Hedman
Members-
Posts
848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Hedman
-
I don't think they're similar either. Only thing is that they were/are both classified as power-forwards. They both had pretty successful junior careers, with both being top picks coming into the NHL draft. Ritchie was drafted 2nd overall in the OHL draft, Ekblad went 1st overall that year. Beach was drafted 10th overall in the WHL draft. Beach was drafted 11th overall in the NHL draft, and Ritchie should be able to land higher than that. I think that's where people compare them. But there's no doubt that Ritchie would be the better prospect out of the 2, he seems like the complete package. Also haven't heard much about Sestito being a comparable to Ritchie around here. I mean he was drafted in the 5th round into the OHL , and in the 3rd round into the NHL. He didn't really make an impact offensively until his last year in juniors which isn't that uncommon, scoring 42 goals in 60 games for 64 points. Hard to compare him to Ritchie who has been a highly touted prospect for a long time. I also like the fact that he has an older brother, Brett Ritchie, who's doing really good in the AHL in his first pro-season. Brett will most likely be a very solid NHL-player, and to think that Nick is regarded as a more talented player than him is certainly intriguing. I'm not comparing their game, but it certainly won't hurt his development to have someone to look up to and learn from.
-
Well let me tell you this. The guy was voted best body checker by the OHL coaches in the Eastern Conference. He was also voted 3rd best shot in the Eastern Conference. Don't know why people here thinks that he was bad in the playoffs either. Peterborough isn't a great team, and he's a big reason why they were able to eliminate the Frontenacs (a big upset), with Ritchie scoring the GWG in game 7. Then they were swept by the best team in the Eastern Conference, no biggie. Ritchie ended up with 10 points in 11 games, 5 of them goals. Not that bad. And he's not all about scoring either. I mean Lucic's best season in the NHL is 62 points 79 games. You will find players putting up 100 points every season. Does that mean that Lucic is just an average 1st liner? Ofc not. He will do pretty much anything for the team. Stand up for his teammates, crash the net, bring physical presence and score goals. I believe Ritchie would be a good pick at 6th. There isn't a lot of risk in him IMO, and there is also a potential high reward there. I don't think his hockey IQ is low at all. I think people here are afraid that he'll turn into a Kyle Beach v.2 (bust). I personally believe Ritchie is way more talented than Beach though.
-
How does it not? Nylander is a projected top10 pick, even a projected top5 by some. YOU are arguing against scouts that actually know what they are doing, meanwhile you haven't seen anything of Nylander. Considering how weak this draft is, there's no way he drops out of the top10. There are no safe picks really outside the top5. You will be very disappointed when you're proven wrong at the draft cause Nylander will get drafted in the top10. Your research doesn't say anything. You're saying that Nylander won't go top10 simply because you "barely draft european players shorter than 6'0 because that's what the history says" even though you probably haven't seen anything of him. You didn't even know he's been playing regularly against men the whole season. The fact that you said that his numbers "isn't that good" says a lot. Why do people like you argue if you don't even know anything about the player? It's obvious you just want something to argue about.
-
If that's the case, then show me projected top5/top10 picks from europe that ended up being selected outside the top10. If not, then your historical crap means nothing. I think it's ignorant to only look at european players under 6'0 and not just players overall under 6'0 (canadians/americans). Please tell me, what's the difference? Seems like you just want something to argue about. This is FC's scouting report on Nylander for an example: Nylander is an extremely skilled, dynamic player who has quick hands and feet that make him dangerous offensively. He has great top-end speed, a strong burst and elite vision. He can distribute the puck like few other his age. An intelligent player, he out-thinks opponents regularly.
-
The NHL combine will be interesting for sure with all the interviews and physical results.
-
Burakovsky has been great this year in the OHL. He has 8 goals in 9 playoff games right now. That's more than anyone else in the OHL. Lol do you think players are given shoout-out attempts regularly in league? What are you talking about? ofc not. Plenty of scout rankings have Nylander in the top5, some slightly outside the top5 but most of them have him in the top10. Unfortunately i saw your post, which i thought was stupid. You can't look at things historically, because it really doesn't say anything. Also, Nylander is 5'11, 170lbs at the age of 17. He will probably be at least 6'0. You will find players like Giroux, Crosby, Kane under 6'0. I never said we should take Nylander with the 6th pick. But it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Lol based on what? He's playing against men. His numbers are not bad. If you read my post earlier in this thread i compared his draft year numbers with players such as OEL, Filip Forsberg and Burakovsky. Nylanders numbers are better than all of them, by margin.
-
I'm aware Yakupov played for Sarnia. He's still Russian though, and as long as KHL exist, that might be a concern. Does it really matter if he plays in europe or not if he's doing good? My point about the population, is that there will ALWAYS be more canadians/americans than finns/swedes, because there are way more players. Maybe there haven't been a lot of players under 6 feet (European) that has been top10 worthy? That could also be the case? Your statement, "historically speaking" doesn't really say anything tbh.
-
Things that might be worth taking into consideration: This is a pretty weak draft, so Nylanders high-end potential might be worth gambling for. He could be a 1st line center in the NHL if he pans out. Plenty of scouts have stated that his high-end skill is as good as anyones in this draft. Nylander is 5'11, 170lbs, and he's 17 years old, not too shabby, will probably grow 1 inch at least. Also, is it really necessary to look historically at JUST european players, and not just all players shorter than 6 feet that has been drafted in top10 ? You do realize that both Finland and Sweden are countries with a population of less than 10 million? Yakupov went 1st overall 2 years ago, and he's 5'11, he's also Russian if that matters. This is a guy that was a projected top5 pick prior to this season. He finished off strong playing against men in the swedish 2nd league, where players like Filip Forsberg, OEL, Burakovsky all originated from. None of them were close to Nylanders point production this year. IMO, there aren't a lot of safe picks outside the top5. Therefore i can see a team inside the top10 taking the high-risk/high-reward pick in Nylander. I'm not arguing that we should take Nylander, but you can tell there's some great potential there. If we get the 6th overall pick, hopefully we'll be able to pick a player from the "big 5". If not, i would take Ritchie/Perlini. I do think Nylander would be an interesting pick though, a pick i would be perfectly fine with. We lack a center with 1st line potential in our system, Nylander would fill that need.
-
No.
-
I think Kapanen got pretty hyped after his first season in the SM-liiga last year as a 16 year old. I think it's the same case for Nylander. This year, i don't think Kapanen has really lived up to the expectations, but he hasn't been bad. He's a solid pick, but really don't think he's top7 worthy. Not even sure he's top10 worthy. As far as european players goes, i think Nylander has the upper hand on him,since i believe his upside is higher than Kapanens. Nylander also really picked up his game at the end of this season. I would value Ritchie, Perlini, Virtanen,Nylander, Fleury and maybe Ehlers higher than Kapanen Also don't think Kapanen might be the safest pick out there. I think Ritchie might be the only player outside the top5 that could make the NHL right away, he's physically mature for that. That doesn't mean he will be the best player outside the top5 in the end, but i think Ritchie has some mad potential, he would be a tough player to pass on in our spot. The only thing you could ask is HOW good he will be. One thing we all know though, is that he's a good skater, he plays with an edge, and he's got a good shot. Could become 1 of the best powerforwards in the NHL.
-
Since Ottawa will face Toronto on Saturday (both teams have 84 points) we're pretty much guaranteed a top10 pick (unless a team above us would win the lottery).
-
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
Hedman replied to TheRussianRocket.'s topic in Canucks Talk
I really despise the Bruins. Their players, their coach, their GM, their fans, their announcer... I despise everything associated with them. That being said, i do think Benning would make a good GM. -
This doesn't bother me too much personally. I mean realistically we're not a contender right now, we're not winning, so for me it doesn't really matter how many years it will take for Ehlers to develop. As long as he pans out. I don't get the feeling that we're wasting anyones prime years right now, that we have to come back strong fast. I just want us to come back strong, even if i'd have to wait for 3 years.
-
I think it's pretty hard to say which players will be available. The 20-30 area seems pretty open. But i think these players might be available: Jack Glover: Big right-handed two-way defenceman with good mobility. Josh Jacobs: Also a big right-handed two-way defenceman. Better skater than Glover but not as much upside i believe. Hunter Smith is also a pretty interesting name. Also wouldn't mind one of the highly touted goalies, like Nedeljkovic/Husso. Nevertheless, there will be interesting players available at our spot for sure.
-
True, but he wasn't part of the team. I'm not underrating him, i just think he's not a top10 pick, and based on numerous rankings, i guess i'm not alone thinking that.
-
Take a look at Yzerman's resume then before he became GM of the Tampa Bay Lightning.
-
I'm happy that Vigneualt is gone. The Rangers won't make it far.
-
I guess i got ahead of myself. Forgot looking at the regular ordinary wins lol. I'm actually getting nervous hearing all this Feaster sh*t. If anyone can screw something up,it's him. Imagine if we would actually get that top5 pick, everyone here would rave about getting a player from that "big 5", and then Feaster goes completely off the board like he did with Jankowski.
-
And Immonen was part of that bronze team right? That's kinda a win for them considering the team they had. That's WHY you shouldn't mix up international level, like the Olympics, with the NHL. 2 completely different things. Everyone who's playing in the olympics aren't good enough to play in the NHL. I really think you're overating the finn-factor big time here. Take a look at the WJC 2013 and you will find a top-rated Finland team fighting for relegation to stay in the 1st division. Kapanen wasn't even part of the 2014 WJC Finland team that won gold. He hasn't even had a great season this year. But, because he's a finn, and "the latest experiences" you have about finns, he's the obvious 6th-9th overall pick in your opinion even though there might actually be better players available. Sure he's talented, i never said he wasn't, but it's kinda ridiculous how highly you seem to rate him just because he's a finn. If we're gonna talk about winning, the only award Kapanen has won, is a bronze medal last year. A guy like Ritchie has won two gold medals and one bronze medal in 2 years. Right now there are only 23 finns registered at NHL.com, in other words, there're only 23 finns playing in the NHL. A few of them aren't even regulars on their respective teams. There's one thing to say "we should draft that guy 'cause he seems like a really good player with good potential". It's a completely different thing to say "WE SHOULD DRAFT THAT GUY CAUSE HE'S A FINN, SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY VERY COACHABLE AND THEREFORE AWESOME!!!" even though that might not even be the case here. Of course you draft to become a winning team, but honestly have you really seen anything of Kapanen, or do you really think that Finns are pure super-heroes?
-
I will literally cry if we replace MG with Jay Feaster... Can't even find the words of how fucking stupid that would be. Hoping for someone like Bob Nicholson.
-
Not sure if serious or trolling. But very well then, we should totally go after Jarkko Immonen. He had more goals than Sidney Crosby in the olympics so he's obviously a better player/at the same level. He's a good 'ol finn too so he's obviously a more coachable player than Crosby.
-
I'm starting to lean towards Nick Ritchie if he would still be available, especially after that impressive playoff series against the Frontenacs. 229 pounds and yet a good skater, i heard he could probably be even more effective if he lost some weight. Good stickhandler, great shot (voted 3rd best by coaches in the OHL eastern conference), good hockey sense, great body checker (voted best body checker in the OHL eastern conference). It just seems like there's just too much to pass on, he got some nasty potential. Those guys don't come around easily. Some even compare him to Lucic.
-
My point was, maybe the finns are successful at international level, but you shouldn't mix up international level with NHL level because that's 2 completely different things. We shouldn't draft a finn "cause he's a finn".. he might as well be a finn playing in europe for the major part of his career. I will take that Ovie guy over that european finn guy any day. You draft talent and not nationality. And i don't think Kapanen will be the best player available at our spot. Also, i really don't think the finns are better coachable than anyone else just because "they're finns".
-
Sure, maybe they won the WJC 'cause they were "coachable". But you need talent to succeed at the highest level, in this case the NHL. The finns also got the bronze in the olympics this year even though there's absolutely no way they had the 3rd best team in the tournament. Look up how many NHL players they had on that team and you might get disappointed.