Jason MacIsaac
Registered User
Physical game and sound positional play, and much younger and more room to improve.Rabid Ranger said:Fair enough, but what does Coburn do that makes him superior to Whitney? Nothing IMO.
Physical game and sound positional play, and much younger and more room to improve.Rabid Ranger said:Fair enough, but what does Coburn do that makes him superior to Whitney? Nothing IMO.
Jason MacIsaac said:Physical game and sound positional play, and much younger and more room to improve.
Rabid Ranger said:Yeah, he is two years younger so he does have that on Whitney. As for his play, he's no banger and doesn't have near the offensive upside as Whitney does. I see Coburn as a very safe, but unspectacular top four D-man.
Roughneck said:This is dead on my view of Coburn, unspectacular is the perfect word.
Will he be a good D-man, yes, but he won't be anything special, Whitney will probably become one of the better offensive d-men in the league.
Nice throw in of the word superior there, don't recall using it, but thanks.Rabid Ranger said:Fair enough, but what does Coburn do that makes him superior to Whitney? Nothing IMO.
Did you watch that tournament? He did everything you could every ask of a defenceman: he played smart, steady defensive hockey, he made smart passes and heads-up plays coming out of his own zone, he rushed the puck well, and he continued to showcase his elite skating ability. If he can play that type of consistent, heads-up hockey (which has long been his biggest deficiency), he will be a No. 2 defenceman. He's not the first player to struggle in his first year of pro.TransportedUpstater said:2nd best D-man in the tournament? Seriously?
Rabid Ranger said:I think Atlanta could have done better with their pick that year.
MrMastodonFarm said:Nice throw in of the word superior there, don't recall using it, but thanks.
Coburn is physical, big, and is developing a nice mean streak. Whitney offensive, but not "best passing in the NHL" as one Pittsburg fan said the other day.
There's a philosophy in hockey circles that I am a firm believer in: you know a defenceman has had a great game when you don't notice him. If you notice a defenceman, more often than not it's because he made a mistake.Rabid Ranger said:I see Coburn as the kind of guy who will play 15 years in the NHL but you'll hardly notice him. Valuable in his own way, but not a stand-out. I think Atlanta could have done better with their pick that year.
GSG said:I think the fact that Lee was drafted ahead of Bourdon and Staal has some importance, especially when a good drafting team like the Sens makes that pick.
Roughneck said:Well that goes without saying considering the defenseman picked after him, but at the time of the draft Coburn probably had the highest ceiling, being a big, smooth skating defenseman with a good first pass, it was very hard to not hope he could be a poor-man's Pronger (there were also the Bouwmeester comparisons), unfortunetely, average years in the Dub and not being a standout in the WJCs also showed that he didn't have the edge that seperated the likes of Phaneuf and Suter.
God Bless Canada said:There's a philosophy in hockey circles that I am a firm believer in: you know a defenceman has had a great game when you don't notice him. If you notice a defenceman, more often than not it's because he made a mistake.
How the hell was I implying that?Rabid Ranger said:Isn't that what you were implying, that Coburn is superior to Whitney? .
God Bless Canada said:There's a philosophy in hockey circles that I am a firm believer in: you know a defenceman has had a great game when you don't notice him. If you notice a defenceman, more often than not it's because he made a mistake.
MrMastodonFarm said:How the hell was I implying that?
Please, point that out to me.
I prefer Whitney over Coburn personally, but I'm not going to sh*t a brick like whatshisname if someone says differently.
God Bless Canada said:Did you watch that tournament? He did everything you could every ask of a defenceman: he played smart, steady defensive hockey, he made smart passes and heads-up plays coming out of his own zone, he rushed the puck well, and he continued to showcase his elite skating ability. If he can play that type of consistent, heads-up hockey (which has long been his biggest deficiency), he will be a No. 2 defenceman. He's not the first player to struggle in his first year of pro.
I never said he would score 50-60 points. I said he would be a top-pairing NHL defenceman, which essentially puts him as a top 50-60 NHL defenceman. Even at the WJC, when he played so incredibly well, he had one assist in six games. He'll never be a big point producer, but a defenceman doesn't have to put up points to be a top-pairing player.Rabid Ranger said:I would agree that Belle has the potential to be that kind of player. However, you also said something about scoring 50-60 points. Do you honestly think Bell could do that?
God Bless Canada said:I never said he would score 50-60 points. I said he would be a top-pairing NHL defenceman, which essentially puts him as a top 50-60 NHL defenceman. Even at the WJC, when he played so incredibly well, he had one assist in six games. He'll never be a big point producer, but a defenceman doesn't have to put up points to be a top-pairing player.
God Bless Canada said:Did you watch that tournament? He did everything you could every ask of a defenceman: he played smart, steady defensive hockey, he made smart passes and heads-up plays coming out of his own zone, he rushed the puck well, and he continued to showcase his elite skating ability. If he can play that type of consistent, heads-up hockey (which has long been his biggest deficiency), he will be a No. 2 defenceman. He's not the first player to struggle in his first year of pro.
The WJC's will certainly be huge for Lee this year, he'll be one of the top defenseman on the team. That being said, he's already passing his first big test in College Hockey. He's taken on a big role on a good team in North Dakota and has played very well. He has 9 points in 12 games, which is tops on his team for defenseman (Only 1 less point than Travis Zajac).Roughneck said:I don't think we will see an accurate view of what Lee can become for another season or so, definitely an intriguing pick and one to watch. Lets hope there's an improvement at the WJCs, it will be the first big test of how he really stacks up (last year would be an unfair assemssment).
i'm pretty sure cereda was picked before havlat... and look at how that endedGSG said:I think the fact that Lee was drafted ahead of Bourdon and Staal has some importance, especially when a good drafting team like the Sens makes that pick.
Porn* said:i'm pretty sure cereda was picked before havlat... and look at how that ended
superroyain10 said:Coburn-Whitney: A lot of posters nailed it about Whitney being a more prominent defenseman while Coburn will be a more quiet defenseman. Interestingly, Coburn is similar to Flyer defenseman Mike Rathje in that both had offensive potential but refined their games into rock solid, quiet, defensive-defensemen. Coburn is not a big hitter, like Mike Rathje, and possesses a long reach. Coburn does have a great point shot and is an underrated pp-quarterback; I hope he can realize his potential. Its very possible that he becomes better than Whitney.
However, Whitney can be a special defenseman like Gonchar, flying over the ice and acting like a fourth forward. Unlike Gonchar, he is adequate defensively, and if he can fine tune his abilities could be a Scott Niedermayer. He has great size like Coburn, and is not afraid to hit. He has stopped making so many rookie mistakes, and it looks like the NCAA developed him into a very mature player. His progress has been very good. I believe he has a higher ceiling offensively than Coburn and is more likely to reach that potential.
What makes Whitney slightly more valuable is the fact that there will be many defensemen like Coburn. But if Whitney reaches just his offensive potential, there will be very few people at his level of talent.