- May 25, 2014
- 45,839
- 31,173
Time for a new one guys. Should be a beaut
EDIT should be part 5 not VVVIIII sorry was reading wrong thread
EDIT should be part 5 not VVVIIII sorry was reading wrong thread
Last edited:
Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.
Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.
What about 90pt Parise?
People are underrating Hamhuis here. He was better than most people here have been giving him credit for. He was a top pairing dman that carried the 2nd best pairing in the NHL for a few years. He and Bieksa at their best was really good. He was an absolute #1 dman.
I don't think Joulevi gets there. I think he will be very good, but not the guy that can carry a top pairing and certainly not carry the 2nd best pairing in the NHL. Again he will be very good, and I can see him playing on a top pair.
Tkachuk look like he can carry his own line already. He was a huge part of that Calgary line this season. Very impressive.
Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.
Agree with the gist of your points. However, I don't think Hamhuis in his prime is a #1 Dman. I am in the camp that there isn't 31 #1 Dman out there just because there are 31 NHL teams. A #1 Dman to me has to be able to put up good offensive numbers unless you're an extremely dominant defensive Dman like Scott Stevens. But it doesn't really matter. It's a bit of a meaningless classification.
burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on
i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around
they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player
well the sane people here can use the classification because its useful and you can use whatever vague nonsense you want to. heres some words people love: elite bonafide star stud franchise dominant
burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on
i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around
they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player
Agree with the gist of your points. However, I don't think Hamhuis in his prime is a #1 Dman. I am in the camp that there isn't 31 #1 Dman out there just because there are 31 NHL teams. A #1 Dman to me has to be able to put up good offensive numbers unless you're an extremely dominant defensive Dman like Scott Stevens. But it doesn't really matter. It's a bit of a meaningless classification.
burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on
i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around
they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player
well the sane people here can use the classification because its useful and you can use whatever vague nonsense you want to. heres some words people love: elite bonafide star stud franchise dominant
Juolevi has more skill and offensive awareness so not sure how Hamhuis is his ceiling.
LOL "XXXIIII" isn't even a real number. It's just jibberish.
Even Y2K agreed that Tkachuk would likely never reach that kind of offensive production. He said Joulevi's ceiling is Hamhuis and Tkachuk's is Parise minus his elite offensive seasons.
LOL "XXXIIII" isn't even a real number. It's just jibberish.
they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player
I dare say that the fans here, collectively, have shown a considerably better knack for identifying the correct draft pick to take than management has, at least in the early rounds. And that's often just going for "the next name on the list". There is absolutely zero reason to trust management over the majority view on this one, when they have shown themselves unable to take the easy route.They need to do whatever they think is best for the hockey club and not what the fans want, but A) they haven't shown they're particularly adept at determining what that is, and B) at some point you need to consider your fans or you're not going to have them any more. So for the sake of everyone involved, I hope this year's selection is someone the fans collectively can be excited about, and not a long term value proposition that may pay off in spades half a decade from now while the player picked immediately after tears up the NHL in his draft +1.
I dare say that the fans here, collectively, have shown a considerably better knack for identifying the correct draft pick to take than management has, at least in the early rounds. And that's often just going for "the next name on the list". There is absolutely zero reason to trust management over the majority view on this one, when they have shown themselves unable to take the easy route.
Sometimes I wonder to what degree Burrows best seasons were a product of the Sedins, and visa versa. The guy was fantastic in his prime. He just happened to get overshadowed by what Daniel, Henrik and Kesler were doing. He scored 25+ goals four seasons in a row while playing Selke caliber defense on the most productive line in the NHL.
The Canucks have had ridiculously good luck with their undrafted players. Maybe we should just make whoever unearthed Burrows, Tanev and Stetcher the GM.
Yeah, agreed. Hamhuis was a solid top pairing defenseman, but he was not a "#1 defenseman" in the way that parlance is traditionally applied. A true #1 defenseman is someone you can hypothetically build a team around, not just someone who stabilizes or compliments a pairing.
The weird thing is that "A Finnish Dan Hamhuis" was viewed as poor value at 5th overall by some (I remember comments like "I want a lot more than Dan Hamhuis if I'm picking 5th overall"), whereas Dan Hamhuis and the career he turned out would have been one of the better 5th overall picks in history. We went through the same thing when it was questioned whether or not a "Raffi Torres" at 6 was disaster value (it's not). Sadly, Virtanen has a lot of work to do to reach even the lofty heights of a prime Torres. In both cases the real pinch on both picks wasn't the quality of the player chosen or whether their prospective ceilings represented value at the pick position, it was the players picked directly after them.
Hamhuis was significantly more productive in junior, even with Juolevi playing on the same team and sharing a power play with one of the best lines in junior history.