BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
I agree. Jones has looked so much better than Mckinnon everytime I see them. And Jones probably has higher potential too, and D is more important than C.
12'/13' Draft Thread: Offensive flash is a beauty but defensive presence rules.
- Thread starter Leaf Rocket
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I agree. Jones has looked so much better than Mckinnon everytime I see them. And Jones probably has higher potential too, and D is more important than C.
I disagree with this completely.
I'd take an Elite Center > an Elite Dman any day
Most important positions imho are as follows...
G
C
D
W
I like Jones, but Mackinnon has that "it" factor, it hard to put "it" into words, but whatever "it" is, he has "it". I just don't see that same thing with Jones.
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
A d can play 30+ minutes, and have a huge impact. I don't see a C having the same impact.
When you're in a position like the Leafs, grabbing an elite center is more important. That's what matters.
Which player are we closer to having? We have Phaneuf and Rielly on D, but who do we have to lead up front.
C trumps D all day.
Which player are we closer to having? We have Phaneuf and Rielly on D, but who do we have to lead up front.
C trumps D all day.
2nd this quote!
Any Hockey person will tell you besides the goalie a center is most importand because they need to be able to play all 3 zones.
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
When Phaneuf or Rielly become "Elite" when can worry about getting a #1 line C
Everybody preaches "Build from the net out!" yet we all want a #1 C? We don't even need a #1 C. Explain to me how GF was our problem last season. Explain to me how keeping goals out wasn't our problem last season. Explain to me how you were 100% confident in throwing Dion out when we needed our best D out in a 5 on 3.
C does not trump D or Colorado would be one of the best teams.
Terrence
Registered User
- Aug 3, 2010
- 9,209
- 1
To be fair, Button has had Jones #1 in every one of his rankings so far. Therefore, it's not just because of the WJC, it's just his opinion.
ummmm Colorado? Because they have Duchene, Statsney and O'Rielly?
Didn't that team make the playoffs the year before last? And didn't they look good for most of last season? Till their GOALTENDING blew up? And for the record those players are good not great!
Pitt had Croz, Gino and Staal and killed it without a great D...
SJ the same...
Van the same...
G
C
D
W
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
Lolwut
Van had good D, as well as good goaltending.
Colorado got outmatched, you just make it seem like center is some how more important than defense. Who is Nashville or Phoenix #1 C again?
I can explain both of those quite easily: goaltending.
And no, D is not more important than a player tasked with being both an offensive game-changer, and a defensive stalwart.
Sorry. Phaneuf/Rielly/Gardiner/Finn + Blacker, Percy, Holzer, Gunnarsson, and Liles BY FAR outweighs Kadri/Bozak/Colborne/Connelly
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
Huh? I'm sorry I understand goaltending is important, but our D was outmatched every game against a good team. It's the reason why we don't have the puck against a team like Boston or Vancouver cause they can cycle on us for days because we don't have a player like Jones?
Let me get this straight. We have ONE line that does anything offensively, and rather that addressing our weaknesses we should improve our only good line? You can make the playoffs with a top line of Kessel and Lupul. You can't make the playoffs with a top pairing of Phaneuf and Gunnarsson.
Let me get this straight... We can make the playoffs with a top line of Kessel and Lupul... But we didn't?
And at the halfway point, with those two firing on all cylinders, we were solidly a playoff team?
Could've fooled me.
When you don't have forwards (namely centers) who can't help your defenseman out down low, do you think that has any effect on the oppoaition's cycle game? Because I do.
When you have Tyler Bozak as your 1st line center, with Tim *** Connelly moonlighting at the position, you call that adequate!?
Get real. Our Defense played a run and gun system under Wilson, and exposed our defenders time an time again. We have a defensive coach, and a great skating instructor to help improve their mobility.
I still don't see you answering what I asked. How does that defensive depth point to a dire need for defense?
Phaneuf is a solid defender, whether (for the purpose of your argument) you admit it or not. Gunnar is a steady two-way guy who has been steadily improving as he's matured, and has been trusted with important responsibility because of it. In the system, we have budding stars in Gardiner and Rielly, and defensive D-men in Fraser and Holzer, and young two-way guys like Finn, Blacker, and Percy.
For the forward group, we have a guy trying to figure it out in Colborne, and a high potential guy who hasn't yet made his mark in Kadri.
Please, continue to ignore the weakest center group in the league. We have one center worth ANYTHING, and that's Grabo.
How long do guys like Kessel and Lupul stick around to play with Tyler Bozak, whenthey could flank Brad Richards, Pavel Datsyuk, etc., when hitting free agency?
BIitz
GRANT = SOFT
- Oct 5, 2010
- 14,014
- 3
Solid Post.
Can as in a possibility. Can=/= Will
At the half way point we had awful goaltending and defense. You admit both of those 2 were firing but keep trying to add on to them by getting a #1 C rather then addressing our crappy D and G which cost us our season. As I said, build from the net out.
Actually Bozak is passable defensively and does a great job coming back and helping the cycle. Watch a Blackhawk Canuck game compared to us vs the Canucks. Keith and Seabrook vs Phaneuf and Gunnarsson? They use Bolland against the Sedins BTW not Toews. Proving we don't need a #1 C to stop a cycle, but we need a #1 Elite D. (rather weak point on my part however)
When Carlyle came it's not like we were massively improved. I am real, our D just aren't up to par with our forwards. We can safely say we have a decent top 6, we can't say we have a decent top 4. I get that Gardiner played good, but it's kind of sad a Kid that just learned to play defensive 4 years ago was our best defender.
Because 5 of the guys you listed are PROSPECTS. Yet to play an NHL game. How is that depth? EVERY team has prospects. So you are comparing Phaneuf Gunnarsson and Liles to Connolly Bozak and Kadri. Honestly, they are both a bad group of 3, the only difference is those are our top 3 D moving forward. OUR TOP 3 D.
I'm a Phaneuf defender, he's just not elite. Gunnar is steady, he'd just not top pairing. Gardiner and Rielly are BUDDING stars, doesn't mean they are surefire. Percy Blacker and Finn will probably only see 1 become an NHL player, and Fraser and Holzer probably won't be anything more than a bottom pairing D man. Sorry where's our elite 30+ minute defensemen?
I'm not ignoring our center group. Center is important, jsut defensemen are more important. If you want an ideal center for Kessel and Lupul it would be Bergeron, not Getzlaf. We can develop a 2 way player better than a superstar offensive player. Even Hanzal would be amazing for us. A top forward line in the NHL is only playing 18-20 minutes. A top defense line players 24-30. Where would you rather have a star?
Why do you assume Lupul and Kessel just want to pile on points? I'm suer they'd rather have a star defender like Doughty or Piet who can carry a team with smart reads and offensive abiltiy then a guy like Richards.
Bozak isn't bad defensively, no, but he gets pushed around A LOT. This is something that would happen to guys like Barkov, due to his size and strength.
I agree with the Bergeron part. You want a guy who is able to distribute, but my Ideal 1C has size, plays in the goal mouth, and protects the puck well. I want him in corners, creating space, an playing down low defensively, or as some call it, a complete player.
I can see that we pretty much have the same argument, just at opposite ends of the rink.
I think better goaltending vastly helps your end, where we could get more impact from a solid guy at mine.
It's nice wgen someone doesn't start insulting you personally when you present them with a decent post.
Cheers!
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 71,030
- 21,383
Always amusing reading comments that Button is a baffoon when all he does is see more prospects game than all of us here combined.
Just because a few disagree with him on prospects...
Just because a few disagree with him on prospects...
Lebanese Leaf
Registered User
BIitz, you raise some good points, but where this franchise stands right now we need a #1C more than a #1D. By all indications, Rielly projects to be a #1D in the NHL, we do not have a prospect who projects to be a true #1C right now (unless Kadri proves everyone wrong). When we take a look at all the teams who have made it to the Stanley Cup finals in recent memory, they all had either an elite #1C, or an elite goalie who got hot and carried them, or both. You will not see a team with below average #1C and below average goaltending make it far based on elite defense. Nashville and Phoenix both have/had elite goaltending.
So if given the choice between Mackinnon and Jones, you take Mackinnon all day, no questions asked.
So if given the choice between Mackinnon and Jones, you take Mackinnon all day, no questions asked.
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 71,030
- 21,383
There were more recent examples I gave, Turris, Wheeler, Johnson, the quality of collegiate hockey improved to the point of scouts scouting them after my buddy the former late great Herb Brooks led Team USA to gold in Lake Placid in 1980. By 83, USA hockey was heavily scouted, trust me scouting for the US schools was not a foreign concept then.
JMcLeaf
__________
- Mar 21, 2010
- 18,601
- 19
In order to win the Cup, teams usually need a true #1 center and a #1 goalie. There are a few cases where they only had 1 of the 2 though IMO.
Winners since the previous lockout:
Carolina: Staal, Ward
Anaheim: Getzlaf, Giguere
Detroit: Datsyuk, Osgood*
Pittsburgh: Crosby/Malkin, Fleury
Chicago: Toews, Niemi*
Boston: Bergeron/Krejci, Thomas
LA: Kopitar, Quick
Osgood and Niemi were not that great, but the teams in front of them were stacked. They could still be considered #1's, but not the typical #1 you see on a winner. At least in my opinion they weren't.
Winners since the previous lockout:
Carolina: Staal, Ward
Anaheim: Getzlaf, Giguere
Detroit: Datsyuk, Osgood*
Pittsburgh: Crosby/Malkin, Fleury
Chicago: Toews, Niemi*
Boston: Bergeron/Krejci, Thomas
LA: Kopitar, Quick
Osgood and Niemi were not that great, but the teams in front of them were stacked. They could still be considered #1's, but not the typical #1 you see on a winner. At least in my opinion they weren't.
Sundinisagod
****
A defender like Pronger could impact a game as much, if not more than any center not named Gretzky or Mario, in his day...
Will Jones be the next Pronger? That is the real question imho. I realize he's not that nasty, nobody will be in this era...but the potential for a similar level of 2-way dominance is there imho.
Will Jones be the next Pronger? That is the real question imho. I realize he's not that nasty, nobody will be in this era...but the potential for a similar level of 2-way dominance is there imho.
Always amusing reading comments that Button is a baffoon when all he does is see more prospects game than all of us here combined.
Just because a few disagree with him on prospects...
It's actually pretty understood that his list is simply there to generate discussion. There are a number of kids out of place.
Oh, and when a guy says he doesn't like someone, and completely ignores his play, and ranks him WAY back from where he should be, you have all you need to know.
Can't argue with that.
But when a franchise lacks guts and guile up front like we do, with no leader to look to down the bench, if you have the opportunity, and there is talent like MacK and Barkov on the board, you absolutely fill that gap.
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
Always amusing reading comments that Button is a baffoon when all he does is see more prospects game than all of us here combined.
Just because a few disagree with him on prospects...
That's an understatement. A lot disagree with him, he gets it right once in a while but then again so does eklund. He does it to be unique nothing more nothing less.
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 71,030
- 21,383
Then why listen to scouts? I think he is an excellent evaluator of talent, he had your boy Gally high last year. So if he is an idiot as you say so, then he is wrong on Gally.
You can't pick and choose your battles Ernie, Button loves Barkov last I read, he's an idiot again.
I can atleast disagree with him but still respect his knowledge, this doesn't make me an idiot or him an idiot. It's a difference of opinions, that's a norm when you talk with hockey scouts.
BTW How is your research on US amateur hockey going, I know you need to catch up since you were only born in 85, did you know in 1980 US hockey was on the map on every scouts list after my late friend Herb Brooks coached a bunch of US Collegians to gold at Lake Placid? Scouting has sure changed in 30 odd some years.
ULF_55
Moderator
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412981
A beast who blew by Jones as easily as he did Murphy and Rielly.
- Status
