2017 Draft

[Buppy 1,720]

13 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Right, but we just used our highest draft pick in almost 30 years on him.  So presumably you'd like to fill a need with it.  Especially if that need is as important as 1C or 1D, both things we need, and neither of which Rasmussen will be if moved to the wing (where we're currently loaded with talent).  And even then, if you were going to target a guy to be a goal scoring winger, why not take Tippett who is by all accounts the best goal scoring winger in the draft?

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.

[kickazz 5,459]

4 hours ago, sputman said:

I used to get bummed out by all the semi-recent negativity on this board, but I've come to be reassured by it, really. It's become clear that these people are just absolutely miserable, and the only way to express it is by s***ting on EVERYTHING. It's reassuring because at least you aren't out there shooting people.

Lol! 

[BringBack19 110]

32 minutes ago, Buppy said:

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.

I think this is a fair critique of those not happy with the pick. 

[Barrie 900]

1 hour ago, Mckinley25 said:

Both Tyler Wright and Ken Holland spoke highly of Rasmussen's off ice character, and it seemed, at least in the short interviews, that it weighed heavily in their decision.  I know virtually nothing about this process, does this seem to anyone as a valid reason for picking him over other players that were ranked better?

Rasmussen was 3rd in the fitness test of all the players in the draft. I liked hearing that, it means he's willing to work hard.

[LeftWinger 4,953]

It'll just put a knife in my side everytime Tippett scores a goal and wins awards. I'm gonna hate it that he's not ours...

Edited June 25, 2017 by LeftWinger

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Rasmussen is the type of player you take when you have a specific need. When you're rebuilding you need to try to find a higher end player even if you need to take a chance on a book or bust prospect, not a guy who projects as having a ceiling of a second line player.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[kickazz 5,459]

3 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Rasmussen is the type of player you take when you have a specific need. When you're rebuilding you need to try to find a higher end player even if you need to take a chance on a book or bust prospect, not a guy who projects as having a ceiling of a second line player.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Yeah cause Viliardi is so much better!!!!

[kliq 3,755]

22 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

It'll just put a knife in my side everytime Tippett scores a goal and wins awards. I'm gonna hate it that he's not ours...

If anything do this with Vilardi because other then you, nobody wanted a winger with the 9th pick. If they didnt take Rasmussen, I'm pretty sure they would have taken him.

[kickazz 5,459]

46 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

It'll just put a knife in my side everytime Tippett scores a goal and wins awards. I'm gonna hate it that he's not ours...

Do you honestly think Tippet is going to "win awards"? over McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane? And with the new generation will he win awards over McDavid and Patrick Laine? You're out of your mind. 

[ShanahanMan 473]

Straight from the horse's mouth. They took him cause of character, plain and simple. It's funny, at one point Wright even says "and even if he's not producing offensively, at least he's hard to play against". Haha. First round pick gents. A guy with good character who may be hard to play against. 

Glendenning and Miller have great character too. Surprised they didn't go first round.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by ShanahanMan

[Crashnburnluder 385]

Obviously we have no Idea what trades were availble on the floor but I would have loved to find away to trade back from 9 to one of Vegas two picks, Pick Liljegren then, and add a second 1st round pick and end up with Rasmussen there. Who know, probably wasn't possibly as I don't think any picks were moved on the draft floor till 27?

 

but now that would have been a stellar draft but would have had to been perfect.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Yeah cause Viliardi is so much better!!!!

Ummmm, yes he is, based on what both did.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

[xtrememachine1 795]

2 hours ago, Richdg said:

I would have been happy with Tippett as well. But I don't believe he is better than Rasmussen either. Different players. They play a different game. We have snipers-like Tippett and have 0 front of net guys like Rasmussen. We all have been complaining-to include yourself about taking to many 50ft shots with no one there to bang home the rebounds. Now we have someone to do it.

This is why I think Rasmussen was the right choice.  The Wings organization has made the decision to change the make up of their team.  To get bigger and be a more physical type of team.  You don't draft a sniper over a 6'6" goal scoring center when this is the way you want your team to look now.  All of their picks were big and fit into this new image, this new type of team.  A player like Tippett does not.  As Coach Herb Brooks said when he was building the U.S. 1980 Olympic hockey team: "I'm not looking for the best players - I'm looking for the right ones."

[Richdg 267]

8 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Ummmm, yes he is, based on what both did.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

again 1 was ranked 4th the other 5th. 1 can skate the other cant. Not a big difference at all here. Thing we all have to remember is every guy picked in the 1st round this year could be a bust. Every last one of them. On the flip side every one of them has enough potential to be a star. For anyone to say they know for sure who will do what is flat out lying to everyone.

[Richdg 267]

4 minutes ago, xtrememachine1 said:

This is why I think Rasmussen was the right choice.  The Wings organization has made the decision to change the make up of their team.  To get bigger and be a more physical type of team.  You don't draft a sniper over a 6'6" goal scoring center when this is the way you want your team to look now.  All of their picks were big and fit into this new image, this new type of team.  A player like Tippett does not.  As Coach Herb Brooks said when he was building the U.S. 1980 Olympic hockey team: "I'm not looking for the best players - I'm looking for the right ones."

Just think about the guys that should be the core of our team for the next 12-15 years. Mantha-a sniper, pure goal scorer. Svechnikov-sniper and play maker. Larkin-very good speed, good shooter and passer. AA-very good speed, good shooter average play maker, G Smith-big physical puck retriever with some offensive skill. These are the guys that will become our top 6. They will also fill out of top 2 PP units. What is missing? Front of net. No one else in the entire system can play that role. Adding Tippett doesn't solve that. He is another sniper, which is fine. But then we have to do something dumb like this year when we had to use Mantha and Vanek as the front of net guy, roles that they are not suited for. After Vanek it got worse and we had to use Sheahan! We also used helm and Nyquist in that role. This is why Rasmussen fits our team and the team needs so well. On paper anyway.

Look at potential PP units down the road:

Unit 1, using a 1-3-1:

net front: rasmussen

slot: Mantha

RH wing: Larkin

LH wing: Sproul/Russo

Point: DD

Unit 2, using a 1-3-1:

net front: Smith

Slot: Svechnikov

RH wing: AA

LH wing: Jensen/Cholowski

Point: Lindstrom

Those are not bad units based on potential. Now if Tippett was our choice we lack a net from guy and we take one of the wings out of the lineup. With him being a RHed shot it would be one of the Sproul/Russo or Jensen/Cholowski pairs.

[LeftWinger 4,953]

1 hour ago, kickazz said:

Do you honestly think Tippet is going to "win awards"? over McDavid, Crosby, Ovechkin, Kane? And with the new generation will he win awards over McDavid and Patrick Laine? You're out of your mind. 

Lol! Calder Trophy in his rookie year. Rocket Richard for most goals. Don't think those guys you listed will be winning rookie of the Year. Come back to reality.

[krsmith17 7,191]

People are trying to justify the Rasmussen pick because he's a "great net front presence". You don't draft a net front guy with your first top 10 pick in a quarter century. You pick the best player available. In the opinion of 95% of scouts, that would be Vilardi. If we're in such desperate need for a massive player that can bang in rebounds and play net front on the power-play, we could have very easily picked him beyond the first round. We could have even traded up in the 2nd and taken Ratcliffe who is a very similar type player.

Rasmussen, may end up being a very good player, but there's a reason we're being viewed by many as "1st round draft losers". No one is saying they know how these kids will turn out, just that on draft day, there were better options available.

Anyway, like I said before, Rasmussen is a Wing now, so I'm going to root him on like I do every other player in the organization, but I would have been much more pleased with this draft overall if we had taken any of the handful other guys that were available, rather than big Ras.

[TLGTrico 622]

1 hour ago, xtrememachine1 said:

 

I noticed someone mentioned we have "snipers-like Tippet".  Um, who are these again, because we have no snipers on this team. There's a reason we haven't had a 30 goal scorer since 2009.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

I guess it's the effect of someone comparing him to Holmstrom in that one article, but he really doesn't seem to be only a netfront guy. He looks like he has a pretty great shot as well. From the 26 goals shown in this highlight video they definitely don't just show netfront goals. I broke them down as such:

6 up close side of the net (from passes, mostly)

5 netfront rebound

3 netfront tips

12 slot one timer/shot (mostly on the rush) some nice snipes

The first few are cleanup type goals, though, so you can skip ahead if you want.

 

One thing I liked in the descriptions of his game was that he's great a board battles and protecting the puck. That's definitely something we've been lacking. That also might be a case for moving him to the wing, but c'est la vie.

[krsmith17 7,191]

46 minutes ago, TLGTrico said:

I noticed someone mentioned we have "snipers-like Tippet".  Um, who are these again, because we have no snipers on this team. There's a reason we haven't had a 30 goal scorer since 2009.

I would argue that Mantha is a pure sniper similar to Tippett. One thing that we do lack that Tippett would have brought to the table though is a right-handed sniper. 

[Echolalia 2,961]

I mean... even if he turned out to be exactly Holmstrom.  Is that a bad thing?  Hes not a franchise guy, but our team could reealllly use a prime Holmstrom mucking it up in the greasy areas.

[krsmith17 7,191]

13 minutes ago, Echolalia said:

I mean... even if he turned out to be exactly Holmstrom.  Is that a bad thing?  Hes not a franchise guy, but our team could reealllly use a prime Holmstrom mucking it up in the greasy areas.

Again, for our first top 10 pick in forever, yes I believe that would be a bad pick. Those are the types you get in the later rounds. Holmstrom was picked 257th overall and one of the best since Homer, Hornqvist was picked 230th overall. Pick the most all around skilled guy that high in the draft, you can pick specialty players later in the draft. That's just my opinion...

[Buppy 1,720]

33 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

People are trying to justify the Rasmussen pick because he's a "great net front presence". You don't draft a net front guy with your first top 10 pick in a quarter century. You pick the best player available. In the opinion of 95% of scouts, that would be Vilardi. If we're in such desperate need for a massive player that can bang in rebounds and play net front on the power-play, we could have very easily picked him beyond the first round. We could have even traded up in the 2nd and taken Ratcliffe who is a very similar type player.

Rasmussen, may end up being a very good player, but there's a reason we're being viewed by many as "1st round draft losers". No one is saying they know how these kids will turn out, just that on draft day, there were better options available.

Anyway, like I said before, Rasmussen is a Wing now, so I'm going to root him on like I do every other player in the organization, but I would have been much more pleased with this draft overall if we had taken any of the handful other guys that were available, rather than big Ras.

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). 

[shocky2002 36]

I don't know about anyone else but Tomas Holmstrom's in 2017 aren't valuable

I loved Homer and he was great during a time when the league wasn't built on speed, but if prime Homer were playing today he wouldn't be anymore than a 4th liner, rather than being Datsyuk's linemate

Edited June 25, 2017 by shocky2002

[DickieDunn 2,571]

again 1 was ranked 4th the other 5th. 1 can skate the other cant. Not a big difference at all here. Thing we all have to remember is every guy picked in the 1st round this year could be a bust. Every last one of them. On the flip side every one of them has enough potential to be a star. For anyone to say they know for sure who will do what is flat out lying to everyone.

One is a center who can make his linemates better. The other is a passenger who collects garbage and relies on his linemates and size advantage, something he won't have as much of in the NHL, for his offense.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Just think about the guys that should be the core of our team for the next 12-15 years. Mantha-a sniper, pure goal scorer. Svechnikov-sniper and play maker. Larkin-very good speed, good shooter and passer. AA-very good speed, good shooter average play maker, G Smith-big physical puck retriever with some offensive skill. These are the guys that will become our top 6. They will also fill out of top 2 PP units. What is missing? Front of net. No one else in the entire system can play that role. Adding Tippett doesn't solve that. He is another sniper, which is fine. But then we have to do something dumb like this year when we had to use Mantha and Vanek as the front of net guy, roles that they are not suited for. After Vanek it got worse and we had to use Sheahan! We also used helm and Nyquist in that role. This is why Rasmussen fits our team and the team needs so well. On paper anyway.
Look at potential PP units down the road:
Unit 1, using a 1-3-1:
net front: rasmussen
slot: Mantha
RH wing: Larkin
LH wing: Sproul/Russo
Point: DD
Unit 2, using a 1-3-1:
net front: Smith
Slot: Svechnikov
RH wing: AA
LH wing: Jensen/Cholowski
Point: Lindstrom
Those are not bad units based on potential. Now if Tippett was our choice we lack a net from guy and we take one of the wings out of the lineup. With him being a RHed shot it would be one of the Sproul/Russo or Jensen/Cholowski pairs.

Tippett could play that role without being limited to only that role. Rasmussen later in the first would be ok, he was a bad pick at 9, there were better options.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk