Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
d
Read his previous post, like follow along buddy. He wasn't saying it was opinion he was stating it as fact. After he got called he backed off to saying in his opinion. Personally, when it comes to hockey I don't think he has much of an idea what he is talking about.
Read this. It isn't an opinion it's saying, he knows and I think he knows very little.
|
I've seen lot of players, especially top end forwards come through all the teams in the league. Granlund is good, but compared to a lot of guys around the league, he's not nearly as good as most of the players that developed into 1st line guys at the same age. When I'm pegging players as being this or being that (say like calling Granlund a 2nd/3rd line player), I'm basing that off of watching a bunch of other players with equivalent and better skills than him and where they turned out. Could he become the next Ondrej Palat and emerge almost out of nowhere as a top end player? Sure it is possible. Palat was about equivalent in talent to Granlund at the same age, but that's more of an outlier than the norm.
For example at the same age, Jiri Hudler could skate circles around Granlund both skill wise and in his overall talent at both ends of the ice. What is he? a good 2nd line winger on a good team (or 3rd like he was when he won the Cup with Detroit). When I make declarative statements, like I think he's trending to be a 2nd line winger/3rd line C, that's because I'm taking an impartial view on players and comparing him to dozens of players that had similar talent at a similar age and where they ended up. It's just like how I've compared Poirier to Cogliano and Lombardi as his floor. Those are the only two other players that had the same combination of speed, along with their defensive and offensive talent. I also said that Poirier has a leg up on those two because he has better hands at the same age as those guys. So saying that his floor is that of a 3rd line RW shouldn't be exactly earth shattering because that's what the other two guys became, yet I received a bunch of flak because "how do you know".
If A, B, and C are present in 3 players, and after they developed the outcome was D in the older 2, then it stands to reason that it is likely that the third player will have a similar outcome.
I do not play favourites and try to remain as impartial as I can with my evaluations. By doing that, Granlund looks more like the types of guys that eventually emerged as 2nd/3rd line talent. If he becomes a 20+ goal scorer, or even a 15+ goal scorer that's reliable defensively, that will be a home run pick that we used.
After all of that, it is just my opinion. It doesn't make it any more or less valid than anyone else. I am literally calling things as I see them and I don't have any problem throwing my opinion out there. Does that mean I'm going to be right 100% of the time? No, of course not. I do not have a players almanac from 2050 or something so I can see how things unfolded. I am just doing research, evaluating the research, and project based off that information.
That includes looking at what it takes to win, and the types of players in our bullpen currently. With the mix that we have right now at the moment, we are not going to win anything in a few years unless several players vastly exceed expectations. We need more talent overall. Is it shocking that a team that is just beginning their 2nd year of a rebuild needs more talent overall?