I thought Hrudey is a horrible commentator too therefore he must have a vagina also. I think it is because they both are Flame homers and not what is between there legs but I could be wrong.
Hrudey's monotone voice reminds me of Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller - VANTEL
I know there are a lot of music heads in here, not sure if you've come across Song Exploder podcast before, but it's pretty great. It talks to the musicians about a song of theirs, they break down the stories around it and how it came to be. They're 20-30 minutes, so not too long either. Most of the bands/musicians are new bands (even more new/indie than my taste in music), but they have a couple classics on there like Fleetwood Mac and (posthumously) John Lennon:
I know some of you won't like hearing this, but too bad.
This team is constructed with 7 midget type players, Pouty, Nils, Garland, Motte, Highmore, Hunt and Hughes. The teams most nhl ready prospects, Lockwood, Rathbone and DiPietro are also midget sized players.( DiPietro, for his position)
The signings in Abbotsford this off-season, were loaded with 5'10" players and even the reserve list has its fair share of small players, including 5'7 140 lb, Artyom Manukiyan.
How can this team be so loaded with small players in the organization, when it has been so blatantly obvious, that you need size, in order to win consistently.
To have 3 or 4 smaller players is pretty much the norm, but trying to have a roster full just doesn't work, especially when you have some of your so called stars with a bit of size, like Boeser, who can not or will not play physical, or get involved involved in any way.
I am all for trading anyone of the midgets, but Brock must go as well. Time to stop this team from being one that is "fun to play against"
I know some of you won't like hearing this, but too bad.
This team is constructed with 7 midget type players, Pouty, Nils, Garland, Motte, Highmore, Hunt and Hughes. The teams most nhl ready prospects, Lockwood, Rathbone and DiPietro are also midget sized players.( DiPietro, for his position)
The signings in Abbotsford this off-season, were loaded with 5'10" players and even the reserve list has its fair share of small players, including 5'7 140 lb, Artyom Manukiyan.
How can this team be so loaded with small players in the organization, when it has been so blatantly obvious, that you need size, in order to win consistently.
To have 3 or 4 smaller players is pretty much the norm, but trying to have a roster full just doesn't work, especially when you have some of your so called stars with a bit of size, like Boeser, who can not or will not play physical, or get involved involved in any way.
I am all for trading anyone of the midgets, but Brock must go as well. Time to stop this team from being one that is "fun to play against" - Reubenkincade
It goes further than that, Jim Rutherford 5’8”, Bruce Boudreau 5’-9”. Maybe these guys don’t look so little to some.
I know some of you won't like hearing this, but too bad.
This team is constructed with 7 midget type players, Pouty, Nils, Garland, Motte, Highmore, Hunt and Hughes. The teams most nhl ready prospects, Lockwood, Rathbone and DiPietro are also midget sized players.( DiPietro, for his position)
The signings in Abbotsford this off-season, were loaded with 5'10" players and even the reserve list has its fair share of small players, including 5'7 140 lb, Artyom Manukiyan.
How can this team be so loaded with small players in the organization, when it has been so blatantly obvious, that you need size, in order to win consistently.
To have 3 or 4 smaller players is pretty much the norm, but trying to have a roster full just doesn't work, especially when you have some of your so called stars with a bit of size, like Boeser, who can not or will not play physical, or get involved involved in any way.
I am all for trading anyone of the midgets, but Brock must go as well. Time to stop this team from being one that is "fun to play against" - Reubenkincade
It's simple and I've explained this in the past. It comes down to drafting "the best player available" instead of need sometimes. If you don't waver from this strategy for years, you end up with a bunch of smaller/light offensive skilled players that fell in the draft. Too many. I used the term "it ends up defining you in the end".
The amount of people on here who constantly press for the best player available based on skill don't understand that sometimes the best player available should be based on need. Player X is best available because we are lacking size. Who cares if the small player you passed on goes on to score more goals than your selection.... there's a good chance he is on a team with a good mix of size and skill and would suffer on the midget team.
It's simple and I've explained this in the past. It comes down to drafting "the best player available" instead of need sometimes. If you don't waver from this strategy for years, you end up with a bunch of smaller/light offensive skilled players that fell in the draft. Too many. I used the term "it ends up defining you in the end".
The amount of people on here who constantly press for the best player available based on skill don't understand that sometimes the best player available should be based on need. Player X is best available because we are lacking size. Who cares if the small player you passed on goes on to score more goals than your selection.... there's a good chance he is on a team with a good mix of size and skill and would suffer on the midget team. - boonerbuck
To certain extents I agree. In the first round it should always be BPA. The difference in skill level in that round can be extreme. In the later rounds, ya, draft with more of an idea of building a team, but also pay attention if someone fell down your draft board, even if it's a position of strength at the moment.
If you end up with too many highly-skilled players, you can always trade them. How much more comfortable would be the team be to trade Boeser if they had a Newhook in the system?
As well, it's easier to trade for/sign size. Less easy to do that with skill.
It's simple and I've explained this in the past. It comes down to drafting "the best player available" instead of need sometimes. If you don't waver from this strategy for years, you end up with a bunch of smaller/light offensive skilled players that fell in the draft. Too many. I used the term "it ends up defining you in the end".
The amount of people on here who constantly press for the best player available based on skill don't understand that sometimes the best player available should be based on need. Player X is best available because we are lacking size. Who cares if the small player you passed on goes on to score more goals than your selection.... there's a good chance he is on a team with a good mix of size and skill and would suffer on the midget team. - boonerbuck
You don't know what you will need 2-5 years down the line. Drafting BPA is always the best model. Worst case scenario is that you can trade the player for those needs later. I'm sure Ehlers could be traded to fix every hole in the WPG bottom 6 a lot better than Virtanen can be used to improve ours.
I know some of you won't like hearing this, but too bad.
This team is constructed with 7 midget type players, Pouty, Nils, Garland, Motte, Highmore, Hunt and Hughes. The teams most nhl ready prospects, Lockwood, Rathbone and DiPietro are also midget sized players.( DiPietro, for his position)
The signings in Abbotsford this off-season, were loaded with 5'10" players and even the reserve list has its fair share of small players, including 5'7 140 lb, Artyom Manukiyan.
How can this team be so loaded with small players in the organization, when it has been so blatantly obvious, that you need size, in order to win consistently.
To have 3 or 4 smaller players is pretty much the norm, but trying to have a roster full just doesn't work, especially when you have some of your so called stars with a bit of size, like Boeser, who can not or will not play physical, or get involved involved in any way.
I am all for trading anyone of the midgets, but Brock must go as well. Time to stop this team from being one that is "fun to play against" - Reubenkincade
Benning was the worst GM in team history...so far.
You don't know what you will need 2-5 years down the line. Drafting BPA is always the best model. Worst case scenario is that you can trade the player for those needs later. I'm sure Ehlers could be traded to fix every hole in the WPG bottom 6 a lot better than Virtanen can be used to improve ours. - Retinalz
Draft small top 6/top 4 player in the 1st round. Develop small player 2-5 years. Small player struggles or underachieves. Trade small player. From a position of weakness. Get bottom 6 player player with size.
This happens all too often with small skilled players in the first round.
Point I was making before, BPA shouldn't be so analytically narrow minded. Look for the BPA that fits you needs sometimes. Just because you drafted a small/light 18yo thinking he is BPA doesn't mean in 5 years you will have a great trade piece. There is a reason they fall so often... they are a gamble more so than skill with size. Better teams have passed on our midgets. Yet these teams are expected to trade size with skill when the Canucks come calling.... nope.
It's simple and I've explained this in the past. It comes down to drafting "the best player available" instead of need sometimes. If you don't waver from this strategy for years, you end up with a bunch of smaller/light offensive skilled players that fell in the draft. Too many. I used the term "it ends up defining you in the end".
The amount of people on here who constantly press for the best player available based on skill don't understand that sometimes the best player available should be based on need. Player X is best available because we are lacking size. Who cares if the small player you passed on goes on to score more goals than your selection.... there's a good chance he is on a team with a good mix of size and skill and would suffer on the midget team. - boonerbuck
BPA & need can be argued in so many ways.
Teams rebuilding go BPA & teams closer to contending more so for need. Stockpiling assets also requires depth to be considered. In goal no matter what or all the talent in the world won’t be enough. Next up is building the D corp & if not good enough then don’t go far in the PO’s. Can build scoring & it can get regular season success but faces the PO challenges.
In the end well rounded has to be the design…aka the net out.
JR stated we have an elite goalie.
Hughes the start for the D.
At C it’s ok but not consistent imo.
No team uses wingers to carry them.
Using my thoughts Bo is fine as a 2C. Petey has to emerge as a true 1C. Lots rides on that. Miller has been that. The D is better than recent years but lacks top 4 RHD to round out better. On the wings we are ok to good but mostly are young & that brings inconsistencies. If the C’s don’t play great they suffer further. Not enough play drivers & definitely need more speed & size.
All that said it’s inevitable big changes have to & will happen. 1-2 steps back on appearance to go forward to be perennial PO’s.
Roster design needs bigger fast wingers to compliment lines. Scoring & meaner D.
Teams rebuilding go BPA & teams closer to contending more so for need. Stockpiling assets also requires depth to be considered. In goal no matter what or all the talent in the world won’t be enough. Next up is building the D corp & if not good enough then don’t go far in the PO’s. Can build scoring & it can get regular season success but faces the PO challenges.
In the end well rounded has to be the design…aka the net out.
JR stated we have an elite goalie.
Hughes the start for the D.
At C it’s ok but not consistent imo.
No team uses wingers to carry them.
Using my thoughts Bo is fine as a 2C. Petey has to emerge as a true 1C. Lots rides on that. Miller has been that. The D is better than recent years but lacks top 4 RHD to round out better. On the wings we are ok to good but mostly are young & that brings inconsistencies. If the C’s don’t play great they suffer further. Not enough play drivers & definitely need more speed & size.
All that said it’s inevitable big changes have to & will happen. 1-2 steps back on appearance to go forward to be perennial PO’s.
Roster design needs bigger fast wingers to compliment lines. Scoring & meaner D. - Nighthawk
I agree. That's why I think BPA isn't a cookie cutter philosophy.
Draft small top 6/top 4 player in the 1st round. Develop small player 2-5 years. Small player struggles or underachieves. Trade small player. From a position of weakness. Get bottom 6 player player with size.
This happens all too often with small skilled players in the first round.
Point I was making before, BPA shouldn't be so analytically narrow minded. Look for the BPA that fits you needs sometimes. Just because you drafted a small/light 18yo thinking he is BPA doesn't mean in 5 years you will have a great trade piece. There is a reason they fall so often... they are a gamble more so than skill with size. Better teams have passed on our midgets. Yet these teams are expected to trade size with skill when the Canucks come calling.... nope. - boonerbuck
This is so narrow/specific. I'm sure the teams in front of us were happy they passed on Hughes, or all the teams were glad they passed over DeBrincat. Good thing we have the excellent trade piece of Virtanen all these years later.
Sometimes small skilled players don't pan out, sometimes big skilled players don't pan out. It's a crap shoot either way, with very few guaranteed players. Best to choose the BPA that fits the team's scouts/GM definition of what "best" is.
I agree. That's why I think BPA isn't a cookie cutter philosophy. - boonerbuck
It’s a buzz word for many & unsubstantiated too often. Now if ppl state their own BPA then it opens up discussion. Using hearsay from pundits anyone can use & choose to suit narratives.
What I do agree with is those who say wait & pick D from round 2 & on. Not often do I like or agree with 1st round D. D doesn’t fall usually & can be considered a reach fir need when picked. Top 6 C & Top 4 RHD top priority need for any team & BPA is usually fulfilled.
