glad he was selected by the Leafs.
kids a turn over machine with low iq.
If you people think we are making this up, we are not. Its been debated over and over again.
Low iq defensemen, turnover machine, Canucks didn't even interview him.
Lower league mens league picked him apart, will most likely be picked apart at the NHL level.
Love seeing the Leafs make these error picks.
Who is "you people" and who is "we" and why would "you people" think that "we" are making up - or lend any credit to - "we" declaring that Timothy Liljegren is a "turn over machine with a low [IQ]"?
Canucks may not have interviewed him, but 28 other clubs did. Certainly, "we" know that citing one club choosing not to interview a player while the majority of the league does shouldn't be used as a point of sufficiency if the implication is due diligence, right, lawrence?
Now when you say you love the Leafs making "these error picks", do I take it you've been away from following hockey for a number of years? Well in the event you have been, there's some things you should probably know: Vancouver appears to have not interviewed William Nylander either because in 2014, Vancouver selected Jake Virtanen instead of William Nylander. They may not have interviewed David Pasternak either, having decided to take Jared McCann instead. Now is this what you mean by "error picks"? When teams select a player they shouldn't have but could have had better with perhaps a little more...due diligence?
As a Leafs fan I know what it means for a management group to make "error picks" and to mismanage those "truth picks" in the event we were fortunate enough to select a quality asset. But somewhere around 2009 it seems our fortunes changed in making less "error picks" than in the past. Exclude 2010 and 2011 as master classes on "error picking" and by the time the 2014 Entry Draft is finished, we're more in the "truth picks" model than we have been as a club in a very, very long time.
Pre-mononucleosis Lilejgren seemed a different player than post-mononucleosis Liljegren and in a number of interviews, his poorer play is chalked up to coming back too soon which led to a year in which Heiskanen rose and he fell. But...He fell in the first round from the #2 position in September (and in some lists, #1) while players like Hischier and Heiskanen rose on the basis of their final pre-draft campaigns. That's important for a number of reasons, but chiefly that Timothy Liljegren played through adversity and was important enough for 28 out of 31 teams to interview.
I mean think about this concept of "error picks" - and in Vancouver's case, recently so - where you're on the board and Matthew Tkachuck is available but you select Olli Juolevi? That seems (granted, in hindsight) like an "error pick". And yet, you're ready to render "error status" before Liljegren has played a single game post-draft. Now call me old-school, but I always thought the best way to lend credibility to criticism was to have an argument that employed facts and reason. Perhaps "we" need to consider the reality of each club's situations before enthusiastically throwing stones?