IMO the only forwards clearly ahead of Granlund were Hall, Seguin, Nino, and Connolly. I'm still not sure what happened with Fowler, but it's not like he dropped one or two spots, he slide halfway down the first round...which means that it wasn't just the Wild which had him low on the list, but several other teams. But it'd be tough to argue Granlund wasn't BPA.
I'm sure there'd be some variance between BPA lists, but given who was available I don't think any reasonable person can slam the Granlund pick. By the time of the draft I thought he'd go before Skinner, Burmistrov and possibly Johansen. Shows what I know.
Wow, I advocate BPA and get slammed. Figures. UMD Bob, you got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Rico
.
My recommendation is to step away from Internet forums. It's kinda important to know what people are saying before you reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi
I'm confused by the second part of your rant.
I'm tired of seeing so many Wild fans say we need a "goal scorer" or some other player type. And they even do this with prospects, players that not only may not make the NHL, but may be a wildly different type of player if they do. They can even be playing a different position! (Burns) You know what scores goals? The right talent. And that can be physical or mental. It takes players working as a team to score goals. And scoring them requires all type of skills, like skating, passing, shooting, positioning, contact, anticipation, etc. So when I see someone saying we should have drafted a "goal scorer" or "playmaker" when he's 18 and playing juniors, it flips my switch. It's impossible to predict how a player fits in. They're not LEGO blocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CircularTheory
#1 - When did Leddy play against adults? Please, enlighten us with your knowledge
#2 - How does picking the smartest playmaker prospect in the draft mean "not winning"...??
You're completely missing the point. The whole situation in drafting Leddy looks like a mistake, right? Want to do that again? That's the point. Draft BPA instead. And that may have indeed been Granlund. He wasn't on my personal BPA list when #9 came up, but he was top-4 and a worthy selection.
I'm tired of seeing so many Wild fans say we need a "goal scorer" or some other player type. And they even do this with prospects, players that not only may not make the NHL, but may be a wildly different type of player if they do. They can even be playing a different position! (Burns) You know what scores goals? The right talent. And that can be physical or mental. It takes players working as a team to score goals. And scoring them requires all type of skills, like skating, passing, shooting, positioning, contact, anticipation, etc. So when I see someone saying we should have drafted a "goal scorer" or "playmaker" when he's 18 and playing juniors, it flips my switch. It's impossible to predict how a player fits in. They're not LEGO blocks.
I'm tired of seeing so many Wild fans say we need a "goal scorer" or some other player type. And they even do this with prospects, players that not only may not make the NHL, but may be a wildly different type of player if they do. They can even be playing a different position! (Burns) You know what scores goals? The right talent. And that can be physical or mental. It takes players working as a team to score goals. And scoring them requires all type of skills, like skating, passing, shooting, positioning, contact, anticipation, etc. So when I see someone saying we should have drafted a "goal scorer" or "playmaker" when he's 18 and playing juniors, it flips my switch. It's impossible to predict how a player fits in. They're not LEGO blocks.
The problem with your argument is that, in the NHL, to be a goal scorer, it does take a certain kind of player who is a "shoot-first" kind of player.
Anybody who plays hockey knows this. A lot of times, they aren't even the most talented guys on your team. Rather, they are guys with good shots to look at the net first, rather than to another player.
[QUOTE=State of Hockey;27143503]
My recommendation is to step away from Internet forums. It's kinda important to know what people are saying before you reply. QUOTE]
No, I'm just the only one who apparently remembers when you were the biggest Wild homer in the history of HF. Then DR is canned, and you suddenly start acting like somebody stole your wife. Go find something that you enjoy, because it sure ain't being a fan of the Minnesota Wild.
To Everyone- Do not post any messages that harass, insult (name calling), belittle, threaten or mock other members. Do not personally attack posters. If you are going to debate someone, debate the opinion not the person. We're usually good with this but keep this is mind.
__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.
"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
The problem with your argument is that, in the NHL, to be a goal scorer, it does take a certain kind of player who is a "shoot-first" kind of player.
Anybody who plays hockey knows this. A lot of times, they aren't even the most talented guys on your team. Rather, they are guys with good shots to look at the net first, rather than to another player.
No, that's not the only thing it takes to be a "goal scorer". Look at Marian Gaborik. He's a "shoot-first" player. Is that why he scores goals? No, it's because he's got elite skating, shooting, passing, stick-handling, anticipation, etc. skills. Only then does his mentality help him score more goals. It doesn't matter one bit if you're a "shoot-first" guy but don't have the physical or mental ability to put the puck in the net. The NHL backs this up. Rarely are top scorers not one of the overall most talented players on the team. Put talent on a team, and, if the fit is right, somebody will score goals. In the end it doesn't matter who does it. It only matters that it happens.
No, that's not the only thing it takes to be a "goal scorer". Look at Marian Gaborik. He's a "shoot-first" player. Is that why he scores goals? No, it's because he's got elite skating, shooting, passing, stick-handling, anticipation, etc. skills. Only then does his mentality help him score more goals. It doesn't matter one bit if you're a "shoot-first" guy but don't have the physical or mental ability to put the puck in the net. The NHL backs this up. Rarely are top scorers not one of the overall most talented players on the team. Put talent on a team, and, if the fit is right, somebody will score goals. In the end it doesn't matter who does it. It only matters that it happens.
Nobody said it was the only thing.
My example of your adult team with goal scorer who is not the most talent was to point out a situation where you recognize that some players want to score, and some players don't.
So basically what you're saying is that you would rather have pulled another Leddy, this time with #9 overall. No thanks.
And I'm so sick of this simplistic "goal scorer"/"playmaker" type of prospects/players. It's as if these guys were LEGOs and could be snapped together perfectly in a team right from the start. Instead we should be hoping they simply become good NHL players! Only then should we care about how it all fuses together. I don't give a rip about what "type" of player they are. The only type I want is "winner".
I can think of lots of guys who were apart of winning teams that I honestly do not want on the Wild. Kirk Maltby has won a bunch of Stanley Cups, because he's a "winner" do we pick him up? I want the Wild to win, but a big reason they don't is because they don't score a lot of goals meaning your goaltender has to be damn near perfect to have a chance. Sorry, but that doesn't give you a lot of margin for error. As others have stated, you have to be willing and assertive enough to put shots on goal often to do so. So I was hoping the team was going to draft a shooter. The Wild have plenty of playmaking type of players, at some point they need someone to pass to that is willing to pull the trigger. Look at Latendresse, why was he such a boost to the Wild's offense? HE WAS WILLING TO SHOOT THE PUCK WHENEVER HE HAD A CHANCE TO! The result was the team's scoring improved, and I don't even want to think what Havlat's final totals would've been had we not traded for Latendresse. Havlat was too passive; he could score more but he doesn't shoot nearly enough. Bouchard (when he was healthy) was the same way. He could be so much more if he'd just shoot but that just isn't his mentality. So if you're going to draft to fill holes in your organization you need to start taking a few of the selfish, take a shot whenever they can types of players.
Need another example. Look at the Wild's history with the minor league call up. When that player comes up and takes his chances to shoot the puck he typically does well whether it was Robbie Earl or Krys Kolanos. They were able to give the 4th line a small level of threat offensively, and the shots they put on goal held back the other team's lines a bit from just going on the attack when they were on the ice. When Kolanos and Earl stopped shooting they were far less effective and usually ended up being sent back down. You have to have finishers if you're playmakers are going to be effective because if they pass the puck to guys who don't want to shoot their puck distribution doesn't amount to much.
Interesting you make a Lego's analogy, and I'll modify it and say its more like Tetris. You need shapes of all kinds in order to construct stable consistent lines. When the game starts giving you 3 or 4 of a kind of one type of piece (i.e. a playmaker) you start to have problems because you quickly run out of places to put them with the goal of constructing contiguous lines. You can't have all goal scorers you need a blend. Yet right now the Wild have virtually no pure goal scorers so the team could use them and thus is why many of us were hoping the team would've selected a few more natural finishers. The fact we passed on Teemu Pulkkinen really surprises me. A natural finisher who is known to have good chemistry with our top pick. As I said before I'm happy with our draft since we focused on forwards and I like the guys we picked overall.
