[Rumour] Edmonton to Draft Draisaitl

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

And you're basing this off??? Nothing?

Okay great, thanks for coming out..

This isn't a draft with a consensus #1 draft pick and the top 4-5 is wide-open. Not sure why you think it's below average.

Don't be that guy

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by T@T

Bizarre is oilers fans sitting down to take in some great video

http://rogersplace.com/live-view/

Not to take away from the suck of the Oilers, but it's pretty common to have live webcams up for high profile construction projects.
The South Health Campus had one, Brookfield Place has one, etc...
Definitely not interesting for the most part though.
But I digress, Edmonton is no good

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

And you're basing this off???

Same way everyone else does, watching, reading, and discussing. Thanks for your input.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

And you're basing this off??? Nothing?

Okay great, thanks for coming out..

This isn't a draft with a consensus #1 draft pick and the top 4-5 is wide-open. Not sure why you think it's below average.

Experts are calling this draft weak, no sure why you jumping on him.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Experts are calling this draft weak, no sure why you jumping on him.

Are there actual links to experts calling this a weak draft? I understand they don't look at it as favourably as they did last years, or next years, but that doesn't mean it doesn't match most other drafts in the past decade.

[Badgers Nose]

Strong draft, weak draft, WTH cares?

Flames are about to get a fresh batch of Greaser and Cannots destroyers and I welcome them! Whoever Flames pick will be better than the EDM and VAN by sole virtue of the awesome crest they will wear on their chest with pride.

My only demand of them is that they entertain me with their fast and deadly blood sport.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by ignite09

Are there actual links to experts calling this a weak draft? I understand they don't look at it as favourably as they did last years, or next years, but that doesn't mean it doesn't match most other drafts in the past decade.

Show me a link where they call it strong or good for that matter.
Top guy in this draft goes 5th or 6th last year.
Question marks on Reinhart if he is good enough to be #1C
Question marks if Ekblad is more like #2 dman and not #1.
Just reporting what has been said by the experts.

[ignite09]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Show me a link where they call it strong or good for that matter.
Top guy in this draft goes 5th or 6th last year.
Question marks on Reinhart if he is good enough to be #1C
Question marks if Ekblad is more like #2 dman and not #1.
Just reporting what has been said by the experts.

There may have been a scout or two that say that, but I highly doubt that's the general consensus. I think this draft gets underrated because of the two drafts it's sandwitched between.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Show me a link where they call it strong or good for that matter.
Top guy in this draft goes 5th or 6th last year.
Question marks on Reinhart if he is good enough to be #1C
Question marks if Ekblad is more like #2 dman and not #1.
Just reporting what has been said by the experts.

Even if it's true, my response is:

Yes please?

How are any of those assets bad? What's next intervening at the intercourse stage to prevent conception of a weak draft class?

Flames will get stud with their pick. Said stud will lay a beating on EDM's picks, because that's just the way it goes.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

Even if it's true, my response is:

Yes please?

How are any of those assets bad? What's next intervening at the intercourse stage to prevent conception of a weak draft class?

Flames will get stud with their pick. Said stud will lay a beating on EDM's picks, because that's just the way it goes.

Still good assets if it works out.
Someone, will strike gold and someone will get a bust.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Still good assets if it works out.
Someone, will strike gold and someone will get a bust.

In the top four? I don't see why it would be a foregone conclusion that one of the players selected will be a bust. Maybe all four will be great.

[dino7c]

if the oilers pass on Ekblad it will be hilarious...and awesome for Calgary

[dying4acup]

The top pick in this draft, at best is comparable to Lindholm, Nurse or Monahan. No way is #1 compared to McKinnon or Jones.

I had hoped that with the Flames worst ever finish in the standings, and highest ever pick, that we would be getting a sure fire superstar or franchise player. That isn't going to happen.

At very least I hoped that we would get a prospect better than Monahan. That appears unlikely at best.

Still going to be pleased with whomever is drafted, and expecting him to be a core player on a Stanley cup champion team.

[Alberta_Beef]

It's said to be a 'weak' draft because there is no one player projected to be a generational talent and it doesn't have the depth of other years. Each and every one of the top 5 players would be top 5 picks in almost any draft year, there is just little after them and none of them are 'the next one'.

[TheKing]

Speaking of Mackinnon, was just looking at the stats.
forget everything except for comparing stats.

HALIFAX MOOSEHEADS-QMJHL 44GP 32G 43A = 75P
33 in 17GP in playoffs - 1.94 PPG
vs
Boston College HE 40GP 36G 44A = 80P
16 in 6GP in playoffs - 2.66 PPG

Considering Gaudreau was playing in a bigger, better league and was just as clutch if not more clutch than mackinnon makes me excited. The average size for NCAA is 6 feet and age is 22 years so I could see it being a seamless transition. Maybe a bit of slumpage when people start to focus on him, but all of the NCAA teams were trying to stop him already.

[Caged Great]

This year's draft basically starts at #5 last year, and the talent is about right from 1-10 as 5-15 was last year. However, once you get into around #14 or so on, it's like you jump to about the type of players that were picked around Klimchuk last year and descend from there.

The players that we're looking at 34 are more the types that were available in the 50's last year.

It's alright though because there are talented players out there. Just don't expect stars. Hope for solid players that can contribute and if you get more than that, then awesome.

[Bingo]

Here's Corey Pronman's take in his 2014 rank release yesterday

Compared to the much-anticipated 2013 NHL draft class -- a group that featured projected elite talents like Nathan MacKinnon and Seth Jones -- this year's prospect pool has been flying a little under the radar. But when you start to put the 2014 crop under the microscope, it's clear that there is still plenty of talent to be harvested.


To put it in perspective, compared to last year's draft class (without our current hindsight), I'd have ranked Aaron Ekblad behind MacKinnon and Jonathan Drouin, with a tough debate about how close he was to Jones and Valeri Nichushkin. He'd have ranked ahead of Aleksander Barkov, however. I'd then have Sam Bennett and the rest of the top tier after Barkov.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/story...nhl-draft-2014

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Here's Corey Pronman's take in his 2014 rank release yesterday



http://insider.espn.go.com/nhl/story...nhl-draft-2014

Yeah I see a few posters being disappointed in the talent available at the top of this draft but IMO the guy the Flames get at #4 should be as good as Monahan or even better. I feel if Ekblad fell into the Flames lap (highly doubtful) it may be one of those franchise turning points.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by dying4acup

The top pick in this draft, at best is comparable to Lindholm, Nurse or Monahan. No way is #1 compared to McKinnon or Jones.

I had hoped that with the Flames worst ever finish in the standings, and highest ever pick, that we would be getting a sure fire superstar or franchise player. That isn't going to happen.

At very least I hoped that we would get a prospect better than Monahan. That appears unlikely at best.

Still going to be pleased with whomever is drafted, and expecting him to be a core player on a Stanley cup champion team.

I disagree to some extent. Sure, none of the big four are as good now or as polished as prospects as Mackinnon was and i doubt any will have a rookie year as good as Nathan's either. However, when picking this high, if developed properly and given the time and right situations, its pretty tough to say that non of the big four this year will ever be as good. Hell, 5 years from now one or two of them may be better, its really tough to say and has a lot to do with coaches, systems, development etc.

[Badgers Nose]

I hope they trade #3 for #3 (Dion). HAHAHAHAHA!