Dude, that was your entire premise.
Using the "Boston would never trade Lucic argument" fails completely when you acknowledge that "A contender didn't trade their good players when they don't have to".
^this x100
LW Lawson Crouse - Kingston Frontenacs, OHL (2015 Draft)
- Thread starter Woodhouse
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud is doing server maintenance Thurdsay 13th at 9 AM GMT. Downtime is to be expected during the process. Server changes were implemented recently to cope with the traffic surge last week. This seems to be affecting the user login, so please anyone experiencing this, log out and clear the browser cache. We expect to have this issue solved once the maintenance is complete.
^this x100
Yeah Boston isn't trading any of their top players neither is LA, CHI, NYR, etc.Dude, that was your entire premise.
Using the "Boston would never trade Lucic argument" fails completely when you acknowledge that "A contender didn't trade their good players when they don't have to".
Jim Benning just said that he isn't shopping Kassian, NYR aren't shopping Kreider, Boston aren't shopping Lucic, MIN aren't shopping Coyle. These GMs, smart hockey people know that the players they have are a rare breed. The Canucks traded Kesler in the off-season, Loui Eriksson got traded from Dallas, etc.
Are you aware that PWFs are valued more than their points kind of like the reason Crouse is ranked #3-5 even though Marner and Strome puts up more points? Look what happened with Cam Neely. Winnipeg got trapped with Kane because he wasn't going to play with them anymore otherwise they'd love that guy. He's going to become a 50-60 point guy and a physical beast. Nicklas Backstrom alone couldn't even get how much Evander Kane got.
If you don't understand then you simply don't know **** about hockey.
Honestly, the package for Backstrom would be much better than Armia, Lemieux and a late 1st, I can tell you that.
lol
In fact I'd easily give Landeskog (who is IMO Crouse's ultimate ceiling) for Backstrom any day of the week.
You're a funny guy. You think there is some sort of subtle nuance that only you and NHL scouts can see.
The fact that you feel the need to continually state that "stats aren't everything" tells me everything I need to know about you're reading comprehension skills.
Oh, and I forgot, E Kane is yet another example of a PWF getting traded.
Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,638
- 1,334
You epitomize the worst type of hockey fan. The ones that take blatantly non-mainstream views simply to indicate how much more they know about the game.
"You don't know anything. You can't appreciate the subtle things in hockey like I can".
Yeah, shut up. Conversation's over since I think after this hysterical nugget, not many people will take you seriously anymore.
Backstrom is getting overrated. He's not #2 in the world in points good, he's probably a 20-25 forward in the league.
Crouse is much more appealing than Landeskog. He's more physical, meaner, bigger and IMO I'd take Crouse over Landeskog at the same age. Crouse has a Lucic ceiling and probably something like a better skating and smarter Lucic.
Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,638
- 1,334
You do, um, realize that Backstrom is #2 in the world in points, do you not?
That's not some judgment you can make. It's an irrefutable fact...
Crouse with 2 points.
I just pointed out that Kane had to get traded because of his issues, talk about comprehension skills.
Catch some Kingston games while you're at it.
Well I mean, scouts have a job in scouting, you don't. There's a reason why and I hope you find out why.
I just pointed out that Kane had to get traded because of his issues, talk about comprehension skills.
Mean't he isn't #2 in the world good just because he's #2 in points.You do, um, realize that Backstrom is #2 in the world in points, do you not?
That's not some judgment you can make. It's an irrefutable fact...
Last edited:
Dude, its not all about stats. Gosh . . .
And why is that? Perhaps its because there's no money in scouting compared to what I actually do? Becoming a scout isn't some impossible thing that only a select few can do. But you have to be willing to make sacrifices, sacrifices that I can't ask my wife and family to make.
There are many very knowledgeable fans on this board (and even this thread) who could absolutely be pro scouts if they had they desire. But for the reasons I mentioned above, its not always the best career option. The arrogance you've demonstrated in this thread is unreal.
Last edited:
Random Forest
Registered User
- May 12, 2010
- 14,638
- 1,334
Exactly. There's no reason to believe NHL scouts are inherently the best talent evaluators in the world. Being a scout is not like being a player where if you're good enough, you're not going to turn it down.
And frankly, some scouts (and some entire staffs) have proven to be conclusively horse **** at evaluating talent.
Stats is the only language you seem to know so I have to speak that language for you to understand.
Scouts are usually right and there's a reason why we take their rankings as the most credible. McKenzie's rankings seem strange but nobody really argues with it because they know the scouts are professionals who know what they are talking about and watch these players alot more than we do. Yeah they are wrong sometimes, that's just human nature but they are credible and have a legitimate reason for their rankings.
Also, the Crouse ranking isn't inconsistent. It's 3-5 so it's not like it's only one scouting agencies opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
If that's the impression you've gotten from my posts, I can't help you. I'm not a reading teacher.
Yea, people never argue about rankings.
Just because they don't list out the justification for their opinion doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Judas Tavares
S2S (Sundin2Sandin)
- Feb 9, 2007
- 10,188
- 3,632
Was at the game tonight. Crouse looked like when he got the puck that he would absolutely make something happen. I actually really liked his first step. But once a defender got near, that was it, the play always died. He was better physically than his peers but he didn't dominate. Not the worst skater, but not amazing. Really didn't see tantalizing skill and he also flubbed a two on one where he would have been in all alone if he took the pass. He also had a ton of ice time.
..... What is your point. They haven't been traded from L.A. They were traded in Philly because of maturity issue, or perhaps partying so hard...
As to Boston, that was literally one of the main premises you have proposed for why Lucic is so valuable, because he hasn't been traded, which is a silly reason for why he is valuable in any case, but nonetheless it is your point.
Ignoring the silly points remark you made, cuz you know points don't matter, let's assume your right, he is the 20-25th best forward in the league. That is a significantly higher spot than Lucic would get in some hypothetical league ranking of players.
Crouse is more appealing than Landie????? Seriously? You hope beyond hope that Crouse becomes Landeskog. That is literally his best case scenario. We are fully in fantasy land when you think the physicality and meanest that Crouse has displayed in junior is more impressive and projectable than the actual meanest and toughness and productivity that Landeskog has actually shown in the NHL. Sweet christ. Oh and size. brutal.
Based on what? They miss constantly. The percentage of guys they correctly pick to succeed in the NHL is horrific. It was even worse years ago when it was just crusty old guys talking about toughness and the Canadian way. If scouts were so above the pale they wouldn't let guys like Tarasenko get out of the top ten. Crouse may turn out, he may not, but arguing that we should all just trust scouts cuz they know what they are doing is a joke.
You know how a lot of scouts get their job? A buddy in management hooks them up to check out some games in their region. That's it. No extensive evaluation of their knowledge of the game. No testing to see if they know what a good player looks like or a specific way to justify how they project a guy succeeding in the NHL. Hockey scouting screams old baseball scouting before analytics. There is a reason why some teams like Detroit crush the draft and later rounds specifically, and a lot of other teams, Edmonton, can't find a player any better than a non-fan picking out of draft guide based on interesting player names.
I have heard of that rumour but never seen any legit source...... What is your point. They haven't been traded from L.A. They were traded in Philly because of maturity issue, or perhaps partying so hard...
As to Boston, that was literally one of the main premises you have proposed for why Lucic is so valuable, because he hasn't been traded, which is a silly reason for why he is valuable in any case, but nonetheless it is your point.
Probably, doesn't necessarily mean Backstrom is more valuable because the best PWF in the league is worth alot and this season they are on the opposite sides.
And yeah. Crouse is bigger, he's 6'3, Landeskog is 6'1. Crouse isn't going to go soft in the NHL when he's 6'3, I don't remember a player ever going soft when they are so big when they make the transition. Crouse has a higher ceiling than Landeskog, he can be a quicker and smarter Lucic IMO.
Yeah I hope Crouse becomes a NHL player, I think he'll become one and yes he has that upside, even bigger upside. Crouse is 6'3, Landeskog is 6'1. Landeskog is a hard to play against player but Crouse is intimidating because he plays mean. Landeskog doesn't play mean. Crouse has just as good as a shot aswell.
Tarasenko fell because of the "russian factor" and he played in Russia. He was still ranked #2 on CSS European Rankings. We should trust scouts more than you because by the sounds of it, you've never seen Crouse play more than 2-3 games and told me you had.
I'm sure alot of scouts get their job like that. As a Canucks fan, I know which scouts are trustful. The Canucks Swedish scout, Thomas Gradin is our best and he's earned his way up the ranks to a Associated Head Scout.
How do you jump from a discussion about Tarasenko to how many times I've seen Crouse? Enjoy the rest of the season. Can't wait to see where Crouse is in 5 years.
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 56,941
- 49,670
His one-on-one skills are an area he's still got to work on. Typically, he's at his best in the corners/along the boards, and around the net with quick hands in traffic and a quick release. He's not really the type to come down the wing and deke a defenseman out of his jock strap, though.
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,824
- 7,708
His neutral zone decision making is questionable at times, missing opportunities to move the puck to an open man, choosing to carry the puck too long or unnecessarily dump it in.
I also find that he loses puck battles fairly often, especially given his size. His best assets will always be his athleticism and his quick hands around the net IMO. In a lot of ways, be reminds me of Zach Parise with worse offensive instincts and less creativity. But if you look at Parise's game, he doesn't need size to be a forechecking machine or beast on the boards. He relies on quickness, core strength, and hockey sense.
This is one of the reasons I find Crouse to be overrated. Yea, hes got size, but his style of play doesn't require him to be, and I don't believe it helps his game all that much. If he was 6'0 and 30% quicker with a little more offensive awareness, he'd be a better prospect.
