HF Habs: Draft Combine 2022 - May 30 to June 4

[River Meadow]

That should be next year’s question: instead of “what animal” it should be “what car”.

Slaf: Pontiac Firebird
Wright: Toyota Prius
Cooley: Honda Civic - with a spoiler added in the 2nd half of the season

LOL!

Slaf: 392 Dodge Charger
Wright: Tesla model 3 with the single motor
Cooley: BMW 340i

 

[Mayday1980]

I'm still sticking with Wright, hes the BPA with the lowest risk at this time. Slafkovsky is too "boom/bust" for my tastes with the last 2 high picks we've had somewhat falter. Cooley looks promising but watching Wright he seems to have an innate hockey sense on the ice which is similar to Crosby, though they have two totally different toolsets to be honest.

Based on everything I can see Wright panning out as just below a generational talent if he reaches his full potential, think a combo of Adam Oates and Joe Sakic. I'm not sure of the leadership intangibles but based on his play in Kingston he does look like the "good soldier" type that coaches love.

The main selling point is that you know you're getting a piece of the team puzzle you need to win games. Sure, you might not get the best player in the draft but you're getting one of the best 5 in the draft who on the low end ends up a great 2nd line centre.

Cooley, Slafkovsky and 2-3 others in the draft might end up having better NHL careers but the only "off the board" #1 pick I would consider would be Nemec and we'd better trade down and get some assets if we go that way.

 

[SlafySZN]

I'm still sticking with Wright, hes the BPA with the lowest risk at this time. Slafkovsky is too "boom/bust" for my tastes with the last 2 high picks we've had somewhat falter. Cooley looks promising but watching Wright he seems to have an innate hockey sense on the ice which is similar to Crosby, though they have two totally different toolsets to be honest.

Based on everything I can see Wright panning out as just below a generational talent if he reaches his full potential, think a combo of Adam Oates and Joe Sakic. I'm not sure of the leadership intangibles but based on his play in Kingston he does look like the "good soldier" type that coaches love.

The main selling point is that you know you're getting a piece of the team puzzle you need to win games. Sure, you might not get the best player in the draft but you're getting one of the best 5 in the draft who on the low end ends up a great 2nd line centre.

Cooley, Slafkovsky and 2-3 others in the draft might end up having better NHL careers but the only "off the board" #1 pick I would consider would be Nemec and we'd better trade down and get some assets if we go that way.

If you think another player might have a better career why would you still pick Wright.

He isn’t much more ‘’safe’’ than cooley.

 

[tooji]

100 lbs 6 times lmao

At that age I had a 1rm of 315

hockey players tend to have very weak upperbody compared to other athletes. Also tons of shoulder injuries/lanky arms make people shit at benching

 

[Mayday1980]

If you think another player might have a better career why would you still pick Wright.

He isn’t much more ‘’safe’’ than cooley.

Because "thinking" and "knowing" are two totally different things. If I "know" during the next spin of Roulette that the number is going to be Even do I then place a big bet on the number 18 because I "think" its going to be that number?

I would say that based on the information we have he's a considerably safer bet than Cooley for getting a top 6 centre which is really the goal if you're picking either Cooley or Wright. Sure Cooley may end up being the better player based on some peoples' thoughts but I don't balk on the historical consensus on Wright, especially when you have a missing development season involved in the situation. If any of these players were neck-in-neck in past discussion for the #1 overall it would make more sense but it seems like opinions are succumbing to the over-exposure of Wright and the "Shiny new toy" opinions on Slafkovsky and Cooley. Neither has enough consistent wow factor for me to look past the tools Wright offers.

Like I said, I "think" there may be a up to 3-4 better players than Wright that come out of this draft in the future but I "know" Wright will be at least the 5th best. I don't know who those better players will be exactly, hence my decision.

 

[SlafySZN]

 

[le_sean]

He’s a Lehkonen clone. I’d like to get him on the team.

 

[SlafySZN]

He’s a Lehkonen clone. I’d like to get him on the team.

Few weeks ago i thought we could get him with our oilers pick but i'm not sure anymore.

 

[Goldenhands]

Few weeks ago i thought we could get him with our oilers pick but i'm not sure anymore.

We will be lucky to get him with our early 2nd IMO. I could see a team using a late 1st on him.

 

[SlafySZN]

We will be lucky to get him with our early 2nd IMO. I could see a team using a late 1st on him.

Yeah that's what i think too, sadly.

 

[dcyhabs]

He's a bad example because he's an example?

I think you make a pretty weak argument.

No one said Wright would be a Yakupov.

We used Yakupov to demonstrate that picking the consensus is not something you should do blindly. Derek Stepan and Alexandre Daigle, etc. and our very own 1st in 1980 The year doesn't matter, there is a pattern of thinking that leads teams to miss the boat on a correct evaluation of some players.

Some players can’t make the jump, or at least don’t make the improvement they need to make the jump to the NHL. Can we identify these players better than in 2012 and/or help them to grow? Drouin and Galchenyuk had similar problems.

 

[Habs Halifax]

If you think another player might have a better career why would you still pick Wright.

He isn’t much more ‘’safe’’ than cooley.

Wright is BPA and others might end up better. Nobody can predict development growth from age 18-21 that accurately. So it's OK to say Wright with disclaimers. Talking with absolutes is the stupid part.

Take BPA and that's Wright. He's been on the radar for a while now and he's working on all parts of his game, not just points. He's got the tools and the box to store them. That's a good sign cause the ones who focus on points, tend to drown in the NHL cause there are other parts of the game that they didn't work at.

 

[SOLR]

Some players can’t make the jump, or at least don’t make the improvement they need to make the jump to the NHL. Can we identify these players better than in 2012 and/or help them to grow? Drouin and Galchenyuk had similar problems.

Psychology hasn't advanced in 100 years, so we'll keep making mistakes in that area.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Psychology hasn't advanced in 100 years, so we'll keep making mistakes in that area.

It depends. Did asking about spirit animals exist in 2012?

 

[SOLR]

It depends. Did asking about spirit animals exist in 2012?

Psychedelics is the one field of psychology moving forward a bit. I didn't dodge your sarcastic question, it was enjoyable.

 

[Pompeius Magnus]

It depends. Did asking about spirit animals exist in 2012?

Heck, I took peyote in the desert all the way back in the late nineties in order to FIND my damn spirit animal ! It didn't work by the way. Fun night though

 

[waffledave]

Oh ya, I’m just saying he must have natural genetics to have shoulders like he does despite being an absolute beginner in the weight room.

6 reps of a hundred pounds for a two hundred pound man is like first time touching a barbell numbers.

Most of these guys don't weight train for strength. Some do, but most don't.

Some players can’t make the jump, or at least don’t make the improvement they need to make the jump to the NHL. Can we identify these players better than in 2012 and/or help them to grow? Drouin and Galchenyuk had similar problems.

When a first overall busts like that, it's almost always an issue with attitude or desire.

I don't think anyone questions that with Wright. The guy is the hungriest player in the entire draft class.

 

[dcyhabs]

Most of these guys don't weight train for strength. Some do, but most don't.


When a first overall busts like that, it's almost always an issue with attitude or desire.

I don't think anyone questions that with Wright. The guy is the hungriest player in the entire draft class.

You get guys like Wilson but then he’d probably play better if he had less upper body weight to carry around. Hockey isn’t quite like soccer where upper body muscle is just slowing you down but there is a balance. Doesn’t mix well with the boxing.

 

[Treb]

In case people don't check the draft thread.
Presale for Rocket STH happening now (Habs STH already done). General public will likely be this Friday.

Tickets for 2 days are 120, 100 or 50$ depending on if you want to be in the 100, 200 or 300-400.

Day 1 is 90, 80, 40$.

Day 2 is 30, 20, 10$.

 

[WeThreeKings]

 

[bsl]

Agree with you guys... Wright is the logical and right choice.

Wright is the next jaques lemaire. You take him.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Psychology hasn't advanced in 100 years, so we'll keep making mistakes in that area.

Hasn't advanced based on what?

Most modern researchers in psychology today have went multi-disciplinary, integrating neurobiology, genetics, epigenetics, sociology, ect.

The field of behavioral development has advanced tremendously over the last 60 years since the early days of Attachment Theory up to today where they find confirmation through other fields of science.

Go read someone like Allan N Schore, or Jaak Panksepp, or Francine Benes and you might have a different view.

I'm pretty drawn to ethology too and evolutionary psychology is central to this, an ethologist's work is mostly psychology, and has advanced a lot through the work of many ethologists.

The main media driven view of psychology hasn't advanced.

 

[Draft]

Hasn't advanced based on what?

Most modern researchers in psychology today have went multi-disciplinary, integrating neurobiology, genetics, epigenetics, sociology, ect.

The field of behavioral development has advanced tremendously over the last 60 years since the early days of Attachment Theory up to today where they find confirmation through other fields of science.

Go read someone like Allan N Schore, or Jaak Panksepp, or Francine Benes and you might have a different view.

I'm pretty drawn to ethology too and evolutionary psychology is central to this, an ethologist's work is mostly psychology, and has advanced a lot through the work of many ethologists.

The main media driven view of psychology hasn't advanced.

I was thinking the same thing What a weird comment.

I mean cognitive science has come a very long way, our understanding of perceptual processes and memory has changed drastically. The use of fMRIs and other imaging techniques has brought our understanding of brain function to a level that we could never have achieved before. Behavioral science has grown leaps and bounds as well. CBT and new insights into trauma have changed treatments for psychological illness and behavioral disorders drastically... That's just off the top of my head and I'm no psychologist. Human behavior maybe hasn't changed drastically in 100 years, but our understanding of it sure has.

 

[SOLR]

Hasn't advanced based on what?

Most modern researchers in psychology today have went multi-disciplinary, integrating neurobiology, genetics, epigenetics, sociology, ect.

The field of behavioral development has advanced tremendously over the last 60 years since the early days of Attachment Theory up to today where they find confirmation through other fields of science.

Go read someone like Allan N Schore, or Jaak Panksepp, or Francine Benes and you might have a different view.

I'm pretty drawn to ethology too and evolutionary psychology is central to this, an ethologist's work is mostly psychology, and has advanced a lot through the work of many ethologists.

The main media driven view of psychology hasn't advanced.

Has not advanced much in terms of predictive power.

Ie. test, analyze, predict.

I was thinking the same thing What a weird comment.

I mean cognitive science has come a very long way, our understanding of perceptual processes and memory has changed drastically. The use of fMRIs and other imaging techniques has brought our understanding of brain function to a level that we could never have achieved before. Behavioral science has grown leaps and bounds as well. CBT and new insights into trauma have changed treatments for psychological illness and behavioral disorders drastically... That's just off the top of my head and I'm no psychologist. Human behavior maybe hasn't changed drastically in 100 years, but our understanding of it sure has.

"Weird comment based on a knowledge of all this and in hiring 15000+ with the most advanced psychology tools of the moment."

I mean, do you guys even need to have this explained, that I was talking about drafting hockey players on hockey's future hockey board?, ie. recruiting. What a "duh" moment. Explaining an illness is useless when recruiting because we are still pretty bad at detecting an illness.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Has not advanced much in terms of predictive power.

Ie. test, analyze, predict.

It has, you just haven't been paying attention and base yourself on the run-of-the-mill shrink and popular view.

Here in Qc, government mandated psychologists, but mostly psychiatrists, are running far behind.

Also, you need to realize that brain disorders have multiple causes and are very complex, that's why diathesis models are now being used. It's also the reason why there's so much inter-disciplinary work now. Causes vary, from genetic, epigenetic and neurological.