[News] Burke says he is unlikely to trade up... hasn't watched Bennett

[Roof-Daddy]

Yeah, if we drafted Ritchie and he went on to have the type of career Rick Nash is having.......what a disaster that would be.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

I don't get the hate for Ritchie, it's like people are actively dismissing him solely because he's big when what has people putting him in the top 6-8 prospects for his draft is all the other stuff

great shot, good skating etc.

People are against Ritchie here for two reason:
1) Irrational fear that Burke is only going to draft big guys who can fight despite his history
2) Picking him at 4 would be going 'off the board'

Originally Posted by djsFlames

He had 20-40 assists less than all of the top 5. You watch him and you can see he's much more of a finisher.

Also Rick Nash = do not want. Not a player you win with.

??????? God forbid we get a consistent 30 goal man. That would be terrible. Its not his fault Columbus had a terrible GM for most of his tenure there and couldn't land any decent players besides him

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

He had 20-40 assists less than all of the top 5. You watch him and you can see he's much more of a finisher.

Also Rick Nash = do not want. Not a player you win with.

Not much more he can do with regards to playmaking when the next best goalscorer on the team has 25. Then 21.

I do agree that he is much more of a finisher, but he is a legitimately good playmaker as well. It is like Iginla - great finisher obviously, and extremely underrated as a playmaker. Ritchie has the ability to thread those passes when he is getting double-teamed or doesn't have the best scoring chance. That is a valuable asset to his game.

As for Rick Nash - I don't really agree with the comparison - but you absolutely do win with Rick Nash. Extremely overrated player, but still a damn good player that is an asset for any team to win with.

[irrevocable]

Rick Nash comparison? Fine with that.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

I haven't seen any of these guys, but Dal Colle reminds me of Landeskog based on everyone's descriptions in here...if that's accurate, he's the guy I want for the Flames ...

I have seen a lot of Dal Colle and have no idea how people can compare him to Landeskog. Not even close. Landeskog is a much more hard nosed player than Dal Colle. There is no "grit with a slight mean streak" in his game.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I have seen a lot of Dal Colle and have no idea how people can compare him to Landeskog. Not even close. Landeskog is a much more hard nosed player than Dal Colle. There is no "grit with a slight mean streak" in his game.

I was describing Landeskog.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Not much more he can do with regards to playmaking when the next best goalscorer on the team has 25. Then 21.

I do agree that he is much more of a finisher, but he is a legitimately good playmaker as well. It is like Iginla - great finisher obviously, and extremely underrated as a playmaker. Ritchie has the ability to thread those passes when he is getting double-teamed or doesn't have the best scoring chance. That is a valuable asset to his game.

As for Rick Nash - I don't really agree with the comparison - but you absolutely do win with Rick Nash. Extremely overrated player, but still a damn good player that is an asset for any team to win with.

This is one place I've seen the Rick Nash comparison... http://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-draf...-nick-ritchie/

Note: I am not advocating we pick Ritchie at 4th overall; I just think he's an awesome prospect. I don't think he's as good as Reinhart/Ekblad/Bennett/Draisaitl/Dal Colle.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

I was describing Landeskog.

Ok, I am just saying if people expect Dal Colle to play a strong gritty game they will be disappointed. Kid is skilled with a hell of a shot but he is a skill player, not a power forward.

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I have seen a lot of Dal Colle and have no idea how people can compare him to Landeskog. Not even close. Landeskog is a much more hard nosed player than Dal Colle. There is no "grit with a slight mean streak" in his game.

I've never seen Dal Colle play, so I have no way of knowing anything...

... Ekblad reminds me a bit of Doughty, though I've read on here that people are really questioning his upside... is there a reason for this? ... what is missing in his game that has people thinking that way?

[PlayfulGenius]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ok, I am just saying if people expect Dal Colle to play a strong gritty game they will be disappointed. Kid is skilled with a hell of a shot but he is a skill player, not a power forward.

what current NHL player do you feel he's similar to?

[bubbsy]

i gotta throw this in this thread, but watching tonight's game between the habs/lightening, is it really a good idea to draft a d man with a lottery/top3 pick?

Hedman, 2nd overall, and yes, he seems to be improving every year, but does any team ever go back and think leaving duchene on the table over this guy was a good idea? Furthermore, a 2nd round pick >>> hedman, and had a much greater impact on his team's success in the game.

I gotta say, good thing i'm no GM, not sure i'd have the willpower to take a dman with a top 3 pick.

[saXon]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i gotta throw this in this thread, but watching tonight's game between the habs/lightening, is it really a good idea to draft a d man with a lottery/top3 pick?

Hedman, 2nd overall, and yes, he seems to be improving every year, but does any team ever go back and think leaving duchene on the table over this guy was a good idea? Furthermore, a 2nd round pick >>> hedman, and had a much greater impact on his team's success in the game.

I gotta say, good thing i'm no GM, not sure i'd have the willpower to take a dman with a top 3 pick.

You can't use a blanket argument like that for Dmen. Especially if they're top 2 in a 1st round.

Saying a 2nd rounder was better than Hedman is saying that 2nd rounder was better than all the 1st round Dmen in the last decade. It's unfair. That 2nd rounder may have turned into a star, but that isn't the norm. It's an exception to the rule.

As far as drafting Ekblad 1st overall, none have come around with the label of exceptional status. They don't had that label out like skittles, it has to be warranted, and for good reason. Ekblad is a prospect like any other, and just as much of a risk, but he's got a very advanced, well rounded game that gives him a leg up on much of the competition for his age.

If I were a GM, I'd have no issue drafting Ekblad. It means that no other team gets him.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i gotta throw this in this thread, but watching tonight's game between the habs/lightening, is it really a good idea to draft a d man with a lottery/top3 pick?

Hedman, 2nd overall, and yes, he seems to be improving every year, but does any team ever go back and think leaving duchene on the table over this guy was a good idea? Furthermore, a 2nd round pick >>> hedman, and had a much greater impact on his team's success in the game.

I gotta say, good thing i'm no GM, not sure i'd have the willpower to take a dman with a top 3 pick.

I agree with this. In recent history, top 3 picked forwards have proven to be far more helpful to their teams than top 3 picked d-men. Hence if we had won the lottery (or picked top 3), my list would be Reinhart, Bennett, Ekblad, Dal Colle, Draisaitl.

I think we should be drafting d-men with 2nd rounders, or any additional 1st rounders we can manage to pick up along the way. But that first pick should go towards the high end forward before the defenseman, unless we're talking about a guy of a Seth Jones caliber.

Perhaps I overvalued Ekblad a bit when we still had a small chance of drafting 1st, because the chance to deny Edmonton kind of sweetened the idea of it.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ok, I am just saying if people expect Dal Colle to play a strong gritty game they will be disappointed. Kid is skilled with a hell of a shot but he is a skill player, not a power forward.

Not the way he is now, but if he bulks that lanky frame up I'd expect him to play a grittier game.

[djsFlames]

I stand by it. I wouldn't want Rick Nash if I were trying to build a championship team. He's always been a regular season player. Scores goals over 82, but isn't a game breaker or playoff performer. He could go from a "high end" player to a legitimate superstar if he'd actually step up to the plate when it mattered. Also, his production has been declining steadily since leaving Columbus.

Maybe a complimentary piece, but definitely never had the makings of a good core player. Just like Carter was up until this last season or two.

[Caged Great]

It's the same thing with Ovechkin. If you've got 3 or 4 other really good players, then having guys like Ovy/Nash are fine because they can just do their own thing. Neither player will win if they are the one being relied on the most on their team. They need to be secondary depth guys.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Not the way he is now, but if he bulks that lanky frame up I'd expect him to play a grittier game.

They said that about Joe Colborne too. It isn't his game.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It's the same thing with Ovechkin. If you've got 3 or 4 other really good players, then having guys like Ovy/Nash are fine because they can just do their own thing. Neither player will win if they are the one being relied on the most on their team. They need to be secondary depth guys.

Ovechkin and Nash?

You must have a team full of Gretzkys and Lemieux if these guys are secondary depth guys.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

what current NHL player do you feel he's similar to?

Lowside: Joe Colborne. Highside. Tomas Vanek. Hard to say with prospects. Kid has good skill and a wicked shot. Good hockey IQ as well. Just not a physical guy.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They said that about Joe Colborne too. It isn't his game.

I'm not sure what you're seeing in Colborne if this is your honest assessment.

What I am seeing is a guy who is still physically maturing - he's 6'5 220lbs and lanky. After Hartley moved him to the wing he was starting to become more physical in the corners, even mixing it up in some scrums, while becoming quickly adept with Monahan on board battles.

And he's still somewhat lanky. He needs like a whole month of leg days.