NYR Viper
Registered User
Stop using common sense. People wanted Wilde so if they didn’t take him, all others are crap. This is known on HF
Prospect Info: 2018 NHL Draft / Pick #28 - Nils Lundkvist (D)
- Thread starter Pavel Buchnevich
- 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
Stop using common sense. People wanted Wilde so if they didn’t take him, all others are crap. This is known on HF
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
Apparently every team in the NHL felt Wilde was a "reach" in the 1st round, some of you need to get over it.
Ghost of jas
Unsatisfied
Another player that was getting rave reviews when I was immersed in NHL Network Radio yesterday.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I keep wanting to respond to some posts like this that I see from you, then look at your username and remember that the Rangers have had like 3 bad coaches in the last 30 years, and their names were Ron Low, Bryan Trottier, and John Muckler (who was a good coach at one time who had the game pass him by). So I need to resist my inclination to point out that you’re seriously overreacting... and I will from now on.
darko
Registered User
- Feb 16, 2009
- 70,272
- 7,803
broadwayblue
Registered User
Got me. No idea why we would want a kid who was voted as the best dman in his league.
3 bad coaches in last 30 years? LMAO You must think Renney, Tortorella and AV are on par with Quenneville, Bowman, Trotz, etc.
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,365
- 11,988
That's why Tolvanen fell last year too. Couldn't get into BC. What a bad character.
Lundkvist could have been there at 39, and I had other dmen such as Sandin ahead of him as well.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Whether they’re as good as those other coaches really isn’t the point. None of them were bad. All of them were good. Not necessarily great, which is a whole other discussion. And the same is true of Campbell and Neilson. Keenan was lightning in a bottle. And now we’ve covered every Ranger coach over that time period, minus Sather who I don’t really count for a few reasons, and Ron Smith who oversaw the end of the disaster that was 92-93.
Just proof of the propensity for exaggeration. Maybe we should derail the thread though.
broadwayblue
Registered User
They mentioned it during the draft. But you can google it.
"He also won the Best Defenseman award at the U20 league SuperElit even though he spent just half a season there."
I don't know much about that league...but it's impressive to win that award in such a short time.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
I've seen this guy ranked all over, really.
Some have him as a late first, others have him outside the top two rounds. I think the huge variations here are because this guy was not viewed as high-level prospect by almost anyone until later in the season. And when some started to move him up the board a lot, others didn't move him up as much.
I tend to think the answer is somewhere in the middle, although the Rangers seemingly disagree and had him about as high as any boards I've seen. I think he deserved to be moved up, but there was a certain point where some just started moving him up too much, in my opinion. I would've been mostly fine with picking this guy with one of the two second rounder we initially had. I think that was closer to his range.
Some have him as a late first, others have him outside the top two rounds. I think the huge variations here are because this guy was not viewed as high-level prospect by almost anyone until later in the season. And when some started to move him up the board a lot, others didn't move him up as much.
I tend to think the answer is somewhere in the middle, although the Rangers seemingly disagree and had him about as high as any boards I've seen. I think he deserved to be moved up, but there was a certain point where some just started moving him up too much, in my opinion. I would've been mostly fine with picking this guy with one of the two second rounder we initially had. I think that was closer to his range.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Tolvanen couldn’t get into BC because of his grades. Wilde committed to Harvard then changed his mind and committed to U of Michigan, then changed his mind again and decommitted from there too. That’s a TOTALLY different situation and speaks to a potential character issue for sure. Might not be in the end, but you can clearly understand why it might raise some flags, aside from some questions about his game. The kid’s going to get drafted one way or the other, though.
Maybe Lundkvist would be there at 39. The main prospects board seemed to have him 25-40. Bob Mack had him at 36. No reach at 28 really.
Savant
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2013
- 39,365
- 11,988
Wahlstrom decommitted Harvard too. I think it says more about Wahlstrom and Wilde that they were able to get into Harvard in the first place. I think not having grades to get into school is much more of a red flag.
Again, like Kravtsov, I actually don't have a problem with Lundkvist. There are just players that I liked better.
"good" is not good enough we always miss out on the best coaches and settle on "good enough" ones.
Rempe73
RIP King of Pop
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
You have to be smart to get into Harvard. You don’t have to be smart to be a great hockey player. I’m not sure of the exact story with Tolvanen, other than him not having the credits to officially graduate high school. Who knows why that happened. I understand why someone might decide not to attend a school, but doing it a second time is what throws up the flag.
As always, I find the hand-wringing about passing on players that any poster personally had rated higher to be a little silly.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,372
- 24,185
I used to work in college guidance. You don't have to be a genius to get into Harvard. Intelligence+Privilege is worth a million times more than genius.
If you're on track to be a hockey star at the school and get rejected, it's because you have a red flag somewhere that will drag down the GPA/Class Rank/SAT statistics to a real and noticeable level. Not stupid, just not intelligent.
I’m right there with you bud.
I don’t give a damn what those NASA nerds tell me about the moon. I still think it’s made of cheese.
I’ll trust the experts who watch a hell of a lot more hockey, and know more about hockey than you. Your board is literally, completely irrelevant.
I would have preferred to see someone else with that pick(like Veleno), but your rankings suck and I don’t think you know as much as you think you do when it comes down to evaluating talent.
By the way, the type of cheese is Vermont Cheddar.
Yup.
That’s what I’m going with.
Vermont Cheddar.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
He had a really bad WJC18. I wouldn't hold it against him. Miller also was terrible at that event, and these short tournaments get way overrated.
If this guy absolutely maximizes his upside, I think he could be somewhat comparable to Stralman. He's that mold of player, although I still think he'd need to improve his defense a lot more for that to happen.
If this guy absolutely maximizes his upside, I think he could be somewhat comparable to Stralman. He's that mold of player, although I still think he'd need to improve his defense a lot more for that to happen.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I never said genius. But I thought you still needed really good grades even as a hockey player to get into Harvard. Maybe not on the same standards as getting in purely on academics, but still really good. And, at least when I was in high school (17 years ago...) no one had really good grades who I wouldn’t consider “smart”
- Status
