kipwinger

I completely understand your argument. I just don't think that him being more physical would make him better. I actually think it would be detrimental to his success. Because if you're hitting, and banging, and crashing, then you aren't usually getting the puck out of your zone. And that's generally bad. I'd rather he work on his passing, and if he can't get better at that, then I'd prefer he retire. I'm just not convinced that hitting more will have a positive influence on the him or the team (other than the cathartic affect you feel when an opposition forward gets crushed).

Fair enough, I'd only revise that statement to say he seems "generally untalented relative to other top ten talent in this year's draft". I thought that would be understood. Didn't figure I'd have to clarify that he's more talented than the last player picked in the draft and/or the person typing this post.

And the thing you seem to ignore is that a 1% difference in possession stats translates to a really large difference in shot volume over the course of a year. Montreal had a 52.5% corsi this season, Washington had a 51.8% corsi. But in terms of actual shot attempts the difference was almost 300 (126 adjusted for differential) shot attempts. So anything you can do to improve your possession by even a percentage point or two translates to a huge volume of shot attempts at the other net. Or conversely, if you concede a percentage point or two it may not seem like a big deal, but it's actually a lot more pucks coming at your net than you realize.

Nobody said he sucks, so get over yourself. Most people, myself included, have argued that he was a bad asset to take with the 9th overall pick. Given how similar type players (Vilardi, Kostin) fell down the board, if you REALLY wanted Rasmussen he probably would have still be there in the 15-20 range, so it would still have been prudent to trade back and get additional assets. And that's only if you REALLY wanted him, which I'm not sure why you would considering there were several better players still available at 9 (Tippett, Necas, Valimaki, Vilardi).

Well his team made the playoffs, and he played with Valimaiki (another first rounder this year) so I doesn't seem like his numbers suffered because he was on a bad team. I completely understand that, but usually the "wait for his upside" argument goes the other way. With Cholowski it was, "he's got lots of skill, wait until he develops physically". In this case it seems to be, "well he's really mature physically, wait until he gets better at playing hockey". That seems more risky to me. Also, Cholowski wasn't a top ten pick. I expect a little more out of picks the higher they are.

Strawman argument. I didn't say the kid should be perfect. I said that he was fairly unimpressive given his massive physical advantage, and that may be indicative of limited skill in other areas. If he's really skilled, and really mobile, and really big and playing against kids much smaller than him then his lack of elite production becomes even more baffling. Based on the scouting reports you put up there, Rasmussen is a big, fast, center who scores goals and passes really well. Ok, but why didn't he score more goals and have more assists at 5on5 then? Something's gotta give. I agree that netfront guys are nice. I just think you maybe don't use the highest draft pick you've had in 30 years on another Tomas Holmstrom. Seems like poor asset management to me.

I realize that. And I'm saying that it's a tautology. "Big players should play big because playing big is what big players should do" completely misses the point that often times "playing big" means playing without the puck, which is actually bad. I'd rather a defenseman never hit anybody, ever, because he always has the puck on his stick making plays. That's way better than clearing creases. Playing big wouldn't make Ericsson, or our team, any better. Being able to get control of the puck, and get it to the forwards competently and efficiently would make Ericsson better.

That's a pretty old fashioned way of thinking about hockey tbh. Nashville had the league's best defense and didn't have a "crease clearer". They're too busy getting the puck up ice and away from their own net. Having some big "crease clearer" out there just conceded the puck to the opposition. In today's game you need guys who can get the puck and get it out of the zone, not bang offensive players while they attempt to camp out in front of your goalie.

A player's size only matters when other skills are relatively equal. Joe Thornton or Corey Perry aren't good because they're big. They're good because they have high end skills, their size makes them better. The problem that I have with Rasmussen is that he doesn't seem to have any high end skills to speak of. He's all size. His skating needs work, his shot isn't great, he's not an especially creative passer or stick handler. I would expect a guy that's 6'6 and playing against children to MURDER them. Instead he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is. Compare that to Mantha (also a HUGE guy, but with skill) who absolutely dominated when playing against kids 1/10th his size

Well, on the plus side, Rasmussen's "net front" skills will be a real benefit when the team inevitably switches him to winger.

Missing the point again, these guys' real strength is their ability to think positively. As a matter of fact, that outweighs any shortcomings they may have in their games. It doesn't matter if you're bad at hockey so long as you're WILLING to improve. And boy are they ever. These guys are the solution my man. Not the problem.

You're missing the point. They're all tremendous competitors though. Like, none of them enjoy losing. And you can't teach that.

My only concern is that nobody we picked seems exceptional in any real way. They're all just safe, steady, picks for a safe, steady, team. Neither bad nor good. Just...safe. Ugh.

I like the Gallant pick. Don't know much about the other bunch though.

Well they've already said that Larkin will play center this year. I think they were sacrificing long term development for short term goal scoring because they were trying to make the playoffs. Now that the streak is over hopefully that will be less of an issue.

I mean, that's definitely what they're doing. I just think it's short sighted. In the long run you want your more dynamic offensive players at center. Let Mantha, Svech, Tatar, Nyquist, Bertuzzi, etc. play on the wing. They play without the puck and can finish. But Larkin and AA are magic when they've got the puck on their stick. Just stick them on the second and 3rd lines and shelter them in the d-zone until they get better defensively.

Agreed. I actually think we should use AA as a center though, like he was drafted to be. I'm not sure why the Wings don't see it. Your most talented skater, scorer, and one of your better puckhandlers should probably carry the puck more IMO. They probably have questions about his faceoff percentage or some dumb s***.

Neither of those guys are decidedly better than AA. Why do you think he needs another year? He scores more goals than both of them in fewer minutes. There are knocks on his work ethic, but those exist for Mantha too. And there are knocks on his defense, but those exist for Larkin too. Larkin was demoted all the way down to the 4th line at one point last season because he was bad defensively. I'm not against trading AA (or any of them) theoretically, provided the price is right. But I do think it's strange how people act like Larkin and Mantha are decidedly better than he is. To me they're all in the same boat. Hell, give AA 2 more minutes of ice time a night, powerplay time, and Zetterberg as his center and he probably leads the team in goals.

Yall ready for the Wings to trade back and take Klim Kostin? Exciting stuff on draft day.

We get like one of these guys a year. There's literally no way to criticize Holland for not landing undrafted guys. He does it all the time. Dekeyser, Nosek, Russo, Coreau, Reneuf, Hicketts. If people ***** about Holland missing on this kid then I don't really know what to say.

I didn't pay for Custance's anodyne b.s. when it was for ESPN Insider and I probably won't pay for it now. His articles are almost all "human interest" pieces that neither ask difficult questions nor provide complex answers. It's pretty much all "The Stanley Cup Finals will come down to who wants it more" type crap. Besides why pay for boring hockey content when the majority of the really interesting stuff is coming out of blogs these days for free?

Only thing I would have done differently is protect Sheahan over Abby. Interesting looking at other teams' lists though. Lots of good defensemen are unprotected. Holland may have missed the boat a bit. I'd have given long looks at Calvin De Haan and Matt Dumba.

It doesn't work that way though. Jurco was a better AHLer than Athanasiou and he was an NHL flop, so by your rationale AA should never have gotten a call up because he wasn't even Jurco good. Pulkinnen had better AHL career than most NHL players did btw. So what? All that means is that Pulkkinen wasn't any good. It doesn't say much at all about everyone else. Frk shoots as well as Pulkkinen did, but he's bigger, stronger, faster, and more aggressive. He's worth a look. If he doesn't pan out, oh well. In my scenario he's essentially taking Miller's roster spot, so it's a wash anyway.

This was exactly what I meant. If we're going to have one "defensive/shutdown" line, I'd rather that line be made up of Helm/Sheahan, Abby, and Nosek, than Glendening, Ott, Miller, or whomever. They'd be just as good defensively, and probably a little better offensively and in terms of possession. And if a 3rd line of Neilsen, Frk, and Svechnikov could give you the same production or better then it's a relative gain. I definitely didn't mean to sound pessimistic, I think it would give us a better 3rd and 4th line.

You're talking about two different things here, so I'll try to address them both. Frk's "skill", and his scoring rate so far in the AHL. The two aren't really the same thing. His scoring rate is decent enough for the AHL, but his skill is what makes me think he'd perform better on an NHL third line than the guys you mentioned. A little like AA, who didn't really have that great of a scoring rate in the AHL when he was a top guy, but whose skillset makes him dangerous in the NHL as a complimentary piece. I think that with his shot, size, and hands it wouldn't be unrealistic for Frk to get 12-15 goals on the 3rd line I mentioned (Neilsen and Svech). You may have more faith in Abby, Sheahan, or Helm than I do, but I don't see them scoring that much at this point. I don't think Frk is some star player in the making or anything, but I think he's got better finishing skills than those guys.