Grape
-
Posts
3,233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Grape
-
-
8 hours ago, TGT68 said:
I just think he is an often injured poor man's Motte. And Motte would not be on our team if we had decent quality depth. So how does a poor man's Motte make a team when we fill out the squad properly and have Petey Bo and the Flow at their peak?
No disrespect at all, but I'm completely sure you're basing this off of the fact that Motte and Lockwood played at the same school, and that Motte produced at a much higher level. And I'm certain that this is a ridiculous comparison for a few reasons, in the order of least to most important:
1. Lockwood is nothing like Motte stylistically, Lockwood drives with his speed and skill, Motte never drives/drove the play, and instead is/was a hard competitor who feeds off of his teammates.
2. Lockwood has had to play with significantly worse linemates (Josh Norris played half a year), Tyler Motte played with Dylan Larkin, Zach Hyman, Zach Werenski, JT Compher, and Andrew Copp. Four of those five players are major contributors on teams still in the playoffs, the other one is Dylan freakin Larkin. I bold this because I can't stress enough how much talent was on Motte's teams
3. If you're using that comparison, then does that mean that everyone who did not produce as much as Nail Yakupov did in the OHL, will ultimately be a poor man's Nail Yakupov? No disrespect to Motte here, but he hasn't exactly turned out to be a regular NHL'er who doesn't have to worry about his job like his college stats would indicate. This means nothing to Lockwood. It's better if you compare Lockwood's stats to a larger sample of players other than Tyler Motte.
Again, no disrespect here, the only reason I do this is because there seems to be many people comparing Lockwood with Motte which makes zero sense. It makes as much sense as saying Ryan Nugent Hopkins would be better than Joe Sakic because they're both from Burnaby and RNH was drafted higher. There is literally no comparison to be made and Lockwood is certainly not a "poor man's Motte." Not saying he's 100% going to turn out better than Motte, but that comparison is faulty by nature.
Cheers
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:
Rankings change
Yes but if you believe Kakkos ranking will change to be higher than Hughes, you should put him ahead in your original list. It’s all about projection.
-
On 4/14/2019 at 12:00 PM, Alflives said:
I bow to your superior contract understanding.
i still think Lockwood will sign with us next spring. He will be playing in Utica in October 2020.
Lind
Gadjovic
Woo
Jasek
Lockwood
Dipietro
The depth of young guys in Utica will be looking pretty good soon.
I think there’s a good chance he’ll be in Vancouver instead. Or at least for a few games at the end of next season.
Might seem biased on my part, but I think big time college players signed at the end of their fourth years generally play in the NHL pretty quickly.
-
13 hours ago, hammertime said:
I think it's better than DeBrincats was in his draft! That being said I dont think it's the strength you would like to see from a player his size.
Not that it's really relevant, but I think it's really hard to be an elite skater at his size. just as much as it would be if a guy was 6'2 and near 200 pounds
-
1 minute ago, Horvat is a Boss said:
I think Foote plays with much better linemates just looking at stats. But yes he is underrated.
-
2 hours ago, R3aL said:
Haha oh I understand he’s your favorite!! I’m a little indifferent because I really like Krebs and Zegras so feel no matter who we take at 10 I’m probbaly
going to like them. Just hope they pick the one who will turn out to be the best haha.
but I agree Boldy if he becomes what he can would be the perfect stylistic fit for either line in our top 6!
ans don’t worry whoever Edmonton picks they’ll screw them up
I love Krebs and Zegras and desperately hope that one of them is available at 10, and I think they can potentially play wing to fill a need as well.
You already know I don't like Boldy
-
10 minutes ago, Stamkos said:
Boldy is brilliant in the O-zone, and pegged to be a potential Selke finalist.
Petey is very fast, beating out Keller and Kendall Coyne-Schofield in the all star competition and finishing only 0.016 behind Heiskanen, who I’m sure you’d say is fast. His shot is really damn good as well, and he’s defensively sound. He can do it all.
Boeser is the pure sniper.
I don’t know about you but this seems like a perfect top line - will score many goals, won’t be a defensive liability, and each player can cover for each other’s mistakes.
I think it's way too early to peg a prospect like Boldy as a Selke finalist. I saw people pegging Juolevi as a projected Norris finalist and that was absurd giving him such high expectations.
It sounds like a sound top line for sure. But I prefer a top line that can get 80-90 points (at least for Pettersson) or even more, and I think by having Boldy it kind of stalls the offensive production as opposed to having a more dynamic player that can take the load off Pettersson a bit and create space and chances himself.
I don't know, personally I think the most important thing in hockey is the ability to create open space, and I love players who can do that. Boldy I think is a finisher, and we have Boeser for that already. I'd much prefer someone like Zegras personally.
-
1 hour ago, hammertime said:
I think the slow high IQ Sedins were one of the most dynamic lines the NHL has ever seen. I also think that when you add Quinn Hughes to that mix you have a group of 5 that can keep teams pinned in their own end while Boldy Hughes Pettersson play catch and Boser hangs out in the Ovi spot. I dont think you can just plug Virtanen in there with the desired results.
Sedins until around 2013 weren't actually "slow." They weren't fast (just like I don't consider Pettersson fast), but they could definitely skate and a few highlights on youtube I think would show that. Obviously I mentioned Pettersson as part of the line, but I was more focused towards Boldy and Boeser, two guys who I think don't complement each other well.
Either way the team is really talented going forward and you're definitely not wrong for sure.
-
1 hour ago, R3aL said:
We just view the game differently, not sure if you play it have ever played hockey either but I’ll say it again skating speed is not everything.
It is important, but I wouldn’t weight it heavier then hockey iq.
thinking fast, reading plays fast, anticipating linemates and opponents actions and positioning naturally or ahead of time are all things a player with high hockey Iq will do. Speed and puck skills allows a player like this execute on their IQ.
so to me a player with above average speed and very highhockey IQ will be an overall better player then someone who’s extremely fast with decent IQ, like a a Jake Virtanen. Kid has all the physical tools probably The fastest skater on the team too but his hockey IQ is not on the same level of a hughes Boeser Petey and it’s very obvious.
I can’t think of a single game where the line of whoever-Petey-Boeser looked slow or not dynamic as well.
i won’t keep messaging about it cause I don’t think I’ll convince you but was worth a try!
Haha yeah I don't think I would change my mind. I'm gonna counter your Virtanen argument by saying Cody Hodgson. And Cody's not even in the league in large part due to skating.
I never thought of whoever - EP - BB as necessarily dynamic, just like I never considered the Sedins dynamic. They're both dominant lines but I think EP and BB are better served with a really good skating winger.
-
1 hour ago, R3aL said:
Did you read my post even? I never said Boeser so I’m not sure why the need for your first paragraph? I agreee and said he’s not a burner but he’s not slow.
as for Petey yea we were surprised but his time was solid.. he’s a fast skater and he’s a rookie. He’s going to get faster too.
to say Petey isn’t a fast skater is crazy to me sorry mate can’t agree with that all. He pulled away from guys all year. Both of our top 6 Centres do not have any issues with speed.
now if you value raw skating speed over elite IQ we will not see eye to eye on this. And we just have different views on the game in general then.
Because I would take a decent skater with elite IQ over a skater with elite speed and decent IQ anyday of the week.
I mean you said speed is not an issue for Boeser so I responded to that, did you not? However, I DID NOT say speed is an issue with him, I just stated he's not a fast skater, just like the rest of the proposed line, and as a result, I think Boldy doesn't make them dynamic enough as they have many of the same skills.
Regarding the speed/IQ thing, we probably don't see it the same way. And perhaps I shouldn't say speed, it's moreso skating. I think that skating is really important, because it allows you to display your "IQ" or "hockey sense." I think there's probably a good number of people and fans who can process the game at a high level and have elite "IQ/hockey sense," but just aren't athletic enough to play hockey at a high level. On the other hand, if you're an elite skater your chances of making the league are much higher.
Essentially what I'm saying is that your ability to process the game is displayed much more if you had the ability to skate aka create space. And it's also easier to have high IQ than to be an elite skater. For example I actually think Granlund's IQ is really high, he just doesn't have the skill or skating to create space for himself to show it, and therefore nobody really thinks of Granlund as a high IQ player. So unless you're magicians with the puck like the Sedins are, there should always be a good skater on each line in order to open up space and show off "IQ/hockey sense."
But that's going way off topic, and I'm sure you'll have a good argument for "IQ"
-
5 hours ago, R3aL said:
Hmm you know Petey is a pretty fast skater right?
Like he fit right in at the nhl all star speed contest.
Did he look slow to you this season?
Boeser isnt a burner but speed is not an issue, and IQ makes up for speed.
you have a line with all three linemates having high hockey IQ then you have three guys who read / anticipate and act on plays much quicker than just fast players.
Thinking the game fast and having the skill to execute on it is more important.
I replied in a post above this already. Boeser is not fast. Sure for an average NHL player he might be above average but he is not fast. For a top line winger he is not fast. You won’t find anywhere else other than CDC that laughs and gets angry at someone saying Boeser isn’t fast.
I get the Pettersson argument for sure. But the reason he was put in the competition is that he was an all star star more so than he’s fast. I’m sure you remember a lot of people scoffing at the fact that he was in the competition rather than in another more suited for his skills. Again, for a top line center EP might have average speed. Sure he may have looked fast relative to our other players, but a top line center generally does that. That is not fast by any means. Again this is not a dig at EP. It’s just that speed isn’t necessarily his game.
For everything else else you can look at the above post. I do have to say I disagree that IQ is more important than speed, but that’s another conversation.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Stamkos said:
Pettersson isn’t fast... okay buddy.
10 hours ago, hammertime said:Aw snap you're right. Low IQ would make that line more dynamic.
Oh c’mon that’s not a dig a Pettersson. You guys really think a line of Boldy Pettersson and Boeser is fast? Find somewhere other than CDC that would think that.
All I’m saying is I prefer to have someone complement EP and Brock’s skills and having Boldy doesn’t do that. A line with high IQ but is not fast isn’t dynamic to me because being dynamic requires a lot of change and difference by definition.
Low IQ does not make the line more dynamic. More elements to add on the IQ such as speed will make the line more dynamic. And the lack of speed on that proposed line makes the line less dynamic. But of course you gotta be funny and spin it so that it sounds like I prefer low IQ players
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, hammertime said:
Boldy's skating has improved a bunch but yes there is still a ton of room for improvment. His speed is a concern but his edgework is very good much like Dahlen. Whats most impressive with Boldy is his IQ which I think would make him a candidate to play with Pete and Brock in the future.
I don't think a line of Boldy Pettersson and Boeser would have enough of a dynamic element. They all have high IQ, but none of them are fast, and one of their main qualities is that they all have really good shots. Not enough variety for a top line IMO.
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I understand the need of filling a RHD, however I don’t think the draft is the place to do it. Defensemen usually take a bit to develop (unless they’re of the Dahlin or Hughes mold), and by the time they do, we don’t know what our RHD situation will look like.
Thats why IMO you gotta go BPA
-
2
-
8
-
57 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:
Oh my god. However that doesn’t really help his case of falling to 10 unfortunately.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Alflives said:
Caufield?
Wouldn't mind him Alf!
I do share the same concern everyone has about him though haha
-
35 minutes ago, TGokou said:
Oh come on, either you completely can't see emotions on someone's face or you didn't watch his interview after. I thought it was fairly obvious.
Nah. That's really just blatantly assuming. You don't know the kid and his temperament, so you can't just blatantly assume emotions. Everyone carries themselves differently.
I think you were expecting him to be upset because NJD got 1st overall, and you're just matching your expectations with his expressions. I know I'm being hypocritical by assuming what you were thinking now
, but it's just a guess
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Odd. said:
Finesse players? We've got that in Baertschi.
IMO, Boldy is what this team needs on the left side. 6'2 will fill out to be 200lbs+, that plays a Selke kind of game. Think Mark Stone.
My only problem is that I honestly don't know if Boldy is the BPA. This is why I really hate the fact that we've fallen to 10th. Like who do we chose, lmao. No clear cut favourite, lots of boom or bust type players from the 7th-12th range
Really sucks.
Love Baer but he's nowhere close to being a guy that can be a major factor on a cup winning team. I think if he's your most skilled winger then there's a problem.
We don't have that much of a dynamic factor on the wing. Right now it's just guys that can shoot the puck like BB and JV, or average 2nd liners like Pearson or Baer. I really want to see play drivers with speed and skill blazing down the wing to match up with our talent at centre ice right now. Boeser is sick but he's not that type of player, Baertschi is a fringe top 6 guy on a competitive team, and Virtanen doesn't have enough skill and "IQ" to be that guy.
And it's not like our centre ice is full of playmakers. We have EP who is the best version of that, but Bo is more of a power forward at centre ice and Gaudette is too early to tell. Just my honest opinion. I'd really like to see someone on the wing who can control the puck with speed and take over.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TGokou said:
Did anyone see how choked Jack Hughes was? Looks like he was trying to contain tears.
Lol it's funny how people always try to overanalyze these kid's emotions.
-
It should always be best player available. Just kind of sucks that there's not really a player that I think we necessarily need.
We have EP and BB, but then we need a winger for Horvat. Horvat's already kind of a power forward at centre ice, and so I would've liked someone on the wing who is skilled and shifty. Outside of BB and Baer, we really don't have any "skilled" wingers, and that's a problem. I feel like drafting a Boldy of type player is sort of redundant.
But again, it should always be BPA, so whoever is there take em.
-
8 minutes ago, AK_19 said:
I'm not as optimistic about him signing with the Canucks. Imagine if you were in his shoes. He has no connection to Vancouver and he'd be stuck behind a decent depth chart on the right including Boeser, Virtanen, Leivo, Motte, Lind, Jasek, Palmu, Mckenzie and Roussel. I'm sure there are more desirable teams to be on with less competition on the wing.
The Canucks are incredibly thin on the wing. I mean you could name 9 wingers on any team like you just did there. Our second and third best wingers are like Pearson and Roussel.
If anyone is a good fit for him in terms of competition it's the Canucks. If he's good enough he'll play, there's not enough sure fire talent ahead of him.
-
1
-
-
It’s nice to know that OJ isn’t necessarily one to rely on athleticism. A meniscus injury could be really devastating in that area.
-
I haven't followed prospects this year too much, but just looking at the stats, I would be EXTREMELY skeptical of Byram.
ANY time a defenceman scores 26 goals in a season (especially in 67 games), unless the guy is Brent Burns, that total is likely to be incredibly inflated, whether by his own team's dominance or by chance.
His plus minus of 33 and just the fact that the Giants were a really good team this year also points to the fact that his production was inflated by quite a bit. I don't want to read too much into it but I find it a bit improbable that he improved his scoring from 27 points last year to 71 this year without the benefit of the Giants becoming a really good team.
I would much rather have a guy who scores 26 goals and 71 points with a -33 plus minus, than a guy with the same stats but a +33 plus minus. I know it sounds ridiculous but scoring at that rate on a bad team is so much more impressive. The plus minus is much more of an indicator of the team rather than the individual player, especially a 66 goal goal differential.
But again, I HAVE NOT seen Byram whatsoever, and I'm just basing this off of his stats. So if you've seen him and want to invalidate my argument I wouldn't argue haha.
-
20 minutes ago, YungWee said:
I know what your saying, but Quinn and Bo + a mid 1st in 2020 would be more than enough to get kakko.
Honestly, would you trade quinn for kakko after seeing him these last 5 games. I'm not sure I would.
I wouldn’t since I have other ties to him. But I think the unbiased NHL fan who has seen both definitely wouldn’t.
, but it's just a guess
William Lockwood | RW
in Alumni
Posted · Edited by Grape
The Psych major is the most popular here at UM. It's definitely regarded as one of the easiest ones. I wouldn't say you're looked down upon if you have a Psych degree, especially from a (arguably) top 20 school in the world like UM, but it's best served being paired with another major, not as the only one. I considered doubling Psych with stats last year but I decided on Stats and Econ instead haha
32 credits in total are needed (each course is 2-4 credits and you're allowed max 18 a semester and there's 2 semesters with extra spring and summer semesters which people usually don't do), so if Will decided on his psych major earlier on and he's not doing another major or minor, there's no doubt he's gonna finish his degree. And you're right, for an athlete if you're taking a few courses going towards your major, the ones you're not should be easy filler courses. Lockwood wasn't one of the guys who won an academic award on the team, so he's not gonna be taking calculus or anything like that.
Yup