Why did we choose Andersson and Chytil over Vilardi and Vesalainen/Poehling?
- Thread starter FoxyClean
- Start date
- Status
Oscar Lindberg
Registered User
I didn't make this to complain, I've just been reading around about how the Rangers are the "losers" of the draft and how they missed out on guys like this that they could've had and instead reached for the guys they picked. So I'm wondering what Andersson and Chytil bring that will outweigh what the more highly regarded prospects would.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Vilardi dropped a lot because of skating.
This draft was very heavy on skating for us. Probably factored in.
Why would we take Vesalainen? We seemed to want to take two centers, so he's not a center, and he also had a terrible season, one of those hit or miss skill-sets, as well.
This draft was very heavy on skating for us. Probably factored in.
Why would we take Vesalainen? We seemed to want to take two centers, so he's not a center, and he also had a terrible season, one of those hit or miss skill-sets, as well.
Why not, say, Poehling then? Same size as Chytil and a more highly regarded center by experts.
Because Chytil is 8 (12?) days away being eligible for next years draft. You'd assume our scouts saw him and felt that compared to a guy like Poehling his upside was higher but if we waited to find out we'd likely not have a chance to draft him.
Also, anyone talking about 'winners and losers' immediately after a draft should just be ignored.
- Nov 2, 2011
- 7,980
- 8,367
Well, no he isn't. That statement holds no water at all in the way you just gave it. By and far Chytil has much more offensive upside and potential.
You started a thread like this rather than simply posting in the multiple threads we already have on the draft and each of the prospects. You cite to "experts" yet don't provide any actual content or analysis. This thread is just you with some generic statement and asking others to put in the work to spoon feed you answers that you could either look up on your own or visit the existing threads and read them.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
I think Poehling is very overrated, I don't see high offensive potential, and I don't think he's all that polished.
I have a theory about Poehling. Craig Button ranked Poehling I think it was #3 in his first rankings, and all of a sudden people started paying attention to this guy who they hadn't paid all that much attention to. He went way up draft boards once Button said that. And during the season as he started playing, he progressively started to slide due to his play, and what people saw.
Had Button not said he was 3rd, I'm not sure he gets picked in the top 2 rounds.
Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
Vilardi can't skate and Poehling has the IQ of an eggplant.
This was considered a weak draft because a lot of its most skilled players were deeply flawed.
This was considered a weak draft because a lot of its most skilled players were deeply flawed.
Joey Bones
***** 2k16
Kendo
Registered User
Mittlestadt was a bigger miss than Vilardi. That said, there's a real chance Andersson was a good sleeper pick. Chytil was a bit more surprising, but if you do some research, you'll see why they thought he was a sleeper as well.
Miller Time NYR
Registered User
The picks were made by professional scouts whose sole job is to watch these players play numerous times. The people claiming we are huge losers are formulating an opinion based on what their reading on Eliteprospects and watching on YouTube; I'm gona put my trust in the real scouts especially Kallur.
pld459666
Registered User
I would have chosen Vilardi over Lias, but I have come to appreciate the pick and the rationale behind it.
Megustaelhockey
"I like hockey" in Spanish
- Apr 29, 2011
- 23,534
- 17,694
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Strong Opinions- Latest: Mr. Canucklehead
