Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Millerdraft

Members
  • Posts

    2,088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Millerdraft

  1. This is fair but keep in mind Ehlers may have to readjust his style of play depending which division he goes to simply because of self preservation and the division he goes to will have a great deal to do with how much success he'll have (I'm in full agreement with TOML on that issue). Raymond initially had no qualms about getting to the dirty areas early on in his tenure here, but that slowly changed after some fairly significant injuries forced him into much more of a perimetre style game.
  2. So Afinogenov wasn't as good of a skater as Bure (duh) but Ehlers is? Come on now. Everyone and their mother thought Afinogenov's skating was reminiscent of Bure even though it was not on the same level. Most everyone agreed he was a poor man's version and would never be as good as Bure. Afinogenov still had several 20g seasons and assist seasons of 37, 51 & 38. That's not bad as far as playmaking standards go and his 395 points in 651gp , including a 73pt season plus two 61pt seasons, suggest he had decent hockey IQ (just not HOF hockey IQ like Bure). He averaged 18g 29a 47pts over his career. Someone his size and compete levels (re: puck battles) doesn't accumulate those points in this league without that IQ. His IQ was not on the same level as Bure (nor is Ehlers) and although Ehlers possibly has an overall better package than Afinogenov, he's still closer to Max than he is to Pavel in that regard. You guys don't like the Ainogenov/Daigle comparisons because they suggest "bust" to some (Afinogenov actually had a good career - even moreso considering he was a 3rd rounder). Guys like us don't like the Bure/MacKinnon comparisons because they suggest completely unreasonable suggestions that he can become a pt/game, hall of fame player. He just doesn't have that ceiling or he'd be the consensus #1 in this relatively weak draft regardless of sample size.
  3. And yet comparing Ehlers to a Hall of Famer is a good comparison?! W-T-F?! FYI, Afinogenov had a 73pt season (and two 61pt seasons). That's not good enough?! Come on now...
  4. Yeah, I like what I've seen from this kid too (just not in the top fifteen) but I'm not sure he'll be able to translate his success to the NHL unless Chicago does get a hold of him. He's even smaller than Ehlers and I could easily see him (Fabbri) becoming injury prone in most organizations. If he fell to #36 (he won't), however, obviously I'd risk it.
  5. Ah, so you're agreeing with me that none of this top-10 are likely to be consistent 50-60pt guys (unless they land on a stacked team) and more likely to be consistent 40-50pt guys. That seems more realistic to me. As for the scouts saying that Ehlers reminds them of Kane and Bure, I can recall people thinking Maxim Afinogenov looked like Bure with the way he skated. Perhaps they're talking about poor man's versions of these guys and that I can totally understand but then on the same token you throw out, "His numbers in QMJHL this year put him in some pretty darn lofty company. Its not to say he will automatically be as good as this but thats still quite a piece on his resume. " That sentence is very misleading when you have a phrase saying nobody is saying he'll be as good as Crosby or MacKinnon immediately preceding it especially since his numbers put him in that "pretty darn lofty company" of MacKinnon. That's just as much spin as anything I've said in this thread and just to be clear here I have no anger. It's more just a sense of exhaustion with the miscommunication going on in here.
  6. I said this draft is both weak and shallow ESPECIALLY in comparison to both last year and next year's draft. You said this draft isn't weak, it's just not deep. So we have essentially agreed that this year's draft is shallow and now we're on to comparing the top end and yet you say that's silly. Guess what? Drouin and MacKinnon went in the top 5 of those years and people here have no qualms about comparing the three's QMJHL #s here. Some have even intimated Ehlers had a better season because he had more points than MacKinnon... So which is it? He'll translate QMJHL success to NHL success because he's not far off MacKinnon/Drouin and would've been a top-5 this year but for the small sample size or it's not fair to compare Ehlers to MacKinnon/Drouin because 2013 was one of the better draft classes of recent memory? I'm not trying to burst people's bubbles here but some of this stuff is just whack. People say Ehlers and Drouin rarely played a shift together at even strength and some of those same people also say that means that there is no direct correlation between Drouin's numbers and Ehlers' numbers. That's somewhat fallacious. What about facing #1 defensive pairings vs #2 defensive pairings all night? "Yeah, that has almost no impact on the quality of scoring chances you get and create." Okay... MacKinnon didn't have a more mature 18/19-year old Drouin to take off most of the top end defensive pressure like Ehlers likely had, which certainly diminishes the argument that Ehlers had as good of a year this year as MacKinnon had last year. We'll soon see what Ehlers can do without Drouin around to help him out in the Q. I can't believe we're even talking like any of this year's top-10 are future point/game NHLers like Crosby, Giroux, MacKinnon, etc. Does anyone here think any of these guys are even 30g 30a guys (year in, year out)?! Maybe on a stacked team but I certainly don't see any point/game guys like Patrick Kane and even his production comes in part from being on a stacked team (pt/game vs 60pts).
  7. It's both shallow and weak, imo, especially in comparison to 2013 & 2015. Do you think Ehlers is a top-5 in either of those years? He's barely even arguable at #5 in this year's draft.
  8. Honestly answer this question: Do you truly think I didn't know that with the way that sentence was constructed? If yes, why would you argue with a complete tool that thinks Bure played for Rimouski (or some such)? If not, then why pretend like I didn't? Try re-reading the original sentence I wrote and this time omit the reference in between the commas (as can be done with commas). The QMJHL numbers reference was directly related to the QMJHLers, not the OHLer or the CSKA Moscow'er', and that's how that sentence was intended to be read. Actually, never mind. I've wasted enough time on this kind of bull**** recently. Way to really go out on a limb with the Ehlers will never score 50. How many different players have scored 40 or more the last ten years (let alone 50)? Maybe if Ehlers plays with Crosby he might have a chance at 40. Otherwise you can lower your expectations since not even Patrick Kane has scored more than 30.
  9. The guy, and specific post, that I was responding to was the one that brought up that Stamkos comparison. You diverted from that subject, not me, but I figured it was about Ehlers. Every thread about Ehlers has people comparing him, and his QMJHL numbers, to Patrick Kane, Nathan MacKinnon, Sidney Crosby, Claude Giroux, Pavel Bure etc... I'm sorry but all those guys (save Giroux) were highly touted as #1 picks for years. Ehlers isn't even a top-3 in this weak draft, let alone a deep draft (although to be fair Kane's draft was rather weak as well).
  10. That was the only knock (even if it wasn't a big one because most said his frame projected to fill out). There were literally no other noticeable deficiencies in his game. Edit: Then he must've added weight after his season ended, because that was the only thing I heard about him needing to improve upon.
  11. Are we now talking Ehlers or Reinhart? Aka, the next Bure or the next Stamkos? Ehlers may have all those same skill facets I listed but he's missing the renowned #1 ranking and Reinhart doesn't have the same elite end package as Stamkos, yet he's ranked higher than Ehlers. So what does that say about Ehlers? Yeah, these guys are not future HOF superstars. Sorry. I just don't see it.
  12. Who said Stamkos was only gonna be slightly above average in his draft year? All I ever heard was elite level speed, elite first stride, elite level shot, elite hockey IQ and that he was the no-brainer, universal consensus #1 overall. His only knock is he was like 165lbs or something. He had tons of hype surrounding him. Reinhart, most certainly, is not in the same class as Stamkos, imo. A poor man's, playmaking version of Stamkos maybe but that's about it. Actually, that's basically Cody Hodgson so I'll take that back. Reinhart is somewhere in between the two.
  13. There's no one in this draft worth those packages. Keep #6 and trade Kesler and Edler (in separate deals) for 2015 picks & prospects.
  14. Is it too much to ask the hockey gods for Horvat to turn out like Couture (minus the douchey whinyness) and for Fox to surprise like Pearson (as much as it's impossible for a 1st round pick to sneak up on people)?
  15. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't lack of NHL footspeed the knock on Tanner Pearson?! Yeah, about that... Dude is blowing by NHLers with aplomb.
  16. For a disgruntled guy that is demanding out of the 'Peg? If that's the case that a #6 overall pick, a high end 3rd line player, an additional grade A prospect AND another prospect is their demand I could see Kane's agent pulling a Mike Gillis/Bure until the asking price becomes reasonable or management gets tired of costing themselves wins by having an asset being useless to their success.
  17. I guess we'll find out once Drouin leaves junior.
  18. Well, from everything I've seen and read Virtanen will turn out to be an Evander Kane at best. If that's the case, why not just offer up that #6 overall to Winnipeg and cut the development time right ought of the equation? Solves both team's issues (although I'm not sure what else we'd have to add, probably Hansen).
  19. Fair enough your are correct that almost none of the busts I listed were comparables but Esposito is/was, in fact, a similar player if not an exact comparable.
  20. Angelo Esposito had 98pts at an even younger age and busted hard. If you don't think that 98pts at 16/17 is equal to, if not better than, 100pts at 17/18 then I'm not sure what to say. Talk about narratives... "98pts isn't akin to 100pts!!"
  21. My bad. Esposito scored 98pts as a 16/17 year old in 2005-20006, the year before his draft year and I also seemed to have misread Sheppard's stat line (for that one I do apologize). I think Brassard is a borderline top-six. Underwhelming for a #6 pick but whattya do? Weak draft year (much like this year). The bottom line is, out of 180 1st round picks from 2005-2010 the QMJHL had something like 10 forwards picked and 4 turned into top-six forwards (one of which was a surefire NHLer before he stepped into the league). That's not a very good sign as Ehlers is not Crosby.
  22. I was just razzin' ya. I find myself torn and even flip flopping between Ritchie, Virtanen and Perlini myself. These world tournaments can be very misleading with the small sample size. Don't put more weight on this tourney than what you've seen him do against men over a much larger sample size.
  23. Marek Zagrapan QMJHL 82pts 2005 bust Alex Bourret QMJHL 86pts 2005 bust James Sheppard QMJHL 96pts 2006 bust Derrick Brassard QMJHL 116pts 2006 (underwhelming but improving) Angelo Esposito QMJHL 98pts 2007 bust QMJHL had no 1st rounders in 2008 QMJHL had no 80-100pt 1st rounders in 2009 QMJHL had no 80-100pt 1st rounders in 2010 Too early to tell after 2010, imo, but drafting 1st round 80-100 QMJHLers over those 6 years about a 33% success rate. A couple superstars in Giroux & Crosby, and Voracek (and MacKinnon, duh). That's about it and everyone saw Crosby & MacKinnon becoming stars a mile before they even touched foot in the Q.
×
×
  • Create New...