We didnt draft those players and using examples that were drafted 13 years ago is a little thin.
What do you mean "thin"?
The point was not that we drafted them or not, it was that they were in fact drafted high or worthy of a high pick, in a possible reaction to a post saying "we can't be good because we don't draft high enough so we lack elite talent"
And if you don't like when they got drafted, just remove the years they were drafted.
- Erik Karlsson would be top-3 in a 2008 re-draft
- Mark Stone would be top-10 in a 2010 re-draft
- Mike Hoffman would be top-10 in a 2009 re-draft
- Kyle Turris 3rd OA
- Bobby Ryan 2nd OA
- Derick Brassard 6th OA
- Dion Phaneuf 9th OA
Oldest player there is Phaneuf. Maybe he doesn't play the same way as he did when he was 22 y/o, but he certainly has other things to offer now, things that comes with experience and knowledge of the game.
What exactly does that mean? That he kept stopping the puck despite not being very good?
Don't get me wrong, to me, he's at best an average backup, and he certainly has his flaws, but I just don't get what your trying to say.
To me:
Assets: Quick legs. Never gives up on the play. Usually pretty good at tracking the puck (rebounds ect). Good first save goalie (with some exceptions).
Flaws: Can make himself small in net. Can have trouble seeing past traffic. Gets himself out of position on scrambly plays. Rebound control is just average for a backup.
Hammond's at his best when the team in front of him is playing a predictable game, which I think is why his numbers aren't great on the PK. Poor man's Elliot imo. There are backups I'd prefer over him, and backups I wouldn't.
OK sorry I didn't do the follow-up but 2 days ago, not that bad I guess lol, been busy
OK what I am trying to say with this is that despite his magic run and great stats, I never saw his play as sustainable. I'm not an expert but goalie is the position I played (and still play). I know more about it than other positions.
Yes, Hammond has quick legs and great determination but IMO he doesn't have the structure/technique or the 3D space vision (spatial intelligence) as well as superior athleticism to have longevity in the toughest league in the world. Of course I could be wrong but this is my opinion on his game. I still remember Jim Carey lol, do you?
What I mean by "stats kept lying" is that you watch him play and don't understand why he is 2nd on that list behind only Carey Price :
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...0&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=SvPct&sortdir=DESC
That's why I have been betting on since the beginning that those numbers won't last, and yeah revert to below average back-up eventually.
When numbers work with my argument = stats are godly evidence
When numbers don't work with my argument = numbers are lying
....I guess?
Kinda funny since Xspyrit tends to use stats all the time to back his position.
Ah common now, you're accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, something I have accused some other posters to do. You'd have a point if it was a pattern but you know it's not, I will always recognize stats and factual evidence as the central focus of an argument, but in this case, I feel it's an exception. Hammond caught fire in 2014-15 and the team played really well in front of him, they were on a mission. Hammond was back-to-earth as soon as the playoffs begun. We probably win that series with Andy starting in game 1
I have the right to criticize players too, no? At least I am not bashing them or making them as crap like many hockey fans do.
