HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Wild/Bos

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-15-2010, 11:04 PM
  #26
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Johansen is not a typo. I left him there because he's the only prospect of the three mentioned that was worth being in the mix.

Granlund is a better prospect because he's proven more. Simple as that. Granlund has been playing against men and has been a force. Scouts agree. I put a lot of stock into Bob McKenzie's contacts. Grandlund was clearly a better prospect, according to scouts, than Skinner just two months ago. Need more?


It doesn't matter if they don't fall to #9. The point is that they may fall to #9. Nino, for example, probably won't go top-5. That leaves about 3 teams that could grab him ahead of us. 3 isn't many. Trades, needs, etc. Anything can happen.

Tarasenko at #9 is fine. #9 overalls do not have a high success rate of being a top player, no matter how good they may seem to be right now. If you go for BPA, Tarasenko could very well be BPA. The Wild needs to take a darn risk for a change.


If Hall/Seguin and the big three defensemen are gone like I expect, my order is Connolly, Tarasenko, Niederreiter, Johansen, Granlund, Burmistrov, and Skinner.
- Wait...so Johansen is WORTH being mentioned in the 3 worst prospects at 9??? Can you really be worth the worst?

- I agree. Thats why I see Granlund be picked above us. So I eliminated him from my choices

- 3 is quite alot when u considered who's left. Nino, Connolly, Tarasenko, Granlund, Forbort, Etem, Skinner, Bjugstad. Like you criticized me for, the last 3 are the worst, so that leaves 5 guys for 3 picks. I'm quite confident Nino is gone so I don't even think thats a viable option for us

- #9 overall compared to what draft? #9 overall in the 2003 draft has a high success rate. #9 overall in the 1999 draft has a low success rate. My point is, every draft is different, you can't just look at the number overall. This draft is supposed to be deep of talent so I rather choose a safer pick than a Russian.

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2010, 11:57 PM
  #27
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
- Nino won't last till 9.
- I doubt Connolly will last till 9 either.
- I have the same opinion on Granlund. I have him being taken at #8.
- Tarasenko is no doubt talented but Russian factors does play in and I'll be more comfortable drafting a talented forward from somewhere else
- And no, the worst we could get at #9 would be Eero Elo...

- Skinner is a offensive forward who isn't great skater but he has some nice offensive skills that can't be ignore.

- Johansen is a fast riser, solid forward. Has evasive skating, even if not overly fast. Can beat defenders 1-on-1. But more of a playmaking forward, but at this point, any offensive forward will do

- Etem has everything. Offense, speed, character, not afraid etc. Has an awkward skating style but has offense and speed nonetheless.

- Bjugstad has a interesting package of shot, skill, size, strength, speed and character. While I prefer Etem, Bjugstad does sound interesting.

So I don't understand why you would say they are the three worst prospects at 9. They all offer different packages, but all intriguing ones. In the 2010 draft, 9-30 are so close, it'll be interesting to see what actually happens of draft day.
No offense Circular but you sure have a ton of guys going in the top 8 picks Keep in mind there will likely be a minimum of 3 and possibly more defensemen being taken in the top 8 and then of course there is Seguin and Hall. I have read numerous mocks from "draft experts" and many seem to believe Gudbrandson, Gormley, Fowler and yes even Forbert will be gone in the top 8 picks.

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 01:53 AM
  #28
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
If you re-read your post, you'll see that you have Johansen listed twice. That is why I referred to the typo...

Secondly, it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Both Skinner and Granlund appear in front and behind each other on many scouting reports, forums, quotes from scouts, etc. Mckenzie makes his list based on all of those combined so if he has Granlund higher, fine.
And to say he's proven more than Skinner means he should go 1 overall. He played against men. Taylor Hall did not. Therefore, based on your logic, that puts Granlund first.

Two months ago, the CHL playoffs weren't finished, Skinner had not yet completed his tear of 20 goals in the playoffs and the final rankings had not yet been released.

Granlund has been stated to have the best playmaking ability as well as top hockey IQ. Skinner has said to be one of the best goal scorers who never stops working. They both lack size and speed. It's really a toss up on potential...do you want a playmaking center or a goalscorer?
I know I had Johansen listed twice. That was my plan. It just turned out to confuse people though, sorry.

Granlund and Skinner aren't that close in the current TSN rankings. for example, Skinner wasn't listed on any scouts top-10. Doesn't mean he won't be near the top-10 at the draft, it just means he was not top-10 material yet. Meanwhile Granlund was an HM for the top-10. And don't get started on the logic junk. 1 + 2 =/= 4.

Two months ago Skinner's tear was mostly complete. Will he move up in the pre-draft rankings? Maybe, but it won't be because he's suddenly more skilled. That's key. I want the better player, period. At #9 I don't think it will be either of them, but I'll put my money on Granlund if I had to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory View Post
- Wait...so Johansen is WORTH being mentioned in the 3 worst prospects at 9??? Can you really be worth the worst?

- #9 overall compared to what draft? #9 overall in the 2003 draft has a high success rate. #9 overall in the 1999 draft has a low success rate. My point is, every draft is different, you can't just look at the number overall. This draft is supposed to be deep of talent so I rather choose a safer pick than a Russian.
I said "like the 3 worst prospects", not "3 worst prospects". There's a difference. He's not worth the worst. I have him right around #9, where most do.

#9 in any draft is so-so. But even that so-so is better than whatever pick we would trade down to. That's the point I'm after.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 03:16 AM
  #29
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
I know I had Johansen listed twice. That was my plan. It just turned out to confuse people though, sorry.

Granlund and Skinner aren't that close in the current TSN rankings. for example, Skinner wasn't listed on any scouts top-10. Doesn't mean he won't be near the top-10 at the draft, it just means he was not top-10 material yet. Meanwhile Granlund was an HM for the top-10. And don't get started on the logic junk. 1 + 2 =/= 4.

Two months ago Skinner's tear was mostly complete. Will he move up in the pre-draft rankings? Maybe, but it won't be because he's suddenly more skilled. That's key. I want the better player, period. At #9 I don't think it will be either of them, but I'll put my money on Granlund if I had to.
Well, that was your support for your argument that Granlund>Skinner due to Granlund "proving more" by playing in the Finnish Men's League. As I pointed out, that deductive reasoning would mean that Granlund>everyone not playing in that same league.

TSN is one ranking. That is fine if you feel that there is a huge gap between Granlund and Skinner. But, that is not what the majority of the scouting world feels, based on many rankings.

Again, no problem that you like Granlund more than Skinner. I would be pleased with either. But the general census is that they could both be worthy of our pick at #9, with ranges I've seen from top 10-20.

Jbcraig1883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 04:09 AM
  #30
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NM Squirts View Post
No offense Circular but you sure have a ton of guys going in the top 8 picks Keep in mind there will likely be a minimum of 3 and possibly more defensemen being taken in the top 8 and then of course there is Seguin and Hall. I have read numerous mocks from "draft experts" and many seem to believe Gudbrandson, Gormley, Fowler and yes even Forbert will be gone in the top 8 picks.
Well for me, these are my top 7:
Hall
Seguin
Gormley
Fowler
Gudbranson
Nino
Connolly

The rest are a maybe. I'm quite confident all 7 of those guys will be gone, except maybe Connolly, if doctors don't like what they see of course.

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 08:08 AM
  #31
HamiltonOHL
BulldogsFan00
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,816
vCash: 500
As long as we dont take a college player with our 1st pick i would be happy

HamiltonOHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2010, 06:20 PM
  #32
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
Well, that was your support for your argument that Granlund>Skinner due to Granlund "proving more" by playing in the Finnish Men's League. As I pointed out, that deductive reasoning would mean that Granlund>everyone not playing in that same league.
That's not deductive reasoning. That's a fallacy.

State of Hockey 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 07:33 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.