Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
To add to your points, McCann didn't actually breakout until several trades/years later (kind of a situation like Grabner and his waivers). Demko was a solid homerun pick. Anyone who thinks Benning didn't/doesn't draft well, especially compared to his predecessors is just trying to cling onto the idea of Gillis being a 'better' GM. The reality was that Gillis had severe shortcomings himself, namely the absolutely dreadful showcase of his prospects (there are none, except Hutton and Horvat). I've seen a number of excuses made to justify the poor showing of picks, such as that the "team was trying to win". Also, Shinkaruk was a promising prospect, but injuries derailed him. Kind of like Hodgson really.
-
Maybe there is no rift to speak of. The 'rift' idea is so overstated. Buffalo has a clear rift. The current state of the Canucks doesn't and shouldn't have any more of a rift than any average hockey team that doesn't make the playoffs. Unlike fans, the players try to do their best to help the team. If it doesn't work, some of these players will get shipped out. That's just the reality of the situation.
-
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
The article conveniently leaves out Gadj, Lind and Woo's contributions, as well as Rathbone. Hmm. I wonder why. -
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
SMH. -
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
The difference between Virtanen and Juolevi is quite big. One has had injury issues. The other has had off ice issues. Saying Juolevi has a very slim shot at being a meaningful player has so many problems with that, but I suspect your opinion won't change despite your so-called "honest" discussion. -
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
I'm not selectively blind. It's hard to defend the virtanen pick. Juolevi is still waiting to be judged, to be fair, but the Tkachuk/sergachev alternate picks. In 2014, quite a few first round picks were busts/disappointments, including some ahead of Virtanen. So that context needs to be made clear. A portion of this fanbase questions drafting of Benning because they talk about him being gifted high picks. Yet Demko and Hoglander have been often left out of the discussion. We have a lot to be happy about for prospects. Of course they will have to prove something in the NHL, but things are trending well for them. -
Because your form of evaluation doesn't actually gauge the quality of the Canucks, as well as any other team's prospects. Saying that the Canucks prospect pool lacks sure fire players can be applied to any one team, not just Canucks. You are also using this same methodology to gauge that the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool. How? I'm also very curious as to which teams you are making comparisons to. You said middle of the pack. That means you've assessed the prospect pool. I am seeking information for how you did it.
-
So which teams have the best prospects that have yet to make the NHL, as well as those who are shining examples? The very evaluation tool you are using to judge the Canucks is seemingly used to downgrade the reality of the Canucks situation, in opposition of the so-called "pro Benning" side. Once you start using that kind of language, you are politicizing the situation, which means you have an angle to push. That is quite the opposite of being an unbiased observer. I wasn't misconstruing anything you said. I directly counteracted your points. Just because you have to elaborate more on your position due to vagueness doesn't mean you were miscontrued. In short, your argument was that the young players are unproven, therefore the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool. It's a very general assessment that could literally be applied to any one team at one point. It doesn't make any comparisons to other teams, so the middle of the pack assessment is just something you pulled out of a hat. One more thing. There is always a condition you put on them whenever you praise a player. Example: "Boeser has struggled in the past" Many young players have struggled in the past. It's where their current game is trending that matters. Boeser is clearly a more complete player than before. I also think it's hilarious that you've already assessed Hughes as being not a #1 defenceman. His ceiling was supposed to be that, but there wasn't an expectation that he would be either. His size was a concern. Honestly, using your methodology of classifying a player, I can see where you are picking and choosing how you are doing it. What you're doing is not unbiased discussion. You have essentially made up your mind on the situation, but it's not up to us to change it.
-
Much of your discussion has swayed away from the "young players" narrative and more about the roster itself. You know very well why young players aren't inserted into the roster willy-nilly. That being said, we DO have a series of promising players about to make the cut. This is not just blind hope, but a real possibility. Pettersson would've been a #1 in a re-draft. Full stop. No one 'expected' him to flourish, except the Canucks. Full stop. Give credit where it's due. I don't like how you have to put in these conditions about him or Boeser. Both players worked on their games, particularly Boeser, who's impressed a lot. That in itself invalidates your point about Canucks mishandling young players. Horvat, despite his lack of flashiness, has continued to impress. Players like Lind, Gadj, Jasek, Woo are all on the cusp of making the NHL. It's just a matter of when, not if, at this point. They've all continued to improve in the AHL, which is very promising. That is all you can expect from young players. Also your point about the prospect pool not being deep is a bit disingenous. We NEVER, i repeat, NEVER had a prospect pool this team after Gillis. So what are you complaining about right now?
-
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
I don't remember what Button said, but Podkolzin was rated pretty highly by other scouts. Selective blindness is affecting you I guess. By only comparing first round picks, you are missing a huge set of information. You did ignore Demko and Hoglander. Who cares what other scouts had ranked them? Look at the freaking draft and use hindsight to see the results. You can SEE Demko and Hoglander flourishing in their draft classes, NOT JUST their respective rounds. You ARE ignoring (selectively omitting) information and that's why I think your discussion is not genuine. -
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
I think these ideas have been beaten to death. This thread is no more of an honest discussion as it is about you coming up with this rehashed ideas that this forum has already mentioned at length. -
Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management
Dazzle replied to JohnTavares's topic in Canucks Talk
Exactly. Juolevi was the safer pick out of Sergachev. There isn't a guarantee that Sergachev would have flourished as much as he did with TB also. MT and Juolevi is basically a toss-up depending on what you want. I'd argue that if Juolevi wasn't so injured, we'd see him making a huge impact sooner. -
Why do you keep rehashing the same myths over and over? I.e. Chicago is good with young players and Vancouver apparently bad with theirs. In your other post, you make yourself sound like a reasonable guy because you claim to be a balanced observer. But Vancouver hasn't been bad with young players in quite a while. We have a fairly lengthy list of players who are doing well, namely Hoglander and Hughes. We also have Boeser, Pettersson, and a nice collection of prospects coming up that could make a significant impact. Ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your perspective is an issue. I laugh at the Chicago is good with young players' narrative. With the way you say it, you make it seem like they've never missed their drafts. Strome, originally an AZ pick, is not terrible, but taking from the myths you keep perpetuating, you make it seem like he's playing above his expected draft value.