Silver Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Buppy last won the day on April 25

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10,447 profile views
  1. I might put it as people are trying to emphasize his potential strengths amidst a sea of people focusing solely on his potential negatives. And you're simplifying quite a lot with the "net front" thing. Again I want to emphasize that he is described very similarly to Vilardi. They have a very similar skillset. Both were highly ranked. Both have similar peaks. Both could be complete busts. Rasmussen is being s*** on entirely because analytics is the hot new fad, even though very few have even a decent understanding of them and almost everyone vastly overrates their impact. And it's not even really analytics. It's one particular stat (even strength assists) from one season from a 17yo. Last year he had 18 es assists (could find how many primary/secondary though). Judging by this year, that was probably one of the better totals from players in his age bracket (which would likely explain all the scouting reports calling him a good playmaker). Vilardi was the only available player that was consistently ranked ahead of Rasmussen, and as I've said they are very similar. There is not some huge nor even any obvious talent gap between them (or any of the other players we might have picked).
  2. But Rasmussen does fill a need. Or rather, he has a skillset that should. If, and that's still and if, he ends up being moved to wing, he could still fill a need. Vilardi has the same questions about whether or not he'll be a center in the NHL (probably even more than Rasmussen). Tippett isn't a center at all. Suzuki has questions. Necas has questions. All of the D have questions. It's not like we were looking at Crosby and picked Holmstrom instead. People are comparing the potential negative of Rasmussen to the potential peaks of other players. Any player is going to look bad that way.
  3. Pretty liberal use of the term huge, but also way missing the point. Sure, a swing of 126 shots seems like a big deal, and all else being equal it is. But it should not outweigh the importance of how well you perform against the 3400 shots still coming at you. Even the very best possession teams spend close to half the game playing defense. Some people act like playing defense slightly less is more important than playing defense better. It isn't. And furthermore, Rasmussen by most accounts has a skillset that should fit well with a possession system. Strong with the puck, good in the corners and behind the net, effective forechecker, decent skater, capable passer, solid defensively. So this whole argument is largely moot.
  4. Thing is, when people start arguing to prove their point, they have a tendency to exaggerate maybe beyond what they intend to say. Like "he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is". If we could keep things reasonable, like your post here, we wouldn't have so many problems. (But probably less discussion as well, so...) But the people who blame him exclusively for the bad stuff are the same people who refuse to give him credit for the good stuff.
  5. Mantha in his 2nd year scored 50g, 89p in the QMJHL. Translates to about 37g, 66p in 50 games, opposed to Rasmussen's 32 and 55. Rasmussen is younger than Mantha was, plus as already noted it's a different situation so you shouldn't expect them to be exact. They are a lot closer than you are making it out to be regardless. Professional scouts say he has skill, and his ceiling is top-line center. Probably won't hit his peak (most don't), but seems a likely top-6 power forward. Scouting reports on he and Vilardi are almost identical. You are greatly exaggerated perceived faults. Nashville's defense was 15th in the league. And while they ranked 5th in corsi, they were still only 51.37%. They were a middle-of-the-pack team that got hot and played really well in the playoffs. Let's not act like they were some powerhouse phenom team and the new model for how things should be done. But the thing you always seem to ignore is that there is no such thing as always having the puck. Three teams this year had a corsi above 52%, no one above 55%. Conversely, only one team was below 47%. Don't let yourself be blinded by Tippett's hyperbole.
  6. Funny enough, Vilardi and Rasmussen are described very similarly. Versatile two-way power-forward types. Both good at protecting the puck, both supposedly good playmakers (though the stats don't support that as well for Rasmussen). Both have question marks (Skating for Vilardi, 5v5 scoring for Ras). Some don't even project either as a center in the NHL at all, but both pretty consistently projected as top-6 power forwards. Vilardi was the higher ranked though.
  7. Everyone we could have picked will likely take a few years. Hell, most of the players picked ahead of us will too. "Project" implies that he'll require some level of work beyond what is normal. You say his ranking is just because of his size (despite all the other qualities listed in his scouting report), and despite the fact that players with size are ranked all over the board. I could just as easily say that he's disliked by some because some people have bought to readily into advanced stats without actually understanding them. If we had picked Vilardi I bet there would be some saying he was only ranked that high because of his size, and calling Holland an idiot because Vilardi won't make it in today's NHL because he can't skate. Who will be better? Time will tell. Prospects develop, skills improve. Some people think Rasmussen will be good, some don't. If there was a way right now to tell who is right, there wouldn't be any disagreement. Bottom line is he has a skillset that could be very valuable if he develops well, and is almost totally lacking in our prospect pool. If you have a guy a three you would have preferred, fine, not going to try to change your mind. But he's not a project, it wasn't an off-the-board pick, or an experiment, or playing it safe, or too risky, or whatever other contrived argument people want to make up to armor their opinions. We picked a highly ranked prospect with a high pick. It's perfectly ******* normal.
  8. I don't think "project" means what you think it means. He was ranked in the top half of the first by pretty much everyone. He's no more of a project than anyone else. I don't like the pick either, but at least try to criticize in a way that makes some kind of sense.
  9. Really wanted to dump Lehtera I guess.
  10. Really should have traded back if we weren't going to take Vilardi. But to play devil's advocate, the main criticisms of our forward group has been our anemic PP, lack of size, and ability to play at the net. All things that Rasmussen addresses better than probably anyone available.
  11. Andersson might have still been there at 21 Lot of mocks had Buffalo going defense
  12. I was kinda hoping Wings would do that so LW would explode.
  13. wow
  14. Can't imagine Rangers passing on Vilardi after giving up Stepan.
  15. And f***ed with him a little first, let him think he might let him give the announcement, lol