If you were the Blackhawks...

[Reilly*]

while i agree on the potential
turris is 5'11 and about 170some lbs what is it about his size you covet ?

D'oh, It's VanRiemsdyk that is 6'3. I thought that was Turris' height. I missread the draft preview magazine.

I guess I'd take Kane then.

 

[V13]

The Hawks should pick Kane , his offensive upside is higher than Turris imho.

The Flyers will pick Turris

 

[Zim]

nope 5'11 everywhere i seen listed, some are generous in listing him at 6' but the weight 165-170lbs isnt such an issue he will put on muscle over the next couple years (vinny lecavlier started in the nhl at 180lbs 6'4, and currently is 220)
not saying turris size is a knock on him. but dont understand why people say the like his size, his size isnt what is going to get him drafted or passed on

ISS have him at 6'1.

 

[bullsville]

I personally would pick Turris but his scoring ability scare me.I think he is more a playmaker than a sniper,and we need a sniper badly

 

[Habsfan18]

Turris. I just think he'll become something great.

 

[s7ark]

I personally think Turris could eventually be better (after 2-3 years of college and maybe 1-2 of pro) then Kane, but if I were the Hawks, and looking for immediate or semi-immediate goal scoring, I'd take Kane without looking back.

Since the board seems to be split on who will end up better (Kane/Turris), if I were the Hawks, I'd go for the help that comes sooner rather then have to wait 4 years for Turris to be an impact NHLer.

 

[Dicky Dangles]

nope 5'11 everywhere i seen listed, some are generous in listing him at 6' but the weight 165-170lbs isnt such an issue he will put on muscle over the next couple years (vinny lecavlier started in the nhl at 180lbs 6'4, and currently is 220)
not saying turris size is a knock on him. but dont understand why people say the like his size, his size isnt what is going to get him drafted or passed on

I love it when people are so sure of themselves, but are dead wrong. Where have you seen him listed at 5'11"? I've seen him listed at 6'-6'1" everywhere, not a single listing of 5'11".

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=6054&hubname=nhl

http://mckeenshockey.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Sport=4&pr_key=51281

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=99822

http://www.bchl.bc.ca/leagues/roste...13&leagueID=2393&teamID=92101&playerID=152823

...and so on...

 

[PaulKariya]

I think that both are awesome players that have a lot of upside. As many people have pointed out Kane seems like he could be a defensive liability, but there is nothing coaching can't fix. I think that at Wing he can afford to have defensive problems because he is a going to be a rookie and Wings don't have that much responsibilty defensive-wise. Another doubt is that he is too small but at 5'10 160 he is similar weight-wise to Turris who is 170, I think both players are going to add bulk without losing any quickness. I think both are great players and I hope they both have good futures, but in my opinion Kane's skill is too hard to pass up.

 

[Tb0ne]

Turris. He and Toews seem like the perfect duo to help lead Chicago back into the playoffs (and beyond).

 

[Zim]

I think that both are awesome players that have a lot of upside. As many people have pointed out Kane seems like he could be a defensive liability, but there is nothing coaching can't fix. I think that at Wing he can afford to have defensive problems because he is a going to be a rookie and Wings don't have that much responsibilty defensive-wise. Another doubt is that he is too small but at 5'10 160 he is similar weight-wise to Turris who is 170, I think both players are going to add bulk without losing any quickness. I think both are great players and I hope they both have good futures, but in my opinion Kane's skill is too hard to pass up.

I haven't seen updated numbers for Turris but at WJC evaluation camp Kane weighed in at 166. He could be 170 by the time the new season starts and that would be a much more respectable weight.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.

 

[nuckfan insk]

I love it when people are so sure of themselves, but are dead wrong. Where have you seen him listed at 5'11"? I've seen him listed at 6'-6'1" everywhere, not a single listing of 5'11".

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=6054&hubname=nhl

http://mckeenshockey.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?Sport=4&pr_key=51281

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=99822

http://www.bchl.bc.ca/leagues/roste...13&leagueID=2393&teamID=92101&playerID=152823

...and so on...

and martin st louis is listed as 5'9... when in fact he is about 2 inches shorter. now turris can still add an inch or too but unless he grew in the last few months and these sites updated....
dont get me wrong turris is who i'd pick at number 1... and that im sure of

 

[nuckfan insk]

Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.

well dany heatly played his 17 year old season in tier 2 before going to wisconson. he entered the draft a year later after 1 college season. seemed to work out pretty good for him. also travis zajac was a first rounder out of tier 2

 

[Zim]

well dany heatly played his 17 year old season in tier 2 before going to wisconson. he entered the draft a year later after 1 college season. seemed to work out pretty good for him. also travis zajac was a first rounder out of tier 2

Yes but the difference with Heatley is that he had a year of college under his belt so people weren't so worried that his numbers had been created by playing against inferior competition. If Turris was already in college there would be less of a risk but he didn't exactly set the world alight at the u-18 tournament infact JVR outscored him by 7 points. I agree with Zajac but there is a big difference is being a pick in the 1st round and being a 1st overall pick. Kane dominated at the WJC's against top quality opposition and has obviously dominated in the OHL. Even with Kane's size i think he is a safer pick than Turris.

 

[WOTR]

I have not seen anything but video of these guys, so ultimately I can't tell what I think from the best place, seeing them play on the ice over numerous games.

Only then can you see how they respond to different situations on the ice, not just with the puck, but how they seek the puck, find position for a pass - everything.

But taking the secondary information, I would have to say Kanes performance at the WJCs as one of the younger players is a big plus. It alleviates some concerns that his circumstances in London attributed to his offensive abilities, inwhich case, this kid has talent.

 

[AmishRenegade]

Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.

Warren Moon?

 

[Bryzga lol*]

Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.

Nice logic...to bad all the scouts failed to see that


I can't wait for Turris to start playing for Wisconsin and prove he's one of the top players in the 2007 draft.

 

[hawksfan50]

Turris is going to be a huge bust. I can't believe how overrated this guy is. I mean he played in tier 2 junior hockey. That's like nfl teams drafting from the CFL.

Why do we constantlky get such idiotic putdown of Tier 2 just because some guys choose to play there as 17 yr olds to keep their NCAA decision on track?


AGAIN--the WHL had MARK SANTORELLI of CHILLIWACK score 82 points as a rookie COMING FROM BURNABY OF THE BCHL --yes TURRIS's team--which wasonly 11 points less than the certain first round to be ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring champ...
SANTORELLI played the year prior in BUrnab y as a 17 yr old where he had a 0.9PPG -TURRIS on that same team as a 16 yr old was a 1.3PPG--but then TURRIS as a 17 yr old this year was a 2.3PPG ==meaning that at the same age he is 1.4 times better than Santorelli was ...if you extrapolate to what SANTORELLI did as an 1q8 yr old in the WHL this year take his 82 pts and add anothe 1.4x82 to that (THIS IS WITHOUT TURRSS EVEN IMPROVING from 17 to 18)..this means TURRIS could score
197 pts in the wHL if he played there this yras an 18 yr old! Even more if we factor some improvement for age! Santorelli improved from 17 to 18 from 0.9PPG in the BCHL to 1.1388PPG in the WHL ...if we take only that same improvement factor and add it to the extrapolated 197 pts for Turris if he played in the WHL this year we get another .2388 x 197 =47 more points..so 197+47 = 244 points ...

This would be 244-145 =99 MORE points projected for TURRIS than KANE got playing on a stacked OHL team in London...

I amsick of thes idiots who refuse to understand that SANTORELLI also was a BCHL'er who did very well in the WHL --no reason to believe TURRIS also would not tear up the WHL since he was WAY WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI at the same comparable age,so he should do WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI did in his WHL rookie year if given the same chance...

LOGICAL REASONING not insipid stupid putdowns of the WHL is so superier to Tier II ...it just doesn't matter--it is what individual hockey players do on the ice and there is ZERO reason put TURRIS down for what SANTORELLI prove a BCHL grad could do in the WHL --do VERY WELL --but we know TURRIS has even more talent than SANTORELLI,so why not ... EVEN IF you halved the 244pt "projection" (I do not se why,but if you still insisted on doing that because of some pre-concieved notion that that number was impossible in the defenseively tough WHL--then OK--
you must then discount KANE's 145 pts because of course the defensively tough
WHL is superior to the OHL --look how easily the 2 WHL mEM cUP teams beat on Plymouth which itsel handled KANE's loaded LONDON offen sive crew easily...doesn't all this indicate vast WHL superiority? Well then pretend Kane had to play in the WHL--cut his 145 pts down by at least 25..then deduct another amount (20? 40? --ok lets settle on 30 less points due to not having his prolific London linemates to play with on some "average " wHL team like Chilliwack) --so lets deduct 55 points from Kane;'s 145... he'd end up with 90 points= 3 less than ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring CHAMP! BUT TURRIS projects to 122 points EVEN WITH A GENEROUS 50% reduction in his EXTRAPOLATION based on SANTORELLI (I still don't have a reason for any reduction of the extrapolation except to pacify the incedulous shouts of the KANE
supporters in this argument and I wanted to be EXTREMELY graceful to them).


My point in all this: justshut up about putting down Turris because he only plays in the BCHL ..Santorelli showed that is a white elephant argument AND the counter is: KANE only plays in the inferior OHL where you can run up scores with 11 goal games
with putrid teams like Erie was this season.. ONe can make all kinds of arguments but REAL SCOUTS do not put down Turris just because he played in the BCHL...
IF Central Scouting has him as the #1 NA it is because their staff ranked him that way..so to let some amateur poster on these boards put CSS down to for their professional opinion on this just to satisfy some DISBELIEF that a mere BCHL'er could be that good is to allow hogwash reasoniong. The FACTS ARE THE FACTS.. IF we did not have the Santorelli performance as a linking comparison none of my arguments on behalf of Turris could stand scrutiny..BUT we do have the Santorelli numbers,so we can use them to project for Turris in thishypothetical..


BOTTOM LINE: if you support KANE a clear #1 over TURRIS that is one thing--BUT DO NOI USE THE BCHL argument..it doesn't stand upto muster given SANTORELLI.
Logic is on my side.

 

[elvisisalive]

Sorry 50, but another useless 1,000 word rant about the same thing over and over again does not make you right.Why would anybody pick a player scoring 120 points playing tier 2 over a player scoring 140 points in the OHL. Since you are such a stats freak to try and hide your flawed reasoning, how do you reconcile that? Once again I state that Turris had one opportunity against the best players his age, and he came up well short. He scored 1 point against every team not called Latvia, and that was only because Esposito set him up with a gimmie. As the level of competition increased and the importance of the games became higher, Esposito came to the forefront, getting better every game, while little skinny Turris disapeared. There is no doubt in my mind that if Esposito were to play to his full potential, he beats Turris hands down. I can't comment on Kane as I've only seen him at the world juniors (where he played very well, distanced himself from Gagner by quite a margin), while I've scouted Esposito, and studied Turris on tape all season long. Don't forget that most all the knocks on Esposito thru the year turned out to be false, and most all of the scouting services have moved him back up in their most recent lists. IMO he will be the steal of the draft, and if he comes in with the right work ethic has a very good chance of making the NHL next year, something Turris has 0 chance of making over the next 2 years. 5 years from now 50, I'll be gladly pulling an "I told you so" on this one.

 

[camperjr]

take kane cause the hawks need someone to put with kane and tallon dosnt have another 2-3 years to wait for turris to be ready

Has Kane been compared to a guy like JOE SAKIC! Turris all the way!!!



Leafs Rule

 

[Zim]

Has Kane been compared to a guy like JOE SAKIC! Turris all the way!!!



Leafs Rule

Just because he's been compared does not mean he's going to be anywhere near as good as Sakic. Unless you noticed Chicago apparently already have Sakic/Yzerman in Toews. The thing is Chicago are short of top centre prospects other than Toews. However they are also short in top quality sniper/finishing prospects. The best they have in that area is Makarov and unless something major happens he tops out as a good 2nd line winger. The thing is if Chicago wait two years for Turris to develop Havlat could be gone by then. Whereas if they take Kane and he steps in immediately and helps with the pp and chips in a few goals at even strength and this helps the Chicago to improve now then that increases the chances of Havlat wanting to stay.

 

[PensFan101]

Just because he's been compared does not mean he's going to be anywhere near as good as Sakic. Unless you noticed Chicago apparently already have Sakic/Yzerman in Toews. The thing is Chicago are short of top centre prospects other than Toews. However they are also short in top quality sniper/finishing prospects. The best they have in that area is Makarov and unless something major happens he tops out as a good 2nd line winger. The thing is if Chicago wait two years for Turris to develop Havlat could be gone by then. Whereas if they take Kane and he steps in immediately and helps with the pp and chips in a few goals at even strength and this helps the Chicago to improve now then that increases the chances of Havlat wanting to stay.

I think the Leafs Rule thing was all you need to know about that poster man.

 

[Meichel Kane]

I that JVR should get serious consideration. He may turn out to be the best overall player of the bunch. The #1 pick should be used to get the most value that helps the franchise in the long run. If Tallon can move down and get JVR and a pick or two thrown in....that is his best course of action. Kane and Turris may turn out to be good but I'd take my chances with JVR and another first in a heartbeat.

I like JVR more than Kane or Turris, too.

 

[WVP]

Why do we constantlky get such idiotic putdown of Tier 2 just because some guys choose to play there as 17 yr olds to keep their NCAA decision on track?


AGAIN--the WHL had MARK SANTORELLI of CHILLIWACK score 82 points as a rookie COMING FROM BURNABY OF THE BCHL --yes TURRIS's team--which wasonly 11 points less than the certain first round to be ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring champ...
SANTORELLI played the year prior in BUrnab y as a 17 yr old where he had a 0.9PPG -TURRIS on that same team as a 16 yr old was a 1.3PPG--but then TURRIS as a 17 yr old this year was a 2.3PPG ==meaning that at the same age he is 1.4 times better than Santorelli was ...if you extrapolate to what SANTORELLI did as an 1q8 yr old in the WHL this year take his 82 pts and add anothe 1.4x82 to that (THIS IS WITHOUT TURRSS EVEN IMPROVING from 17 to 18)..this means TURRIS could score
197 pts in the wHL if he played there this yras an 18 yr old! Even more if we factor some improvement for age! Santorelli improved from 17 to 18 from 0.9PPG in the BCHL to 1.1388PPG in the WHL ...if we take only that same improvement factor and add it to the extrapolated 197 pts for Turris if he played in the WHL this year we get another .2388 x 197 =47 more points..so 197+47 = 244 points ...

This would be 244-145 =99 MORE points projected for TURRIS than KANE got playing on a stacked OHL team in London...

I amsick of thes idiots who refuse to understand that SANTORELLI also was a BCHL'er who did very well in the WHL --no reason to believe TURRIS also would not tear up the WHL since he was WAY WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI at the same comparable age,so he should do WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI did in his WHL rookie year if given the same chance...

LOGICAL REASONING not insipid stupid putdowns of the WHL is so superier to Tier II ...it just doesn't matter--it is what individual hockey players do on the ice and there is ZERO reason put TURRIS down for what SANTORELLI prove a BCHL grad could do in the WHL --do VERY WELL --but we know TURRIS has even more talent than SANTORELLI,so why not ... EVEN IF you halved the 244pt "projection" (I do not se why,but if you still insisted on doing that because of some pre-concieved notion that that number was impossible in the defenseively tough WHL--then OK--
you must then discount KANE's 145 pts because of course the defensively tough
WHL is superior to the OHL --look how easily the 2 WHL mEM cUP teams beat on Plymouth which itsel handled KANE's loaded LONDON offen sive crew easily...doesn't all this indicate vast WHL superiority? Well then pretend Kane had to play in the WHL--cut his 145 pts down by at least 25..then deduct another amount (20? 40? --ok lets settle on 30 less points due to not having his prolific London linemates to play with on some "average " wHL team like Chilliwack) --so lets deduct 55 points from Kane;'s 145... he'd end up with 90 points= 3 less than ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring CHAMP! BUT TURRIS projects to 122 points EVEN WITH A GENEROUS 50% reduction in his EXTRAPOLATION based on SANTORELLI (I still don't have a reason for any reduction of the extrapolation except to pacify the incedulous shouts of the KANE
supporters in this argument and I wanted to be EXTREMELY graceful to them).


My point in all this: justshut up about putting down Turris because he only plays in the BCHL ..Santorelli showed that is a white elephant argument AND the counter is: KANE only plays in the inferior OHL where you can run up scores with 11 goal games
with putrid teams like Erie was this season.. ONe can make all kinds of arguments but REAL SCOUTS do not put down Turris just because he played in the BCHL...
IF Central Scouting has him as the #1 NA it is because their staff ranked him that way..so to let some amateur poster on these boards put CSS down to for their professional opinion on this just to satisfy some DISBELIEF that a mere BCHL'er could be that good is to allow hogwash reasoniong. The FACTS ARE THE FACTS.. IF we did not have the Santorelli performance as a linking comparison none of my arguments on behalf of Turris could stand scrutiny..BUT we do have the Santorelli numbers,so we can use them to project for Turris in thishypothetical..


BOTTOM LINE: if you support KANE a clear #1 over TURRIS that is one thing--BUT DO NOI USE THE BCHL argument..it doesn't stand upto muster given SANTORELLI.
Logic is on my side.

What the heck was that?

I'd take Kane from a Hawks perspective.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Why do we constantlky get such idiotic putdown of Tier 2 just because some guys choose to play there as 17 yr olds to keep their NCAA decision on track?


AGAIN--the WHL had MARK SANTORELLI of CHILLIWACK score 82 points as a rookie COMING FROM BURNABY OF THE BCHL --yes TURRIS's team--which wasonly 11 points less than the certain first round to be ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring champ...
SANTORELLI played the year prior in BUrnab y as a 17 yr old where he had a 0.9PPG -TURRIS on that same team as a 16 yr old was a 1.3PPG--but then TURRIS as a 17 yr old this year was a 2.3PPG ==meaning that at the same age he is 1.4 times better than Santorelli was ...if you extrapolate to what SANTORELLI did as an 1q8 yr old in the WHL this year take his 82 pts and add anothe 1.4x82 to that (THIS IS WITHOUT TURRSS EVEN IMPROVING from 17 to 18)..this means TURRIS could score
197 pts in the wHL if he played there this yras an 18 yr old! Even more if we factor some improvement for age! Santorelli improved from 17 to 18 from 0.9PPG in the BCHL to 1.1388PPG in the WHL ...if we take only that same improvement factor and add it to the extrapolated 197 pts for Turris if he played in the WHL this year we get another .2388 x 197 =47 more points..so 197+47 = 244 points ...

This would be 244-145 =99 MORE points projected for TURRIS than KANE got playing on a stacked OHL team in London...

I amsick of thes idiots who refuse to understand that SANTORELLI also was a BCHL'er who did very well in the WHL --no reason to believe TURRIS also would not tear up the WHL since he was WAY WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI at the same comparable age,so he should do WAY BETTER than SANTORELLI did in his WHL rookie year if given the same chance...

LOGICAL REASONING not insipid stupid putdowns of the WHL is so superier to Tier II ...it just doesn't matter--it is what individual hockey players do on the ice and there is ZERO reason put TURRIS down for what SANTORELLI prove a BCHL grad could do in the WHL --do VERY WELL --but we know TURRIS has even more talent than SANTORELLI,so why not ... EVEN IF you halved the 244pt "projection" (I do not se why,but if you still insisted on doing that because of some pre-concieved notion that that number was impossible in the defenseively tough WHL--then OK--
you must then discount KANE's 145 pts because of course the defensively tough
WHL is superior to the OHL --look how easily the 2 WHL mEM cUP teams beat on Plymouth which itsel handled KANE's loaded LONDON offen sive crew easily...doesn't all this indicate vast WHL superiority? Well then pretend Kane had to play in the WHL--cut his 145 pts down by at least 25..then deduct another amount (20? 40? --ok lets settle on 30 less points due to not having his prolific London linemates to play with on some "average " wHL team like Chilliwack) --so lets deduct 55 points from Kane;'s 145... he'd end up with 90 points= 3 less than ZAC HAMILL the WHL scoring CHAMP! BUT TURRIS projects to 122 points EVEN WITH A GENEROUS 50% reduction in his EXTRAPOLATION based on SANTORELLI (I still don't have a reason for any reduction of the extrapolation except to pacify the incedulous shouts of the KANE
supporters in this argument and I wanted to be EXTREMELY graceful to them).


My point in all this: justshut up about putting down Turris because he only plays in the BCHL ..Santorelli showed that is a white elephant argument AND the counter is: KANE only plays in the inferior OHL where you can run up scores with 11 goal games
with putrid teams like Erie was this season.. ONe can make all kinds of arguments but REAL SCOUTS do not put down Turris just because he played in the BCHL...
IF Central Scouting has him as the #1 NA it is because their staff ranked him that way..so to let some amateur poster on these boards put CSS down to for their professional opinion on this just to satisfy some DISBELIEF that a mere BCHL'er could be that good is to allow hogwash reasoniong. The FACTS ARE THE FACTS.. IF we did not have the Santorelli performance as a linking comparison none of my arguments on behalf of Turris could stand scrutiny..BUT we do have the Santorelli numbers,so we can use them to project for Turris in thishypothetical..


BOTTOM LINE: if you support KANE a clear #1 over TURRIS that is one thing--BUT DO NOI USE THE BCHL argument..it doesn't stand upto muster given SANTORELLI.
Logic is on my side.

was this a serious post?