Who would you Rather Have?

[krsmith17 7,191]

16 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Great points.

I'm more excited about Setkov than Chowdog.  Setkov's size will give him a much higher ceiling.  The reports say his skating is good, so that's the first step.

I'm high on Setkov as a surprise pick that can exceed expectations, being picked in the 4th round, but I definitely wouldn't put him ahead of Cholowski at this point. Size alone doesn't give a player the "much higher ceiling". Cholowski is a very headsy player that can make plays under pressure with his smooth skating and passing ability. Setkov didn't look great in last night's game against the States. Granted, Denmark lost 9-0, so not many Danes looked good in that one, but I payed close attention to Setkov and there were several plays where he looked completely lost in the defensive zone. He's still very young, and I'm sure he'll figure it out, but he has a long way to go before I'd consider him on the same level as Cholowski, let alone above him. At this point I'd say Cholowski has top pair potential, while Setkov has 3rd pair potential. I hope Setkov surprises everyone and becomes a 2nd pair, but I'd say that's his ceiling.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm high on Setkov as a surprise pick that can exceed expectations, being picked in the 4th round, but I definitely wouldn't put him ahead of Cholowski at this point. Size alone doesn't give a player the "much higher ceiling". Cholowski is a very headsy player that can make plays under pressure with his smooth skating and passing ability. Setkov didn't look great in last night's game against the States. Granted, Denmark lost 9-0, so not many Danes looked good in that one, but I payed close attention to Setkov and there were several plays where he looked completely lost in the defensive zone. He's still very young, and I'm sure he'll figure it out, but he has a long way to go before I'd consider him on the same level as Cholowski, let alone above him. At this point I'd say Cholowski has top pair potential, while Setkov has 3rd pair potential. I hope Setkov surprises everyone and becomes a 2nd pair, but I'd say that's his ceiling.

I tend to agree with u. He's a Marchenko.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

22 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Great points.

I'm more excited about Setkov than Chowdog.  Setkov's size will give him a much higher ceiling.  The reports say his skating is good, so that's the first step.

That's like saying AA is going to be a star because he's fast or Helm is worth $3 mil because of his speed alone.  One aspect of a player's game doesn't make him a good player.  Besides, how many times have we seen big guys who don't use their size effectively?

[brett 1,029]

kindl was 19 lmao wtf

who cares we wont see anyone called up for another 5 years

Edited December 28, 2017 by brett

[DickieDunn 2,571]

16 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Dickie, what's wrong, bud?  Im just saying size/reach are good things for a blueliner.  That's all.

We cant have that!  He needs to be Chardman in another 2 years.  For our sake.

No, you're saying his size makes him the better prospect.  Just his size.  Not his intelligence, puck handling, passing, shot, or anything else.  Size.  It's a dumb argument.

[kickazz 5,459]

3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

No, you're saying his size makes him the better prospect.  Just his size.  Not his intelligence, puck handling, passing, shot, or anything else.  Size.  It's a dumb argument.

Try to argue about that with any sorority chick. 

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Isn't the prospect with the higher ceiling typically considered the better prospect?

[krsmith17 7,191]

4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

No.  The better prospect is considered the better prospect.  Setkov could turn into Victor Hedman or he could turn into a nobody.  Chowdog cant turn into Hedman, but he's far more certain to be an NHL player sooner and longer than Setkov, making him the better prospect.

Pretty sound logic you have there Jonas. No holes in that argument.

Evgeny Svechnikov is a better prospect than John (Jack) Adams, but Adams has a higher ceiling (because he's taller) than Svechnikov. Adams could turn into Ryan Getzlaf or he could turn into a nobody. Svechdog can't turn into Getzlaf, but he's far more certain to be an NHL player sooner and longer than Adams, making him the better prospect...

Am I doing it right?

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

No.  Getzlaf isnt a top 5 player at his position.  And being 6'5" as a centerman is not always advantageous.  Both Lemieux and Lindros suffered far more from injury than their smaller contemporaries in large part due to being bigger targets.  My argument is that ceteris paribus, being taller and bigger as a defenseman is almost always a better thing.

Try again, KRS.

Oh, I think I'm starting to get it now. Because Getzlaf isn't a top 5 player at his position, Adams doesn't have a shot at reaching that sort of ceiling. But because Hedman is a top 5 defenseman, Setkov does have a legit shot at reaching that sort of ceiling, because he's tall and a defenseman of course. It makes total sense now......

Lemieux did suffer injuries, but his career was cut short due to multiple battles with cancer. Lindros was injury prone, I'll give you that, but that doesn't mean that big forwards in general are prone to injuries. Jagr will be 46 in a couple months and is still going strong. What about Bure and Kariya? Two smallish forwards that had their fair share of injuries. What about Orr and Neely? Two biggish defensemen (relative to era) that also had their fair share of injuries. Being big or small has very little to do with injuries, but more to do with hockey sense and awareness. Something Cholowski seems to have, Setkov, I have no idea.

I will agree that everything else being equal, bigger is usually better when it comes to any physical sport, but in hockey, that goes for ALL positions; forwards, defensemen and goalies.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Oh, I think I'm starting to get it now. Because Getzlaf isn't a top 5 player at his position, Adams doesn't have a shot at reaching that sort of ceiling. But because Hedman is a top 5 defenseman, Setkov does have a legit shot at reaching that sort of ceiling, because he's tall and a defenseman of course. It makes total sense now......

Lemieux did suffer injuries, but his career was cut short due to multiple battles with cancer. Lindros was injury prone, I'll give you that, but that doesn't mean that big forwards in general are prone to injuries. Jagr will be 46 in a couple months and is still going strong. What about Bure and Kariya? Two smallish forwards that had their fair share of injuries. What about Orr and Neely? Two biggish defensemen (relative to era) that also had their fair share of injuries. Being big or small has very little to do with injuries, but more to do with hockey sense and awareness. Something Cholowski seems to have, Setkov, I have no idea.

I will agree that everything else being equal, bigger is usually better when it comes to any physical sport, but in hockey, that goes for ALL positions; forwards, defensemen and goalies.

Neely was a winger

12 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

No.  The better prospect is considered the better prospect.  Setkov could turn into Victor Hedman or he could turn into a nobody.  Chowdog cant turn into Hedman, but he's far more certain to be an NHL player sooner and longer than Setkov, making him the better prospect.

Yes, prospects are generally judged on their potential ceiling.  Otherwise Sheahan would have been a better prospect than Tarasenko because he was more likely to play in the NHL.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

3 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

No.  Getzlaf isnt a top 5 player at his position.  And being 6'5" as a centerman is not always advantageous.  Both Lemieux and Lindros suffered far more from injury than their smaller contemporaries in large part due to being bigger targets.  My argument is that ceteris paribus, being taller and bigger as a defenseman is almost always a better thing.

Try again, KRS.

That doesn't pass the common sense test to me. Bigger guys are more durable. If Lindros and Lemieux "suffered far more...being bigger targets" it's because they they were targeted since they were stars and constant offensive threats. That's why teams used to put enforcers to protect stars like McSorley-Gretsky.

And as krsmith pointed out, you can find many "smaller contemporaries" that had injury problems

[kickazz 5,459]

Height is honestly the dumbest argument I hear about. It really has no advantage in hockey unless you're 6'5 or something ridiculous. I see no difference between a guy who is 5'11 and 6'1.  

I think of height as ranges. 5'10 and below, 5'11 - 6'2 is likely where most people fall and 6'3 and above is ridiculously tall. 

You can be 5'11 and weigh 210 pounds. But you could be 6'1 and weigh 160 pounds and get swatted like a fly. 

Side note, I bet it's probably riskier to hit shorter guys now since the league has banned headshots. I'd rather be playing against taller guys where I can get a clean body shot in. If Tyler Johnson was coming down ice, I'd think twice before trying to hit the guy. Last think you want his touching his head and getting a stupid suspension. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by kickazz

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

Maxim Kuznetsov. That guy had a high ceiling.

[kliq 3,755]

Eric Lindros was injury prone because he skated with his head down.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Some of the best hitters of the last 20+ years were in the 6' 195 lb range.  Peca, Chelios, Konstantinov, etc.  Super Mario was 6'4" 200+ lbs. Larry "Dollar Hotdog" Murphy was 6'2" 210. Sheahan is 6'3" 215.  Of those 6 guys, the 3 smaller ones are the guys you'd least want to be hit by.

[krsmith17 7,191]

17 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Keep going.  You budged halfway at least.  

Here's some food for thought:

Hicketts

Russo

Saarijarvi 

All under 6'.  All under 190 lbs.

Ponder that for a bit.

Good work though, KRS.

First of all, Russo isn't under 6' or 190lbs. Secondly, Russo sucks. Third, Hicketts and Saarijarvi are small as s***, but both are better prospects AND have higher ceilings than Setkov, despite their height disadvantages...

Troll harder... I mean try harder...

17 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Neely was a winger

My bad. I was hung over as f*** yesterday... and again today... I was thinking Bourque, but pretty sure he was relatively healthy throughout his career.

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Bourque and Orr didnt play at the same time, tho.  You were thinking of Robinson.

Why does it matter if Bourque and Orr played at the same time? Bourque and Neely did play at the same time, on the same team. That's who I f***ed up. And no I wasn't thinking of Robinson...

[krsmith17 7,191]

17 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

" What about Orr and Neely? Two biggish defensemen (relative to era) "

Bourque and Orr are part of 2 different eras.  You are thinking of Larry Robinson.

What the f*** is your point? Orr played in the 60's-70's, and Bourque and Neely played in the 80's-90's. So relative to era, both Orr and Bourque were biggish defensemen at 6'0", 200lbs. and 6'0", 220lbs respectively. 

[krsmith17 7,191]

8 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Robinson played in Orr's era.  Bourque in the era after that.  So I think you typed Neely, but were thinking of Robinson.  Big Bird was definitely a big dude.

You're right... I was definitely thinking Robinson...  F***ing moron...

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Fixed.  No need to get mad.  Just trying to help.  You mistyped Neely, and I know you know Neely isnt a defenseman from Orr's era.

You're right, I do know Neely isn't a defenseman from Orr's era. I also know Bourque isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that I was referring to Orr and Bourque from different eras.

So if I said Mike Bossy and Alex Ovechkin are the two best pure goal scorers relative to era, would you then say, "No, you must have meant Bossy and Marcel Dionne" because they played in the same era?... I didn't mean Robinson. Get over it. Move on.

[krsmith17 7,191]

29 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Fair enough.  But you like Larry Robinson, right?

Who doesn't?...

[kliq 3,755]

57 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Fair enough.  But you like Larry Robinson, right?

Da Haan/Cole > Robinson