Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
I most certainly didn't rant.
|
Sorry, I didn't meant to accuse you of ranting, what I meant was, let's not rant about it
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
You just like to change your argument when someone points out the holes in it.
All good - you do you.
I found this interesting:
Defenseman A:
An outstanding offensive defenseman, he is a natural with the puck and a great power-play quarterback option at any level. Loves to jump up into the play and act as a fourth forward on the ice. Also owns fairly projectable size. Needs a lot of work as a defender, including his coverage skills when he does not have the puck as well as his overall positioning. Could also stand to utilize his body more to deter opponents from setting up shop in the attacking zone. Is somewhat raw and unrefined as a defenseman but oozes talent and point production.
Long Range Potential: Raw, talented offensive defenseman with good upside.
Defenseman B:
Has the size, skating ability, right-handed shot, poise and defensive chops to play big minutes at the National Hockey League level (for a very long time). Does not have high-end offensive acumen but that does not prevent him from logging a ton of ice time in all game situations. Also displays a physical side to his game that helps his team win hockey games. He may not be the prototypical "modern-day" defenseman, but NHL teams cannot win Stanley Cups without his type.
Long Range Potential: Big, solid shutdown defenseman.
Defenseman B reminds me of Tanev, while Defenseman A reminds me of a Fox type ( NOT a direct comparison, just a type).
I bet you can guess who they are, but if you can't, see below.
|
ok well now you kind of have.
Hey I like Poirier. he's ok... got a long ways to go but whatever. if we liked him so much we could have traded any journeyman to get him. didn't need to forfeit Schneider, sorry that was just weird. Will we see Poirier in the NHL? dunno..rooting for him in the AHL.
Zary...what was that pick