carpandean Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Either way....having the problem of drafting Tavares or Hedman was a nice problem to have. Tampa had it tough, too. They just got whichever one was left over.
wonderbread Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 And whats with the guy nervously massaging the kid's neck? It was creeping me out. hahahah That's funny!
shrader Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Tavares has some sick hands and will probably fill more seats. But an 18 year old defensemen that is as complete and as big as Hedman is pretty amazing. Either way....having the problem of drafting Tavares or Hedman was a nice problem to have. Kind of like having that choice between Alexandre Daigle and Chris Pronger? ;) I can't shake those comparisons out of my head. Yeah, I don't see Tavares as another Daigle, but I expect far more contribution from Hedman over his career.
spndnchz Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 "Other than playing in the NHL again...uh....there's nothing I'd rather be doing" WOW Now future little NHL'ers from the Cleveland area can be schooled in the finer details of playing soft around the net. And whats with the guy nervously massaging the kid's neck? It was creeping me out. Where does the kid go at the 2:14 mark? creepy :bag:
korab rules Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Kind of like having that choice between Alexandre Daigle and Chris Pronger? ;) I can't shake those comparisons out of my head. Yeah, I don't see Tavares as another Daigle, but I expect far more contribution from Hedman over his career. The age old debate - who do you pick, the physically dominant D-man who will play 30 minutes a night for the next 15 years, or the true #1 center who sells tickets, becomes the face of your franchise and makes an entire generation of teenage girls swoon? Daigle isn't a fair comparison at all. Tavares is a can't miss prospect who will be lighting up the league for the next 15 years. Let me ask the question differently with all the benefit of hindsight. If you had the first pick in the draft, and Joe Sakic and Chris Pronger were both on the board, who do you pick? I use these two names because that is the upside of Hedman and Tavares.
Taro T Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 The age old debate - who do you pick, the physically dominant D-man who will play 30 minutes a night for the next 15 years, or the true #1 center who sells tickets, becomes the face of your franchise and makes an entire generation of teenage girls swoon? Daigle isn't a fair comparison at all. Tavares is a can't miss prospect who will be lighting up the league for the next 15 years. Let me ask the question differently with all the benefit of hindsight. If you had the first pick in the draft, and Joe Sakic and Chris Pronger were both on the board, who do you pick? I use these two names because that is the upside of Hedman and Tavares. Easy, with Sakic on the board, you pick Turgeon w/ the #1 overall pick. (In fairness, Turgeon was the consensus #1 can't miss pick in the '87 draft.)
korab rules Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Easy, with Sakic on the board, you pick Turgeon w/ the #1 overall pick. (In fairness, Turgeon was the consensus #1 can't miss pick in the '87 draft.) I just about fell out of my chair reading that! Thanks for bringing back all those repressed memories! True, Turgeon was the consensus #1, and not a bad player by any stretch of the imagination. But for purposes of this discussion, I wanted to pick players with the benefit of hindsight - who do you take - the D-man or the #1 center? Sakic was the example of that #1 center who popped into my head, and Pronger was already in the discussion and as good an example of a physically dominant top pairing D-man as any I could come up with.
shrader Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Easy, with Sakic on the board, you pick Turgeon w/ the #1 overall pick. (In fairness, Turgeon was the consensus #1 can't miss pick in the '87 draft.) And so was Daigle. I know it's not a good comparison for this draft since Tavares has had more hype than any player in the last 20 years, maybe even more than Crosby. The big difference this year though was that Hedman's reputation grew so quickly and was actually considered to be a serious option for the first pick (I'd have to imagine that Tampa would've taken him there had they picked 1st overall). Anyway, as to Korab's original question, I think I may have answered that with what I just said. You pick based on needs. Tampa needed D and would've taken Hedman, I think. The Islanders need a total organizational facelift, so the ticket seller is probably the best option there. Either way, they're so incredibly screwed and I'm sure where ever they relocate will be the ones who actually have to deal with the "which was the better choice" question.
bob_sauve28 Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 Not to be a smart-aleck, but isn't Chara the only other player of that size? So really all he was saying was that Myers is a better skater than Chara? That doesn't really seem like a big deal. Is there more that I'm missing? Better than Chara? I'll take that! The sky could be the limit. Bowman also picked out a kid named Tom Barrasso and another 18 yr old by the name of Housley.
inkman Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 Not to be a smart-aleck, but isn't Chara the only other player of that size? So really all he was saying was that Myers is a better skater than Chara? That doesn't really seem like a big deal. Is there more that I'm missing? Better than Chara? I'll take that! As nfreeman stated, it was his skating he was referring to not his abilities. Being labeled a better skater than one of the worst skaters in the league isn't exactly anything to get excited about.
shrader Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 As nfreeman stated, it was his skating he was referring to not his abilities. Being labeled a better skater than one of the worst skaters in the league isn't exactly anything to get excited about. He's also a better scorer than Andrew Peters.
spndnchz Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 “He’s pretty poised,” said Bruins’ coach Claude Julien.
Taro T Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 I just about fell out of my chair reading that! Thanks for bringing back all those repressed memories! True, Turgeon was the consensus #1, and not a bad player by any stretch of the imagination. But for purposes of this discussion, I wanted to pick players with the benefit of hindsight - who do you take - the D-man or the #1 center? Sakic was the example of that #1 center who popped into my head, and Pronger was already in the discussion and as good an example of a physically dominant top pairing D-man as any I could come up with. My answer is basically the same as Schrader's. Which does the team need more at the time of the pick? If it's back in '93 when Mogilny and Patty are wreaking holy terror on opposing defenses, I'd prefer to have a Pronger in the wings. If it's after the lost offensive decade that followed the salary purging of the mid-90's, I'd prefer to see Sakic. And, when the Sabres chose Vanek, that is who I wanted the Sabres to grab. A defensive stud would have been good, but the team hadn't had any significant sniper in ~10 years. While the D had never been spectacular in that time (and it could be argued they've never had a Phaneuf-type in the past 20 years) the D had been adequate/good. I wouldn't say the same about the offense.
Stoner Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 My answer is basically the same as Schrader's. Which does the team need more at the time of the pick? If it's back in '93 when Mogilny and Patty are wreaking holy terror on opposing defenses, I'd prefer to have a Pronger in the wings. If it's after the lost offensive decade that followed the salary purging of the mid-90's, I'd prefer to see Sakic. And, when the Sabres chose Vanek, that is who I wanted the Sabres to grab. A defensive stud would have been good, but the team hadn't had any significant sniper in ~10 years. While the D had never been spectacular in that time (and it could be argued they've never had a Phaneuf-type in the past 20 years) the D had been adequate/good. I wouldn't say the same about the offense. Just curious where you weigh in on how Ruff has handled Vanek. When the Sabres drafted him, what kind of player did you envision at age 25?
Taro T Posted November 6, 2009 Report Posted November 6, 2009 Just curious where you weigh in on how Ruff has handled Vanek. When the Sabres drafted him, what kind of player did you envision at age 25? I was hoping he'd be a 40 goal scorer by then. And he is/ was. There are a lot of guys that were regarded as true offensive studs that never came close to 40 at 25. Does he play the same style of game as I'd have expected him to play? Not particularily, his style is more Buffalo Sabres Rick Vaive than Make Us Laughs Rick Vaive and I expected more of the latter.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.