[GDT] Flames Rookies vs Canucks Rookies, 8:30 MST

[Ashasx]

wrong thread

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

You're reading way too much into his junior stats so far. They don't mean much at all.

How many games of his have you seen? He looks like a 2nd liner to me based on what I saw of him in the Mem cup last year. We'll get another chance to see him at the Mem cup this year as London is hosting.

He just went top 10 in a very strong draft year. And the scouting reports did not peg him as a checking line player unlike lets say a guy like Malhotra who went top 10 in his draft year and had pretty terrible stats in his draft year.

So I still don't see a strong argument as to why he's a checking line player. You watch the kid and he's got scoring line skill. Your statistical analysis is flawed and doesn't prove anything.

Yeah, except that he has trouble putting up points in major junior. Guess he'll magically find that offensive prowess once he gets to the NHL eh? You know, the exact opposite of how almost every other player develops.

Only time proves anything, but my point was, your silly notion that he's anything like a 1st or 2nd liner, or, as was said previously "Richards/Landeskog"... well, then it's not my line of thinking we should worry about having flaws.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by strombad

Yeah, except that he has trouble putting up points in major junior.

Actually he doesn't. And that's where your analysis started off flawed. Read opendoor's post for a better breakdown of why your statistical analysis is complete garbage.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually he doesn't. And that's where your analysis started off flawed. Read opendoor's post for a better breakdown of why your statistical analysis is complete garbage.

Actually he does. Don't keep making the mistake of assuming he was drafted for his offensive ability, he wasn't.

Originally Posted by opendoor

Not one of those players had career point per game numbers at Horvat's age. There's reason Horvat was taken top 10 in a very strong draft while none of those guys was even taken in the 1st round and that's because he projects to be a much better player. Will he hit his ceiling? Who knows, but writing him off as a 3rd line grinder 2 months after he his draft is foolish at the best of times, and completely asinine if the sum of your evidence is some 19 year olds' CHL stats from up to 20 years ago.

Uh, sure they did.
Lets just look at Stajan for example.
He played in the OHL.
Was 4 months older than Horvat.
125 GP at the time of his draft.
112 Points.

Less games, more points, same league, similar team.

Listen, I'm not saying he's doomed to be a checking line guy, I'm saying that he's likely going to end up as a solid 3rd line center. His top end is probably similar to that of Jordan Staal, but that's top end. Can be reach his top end? Sure. Maybe.

Look at it this way, Monahan and Lindholm are seen as top six guys. 2nd liners with 1st line potential. Horvat, if he ever hits the 2nd line, is going to be the mash. He's not putting up points in any significant way, so get that out of your head, but he will add a good bump and grind to Vancouver.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by strombad

Actually he does. Don't keep making the mistake of assuming he was drafted for his offensive ability, he wasn't.

Actually he was drafted for his offensive ability and two way game. You're the one making the mistake here.

opendoor schooled you with his critique of your statistical analysis. Until you respond to that you've clearly lost the argument.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Actually he was drafted for his offensive ability and two way game. You're the one making the mistake here.

opendoor schooled you with his critique of your statistical analysis. Until you respond to that you've clearly lost the argument.

OH BRO! I got MAD SCHOOLED!
Like, he came up out of no where and just OWNED ME 4 REAL.

Get outta here joker, you have so far managed to come up with such intelligent remarks as "you're wrong" and the long winded equivalent of "no YOU!". If you want to bring something intellectual to the table, please, feel free. He was drafted for his defensive ability and his jam, with an added bonus that he can pot a few. But hey, keep telling me I'm wrong. You've obviously got a crystal ball where you see more than the common analysis and can see him hitting above his potential. I mean, he was drafted 9th in a 'deep draft' right? Because you know, nobody drafts a Hugh Jessiman in a deep draft (hint: this is not a comparison, this is a "you can't use that as a reason he's going to be good", which you can't)

On another note, Sven had a good third period, so is everyone back to thinking he's the saviour of the Flames now? Are we finished with the attitude nonsense?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by strombad

OH BRO! I got MAD SCHOOLED!

True

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by strombad

Uh, sure they did.
Lets just look at Stajan for example.
He played in the OHL.
Was 4 months older than Horvat.
125 GP at the time of his draft.
112 Points.

Less games, more points, same league, similar team.

112 pts in 125 GP isn't a point per game pace. You were heralding the scoring pace of 19 year olds and comparing it to Horvats' 16 and 17 year old seasons. If Horvat isn't a point per game CHLer after his 19 year old season you'll have a point.

And of course you're ignoring other factors like the fact that pretty much every player on your list is undersized compared to Horvat which means translating their numbers from junior to the pros can be tougher.

Listen, I'm not saying he's doomed to be a checking line guy, I'm saying that he's likely going to end up as a solid 3rd line center. His top end is probably similar to that of Jordan Staal, but that's top end. Can be reach his top end? Sure. Maybe.

Look at it this way, Monahan and Lindholm are seen as top six guys. 2nd liners with 1st line potential. Horvat, if he ever hits the 2nd line, is going to be the mash. He's not putting up points in any significant way, so get that out of your head, but he will add a good bump and grind to Vancouver.

It's exceedingly premature to cap any top 10 pick's ceiling as a 3rd liner so soon after being drafted. If he doesn't have a better offensive season next year then you'll have a point, but until then it's just superficial speculation based on a pretty puny sample size. In fact, it could be argued that any underwhelming numbers he has are rooted in a poor first month or two of the season, as he put up 68 pts in his last 60 regular season and playoff games.

Ultimately, if the consensus among NHL scouts was that Horvat's ceiling was a good 3rd line center then he wouldn't have come close to the top 10 in a draft like this year's. So either the collective NHL scouting community is wrong or you are. Given that you don't seem to have really seen him play and your statistical methodology involves conflating numbers from 16-19 year olds' seasons across many leagues and eras, I know who I'm going to go with.

And keep in mind I'm talking about ceiling, not where I think he'll end up. It could certainly be argued that he'd most likely be a 3rd liner, but capping his ceiling or saying crap like "He's not putting up points in any significant way, so get that out of your head" based solely on a draft year stat line sample is exceptionally ignorant.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And keep in mind I'm talking about ceiling, not where I think he'll end up. It could certainly be argued that he'd most likely be a 3rd liner, but capping his ceiling or saying crap like "He's not putting up points in any significant way, so get that out of your head" based solely on a draft year stat line sample is exceptionally ignorant.

Here's our difference. I'm going on where he's likely to end up, not ceiling. As I said, his ceiling is a solid 2nd line center, Jordan Staal type. Likely to end up there? Nope. Could he? You bet! My problem was more with people heralding him as a bonafide star on the Canucks team and a big part of their future. I mean, MAYBE, but people scout and draft on maybes and could be's. Are you saying that every year a player ranked in the top 15 is going to play on the top two lines? For sure? You SURE? You seem to put a lot of faith in whatever scouts say without looking at things critically. The whole deep draft argument is null and void, this COULD be a deep draft, but you never know until a few years down the road.

I've got big respect for your ability to put together a proper argument unlike that silly goon Flames Draft Watcher who apparently can't put together an intellectual thought of his own. However, we might have to agree to disagree. I'm saying he's likely to end up here, and it's dumb to say he's likely to be higher. You're saying he could end up there, and it's dumb to say he won't.
We are having two remarkably similar, but in the end, different conversations.

Believe it or not, I'm not going by stat lines, I'm going by what actual scouts have said, his performance in the playoffs and the memorial cup (all of which I watched, and according to you, it's when he played the best), AND his stats. I don't think it's any question he makes the Canucks and contributes. My point (which I attempted to support, not PROVE with statistical analysis) is that guys in his pattern have a lot of work to do, and rarely hit the lofty possibilities. So ease off the "ignorant" and cool those jets cowboy. As I said, we're having two different conversations.

Oh, and by the way, Horvat is about equal to size as almost everyone I mentioned. Unless he's magically going to grow 3 inches and put on 30 pounds (which I suppose he could do if he magically grew 3 inches) he'll remain a similar size to those guys in a few years. So calling them undersized? Yeah, I guess, if you think Horvat is undersized. Again, since you seem to need it spelled out for you, I am not using this as conclusive evidence that he cannot become a giant, I am simply saying he's in line with the size the guys I listed were (save for that shrimp Nichol).

I still see him as a Jarret Stoll type. Nothing wrong with that!

[palffytobondra]

I was really impressed with the Canuck Rookies.

The Canucks have been a really great team in the last 5-6 years.... they've been good-average in the last two years.... so you'd assume that they'd have a really really poor pool..but they finished the tourny 3 wins 1 loss..

They're due for a rebuild in 2 or 3 years...so the fact they have prospects like:
Jensen, Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Corrado, Subban, Cassels ...is pretty impressive. Thats a really good base to start from Once they really suck and nab a few top5 picks....they'll be really well positioned.

[metroneck]

Um, OK. Should that be in green?

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by strombad

Here's our difference. I'm going on where he's likely to end up, not ceiling. As I said, his ceiling is a solid 2nd line center, Jordan Staal type. Likely to end up there? Nope. Could he? You bet! My problem was more with people heralding him as a bonafide star on the Canucks team and a big part of their future. I mean, MAYBE, but people scout and draft on maybes and could be's. Are you saying that every year a player ranked in the top 15 is going to play on the top two lines? For sure? You SURE? You seem to put a lot of faith in whatever scouts say without looking at things critically. The whole deep draft argument is null and void, this COULD be a deep draft, but you never know until a few years down the road.

I've got big respect for your ability to put together a proper argument unlike that silly goon Flames Draft Watcher who apparently can't put together an intellectual thought of his own. However, we might have to agree to disagree. I'm saying he's likely to end up here, and it's dumb to say he's likely to be higher. You're saying he could end up there, and it's dumb to say he won't.
We are having two remarkably similar, but in the end, different conversations.

Believe it or not, I'm not going by stat lines, I'm going by what actual scouts have said, his performance in the playoffs and the memorial cup (all of which I watched, and according to you, it's when he played the best), AND his stats. I don't think it's any question he makes the Canucks and contributes. My point (which I attempted to support, not PROVE with statistical analysis) is that guys in his pattern have a lot of work to do, and rarely hit the lofty possibilities. So ease off the "ignorant" and cool those jets cowboy. As I said, we're having two different conversations.

Oh, and by the way, Horvat is about equal to size as almost everyone I mentioned. Unless he's magically going to grow 3 inches and put on 30 pounds (which I suppose he could do if he magically grew 3 inches) he'll remain a similar size to those guys in a few years. So calling them undersized? Yeah, I guess, if you think Horvat is undersized. Again, since you seem to need it spelled out for you, I am not using this as conclusive evidence that he cannot become a giant, I am simply saying he's in line with the size the guys I listed were (save for that shrimp Nichol).

I still see him as a Jarret Stoll type. Nothing wrong with that!

I think people just grow and it's not really that magical. He's only 18 so he could easily grow 3 to 4 more inches. This argument is really an argument of semantics and it started with your rather absurd opinion of Horvat's career path and his likely role at the NHL level. Yes of course he has a better chance at peaking as a 3rd line guy if that, the lifetime of drafting in pro sports is proof that a certain amount of players from a massive pool ever make it to the pro level so your using that argument against a guy who hasn't even played a game outside of being drafted mostly because he's on the rival team and their fans are excited about him. Really??? Then you might as well go around and tell everyone their mad for thinking that Monohan or Baertschi could be top 6 guys even though they most likely will end up 3rd line or lower based on percentages.

He's a good young player who was drafted 9th for a reason, only time will split this pointless argument and really, truly, that's still a 50/50 shot even though "statistically" it's not.

[Vinny01]

No chance Horvat grows 3 or 4 inches. His frame is way to filled out for 18 to have that kind of growth spurt IMO. I think he has likely matured physically with the ability to add muscle but not height

[clintb]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

No chance Horvat grows 3 or 4 inches. His frame is way to filled out for 18 to have that kind of growth spurt IMO. I think he has likely matured physically with the ability to add muscle but not height

Yeah, 3~4 inches is not a reality at 18 years old

[Heavy Jack]

Originally Posted by clintb

Yeah, 3~4 inches is not a reality at 18 years old

i have seen ot happen. definitely not plausible though you are right about that. I myself was 5'10 at 18 and am currently just shy of 6 feet so it still possible for him to grow a bit more though 3-4 inches was a bit extreme haha

[$ven27]

Yeah, 3-4 is a bit unlikely. That's like Jankowski type of growth.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

I think people just grow and it's not really that magical. He's only 18 so he could easily grow 3 to 4 more inches. This argument is really an argument of semantics and it started with your rather absurd opinion of Horvat's career path and his likely role at the NHL level. Yes of course he has a better chance at peaking as a 3rd line guy if that, the lifetime of drafting in pro sports is proof that a certain amount of players from a massive pool ever make it to the pro level so your using that argument against a guy who hasn't even played a game outside of being drafted mostly because he's on the rival team and their fans are excited about him. Really??? Then you might as well go around and tell everyone their mad for thinking that Monohan or Baertschi could be top 6 guys even though they most likely will end up 3rd line or lower based on percentages.

He's a good young player who was drafted 9th for a reason, only time will split this pointless argument and really, truly, that's still a 50/50 shot even though "statistically" it's not.

I thought I explained myself pretty well, but I'll just respond in point form:
- Growing 3-4 inches is so outside the realm of even remotely possible for a guy who's as filled out as he is.
- I quite clearly said he's more likely a 3rd liner who could peak as a second (which you agreed with, so I'm not sure the point of your response)
- This has nothing to do with Canucks hate, as I believe Shinkaruk (who was drafted later) is a bonafide top 6 guy that could be on par or better than a Baertschi
- Monahan and Baertschi aren't comparable as they're both seen as second line guys with first line potential. Again, I'm going by what I've seen and what actual scouts are saying. Monahan is more complete and has a lot better hockey sense than Horvat. He's seen as a solid 2nd liner. Using the draft position argument people so often try to use, doesn't that make Horvat worse? And thus, potentially, a solid third liner?
- My argument is in response to people who believe he's destined for the first line. He just doesn't have the skillset to be a first liner right now. Could he develop it? sure. But why are we discussing his trajectory based on tools he doesn't even have yet? Usually at this point players have shown the tools which they then just have to put together, Horvat has some, but even his physical play transitioning is questionable when you consider he is built like a boulder in a league of boys.

Again, we're looking at a solid player, likely a Stoll type, but we could certainly see a Jordan Staal or a Steve Ott or a Dubinsky. Could any of those players center a top line? Sure, on a bad team, but does that make them top line centers? No.

I just find it a bit silly when people keep saying "It's absurd to say he's likely a 3rd liner with potential to be more! Even though he's likely a 3rd liner BUT he has potential to be more!"

I get it. The end. Unless someone wants to dwell on the potential career path of Bo Horvat with me some more. Feel free to call me ignorant, or absurd, or some other remark that apparently helps you make a point. Love you

[Soliak]

Originally Posted by clintb

Yeah, 3~4 inches is not a reality at 18 years old

<----- 5'10 at 17-18, 6'1 1/2 at 25.