theminister Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 This is absolutely pathetic. All your saying is that you want everyone to be 200+ pounds and over 6 feet. Are you serious man? All you want to do is model, model, model, let's be like LA!!! Well how are they doing right now? Got blown out by skill. LA are goons, if we model after them then we'll fail again. We need to be a skilled team, skiller than SJ because skill wins on the scoreboard. Kapanen is more skilled, more complete than Ritchie by 105 years. You understand that there are people who disagree with assertion? Ritchie is highly skilled. There is no getting away from that fact. Size is not unimportant, any way you slice it. It isn't everything but it's an important thing when added to skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Not everyone needs to be over 200lbs but yes if you roll with 2-3 top 6 guys at 180 you need nothing but 200lbs in ur depth. No you're pathetic lol All I'm getting from you is that everybody has to be over 180 and no one can be under 6 feet. Just to confirm that is what you are saying right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'd be willing to bet the overall smallest teams in the league are the worst. While the best find the size in their depth. Examples: Boston, La, SJ, St Louis Anti thesis: Chicago Pittsburg Colorado Well since we don't have Kane or Crosby I'd say we go for the first model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 All I'm getting from you is that everybody has to be over 180 and no one can be under 6 feet. Just to confirm that is what you are saying right? No I am saying Ritchie is an overall superior being than Kapenen in every measurable capacity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 You understand that there are people who disagree with assertion? Ritchie is highly skilled. There is no getting away from that fact. Size is not unimportant, any way you slice it. It isn't everything but it's an important thing when added to skill. It is, but Kapanen is just the better pick, you can't really pick out one thing from his game that he isn't good at. He will grow, he is only 17 or 18. He has skill, he has capable of playing in the NHL with his size, he knows defense, he knows hockey, he understands and excels at every part of the game of hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Ritchie has all those things, and more size. Your arguments could not be more circular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 No I am saying Ritchie is an overall superior being than Kapenen in every measurable capacity Oh alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Would still rather have Ritchie, Virtanen or even Ehlers before Kapanen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I'd be willing to bet the overall smallest teams in the league are the worst. While the best find the size in their depth. Examples: Boston, La, SJ, St Louis Anti thesis: Chicago Pittsburg Colorado Well since we don't have Kane or Crosby I'd say we go for the first model Yeah so we'll just get Lucic or whatever your girlfriend looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Ritchie has all those things, and more size. Your arguments could not be more circular Ritchie's defense isn't on level with Kapanen, hockey IQ, or hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Hockey Iq Yes Hands, almost there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I guess size is only 6'3 230 pounds according you because Higgins, Burrows aren't big enough for you. It isn't easy to find speed, skill, and size. And even there is the quality of all those 3 will suck. Ritchie has all the tools yes but he is a risk, when you are at 6th you don't take a risk. Kapanen will become a 60 point 25 goal scorer, max. Alright, thanks for letting me know. A 60 point player is a very valuable player. That's first line Production IMO, if Kapanen is a 30 - 30 player with the two-way game he brings I think we would have made a great pick. But I think he has upside where he might put up more in his peak. No I am saying Ritchie is an overall superior being than Kapenen in every measurable capacity Now thats not true at all. Size & Strength yes, hitting & fighting yes, things like that yeah, things like skating, skill, even two-way play, I don't think so. It is, but Kapanen is just the better pick, you can't really pick out one thing from his game that he isn't good at. He will grow, he is only 17 or 18. He has skill, he has capable of playing in the NHL with his size, he knows defense, he knows hockey, he understands and excels at every part of the game of hockey. Throwing the comparisons to any other player aside for a moment. This is exactly why we should take him, he's got everything, he's a complete player AND HE HAS A HIGH SKILL LEVEL. When I break down this player, I just don't really see a negative, someone may argue size but he's 6'0 & 181 at 17, he can grow, and he overcomes the size regardless. He's not soft, he plays a two-way game, he has high offensively skill & high offensive upside. And with the way Finnish hockey has been producing players, he looks to be the next one in that line of great young Finnish players. Unless a top 5 guy falls I don't see a reason right now not to take him. And I know in saying that Merci is probably gunna go nuts and go on about Ritchie some more, but its true he's got no holes in his game. He's safe, and he's got a high upside, those are the players you take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 It is, but Kapanen is just the better pick, you can't really pick out one thing from his game that he isn't good at. He will grow, he is only 17 or 18. He has skill, he has capable of playing in the NHL with his size, he knows defense, he knows hockey, he understands and excels at every part of the game of hockey. I don't think he is. He's a low risk pick, in a sense, because he is a good two way player. I don't agree with others belief in his upside. I think it's far more likely that he has a harder time breaking out of a checker's role than many of the other top 12 considerations in this draft, and I don't see him as a very high pick. I even think he could slide behind some guys like Tuch and McCann. His skill, while good, is noticeably behind a player like Nylander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Hockey Iq Yes Hands, almost there You haven't even watched Kapanen why are you commenting? Oh yea, youtube vids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Would still rather have Ritchie, Virtanen or even Ehlers before Kapanen. Why's that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 too bad Kapanen wasn't 20lbs heavier, he'd probably go top 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I don't think he is. He's a low risk pick, in a sense, because he is a good two way player. I don't agree with others belief in his upside. I think it's far more likely that he has a harder time breaking out of a checker's role than many of the other top 12 considerations in this draft, and I don't see him as a very high pick. I even think he could slide behind some guys like Tuch and McCann. His skill, while good, is noticeably behind a player like Nylander. His skill is behind Nylander, I would say most of the players in this draft are behind Nylander in terms of skill, thats why he's the best skill player. But I don't think his upside is a checker or 3rd liner. His skill is ahead of most of the other top 12 considerations IMO. And FWIW I think Kapanen's skill may translate better in the NHL, Nylander has a high skill level but there are a ton of high skill level guys that don't put up huge point totals like there skill dictates. Because of Kapanen's overall game is alot better and more rounded, I don't think his offensive game will really be that far behind when you look at his production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merci Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 It's close but Ritchie edges out Kapanen barely. I see the blazing speed, I see the devlish hands. But Ritchie has just as sick plays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Ok, here's a question for Plum and SK…. since you two are the biggest Kapanen supporters. How would you compare his skill set, and attributes, to Artturi Lekhonen? What makes Kapanen a much better prospect, or does he? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I hope Calgary takes Ritchie, because that would be a waste of a pick on their part. I'm not afraid of Ritchie turning into the next Lucic. Lucic, like all power forwards, you easily get throw them off their game, get under their skin and they'll resort to goonary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.