|
|
Post by clear observer on Apr 7, 2003 20:07:23 GMT -5
I not overly certain we will be addressing our "power forward" need at this draft. As I said earlier, any player we pick this year will in all likelihood be at least 2, if not 3 years away. Assuming there is a lock out, that would mean our "power forward" won't have his rookie year for another 4 years from now, and probably won't be an impact player for another 8-10 (which would make it his 4th to 6th year in the NHL, about right for a power forward - 26 to 28 years old). I don't know about you, but if we have to wait another decade to resolve this size-up-front issue... Said it before, say it again. Best player available. If that's Parise, or Vanek, or Phaneuf, or Suter, then so be it. We can always deal them later. Higgins wasn't rated a powerforward, and he seems to be doing all right, no? Last thing I want is to waste a pick drafting for size, because that is the perceived need. Where was Turner Stevenson picked anyways? As for defense, its not like we have all that much depth, in reality. We have "potential" depth, but Brian Savage has "potential" to score 30 goals. Show me the money, in other words. Aside from the big three, who do we have? Linhart? Shasby? Both had difficult years. Beauchemin? Bouillon? Nothing special. What happens if Hainsey doesn't turn it around? Or Markov goes back to Russia? Or Komisarek plateaus at the Stephane Quintal level? With Brisebois gone, Rivet his usual #4 self, and Souray recuperating in hospital, our alleged "defense depth" suddenly gets very thin. We have 2, and only 2, legitimate defense prospects. Hainsey and Komisarek. That's it. At forward, on the other hand, we have Hossa, Perezhoughin, Higgins, Plekanec, Ward, Ryder, Milroy and Balej. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that organizationally we are much weaker on the blueline than up front... My sentiments as well... If I'm Savard (and truly I'm not...no seriously, I'm not) and if he's available, I take Dion Phaneuf. Me likey likey. <--- see...would Savard type this...told ya!? CO |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 7, 2003 20:21:50 GMT -5
Said it before, say it again. Best player available. If that's Parise, or Vanek, or Phaneuf, or Suter, then so be it. We can always deal them later. Higgins wasn't rated a powerforward, and he seems to be doing all right, no? Last thing I want is to waste a pick drafting for size, because that is the perceived need. Where was Turner Stevenson picked anyways? As for defense, its not like we have all that much depth, in reality. We have "potential" depth, but Brian Savage has "potential" to score 30 goals. Show me the money, in other words. Aside from the big three, who do we have? Linhart? Shasby? Both had difficult years. Beauchemin? Bouillon? Nothing special. What happens if Hainsey doesn't turn it around? Or Markov goes back to Russia? Or Komisarek plateaus at the Stephane Quintal level? With Brisebois gone, Rivet his usual #4 self, and Souray recuperating in hospital, our alleged "defense depth" suddenly gets very thin. We have 2, and only 2, legitimate defense prospects. Hainsey and Komisarek. That's it. At forward, on the other hand, we have Hossa, Perezhoughin, Higgins, Plekanec, Ward, Ryder, Milroy and Balej. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that organizationally we are much weaker on the blueline than up front... Yeeeeeeeeeessh, stop bringing facts into this, draft time is supposed to be unbridled joy and carefree optimism, not actually thinking about what real life can be like !  In other words - I agree. BPA. |
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Apr 7, 2003 21:51:29 GMT -5
Yeeeeeeeeeessh, stop bringing facts into this, draft time is supposed to be unbridled joy and carefree optimism, not actually thinking about what real life can be like ! In other words - I agree. BPA. I don't disagree...if we have the choice between Brown/Bernier (power forward) or Coburn (BPA) i take the best player available for sure. The point i was trying to make was that many of the "potential" BPA at or around #10 should be powerforward "types", which makes it a good fit for the Habs. Anybody know much about Anthony Stewart? He looks like a monster of a center at 240 pounds, and from what i understand he's very much a work in progress. Still, his 32 goals in his draft year is the same number that Rick Nash had last season... |
|
|
|
Post by GoMtl on Apr 7, 2003 22:21:10 GMT -5
I don't disagree...if we have the choice between Brown/Bernier (power forward) or Coburn (BPA) i take the best player available for sure. The point i was trying to make was that many of the "potential" BPA at or around #10 should be powerforward "types", which makes it a good fit for the Habs. Anybody know much about Anthony Stewart? He looks like a monster of a center at 240 pounds, and from what i understand he's very much a work in progress. Still, his 32 goals in his draft year is the same number that Rick Nash had last season... Patty, i was thinking the same thing about Stewart, the guy is enormous, and he put up relatively good number this year, 70 points in 68 games for a hulking centre is not that shabby, but i'd try to trade up our 2nd rounder to a late first to get him, if he's worth it. The guy i want if Horton and Staal are completely out of the picture is Vanek (and Bernier, but if he's not the BPA then he's not worth getting), Vanek is likely to go a few spots higher than our pick, but he's said to have an enormous amount of talent, and seems like a guy Andre Savard would be highly interested in, and we saw what he did last year moving up a spot to get the guy he wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Habfaith on Apr 7, 2003 23:15:55 GMT -5
what about his speed habfaith?  He has decent wheels. I've seen him play against some pretty fast teams like Kootenay and Red Deer and he didn't look out of place. There is a lot of talk about him out west. I'm hoping we nab him. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 8, 2003 1:26:01 GMT -5
Bernier has the size and wheels. It's what we needed this year, but Bernier won't make the team for three years. I'd still take him and wait.
We've got Balej (speed kills) and Milroy (desire to win) coming up as well as Ward (big and scores goals), the wrong Hossa (still a good un) Ribeiro (soo much talent and magic with a breakthrough year possible as he improved every year) and maybe a surprise. We'll be ready in two year to make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Apr 8, 2003 1:45:06 GMT -5
I don't know about you, but if we have to wait another decade to resolve this size-up-front issue... That doesn't mean we should keep drafting midgets either... time to think ahead for a change, in 3-4 years a power-forward will still be much appreciated in Montreal... that's a given. That's over-simplifying the issue. If you have a small guy rated at 91 and and the power forward was a 79 on your chart stay with the small kid... but if according to your judgement he's a 91 and the power-forward is an 88, well then I go for the one who fits my needs. Just like teams like Florida who are set in goal without Luongo will not draft Fleury even if their scouts have him rated as the best prospect... teams DO draft to fit their needs more often that you think. For teams who don't have a particular need it's easier to just take whoever is next on their ranking list... those who have as glaring a need as the Habs should re-adjust if their ranking of both players aren't that far apart. As for dealing for our needs later, we all know that power-forwards come at a major premium if you plan on trading for one... and on the UFA front we ain't exactly reeling 'em in, so if we want quality power-forwards one day we better draft 'em. I rather AS targets a power forward he likes, then trades up for him if that's what it takes (as he did with Higgins last year)... or on the flip side if he likes someone who might be ranked a little lower trade down to get extra value that way. All I know is that if we draft another midget I'll give serious consideration to throwing myself out my 2nd floor window.  |
|
|
|
Post by JeffStryker on Apr 8, 2003 2:42:13 GMT -5
How about Corey Locke for 40th overall?
He is small, but dominated the OHL this year
66GP 63G 88A 151Pts
Apparently he's short 5-9... but I would take a chance on 151 points for a second rounder ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 3:03:50 GMT -5
Well I might be a little biased living in Guelph and all but dam I would have no problem what so ever if we got Brown. I've seen him play and he brings it and on most nights does it by himself. Not doing so well against the Rangers because they know if they shut down Brown they shut down the Storm. Not likley he'll be available but ya never know maybe a couple of d-men will go in the top 9 and open him up. He's already listed as 6'1" 203 and can pretty much expect another 10 lbs by the time he suits up in the NHL.  As long as we don't get Zack Praise(pronounced Par-eze) it just sounds a little to close to a city in France for me  |
|
|
|
Post by Habsolution on Apr 8, 2003 5:33:56 GMT -5
So we stop putting players we like in places we shouldn't here's McKenzie's list for the 03 draft. It's made of 10 GM's lists combined so it's pretty accurate
Top 25
1. Staal
2. Horton
3. Zherdev
4. Michalek
5. Fleury
6. Coburn
7. Vanek
8. Brown
9. Suter
10. Getzlaf
11. Pouliot
12. Phaneuf
13. Glazachev
14. Stuart
15. Parise
16. Kesler
17. O'Sullivan
18. Fritsche
19. Bernier
20. Nilsson
21. Tambellini
22. Seabrook
23. Fehr
24. Stewart
25. Carter
A guy like Coburn would be sweet. 6'5 .. righty ... but he is likely gonna be picked when our turn comes.
|
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 8, 2003 7:35:36 GMT -5
that list seems a little fishy ...
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 8, 2003 8:16:55 GMT -5
That doesn't mean we should keep drafting midgets either... time to think ahead for a change, in 3-4 years a power-forward will still be much appreciated in Montreal... that's a given. That's over-simplifying the issue. If you have a small guy rated at 91 and and the power forward was a 79 on your chart stay with the small kid... but if according to your judgement he's a 91 and the power-forward is an 88, well then I go for the one who fits my needs. Just like teams like Florida who are set in goal without Luongo will not draft Fleury even if their scouts have him rated as the best prospect... teams DO draft to fit their needs more often that you think. For teams who don't have a particular need it's easier to just take whoever is next on their ranking list... those who have as glaring a need as the Habs should re-adjust if their ranking of both players aren't that far apart. As for dealing for our needs later, we all know that power-forwards come at a major premium if you plan on trading for one... and on the UFA front we ain't exactly reeling 'em in, so if we want quality power-forwards one day we better draft 'em. I rather AS targets a power forward he likes, then trades up for him if that's what it takes (as he did with Higgins last year)... or on the flip side if he likes someone who might be ranked a little lower trade down to get extra value that way. All I know is that if we draft another midget I'll give serious consideration to throwing myself out my 2nd floor window. While I agree with the general sentiment, especially with the excellent Loungo/Fleury analogy, I disagree with your assessment of Montreal's needs. While its true we don't have much size in the organization, especially at center, I think our overall skill level, and our depth on the blueline, are much more important issues. At forward, in 3-5 years, we could, theoretically (ignoring changing plans, the lockout, injuries, holdouts and all those other things that conspire to screw up everything we write here), have a forward corps that includes Bulis, Zednik, Hossa, Ward, Perezhoughin, Higgins, Milroy and maybe a wildcard like Ryder or Ferland. While none of these guys are your classic power-forward types, none of them are described as being "soft" in the way we describe Audette, Perrault, Dackell, Ribeiro, Czerkawski or even Juneau. So concievably, we could have a "Detroit Red Wings type grit" or toughness throughout the lineup. I kind of like that. The blueline though, really worries me. Assuming that the Brisebois for Tverdovsky deal is long gone (I believe it is) and that Parise will now be dealt for less than ideal return (say a Patrick Traverse or draft pick type return), our blueline depth isn't all that great; we will have Markov, if we assume he doesn't go back to Russia. Then Rivet, who is a nice #4. Hainsey and Komisarek *should* round out numbers 2 and 3, but what if they don't? What if Hainsey really is a problem-child, David Wilkie's younger brother? What if Sheldon Souray never comes back, or never comes back as good as he was? (and lets face it, Souray was never an All Star). Suddenly we are left hoping a Linhart, or Beauchemin, or Shasby, or Archer steps it up. I don't know, that's kind of scary to me... I agree we need a power forward, and I won't be mad if we draft one. But I would also say we need more defensemen, and more skill up front as well. We have multiple needs, in other words. If a guy like Coburn falls to us (unlikely, but you get the point), or even if Fleury falls to us (even more unlikely) I would be all over them like that proverbial weight challenged person of differentiating gender reaching for that Cadbury product. We don't need to be picky at this point... |
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Apr 8, 2003 8:40:28 GMT -5
that list seems a little fishy ... I agree that the list is a bit different that what i had expected....Bernier, Parise and Nilsson so low...Pouliot so high. But my experience has been that Bob McKenzie's lists are usually far and away the most accurate ones out there...so i put alot of stock in "his" words, even if they differ from most of what we've been hearing for the past few months. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 8, 2003 8:41:53 GMT -5
I agree that the list is a bit different that what i had expected....Bernier, Parise and Nilsson so low...Pouliot so high. But my experience has been that Bob McKenzie's lists are usually far and away the most accurate ones out there...so i put alot of stock in "his" words, even if they differ from most of what we've been hearing for the past few months. Yup I remember in 2001 when he put Jens Karllson in his top 10 and seemed pretty convinced he would go in the top 10(and he went 18th overall) |
|
|
|
Post by Bandit on Apr 8, 2003 8:50:36 GMT -5
I thought I'd throw inmy 2 cents for what it's worth. All this talk about not taking a PF and going with a d-man is understandable. But my take is that we DO have more than 1 pick in the draft. What's wrong with taking a PF (like Brown, Bernier or Vanek) and taking a guy like Shaun Belle in the 2nd. If this is such a deep draft we might end up with something like Dallas got with their first pick last year in Martin Vagner. Just a thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 8, 2003 8:50:57 GMT -5
The blueline though, really worries me. Assuming that the Brisebois for Tverdovsky deal is long gone (I believe it is) and that Parise will now be dealt for less than ideal return (say a Patrick Traverse or draft pick type return), our blueline depth isn't all that great; we will have Markov, if we assume he doesn't go back to Russia. Then Rivet, who is a nice #4. Hainsey and Komisarek *should* round out numbers 2 and 3, but what if they don't? What if Hainsey really is a problem-child, David Wilkie's younger brother? What if Sheldon Souray never comes back, or never comes back as good as he was? (and lets face it, Souray was never an All Star). Suddenly we are left hoping a Linhart, or Beauchemin, or Shasby, or Archer steps it up. I don't know, that's kind of scary to me.... I think blueline depth can be acquired at a reasonable price, especially if you're talking about 4-5-6 dmen to round out a group. At least one, probably two of Markov-Hainsey-Komisarek is going to turn out to be a legitimate stud, so the need we're talking about Stephane Quintal/Karl Dykhuis type depth. We can always draft more dmen in the later rounds, too. That's not to say we don't draft a defenseman in the 1st round if he is the BPA, but I agree GMan that unless there is a clear difference in talent level, I would rather address our forward situation, and again assuming no huge difference, I would like to see someone with size. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 9:13:57 GMT -5
I agree we need a power forward, and I won't be mad if we draft one. But I would also say we need more defensemen, and more skill up front as well. We have multiple needs, in other words. Could very well end up with a d-man if AS continues to take the best player available. That wouldn't bother me one bit either as the Devils have been winning with great to good d-men and no real power forwards for a long time....oh and something called team play whatever in gods name that is |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 8, 2003 9:37:59 GMT -5
and no real power forwards for a long time....oh and something called team play whatever in gods name that is I dunno about that no power forward comment...Guerin and Lemieux 1995.... Arnott(he played like one in that series) in 2000 |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 10:26:25 GMT -5
I dunno about that no power forward comment...Guerin and Lemieux 1995.... Arnott(he played like one in that series) in 2000 Guerin was only a shadow of what he is now. Lemieux has never been a PF just a bigger version of Dino Ciccarelli with out as good of hands. Arnott was a center for the Devils in 2000 I think. A power forward to me has always been the big hulking winger that bruises his way down the wings and in the corners ala the mother of all PF's Cam Neely. I've never considered big centers to be power forwards but that's just me |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 8, 2003 11:09:28 GMT -5
Guerin was only a shadow of what he is now. Lemieux has never been a PF just a bigger version of Dino Ciccarelli with out as good of hands. Arnott was a center for the Devils in 2000 I think. A power forward to me has always been the big hulking winger that bruises his way down the wings and in the corners ala the mother of all PF's Cam Neely. I've never considered big centers to be power forwards but that's just me Ken Hodge, Cashman, John Ferguson, Yvon Lambert, Clark Gilles, Bertuzzi. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 11:22:10 GMT -5
Ken Hodge, Cashman, John Ferguson, Yvon Lambert, Clark Gilles, Bertuzzi. So just what are ya trying to say HFinLA? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 8, 2003 12:21:21 GMT -5
A power forward to me has always been the big hulking winger that bruises his way down the wings and in the corners ala the mother of all PF's Cam Neely. I've never considered big centers to be power forwards but that's just me ok, so basically in your mind Bertuzzi is a power forward but Joe Thornton isn't one ? |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 12:25:47 GMT -5
ok, so basically in your mind Bertuzzi is a power forward but Joe Thornton isn't one ? Yep in the same way I don't consider Mario a PF  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinna on Apr 8, 2003 15:00:09 GMT -5
If there is any posibility of getting Brayden Coburn whatsoever, we have to jump at it. This kid is gonna be great. He is future captain material for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Apr 8, 2003 15:04:51 GMT -5
If there is any posibility of getting Brayden Coburn whatsoever, we have to jump at it. This kid is gonna be great. He is future captain material for sure. Doubtfull he's the highest ranked D-man and they tend to go even higher than their rankings say. I wouldn't be surprised if him and Suter go in the top 6 or 7. |
|
|
|
Post by MPLABBE on Apr 8, 2003 15:13:20 GMT -5
watch for the Thrashers to either trade up to get Coburn or pick him with their pick, they are dying on defence...
|
|
|
|
Post by jl.roberts on Apr 8, 2003 15:33:15 GMT -5
We all know Savard is high on College Kids (Tomas Vanek!) , simply because they're more ready to make the jump, so, as many of you have said I would not be surprised if Brother Andre identifies his man and does whatever he can to grab him.
Then again, we have shown that we also like Americans ( Higgins, Hainsey, Komi), so Dustin Brown is definitely a legit possibility, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disp on Apr 8, 2003 17:47:32 GMT -5
An interesting note on Coburn. The newspaper here had a poll of whl coaches/gm's/etc listing the top ten or so guys in various categories. Such as, best dman, best draft eligible player, best prospect, best hitter, most pro ready, etc. I was surprised to not see Coburn on any of the lists. Perhaps some people are not that high on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 8, 2003 20:20:37 GMT -5
Bulis, Zednik, Hossa, Ward, Perezhoughin, Higgins, Milroy and maybe a wildcard like Ryder or Ferland. Read that list a few times and tell me that it doesn't scare the heck out of you to think our offensive core in 3-4 years could be...that. **shiver** Komisarek, Markov and Hainsey are the making of a real solid blue line. HABS desperatly need a special offensive player and this year is the time to get it. If we pick yet another D, I am gonna be sick... |
|
|
|
Post by GMan77 on Apr 9, 2003 2:03:22 GMT -5
So we stop putting players we like in places we shouldn't here's McKenzie's list for the 03 draft. It's made of 10 GM's lists combined so it's pretty accurate Top 25 1. Staal 2. Horton 3. Zherdev 4. Michalek 5. Fleury 6. Coburn 7. Vanek 8. Brown 9. Suter 10. Getzlaf 11. Pouliot 12. Phaneuf 13. Glazachev 14. Stuart 15. Parise 16. Kesler 17. O'Sullivan 18. Fritsche 19. Bernier 20. Nilsson 21. Tambellini 22. Seabrook 23. Fehr 24. Stewart 25. Carter A guy like Coburn would be sweet. 6'5 .. righty ... but he is likely gonna be picked when our turn comes. Maybe you guys being surprised at the ranking has to do with the fact the title of this list is TSN TOP 25 - MID-SEASON NHL DRAFT RANKINGS, hence the ranking doesn't seem to be up to date... there were risers like Bernier later in the season, as well as some who have dropped. But us being at 10, there's still a good chance Bernier won't have moved up more than 9 spots. www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature.asp?fid=6306 |
|
