Sensnation55
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2009
- 137
- 0
If you had to choose between them two on draft day which one would you choose? Take in considerations that its in terms of best player and not draft needs.
You NEVER pass up a future Lidstrom-like player.
EVER.
What? That's confusing -- because you always go by what your team needs. Taking draft needs out of the equation obviously Larsson is the player that people see more talent out of, but a lot of teams would be better off drafting Landeskog (Ottawa for example.)
it seems like there is 2-3 "Lidstrom-like" players every draft, along with 1-2 "Yzerman-types". lol
What? That's confusing -- because you always go by what your team needs. Taking draft needs out of the equation obviously Larsson is the player that people see more talent out of, but a lot of teams would be better off drafting Landeskog (Ottawa for example.)
So lets say, hypothetically that the first 4 picks go like this:
1. Larsson
2. Couturier
3. RNH
4. Murphy
and you have 5th overall. Your team is in desperate need of a future defenseman that they can build the franchise around. You are trying to tell me that your team would bypass Landeskog and pick Siemens or Musil? Somehow I HIGHLY doubt that. It is ALWAYS BPA, especially in the first round. Teams focus on needs in the 3rd round on...usually, but never in the first.
What? That's confusing -- because you always go by what your team needs. Taking draft needs out of the equation obviously Larsson is the player that people see more talent out of, but a lot of teams would be better off drafting Landeskog (Ottawa for example.)
Last year's draft not one person resembled Lidstrom, in my opinion. Maybe for other but not me.
Larsson is a can't miss player at this point and its always better for a team to build from the net out.
What? That's confusing -- because you always go by what your team needs. Taking draft needs out of the equation obviously Larsson is the player that people see more talent out of, but a lot of teams would be better off drafting Landeskog (Ottawa for example.)
You NEVER pass up a future Lidstrom-like player.
EVER.
You mean like Victor Hedman?
Of course no one would pass on Larsson if you knew he was going to be Lidstrom but how many lidstroms have you seen? None.
You mean like Victor Hedman?
Of course no one would pass on Larsson if you knew he was going to be Lidstrom but how many lidstroms have you seen? None.
You say this as if Hedman has reached his potential. Hedman's a good 5-10 years from reaching whatever potential he may have.
What? That's confusing -- because you always go by what your team needs. Taking draft needs out of the equation obviously Larsson is the player that people see more talent out of, but a lot of teams would be better off drafting Landeskog (Ottawa for example.)
Hedman's still 20 and is getting better with every game, if he keeps developing and improves his physical game he will be a franchise player.
it seems like there is 2-3 "Lidstrom-like" players every draft, along with 1-2 "Yzerman-types". lol
who ALWAYS goes by team need?? i was under the impression it was BPA..ALWAYS. and if two players are judged to have EXACT same potential, then you could go for team need...
...The players you are drafting this summer will probably make a impact on your team in 3 or 4 years from now.
Landeskog is a potential top 6 forward with intangibles, Larsson s a potential top pairing d-man...um..I'm going for the d-man...
but....if NJ loses the lottery and picks 2nd and Larsson is gone, I'd consider Landeskog over Courturier or RNH....