Emphasis on drafting speed and skill paying off for New York Rangers

[eco's bones]

Instead of attempting to rewrite history of how people felt about the Kreider pick at the time it was made, you can always just click on the link I provided to see the ACTUAL history.

The version you just gave is the extreme minority view in that thread.

Believe what you like. I don't give a ****. But if you've got a lot of time to read these are two other threads from 2009 that began in April in the Rangers forum under the thread titles 'Official 2009 draft thread' and 'Official 2009 draft thread (continued)':

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=628564&highlight=official+2009+draft+thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=653231&highlight=official+2009+draft+thread

To make things even easier the first comparison of Jessiman to Kreider comes on post No. 25 of the first link. These threads are about an assortment of potential picks and Kreider is not always the focus--pages 5 + 6 talk quite a bit about Kreider. Then you might jump to pages 11-12-13. Posts 279-285-294-296-301 all are negative towards Kreider. Jessiman pops up a lot again. We are early in the month of May by that point. But really you can read these two threads all day long. I don't want to and I don't expect you will either but the point is it's not revisionist history. By the way I didn't see any of your posts in the first few hundred. Maybe you missed all that.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Believe what you like. I don't give a ****. But if you've got a lot of time to read these are two other threads from 2009 that began in April in the Rangers forum under the thread titles 'Official 2009 draft thread' and 'Official 2009 draft thread (continued)':

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=628564&highlight=official+2009+draft+thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=653231&highlight=official+2009+draft+thread

To make things even easier the first comparison of Jessiman to Kreider comes on post No. 25 of the first link. These threads are about an assortment of potential picks and Kreider is not always the focus--pages 5 + 6 talk quite a bit about Kreider. Then you might jump to pages 11-12-13. Posts 279-285-294-296-301 all are negative towards Kreider. Jessiman pops up a lot again. We are early in the month of May by that point. But really you can read these two threads all day long. I don't want to and I don't expect you will either but the point is it's not revisionist history. By the way I didn't see any of your posts in the first few hundred. Maybe you missed all that.

I'm sure this was mentioned. Heck, if you read enough posts around here, EVERYTHING is mentioned. Some crazy stuff sometimes.

But as you can see by the link I posted to what was said immediately after Kreider was selected, comparing Kreider to Jessiman was the EXTREME minority viewpoint.

 

[chosen]

Ok but they got drafted right? These guys are there in the later rounds. Hagelin is a good top 6 player and he was a 6th round pick. The scouting has to be better regardless is all i'm saying. Tarasenko isnt special but how old is he again? Other than Kreider, what young forwards do we have in the NHL? We dont have a Tarasenko or any young scorer other than Kreider

I don't think Hagelin is a good top 6 player. Below average, actually.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Ive never quite seen the point of trying to nail draft picks as a fan. Who has time to properly evaluate that kind of stuff? Wait until they make the NHL and make your evaluation then when you can actually watch them against the best talent in the world.

Outside of a select handful of posters here, most people have zero clue what they're talking about regarding prospects but that doesn't stop them from trying. It often leads to love affairs and, eventually, looking like an idiot.

 

[offdacrossbar]

I don't think Hagelin is a good top 6 player. Below average, actually.

correct.

heres how our forwards stack up imo. this is for right now today not what they were or what they may become. and this is on our team as it is configured today.

* a tweener type player who could fit on 2 lines

1st line players
nash

2nd line players
beever *1/2
stepan
kreider
zuke
brassard *2/3

3rd line players
cally *2/3
hags *2/3
poo
boyle *3/4

4th line players
dorsett
moore
pyatt


this shows exactly what our problem is. we need top line players and

1. we have zero established "stud" offensive players other than a hurting nash.
2. we have literally ZERO snipers. no shooters per say on the roster.
3. we have creative players but they all have either size issues or speed without hands issues.

we generally lack offensive scorer type players. and the result of that is 2.0 gpg or 27/30 in scoring.

 

[eco's bones]

I'm sure this was mentioned. Heck, if you read enough posts around here, EVERYTHING is mentioned. Some crazy stuff sometimes.

But as you can see by the link I posted to what was said immediately after Kreider was selected, comparing Kreider to Jessiman was the EXTREME minority viewpoint.

There's 95 pages in the two threads I link that cover almost 3 months. Reading my own posts early in April 2009 I'm a bit skeptical on Kreider or more skeptical than I remember. Main problem is his possibly returning to Phillips Andover for his senior year and then on to BC. Hattrick Swayze was the one who broke the news that Kreider was going to try to cram his senior year at Andover over the summer and enter BC that fall. I was looking at Kreider as 4 to 5 years away--that made him quite a bit more attractive a pick--because it made his making it earlier more possible. Still there were people arguing for others--I liked Kassian a lot--Schroeder, Morin, Josefson, Glennie, Klingberg, Ashton, Palmieri get mentioned a lot as possibilities. All these players had been facing much tougher competition than Kreider. Bluenote, Jas and Hattrick were the drivers of the Kreider bandwagon here earliest on. I left off reading after about 16 pages. Somewhere I joined the bandwagon. Glennie and Kassian rose and Schroeder fell. On draft day if I remember correctly my top 4 were 1. Kassian 2. Kreider 3. Palmieri 4. Josefson. Kassian was gone before we picked. Not sure about Palmieri. I was happy with Kreider but there were other people who wanted someone else. To me it was a good choice.

As for the link you posted people are usually the most giddy the day after……and then Kreider was dogged a bit by posters here throughout his college career. Some didn't like his choice of BC. Jerry York wasn't the right coach. He rolled lines. He didn't automatically put Chris on the first line. Rangers posters here expected bigger offensive numbers from Kreider. Not going to lie I expected bigger numbers from Kreider. A point a game for a 1st round pick who was bigger, stronger and faster than almost all the players he played against seemed more than reasonable. Kreider's offensive numbers were never that good.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I don't think Hagelin is a good top 6 player. Below average, actually.

On his own he's below average, but if he's with good players, he compliments them pretty well. Hagelin-Stepan-Nash and Hagelin-Richards-Gaborik come to mind. Those were very good lines (and the first one needs to be put back together).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

On his own he's below average, but if he's with good players, he compliments them pretty well. Hagelin-Stepan-Nash and Hagelin-Richards-Gaborik come to mind. Those were very good lines (and the first one needs to be put back together).

The major problem with this whole roster is the amount of players that fit that mold.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The major problem with this whole roster is the amount of players that fit that mold.

I don't disagree, but I think Hagelin is the best of the bunch and a very valuable player on any roster.

 

[Ail]

I don't disagree, but I think Hagelin is the best of the bunch and a very valuable player on any roster.

Yup. I want Hagelin (or someone like him) on my SC finals roster 100 out of 100 times.

 

[wafflepadsave]

correct.

heres how our forwards stack up imo. this is for right now today not what they were or what they may become. and this is on our team as it is configured today.

* a tweener type player who could fit on 2 lines

1st line players
nash

2nd line players
beever *1/2
stepan
kreider
zuke
brassard *2/3

3rd line players
cally *2/3
hags *2/3
poo
boyle *3/4

4th line players
dorsett
moore
pyatt


this shows exactly what our problem is. we need top line players and

1. we have zero established "stud" offensive players other than a hurting nash.
2. we have literally ZERO snipers. no shooters per say on the roster.
3. we have creative players but they all have either size issues or speed without hands issues.

we generally lack offensive scorer type players. and the result of that is 2.0 gpg or 27/30 in scoring.

Good post!

 

[chosen]

1st line players
nash

2nd line players
beever *1/2
stepan
kreider
zuke
brassard *2/3

3rd line players
cally *2/3
hags *2/3
poo
boyle *3/4

4th line players
dorsett
moore
pyatt


this shows exactly what our problem is. we need top line players and

1. we have zero established "stud" offensive players other than a hurting nash.
2. we have literally ZERO snipers. no shooters per say on the roster.
3. we have creative players but they all have either size issues or speed without hands issues.

we generally lack offensive scorer type players. and the result of that is 2.0 gpg or 27/30 in scoring.

I am in the minority that believes Stepan is a legit first line center. Not a top one, but a legit one.

Nash, Stepan, and a legit winger would be just fine as a number 1 unit.

Richards is not a legit first line forward.

 

[eco's bones]

I am in the minority that believes Stepan is a legit first line center. Not a top one, but a legit one.

Nash, Stepan, and a legit winger would be just fine as a number 1 unit.

Richards is not a legit first line forward.

I think Stepan is getting there. Richards is a 2/3. Callahan is really a 2.

Generally how I rank in order of importance the Rangers forwards as of now:

1. Nash
2. Stepan
3. Kreider
4. Callahan
5. Hagelin
6. Zuccarello
7. Richards
8. Boyle
9. Brassard
10. Dorsett
11. Moore
12. Pouliot
13. Pyatt

I like this better than just assigning players to lines. Players are always being switched from this line to that in the elusive search for chemistry.

 

[kovazub94]

correct.

heres how our forwards stack up imo. this is for right now today not what they were or what they may become. and this is on our team as it is configured today.

* a tweener type player who could fit on 2 lines

1st line players
nash

2nd line players
beever *1/2
stepan
kreider
zuke
brassard *2/3

3rd line players
cally *2/3
hags *2/3
poo
boyle *3/4

4th line players
dorsett
moore
pyatt


this shows exactly what our problem is. we need top line players and

1. we have zero established "stud" offensive players other than a hurting nash.
2. we have literally ZERO snipers. no shooters per say on the roster.
3. we have creative players but they all have either size issues or speed without hands issues.

we generally lack offensive scorer type players. and the result of that is 2.0 gpg or 27/30 in scoring.

I think you're a bit too harsh on a couple of your 2s - specifically Kreider and Stepan. Given where they currently are in their careers - they are likely, (or showed legitimate potential to be) in 1 category with Nash. Also it is important to keep in mind that the Rangers D + G is definitely top 5 in NHL which goes to the point that there is no exact etalon to carbon copy to build SC champ - all of them are unique and special in their unique way.

However, what all SC winner have in common (and differ from the rest of contenders ) is that every player on their roster plays to the best (or exceeds) the role they are assigned. Simply put there should be no passengers. This Rangers team today (not even in December) would be the same 2nd round play-offs exit team as last year but if everyone is playing at their levels come March - they should be among legitimate contenders to go all the way.

 

[bernmeister]

Good article.

 

[Barnaby]

correct.

heres how our forwards stack up imo. this is for right now today not what they were or what they may become. and this is on our team as it is configured today.

* a tweener type player who could fit on 2 lines

1st line players
nash

2nd line players
beever *1/2
stepan
kreider
zuke
brassard *2/3

3rd line players
cally *2/3
hags *2/3
poo
boyle *3/4

4th line players
dorsett
moore
pyatt


this shows exactly what our problem is. we need top line players and

1. we have zero established "stud" offensive players other than a hurting nash.
2. we have literally ZERO snipers. no shooters per say on the roster.
3. we have creative players but they all have either size issues or speed without hands issues.

we generally lack offensive scorer type players. and the result of that is 2.0 gpg or 27/30 in scoring.

I'd love to know why Zuke and Brassard are 2nd line players while Callahan is a 3rd line guy...