HFBoards

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

2011 NHL Entry Draft Talk - Part VIII - Adam Larsson's Revenge!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2011, 02:20 PM
  #51
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
The stagnation talk is overblown, I think. He scored the same number of points in fewer games while having mono. He improved his defensive game, and got a little bigger.

I haven't seen him play over the full season to properly measure his progress over the full year, but I'd say he definitely did not stagnate.
Scouts and fans aren't knocking Sean for his point production but the way his overall game hasn't really changed since last year. He's not faster, he's not throwing more hits and he hasn't really improved on his weaker points compared to last year.

The points are still there but scouts and Gm's could care less about points and more about the constant progress of a young teenager learning how to play the game. If points were everything, the leading point getter of the "Q" (Philip-Michael Devos) would've gotten drafted last year or would be in talks regarding top #60 talent this year cause he finished with 93 pts last year and won the leagues leading scorer this year... but that's not the case.

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 02:49 PM
  #52
åboriginal
lou ****ing sucks
 
åboriginal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LV-426
Country: Finland
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to åboriginal
can we just select 3 players at the fourth slot? i think wed all agree thatd make each of us happy to some degree. lets just do that then.

åboriginal is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 02:52 PM
  #53
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by åboriginal View Post
can we just select 3 players at the fourth slot? i think wed all agree thatd make each of us happy to some degree. lets just do that then.
No, but we can kneecap Snow and take his pick. I vote we do that.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 02:56 PM
  #54
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
Pick 5 for pick 74. It's almost 70 higher and will probably be 70 better. No one wants a 5 on a test, a 74 would be ok depending on the curve. amirite?

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 02:57 PM
  #55
DEVILS ALL THE WAY*
Yes, I'm a hypocrite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by åboriginal View Post
can we just select 3 players at the fourth slot? i think wed all agree thatd make each of us happy to some degree. lets just do that then.
If we move Parise with one of our 2nd's next year to Colorado, we can have their 2nd overall pick and the 11th overall pick.

2nd overall: Adam Larsson
4th overall: Gabriel Landeskog
11th overall: Mika Zibanejad

DEVILS ALL THE WAY* is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:04 PM
  #56
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
I'd rather have Parise than any number of shiny new prospects.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:07 PM
  #57
åboriginal
lou ****ing sucks
 
åboriginal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LV-426
Country: Finland
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to åboriginal
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
If we move Parise with one of our 2nd's next year to Colorado, we can have their 2nd overall pick and the 11th overall pick.

2nd overall: Adam Larsson
4th overall: Gabriel Landeskog
11th overall: Mika Zibanejad
no no no my friend, i mean say **** you nhl, with the fourth selection the devils are proud to select landeskog, larsson and huberdeau so **** you other teams for not thinking of it first.

åboriginal is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:09 PM
  #58
Jaysfanatic*
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Strathroy, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 62,898
vCash: 500
I think we'll draft Couturier.

Like I told everyone when I was visiting the Tri-State area, there was a Couturier bus driving around Newark and that it was a sign of what was to come. At eight they probably wouldn't get SC, but at four they definitely could.

Jaysfanatic* is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:10 PM
  #59
Devils Trap
Cory's Better
 
Devils Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country:
Posts: 23,560
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Devils Trap
Quote:
Originally Posted by åboriginal View Post
no no no my friend, i mean say **** you nhl, with the fourth selection the devils are proud to select landeskog, larsson and huberdeau so **** you other teams for not thinking of it first.


I looked it up on google, an no where does it says you can only choose 1 player.

Devils Trap is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:16 PM
  #60
Brodeur
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 12,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
I'd rather have Parise than any number of shiny new prospects.
Do we need to dig up the old thread where somebody wanted to trade Parise for "Future #1 D" Cam Barker before the 2004 Draft?

Brodeur is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:21 PM
  #61
Nocashstyle
Registered User
 
Nocashstyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodeur View Post
Do we need to dig up the old thread where somebody wanted to trade Parise for "Future #1 D" Cam Barker before the 2004 Draft?
Ohh boy

Nocashstyle is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:25 PM
  #62
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodeur View Post
Do we need to dig up the old thread where somebody wanted to trade Parise for "Future #1 D" Cam Barker before the 2004 Draft?
I was not aware of the existence of this thread, but thanks for proving what I mean.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:26 PM
  #63
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by åboriginal View Post
no no no my friend, i mean say **** you nhl, with the fourth selection the devils are proud to select landeskog, larsson and huberdeau so **** you other teams for not thinking of it first.
True. Loophole time and time to get another fine. Probably equivalent to the amount of firsts we loophole. We'll take the top 9 and walk out.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:31 PM
  #64
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
There has to be a rule that says you can't choose all the players in the draft with your pick. That's a hilarious Louphole if there isn't.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:39 PM
  #65
JerryGigantic
Respect Patrik
 
JerryGigantic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 6,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
The difficulty is that Lou may have to decide how much the age consideration matters in this one case, not just judge the general trend. Does he take the younger Huberdeau with his higher ceiling, or does he take the safer but older Couturier, who might be peaking already?

JerryGigantic is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:43 PM
  #66
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEVILS ALL THE WAY View Post
Couturier isn't a physical player, it's really not that complicated. When I consider someone physical, it's because he can throw bodychecks and will intimidate the opposition by the way he plays the game, not because god gave him a big body. Going into corners is part of the game so like I said in my earlier post, it's a must... not a quality. If you are going in the top #10, you better go into corners and fight for loose pucks, no?

You can be 5"7' and be more physical then a guy that's 6"3' and that's what Couturier is... a big body with no physical presence to his game. He'll throw bodychecks cause that's how the game is played but he won't put any fear in the opposition when he's on the ice and with the "advantage" he has over the rest of the league, I would've liked for him to utilise his body to his advantage but that's not the case.

The same thing has been said about Gélinas. A big guy that should create fear in the eyes of his opponents but doesn't cause he doesn't have that mean streak to his game when he cleary has a size advantage against the rest of the players who are playing in the "Q".
Datsyuk, Toews, Kesler, and Zajac are all top 5-10 defenders in the NHL and I don't consider any of them to be physical. Also, comparing him to Thornton in previous posts isn't exactly helping your cause

I feel that the basis for your argument over Huberdeau over Couturier is that Couturier's ability to muscle over weaker players in the Q won't translate into the NHL. Personally, I can't buy into that. No matter what league you're in, 6'4'' is pretty good size for a hockey player. I don't expect him to charge into the NHL just laying guys out, being that he's 18 and still growing, but by the time he's filled out as a 24-26 year old, I'm very confident that Couturier will be a gritty player.

apice3* is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:46 PM
  #67
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Another concern is that power forwards are difficult to develop, and take a long time to develop. Huberdeau might be the player with more short term impact, and that's a consideration.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:48 PM
  #68
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
We can afford to give said player time to develop. That carries over to Murphy, if we get him too. He isn't going to be a worldbeater next year or the year after.

That's the good thing about where we are picking. We have a good team and the prospect shouldn't be rushed so they can develop properly. I know we've all said it before but being a top 5 pick shouldn't change things.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:52 PM
  #69
apice3*
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Middletown, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 18,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
Another concern is that power forwards are difficult to develop, and take a long time to develop. Huberdeau might be the player with more short term impact, and that's a consideration.
I still would prefer Couturier of the two, but I'm starting to think that a Murphy+ trade down might be the better option than either. The more I think about it, the more I realize that even though Couturier may be NHL ready, his cap hit, age, and our depth may force him to the minors/juniors. Murphy would be going there regardless, so basically our #1 pick would be spending the same amount of time developing, regardless of who it is.

Of course, some players take longer than others, but the initial plan would be to give our player X amount of time to develop. I feel that value X is pretty similar, no matter who's drafted, aside from Larsson. Therefore, Murphy with the highest potential reward of anyone not named Larsson could be the best pick. Still don't want to take him at 4 though for reasons listed way to many times.

Current big board: Larsson, RNH, Landeskog, Couturier/Murphy+, Huberdeau, Murphy.

apice3* is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 03:52 PM
  #70
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
True, we definitely have the luxury of letting the player develop. I think we'll send him back to juniors, regardless of who we pick.

Saugus is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 04:09 PM
  #71
Tedenby21
Boo's Dangles
 
Tedenby21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 8,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
I still would prefer Couturier of the two, but I'm starting to think that a Murphy+ trade down might be the better option than either. The more I think about it, the more I realize that even though Couturier may be NHL ready, his cap hit, age, and our depth may force him to the minors/juniors. Murphy would be going there regardless, so basically our #1 pick would be spending the same amount of time developing, regardless of who it is.

Of course, some players take longer than others, but the initial plan would be to give our player X amount of time to develop. I feel that value X is pretty similar, no matter who's drafted, aside from Larsson. Therefore, Murphy with the highest potential reward of anyone not named Larsson could be the best pick. Still don't want to take him at 4 though for reasons listed way to many times.

Current big board: Larsson, RNH, Landeskog, Couturier/Murphy+, Huberdeau, Murphy.
It looks like all the Murphy talk is starting to wear you down The only way I see us being able to do Murphy + is if Landeskog is available at our pick though. I think he is the only player that Ottawa will move up for. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to make a trade with Florida and skip us all together.

On the topic of Huberdeau or Couturier, I used to favor Couturier but recently I have changed my mind to Huberdeau. After hearing the interview that Jared took part in I was surprised to hear a writer for NHL.com say that Huberdeau is more physical that Couturier. This shocked me and won Huberdeau some points and subtracted some from Couturier. Also, Huberdeau has been able to keep his ridiculous pace up in the playoffs. Although some don't like the fact the Huberdeau may play either center or wing, I think this is a good thing instead of a bad thing. Maybe Josefson turns into a great center and it is better to move Huberdeau to RW. Maybe Parise plays RW with Zajac and Kovy and Huberdeau is moved to LW. Maybe Josefson is better on the 3rd line with Henrique. Picking Huberdeau gives a lot of versatility, while it seems like Couturier is best left at center.

For me:

Larsson
RNH(no way he drops to 4)
Murphy +
Landeskog/Murphy (very close right now for me)
Huberdeau
Couturier
Strome
Hamilton

Tedenby21 is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 04:43 PM
  #72
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
I would still take Dougie over smurphy but thats me

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 04:45 PM
  #73
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,556
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by apice3 View Post
Datsyuk, Toews, Kesler, and Zajac are all top 5-10 defenders in the NHL and I don't consider any of them to be physical. Also, comparing him to Thornton in previous posts isn't exactly helping your cause

I feel that the basis for your argument over Huberdeau over Couturier is that Couturier's ability to muscle over weaker players in the Q won't translate into the NHL. Personally, I can't buy into that. No matter what league you're in, 6'4'' is pretty good size for a hockey player. I don't expect him to charge into the NHL just laying guys out, being that he's 18 and still growing, but by the time he's filled out as a 24-26 year old, I'm very confident that Couturier will be a gritty player.
You're correct. Physicality is completely overblown.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 04:51 PM
  #74
Devils Trap
Cory's Better
 
Devils Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country:
Posts: 23,560
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Devils Trap
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I would still take Dougie over smurphy but thats me
Im with you on that one

Devils Trap is offline  
Old
05-03-2011, 04:52 PM
  #75
Tedenby21
Boo's Dangles
 
Tedenby21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 8,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
You're correct. Physicality is completely overblown.
I disagree. Look at the teams left in the playoffs. Vancouver, Nashville, Detroit, Boston, Philly, Washington, even San Jose to an extent are pretty physical teams. Games are won on the boards, in the corners, and in front of the net. Playing physical can make defensemen think twice when playing the puck and can make forwards more hesitant when going after the puck. Sometimes physicality is overlooked on how important it is for a team to win. It is obviously negated if you are taking penalties though. The key is to play physical but be sure to not take penalties.

Tedenby21 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 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.