We Are All Cucks

Members
  • Content Count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Neutral

About We Are All Cucks

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,516 profile views
  1. Fair enough. Thanks for the response. I wasn't promoting him, but was just legit curious. I did a little reading after my post, and it basically corroborated everything you said (though, not quite as entertainingly). At first look, he seemed intriguing, with a lot of skill. Unfortunately that skill is one dimensional...though...what a dimension! So basically, a team takes a flyer on him in the late first/second round, hoping they have some sort of "Kaliyev whisperer" who can bring his skill to the forefront, and send the rest of the package into remission
  2. His name has come up a couple times in these threads, but I am wondering what people's thoughts are on Arthur Kaliyev. Anybody know why he isn't as highly regarded as he was at the start of the season? He's recently been ranked 7th for NA skaters and 13th OA by ISS, but most have him in the 20-30 range. Back in October, Button had him at 10 (https://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-kakko-boldy-and-kaliyev-rise-up-draft-rankings-1.1196164). Wot's the deal? Just too many good players?
  3. Wasn't able to see the game, but from the highlights this morning it sure looked like Marchessault and Stone were chemistry-ing it up. Those two might be a tandem in next year's draft as well. Mental note: draft Stone next year. Mental note #2: 'chemistry' is not a verb
  4. Exactly. The Finns played great against Russia, but you have to like Canada's chances in the rematch. No way they let this one slip through their hands.
  5. A player-coach, even. Frankly, I don't know why he didn't make the team.
  6. Gees, these Russians sure could use Pres. Putin's offence about now.
  7. They are catching up. More and more Swiss people I meet are intense hockey fans. The Germans are also becoming a perennially difficult team to beat where they used to be as much of a laugh as La(ugh)tvia or some such team. Incidentally, Latvia had a great tournament, too. The thing is...all of the above are good things. I'm looking forward to the day when Asian teams can do well, too. The growth of the game is without reservation an overwhelmingly positive thing. As long as Canada remains at the top, that is.
  8. Agreed. Also, it would be pretty weak if they named themselves the Sea Lions. While I kind of like the name...maybe they should avoid naming themselves after the animal prey of their soon-to-be arch rival?
  9. I think it looks nice, and it's a non-intrusive way of promoting the city (for better or for worse). Honest question, how do you feel these logos (all with prominent city names) compare to having the city name above ours?
  10. This. I still think Kakko has the potential to seriously dominate, but it's a toss-up. The fact that they're both so talented, you have to look at other elements, and the huge trump card is the position. In the poll, I voted Kakko because I think he'll be the better player, but I still think without a doubt that Hughes goes first.
  11. It was that Burger fellow tonight. Man, I thought he was some sort of mini-goalie, then found out he's 5'11". The Ben Bishops of the world are ruining it for everyone.
  12. Anybody have any info on the starting goalies for the Germany/USA game? Is Grubauer still out? I really thought that Germany was legit until last nights thrashing at the hands of Canada's 5th tier team, but would be happy to see them upset the Americans.
  13. Good post and food for thought. Just off of recent memory there are a number of 'models' that have been admired for replication. - Cup winners can influence that. When the 2011 Bruins and 2012 Kings sent a message that you had to be tough and strong. That it didn't matter how skilled you are if you didn't have BIG, MEAN players. - Then there's today where everybody wants their small, speedy skill-guy. - Developmentally, the failure of the Oilers "proved" that you couldn't just have young players thrown together without putting them in a winning environment. So, enter Lindennig saying that we had to win and develop at the same time. - Well, how well did that work out? Our re-jig became a retool became a reboot became a rebuild and we're nowhere. - For a while, the Detroit model was looked up to: slowly introduce players only after they have payed their dues in the minors, even if your high picks are there until their 20's. - Now...get your kids in as soon as possible. In our case, Utica isn't even being used, really. We just go the college route. Point is, a lot of this stuff seems reactionary, and in many cases that fails. You have to be proactive, and (just as you said) determine what the future is going to be like. Problem there? What if you're dead wrong? These people (scouts, GM's, etc.) are excellent at their jobs, but their not prophets, and don't possess a crystal ball. So, basically, if you guess wrong, you're hooped. Like in a lot of situations, I doubt there is only one way...but there are more and less effective ways. And after all that...I can't claim to know them.
  14. Markstrom has played a total of 32 games in Utica over his 5 years with the Canucks, but I think Goalies are a different story altogether, anyways. Juolevi will be interesting to see. However, the same question marks that surround Virtanen surround him. The argument for their slow progress (relative to their high draft choice) is often attributed to drafting mistakes, but could be connected to the "Utica problem". Sure, Brisebois and Sautner could turn out. As could Lind and Gadjovich. And yes, this forever-build is not complete, but we have had enough time to make some current judgements. With the results we have now, however, we can see: College hockey --> Boeser, Gaudette (soon to see Hughes) Utica --> Virtanen (with, Sautner, Brisebois, MacEwan and Juolevi being maybes) The current Canucks team has received - and in the short term is likely to receive - far more from college than from our own farm team. I think that's a fair argument.
  15. This could be posted in a Utica Comets related thread, but it's topical here, too. The very fact that we rely on college prospects as our primary source of youth-infusion into our lineup is equally telling about the strength of college hockey as it is telling about the weakness of our farm system. Consider Canucks players on the roster who are 23/24 years old and younger: Boeser, Gaudette, Stetcher (accidentally found his way into his list, despite being 24, but adds to my point) and soon to be Hughes all came from college hockey; Motte and Goldobin paid their dues primarily in another team's farm system; Petterson and Horvat bypassed the AHL altogether; Outside of the goalie in Demko, only Virtanen, Brisebois and MacEwan are products of our AHL system, and the latter two are far from certain to be regular players in the NHL. While Virtanen's status is best debated in another thread, he is more or less the only young player on our roster (along with 24 year old Sautner) that is fundamentally a product of our farm system. Again, not trying to hijack a college thread and make it about the failures of Utica to produce talent and NHL players, but the fact that we rely on college players to produce our talent is the real story here.