[Mitchell #8]

it's hard to like Bourdon when he doesn't show he is getting better but sometimes makes more retarded decisions than he has in the past.

[Ruutu_15]

ChroniK, on Sep 23 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

Naturally defenseman take more time to develop, theres just so much pressure on this kid right now, especially with Edler biting at his heels. There was even more hype about Bryan Allen when he was drafted 4th overall and he didn't turn out to be too bad....well sorta. But the point is, it just takes a longer time for some to develop, give him a break.

In my opinion, the problem with Allen was that the team put him the NHL too early. Allen was great with us in his last season here, it just took so long to get there because he was put in too early. Hopefully this wont be the case with Bourdon as it is unlikely that he will see much NHL regular season action this year.

[Section116]

Give Bourdon a year in Manitoba and watch him develop. The kid needs quality coaching and from what I understand he did not get that in junior. Same goes for Grabner. A year of pro with top notvh coaching will do both of these players a lot of good. Bourdon is just a but green at 20 years old.

[ElDiablo]

He has all the tools he just has to become more composed, if he was he would be in the NHL right now. So what if he takes a year or two longer then Dion Phaneuf. He will still be a great D-man.

Lidstrom broke into the league at 21
Zubov didn't play with the rangers until 22
Visnovsky: 24
Chara didn't play regularly until 21
Ryan Whitney was taken 5th overall and didn't play for the pens until 23
Gonchar didn't play alot until 21
Beauchemin didn't get a shot until 25
Ohlund didnt play until 21
Weber wasn't a regular until 21
Boucher didn't play more than 50 games until 22 and not a full season until 28

So I really don't think it's fair to call him a flop or a bust until he is at least 23 and has shown he cannot compete in the NHL

[THINKER]

Bourdon is making passing up Kopitar look worse and worse with every day that passes. Wouldn't Kopitar look great in a Canucks uniform right now?

Sedin-Sedin-Pyatt
Naslund-Kopitar-Kesler

[timw33]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Bourdon is making passing up Kopitar look worse and worse with every day that passes. Wouldn't Kopitar look great in a Canucks uniform right now?

Sedin-Sedin-Pyatt
Naslund-Kopitar-Kesler

Of course it would've.

But we cannot dwell on we SHOULD'VE or COULD'VE done.

9 other teams made the same mistake.

[THINKER]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Of course it would've.

But we cannot dwell on we SHOULD'VE or COULD'VE done.

9 other teams made the same mistake.

Well I think the Crosby pick was better than Kopitar. There are other players I would have taken ahead of Kopitar too, like Carey Price, Jack Johnson, Gilbert Brule, and probably even Bobby Ryan. That aside...we really blew it.

[timw33]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

Well I think the Crosby pick was better than Kopitar. There are other players I would have taken ahead of Kopitar too, like Carey Price, Jack Johnson, Gilbert Brule, and probably even Bobby Ryan. That aside...we really blew it.

I meant 8 teams then.

I would've taken Kopitar over Brule, Ryan, Johnson, Setoguchi, Skille, Pouloit and especially Lee.

[stawns]

Bobby Lu Fan, on Sep 23 2007, 07:38 PM, said:

it's hard to like Bourdon when he doesn't show he is getting better but sometimes makes more retarded decisions than he has in the past.

funny I was thinking the same thing about about your post writing.

[THINKER]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

I meant 8 teams then.

I would've taken Kopitar over Brule, Ryan, Johnson, Setoguchi, Skille, Pouloit and especially Lee.

He was the top ranked European player in the draft, and played incredibly well against other players in international play. He was a sure shot top prospect, but his only knock was his birth certificate.

[timw33]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 04:47 PM, said:

He was the top ranked European player in the draft, and played incredibly well against other players in international play. He was a sure shot top prospect, but his only knock was his birth certificate.

Yes but because he was the top rated Euro, did not mean he would go #2 behind the #1 NA, thats not how it works.

#1 Euro last year went 17th.

The year before 4th.

Combining those rankings of Euro and NA can be difficult for sure.

But with the Gritty, North American dominated reams winning most the cups these days, teams are shying away from Europeans because they are becoming wildcards.

There is no guarentees that they come over to North America.

There is no guarentee that they will be able to adapt to the North American or NHL style.

There is a stigma on them that they are typically soft perimeter players who are playoff no-shows.


Europeans now tend to drop in the rankings, especially if they are from a NON-Traditional country, I mean seriously WTF is a Slovenia?

[THINKER]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Yes but because he was the top rated Euro, did not mean he would go #2 behind the #1 NA, thats not how it works.

#1 Euro last year went 17th.

The year before 4th.

Combining those rankings of Euro and NA can be difficult for sure.

But with the Gritty, North American dominated reams winning most the cups these days, teams are shying away from Europeans because they are becoming wildcards.

There is no guarentees that they come over to North America.

There is no guarentee that they will be able to adapt to the North American or NHL style.

There is a stigma on them that they are typically soft perimeter players who are playoff no-shows.
Europeans now tend to drop in the rankings, especially if they are from a NON-Traditional country, I mean seriously WTF is a Slovenia?

I never insinuated that he would go number 2, right behind the number 1 ranked NA. What I was saying is that he was the top ranked European player, which means that in that draft year, out of all players in Europe, he was the best. That's a pretty good place to be coming from.

And for the record, Cherepanov went 17 due to the lack of a transfer agreement, or else he'd have easily been a top 5 pick.

[timw33]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

I never insinuated that he would go number 2, right behind the number 1 ranked NA. What I was saying is that he was the top ranked European player, which means that in that draft year, out of all players in Europe, he was the best. That's a pretty good place to be coming from.

And for the record, Cherepanov went 17 due to the lack of a transfer agreement, or else he'd have easily been a top 5 pick.

That completely depends on how strong the Euro class is.

[THINKER]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 05:45 PM, said:

That completely depends on how strong the Euro class is.

It was a general consensus, when amalgamating the two rankings, that he should be a top 7 pick. He slipped, we passed him up, and now LA is reaping all the benefits.

[timw33]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

It was a general consensus, when amalgamating the two rankings, that he should be a top 7 pick. He slipped, we passed him up, and now LA is reaping all the benefits.

I'm not saying that Bourdon was a better pick, you understand that right?

It was a mistake, but we can't dwell on this.

[THINKER]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

I'm not saying that Bourdon was a better pick, you understand that right?

It was a mistake, but we can't dwell on this.

This team has made many mistakes.

Nathan Smith over Brad Boyes
RJ Umberger over Marcel Goc
Ryan Kesler over Corey Perry or even Mike Richards
Luc Bourdon over Anze Kopitar
Michael Grabner over Claude Giroux

[Flinch]

THINKER, on Sep 24 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

This team has made many mistakes.

Nathan Smith over Brad Boyes
RJ Umberger over Marcel Goc
Ryan Kesler over Corey Perry or even Mike Richards
Luc Bourdon over Anze Kopitar
Michael Grabner over Claude Giroux

There have been many blunders, yes.

At the time, Bourdon was projected to go 10-15th overall and many analysts had predicted Vancouver was going to pick up a defenseman. Although in most cases, it was Staal and not Bourdon.

The question I have to ask is, if Kopitar was slated to go top 5 or 7th at the highest, why did he fall as far as he did, especially if he was such a 'can't miss' prospect?

I'm not trying to be rude. Honest question.

[Wetcoaster]

timw33, on Sep 24 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

Of course it would've.

But we cannot dwell on we SHOULD'VE or COULD'VE done.

9 other teams made the same mistake.

No they did not. The draft went pretty much according to form.

About the only real surprise was the Senators taking Brian Lee and the Habs going for Carey Price- that left the door open for the Canucks to take Kopitar who was ranked ahead of Bourdon.

[timw33]

Wetcoaster, on Sep 24 2007, 11:59 PM, said:

No they did not. The draft went pretty much according to form.

About the only real surprise was the Senators taking Brian Lee and the Habs going for Carey Price- that left the door open for the Canucks to take Kopitar who was ranked ahead of Bourdon.

Have you not learned that rankings do not always matter?

[Wetcoaster]

Flinch, on Sep 24 2007, 06:31 PM, said:

There have been many blunders, yes.

At the time, Bourdon was projected to go 10-15th overall and many analysts had predicted Vancouver was going to pick up a defenseman. Although in most cases, it was Staal and not Bourdon.

The question I have to ask is, if Kopitar was slated to go top 5 or 7th at the highest, why did he fall as far as he did, especially if he was such a 'can't miss' prospect?

I'm not trying to be rude. Honest question.

The Habs took Carey Price when no one saw him on their radar and for some reason the Senators were hot for Brian Lee.