame more. Now you admit Horvat is already very well developed for his age, but you still think he'll get bigger?

I could see calling someone like Nichushkin a giant, because he's already very tall, which gives him a big reach and makes it easier for him to protect the puck. He's lanky, so he certainly has a lot more room to fill out his frame than someone like Horvat.

Horvat is not tall. He's not particularly physical. He's well developed, but it's unlikely he can put on much more muscle mass without it impeding other aspects like his skating. He's really not a giant in any sense of the word.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Except most players fluctuate widely across their careers and it isn't at all unusual for a "70 point" player to have lower scoring years. Look at Kesler, who most would classify as a 70 point centre today, yet had just 49 points in 2011-12 and a pro-rated 63 points this year. You may put too much emphasis on scoring in defining what is a first line centre. Yes, Domi _may_ score more than Horvat in his career (though that is by no means a certainty) but he will also give up several inches and 10-20 pounds against most centres he goes against and he is a strictly one-way player right now. Reminds me a lot of a guy like Ribeiro, who has had 60+ points in 4 of the past 6 seasons, but gives you little else outside of scoring. Horvat could score 5-15 points fewer than Domi yet be a far better player overall.
Not disagreeing with any of that. All I said was that there's a big difference between a guy who consistently puts up 55 points with all those intangibles as opposed to a 70 point player that puts up all those intangibles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Callhee View Post
Drafting for current needs is definitely not the smartest way to go about drafting. Drafting based on current status of prospect pool is not unheard of though; we are lacking blue chip centre prospects in the system. Meanwhile we have Kassian and Jensen in the system on the wings.

Looking at the draft (based on central scouting, ISS): the later first round was loaded with offence-first wingers such as Klimchuk, Compher, Rychel, Carrier, and Petan (will likely convert to winger in NHL). There weren't any centre prospects at all in the latter first round anywhere near Horvat's caliber.
We also happen to have Gaunce and Schroeder at centre, and last I checked you need twice as many wingers as centremen. Of course, you might be able to move a centre to wing, but still, I don't see why centre was such a pressing need, especially when we have Gaunce who brings a very similar package.

Quote:
Speaking of Petan, why does everyone make a fuss about Domi but not Petan? They're both undersized centres with great hands and vision, what makes Domi so special? Sure, Domi's drafting report says he has a great work ethic and great vision. Petan far out-produced him, albeit on a strong team with Leipsic on his wing, but there is a huge 33 point disparity. Petan is slightly shorter and slighter of build, but how much of Domi's hype is because he's good, and how much of it is because he is Tie Domi's son? Why even put a spotlight on him? He's not the only undersized centre in the CHL that produced good numbers.
The spotlight is on Domi because he was picked very soon afterwards and the vast majority of scouting agencies felt Domi is a significantly better prospect than Petan. Of course, if you feel they have some sort of bias because he's the son of Tie Domi, that's you're prerogative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Then I think you may have too high expectations as to a late top 10 pick. The draft was deep but if you look back at other players drafted around the same position as Horvat in other drafts you would have to say that you have done really well if you get a David Backes type player. Everyone who drafted this year in the top 10 thinks they got a future first line star. But past history shows that this will not be the case especially outside of the top 5. A number of players will end up being decent second and third liners and one or two may bust. If Horvat ends up being Backes I'd be really happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by live playoff hockey View Post
My god, you are either really underrating Backes or have way too high of expectations for a 9th overall pick. The only assured top line players are the top few in any draft.

I Horvat turns out like Backes I would be very, very happy with the Canucks selection of him.
Of course if Horvat ends up like Backes I'd be ecstatic. I don't think he'll end up like Backes though, I think his top potential is Backes. It's just as possible he ends up like Ryan O'Reilly, or Dave Bolland, or anywhere in between those three.

The draft in general is always a gamble. All I'm saying is that if we're taking a gamble with a top-10 pick in a deep draft, I would want the maximum upside to be a potential franchise player.

In short, I think the difference between a Patrick Kane and David Backes to a franchise is greater than the difference between a Dave Bolland(or whatever Horvat's floor is) and a bust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
As i said previously, i don't see a lot of future growth either in Horvat or Domi. So I do agree with you partially. I guess the issue is that you contemplated Domi's potential growth of half an inch and the possibility of his entrance into a group of elite or top line players, grouped by height, yet at the time, Horvat is below average in height and you can't see him growing much more. There's a lack of consistency here.

Domi is even more built than Horvat, but both are noticeably thick and developed physically. I'd say Domi is even more built than Schroeder was at the draft and the past has proven that guys of this stature tend not to have much development left in terms of height or weight.
I wasn't referring to Horvat's height when I said I didn't see him growing anymore. I was referring to him filling out his frame, like the previous poster was saying. Horvat might very well grow another half inch. But I think he is very close to his peak physical condition, where adding much more muscle mass will only hamper his game. I don't think Domi will put on much more muscle mass either.

So to reiterate: Both Domi and Horvat might grow a half inch by the time they hit the NHL. Neither Domi or Horvat have much room to fill out their frames with muscle mass before it begins to be a detriment.

Is that consistent enough for you?


Quote:
I am not sure you understand what decidedly means then. Decidedly means he is undoubtedly below average in height. Considering that more than a couple of posters disagree, there is at least some doubt. Schroeder is decidedly below average in height. JSubban is decidedly below average in height. Domi is decidedly below average in height. It's not a matter of positive or negative connotation, more a misuse of a word. Sure, it is just a word but its a bit misleading and I think that's why you've gotten the response you have here.
I take it back then. It was a bad choice of wording that I shouldn't have used. You're right.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
08-12-2013, 01:53 AM
  #175
var
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
They're close and either would've been fine. The whole business of second guessing the Horvat pick isn't very interesting because of how small of a margin you're talking about when considering the risk/rewards of the available options - at least at this point in time. And what gets lost in many conversations about Horvat is his accelerating point production. If he's more the second half Horvat than he is the first half Horvat, that's some lights out talent. Not to mention good character guy, strong in playoffs, hard to the net, not undersized, good d. A lot of this gets called "intangibles", but really, in the nhl they're requirements. When talking about the Horvat pick, some people are using the word "safe" when they should be using the word "good".

It speaks volumes of how good this draft was that Shinkaruk was able to drop to 24. And honestly, reminding ourselves that the Canucks picked him up with their second pick isn't going to get old. It's much more the story of this draft than anything else. In fact, let's queue some pre-draft history:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...php?p=66683851
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1456847
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1442113

var 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 06:01 AM.

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.