You've confused Chris Lindberg with Where R U Chris O'Sullivan.
Chris Lindberg was the opposite. He gauranteed Backlund would be an NHL'er by Christmas of Backlund's 19 yo season, IIRC.
O'Sullivan is the Backlund hater, that gauranteed Backlund would leave for the KHL by 2013, IIRC.
oh he's (O'sullivan) still convinced. Backlund's strong season last year was just a flash in the pan, wont be long til he's where he should be: Russia.
I'll say it now. In both skill and size, JG looks to me like the reincarnation of the former Soviet star Valeri Kharlamov. Kharlamov was 5'8" 170 throughout his career. Every highlight video of him shows him breaking through the defence with the flat footed defenders fruitlessly trying to hook him down. If Johnny adds a bit more lower body strength he'll be almost unstoppable. It's a good thing Bobby Clarke no longer plays. Now I sure wish I'd said this when he was drafted...
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Red Ice Player For This Useful Post:
I don't think there is anything wrong with giving an opinion - good or bad. Creates discussion, and this is what this board is for after all - great discussion.
It is the extremes that become frustrating and annoying at times. For instance, I personally love Jankowski, and think he has the TOOLS to be a #1 center in the league. I also think he has a relatively small bust factor (IQ, skating ability, packing on size, and developing in an 'defense-first' environment). What I will not proclaim is something like: "I guarantee that Jankowski is going to come in here and become the first line center on this team, and be a superstar in this league." I would expect to get ripped for writing that down, though I am sure there would be a few posters agreeing as well. If I just continue saying something like: "Jankowski has the tools to possibly end up developing into a pretty good #1 center given his strengths, but he does have a long road to get there. He may only develop into a checker, though that in itself isn't guaranteed. I do think he will be an important piece for the Flames in their top 6, however." I don't think anyone who is 'down' on Jankowski would pull that up 5 years from now if Jankowski ends up busting and saying "Look at this idiotic post."
It is the same thing if I didn't like Jankowski and said: "This kid will never make it in the NHL. 6'3" and only 165lbs? Never in a million years will he make it. Total rubbish of a selection. Flames make yet another bust of a 1st round pick." People making these definitive statements can also expect to get 'ripped'. Why not just say: "Wow, that was a surprise. It seems like a risk move in my opinion, and I wonder what sort of chance this kid ever has to make it. Hopefully it will work out, but I do have my doubts given his lack of physical development and the league he was drafted out of.". That is a fair statement that will encourage discussion, not encourage a bunch of angry responses.
There is a difference - both positive and negative in terms of people's opinions - that illicit a particular type of reaction. If people can't figure out that difference, then it explains a whole lot as why they get so upset when they are suddenly met with a number of angry or snarly rebuttals. I swear that I think some people just enjoy getting a rise out of others, but keep denying it! haha
The thing is around here you can voice an opinion couched in various ways and two pages later it's turned into a statement of fact with some name calling thrown in for good measure by some posters.
The thing is around here you can voice an opinion couched in various ways and two pages later it's turned into a statement of fact with some name calling thrown in for good measure by some posters.
Does it really bother you what a bunch of anon people think of you? It should't. Some people are not too bright and need name calling to express themselves. Don't judge them too hard.
If my crazy crap comes back to haunt me I take it as flattery that someone actually read it and paid attention.
For example, I wrote that JG looked really promising, but that I would still trade him because I felt the Bruins might overpay. Pretty sure that got the attention of a few JG fans that skipped over the overpay part.
Your logic is reasonable, but I disagree because it doesn't make sense to trade the most talented player we've had since Fleury. One of the most skilled players in hockey you don't trade before he's played 2 games.
I don't think there is anything wrong with giving an opinion - good or bad. Creates discussion, and this is what this board is for after all - great discussion.
It is the extremes that become frustrating and annoying at times.
I'll add a few things to this:
- If you hit on 19, and run into a 2, some people might say that you're a genius. Others will say that you made a bad decision. I side with the latter group. (Specifically, Jankowski could pan out and I might still say he was a bad pick.)
- I like to give people the benefit of the doubt with regards to the degree of absolutism they're posting with. I don't want to have to append everything I write with "IMHO". Chances are that if I'm writing it, it's my opinion. I might add emphasis if I'm trying to state something as a fact. "Jankowski will never pan out" is merely a guess even if not disclaimed as such.
- If you hit on 19, and run into a 2, some people might say that you're a genius. Others will say that you made a bad decision. I side with the latter group. (Specifically, Jankowski could pan out and I might still say he was a bad pick.)
- I like to give people the benefit of the doubt with regards to the degree of absolutism they're posting with. I don't want to have to append everything I write with "IMHO". Chances are that if I'm writing it, it's my opinion. I might add emphasis if I'm trying to state something as a fact. "Jankowski will never pan out" is merely a guess even if not disclaimed as such.
I wouldn't equate selecting a draft pick to a game of black jack. You have a lot more information about the player you're picking than you do about the next card coming out of the chute.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FanIn80 For This Useful Post:
Really hoping to see gaudreau, baertschi, and granlund as full time NHLers by the end of the season. I have no favourite among them and would be very happy to see all 3 become part of the core of this team.
I'll say it now. In both skill and size, JG looks to me like the reincarnation of the former Soviet star Valeri Kharlamov. Kharlamov was 5'8" 170 throughout his career. Every highlight video of him shows him breaking through the defence with the flat footed defenders fruitlessly trying to hook him down. If Johnny adds a bit more lower body strength he'll be almost unstoppable. It's a good thing Bobby Clarke no longer plays. Now I sure wish I'd said this when he was drafted...
Your mention of Bobby Clarke makes me think Gaudreau had better wear extra thick ankle guards over his skates!
I wouldn't equate selecting a draft pick to a game of black jack. You have a lot more information about the player you're picking than you do about the next card coming out of the chute.
I dunno. Outside of the top end of the first round it seems like a pretty giant crap shoot.
If someone had predicted at he end of the 2012/2013 season that Giordano and Olympics would be mentioned in the same sentence they would have been laughed off the internet. http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...=mark+giordano
When 29 year old veterans can be that unpredictable good luck projecting an 18 year old kid into his prime.
Your mention of Bobby Clarke makes me think Gaudreau had better wear extra thick ankle guards over his skates!
I'm glad I didn't know about "the slash" until well after the Summit Series concluded. But that series was as close to a war as a hockey exhibition could get.
I'm glad I didn't know about "the slash" until well after the Summit Series concluded. But that series was as close to a war as a hockey exhibition could get.
Interestingly, the guy Sam Bennett most reminds me of stylistically is Bobby Clarke. I'm glad WE drafted him.
You've confused Chris Lindberg with Where R U Chris O'Sullivan.
Chris Lindberg was the opposite. He gauranteed Backlund would be an NHL'er by Christmas of Backlund's 19 yo season, IIRC.
O'Sullivan is the Backlund hater, that gauranteed Backlund would leave for the KHL by 2013, IIRC.
What blows me away about that guy, is that to this day he will still come in here and answer to his crazy obsession. He still participates in Backlund threads.
The only difference is as the years go by and his ever changing predictions of doom for Backlund change he is starting to ignore more and more criticism that he knows he's been simply owned on.
The key with him is he wants to rip on Backlund so bad and he wants to convince everyone else so bad, but there's just too many posters now a days that shove his ridiculous claims down his throat every time he posts.
Something I personally hope continues. He's the epitome of trying to project yourself as a superior hockey mind with an eye to the future, with absolute guarantees.
Anyone know how past Hobey Baker winners fared in their NHL rookie seasons?
Looks like out of the last 15 winners only about half became NHLers full time. So even if we just use that stat and JG becomes a full time NHLer we should be happy.
I didn't do any research past that though, maybe a few of them have had success as a rookie but has anyone won the Hobey Baker in the NCAA and then gone on to win the Calder?
I think the only one to do so is Chris Drury, a one time flame. Maybe JG can repeat!
Looks like out of the last 15 winners only about half became NHLers full time. So even if we just use that stat and JG becomes a full time NHLer we should be happy.
I didn't do any research past that though, maybe a few of them have had success as a rookie but has anyone won the Hobey Baker in the NCAA and then gone on to win the Calder?
I think the only one to do so is Chris Drury, a one time flame. Maybe JG can repeat!
Looks like Chris Drury is the only one. But the Flames do have pretty good success with having successful College draft picks ending up winning the Calder, Gary Suter going from having 51 points in 39 games in 84-85 for University of Wisconsin, then winning the Calder next year getting 68 points with the Flames.
Then of course you have Joe Nieuwendyk who was a finalist for the Hobey Baker in 87 (52 points in 23 games), losing to Tony Hrkac (who had 116! points in 48 games), then went on to win the Calder in 87-88 with 51 goals and 92 points for the Flames.
