|
|
Post by ethan on Sept 25, 2004 17:12:52 GMT -5
I noticed that Kyle got an assist in his first game of the year last night... Just wondering what people here think his point total this year will be?
I think that he'll be in the 85-95 point range, barring injuries of course....
For fun, I'm going to go with 94 points, to be exact.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 26, 2004 1:12:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 26, 2004 8:44:57 GMT -5
Chip-chip-chura!!!
75-85 points and a manly style of play in a boys' league.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 26, 2004 8:49:27 GMT -5
If he gets over 65 points, I will be very happy. My biggest concern with Chipchura was his lack of offensive production in the WHL. As allegedly one of the best players in the WHL, bigger, stronger, and more physically talented than most others, one would have thought he would have been better than just 5th in scoring, on his team. Even a defenseman had more points than he did (albeit in 8 more games). If he can't score in Junior, chances are he isn't going to score in the NHL...
So if finds some offensive talent, as everyone says he has, I will be happy. If he gets over 85-90 points, I will be ecstatic...
Having said that, I'll go with 65-75.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on Sept 26, 2004 9:48:04 GMT -5
If he gets over 65 points, I will be very happy. My biggest concern with Chipchura was his lack of offensive production in the WHL. As allegedly one of the best players in the WHL, bigger, stronger, and more physically talented than most others, one would have thought he would have been better than just 5th in scoring, on his team. Even a defenseman had more points than he did (albeit in 8 more games). If he can't score in Junior, chances are he isn't going to score in the NHL... So if finds some offensive talent, as everyone says he has, I will be happy. If he gets over 85-90 points, I will be ecstatic... Having said that, I'll go with 65-75. In all fairness, 3 of the 4 players who scored more points than Chipchura in Price Albert are 83 born players (Chipchura was born in 86). I would like to see Chipchura score at a PPG clip or slightly higher this season. So far, so good... |
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Sept 27, 2004 2:17:02 GMT -5
IIRC, he had a groin injury which bothered him for most of the second half of the season. Kyle himself said he couldn't play to his full potential and it influenced his productivity.
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 27, 2004 6:07:04 GMT -5
IIRC, he had a groin injury which bothered him for most of the second half of the season. Kyle himself said he couldn't play to his full potential and it influenced his productivity. R. C'est correct. It caused him to drop from first to fourth place in the final CSS ranking. However, that kind of moxie was bound to register favourably with a GM who once played in the playoffs with two separated shoulders. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 27, 2004 13:21:45 GMT -5
If he gets over 65 points, I will be very happy. My biggest concern with Chipchura was his lack of offensive production in the WHL. As allegedly one of the best players in the WHL, bigger, stronger, and more physically talented than most others, one would have thought he would have been better than just 5th in scoring, on his team. Even a defenseman had more points than he did (albeit in 8 more games). If he can't score in Junior, chances are he isn't going to score in the NHL... So if finds some offensive talent, as everyone says he has, I will be happy. If he gets over 85-90 points, I will be ecstatic... Having said that, I'll go with 65-75. I think Kyle will find his scoring touch. He's no Corey Locke, but he plays a tough hard hitting two way game and will use his maturity to post 90+ pts. His style of play may cause him to miss a few games with injury, but by now he should be causing more injuries to others than to himself. Although I personally would have drafted Shremp, I now really like the Chipchura pick and think he will be a solid Gainey style player for years to come. Gainey was a better scorer in Jr's than in his NHL career, but the Russians considered him the best player in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by sergejean on Sept 27, 2004 18:11:43 GMT -5
It's hard to tell how many points Chipchura will get... How many games do they play in the WHL? 72 or so? How many games will he miss because of the World Championship?
I kind of feel secure with Chipchura... I only saw him twice (at the rookie tournement in Pierrefonds) but he really impressed me considering he played against older opponents. IMHO, I think he could have challenged for a spot with the Bulldogs... Wasn't Bonk 19 years old when he played in what was then called the International league or something?
Anyway, I think his offensive upside is still untapped and that he will be a very efficient two way centre at some point in his career... will rise to a level that we don't suspect just now... time will tell but I don't think we will be disapointed...
This year, he will average a point of game... there is no doubt in my mind... I would go for a season of 75 points+ if he plays 65 games...
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 28, 2004 11:16:00 GMT -5
Kyle was a star whose stock dropped due to a nagging injury. More was expected of him and he was projected as a top 5 pick until he had trouble scoring and sank to 18.
Free from injury he may have a career Jr. year leading his team with lots of ice time and scoring opportunity.
He works hard and gives the proverbial 110%. We were lucky to get him and after this year his stock will soar.
|
|
|
|
Post by razor on Sept 28, 2004 17:28:07 GMT -5
I will be at the game Pat's - Raiders game Wednesday night here in Regina. I'll try and watch for him and let you guy's know how he played. I'll be watching from the company box, so my comments may be tainted by the home town fans I'll be watching with as well as the beer goggles I'll be wearing.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 29, 2004 21:29:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by razor on Sept 30, 2004 9:21:18 GMT -5
As mentioned by Seventeen, 3-1 for the hometown Pats. Not a very intense game as the ref was brutal, he would not let them play at all. I'm sure things would have picked up had there been a scout or two in the crowd.
Anyway, on to Chipchura - I thought he was a decent skater with good balance/strength on his skates, but with only average speed. He was quite good in the faceoff circle, and worked well with the puck along the boards. His assist came on a power play by digging it out from beside the net, feeding the d-man at the top of the circle who made a cross ice pass for a shot into the empty net. He definately had lots of ice time playing both the power play and penalty kill.
On to what I didn't like -
He wanted to be the one carrying the puck into the zone, but did not show the ability to beat the defense one on one and turned over the puck. While being stong along the boards, he was not particularly physical, I only saw a couple rub outs, no real hits from him. I can't comment on his shot because he only had one that I saw. The real rub was that he dove/embelished three times trying to draw a penalty. One of those was a "Ribeiro" style flop onto the ice, stick flying, and didn't miss the next shift.
Anyway, it was just one game, and only the 3rd game of the season at that. I was hoping that he would stand out, but he didn't. That maybe shouldn't be surpising as each team probably has 5-6 draft picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 30, 2004 11:02:51 GMT -5
Kyle was a star whose stock dropped due to a nagging injury. More was expected of him and he was projected as a top 5 pick until he had trouble scoring and sank to 18. Free from injury he may have a career Jr. year leading his team with lots of ice time and scoring opportunity. He works hard and gives the proverbial 110%. We were lucky to get him and after this year his stock will soar. The 2004 draft wasn't up to the 2003, and probably not up to the 2005 (which in turn might be combined with the 2006, making it even richer). Chipchura wouldn't be close to being considered a #5 (or perhaps even a #18, his rank in 2004) in either of those two drafts. So before we drool about the impact he will make when he dons the CH, think about all the other talented prospects who will be arriving before, with, and just after him. Everything is relative. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Sept 30, 2004 12:25:08 GMT -5
The 2004 draft wasn't up to the 2003, and probably not up to the 2005 (which in turn might be combined with the 2006, making it even richer). Chipchura wouldn't be close to being considered a #5 (or perhaps even a #18, his rank in 2004) in either of those two drafts. So before we drool about the impact he will make when he dons the CH, think about all the other talented prospects who will be arriving before, with, and just after him. Everything is relative. Nothing is guaranteed, neither the success of those other players or Chipchura's failure to be a starting centre for the Habs. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Sept 30, 2004 14:52:19 GMT -5
Nothing is guaranteed, neither the success of those other players or Chipchura's failure to be a starting centre for the Habs. Time will tell. I didn't mean to imply that he couldn't be a starting center for the Habs. I was pointing out that his #5 initial rating in 2004, which fell to #18 as a result of his hobbling injury, should be reinterpreted when Chipchura is compared with prospects from the 2003, 2005, and 2006 (or combined 2005-06) drafts as well as with his 2004 classmates. We should be seeing quite a few talented new centers around the league when play resumes, and it is optimistic to think that he would be one of the elite, although I don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. The fact that he isn't a really gifted scorer or playmaker shouldn't be glossed over just because he's a Hab property. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 1, 2004 23:16:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 4, 2004 0:12:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 4, 2004 14:53:55 GMT -5
I just noticed this thread, but I'll go with predicting 105 points this year. I think he'll break out very nicely; and hopefully it'll translate to a solid 50-60 point producer (two-way force) down the road for the Habs.
I enjoy being optimistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 4, 2004 22:04:40 GMT -5
If he stays healthy....6 points in 4 games equates to 108 points over a 72 game WHL season. And I think he's actually just getting warmed up. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 10, 2004 9:43:31 GMT -5
7 games, 4-6-10, +3, 3rd in WHL scoring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 11, 2004 19:34:11 GMT -5
I didn't mean to imply that he couldn't be a starting center for the Habs. I was pointing out that his #5 initial rating in 2004, which fell to #18 as a result of his hobbling injury, should be reinterpreted when Chipchura is compared with prospects from the 2003, 2005, and 2006 (or combined 2005-06) drafts as well as with his 2004 classmates. We should be seeing quite a few talented new centers around the league when play resumes, and it is optimistic to think that he would be one of the elite, although I don't dismiss the possibility out of hand. The fact that he isn't a really gifted scorer or playmaker shouldn't be glossed over just because he's a Hab property. Hmmm ..... Couldn't the same things be said about Danis and Higgins. Yet like Pavlov's dogs you drool at the mention of either player. We could end up with a great center or winger and a stellar goalie by the time hockey starts up or we could end up with 2-3 big flops..... as the youngsters say "coulda, woulda, shoulda don't mean #$%@" Right now is what matters, and right now Chipchura is the center of the future in Montreal. On what line? who knows? ...... but he has a better shot than Higgins. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 11, 2004 21:19:02 GMT -5
Hmmm ..... Couldn't the same things be said about Danis and Higgins. Yet like Pavlov's dogs you drool at the mention of either player. We could end up with a great center or winger and a stellar goalie by the time hockey starts up or we could end up with 2-3 big flops..... as the youngsters say "coulda, woulda, shoulda don't mean #$%@" Right now is what matters, and right now Chipchura is the center of the future in Montreal. On what line? who knows? ...... but he has a better shot than Higgins. I haven't seen Chipchura, so I shouldn't comment too liberally about him. Neither should you, for that matter. For starters, I don't know where you got the notion that he has a better shot than Higgins. That's contrary to what I've read, and have seen with my own eyes that Higgins shoots well. As for Higgins, I suggest you read Doug Jarvis's comments in the "jump" thread down below. I'm willing to accept Jarvis's favorable appraisal. Michaud has already been sent to the ECHL. It's evident even at this early stage that Danis will be the #1 goalie in Hamilton, ahead of Ellis. I would defer to you when it comes to engineering and computer science. On the other hand, unlike you I have studied Pavlov's experiments. It may astonish you to learn that his endpoint was not drooling. Obviously you don't know his methodology and are throwing out some vague pop interpretation of what it consisted of. On a couple of occasions I cautioned M. Beaux-Eaux not to get in over his head in the careless use of medical and scientific metaphors, and the same admonition applies to you. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 12, 2004 9:29:04 GMT -5
8 games, 4-7-11, +2, tied for 3rd in WHL scoring.
Prince Albert's record is 3-5. They have scored 21 goals (allowed 27). Chipchura has been involved in 52% of his team's offensive production. And is a plus on a minus team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 12, 2004 19:27:22 GMT -5
I haven't seen Chipchura, so I shouldn't comment too liberally about him. Neither should you, for that matter. For starters, I don't know where you got the notion that he has a better shot than Higgins. That's contrary to what I've read, and have seen with my own eyes that Higgins shoots well. As for Higgins, I suggest you read Doug Jarvis's comments in the "jump" thread down below. I'm willing to accept Jarvis's favorable appraisal. Michaud has already been sent to the ECHL. It's evident even at this early stage that Danis will be the #1 goalie in Hamilton, ahead of Ellis. I would defer to you when it comes to engineering and computer science. On the other hand, unlike you I have studied Pavlov's experiments. It may astonish you to learn that his endpoint was not drooling. Obviously you don't know his methodology and are throwing out some vague pop interpretation of what it consisted of. On a couple of occasions I cautioned M. Beaux-Eaux not to get in over his head in the careless use of medical and scientific metaphors, and the same admonition applies to you. It may astonish you to know that as a part of any engineering curriculum you are required to do various humanities courses. I studied 2 philosophy courses, 2 psychology courses, a linguistics course and a roman architecture course. So I am not totally in the dark when it comes to pscychological mumbo-jumbo. Pavlov was looking for a conditioned response in the dog. Every time he fed the dog he rang a bell. After a while he would just ring the bell and the dog would drool. The drooling was the conditioned response to the bell (anticipating food). That is the reader's digest condensed version without going surfing the net (of what I remember from university studies anyway). All I am saying is that you are quick to jump on Bozo about there may well be many new faces for Chipchura to compete against by the time hockey starts up. Well the same can be said for Higgins and Danis. If in 2006 the Habs draft the top rated goalie in junior (and Theo is still around) then Danis' job security is in jeopardy. I am just not going to ordain him after 2 AHL games. Higgins and Chipchura will eventually both be competing for the same third line job. (especially if the league cuts the number of players to be dressed). Gainey has said he wants the team bigger. Chipchura is bigger. He isn't as developed as Higgins is right now, but in 2006 they will both be the same. If it comes down between Chipchura and Higgins, IMO, size will win out. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 12, 2004 22:28:34 GMT -5
It may astonish you to know that as a part of any engineering curriculum you are required to do various humanities courses.  Course, you forget them once you start on those algorithms, right? I believe I read yesterday (a Jarvis quote maybe?) that Higgins is a 2nd line player. Seems reasonable to me. Good 2 way player with speed, definitely a 2nd liner. Of course he has to beat out that juggernaut, Dagenais. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Oct 13, 2004 1:23:34 GMT -5
The Raiders lost 5-1 to Kelowna tonight. No points for Kyle. It was PA's 4th game in 5 nights on the road. Typical WHL schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 13, 2004 14:28:39 GMT -5
It may astonish you to know that as a part of any engineering curriculum you are required to do various humanities courses. I studied 2 philosophy courses, 2 psychology courses, a linguistics course and a roman architecture course. So I am not totally in the dark when it comes to pscychological mumbo-jumbo. Pavlov was looking for a conditioned response in the dog. Every time he fed the dog he rang a bell. After a while he would just ring the bell and the dog would drool. The drooling was the conditioned response to the bell (anticipating food). That is the reader's digest condensed version without going surfing the net (of what I remember from university studies anyway). All I am saying is that you are quick to jump on Bozo about there may well be many new faces for Chipchura to compete against by the time hockey starts up. Well the same can be said for Higgins and Danis. If in 2006 the Habs draft the top rated goalie in junior (and Theo is still around) then Danis' job security is in jeopardy. I am just not going to ordain him after 2 AHL games. Higgins and Chipchura will eventually both be competing for the same third line job. (especially if the league cuts the number of players to be dressed). Gainey has said he wants the team bigger. Chipchura is bigger. He isn't as developed as Higgins is right now, but in 2006 they will both be the same. If it comes down between Chipchura and Higgins, IMO, size will win out. You're entitled to your opinion, and I hope both Chipchura and Higgins contribute to the Habs' success. I daresay they will not be competitors because Higgins is being used as a left wing and Chipchura as a center. Higgins would be competing with Dagenais and perhaps Perezhogin, although Perezhogin might be deployed on another of the top two lines. Of course you are being absurd when you say I drool over hockey players. I repeat, you have a simplified conception of Pavlov's experiments. Yes, he produced a conditioned response with repetition of the association between a bell or a tone (he didn't always use a bell) and the delivery of food. However, if he had stopped with eliciting drooling, he would never have won the Nobel prize with such a trivial demonstration. Dogs salivate for reasons other than food intake. (Certain breeds, such as bloodhounds, constantly drool.) Moreover, there are fluctuations in their spontaneous responses. Provided they are healthy, even well-fed dogs will salivate at the suggestion of food (the opening of a particular cabinet, the mention of a word they recognize, etc.). What Pavlov did was demonstrate the linkage between stimulus, salivation, the autonomic nervous system (specifically, the role of the vagus nerve), and the digestive process. He intubated the dogs and carefully measured their gastrointestinal secretions. That was a more significant endpoint than salivation because it reflected actual emptiness and hunger, not just liking for food. Here's a brief summary of Pavlov's accomplishments upon which his Nobel prize was based (note that salivation is only part of the last point in the list): Discovery of enterokinase, an enzyme in the duodenum that activates trypsin. Description of the neural control of the pancreas and pancreatic control as a response to different foods. Demonstration that chewing and swallowing alone would cause gastric secretion. Conclusion that the secretory nerve that controls the gastric glands is the vagus. Demonstration of variance in types and amounts of secretions of the stomach is a response to different foods. Observation that the mere sight of food stimulates salivary and gastric secretion. |
|
|
|
Post by blaise on Oct 13, 2004 14:36:46 GMT -5
It may astonish you to know that as a part of any engineering curriculum you are required to do various humanities courses. I studied 2 philosophy courses, 2 psychology courses, a linguistics course and a roman architecture course. So I am not totally in the dark when it comes to pscychological mumbo-jumbo. Pavlov was looking for a conditioned response in the dog. Every time he fed the dog he rang a bell. After a while he would just ring the bell and the dog would drool. The drooling was the conditioned response to the bell (anticipating food). That is the reader's digest condensed version without going surfing the net (of what I remember from university studies anyway). All I am saying is that you are quick to jump on Bozo about there may well be many new faces for Chipchura to compete against by the time hockey starts up. Well the same can be said for Higgins and Danis. If in 2006 the Habs draft the top rated goalie in junior (and Theo is still around) then Danis' job security is in jeopardy. I am just not going to ordain him after 2 AHL games. Higgins and Chipchura will eventually both be competing for the same third line job. (especially if the league cuts the number of players to be dressed). Gainey has said he wants the team bigger. Chipchura is bigger. He isn't as developed as Higgins is right now, but in 2006 they will both be the same. If it comes down between Chipchura and Higgins, IMO, size will win out. You're entitled to your opinion, and I hope both Chipchura and Higgins contribute to the Habs' success. I daresay they will not be competitors because Higgins is being used as a left wing and Chipchura as a center. Higgins would be competing with Dagenais and perhaps Perezhogin, although Perezhogin might be deployed on another of the top two lines. You are also assuming that before the Habs draft another highly talented goalie Danis will not have displaced Théodore. In the next few years Danis may well be competing with Théodore, not Huet. Of course you are being absurd when you say I drool over hockey players. I repeat, you have a simplified conception of Pavlov's experiments. Yes, he produced a conditioned response with repetition of the association between a bell or a tone (he didn't always use a bell) and the delivery of food. However, if he had stopped with eliciting drooling, he would never have won the Nobel prize with such a trivial demonstration. Dogs salivate for reasons other than food intake. (Certain breeds, such as bloodhounds, constantly drool.) Moreover, there are fluctuations in their spontaneous responses. Provided they are healthy, even well-fed dogs will salivate at the suggestion of food (the opening of a particular cabinet, the mention of a word they recognize, etc.). What Pavlov did was demonstrate the linkage between stimulus, salivation, the autonomic nervous system (specifically, the role of the vagus nerve), and the digestive process. He actually intubated the dogs to measure their gastrointestinal secretions. That was a more significant endpoint because it reflected actual emptiness and hunger, not just liking for food. Here's a brief summary of Pavlov's accomplishments upon which his Nobel prize were based (note that salivation is only part of the last point in the list): Discovery of enterokinase, an enzyme in the duodenum that activates trypsin. Description of the neural control of the pancreas and pancreatic control as a response to different foods. Demonstration that chewing and swallowing alone would cause gastric secretion. Conclusion that the secretory nerve that controls the gastric glands is the vagus. Demonstration of variance in types and amounts of secretions of the stomach is a response to different foods. Observation that the mere sight of food stimulates salivary and gastric secretion. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Oct 13, 2004 15:09:35 GMT -5
Observation that the mere sight of food stimulates...gastric secretion. A similar reaction to the one that I am having seeing the debate on this poor Chippy thread going to the dogs!! Go Chippy-Chippy-Bang-Bang!! J/K, I enjoy the banter on a slow news day. BTW, Alternate Captain Chip was held pointless in PA's 5-1 loss to Kelowna last night. It was PA's 4th game in 5 nights, and their third straight on the road. Likely a tired bunch. |
|
