[News] With the 214th OA pick, the Flames select G Dustin Wolf

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

We can't be sure, but it certainly seems like Wolf's height/weight are being artificially inflated like other small players such as Johnny Gaudreau or Matthew Phillips.

Here's a photo of him on the ice beside Phillips.



Here he is with Philp. Froese is the captain.



Phillips is listed as 5'7", which certainly seems to be generous. Philp is listed as 5'10" and Froese is 6'1". Wolf appears to be between the 2 of them in height, so 5'11" - 6'0" seems to be accurate for Wolf.

[Enoch Root]

Gawdin is 6'1" and he is at least a couple inches shorter than him (first pic)

[Enoch Root]

Anyway, it isn't about how tall a goalie is, it's about how much of the net they cover. And he really crouches. A lot. There is a lot of exposed twine over his shoulders when he is set.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Gawdin is 6'1" and he is at least a couple inches shorter than him (first pic)

But Wolf’s knees are slightly flexed in those pictures

[cannon7]

Hasn't been beaten in regulation yet. .941SV% And we're worried about his size?

[dammage79]

If Tim Thomas can win a cup, so can Wolf. Kids doing all the right things. Enjoy it, instead of trying to minimize it.

[jessnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Gawdin is 6'1" and he is at least a couple inches shorter than him (first pic)

However, due to the parallax angle, Wolf is acrually 4'7", and not across the goal line.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

The 1990 Hockey News draft issue (Bob McKenzie was still their draft guru back then) had Trevor Kidd as the 5th best prospect after Nedved, Ricchi, Primeau and Nolan (not necessarily in that order)

Jagr behind those 5 , shows how brutal scouting was in the 90s. And really emphasizes how over rated kidd was.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I believe you said the same thing about picking Phaneuf over Getzlaf. Yes, there is a benefit of hindsight. But no, this was absolutely the wrong call at the time, because they have got it all wrong. They probably had their reasons for making these calls/choices, but those reasons (even if valid) were also obviously wrong, because they had led them to make the wrong selections.

Perhaps the distinction is between a bad pick and the wrong pick. A bad pick is one that is a result of poor decision making or assessment. The wrong pick is measured once one looks back at the actual results.
So in that sense I maintain Kidd wasn't a bad pick, he was the wrong pick.
Phaneuf by any measure was a good pick. Maybe not the rightest pick but a good pick

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by looooob

that guy at 6 turned out ok

And the guy at 7 can suck an egg.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Jagr behind those 5 , shows how brutal scouting was in the 90s. And really emphasizes how over rated kidd was.

Bobby Clarke said Jagr was the best player in that draft, and wanted the Flyers to draft him. Clarke was fired before that draft, and his replacement, Russ Farwell, a former GM in the CHL, went with the Canadian kid

Imagine if they had Jagr instead. Would they have traded for Lindros? Would Jagr have been included in the package for Lindros? Imagine Jagr and Lindros together instead of Jagr and Mario. Would the Penguins have won two Cups in 91 and 92?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I agree with the word "gamble". My very first post on this forum was about the draft being a crapshoot (coming from one of the top scouts for the Flames). Which, again, speaks to the right vs. wrong. There are right calls and wrong calls. In these particular two examples, the calls made were wrong. They might have been more or less justifiable or explainable at the time. But that didn't make them right.

I just don't see it that way.

There are good and bad outcomes, but not right and wrong calls if you take a player where he's supposed to go.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Jagr behind those 5 , shows how brutal scouting was in the 90s. And really emphasizes how over rated kidd was.

#8 was Scott Scissons. Played 2 games.

I never agreed with the Nedved hype. I think he was overrated due to his defection.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Jagr behind those 5 , shows how brutal scouting was in the 90s. And really emphasizes how over rated kidd was.

The former Soviet Eastern bloc was still a black box of mystery back then.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Freeway]

I'm about six feet tall and, in flat shoes, Dustin Wolf has stood eye-to-eye with me. He's about six feet.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Freeway

I'm about six feet tall and, in flat shoes, Dustin Wolf has stood eye-to-eye with me. He's about six feet.

Db has him at 5’11” so yeah.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The former Soviet Eastern bloc was still a black box of mystery back then.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

So was scouting goalies apparently

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

The 1990 Hockey News draft issue (Bob McKenzie was still their draft guru back then) had Trevor Kidd as the 5th best prospect after Nedved, Ricchi, Primeau and Nolan (not necessarily in that order)

So players #4-6 on this list would all end up as Flames. I guess you could say Nolan and Jagr were slightly post-apex by the time they got to the Saddledome lol. But at least we got Kidd in his prime!

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Db has him at 5’11” so yeah.

Db hasn't changed since he was 17, capfriendly try's and often gets training camp medicals, they have him listed at 6'0

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I never agreed with the Nedved hype. I think he was overrated due to his defection.

You have a very good memory. I barely remember his defection.

Do you recall if the Canuck fans at the time liked the pick?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk