Habs
We should have drafted Michkov
- Feb 28, 2002
- 21,280
- 14,834
Classic! This post is a prime example of why you need to wait five years before properly judging a draft.
Another classic overreaction by FOTS.
Classic! This post is a prime example of why you need to wait five years before properly judging a draft.
Classic! This post is a prime example of why you need to wait five years before properly judging a draft.
This is why I don't post about young boys
Because others will do that for me as they did and you're doing. So you bring the bad, I bring the good. Unless the only way to judge somebody's picks is to only bring the bad.....But hey, we have better years than others....even as fans. If pros head scouts and whole scouting department kind have bad years based on how a crapshoot it was....pretty sure we, as fans, also can have that luxury.
Besides.....Veilleux, Moller, Fortier and Tyrell...well Tyrell went 47, Veilleux 51 and Moller 52. So pro scouts were also underwhelmed there....
Don't worry about Grant, he's still waiting for Douglas Murray to prove his worth in the playoffs.
I have no problems with Grant whatsoever. I really think it's important to have a real scout opinion on these boards. Really valuable as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't mean that I will always agree with him and I'm pretty sure he knows that by now...
But no matter how he might sound like sometimes or might appear to some, I will always believe that his presence in here is extremely important. I totally understand where he's coming from. But he knows he can't be exempt from being responding to and I'm sure he doesn't mind it either.
I don't mind him either and think he's an important member of the community, but poking fun at peoples opinions years after the fact is a little petty. He's the pro here, he should be a bit bigger than that imo, as witnessed with his thoughts on Douglas Murray, no one is right all of the time.
You just did. But only to say you dont post about them .This is why I don't post about young boys
But then it's fine. It gives me a chance to respond. I have my best and worst moments as a wannabe armchair scout. And I'm fine with it. Loves it when I see Antoine Bibeau getting now the recognition I had in his draft year. But I laugh at myself when I see Jared Spurgeon play in the NHL when I always thought that this guy MIGHT be good enough....for the AHL. Win some, lose some.....just like the pros. I'd love to be paid for it though.....Will always be envious of those guys. Will always think that with the proper training and the proper "contacts", I would have done a fine job. Since I can't, I'm doing it here.
Agreed, I just don't see the need to rub salt in the wounds, everyone is doing this for fun, aside from Grant. The only problem I have is when the armchair scouts go crazy over guys they've never seen or bash a player they've never seen. Sometimes if you know so little, it's better to swallow your ride/ego and defer to the experts.
I bet there's some I can't believe I said these things back then seeing how these players turned out now. Page 6, post #127 was my favorite though.
It shouldn't stop us from playing the game as it happens also. Why? 'Cause when we look great at the time, we look great 5 years from it. And when we look bad, well it permits people to get those threads from that period and have their fun.
Everybody do understand, or so I hope, that there are reactions as the draft happens. There are analysis immediately after the draft. And there are analysis 4 or 5 years from it. 3 different things. Still believe we can do all 3.
Agree with this. We have video footage of the Blue Jackets staff (including a few Pro scouts, I imagine) doing backflips when the habs took price. Quite the overreaction there, wouldn't you say
And those guys don't have the excuse that they're 'professional wannabe' scouts like you, or even an amateur wannabe scout like me
Curious, WS, would you take a job scouting if given the opportunity?
I identified Subban very early on as a black guy. I stand by that assessment.
For me this Habs draft picks so far can be summed up easilly.
I don't know them.
Sure there's those reports, but those things ain't my opinion.
I don't know 'em. Can't talk about them. I'm happy we didn't take Esposito or Cherepanov, I'm dissapointed we didn't pick Eller, and that the Habs didn't make a move to show some life.
That's it.
If some team thinks they can rein in his freelancing ways – or maybe convert him into a forward – then the offensive potential is there. Otherwise, take note – there is absolutely no “D” in P.K. Subban’s name or game."
A D without any D. Great lol
So we just drafted a softy d-man who can't play defense ?
There must be something good in this kid.
for once the Habs could address an overdue problem, without giving nothing in return, and draft a big right handed centerman in Veilleux and they go for Subban.
nothing against Subban, but that's not the Habs' most pressing need
way to go Trevor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
for once the Habs could address an overdue problem, without giving nothing in return, and draft a big right handed centerman in Veilleux and they go for Subban.
nothing against Subban, but that's not the Habs' most pressing need
way to go Trevor
Lol there really are some great comments about that Subban pick
PK Subban ??
2006-07: After a passable rookie season with the Bulls wherein he accounted for 12 points, he exploded this year posting totals of 15 goals and 41 assists in 68 games.
The problem is, for a kid with the initials P.K., he shows no inclination for playing any sort of defensive role. In many ways, he’s a defenseman in name only, regularly sacrificing good positioning to make a foray into the offensive end.
-----
I don't like this, especially with Cohen on the board.
LOL, I think the younger version of me had a much deeper vocabulary.
Inclination? foray?
also.. who the hell is cohen? lol
I believe you were quoting a scouting report.
that makes more sense.. holy **** we are old now.