HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mathias Brunet article on Timmins

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-05-2009, 11:47 AM
  #401
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
Why? Are fans going to run away if they don't have their French players? I know plenty of Montrealers that couldn't quit the Habs if they tried. It's like a bad habit. Nothing will change. I doubt the French Canadians could boycott the Habs if they tried.

The only thing that could happen is a lot of whining, but there will be plenty of people who line up to watch this team. Plus, there's plenty of whining now.

Finally, look at the population of Montreal. Do you realize how many people who are immigrants and Anglos live here? A giant portion of them are Habs fans. The Habs do not have a problem with fan support and they really don't have to worry about the language thing.
I've addressed that issue pages ago. It's not only the city that the Habs' represent, it's a province, it's a culture. Guys like Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur, were not only star players, they represented a nation, a way of life, the proof that a francophone in this ocean of anglophones can not only succeed, but excel.

That's why!

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 11:48 AM
  #402
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
It's a shame 'cause in some posts you make sense and then destroy it completely by being totally out of line. Nowhere, nowhere, never, do I mention that I only want Q players. Never, ever, never. I keep repeating that my top picks AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT in 03 was Getzlaf, 04 was Green, 05, I had Staal, Kopitar or Brûlé, 06 I had Berglund (Giroux was 2nd on my list), 07 Perron was there amongst others and in 08 I had Gustaffsson and Deschamps. So since Timmins is there, in none of the years I had a clear cut Q player 1st in my list. I had them later on during those drafts, but never solely 'cause of where they are from. You think you can get that? But then comes a time where you don't really know who you like the most, well I would go then for the Q.

As far as the organizations philosophy, what the heck are you talking about? Since I see way more of the Q than I see the other leagues, though I see them from time to time and most than some people, I do and admit conduct myself more than a Q scout than a head scout. So, don't you think that every regional's scout don't conduct themselves the same way? They don't try to sell their players they think would be great for their organization? And as far as not being a valid criticism, well, that's YOUR take which is just as good as mine. Not better though as much as you would really want to believe it.

As far as others going for location, well I do know teams that like Pat Burns, don't believe in having europeans as being the cake but just the icing. If that's not going for location, I don't know what is. It's not as precise as going for Q guys, but it is going for location any way. Do know that there are some scouts and head scouts that prefer to have more North American guys, isn't it by location? I do know that Detroit believes a lot in what Sweden can offer....isn't it by location? And I do believe that we have a guy here who do indeed believes in the American product for tons of reasons....isn't that by location?
You have to understand the nuance of what I'm saying. I didn't think you picked players based only on location. Obviously, you're smarter than that. But the mentality behind it is just ridiculous as I portrayed it.

As for picking based on what league they're from, it's not as simple as that. When it comes time to make a decision, scouts are not going to pick one guy over the other because of where they're from. They're going to evaluate them based on who they believe the BPA is. Sure, they might scout more from one league, but they know enough to pick the BPA. If you think there might be a subconscious bias, then it's probably true. There probably is. But that's why there is more than one scout and a final GM who is supposed to be unbiased. That's why Gainey gets credit for scouting and not just Timmins. Timmins might watch a guy and love him, but Gainey provides the unbiased final answer. It's the same with regional scouts. They have their biases, but they know to put them aside unless they have a really super player. For instance, Gare Joyce mentions in his book (great book - can't remember the exact name) how the Czech scout knew not to prop up players who weren't very good, saving his praise solely for Voracek.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 11:52 AM
  #403
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLHabsAK46 View Post
I'm just pointing how flawed a theory is when you look back and say 'well, he was a better choice' and make up excuses for why he was, when you don't point out some other junior players who failed and could've easily been the choice at that point, because they put up points.

I just pointed out people saying 'looking back', this guy was a better choice when OBVIOUSLY, none of them were the BPA.

EDIT : Hell, the BPA at 16 could've been Trevor Lewis, Chris Stewart, François Bouchard...these forwards all put up points in the CHL.
Understand. But how do you judge a head scout and the scouts if you never can "look back"? How are they judge on their performance? Sure, I do not believe in the theory that if he reaches the NHL first, he's better. Though with the new UFA rule, I don't believe you have the luxury to wait till they're 23-24 'cause chances are you can lose them 3 years after.

I still believe that as a fan, we have all the rights to analyse his work as well with the date that we have. I mean, Gainey is not going to fire Timmins 'cause of what we say. Doesn't mean we can't have opinions. Doesn't mean that Timmins can be praised for the great picks he makes, but cannot be criticized for the bad ones. What kind of job is this if you can only be congratulated and never bashed?

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 11:52 AM
  #404
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
I've addressed that issue pages ago. It's not only the city that the Habs' represent, it's a province, it's a culture. Guys like Beliveau, Richard, Lafleur, were not only star players, they represented a nation, a way of life, the proof that a francophone in this ocean of anglophones can not only succeed, but excel.

That's why!
And they don't represent this anymore anymore. The world has changed. Montreal is getting more immigrants. More Arabs. The French Canadians, as percentage of the population in Montreal, is decreasing. What the Habs represent is a romantic image that is becoming increasingly irrelevant. You're thinking about the Habs from a time when the league was mostly French. This was when Quebec was mostly French. But now you have players from Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, the US, etc. Mark Streit doesn't fit into your Habs myth, but he was just as much a Hab as anyone else. This is a league where your superstars come from Russia, not Quebec. The way of life, with people playing hockey on the streets as kids, goes further than Quebec now. It goes further than Canada even.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:02 PM
  #405
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
It's the same with regional scouts. They have their biases, but they know to put them aside unless they have a really super player. For instance, Gare Joyce mentions in his book (great book - can't remember the exact name) how the Czech scout knew not to prop up players who weren't very good, saving his praise solely for Voracek.
And we are not talking about the bad guys here. Examples: Just ask everybody who my NO DRAFTS players are for every single year. Most of them, 'cause again that's who I watch the most are from the Q. Joey Ryan was amongst my ND in his draft year, I was right then. Robert Mayer was in that list as well but I also say that as undrafted, it made total sense to invite him. And was almost glad to see him signed 'cause of the performance he gave in the dev. camp......not I'm not so sure 'cause he still looks like the ND guy I had on my list for the exact same reasons. This guy is just a model of pure inconsistency and didn't seem to improve one bit. But his career is obviously still young. And tons of others. So the bad guys are not in play here and as a Q scout, i would definately have my ND's as I have in my lists. This year, I don't have a list year but guys like Nestrasil will DEFINATELY be on it. Deslauriers might be there as well, just don't know how his potential will be in higher leagues. Labrie and Tam will be on it, don't see the upside for higher. Mind is not made yet about a couple of other guys.

So as a Q scout, would save my praise for the d-men in this league. And probably a couple of forwards like Paradis and even Gilbert who I think has a ton of untapped potential.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:18 PM
  #406
Habsterix*
@Habsterix
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
And they don't represent this anymore anymore. The world has changed. Montreal is getting more immigrants. More Arabs. The French Canadians, as percentage of the population in Montreal, is decreasing. What the Habs represent is a romantic image that is becoming increasingly irrelevant. You're thinking about the Habs from a time when the league was mostly French. This was when Quebec was mostly French. But now you have players from Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, the US, etc. Mark Streit doesn't fit into your Habs myth, but he was just as much a Hab as anyone else. This is a league where your superstars come from Russia, not Quebec. The way of life, with people playing hockey on the streets as kids, goes further than Quebec now. It goes further than Canada even.
You're kidding yourself if you truthfully think that.

Habsterix* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:27 PM
  #407
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
You're kidding yourself if you truthfully think that.
You're kidding yourself if you think the Habs are going to operate in a way so as to maintain this "myth" that doesn't work anymore. Do you see Detroit as it was back when it had Gordie Howe? No. The Leafs are also different.

Back in the day, arenas were smaller. They had organs. There was no top 40 music. There were no giant scoreboards. The world has changed, and you're kidding yourself if you think the Habs are going to operate based on a myth. Sure, the history of the Habs is awesome, but the closest you'll get to trying to reproduce it is in the standard of professionalism the Habs try to maintain. Except this is something that every winning organization strives for.

Do you really think people care about this myth? Maybe some older people do, but, as a part of the younger generation, I can tell you we don't care about any of these things. It's sad, but it's reality. People care about Kovalev. They like Kovalev. They know there's a Habs history and it's cool, but no one talks about it. Ovechkin is the best player to younger generations. Richard is undoubtedly the best Canadien, but most younger people have probably never seen him play even.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:31 PM
  #408
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Understand. But how do you judge a head scout and the scouts if you never can "look back"? How are they judge on their performance? Sure, I do not believe in the theory that if he reaches the NHL first, he's better. Though with the new UFA rule, I don't believe you have the luxury to wait till they're 23-24 'cause chances are you can lose them 3 years after.

I still believe that as a fan, we have all the rights to analyse his work as well with the date that we have. I mean, Gainey is not going to fire Timmins 'cause of what we say. Doesn't mean we can't have opinions. Doesn't mean that Timmins can be praised for the great picks he makes, but cannot be criticized for the bad ones. What kind of job is this if you can only be congratulated and never bashed?
Not arguing that point. We obviously don't believe in the same things concerning this, so I'll leave it at that.

My problem is that FSU Seminoles comes up with a theory where he just points out when it works. He forgets all about the ones that it didn't work with. Like my example, Trevor Lewis, Chris Stewart, Ty Wishart were all good CHL players that put up numbers (well, not really Wishart but he's a Dman). They were all available at 16, while Giroux was picked after ALL of them. What makes him think Giroux was the obvious one to pick, except by looking back and seeing he's the best of the bunch?

Total BS. That's what I think.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:34 PM
  #409
WeThreeKings
DJ Nikita
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,019
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterix View Post
The difference isn't big enough though. That's what we're saying... that's ignoring YOUR market. The team isn't located in Sweden, it's in Quebec! At similar skills, pick your own.
They are not similar skills.

Ask any scout around the league
"Would you rather a big, skilled center or a small, skilled winger?"
See what they say. I'll bet you 80%+ go for the center.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:38 PM
  #410
WeThreeKings
DJ Nikita
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,019
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
and that's why Giroux a proven player in the Q coming out of a good program like Gatineau was a great pick. That's why Perron was a great pick coming out of Jodoin's system. They had proven performance at a good level in the right system. They also showed good overall abilities, so it wasn't only a homer pick. Instead the Canadiens went for high school players. Tell me how that's the best player available.
How?
Let's see. They picked a fast skating powerforward, who was already PHYSICALLY ready for the NHL. Then said pick went on to **** the NHL. Go to the AHL, lead rookies in assists, come up and play and not look out of place in the NHL before being sent down. Pacioretty has proven he's a blue-chip prospect with a bunch of intangibles that Giroux or Perron don't have. Pacioretty adds a different dimension to the team. Tell me, how many small skilled players are in the NHL and how many fast skating power-forward types are in the NHL? Then tell me how many times you hear GM's say "We need small skilled players to win the play-offs" in comparison to "We need big, strong, skilled players to win in the play-offs".

Bottom line is, when you have the chance to pick someone with a unique dimension, filled with many intangibles, you take it. I don't even know why you're arguing picks that were obviously good ones? Get the **** over it. We didn't pick your pansy ass skilled players out of the Q. Deal. With.. It.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 12:56 PM
  #411
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
I only stuck to your dear american forwards


picked out of the NCAA

name, games, points

Toews 42 39
Kessel 39 51
Stastny 40 42
Stafford 36 32
Olver 41 32
Pineault 29 8
Booth 39 36
Vanek 45 62
Jessiman 34 47
Parise 39 61
Kesler 40 31
Tambellini 43 45
Eaves 14 18
McDonald 37 16
Nystrom 39 30
Higgins 27 31
Slater 37 32
Falardeau 34 14
McConell 38 26
Globke 31 22
Kobasew 43 49
Umberger 32 37
Steckel 33 35
Jackman 37 25
Cammalleri 42 61
Heatley 38 56
Kolanos 42 32
Winchester 33 18
Gionta 40 62

There were 23 players who had 1 point per game (or close to); 21 have gone on to play in the NHL
5 didn't reach that mark; 5 didn't reach the NHL


players drafted out of high school; and these were their stats in their 1st year of college or CHL

Okposo 40 40
Lewis 62 73
Nodl 40 46
Geoffrion 36 6
Skille 41 21
Oshie 44 45
Sota 41 25
Abdelkader 44 22
Fritsche 42 45
Kozek 46 13
Bertram 38 17
Gergen
Oreskovich 37 3
Paukovich 39 21
Backes 39 37

6 have come close to a point per game; 3 have gone on to the NHL
8 didn't; only Skille is kinda there


also, notice the off the mark stats of Cammaleri and Gionta, wouldn't you think those guys are interesting? Notice also that no bust has had that kinda of points in the list?

Also, it seems to me that high school projects to seem to worth the risk. Some are going on to good careers like Oshie and Backes, but I'd go with Parise late in the 1st or Cammalleri in the 2nd still any day of the week.

Do points tell the whole story? Absolutely not, but I'd take production over risks and projection any day of the week.


Last edited by Mathletic: 04-05-2009 at 01:42 PM.
Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:00 PM
  #412
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLHabsAK46 View Post
You better be able to back up what you say.

Because this is some pretty bad stuff you're pulling out there. Yeah you can point out guys like Davis or Gholston (who also happen to be extremely young), when I can point out guys that have been labelled 'workout warriors' like Urlacher and Mario Williams who turned out to be studs and franchise cornerstones.

Then I can go out and say guys like Guy Roulleau, Éric Chouinard, Simon Gamache, etc. who lit it up in juniors but couldn't make a living playing in the NHL. Or guys like Fred Gibson, David Carr, Joey Harrington, etc. who couldn't translate great college careers into the pro game.

I'm not entirely against what you're saying, since I'm a big fan of Rich McKay, who once said it's easier to make a good football player into a great football player than a great athlete into a great football player. But you can't say one mentality is better than the other. Because the only thing that matters is end result.

And I see Timmins has a great % of players making it to the NHL.
I'm not sure why you point out Urlacher because he was a monster at New Mexico, he played all positions and showed athleticism to go with his great production. The same goes for Mario Williams. The only question about Mario was his motor. Charley Casserley who was the Texans GM at the time is the typical GM to go with production and technique over workout warriors.

List of projects can go on and on from Matt Jones to Mamula, I don't recall a project actually turning out into a monster player.

Of course production isn't everything but Simon Gamache wasn't thought as a blue chip prospect, he had many flaws in his game and wasn't fast at all, I don't know why you bring him up.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:08 PM
  #413
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
I'm not sure why you point out Urlacher because he was a monster at New Mexico, he played all positions and showed athleticism to go with his great production. The same goes for Mario Williams. The only question about Mario was his motor. Charley Casserley who was the Texans GM at the time is the typical GM to go with production and technique over workout warriors.

List of projects can go on and on from Matt Jones to Mamula, I don't recall a project actually turning out into a monster player.

Of course production isn't everything but Simon Gamache wasn't thought as a blue chip prospect, he had many flaws in his game and wasn't fast at all, I don't know why you bring him up.


You kidding me? These guys were thought of as having major question marks in their games. They were considered projects or major gambles.

It's like a debate Mario Williams and Vince Young (I'd even throw in Culter) vs. Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart. The former 2 were very much questionned (and rightfully so) while the latter 2 were thought of as sure bets, with great college production and programs. While Young is nothing short of a question mark, Williams is by far the best player of that group and by a mile. Bush is nothing more than a glorified gadget player and Leinart can't break the starting lineup while being given all sorts of chances (with Green mostly).

Projects are hit or miss. But to say other draft picks closer to a 'sure bet' aren't is just plain laughable.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:09 PM
  #414
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
How?
Let's see. They picked a fast skating powerforward, who was already PHYSICALLY ready for the NHL. Then said pick went on to **** the NHL. Go to the AHL, lead rookies in assists, come up and play and not look out of place in the NHL before being sent down. Pacioretty has proven he's a blue-chip prospect with a bunch of intangibles that Giroux or Perron don't have. Pacioretty adds a different dimension to the team. Tell me, how many small skilled players are in the NHL and how many fast skating power-forward types are in the NHL? Then tell me how many times you hear GM's say "We need small skilled players to win the play-offs" in comparison to "We need big, strong, skilled players to win in the play-offs".

Bottom line is, when you have the chance to pick someone with a unique dimension, filled with many intangibles, you take it. I don't even know why you're arguing picks that were obviously good ones? Get the **** over it. We didn't pick your pansy ass skilled players out of the Q. Deal. With.. It.
First, Giroux wasn't in the same draft class as Pacioretty, so there's no point there.

Pacioretty is projected as a 3rd liner, so we're not talking Rick Nash here. You can get that type of player in the 2nd round in other drafts. Perron is already a good scorer in the NHL, not in the AHL and he doesn't play small by any means, he has 1 hit per game and plays a good game defensively coming out of Jodoin's system.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:13 PM
  #415
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLHabsAK46 View Post


You kidding me? These guys were thought of as having major question marks in their games. They were considered projects or major gambles.

It's like a debate Mario Williams and Vince Young (I'd even throw in Culter) vs. Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart. The former 2 were very much questionned (and rightfully so) while the latter 2 were thought of as sure bets, with great college production and programs. While Young is nothing short of a question mark, Williams is by far the best player of that group and by a mile. Bush is nothing more than a glorified gadget player and Leinart can't break the starting lineup while being given all sorts of chances (with Green mostly).

Projects are hit or miss. But to say other draft picks closer to a 'sure bet' aren't is just plain laughable.
What?

Stop listening to Mel Kiper man, Cutler was rated n'1 by guys who actually follow the game like Mayock. He had it all coming out of college, arm strength, could make all throws, only guys who stuck to big names went with Young. Cutler didn't have anyone around him at Vanderbilt, Leinart had a bunch of weapons and clearly wasn't a lock at the next level. You can add to your list JaMarcus Russell of you could say he has the bestest ever arm in the NCAA this and that, but where's that great production with all that talent around you?

Mayock and Casserley are typical guys for whom if you don't have production they'll say screw you right away, then they go to the tape, what the tape says is the answer to most questions, then what kind of attitude and at last in what kind of shape is the guy. Production is the first barrier on their list.


Last edited by Mathletic: 04-05-2009 at 01:33 PM.
Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:16 PM
  #416
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
First, Giroux wasn't in the same draft class as Pacioretty, so there's no point there.

Pacioretty is projected as a 3rd liner, so we're not talking Rick Nash here. You can get that type of player in the 2nd round in other drafts. Perron is already a good scorer in the NHL, not in the AHL and he doesn't play small by any means, he has 1 hit per game and plays a good game defensively coming out of Jodoin's system.
Pacioretty is not projected as a 3rd liner.
Stop talking out of your ass.

Also, it's NOT A RACE TO THE NHL. It's not a question of who is fastest to the NHL but who is the best in the end.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:18 PM
  #417
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,099
vCash: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
This was when Quebec was mostly French.
Do you ever leave Montreal?

Quebec IS mostly french! You'll see immigrants in any sizable numbers in Montreal and Quebec city. Anglophones only in Montreal and some parts near Ontario.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:21 PM
  #418
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
Pacioretty is not projected as a 3rd liner.
Stop talking out of your ass.

Also, it's NOT A RACE TO THE NHL. It's not a question of who is fastest to the NHL but who is the best in the end.
go back in the thread and I don't know which mod who talks to ISS scouts said that he's a projected 3rd liner

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:23 PM
  #419
VanNistelrooy
Registered User
 
VanNistelrooy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Habs Land
Posts: 2,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
This was when Quebec was mostly French.

VanNistelrooy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:29 PM
  #420
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLHabsAK46 View Post
Not arguing that point. We obviously don't believe in the same things concerning this, so I'll leave it at that.

My problem is that FSU Seminoles comes up with a theory where he just points out when it works. He forgets all about the ones that it didn't work with. Like my example, Trevor Lewis, Chris Stewart, Ty Wishart were all good CHL players that put up numbers (well, not really Wishart but he's a Dman). They were all available at 16, while Giroux was picked after ALL of them. What makes him think Giroux was the obvious one to pick, except by looking back and seeing he's the best of the bunch?

Total BS. That's what I think.
it goes back to the start of the thread, quebec players are discriminated against, are underscouted and undervalued. Giroux had a great year having close to 2 points per game and showed great abilities. The Canadiens also say that at equal skills they'll go with a player from Quebec.

Also, the production in the Q is actually worth something, unlike what people suggest. No other player than Giroux had that kind of production that year. He also played in a good system of hockey in Gatineau, so it's not like his stats were inflated by playing on a stacked team that didn't care for defense.

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:35 PM
  #421
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
Do you ever leave Montreal?

Quebec IS mostly french! You'll see immigrants in any sizable numbers in Montreal and Quebec city. Anglophones only in Montreal and some parts near Ontario.
I leave Montreal but I don't stay in Quebec
What you say is true in that Quebec is predominantly Francophone, but there are two things to consider. There are not so many French Canadians as before. Now there are more French Arabs and French people who have ethnic origins. So, in terms of language, it might be true that many people speak French, but they're not all ethnically French Canadian.

Also, I think that the French Canadian population as a percentage of the overall population will keep getting smaller, anyways. More and more immigrants are moving here every year, and Quebec has one of the lowest birth rates in North America. You can see where this trend is going.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:37 PM
  #422
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanNistelrooy View Post
It was a bad phrase, but get over it. You get the idea. Maybe I should've been more clear and said French-Canadian. In an area that has a low birth rate compared to the rest of North America and keeps accepting immigrants, it's not that hard to see why you would say it's not as French-Canadian as it used to be.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:42 PM
  #423
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
What?

Stop listening to Mel Kiper man, Cutler was rated n'1 by guys who actually follow the game like Mayock. He had it all coming out of college, arm strength, could make all throws, only guys who stuck to big names went with Young. Cutler didn't have anyone around him at Vanderbilt, Leinart had a bunch of weapons and clearly wasn't a lock at the next level. You can add to your list JaMarcus Russell of you could say he has the bestest ever arm in the NCAA this and that, but where's that great production with all that talent around you?

Mayock and Casserley are typical guys for whom if you don't have production they'll say screw you right away, then they go to the tape, what the tape says is the answer to most questions, then what kind of attitude and at last in what kind of shape is the guy. Production is the first barrier on their list.
I actually listen to Mayock a lot since he's the best, but it's only one opinion. I gather just about every possible opinion on prospects for the NFL draft (I'm an NFL draft nut).

And you have not answered the rest.

Not to mention the fact Mayock was extremely high on 'project' guys like Gholston who miserably failed, or Calais Campbell and Devin Thomas, while misreably whiffing on some other guys like Bush, Maroney, Davis and Jason Allen (he had him rated over Donte Whitner).

This is all extremely hard to predict. Production is no garantee, EVEN if you draft the guy out of college with 4 years of starting.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:42 PM
  #424
Mathletic
Registered User
 
Mathletic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St-Augustin, Québec
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonacoBlue View Post
I leave Montreal but I don't stay in Quebec
What you say is true in that Quebec is predominantly Francophone, but there are two things to consider. There are not so many French Canadians as before. Now there are more French Arabs and French people who have ethnic origins. So, in terms of language, it might be true that many people speak French, but they're not all ethnically French Canadian.

Also, I think that the French Canadian population as a percentage of the overall population will keep getting smaller, anyways. More and more immigrants are moving here every year, and Quebec has one of the lowest birth rates in North America. You can see where this trend is going.
stats

Mathletic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-05-2009, 01:44 PM
  #425
MonacoBlue
 
MonacoBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSU Seminoles View Post
stats


I realized the irony of that, but it's a little bit different when you're talking about immigration. It's pretty easy to determine if somebody is a French Canadian or not. Of course, the whole "mixed race" thing does throw that off even.

MonacoBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:05 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.