[News] With the 54th OA pick Flames select G Tyler Parsons

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The Flames did a good thing drafting a goalie again. Until they get a Kipper, Vernon, Quick, Rask, Roy or other elite starter, they should continue to pick one in the top 90 every year.

Statistically you're more likely to hit with a goalie picked from 33-70 than a forward or defenseman. (Hit being 50 games played for a G vs 100 for a forward)

Getting someone that won a championship is a good idea. Winning goalies like Gillies and now Parsons at least have the experience of going all the way. Whether they translate that to the NHL or not, remains to be seen.

I agree if your going to select a Goalie choose a winner. Besides over the years being here you have a strong evaluation on Goalies period I know you speak from a good place.
Just was excited at the reality that Raddysh was gift wrapped for the Flames. TB took him 3,4 picks later.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I was really surprised that the Flames took a goalie again this year, as I thought last off-season's signing of Schneider counted as part of their 'quota' of every other year. Either I was just wrong, or they like Parsons.

He seems like a pretty good goalie prospect to add to the fold. Don't know why people get so riled up when taking a goalie prospect. If you hit well on one, it allows you to replace your existing goalie who might have just demanded a 7x8 contract, or replaces your existing goalie that you may not really trust for a playoff run and win a cup with (like the Pens this year).

There is no quota.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

I agree if your going to select a Goalie choose a winner. Besides over the years being here you have a strong evaluation on Goalies period I know you speak from a good place.
Just was excited at the reality that Raddysh was gift wrapped for the Flames. TB took him 3,4 picks later.

I know. I wish the Flames got more than two RW prospects in this draft (considering Phillips a RW) also.

This draft in particular seems to have had a lack of RW outside the #2 and #4 overall picks. Sometimes it's just like that. Some years have tons of one type of player like all the D-men in 2008, other times they have none like centers in 2012.

They at least partially addressed it with Pribyl, Tuulola and Phillips. They are still likely to attempt to acquire more either through trade or UFA between now and this time next year. Just wish they were able to do it all at once instead of dragging out the process.

[JJ1532]

The current Stanley Cup champions drafted Gustavsson in this draft, despite having Murray as their heir apparent for the next decade. You can never have too many goalies in the system.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

The current Stanley Cup champions drafted Gustavsson in this draft, despite having Murray as their heir apparent for the next decade. You can never have too many goalies in the system.

Plus they already have Tristan Jarry in the system as well. Have to keep that goalie pipeline full.

As the Ducks just showed us, you can always deal a young goalie for assets if you're lucky enough to have more than one develop at the same time.

It's a way better problem to have than the one the Flames have been dealing with since Kipper retired.

[Ashasx]

I hate picking goalies high and I'm not even that upset about this pick.

[Conroy4Mayor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where is it?

Can I see it?

Jeez people. There is no consensus board, just a collection of general rankings. You will probably notice that the rankings are fairly consistent however. When a team strays a fair bit from the typical ranking, it is called "going off the board". I'm surprised how many people have never heard the saying before. It is not just used in hockey, but in all sports drafts.

If you want a board you can "see", compile all the pre-draft rankings in Excel, avereage them, then rank them that way. That'd be the closest thing to a board you can "see". The rest of us can get a rough estimate in our heads.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

The current Stanley Cup champions drafted Gustavsson in this draft, despite having Murray as their heir apparent for the next decade. You can never have too many goalies in the system.

Probably preparing to lose Murray after trying to **** the Flames for MA Chokey... err Fleury.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Conroy4Mayor

Jeez people. There is no consensus board, just a collection of general rankings. You will probably notice that the rankings are fairly consistent however. When a team strays a fair bit from the typical ranking, it is called "going off the board". I'm surprised how many people have never heard the saying before. It is not just used in hockey, but in all sports drafts.

If you want a board you can "see", compile all the pre-draft rankings in Excel, avereage them, then rank them that way. That'd be the closest thing to a board you can "see". The rest of us can get a rough estimate in our heads.

Right...thank you.

even then, it has nothing to do with the reality of what each individual team has on their own "board" so its impossible to go "off the board" when its that teams board that had them making the selection in the first pace!!

Its proven over and over again each and every year.

[Conroy4Mayor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Right...thank you.

even then, it has nothing to do with the reality of what each individual team has on their own "board" so its impossible to go "off the board" when its that teams board that had them making the selection in the first pace!!

Its proven over and over again each and every year.

It absolutely is possible to go "off the board". Just ask a Columbus or Vancouver fan about yesterdays picks.

The expression, and yes it is an expression, loosely translated, means that the scouts for your team think they see something different than most people, many of which are highly paid to watch young hockey players as a full time job. This occurrence usually results in immediate disappointment among fans, because their expactations were different from what transpired. We need a shorter expression for this occurrence, so some of us call it "going off the board". Please don't get caught up in some absurd argument that for there to be a "board", everyone must have exactly the same opinion of every player. We all know that is not how it works. The board is not literal. It is a figure of speech.

People who dislike the term "board" remind me of an annoying college professor who used to rant about "woods" not having a "neck".

[OldDutch]

I prefer "deviating from the media's commonly agreed upon anticipated selection order" to "going off the board"

Has a nice ring to it

[Poe969]

He helped one team to a championship, hopefully he continues the trend.

[driveway]

"Neck of the woods" derives from Colonial Americans making a conscious effort to remove English terms like 'moor,' 'heath,' or 'dell' from the vocabulary and develop uniquely american terms (such as hollow, gap, or fork).

Neck, from old English hneccan, had been used to describe narrow things for at least 800 years and began to be applied to things like a narrow patch of woods or a spit of land surrounded by water such as a peninsula or isthmus.

Over time it entered into common usage, possibly as a slightly self-deprecating expression, implying that the speaker did not own much, or very desirable land.

Your college professor was a dink.

I have nothing to add to the Parsons conversation, never heard of him before.

[Azure]

The Ducks have been picking a goalie every year for a while now and it is working out for them.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by driveway

"Neck of the woods" derives from Colonial Americans making a conscious effort to remove English terms like 'moor,' 'heath,' or 'dell' from the vocabulary and develop uniquely american terms (such as hollow, gap, or fork).

Neck, from old English hneccan, had been used to describe narrow things for at least 800 years and began to be applied to things like a narrow patch of woods or a spit of land surrounded by water such as a peninsula or isthmus.

Over time it entered into common usage, possibly as a slightly self-deprecating expression, implying that the speaker did not own much, or very desirable land.

Your college professor was a dink.

I have nothing to add to the Parsons conversation, never heard of him before.

Neat!

[Reggie Dunlop]

No qualms at all about this pick.

The kid is a winner. So he's got that going for him.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The Flames did a good thing drafting a goalie again. Until they get a Kipper, Vernon, Quick, Rask, Roy or other elite starter, they should continue to pick one in the top 90 every year.

Forget elite. I would say that the Flames should keep drafting goalies until they figure out how to develop one that sticks in any type of meaningful role with the club.

As it is now, a goalie needs to succeed in spite of our development system, not because of it.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by devo22

Flames have made selected multiple players from the same team recently.

2012 Jankowski and Gillies
2015 Andersson and Mangiapane
2016 Tkachuk and Parsons

Actually Jankowski and Gillies became teammates after being drafted. Gillies was drafted from the Indiana Ice and Jankowski from Stanstead COllege.

[StrykerSteve]

He's scored a goal, too.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/junio...is-first-goal/

[Ashasx]

Button lists Parsons as the 12th best drafted prospect in the league: http://www.tsn.ca/talent/who-are-the...e-nhl-1.677389