Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
Boy the arrogance flows through you.
|
I'm not sure what I said was arrogant. You appear to be getting defensive again and I'm not sure why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
1. I'm not against drafting BPA. It's not out of this world to think that BPA is Nylander. I am however against drafting you perception of BPA.
|
Agreed, its not out of this world to think Nylander is the BPA. He's around the range we're drafting. My personal opinion is that he may be lower on the Flames list then he is on the consensus lists like Bob Mackenzie and THN. You obviously don't have to agree.
I think if you prefer Nylander because you think he's BPA that's fine. You'd be in the majority on this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
2. All of the prospects outside of the top 3 are in the same boat as Nylander likely needing 2 years to develop. But to fit your argument it needs to be a negative towards Nylander when he's done nothing to dictate otherwise to warrant such disdain. Oh god he's a Nylander. Oh god he's a swede, oh god this oh god that, much fretting, such concern.
|
It's not a negative on Nylander. But it does mean that if we're drafting him to fit our immediate needs he fails to do that because he's not ready immediately. So are you in favour of drafting him because he's BPA? Or because he fits our immediate needs? I respect the argument that he is BPA for you. I don't respect the idea that we should prioritize RWs or right shooters and make them the BPA over any other choice due to lack of depth in that area.
Why don't I like Nylander as much as most fans on here? Because I don't value skilled finesse wingers as highly as most people would. I'd much rather have a top pairing d-men. I suspect the Flames management may feel the same way but hey, we're only guessing right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
3. Your argument to not draft a RW is Pribyl and Pollock? Really? That's putting an awful lot of eggs into a basket. Still doesn't deal with long term depth or immediate depth either. We lost Jones and Hudler. It evens out and then you're still left with the weakest depth in the NHL throughout the organization.
|
Nope. My argument to not draft a RW is that there may be better players available that we should draft instead. Nylander isn't in my top 8 for this draft because as I said I don't value skilled finesse wingers as much as most people do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dammage79
4. I've already said I want Sergachev if they go D. Miss that part? Still doesn't negate the fact RW needs to be addressed in the draft as well. And more so than any other positions, by a country mile. I'm skipping goalie because there's no Carey price up in the top 6. But there's a top line RW that helps immensely.
|
It doesn't need to be addressed this draft. It could be addressed through trading for an established RW, through trading for RW prospects, through signing RW prospects, through signing established RWs. There are multiple ways to solve the RW issue and the draft is merely one way. The downside with the draft is it likely solves the issue 2-6 years down the line when RW may no longer be much of an issue.
To boil it down I have no problem with you having Nylander as the BPA. I do have a problem with people thinking we can or should solve our immediate needs through the draft. I've noticed that in your rankings over the past few months you tend to prioritize right shooters and have them rise on your rankings above all others. I think that is a dangerous. At times you appear to subscribe to the philosophy of best right shooting forward available and not best player available. If I'm wrong then I apologize.