• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

HoweFan

2017 Draft

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

Ok, I'd splash him, then turn around and splash him again.

And if i made him coffee, I'd use toilet water...

Dude at least give him enough credit to not let you anywhere near his coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well McKee was a long-shot project from the get-go, not a 9th overall pick. Mantha was a highish pick and he's turning out pretty well. Along with his skill he had more fights last year than any year in juniors. Sheahan isn't physical. Ericsson plays more physical than I think people give him credit for, but he doesn't punish people. Abdelkader pisses people off. 
As goofy as Blashill looks, and as questionable as his tactics are, I think he embraces a "protect your teammates" approach more than Babcock did, which is exciting.


Yeah, McKee was a long shot. Would have been cool to see him get in some games, but he seemed more inclined to be a maniacal goon instead of improving his actual hockey skills. He'd probably be kicked out of the league by now anyways. Watching that guys fights, he's relentless and you can see the pleasure he takes in beating the s*** out of people. Probably one of those guys who would be in jail for that if he didn't get to take his aggressions out on the ice.

Man thanks sticks up for himself, and E will fight, but with his size he should be laying out guys like Kronwall used to. Players should fear a guy that size in their way, but they can usually just skate by him, or know he won't do much. Abby is a pest, but he used to do more than that. Not that he won a lot of fights, but he'd fight anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

Umm, first of a list of 2. Not sure that adds much.

Why is everyone suddenly acting like size doesn't matter? (p.s. i know, i know...phrasing...)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaps80 said:

 


Yeah, McKee was a long shot. Would have been cool to see him get in some games, but he seemed more inclined to be a maniacal goon instead of improving his actual hockey skills. He'd probably be kicked out of the league by now anyways. Watching that guys fights, he's relentless and you can see the pleasure he takes in beating the s*** out of people. Probably one of those guys who would be in jail for that if he didn't get to take his aggressions out on the ice.

Man thanks sticks up for himself, and E will fight, but with his size he should be laying out guys like Kronwall used to. Players should fear a guy that size in their way, but they can usually just skate by him, or know he won't do much. Abby is a pest, but he used to do more than that. Not that he won a lot of fights, but he'd fight anyways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ericsson doesn't have the skating ability that Kronwall does/did to lay people out. He's more of a North-South skater, probably fairly easy to avoid. I just wish he was meaner in front of the net. More cross-checks to the back. Get them away from the goalie, that kind of thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sputman said:

Ericsson doesn't have the skating ability that Kronwall does/did to lay people out. He's more of a North-South skater, probably fairly easy to avoid. I just wish he was meaner in front of the net. More cross-checks to the back. Get them away from the goalie, that kind of thing. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kipwinger said:

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.

We were talking about big players playing big. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sputman said:

We were talking about big players playing big. 

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. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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

You nailed it. There were defensemen on his team who had more points than him 5v5. Look st his highlights. All garbage goals on PP only due to size difference. 

4th line grinder material at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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 several scouting reports disagree with your assessment.  

"Rasmussen can score goals and for a 6-foot-5 player, scouts are impressed at how well he gets around the ice." - Jeff Marek of Sportsnet

"He knows how to use his 6-foot-6, 215-pound frame to his fullest advantage. He has shown more confidence this season with 51 points (30 goals, 21 assists) in 46 games. Does a fine job getting to the dirty areas to provide screens and get deflections, and knows how to protect the puck with his reach."Mike Morreale NHL.com

 "A big kid with strong puck protection skills. Works hard all over the ice and has good playmaking skills. Uses his good vision and passing skills to distribute the puck effectively. "Dennis Schellenberg Hockey Prospectus

There are others, but you get the idea.  He's not perfect, he has some aspects of his game that he needs to work on, but honestly they all do.  No one is going to come out of the draft and into the NHL and be perfect.  With all these teams going for the speedy defensemen, I want to know who's going to stop him from scoring goals in front of the net.  If we can get a couple d-men that can shoot the puck hard from the point and this kid in front of the net, this is a good formula for plenty of PP goals in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, xtrememachine1 said:

Well several scouting reports disagree with your assessment.  

"Rasmussen can score goals and for a 6-foot-5 player, scouts are impressed at how well he gets around the ice." - Jeff Marek of Sportsnet

"He knows how to use his 6-foot-6, 215-pound frame to his fullest advantage. He has shown more confidence this season with 51 points (30 goals, 21 assists) in 46 games. Does a fine job getting to the dirty areas to provide screens and get deflections, and knows how to protect the puck with his reach."Mike Morreale NHL.com

 "A big kid with strong puck protection skills. Works hard all over the ice and has good playmaking skills. Uses his good vision and passing skills to distribute the puck effectively. "Dennis Schellenberg Hockey Prospectus

There are others, but you get the idea.  He's not perfect, he has some aspects of his game that he needs to work on, but honestly they all do.  No one is going to come out of the draft and into the NHL and be perfect.  With all these teams going for the speedy defensemen, I want to know who's going to stop him from scoring goals in front of the net.  If we can get a couple d-men that can shoot the puck hard from the point and this kid in front of the net, this is a good formula for plenty of PP goals in the future.

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.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kipwinger said:

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.

Well it could really be any number of things.  Its a team sport, afterall. Could be linemates, strategy, coaching.  All the scouts can really comment on is his individual ability which sounds pretty good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

His teammates, coaching, bad luck. There are a lot of reasons why that could be. He was also injured. so that hit his point production too.

Edited by derblaueClaus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, derblaueClaus said:

His teamates, coaching there are a lot of reasons why that could be. He was also injured. so that hit his point production too.

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. 

4 minutes ago, Son of a Wing said:

Not all players develop at the same pace. They seem to think he's got a higher ceiling. Much like Cholowski. Looking forward to see what can come from him.

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. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand when people have their own favs, but not sure why the hate for a guy that has yet to play a pro hockey game. Many keep talking about his lack of skill. Not sure where that comes from. I don't read every scouting report but I do read several. Not one said he sucked. I have been following the draft for 20+ years and over that time there are some specific sites/scouts that I have grown to trust. That being said here is the scouting reports for our last 5 1st round picks from the scout I trust the most. You tell me were he is wrong:

Mantha

Tall left winger with physicality and scoring prowess, as well as willingness to stick up for his teammates. A physical presence in the Q that has elevated himself into the first round by playing well in each outing. He missed the cut-off to the 2012 draft by one-day, and in 2011-12 has a respectable 22 goals and 51 points in the QMJHL. Increased that to reach the 50 goal plateau this season. He does come with a little concern that he can play uninvovled and unwilling to do much of the dirty work on the back check to unearth pucks. No one wants to start placing labels on junior scorer who come off lacking enthusiasm and full game commitment, but you have to wonder if it leads to his fall down the slottings.

Larkin

Two-way player at the centre position who displays excellent balance and jump all over the 200 foot sheet. Sees the ice well and makes plays in the offensive zone with both skill and grit. Plays strong on the puck and shows some snarl in the battle zones. Displays soft hands and sets up a whole lot of chances for his linemates. Very responsible in his defensive zone. Smart and aware on the attack, and deceptively quick.

Svechnikov

Big bodied Russian import who hands and feet can at times make him a dominant player in games. Has a good shot and feet. Possesses a big frame that has room for more weight. A member of his homeland’s team roster for the World Junior Under-20 at Christmas 2014.
 

Cholowski

Four way skating defender who has seemed to go from a tiny midget defenseman into a six foot elite skating offenseman. Calm, confident and aware from his end all the way up to the attack zone. Plays on both the PK and the PP where his vision and elusiveness already make him a strong competitor. He will continue to work on strengthening his shot and over all physicality in the weight room. He started at 5’ 8” and projects to be 6’ 3”.
Committed to St. Cloud State University.

Rasmussen

Large competitive two-way centreman with skill and good feet. A gritty, naturally strong player with mobility who wins most board scrums. He is a dominant player in the front and below the goal line. A mobile skater who is difficult to contain or move; he wins puck battles and scores. Intriguing prospect with upside offensively: difficult to contain, and effective vision and passing skills. Owns the front of the net on the power play. He might look for the pass over shooting, but he protects the biscuit well. Has an upright skating stride but gets there and shows jam when he greets you. His combination of power and skill is at the high end of this draft class, even though you might hope he would show a bit more effort all sixty minutes. A raw talent who may end up being the best player out of the West.

Do any of those scouting reports saw player X sucks? Or do those reports sound pretty spot on? I think those reports are pretty spot on and based on years of following and trusting this scout I tend to believe his evaluations. Now others may disagree which is fine. But rasmussen is going to be a good player for us, same as Mantha, Larkin, soon Svechnikov and Cholowski (the 1 guy I totally disagreed with at the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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

16 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

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. 

 

38 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

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.

 

31 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I'd like to say everyone dumping on Holland and saying he's an "idiot" or whatever need to understand he's not making these decisions entirely by himself.  These draft picks are the collective input from scouts, coaches, staff, ownership, etc.  Some of you act like Holland is just ignoring the voices of reason and doing whatever he wants.  Ultimately, he makes the decision, but he's making these decisions based on the input from a lot of other people.  
Second, while there are players I would have rather drafted in the first round, I have to give him credit for going against the grain.  Back in the 90's, everyone looks for high octane offensive minded players and we went with speedy two way guys.  Since we were pretty much the only team going in that direction, we had our pick of pretty much anyone we wanted.  Today, the game has changed and there are a lot of teams drafting those types of players, trying to replicate that success.  There's also a lot of teams shifting their defensemen to be more offensive minded puck moving, speedsters.  After watching this draft, the Wings are clearly moving towards being a bigger, more physical team, which kind of makes sense.  Most teams are not built the way the Wings are apparently going to be built now.  Its a copycat league and if everyone is building their team to be fast, who's going to handle these big forwards standing in front of the net?  Who's going to be strong enough to get the puck off our power forwards?  Maybe this will end up not being the best idea and it won't work, but I'm going to give Holland and the rest of the front office decision makers credit for trying to do something different.  Nobody ever got ahead by being like everyone else.

Matt Millen had scouts too, he ignored them. Even if scouts were saying Rasmussen is good, it's his final say and he's the one who gets credit or blame. In this case it looks like a blunder.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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). 

That is your opinion. Get over yourself. Again he was the 5th best NA skater. Vilardi was 4th. But at this point in time Rasmussen is a better skater than Vilardi. If Rasmussen goes out and puts up a bunch of 25+ goal seasons playing in front of the net who cares? Will he? We will only know 15 years from now. Then we can decide if he was a bust and the other guys you mentioned where better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Buppy said:

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. 

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. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

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). 

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...)

3 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


Matt Millen had scouts too, he ignored them. Even if scouts were saying Rasmussen is good, it's his final say and he's the one who gets credit or blame. In this case it looks like a blunder.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just not a good pick at #9. That's most of the disappointment. 


He sounds like Clarkson. I don't want a Clarkson type at 9. I'd rather take a guy who has a higher potential to bust but has a higher ceiling, or Tippett who was almost universally considered better but is a wing, than a guy who probably will be at least a 3rd liner but probably not better than a second liner.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Who the F is Scott Wheeler and why do we care about his opinion?

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now