Rollieo Del Fuego Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 17 hours ago, drummerboy said: Last I saw he was over 5’11 and between 170-175 Whatever the case may be ...one inch and a few Lbs. is not going to make diddly-squat's worth of difference. It is the motor and mentality within that will win out.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 On 8/14/2018 at 10:19 AM, Rollieo Del Fuego said: Whatever the case may be ...one inch and a few Lbs. is not going to make diddly-squat's worth of difference. It is the motor and mentality within that will win out.... Then why were people saying Boqvist was "severely undersized" when he was listed as 1 inch and a few pounds lighter than Hughes? Is it cause it only mattered when Hughes was bigger than Boqvist? I suspect so. They are both smallish and neither will have the size advantage over the other. People keep flip flopping on the narrative when their points are disputed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, N7Nucks said: Then why were people saying Boqvist was "severely undersized" when he was listed as 1 inch and a few pounds lighter than Hughes? Is it cause it only mattered when Hughes was bigger than Boqvist? I suspect so. They are both smallish and neither will have the size advantage over the other. People keep flip flopping on the narrative when their points are disputed. Boqvist has bustaroo potential because he is a very soft player. Hughes plays with bite. Size is not the issue. My choice was to go with Boqvist, until Hughes (who I believe is the best player in this draft) fell into our laps. I see Boqvist having the next highest ceiling to Hughes, but he has the highest bustaroo potential too. Boqvist could be a 50 Point guy, or another Philip Larsen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Alflives said: Boqvist has bustaroo potential because he is a very soft player. Hughes plays with bite. Size is not the issue. My choice was to go with Boqvist, until Hughes (who I believe is the best player in this draft) fell into our laps. I see Boqvist having the next highest ceiling to Hughes, but he has the highest bustaroo potential too. Boqvist could be a 50 Point guy, or another Philip Larsen. Could say this about Hughes as well. But you won't cause he's a Vancouver prospect. Boqvist's bust potential isn't higher than Hughes, I'd say they are both about the same. I'd even argue Boqvist has less bust potential because he is so much younger he has more time to grow and get bigger. Whereas we likely see the physical peak of where Hughes will be height-wise. 5'9/5'10. Boqvist can push 6 foot. Giving him a bigger frame to put on muscle if necessary. But given where the NHL is going they both should be fine at 190 or less. Not sure what you mean by "Hughes plays with bite", but in my books he's as soft as Boqvist. So I think you made this up to try convince yourself we definitively got the better guy which just isn't true. Probably a statement made by your inner Don Cherry. Euros are all softies with no heart. NOT LIKE THEM GOOD OLE NORTH AMERICAN BOYS. I really don't think you'd be calling Hughes the best player in the draft if we drafted 1st overall. You practically vomit homerism. Which is fine, enjoy your Canuck fandom however you please. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, N7Nucks said: Then why were people saying Boqvist was "severely undersized" when he was listed as 1 inch and a few pounds lighter than Hughes? Is it cause it only mattered when Hughes was bigger than Boqvist? I suspect so. They are both smallish and neither will have the size advantage over the other. People keep flip flopping on the narrative when their points are disputed. The difference has way less to do with their size vs how they play defence. I was not on the Hughes or Bomqvist bandwagon. Hughes won me over with his play without the puck. A work in progress, but at least he can play defence. Bomqvist has great offence, but has no defence. The two concussions this year are concerning. Both are high risk vs high reward players. Hughes has a higher floor, and has an equal ceiling. Hughes’s game has really improved over this year. Compare his WJC play to the WC play. I did not see the same progress with Bomqvist. Not so say that I am right. Somehow I would love to graft Bomqvist’s shot into Hughes. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 53 minutes ago, N7Nucks said: Could say this about Hughes as well. But you won't cause he's a Vancouver prospect. Boqvist's bust potential isn't higher than Hughes, I'd say they are both about the same. I'd even argue Boqvist has less bust potential because he is so much younger he has more time to grow and get bigger. Whereas we likely see the physical peak of where Hughes will be height-wise. 5'9/5'10. Boqvist can push 6 foot. Giving him a bigger frame to put on muscle if necessary. But given where the NHL is going they both should be fine at 190 or less. Not sure what you mean by "Hughes plays with bite", but in my books he's as soft as Boqvist. So I think you made this up to try convince yourself we definitively got the better guy which just isn't true. Probably a statement made by your inner Don Cherry. Euros are all softies with no heart. NOT LIKE THEM GOOD OLE NORTH AMERICAN BOYS. I really don't think you'd be calling Hughes the best player in the draft if we drafted 1st overall. You practically vomit homerism. Which is fine, enjoy your Canuck fandom however you please. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. It’s wrong though. Hughes is the best player in this draft, which time will prove. Boqvist was a good pick, but he is soft, completely lost without the puck, has low hockey Q, and (consequently) a very high bustaroo quotient. Yes, I am bias. I am a Canuck’s fan. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 58 minutes ago, N7Nucks said: Could say this about Hughes as well. But you won't cause he's a Vancouver prospect. Boqvist's bust potential isn't higher than Hughes, I'd say they are both about the same. I'd even argue Boqvist has less bust potential because he is so much younger he has more time to grow and get bigger. Whereas we likely see the physical peak of where Hughes will be height-wise. 5'9/5'10. Boqvist can push 6 foot. Giving him a bigger frame to put on muscle if necessary. But given where the NHL is going they both should be fine at 190 or less. Not sure what you mean by "Hughes plays with bite", but in my books he's as soft as Boqvist. So I think you made this up to try convince yourself we definitively got the better guy which just isn't true. Probably a statement made by your inner Don Cherry. Euros are all softies with no heart. NOT LIKE THEM GOOD OLE NORTH AMERICAN BOYS. I really don't think you'd be calling Hughes the best player in the draft if we drafted 1st overall. You practically vomit homerism. Which is fine, enjoy your Canuck fandom however you please. Boqvist has a much higher chance of being a bust, has shown nothing at the pro level, 2 concussions, and a learning disability. Hughes is almost NHL ready, I think if he was on our team he would be one of our top 6 defensemen already. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WonderTwinPowers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: Boqvist has a much higher chance of being a bust, has shown nothing at the pro level, 2 concussions, and a learning disability. Hughes is almost NHL ready, I think if he was on our team he would be one of our top 6 defensemen already. Boqvist has a learning disability? Is there any actual proof of this?... Edited August 17, 2018 by WonderTwinPowers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, WonderTwinPowers said: Boqvist has a learning disability? Is there any actual proof of this?... Ya, ill look it up later but he didn't finish High School because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGokou Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 39 minutes ago, WonderTwinPowers said: Boqvist has a learning disability? Is there any actual proof of this?... He has dsylexia. It's well known and he's spoken of it prior to the draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 3 hours ago, N7Nucks said: Then why were people saying Boqvist was "severely undersized" when he was listed as 1 inch and a few pounds lighter than Hughes? Is it cause it only mattered when Hughes was bigger than Boqvist? I suspect so. They are both smallish and neither will have the size advantage over the other. People keep flip flopping on the narrative when their points are disputed. For me it was because Boqvist plays smaller than Quinn and he doesn't have Quinn's ability to stick check the puck away from bigger player's.... All in all Quinn has way more 'grit' to his game ...which brings me back to the 'will to win' mentality ...it's what makes a borderline player good and a great player ....exceptional. So all in all Quinn has the drive over Boqvist.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said: Boqvist has a much higher chance of being a bust, has shown nothing at the pro level, 2 concussions, and a learning disability. Hughes is almost NHL ready, I think if he was on our team he would be one of our top 6 defensemen already. Agreed. It’s one thing to be added to the WC roster as a spare, but Hughes played solid minutes and he not only held his own but showed flashes of taking over games. He showed an ability to play a high octane game with no fear. He could skate away from current NHLers with ease. He could be a player this year, but wants to come in and make a difference. Bomqvist could get there and Chicago is a great landing spot for him. There is no rush and he needs time, 3 years minimum. Bomqvist is a great pick for Chicago cause if they miss no big deal. Bomqvist has the highest risk of busting in the top 15. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, N7Nucks said: Then why were people saying Boqvist was "severely undersized" when he was listed as 1 inch and a few pounds lighter than Hughes? Is it cause it only mattered when Hughes was bigger than Boqvist? I suspect so. They are both smallish and neither will have the size advantage over the other. People keep flip flopping on the narrative when their points are disputed. They are nearly identical in terms of size and weight. Bomber is almost a year younger and has a but more ability to add size. Comparing defence Hughes is miles better than Bomqvist. Who do you think could play NHL minutes within the next two years? While Bomber may be great he has so many more questions around him than Hughes. To say otherwise is ridiculous. We could not afford our pick to miss and it seems highly likely that Hughes has what it takes to make it. Bomber doesnt have the same blue chip appearance to me. Edited August 17, 2018 by Eastcoast meets Westcoast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 3 hours ago, N7Nucks said: Could say this about Hughes as well. But you won't cause he's a Vancouver prospect. Boqvist's bust potential isn't higher than Hughes, I'd say they are both about the same. I'd even argue Boqvist has less bust potential because he is so much younger he has more time to grow and get bigger. Whereas we likely see the physical peak of where Hughes will be height-wise. 5'9/5'10. Boqvist can push 6 foot. Giving him a bigger frame to put on muscle if necessary. But given where the NHL is going they both should be fine at 190 or less. His age works both ways though too. Yes, more room to grow and time to mature but it also makes him further away from his prime and hence harder to predict. He's less of a 'finished product'. That does come with some risk. But it also could potentially come with reward. Kid's got a hell of a lot of excellent tools. Almost as good of a (elite) skater, similar ability to make plays and drive offense and a frankly far better shot. He does seem less assertive/driven but that could just as easily be maturity vs personality (or a mix). Time will tell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 27 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said: They are nearly identical in terms of size and weight. Bomber is almost a year younger and has a but more ability to add size. Comparing defence Hughes is miles better than Bomqvist. Who do you think could play NHL minutes within the next two years? While Bomber may be great he has so many more questions around him than Hughes. To say otherwise is ridiculous. We could not afford our pick to miss and it seems highly likely that Hughes has what it takes to make it. Bomber doesnt have the same blue chip appearance to me. boqvist boqvist boqvist boqvist not bomqvist there is no m 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, aGENT said: His age works both ways though too. Yes, more room to grow and time to mature but it also makes him further away from his prime and hence harder to predict. He's less of a 'finished product'. Good point. Very true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, tas said: boqvist boqvist boqvist boqvist not bomqvist there is no m Don't bother. He does it to be annoying. Lessens the credibility of his posts imo. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, tas said: boqvist boqvist boqvist boqvist not bomqvist there is no m I give up. AB or Bomber for now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: Don't bother. He does it to be annoying. Lessens the credibility of his posts imo. Seriously.... My prespective is ‘lessened’ cause I mispell a name. So not that I need credibility from you, but what part of my take on AB is not credible? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted August 17, 2018 Share Posted August 17, 2018 44 minutes ago, tas said: boqvist boqvist boqvist boqvist not bomqvist there is no m So rather than focus on a misspelling, why not consider the content of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now