If you were the Blackhawks...

God

Free Citizen
Apr 2, 2007
10,109
6,632
Vancouver
Vancouver is going to trade Schneider, 25th overall, and Brendan Morrison for first overall and pick Turris.

Then at the 25th pick, Chicago will pick Oscar Moller, crushing the hearts of many Canuck fans >_>
 

Amateur Hour

Registered User
Jul 23, 2006
6,507
0
Negadelphia
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.

An 814-word post? Seriously?

Kill yourself. Or get laid.
 

daethfromabove1979

Registered User
Jun 20, 2006
2,207
556
dude has probably been preparing that post for a week with a bunch of ridiculous equations trying to prove that turris is god

anyways how could you not pick kane over turris.. did anyone see kane at the WJC??? more importantly did anyone see Turris at the WJC??? no cuz he was playing some Jr A hockey... please give me a break
 

toastman344*

Guest
I would take JVR over Kane or Turris...In a Heartbeat !

Btw those who say Kane is/ will also be better than Turris...are probably right...But isn't Turris nearly a year younger than Kane ? ( Too lazy to check ) but I believe so...That would certainly factor into the scouts thinking...as would the fact that Turris is much taller/ has a bigger frame...therefore is more likely to bulk up...

Turris may well have more upside than Kane ( or at least that's what some scouts must be thinking )...On the flip side, Kane looks much more ready for prime time ...My point is that the gap btwn the two is probably not nearly so great as some are suggesting...imo

Small matter...cuz like i said...if I'm Chicago...I take JVR
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Complaining Customer

Registered User
Aug 23, 2005
1,752
0
An 814-word post? Seriously?

Kill yourself. Or get laid.

He still has around 3,5 less posts/day than you have*. And he doesn't feel like he has to hint at his adventurous and awesome sex life or suggest to other people to kill themselves by implying they are lower than he is.

You're just great. I want to be you.


(*note to all: I'm not saying it's bad to have lots of posts, I'm just saying it's quite moronic to point at someone for posting longer when he is in fact posting less than you are)
 

GaryU

Registered User
May 17, 2004
4,453
652
Schaumburg,Il
814 -word posts are the norm (usually...unfortunately) on the Hawks 300 level site, for our friend HF50. Oh, the humanity!!!
 

SidTheKid87

Registered User
Aug 1, 2005
807
0
Chicago is in the unique position to take whoever they feel will be the best player in this draft. I understand that Tallon is feeling the pressure to make the playoffs. But why would the Hawks settle for who the best player is right now vs. the best player in four or five years? Your scouts have to do a better job of projecting at the top of the draft. I would think they want to come out with the best player over the long haul vs. the quick fix.
 

Zim

Registered User
Jan 19, 2006
4,249
0
Chicago is in the unique position to take whoever they feel will be the best player in this draft. I understand that Tallon is feeling the pressure to make the playoffs. But why would the Hawks settle for who the best player is right now vs. the best player in four or five years? Your scouts have to do a better job of projecting at the top of the draft. I would think they want to come out with the best player over the long haul vs. the quick fix.

I agree with this. Tallon should not be drafting the best guy for 2-3 years he should be drafting the guy who is going to be the best player for the rest of his NHL career. I want the Hawks to pick Kane because Turris really worries me. I know he has other qualities but some people want him to go first whereas Casey Pierro-Zappotel who only scored 11 less points than Turris but is much more physcially developed at 6'1 205lbs is the 75th ranked NA skater. I mean why is there such a huge difference between the two? Turris had his chance to shine in the U-18's and he only got 5 points in 6 games and 4 of those points came against Latvia. People say this low points tally was because he didn't get any PP time but surely if he's good enough to go 1st overall he's got to be good enough to be on at least the 2nd line pp unit even on a stacked Canadian team. Kane has proven himself at higher levels than Turris has. He broke Kessel's scoring record in the US NTDP and he was one of if not the best forward in the WJC's out scoring some very highly touted prospects in Kessel, Toews and Backstrom. Now obviously Turris has a lot of potential but even with Kane's lack of size i'd rather pick the guy who has already proven to be stellar at a higher level than someone who may be slightly better when he manages to play against better opposition. In my eyes there isn't a lot of difference between Kane's maximum potential and Turris' maximum potential so i'll take the more proven guy.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->