HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Chris Kreider new top prospect for New York Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-21-2010, 04:49 AM
  #176
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
The problem seems to be that the people on your side of this debate are so steadfastly trying to talk about his UNDEVELOPED hockey IQ that you are ignoring the fact that

WE SAID THIS ALREADY!!!!

His IQ is UNDEVELOPED of course it is compared to all stars like heatley, iginla, and elite scorers like Semin.

Do you guys just not read? I have said and so have others several times his IQ is undeveloped but he DID SHOW HE CAN DEVELOP IT.

Nobody is even guaranteeing that he will develop it all we have said is he showed he has the potential to do so. Guys seriously if you are going to respond can you read the posts.
Hence why I previously said:
Quote:
we are talking about apples and oranges here to a extent thats not even funny.
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=153

I mean, with Cherepanov for example we pointed out that he had some mentality issues. He was a prodigy, but also sort of a enigma. Could suddenly stop playing and skate slowly to the bench because he didn't get a pass or something like that.

I don't get whats so horrible about pointing out what Kreiders flaw is?

I mean, had he been a 4th round pick, I wouldn't have said a thing. People, and I, would have been blown away by his strengths and taken his weakness as something that had to be there because he was drafted so late.

Someone above used Kreids being accepted at Harvard as evidence of him having high hocey IQ. There are what 20 000 hockeyplayers in the world the age of Kreider. Of them Kreiders hockey IQ probably isn't top 50 or something like that. What do a player need to have to have high hockey-IQ in a 1st round in a NHL draft?

Some make it out like I am calling him a idiot because he doesn't have high hockey-IQ.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:10 AM
  #177
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Some make it out like I am calling him a idiot because he doesn't have high hockey-IQ.
No, the problem is that you keep acting as though hockey IQ is something that can't be improved. You make no concession for the fact that he came from a high school prep league where he didn't need to learn the game, or the huge strides he made last season in learning defensive play and play away from the puck. This is Kreider's first real opportunity to learn the game, and by all accounts, he's done very well picking it up.

I'm sure Leslie spends a lot more time watching Kreider than you or I do. She must have had a good reason then for writing this:

http://hfrangersblog.com/

Quote:
But Kreider’s potential is on another level. His speed, hands, hockey IQ, and work ethic are really something special.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:13 AM
  #178
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,172
vCash: 500
Speaking of learning the game--maybe the good thing about Kreider going to BC instead of the QMJHL is that Jerry York was going to start him out as a freshman on the lower lines and work on the fundamentals. Probably if he'd gone to the Q--it would have been 'go get 'em' and be thrown to the wolves. After all he's a highly touted 1st round pick. I think Chris needed the instruction--I also would say he responded very well. Some might be disappointed in the overall numbers but he definitely didn't look out of place at the WJC's and his second half at BC was a lot more productive than his first half.

I don't know about these ratings that people put so much thought into--but I wonder what the Penguins supporter who more or less started all this hullabaloo think Kreider's rating should be? 6.5B? 7.5C? Does he think his own Tangradi who is an 8.0B over on his board a better prospect?--which I certainly would not agree with though keeping in mind that if Tangradi turns out to be a top 6 forward like we would expect he more than likely gets to play with either Crosby or Malkin a lot. These ratings for how anyone wants to look at them are very subjective. In any case it's not just improved numbers that we should look for in Kreider's second season at BC but better all around play. I think York is a really good coach for that.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:33 AM
  #179
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
How's Scott Gomez' "hockey sense"?

I don't know - I think most of the users on this forum are relying on other people's opinions of Kreider and speaking as if they've actually talked to the guy or seen him play dozens of times.
Bingo, Jed's a millionare

These posters are repeating like trained brainless parrots what they read by someone who posted something they read, posted by another brainles parrot

The least of his worries is his IQ, on and off the ice. Went to Phillips Andover Acaedemy and was an honor student there. Was offered to Harvard and had an SAT score of over 2000. I wouldnt worry about his ability to "get" the game.

The only issue was he never had to. When the scouts watched him last year in Beantown Classic, they wanted him to be more physical and make guys on the ice better. He was a hard 2/2+,.

The reason why he went as late as he did because he didnt do as many interviews and the ones he did, he told them under no circumstances was he going major junior and was planning on going to BC for at least 2 years +. Many teams backed away immediatly as they want you to go to London or Kitchner and work on your IQ, the wrong one.
Kids come out of Hockey East, a league known for running around, with a year or 2 needed to get them to fit into a system.

To say he will be a third liner is laughable.

I wonder why as an 18 year old he was the only player in college hockey(Stepan included) who was asked to play with the NHL /Pro guys in Europe this summer for team USA. No Hobey Baker finalists, no 22 or 23 year olds but an 18 year old future 3rd liner, who will make tons of mistakes and who has a low hockey IQ

Damn, those NHL GM's are stupid. They need to listen to you more

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:39 AM
  #180
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Underdeveloped hockey IQ = low hockey IQ.

And I mean, a underdeveloped hockey IQ don't in anyway or form whatsoever guarantee a high hockey IQ. Thats like saying that a soft player will become a tough player just because he haven't been beaten up enough coming out of a soft euro league or something.

Also, many players coming out of lower-leves have higher hockey IQ because of it. MZA is a example of that, and there are plenty of others.

Kreider just suffers from the Daigle doom, he have played at a low level were he were able to pwn everyone with speed and strength and haven't developed his hockey IQ. Thats only negative. He will get no handicap for it, ever.

Besides that Kreider is a machine. He have tremendous speed. He is strong on his skates. He seems to have good attitude. He have good hands.

But again, his hockey-IQ could keep him out of a top 6 position in the NHL. Or he could catch up. But any talk about his hockey-IQ being just fine is nothing but tremendous BS! Compared to the avg prospect with top 6 potential Kreider is pretty clueless on the ice, he is just able to play by the schoolbook.


What examples of a low IQ do you refer to? Some blog you read on a website of someone who, like you, never saw him play.

Go watch the films of the WJC and show me one example on film where he has a low IQ. To the contrary, BC put him on a line with Atkinson and Hayes because you have to be smart to play off of them. Atkinson is 100 miles an hour and uses positional play for faceoffs only. You have to read him and react to his energy, which Kreider did very well.

You couldn't give an example if your life depended on it.

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:45 AM
  #181
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Chris Kreider on the other hand was playing in college as one of the fastest players in a league where a standout D-man like his team-mate Carl Sneep won't make our AHL team.


Carl Sneep wouldntmake your AHL team? Thats why the Rangers suck every year. Pittsburgh loves him and needless to say, Pitt is doing slightly better on picking talent, developing taklent and more importantly, WINNING

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 08:50 AM
  #182
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Speaking of learning the game--maybe the good thing about Kreider going to BC instead of the QMJHL is that Jerry York was going to start him out as a freshman on the lower lines and work on the fundamentals. Probably if he'd gone to the Q--it would have been 'go get 'em' and be thrown to the wolves. After all he's a highly touted 1st round pick. I think Chris needed the instruction--I also would say he responded very well. Some might be disappointed in the overall numbers but he definitely didn't look out of place at the WJC's and his second half at BC was a lot more productive than his first half.

I don't know about these ratings that people put so much thought into--but I wonder what the Penguins supporter who more or less started all this hullabaloo think Kreider's rating should be? 6.5B? 7.5C? Does he think his own Tangradi who is an 8.0B over on his board a better prospect?--which I certainly would not agree with though keeping in mind that if Tangradi turns out to be a top 6 forward like we would expect he more than likely gets to play with either Crosby or Malkin a lot. These ratings for how anyone wants to look at them are very subjective. In any case it's not just improved numbers that we should look for in Kreider's second season at BC but better all around play. I think York is a really good coach for that.
Have talked to their player of dev about him on several occasions, his son skated with Kreider in his group all summer. It is safe to say he feels these posters are clueless and would kill to have him at their camps and in their system

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 09:25 AM
  #183
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan212 View Post
Have talked to their player of dev about him on several occasions, his son skated with Kreider in his group all summer. It is safe to say he feels these posters are clueless and would kill to have him at their camps and in their system
There are some questions just how far he's going to fulfill his potential but physically he's a beast. Is he going to be Patrick Kane or Zach Parise?--I wouldn't think so but they're not beasts either. I think there's a chance that Kreider becomes an elite player--it might not be a huge chance but it's better than most other guys in his draft year. More likely to be a legit 1st liner--at worst a very good 2nd liner.

Some of the comparisons I've read here--for instance to Hugh Jessiman, Rico Fata are laughable. Jessiman had a nice stride but overall was not that good a skater--awkward and not strong enough on his skates in close combat battles. Fata had great speed but it was all straight line speed. He couldn't handle the puck for sh-t. Kreider is not just amazingly fast but strong on his pins and a beautiful skater in just about every respect. Seeing him take that run before accepting the pass that he turned into a breakaway goal in the Beanpot should be enough to prove that to anybody. The d-man and goalie on the play weren't any slouches either. Both very good players. And he's a big guy. And the guy saying that's he's not going to play at 230 lbs. or so when he's already around 220 at age 19--I just don't what he's smoking.

I do think coaching is going to make a great deal of difference of how far he's going to go to reach his potential--maybe moreso than most prospects. At least in the next two-three years it's going to be critical to his development. The college route for him was definitely the best IMO.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 09:42 AM
  #184
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
exactly

Every GM would love to have this problem

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 11:18 AM
  #185
msv957
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,057
vCash: 500
Man... all these back and forth debates will go away once Kreider dominates college (Hobey Baker?) and the WJC next year...

Not sure where it was posted but someone mentioned Kreider is a mix of Keith Tkachuk (sp?) and Pavel Bure..... Whoa!..... If so... just let him play and all the debates will end quickly.....

msv957 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 11:32 AM
  #186
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
And he's a big guy. And the guy saying that's he's not going to play at 230 lbs. or so when he's already around 220 at age 19--I just don't what he's smoking.
I do think that 6'2, 230 seems a bit heavy. And different people mature physically at different times. Kreider may be pretty much as strong as he needs or wants to be at this point, it's kind of hard to say.

Just remember that there is absolutely a point where the extra muscle weight doesn't translate into being faster or necessarily more athletic. 220 might be the perfect weight for him

I also think the hockey IQ argument is kind of silly, at least because there are different types of hockey IQ in my opinion. Some guys are great at holding the puck and seeing all of the ice, anticipating where their teammates are going, etc (I see Stepan as one of those guys), where others are good at getting open, creating space for themselves, finding rebounds, etc (which is more what I see Kreider doing).

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 11:49 AM
  #187
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I do think that 6'2, 230 seems a bit heavy. And different people mature physically at different times. Kreider may be pretty much as strong as he needs or wants to be at this point, it's kind of hard to say.

Just remember that there is absolutely a point where the extra muscle weight doesn't translate into being faster or necessarily more athletic. 220 might be the perfect weight for him

I also think the hockey IQ argument is kind of silly, at least because there are different types of hockey IQ in my opinion. Some guys are great at holding the puck and seeing all of the ice, anticipating where their teammates are going, etc (I see Stepan as one of those guys), where others are good at getting open, creating space for themselves, finding rebounds, etc (which is more what I see Kreider doing).
Exactly, who was better? Oates or Hull?? Neely or Oates?

He will get to 230+/- because he will still widen out as he gets older. Almost impossible to find a player not weigh more at 26 or 27 vs 18.

He will alos be 6'3", which he is very close to if not already

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 11:55 AM
  #188
rangersfan212
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Island
Country: United States
Posts: 159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by msv957 View Post
Man... all these back and forth debates will go away once Kreider dominates college (Hobey Baker?) and the WJC next year...

Not sure where it was posted but someone mentioned Kreider is a mix of Keith Tkachuk (sp?) and Pavel Bure..... Whoa!..... If so... just let him play and all the debates will end quickly.....
Close to impossible to win Hobey with Atkinson and Gustafson out there. Especially when Atkinson is on his line and already led the country in goals last year.

rangersfan212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 11:57 AM
  #189
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I do think that 6'2, 230 seems a bit heavy. And different people mature physically at different times. Kreider may be pretty much as strong as he needs or wants to be at this point, it's kind of hard to say.

Just remember that there is absolutely a point where the extra muscle weight doesn't translate into being faster or necessarily more athletic. 220 might be the perfect weight for him

I also think the hockey IQ argument is kind of silly, at least because there are different types of hockey IQ in my opinion. Some guys are great at holding the puck and seeing all of the ice, anticipating where their teammates are going, etc (I see Stepan as one of those guys), where others are good at getting open, creating space for themselves, finding rebounds, etc (which is more what I see Kreider doing).
I think ultimately how Chris does as an NHL player is going to depend a lot on his chemistry with other players--particularly his linemates. In a sense Stepan is the type of player who might be tailor made for him. A player like MDZ as well who has vision and pinpoint accuracy in his passing and doesn't need a lot of time to make a play. It's not just about Kreider making the most of his size and speed--he'll have to have teammates that can use it to advantage too.

I get the point about the weight but you almost have to think there's no way he's going to maintain 220 as he gets older. I don't know if it's going to effect his speed much either. He is just naturally gifted in that area.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 12:57 PM
  #190
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
What kind of evidence?
While college can develop really nice hockey players, I have very little respect for the level of quality compared to other development leagues, as very few of the best prospects go the college way.
The big thing for most young players compared to playing CHL for instance is that they play older guys and thus obviously have some challenges strength wise. This is good for a guy like Nathan Gerbe, as that is always what is going to hold him back.
Kreider doesn't have that issue at all, as he can hold his own when it comes to strength and he consistently beats players for sheer pace. That means that he is in a tremendous position to be a productive player in college..
This is fair if that's how you feel watching him than that's where he is now iyo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
However, unless he does beat his man one on one, is sent free on a breakaway or goes to the net to muck it up, he was a non-factor on BC when it comes to offense. He doesn't have the awareness to make plays for others with the puck on his stick, which you would agree to if you had been watching him. He can cycle the puck down low because he has those unique gifts, but it is giveaway time when he is coming out of the corners with it. That's just not what you expect in a supposedly elite prospect.
.
I have agreed to this already. Read. He is underdeveloped. He picked up a lot and it lends credence to the theory that he could continue to develop. The ceiling is unpredictable until we have another year or two of play. I have said this. Keep beating that dead horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Well, you're the one asking for 'evidence' and concrete examples, and when you then offer a complete fallacy to support your point, then what do you expect? Its not as if you have the woollen gloves on in your counters .
As for having more space in the SEL and the NA game being more physical... well certainly. That's the x-factor for most any youngster coming over and I'd never make a hash of that. But that wasn't your argument.
.
Offered a fallacy? OK you really don't know how to read. Again I ASKED A QUESTION. If you took a question as a sarcastic comment that's not my fault but now I clearly explained last time I was asking a question NOT supplying evidence. It was a question about the SEL not a point I was trying to prove using the SEL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Yeah, and you have been making literally no sense. It doesn't matter to Kreider's elite prospect ranking that he has been improving when the level from which he is coming is so low in this regard. Michael Del Zotto has been improving his defensive awareness immensely also. It doesn't mean that he is less than a liability unless he is getting third pairing match-ups. But that is in the NHL and given that he is there at the age he is, there's every reason to think he can get it right with time. He is right on track.
Chris Kreider on the other hand was playing in college as one of the fastest players in a league where a standout D-man like his team-mate Carl Sneep won't make our AHL team.
If hockey sense is noticeably a drag for him at that level, there is such a long way to go in terms of it being adequate in the NHL that you have to be genuinely concerned that he makes it further than grinder. Of course, he can get it right and it is a unique situation with him coming from the background he does, but that is still if, if, if territory. Mind, there ARE quite a few Rangers fans on here who clearly see things this way as well.
.
That last part sums it up. This isn't about debate and discussion it's about your ego and being right. That's why you don't recognize concessions by the opposite side of the debate or even seem to understand what we're saying. I literally said I understand why people have the opinion you have. For the reading impaired this means I recognize people share your opinion. Jesus.
I agreed with this about 8 times now but to sit there as some have and say flat out he can never be elite b/c of where he is now is foolish AND THAT'S WHERE i DISAGREE. Some players develop while others don't there are no guarantees. based on what he did last year he's one you might want to keep an eye on him b/c he could do it. I am not even giving my opinion of where he will be I hope he picks it up but I'm being patient and waiting for him to have more than one good year just as sting and you should be patient and wait for more besides his high school career. He still has at least another year of BC and then AHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
If no one anticipated it, he was drafted too high. If he is rated 8.5C displaying just average hockey IQ in college, that is too high. How many times did I say that?
.
He wasn't a top ten and did fall in the draft compared to where some had him...should he have fallen to the 7th round? Certain flaws cause certain drops even despite his physical gifts. Which any average hockey fan would know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
I read. I just don't think you know what you're talking about .
I do however very much agree that you should wait a year and see if he can dominate next season and show greatly improved instincts and playmaking in the offensive zone. If he can, by all means, he deserves all the accolades and I will never question that he is considered a high end prospect. But when you assume exponential improvement to justify it, I will, because that is extremely rare.
So I don't know but my point is fine...wow...just wow...I don't get it I really don't with you people. Is it trolling? Is it just ego? w/e

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 01:51 PM
  #191
Pizza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan212 View Post
Bingo, Jed's a millionare

These posters are repeating like trained brainless parrots what they read by someone who posted something they read, posted by another brainles parrot

The least of his worries is his IQ, on and off the ice. Went to Phillips Andover Acaedemy and was an honor student there. Was offered to Harvard and had an SAT score of over 2000. I wouldnt worry about his ability to "get" the game.

The only issue was he never had to. When the scouts watched him last year in Beantown Classic, they wanted him to be more physical and make guys on the ice better. He was a hard 2/2+,.

The reason why he went as late as he did because he didnt do as many interviews and the ones he did, he told them under no circumstances was he going major junior and was planning on going to BC for at least 2 years +. Many teams backed away immediatly as they want you to go to London or Kitchner and work on your IQ, the wrong one.
Kids come out of Hockey East, a league known for running around, with a year or 2 needed to get them to fit into a system.

To say he will be a third liner is laughable.

I wonder why as an 18 year old he was the only player in college hockey(Stepan included) who was asked to play with the NHL /Pro guys in Europe this summer for team USA. No Hobey Baker finalists, no 22 or 23 year olds but an 18 year old future 3rd liner, who will make tons of mistakes and who has a low hockey IQ

Damn, those NHL GM's are stupid. They need to listen to you more
This one's a gem. Gets me fired up to see Kreider start his season.

Pizza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 02:08 PM
  #192
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan212 View Post
Bingo, Jed's a millionare

These posters are repeating like trained brainless parrots what they read by someone who posted something they read, posted by another brainles parrot

The least of his worries is his IQ, on and off the ice. Went to Phillips Andover Acaedemy and was an honor student there. Was offered to Harvard and had an SAT score of over 2000. I wouldnt worry about his ability to "get" the game.

The only issue was he never had to. When the scouts watched him last year in Beantown Classic, they wanted him to be more physical and make guys on the ice better. He was a hard 2/2+,.

The reason why he went as late as he did because he didnt do as many interviews and the ones he did, he told them under no circumstances was he going major junior and was planning on going to BC for at least 2 years +. Many teams backed away immediatly as they want you to go to London or Kitchner and work on your IQ, the wrong one.
Kids come out of Hockey East, a league known for running around, with a year or 2 needed to get them to fit into a system.

To say he will be a third liner is laughable.

I wonder why as an 18 year old he was the only player in college hockey(Stepan included) who was asked to play with the NHL /Pro guys in Europe this summer for team USA. No Hobey Baker finalists, no 22 or 23 year olds but an 18 year old future 3rd liner, who will make tons of mistakes and who has a low hockey IQ

Damn, those NHL GM's are stupid. They need to listen to you more
To be fair him being smart and getting to Harvard only correlates to his hockey IQ to a certain extent. It hlps lend credence to the idea that he may pick up his IQ and become even more instinctual but it depends on things like physical tools, work ethic, coachability...oh...yea right all things he has in spades...

JimmyStart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 03:08 PM
  #193
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 500
First of all, examples of why Kreider lacks hockey-IQ, the context of how I am viewing him, et c.

You can divide hockey-IQ into several sub-categorys. Like some sub-categorys that contains abilitys like Marc Staal have for example, and some categorys that contains abilitys that like Mario Lemiuxe had.

In terms of creativity, I would say that its worth to point out two abilitys.

First of all you have a ability that really separates the best from the rest. Thats the ability to be able to read the opposition and adjust to that. To be able to look up and figure out how you can get a scoring chance. How you can adjust your game to that. Jaromir Jagr is a perfect example of a player that have that. Jagr at one stage won the Art Ross, but never used his slapper, only drived the puck to the net. Jagr at another stage of his career scored like 25-30 goals with his slapper. Jagr at a later stage started to play more like a PF. Jagr was a player in the NHL who constantly develop and changed his game. He also constantly knew what D's were on the ice, and jumped at any possibility to take it to a D that he knew he could eat up. Thats what the absoulte elite forwards do. Thats what makes them elite. Then its a falling scale from that, down to the 2nd, 3rd and so on rate of offensive potent forwards.

Then you also have general creativeness. A RW who gets a pass at the right boards in the neutralzone got like a ton of options. He can look up and see that three of his teammates are changing and decide to pass the puck back to his D's. He try to gain the redline and dump the puck in. He can try to beat his D one-on-one. He can slow down and let the D come to him, only to put the puck behind the D and let his linemates chase after it. He can pass it to his center. He can send a cross pass to the LW. He can dump the puck in to the LW. He can dump the puck in and go after it himself. He can cross into the ice and stickhandle with it. He can try to protect the puck, make sure that it stays along the boards and not bounce out at central ice.

A Ryan Callahan for example will use like 4-5 of those options in a game. A Pat Kane will use like 30 and invent 30 new options before 60 minutes is played.

A Nikolai Zherdev will make many boneheaded plays in a game. Thats not high hockey-IQ. A Freddy Sjöström would make the odd stupid play, thats not a indication of high hockey-IQ. I've never seen Kreider make a stupid play -- and thats certainly something he should get credit for. He is able to play by the book.

But he have nothing in him what-so-ever of the first ability I described.

And when it comes to the second ability, he is very underdeveloped. Most of the time he will just try to roam down his side of the rink. Put his head down and go. Look at the avg forward drafted mid-first round, who supposedly have top 6 potential -- he will have a ton more creativity then Kreider.

Other people then me have compared him to Sjöström, and that makes some sense. At the current stage he is, he have about the same offensive creativity as Sjöström.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
No, the problem is that you keep acting as though hockey IQ is something that can't be improved.
Then you have misunderstood me completely. I've never meant to act like that.

It can most definitely improve. We have a kid drafted in the mid range of a 1st round, who after that have starred in a WJC's and have made the US men's team for the WCH's, who have had a strong finnish to a college season -- that shows tremendous potential.

But there is a but, thats all that I am saying. I mean, just because there is a reason for it doesn't mean that its not a flaw. I don't buy a argument that its likely that he all of a sudden will become a star at something just because there is a reason for him not being good at it right now.

I think its great that he is staying in college, unless he is too good, it will definitely bring him along a lot. He needs to play the game at a high level and he needs to get to play a ton of offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
I'm sure Leslie spends a lot more time watching Kreider than you or I do. She must have had a good reason then for writing this:

Quote:
But Kreider’s potential is on another level. His speed, hands, hockey IQ, and work ethic are really something special.
http://hfrangersblog.com/
I strongly disagree with what Leslie's opinion. And if I am not mistaken, Clarke have also said something positive about his hockey IQ, he would have to explain why he made the comment he made, because it gives the wrong impression.

You don't exactly need to know much about the game to see that Kreider don't have much creativity. He seems to be a good student of the game, and he makes the solid play. But, he ain't at a level today were he should be praised for not sucking at one aspect of the game. And if you say that his have high hockey-IQ, and include creativity in that definition, what on earth does like Stephan have???


Last edited by Ola: 09-21-2010 at 03:24 PM.
Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 03:18 PM
  #194
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan212 View Post
Have talked to their player of dev about him on several occasions, his son skated with Kreider in his group all summer. It is safe to say he feels these posters are clueless and would kill to have him at their camps and in their system
Really, so your argument is that we picked a player in the first round, who since have improved pretty strongly, and who every other poster on this board basically have agreed upon is pretty much a lock to become a very good 3rd lineer at worst -- is so good that other teams would love to invite to their camp is he was like a UFA???

: laugh:

rangersfan212, you kind of missed it...

Where did he go to school again? lol

Again, we have a player who have fantastic engine. Who have good hands and a good shoot.

There are maybe 20 000 kids playing hockey the same age as Kreider. Of them I guess its said that in every ability, like 20-30 are like elite. In terms of offensive hockeysense and creativity -- Kreider is just way beyond. He can improve; but it won't come per automatic and its no different then any other flaw that many prospects need to overcome.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 03:40 PM
  #195
TreeSapLlama
Registered User
 
TreeSapLlama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 713
vCash: 500
I agree with Ola in the sense that noone can say Kreider is a slam dunk can't miss prospect with elite level skills across the board. I think what most people are arguing is that he has elite level physical gifts that have got him through to this point, and that his hockey IQ is an unknown quantity.

I am NOT drawing comparison to ability or playstyle, but it is a similar in some respects to Eric Lindros. He oozed offensive talent, but when he was younger, you didn't see it as much because all he had to do was run the smaller kids over and score. He didn't need to make fancy plays or smart plays because his other gifts allowed him an easy way to dominate the opposition. That doesn't mean he doesn't have great hockey iq (obviously he did), but that he never really had to show it.

Lindros and Kreider are FAR different players, but I think there are some similarities in regards to their situations.

TreeSapLlama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 03:54 PM
  #196
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post

Other people then me have compared him to Sjöström, and that makes some sense. At the current stage he is, he have about the same offensive creativity as Sjöström.
I don't see how these two players are comparable aside from being fast skaters... Poor comparison IMHO.... Sjostrom has poor hands, a below average wrist shot, not a good release, doesn't play particularly well in front of the net... Ceiling is and was a 4th line role playing forward... If you want to compare players based on offensive creativity you should at least find a player who's more comparable to Kreider in other attributes.....Not saying much comparing him to a career 4th liner who's never eclipsed 10 goals or 19 points at the NHL level... When you're lacking other physical tools (re: Sjosrom) it's not just a lack of offensive creativity that's attributable to low offensive production... Sjostrom's play is limited by other shortcomings in his game that are not comparable to Kreider's player profile...


Last edited by wolfgaze: 09-21-2010 at 04:11 PM.
wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 04:05 PM
  #197
Zuccarello Awesome*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,095
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianJagr View Post
I agree with Ola in the sense that noone can say Kreider is a slam dunk can't miss prospect with elite level skills across the board. I think what most people are arguing is that he has elite level physical gifts that have got him through to this point, and that his hockey IQ is an unknown quantity.

I am NOT drawing comparison to ability or playstyle, but it is a similar in some respects to Eric Lindros. He oozed offensive talent, but when he was younger, you didn't see it as much because all he had to do was run the smaller kids over and score. He didn't need to make fancy plays or smart plays because his other gifts allowed him an easy way to dominate the opposition. That doesn't mean he doesn't have great hockey iq (obviously he did), but that he never really had to show it.

Lindros and Kreider are FAR different players, but I think there are some similarities in regards to their situations.
Great post. You'll probably get flamed by morons even though you clearly covered yourself with the last sentence. But you're 100% right. We know his gifts. His hockey IQ and ability to have success in the pro leagues (AHL and NHL) are UNKNOWN. Give the kid a break. He's got tons of potential. That's ALL you can ask for unless you've got a Sidney Crosby prospect who's been putting up 200 points a year vs older competition since he was 10. The arguments in this thread are beyond pointless. Kreider is a great "PROSPECT." Wait til he plays his first AHL(which I think he has the potential to SKIP but if he doesn't, it's no knock on his development curve at all either) or NHL game and then you can start with the wild claims either way.

Zuccarello Awesome* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 06:21 PM
  #198
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan212 View Post
Chris Kreider on the other hand was playing in college as one of the fastest players in a league where a standout D-man like his team-mate Carl Sneep won't make our AHL team.


Carl Sneep wouldntmake your AHL team? Thats why the Rangers suck every year. Pittsburgh loves him and needless to say, Pitt is doing slightly better on picking talent, developing taklent and more importantly, WINNING
At best Sneep is considered to be a Dan Girardi like player at best if he fully develops. Good to hear that tanking 5 years in a row helped your picking of talent, epic taklent development, an winning.

I would not trade the Rangers current prospects for Pitts if I had to make 1 big huge team swap.

LyNX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 06:23 PM
  #199
LyNX27
Registered User
 
LyNX27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 2,276
vCash: 500
BTW, Kreider sure ain't no Jesper Fasth!

LyNX27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2010, 06:48 PM
  #200
JimmyStart*
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
First of all, examples of why Kreider lacks hockey-IQ, the context of how I am viewing him, et c.

You can divide hockey-IQ into several sub-categorys. Like some sub-categorys that contains abilitys like Marc Staal have for example, and some categorys that contains abilitys that like Mario Lemiuxe had.

In terms of creativity, I would say that its worth to point out two abilitys.

First of all you have a ability that really separates the best from the rest. Thats the ability to be able to read the opposition and adjust to that. To be able to look up and figure out how you can get a scoring chance. How you can adjust your game to that. Jaromir Jagr is a perfect example of a player that have that. Jagr at one stage won the Art Ross, but never used his slapper, only drived the puck to the net. Jagr at another stage of his career scored like 25-30 goals with his slapper. Jagr at a later stage started to play more like a PF. Jagr was a player in the NHL who constantly develop and changed his game. He also constantly knew what D's were on the ice, and jumped at any possibility to take it to a D that he knew he could eat up. Thats what the absoulte elite forwards do. Thats what makes them elite. Then its a falling scale from that, down to the 2nd, 3rd and so on rate of offensive potent forwards.

Then you also have general creativeness. A RW who gets a pass at the right boards in the neutralzone got like a ton of options. He can look up and see that three of his teammates are changing and decide to pass the puck back to his D's. He try to gain the redline and dump the puck in. He can try to beat his D one-on-one. He can slow down and let the D come to him, only to put the puck behind the D and let his linemates chase after it. He can pass it to his center. He can send a cross pass to the LW. He can dump the puck in to the LW. He can dump the puck in and go after it himself. He can cross into the ice and stickhandle with it. He can try to protect the puck, make sure that it stays along the boards and not bounce out at central ice.

A Ryan Callahan for example will use like 4-5 of those options in a game. A Pat Kane will use like 30 and invent 30 new options before 60 minutes is played.

A Nikolai Zherdev will make many boneheaded plays in a game. Thats not high hockey-IQ. A Freddy Sjöström would make the odd stupid play, thats not a indication of high hockey-IQ. I've never seen Kreider make a stupid play -- and thats certainly something he should get credit for. He is able to play by the book.

But he have nothing in him what-so-ever of the first ability I described.
He doesn't and you know this based on the years of watching him? No you haven't because he hasn't played at a higher level for more than ONE YEAR. Right now he's been given low responsibilty in areas he was never expected to have any responsibility in and he excelled. He obviously is what 19 years old no duh of course he still has to develop but you have been making definitive statements which is why people are looking at you like you have 5 heads in this thread. Is it really so hard for your ego to just shut off and admit that there isn't enough evidence so you dont know yet? You wasted 3 paragraphs explaining how Jagr was an elite player and Sjostrom was not and pretty much had nothing to do with what we are talking about. All to make yourself sound smart about a question that has no answer yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
And when it comes to the second ability, he is very underdeveloped. Most of the time he will just try to roam down his side of the rink. Put his head down and go. Look at the avg forward drafted mid-first round, who supposedly have top 6 potential -- he will have a ton more creativity then Kreider.

Other people then me have compared him to Sjöström, and that makes some sense. At the current stage he is, he have about the same offensive creativity as Sjöström.
No it does not make sense at all when you consider what we are actually talking about. But you have been loist in that regard for awhile now. And how but you acknowledge the people like myself who said that exact thing about 1000 times now. Instead you say it as if you're the first and only one to say it. I'm flattered you're imitating me but I don't appreciate the plagiarism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deriik2020 View Post
I have agreed to this already. Read. He is underdeveloped. He picked up a lot and it lends credence to the theory that he could continue to develop. The ceiling is unpredictable until we have another year or two of play. I have said this. Keep beating that dead horse.
Thank you for your blatant plagiarism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Then you have misunderstood me completely. I've never meant to act like that.It can most definitely improve. We have a kid drafted in the mid range of a 1st round, who after that have starred in a WJC's and have made the US men's team for the WCH's, who have had a strong finnish to a college season -- that shows tremendous potential.
If you really believe what you just said you would realize how absolutely unneccassary your continued commenting is. Also again plagiarizing me and several others.Shows tremendous potential and yet "has none of that in him?" as far as creativity goes...how does that make any sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
But there is a but, thats all that I am saying. I mean, just because there is a reason for it doesn't mean that its not a flaw. I don't buy a argument that its likely that he all of a sudden will become a star at something just because there is a reason for him not being good at it right now.
We already agreed on this and there is maybe one single person out of 10 who raised that arguement so you're ignoring the 9 with common sense to argue with the 1 who lacks it...


Last edited by JimmyStart*: 09-21-2010 at 06:55 PM.
JimmyStart* 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 06:45 PM.

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.