Well considering I'm a bodybuilder and take muay thai I eat 5200 calories a day and I find it incredibly easy if you're dedicated, and I'm not getting paid millions to do so lol.
The hardest/tedious part is preparing the meal. They should do everything it takes to put on weight. Or their needs to be better training staff for minor leagues to educate these players on what and how much to eat. I'm guessing in another 10 years most of draft picks will already be 200~ pounds and ripped lol.
Exactly why you see some rookies bench 300 pounds. I guess some players don't understand that you can get better through multiple fascists of the game...speed,strength,intelligence,flexibility,siz e,energy,hormones,equipment.
If I was managing a team everyone would be expected to be actively becoming the best in every single one of those areas.
The Internet: where a guy makes a spelling mistake and derails a thread.
Fixed.
Back on topic, any mock draft that has us picking Reinhart at #4 makes me a happy man.
The only player of the top 4 which I have any reservations about is Draisaitl, but plenty of more intelligent hockey minds than me have him going as high as 1st overall. I don't think we can go wrong by sitting tight at #4.
Back on topic, any draft that has us picking reinhart at #4 makes me a happy man.
The only player of the top 4 which i have any reservations about is draisaitl, but plenty of more intelligent hockey minds than me have him going as high as 1st overall. I don't think we can go wrong by sitting tight at #4.
It wasn't necessarily the spelling mistake, but the spelling mistake in the context of a humblebrag post.
It would be a shame if a post like that didn't derail a thread. A post like this comes along once in a blue moon and it's important for it to be recognised in all its glory.
Anyway, back on topic, I too believe it is very important for prospects to actively become the best at speed,strength,intelligence,flexibility,siz e,energy,hormones,equipment. Especially hormones.
I know that we need elite talent.
And we now have a pretty good talent pool that will fill the bottom six and some second line potential.
But if you thought that you could still get Fleury, Ritchie, or Ehlers at #10, would you trade with the Ducks?
#4 for #10 and #28. Have to be for both first round picks.
But it would give you a pretty good shot at
Ritchie, Ehlers, Fleury, Virtanen
And then it would give you a chance at two of the following with #28 and #34
Bleakley, MacInnis, Goldobin, Sanheim, Vrana, Karlsson, Tuch, Ho Sang
__________________ 'Skank' Marden: I play hockey and I fornicate, 'cause those are the two most fun things to do in cold weather. - Mystery Alaska
I know that we need elite talent.
And we now have a pretty good talent pool that will fill the bottom six and some second line potential.
But if you thought that you could still get Fleury, Ritchie, or Ehlers at #10, would you trade with the Ducks?
#4 for #10 and #28. Have to be for both first round picks.
But it would give you a pretty good shot at
Ritchie, Ehlers, Fleury, Virtanen
And then it would give you a chance at two of the following with #28 and #34
Bleakley, MacInnis, Goldobin, Sanheim, Vrana, Karlsson, Tuch, Ho Sang
I really wouldn't. I would rather stay in the top 4 spots and pick up a player who has more potential to be a 1st line forward or 1st pairing D. Many of the articles that get posted here claim that this draft has 4 great prospects and then there's a distinct drop-off in talent.
We already have 5 picks in the top 90, plus we have a large quantity of potentially good prospects. The franchise really needs this top 4 pick, IMO.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlameZilla For This Useful Post:
I know that we need elite talent.
And we now have a pretty good talent pool that will fill the bottom six and some second line potential.
But if you thought that you could still get Fleury, Ritchie, or Ehlers at #10, would you trade with the Ducks?
#4 for #10 and #28. Have to be for both first round picks.
But it would give you a pretty good shot at
Ritchie, Ehlers, Fleury, Virtanen
And then it would give you a chance at two of the following with #28 and #34
Bleakley, MacInnis, Goldobin, Sanheim, Vrana, Karlsson, Tuch, Ho Sang
Interesting scenario.
I think Ritchie, Ehlers will be gone before 10th pick. And there's no reason to trade down for Virtanen or Fleury unless you really don't like what's left after the first three selections are made on draft day.
I'd rather pick Ritchie or Ehlers with the 4th. Which I don't see happening.
I like all of the consensus top four, and would prefer we avoid Dal Colle.
Agreed. I don't believe the option to trade down is even being considered. The highest pick in Calgary's History, the talent drop off out of the top five, the Idea behind this pick is most definitely quality over quantity.
Draisaitl doesn't get the love he deserves around here. But make no mistake, he is top four material. He's great IMO.
Edit: Ehlers and Dal Colle are no slouches either. I'd like to nab either of them as well but not over the top four. I really dont want to neglect the mentioning of their talent.
I know that we need elite talent.
And we now have a pretty good talent pool that will fill the bottom six and some second line potential.
But if you thought that you could still get Fleury, Ritchie, or Ehlers at #10, would you trade with the Ducks?
#4 for #10 and #28. Have to be for both first round picks.
But it would give you a pretty good shot at
Ritchie, Ehlers, Fleury, Virtanen
And then it would give you a chance at two of the following with #28 and #34
Bleakley, MacInnis, Goldobin, Sanheim, Vrana, Karlsson, Tuch, Ho Sang
Yes, a rebuilding team should trade down 6 spots, giving the 4th overall pick to the team that just finished 1st in the conference.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
Before you call me a pessimist or a downer, the Flames made me this way. Blame them.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to codynw For This Useful Post:
There is a difference between drafting a player like Ekblad/Reinhart/Bennett/Draisaitl/Dal Colle than Ehlers/Nylander/Virtanen/Kapanen/Perlini. Totally different tiers, we should be happy to have the ability to draft in the best one.
Had Burke not added a 2nd and 3rd to the draft this year, maybe I'd be considering that Anaheim offer.
Trading down decreases the likelihood of drafting an elite talent. I like Ritchie, Ehlers and Nylander as players that could possibly become elite - but chances are they will be gone at the 10th pick. They also have more holes in their games than the players in the top 5. Like Greentree stated above - I would rather the Flames select Ritchie/Ehlers (and Nylander) at the 4th spot OR look to trade down a couple of spots MAX if they feel these guys project into elite-level players.
The further you go down the draft, the more likely your draft pick becomes a 2nd line player, 3rd line player, as well as their bust potential increases.
Would it make sense to trade a POSSIBLE elite-level player for 2 possible 2nd-line players (or worse)? Flames have enough depth in their prospect pool - they need elite-level talents if this rebuild is going to be successful.
