Jump to content

What to do with #2?


Jerzey
 Share

What should we do with the pick?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. What should we do with the pick?

    • Draft Slafkovsky
    • Draft Nemec
    • Draft Jiricek
    • Trade down
    • Trade for immediate help
    • Draft Cooley
    • Other


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I didn't do much research on players beyond the top10 to be honest. I was kind of down on this entire draft class. But since we'd be involved in the top 5 i did a decent amount of research this year.

I really don't think there's a chance we draft Lambert at this point.

As for Cooley vs Slafkovsky. I like Slafkovsky's potential better and he's filling a need more. But i may very well be wrong but my impression is that I believe there's a higher chance that Slafkovsky is not reaching his potential and that Cooley is more likely to, cause he's been scouted a lot more and he's been steadier.

I'm worried Slafkovsky could just be on a good run right now because of his size, and good timing and playing in a bad olympic tournament. So it's more about... do i prefer having a guy i KNOW will probably do well maybe if he's not exactly the type of player we need VS a guy that would fill our need on paper but may not pan out like Zacha didn't.

I think a good example of Cooley vs Slafkovsky could be Kakko vs Zegras. There's no denying that Kakko was projected higher than Zegras because he was bigger, played against men, etc etc etc But Zegras had better stats than Kakko did. And now, so far, in the NHL Zegras has been better. Sometimes it's right there, but scouts get tricked by some factors like size and different leagues and all. And i do believe there's a chance this is happening again here with Slafkovsky. But then guys like Rantanen didn't have great stats either and look at him now. It's so hard to predict

 

"bad" olympics were good, especially for 17 yo player. Cooley never did saw this level of tournament. 
If Zacha didn`t pan out, let`s not draft every single small player, because there were some small players who didn`t pan out. Zacha isn`t an argument for Slafkovsky because they are different player. Different style, different good and bad skills, different leagues etc.
We could worried Cooley will pan out, but it really will not help, because of his play role. And his weaknesses. If he will not pan out - it will be even worser.

They are both could easily not pan out. So lets think about this. If Cooley will  be good devils players and will reach his potential, devils could easily be a bad team stiil. With good rush offense, but that`s all. May be he will really help, but we cant deny he can`t fix real devils problem. If SLaf will reach his potential, devils will have one of the best\best overall balanced offensive lines in the leauge. And you prefer Cooley. I don`t like it.

But I will like to draft Jiricek. Or even Nemec. Severson and Hamilton are not immortal and will not be realy good players forever. After four years Jiricek or Nemec could only end their ELC, and Dougie will have only 2 years on his deal. They are both very talented and we will watch them on WC sooner.  As Juraj. Cooley will not play for USA as I remember.

Your comparison of of Cooley vs Zegras and Kakko vs Slaf is bad. Because of skills of players, their stats etc. Zegras is much more agressive and interior player. Cooley is much more perimetr playmaker. Kakko was slower, worser skater than Slaf, but he was much better shooter. Etc. 

Edited by Guadana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Guadana said:

"bad" olympics were good, especially for 17 yo player. Cooley never did saw this level of tournament. 
If Zacha didn`t pan out, let`s not draft every single small player, because there were some small players who didn`t pan out. Zacha isn`t an argument for Slafkovsky because they are different player. Different style, different good and bad skills, different leagues etc.
We could worried Cooley will pan out, but it really will not help, because of his play role. And his weaknesses. If he will not pan out - it will be even worser.

They are both could easily not pan out. So lets think about this. If Cooley will  be good devils players and will reach his potential, devils could easily be a bad team stiil. With good rush offense, but that`s all. May be he will really help, but we cant deny he can`t fix real devils problem. If SLaf will reach his potential, devils will have one of the best\best overall balanced offensive lines in the leauge. And you prefer Cooley. I don`t like it.

But I will like to draft Jiricek. Or even Nemec. Severson and Hamilton are not immortal and will not be realy good players forever. After four years Jiricek or Nemec could only end their ELC, and Dougie will have only 2 years on his deal. They are both very talented and we will watch them on WC sooner.  As Juraj. Cooley will not play for USA as I remember.

Your comparison of of Cooley vs Zegras and Kakko vs Slaf is bad. Because of skills of players, their stats etc. Zegras is much more agressive and interior player. Cooley is much more perimetr playmaker. Kakko was slower, worser skater than Slaf, but he was much better shooter. Etc. 

i didn't compare cooley zegras kakko and slaf directly like they were the same type of players. I compared the way scouts ranked them based on some factors, leagues they played in, size, etc etc Kakko's size and playing against men sure helped his ranking and perception over Zegras who was way more skilled but smaller

Zegras is a player that scouts saw plenty cause he was in the US programs and his stats were good. Kakko was a guy they saw a lot less because he played in one of those leagues and all. The size kept being brought up and that he played against men already etc etc. It's a good comparison

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

i didn't compare cooley zegras kakko and slaf directly like they were the same type of players. I compared the way scouts ranked them based on some factors, leagues they played in, size, etc etc Kakko's size and playing against men sure helped his ranking and perception over Zegras who was way more skilled but smaller

Zegras is a player that scouts saw plenty cause he was in the US programs and his stats were good. Kakko was a guy they saw a lot less because he played in one of those leagues and all. The size kept being brought up and that he played against men already etc etc. It's a good comparison

No, its not) it is really bad. I would say it's awful. Let's not pick every big player from Europe and draft every skill small boy from us. Because someday one guy was worser than other. How about their hair color or a letter from their surnames beginning. More scouting is a most fun part) yeah, they did better. And guys like Kaprizov and Kucherov were lesser scouted. Panarin? Who was that? Worser scouting is a way how you lose good players. 

If you want to make good comparison you will take Slaf and Cooley. Watch their games, analyze theirs pros and cons and try to understand how much they can translate, what they can or can not develop and how their skills can help to their role. If you will take specific cases in history, you will never make right decision about new specific players. 

May be we will use dating comparison as an argument? Slaf is a big testosterone guy, he work with men and have money, girls like big aggressive  guys, but Cooley will going to university, and he will compensate it after years, when his beard will start to grow and his sport car will sound through the street, and his business will create money, when he can drive for joy, and Slaf can work on his factory with men however he wants. Women love rich men with high education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guadana said:

Slaf is a big testosterone guy, he work with men and have money, girls like big aggressive  guys, but Cooley will going to university, and he will compensate it after years, when his beard will start to grow and his sport car will sound through the street, and his business will create money, when he can drive for joy, and Slaf can work on his factory with men however he wants. Women love rich men with high education.

The Last Unicorn – Write of Passage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Holy sh!t I just re-read that post in the Forrest Gump accent and it totally works. 

Yeah you ain't kidding.  I can even picture where he'd drag certain words, such as "edu-CA-shuuun" and "un-i-vers-i-tee".

Ivan Gumpov 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Yeah you ain't kidding.  I can even picture where he'd drag certain words, such as "edu-CA-shuuun" and "un-i-vers-i-tee".

Ivan Gumpov 

The only hangup was the word "testosterone", Forrest would never have said that word. But its still funny to say it in the Gump accent. 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, EdgeControl said:

i took cooley... dont care if hes a center,, you take the best player available 

I agree with this 100%.  Take the best player available regardless of position or make a trade down to compile additional assets.  I'm going to leave the D out of the argument, but if Cooley is #2 on the Devils draft board, you take him.  If it is Slaf, then that's the pick.  I'm not going to pretend to know these kids and I haven't watched more than 1-2 games for each of them.  But it is much easier to move a C to wing than it is to move a wing to C.  If there is separation between Cooley and Slaf on the draft board, you take Cooley and move him to LW with Nico.

 That said, if all things are equal, you have to take Slaf.  His projection is exactly what this team needs in its top 6 and he will (hopefully) open up space for Jack by being that net driving presence his line lacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Guadana said:

No, its not) it is really bad. I would say it's awful. Let's not pick every big player from Europe and draft every skill small boy from us. Because someday one guy was worser than other. How about their hair color or a letter from their surnames beginning. More scouting is a most fun part) yeah, they did better. And guys like Kaprizov and Kucherov were lesser scouted. Panarin? Who was that? Worser scouting is a way how you lose good players. 

If you want to make good comparison you will take Slaf and Cooley. Watch their games, analyze theirs pros and cons and try to understand how much they can translate, what they can or can not develop and how their skills can help to their role. If you will take specific cases in history, you will never make right decision about new specific players. 

May be we will use dating comparison as an argument? Slaf is a big testosterone guy, he work with men and have money, girls like big aggressive  guys, but Cooley will going to university, and he will compensate it after years, when his beard will start to grow and his sport car will sound through the street, and his business will create money, when he can drive for joy, and Slaf can work on his factory with men however he wants. Women love rich men with high education.

I will explain one last time.

And first of all, i personally prefer Strafkovsky and i think i'd pick him if it was up to me. You appear to believe i'm full on team Cooley. When all im bringing up is that i believe that Cooley might have a more solid scouting report done on him and more accurate. So that's its just something to keep in mind.

What i'm saying is that when you're scouting players from different leagues, it's never a one to one comparison because they play against different competition, different amount of games, not used the same way by their coaches, their sizes, etc etc. Those are all factors that scouts have to analyze and basically make educated guesses to what they could do in the NHL and see how everything will translate.

And historically (not just Kakko, not just Zacha, etc etc) there's been many times (not every time or anything but enough that it's worth mentioning) when scouts would give the edge to guys that are bigger and playing in men league. AGAIN, that's NOT saying it's wrong or that it's not actually accurate at times, but it can be misleading at times.

The Kakko vs Zegras example has nothing to do with their style of play or anything, it's just one example about the way scouts compare and analyze guys. Kakko had 38 points in 45 games, and in the past a point per games at times, less than a point per game at other times, then played in a men league, he was bigger, etc Zegras had 40 pts in 27 games and he's been a steady point per game player his whole career up to that point. Obviously scouts don't just go "well that guy has more points so he's better", so much factors has to go in to really get a sense of how they compare, and that's when scouts have to make educated guesses and that's when it can be misleading at times. And in that case, those extra factor made them like Kakko more. And so far, Zegras is better. Doesn't prove anything necessarely, just saying that it happens

So my only point i've been making is that the situation in which Slakfovsky rose through the ranks has me worrying slightly that it's one of those case. It may very well not be and he's just a late riser. Or he may be a player who just got hot at the right moment. I legit don't know and i will trust the scouts on that. But since they are close in potential i'd go with Slaf since he's more what we need. I'm just saying i do believe he has more of a chance to not reach his potential, but his potential is higher.

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I will explain one last time.

And first of all, i personally prefer Strafkovsky and i think i'd pick him if it was up to me. You appear to believe i'm full on team Cooley. When all im bringing up is that i believe that Cooley might have a more solid scouting report done on him and more accurate. So that's its just something to keep in mind.

What i'm saying is that when you're scouting players from different leagues, it's never a one to one comparison because they play against different competition, different amount of games, not used the same way by their coaches, their sizes, etc etc. Those are all factors that scouts have to analyze and basically make educated guesses to what they could do in the NHL and see how everything will translate.

And historically (not just Kakko, not just Zacha, etc etc) there's been many times (not every time or anything but enough that it's worth mentioning) when scouts would give the edge to guys that are bigger and playing in men league. AGAIN, that's NOT saying it's wrong or that it's not actually accurate at times, but it can be misleading at times.

The Kakko vs Zegras example has nothing to do with their style of play or anything, it's just one example about the way scouts compare and analyze guys. Kakko had 38 points in 45 games, and in the past a point per games at times, less than a point per game at other times, then played in a men league, he was bigger, etc Zegras had 40 pts in 27 games and he's been a steady point per game player his whole career up to that point. Obviously scouts don't just go "well that guy has more points so he's better", so much factors has to go in to really get a sense of how they compare, and that's when scouts have to make educated guesses and that's when it can be misleading at times. And in that case, those extra factor made them like Kakko more. And so far, Zegras is better. Doesn't prove anything necessarely, just saying that it happens

So my only point i've been making is that the situation in which Slakfovsky rose through the ranks has me worrying slightly that it's one of those case. It may very well not be and he's just a late riser. Or he may be a player who just got hot at the right moment. I legit don't know and i will trust the scouts on that. But since they are close in potential i'd go with Slaf since he's more what we need. I'm just saying i do believe he has more of a chance to not reach his potential, but his potential is higher.

Zacha was ohl player. Kakko was productive. Slaf isn't. You are messing arguments and trying to use specific example for building rule. It is not how ritorique works. It doesn't work when you are using basic English like me, so we are quite in the same boat.

 

Its a matter of compet level, iq, skills, role. Sometimes its a coaching and teammate question. There are a lot of guys, who start working, when they change scenario. I think we have great teammates for Slaf(or for Jiricek), but Cooley will not like his role, because he isn't very good winger. I believe he will be productive, but we know hockey isn't only about points only. 

Let's say, if I were rangers gm who has 2nd pick on this draft, I would prefer draft Cooley.

 

And I believe Kakko would be much better player, if he could play in the Devils now(with Jack or Nico).

Edited by Guadana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

So what you are saying is it’s a good comparison and Zegras is better because he has more points?

From watching both players play i'd pick Zegras 10 days out of 10. Not really about points necessarely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

From watching both players play i'd pick Zegras 10 days out of 10. Not really about points necessarely

I think Zegras would probably be winning the Calder this year if not for Pinizyn’s brother. So I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Guadana said:

Zacha was ohl player. Kakko was productive. Slaf isn't. You are messing arguments and trying to use specific example for building rule. It is not how ritorique works. It doesn't work when you are using basic English like me, so we are quite in the same boat.

 

Its a matter of compet level, iq, skills, role. Sometimes its a coaching and teammate question. There are a lot of guys, who start working, when they change scenario. I think we have great teammates for Slaf(or for Jiricek), but Cooley will not like his role, because he isn't very good winger. I believe he will be productive, but we know hockey isn't only about points only. 

Let's say, if I were rangers gm who has 2nd pick on this draft, I would prefer draft Cooley.

Yes Zacha was an OHL player, NHL size already and stronger, playing against 16 years old.

So size 100% had an impact on how highly rated he was. Plus he missed a chunk of the season so scouts had to GUESS and predict what he'd do over a full season, slightly smaller sample size. Also it's just a theory of course, but we've seen this happen often

That's precisely my point. He was in a situation where there was a lot of guessing to do. And god knows if he played a full season if he would have rack up points against kids or show that he's very inconsistent over a full season making him drop in the rankings. We'll never know. What we know is that he's a big kid not using his size at NHL level and very inconsistent

My point is REALLY not to get into semantics about specific players. All im talking about is factors that makes scouts have to guess and at time overrate players based on certain things and it's easy to make bad calls on that. And i see a potential of that happening with Slafkovsky, it's really not unfair to wonder about that

 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SterioDesign said:

Yes Zacha was an OHL player, NHL size already and stronger, playing against 16 years old.

So size 100% had an impact on how highly rated he was. Plus he missed a chunk of the season so scouts had to GUESS and predict what he'd do over a full season, slightly smaller sample size. Also it's just a theory of course, but we've seen this happen often

That's precisely my point. He was in a situation where there was a lot of guessing to do. And god knows if he played a full season if he would have rack up points against kids or show that he's very inconsistent over a full season making him drop in the rankings. We'll never know. What we know is that he's a big kid not using his size at NHL level and very inconsistent

My point is REALLY not to get into semantics about specific players. All im talking about is factors that makes scouts have to guess and at time overrate players based on certain things and it's easy to make bad calls on that. And i see a potential of that happening with Slafkovsky, it's really not unfair to wonder about that

 

Again. Five players even 100 players who were big and not pan out, doesn't effect on any other specific player. Because there are more 100 big players who did play exactly well. M Tkachuk is 100 points players. Keller is not. But again - it doesn't effect Slaf and Cooley. You could built million pseudo rules, but it will never works in specific personal situation. Laine and Puljujarvi are from the same draft. And have different careers. Slafkovsky is Slovakian player, who play in Finland and win "best OG trophy" in 17 years. As a player of noncontender team. You can't evaluate him, using examples of injured finnish player Kakko, who doesn't play with top center, and Zacha, who is a czech player from OHL, who was scouted well enough. Not because there are some different circumstances only, but because they are absolutely different players. 

And size is a good factor. Junior production is another factor to overrank small players, who can skate and make shiny tricks, but it doesn't work in NHL, and their lack of two way game make them useless. I'm not going to say Cooley will be bust in Nhl, I'm saying that size is not a negative factor in any case. That is always good factor. Because even if player isn't smart enough, he can learn how to adapt and play different role. Like McLeod did it. And he isn't that big.

Edited by Guadana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Guadana said:

Again. Five players even 100 players who were big and not pan out, doesn't effect on any other specific player. Because there are more 100 big players who did play exactly well. M Tkachuk is 100 points players. Keller is not. But again - it doesn't effect Slaf and Cooley. You could built million pseudo rules, but it will never works in specific personal situation. Laine and Puljujarvi are from the same draft. And have different careers. Slafkovsky is Slovakian player, who play in Finland and win "best OG trophy" in 17 years. As a player of noncontender team. You can't evaluate him, using examples of injured finnish player Kakko, who doesn't play with top center, and Zacha, who is a czech player from OHL, who was scouted well enough. Not because there are some different circumstances only, but because they are absolutely different players. 

No but when you are comparing one player who's been very heavily scouted for years. Very consistent and currently slotting between Zegras and Caufield. To which, scouts has been pretty much right on the nose with these predictions in recent years. I trust that such player should get close to the projection given by scouts. Doesnt mean that he'll be the better player necessarily, just that we can trust the scouting a bit more.

Now when a 17 years old plays in a men league, obviously there's things going against him. He won't get top minutes, he'll need to adjust to faster, stronger play, etc etc And he was not having a great great year production wise BUT it's understandable and other guys like Rantanen also didn't have insane seasons back then either. So it's really up in the air. And there's a lot more "guessing" on the scouting side in this scenario, which can lead to more mistakes

But when his stock rise from the 5-7 range to 2-3 after playing at the olympics which were basically another Spengler cup, which no one cares about usually. It's 100% fair to at least wonder if it should. Especially when it's been brought up so often during the kakko debate that scouts just can't let one tournament influence their opinions too much. And in this case it sure did. Obviously has a 17 years old, Slaf had a good tournament, obviously. But still

There was 21 players with a point per game at the olympics and 7 with over a point per game. And like 98% of them wouldn't have been there if NHL players would have been able to go. Sean Farrel, 20 years old 4th round pick with the highest P/GM of the tournament? I'm not even sure he'd crack the men championships roster this summer. It was not a good tournament. But i'm just not convinced that it should have spiked his ranking so much, and it did. I really don't think that's an unfair stance.

Ultimately he's my pick, but i have to be honest that i'll always have that little worry in the back of my head because of that.

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

No but when you are comparing one player who's been very heavily scouted for years. Very consistent and currently slotting between Zegras and Caufield. To which, scouts has been pretty much right on the nose with these predictions in recent years. I trust that such player should get close to the projection given by scouts. Doesnt mean that he'll be the better player necessarily, just that we can trust the scouting a bit more.

Now when a 17 years old plays in a men league, obviously there's things going against him. He won't get top minutes, he'll need to adjust to faster, stronger play, etc etc And he was not having a great great year production wise BUT it's understandable and other guys like Rantanen also didn't have insane seasons back then either. So it's really up in the air.

But when his stock rise from the 5-7 range to 2-3 after playing at the olympics which were basically another Spengler cup, which no one cares about usually. It's 100% fair to at least wonder if it should. Especially when it's been brought up so often during the kakko debate that scouts just can't let one tournament influence their opinions too much. And in this case it sure did. Obviously has a 17 years old, Slaf had a good tournament, obviously. But still

There was 21 players with a point per game at the olympics and 7 with over a point per game. And like 98% of them wouldn't have been there if NHL players would have been able to go. Sean Farrel, 20 years old 4th round pick with the highest P/GM of the tournament? I'm not even sure he'd crack the men championships roster this summer. It was not a good tournament. But i'm just not convinced that it should have spiked his ranking so much, and it did. I really don't think that's an unfair stance.

Ultimately he's my pick, but i have to be honest that i'll always have that little worry in the back of my head because of that.

That was a good euro tournament. No one cares about teams who can't give good roster. Especially for 17 yo. That's a fact. If you are not care like every other NA fan its OK, but it is a good tourney for euro teams. And when 17yo boy win the best player trophy there, its a good sign. Good sign only. And bad rosters of Canada and USA doesn't effect that. BTW spenglers tournaments or glinka cup ate good too, if you know what are you watching and what you are asking from specific players. This is how you can find very talented euro players. 

They are not playing in Ushl. Surprise. Sometimes they play in NA, but we are talking about player who did not. Is he better scouted or worser  is kakko and zacha  are bad or not, doesn't effect Slaf. Like even Rantanen and his success. Because he is different player. But what we can find in kakko and in rantanen situation? Its better to have time on the ice and good linemates. And play right role. What can we understand from keller example - its svcks when you don't have great partners. We have good partners for slaf and we don't have suitable role for Cooley. 

 

Overall - idea to not draft talented player because he was worser scouted and big, is hardly bad. I would fire my scout if he would say me that. You did watch games of Cooley, he isn't fit great, he isn't well winger, but he is very talented? Whats about slaf? You did watch only his OG and think tourney is svck? What did you do this full year? Go and find another place. You're fired! (Hope this time we will do without pictures with the funny character. I've already been retarded, being an  american president is too much for me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Guadana said:

That was a good euro tournament. No one cares about teams who can't give good roster. Especially for 17 yo. That's a fact. If you are not care like every other NA fan its OK, but it is a good tourney for euro teams. And when 17yo boy win the best player trophy there, its a good sign. Good sign only. And bad rosters of Canada and USA doesn't effect that. BTW spenglers tournaments or glinka cup ate good too, if you know what are you watching and what you are asking from specific players. This is how you can find very talented euro players. 

They are not playing in Ushl. Surprise. Sometimes they play in NA, but we are talking about player who did not. Is he better scouted or worser  is kakko and zacha  are bad or not, doesn't effect Slaf. Like even Rantanen and his success. Because he is different player. But what we can find in kakko and in rantanen situation? Its better to have time on the ice and good linemates. And play right role. What can we understand from keller example - its svcks when you don't have great partners. We have good partners for slaf and we don't have suitable role for Cooley. 

 

Overall - idea to not draft talented player because he was worser scouted and big, is hardly bad. I would fire my scout if he would say me that. You did watch games of Cooley, he isn't fit great, he isn't well winger, but he is very talented? Whats about slaf? You did watch only his OG and think tourney is svck? What did you do this full year? Go and find another place. You're fired! (Hope this time we will do without pictures with the funny character. I've already been retarded, being an  american president is too much for me)

i'm personally watching the Spengler cup. But from what i gathered through the years is that almost nobody else does in north America.

Also, i'll say it for like the 25th times. Please read carefully cause i don't want to have to explain this again. I'm NOT saying not to draft Slafkovsky because he wasn't scouted as much and big. I even told you many times if it was up to me he's my pick. I said countless times that it would just be fair to really do your homeworks on him and make sure that having him jump 4-5 positions after the Olympics (that in my opinion isn't a great measurement stick) is justified and that he was just finally finding his stride and that it was not a red herring. Again, i think this is a very fair stance. 

If the olympics were last year and that Kent Johnsson had 5 points in 5 games at the olympics (like he actually did this year), does that justify having him jump all the way to 2nd overall while Beniers, hughes, etc were playing in college? Those are questions worth asking. But then He produced more than McTavish who also played the Olympics, that's a fair debate if Kent should go ahead of him in that case though.

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Guadana said:

(Hope this time we will do without pictures with the funny character. I've already been retarded, being an  american president is too much for me)

Sorry, no way. 

 

961E8AF5-8E09-412E-A3B6-ECAE76680A93.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

i'm personally watching the Spengler cup. But from what i gathered through the years is that almost nobody else does in north America.

Also, i'll say it for like the 25th times. Please read carefully cause i don't want to have to explain this again. I'm NOT saying not to draft Slafkovsky because he wasn't scouted as much and big. I even told you many times if it was up to me he's my pick. I said countless times that it would just be fair to really do your homeworks on him and make sure that having him jump 4-5 positions after the Olympics (that in my opinion isn't a great measurement stick) is justified and that he was just finally finding his stride and that it was not a red herring. Again, i think this is a very fair stance. 

If the olympics were last year and that Kent Johnsson had 5 points in 5 games at the olympics (like he actually did this year), does that justify having him jump all the way to 2nd overall while Beniers, hughes, etc were playing in college? Those are questions worth asking. But then He produced more than McTavish who also played the Olympics, that's a fair debate if Kent should go ahead of him in that case though.

Yeah, and I did say if I’m ranger gm in our position, I would draft Cooley.

 

no, it wouldn’t, because Kent Johnsson isn’t Slafkovsky, he has different skill pack. But I would say this is a flag, why he did deserve to be picked in top 5. Because points isn’t the only thing in hockey. Reason why Kasper will be drafted above a lot of players, who looks better producer. 

Once again - compet level, iq, skills, role. And teammates. If you wanna draft good center - draft him to play center role. Cooley would be much better player in Arizona or in Seattle.  Jack Hughes on the wing isn’t the same player as Jack Hughes in his nature center role.

 

I don't know why I didn't mention before, but if we talk better scouted players, why we talk about Zegras? Dach, Cozens and Turcotte were drafted before. Two of them were be picked before Seider - big German defenseman who play against men in Europe in worser scouted league. 

Size, better or worser scouted leagues, even producing in adult league arn't the pure arguments. It is matter to produce in childish league. But only for forwards. Like I said before - every single player is a different case. Slaf is questionable because of his skating or shooting technique. But not because OG were spend without nhlers, he us europinian player of big size etc. It doesn't work this way and will never working. Only three players from top 10 in producing points are below average in height. But even that didn't really hurt smaller players in evaluating, because when player is special, he will find a way to be successful. But it is harder to make. And good size doesn't hurt at all.  

Edited by Guadana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.