boxiebrown

Members
  • Content count

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

441 Excellent

About boxiebrown

  • Rank
    Comets Star
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. Pretty much this. People are vastly overrating Sutter. He is legitimately one of the worst offensive forwards in the league. 268th out of 303 forwards in even strength production over the last three years. He's below such offensive luminaries as Steve Bernier and Jay McClement. His goal numbers were passable last year because he got a ton of minutes, saw his shooting percentage spike, and got 4 shorties. He's a ~15 goal scorer who is also one of the worst playmakers in the league. He had all of 3(!!) primary assists at even strength last year, dead last of centers with more than 1000 minutes. Literally any way you slice it he is bad, and this contract sucks.
  2. You're right. A bottom-pairing WHL defenseman who scored 11 points in 60 games will probably turn out like Luc Robitaille. Very good comparison.
  3. No, it's because even as a draft +2 year he was a bottom-pairing player on a bad team, his production was atrocious, and he has no discernible NHL level skills. It will be a miracle if he even has an AHL career. I have nothing against prospects drafted in the late rounds, I just wish we had chosen one!
  4. The Bruins were definitely successful because they signed bottom pairing WHL goons. Definitely.
  5. I know he has a great story, but this was a total waste of a pick, and now we've doubled down and made it a total waste of a contract slot. Absolutely no reason to sign him.
  6. Yes, and I said in my post, "some of their players use size" to possess the puck. Of course they do. My point is that there are many ways to be an effective hockey player, and if we write off every player below 6'0, we're missing out on a ton of useful players.
  7. I didn't say they stay away from big players. Obviously, if you can find a big player who's also skilled, you go for it. Look at LA's draft picks again. Virtually all of them produced at an excellent level (relative to their draft slot) before they were drafted. It's also really disingenuous to pretend that they picked guys like Pearson, Toffoli, or Vey because they're "big." Not too mention that LA has drafted a ton of average sized, skilled puck moving defencemen in the last few years (McKeown, Miller, Ebert, Leslie.) The point is that LA doesn't fetishize size and "toughness" to the exclusion of skill. Unless you think that every player at 6'0 or 6'1 counts as picking size over skill.
  8. It's a huge misconception that "skill" players can only contribute by scoring. I agree that ideally you want two-way players. But skill players can be great defensive players. Look at Backstrom and Datsyuk, for example, or Plekanec. These are all guys who use positioning, speed and skill to be very effective defensive players. A lot of people also seem to conflate "physical" with "solid defensively." Finishing your checks is great and all, but it's actually a very small part of the game. The best "physical" forwards use their size and strength to control the puck and contribute on offence. So in that way, if a so-called physical player is not putting up numbers, they're also not really contributing much. Of course, some physical players are also excellent defensive players (Kopitar, Hanzal, Getzlaf, etc.) But again, size is just a tool they use, and there are other tools that can accomplish the same thing. We shouldn't be afraid of drafting skill players, as they can be just as effective two-way players as bigger guys.
  9. Please show me the evidence that smaller teams can't beat bigger teams. The size fetishism on CDC is truly bizarre. Like, guys, the Boston series was 3.5 years ago and we didn't lose because we were "small." It's time to move on. LA doesn't win because they're "big" and "play with an edge." They win because they possess the hell out of the puck. Some of their players use size to do that, some use skill. We should acquire players that will help us be just as good as possessing the puck as LA. It really isn't rocket science. The funny thing is that even LA doesn't actually believe in this size obsession. They draft based on offensive production and puck skills, and if they player is also big, it's a bonus. For example, they drafted 5'9 Spencer Watson in the 7th round, who scored a PPG in junior. Meanwhile, we were drafting "big" dudes who are marginal CHL players. I wonder which strategy will work out better?
  10. Having said that, I think it's (obviously) too early to be really discouraged by Virtanen's performance. One, it's a super small sample size, and two, he's coming off of injury. On the other hand, if he DOES stagnate in production this year, it would definitely validate some of the pre-draft criticisms of Virtanen, specifically that his linemates were driving his production, and that his goal scoring was the result on an unsustainably high shooting percentage. So those storylines definitely bear watching. The good thing is that Virtanen is still so young, so a poor post-draft season wouldn't be nearly as discouraging for him as for a lot of prospects. His 2015-16 CHL season will be really interesting.
  11. We can't compete with LA because we don't have as many good players as them. Thus, I wanted us to draft the player with the most potential to be a good player, which was Nylander. That would increase our chances of having good players, and therefore help us compete against LA and other good teams. It adds up pretty well!
  12. Listen, I wanted us to draft Nylander and I still think he will be the better player. Having said that, Virtanen is a perfectly fine prospect and I hope he turns out great for us. But I really want to address the idea that Virtanen was a better pick because of our "needs." Drafting a player based on the deficiencies of your team in the previous season is straight up INSANE. A player's peak is between 25-28. That's 7-10 years from now for Virtanen. We have absolutely no idea what the Canucks will look like in 7 years, and no idea what that team will need. This is why drafting best player available is the right call 99% of the time. The same goes for the argument that we needed to draft Virtanen because we need to get bigger to deal with the team's in our division. Again, who knows what the Sharks, Ducks and Kings will look like in a decade? Heck, there could easily be expansion and realignment in the next 5 years. And then of course there's the fact that there's no proof whatsoever that smaller, skill teams can't beat "big" teams. Again, I hope Virtanen turns out great for us (I think his best case scenario is something like Evander Kane, which I would be ecstatic about). But I also really, really hope that Benning realizes how crazy it is to draft based on team need, and that drafting for skill over size is typically a much more successful strategy.
  13. I think it's a huge misconception that this is a "safe" pick. The vast majority of 4th line players were much more productive in junior than Petit was. It's very unlikely that he has the skills to make the NHL even as a 4th liner. This is a very risky pick, with very low upside. Picking someone like Mistele and Watson would have been much "safer" and had much better upside.
  14. It definitely seems like he has more offensive upside then Horvat, and more than his numbers would suggest. Will be really interesting to see what he does in the OHL next year. At this point I think I like McCann more than Virtanen as a prospect.
  15. I am really glad that we drafted the last CHL player available who had a good work ethic. Very lucky that he fell to us!