The All-Purpose 6th Overall Discussion Thread PT IV (MOD Warning Post 554)
- Thread starter The Stig
- Start date
- Status
If he didn't have very good skills he probably wouldn't be a top 5 pick.
Skills can be taught... athleticism not so much.
This is pretty much ass backwards. Athleticism is 90 percent work ethic and careful training.
Pip
Registered User
If there ever was a bass aackwards comment
It's not backwards at all. Most of the time the best athletes end up with the best skills. That's not always the case though, especially in junior hockey. Reinart has been provided with a lot of opportunity, sometimes those guys end up ahead of the curve based on that and not their athletic ability. On the flip side, his dad was a hell of a hockey player, so I'm sure he's a good athlete.
I'll take the guy that runs faster and jumps higher over the guy with the "sick skills" all other things being equal.
Not sure how this relates to the comment that skills can be taught, but athleticism can't.
Every athlete on the face of the earth can train to make them self stronger, faster and more athletic. Whether it be better training, different training, diet etc. Everyone can improve their current physical attributes. (Not to be confused with everyone can be the most athletic person in the world) But you can certainly train to be bigger, faster, stronger
Not everyone can score 40 goals a year. Some players have vision that simply can't be taught. Wayne Gretzky can't teach Taylor Pyatt to play like him, and score 50 a year. Athletes think, and see the game differently, it's just the way it is. Many times those skills cannot be taught. Perfected and improved maybe but not taught.
Your comment is completely backwards
Scurr is correct, and look no farther than Steve Nash, who could have also played pro soccer. He was a great athlete, who trained to get the skills he has to become a two time NBA MVP.
Of course there is more that goes into it, I was a good athlete, played three sports in high school, plus hockey, and I know there is no way I could have become good enough to play in the nhl.
Are you suggesting Nash didn't have skill, he just learnt how to be good at basketball once he got into the NBA?
Don't confuse players that have both skill and athleticism, most of the great athletes do have both. The comment was made you can teach skill, but not athletic abilities
For 6th overall I have:
Ritchie
Virtanen/Ehlers
Nylander
Now does Virtanen have anything better than Ritchie? I see Virtanen as someone with a better shot, faster north-south player, but can't help to think it reminds me of David Booth.
Ritchie has that Kassian vibe to him, which I like a lot.
Ritchie
Virtanen/Ehlers
Nylander
Now does Virtanen have anything better than Ritchie? I see Virtanen as someone with a better shot, faster north-south player, but can't help to think it reminds me of David Booth.
Ritchie has that Kassian vibe to him, which I like a lot.
there is a genetic component to one's physical abilities that in the most literal sense cannot be taught. if you were to make a tier list of things that you can't teach, genetic disposition to things is at the top above everything else, including 'hockey vision' or 'hockey iq'
you could argue that there is a genetic intelligence component to hockey but since hockey is a construct of society and running and jumping isn't, i think there's a seperation
you could argue that there is a genetic intelligence component to hockey but since hockey is a construct of society and running and jumping isn't, i think there's a seperation
D0ctorCool
Registered User
Keep in mind that if David Booth had a great shot, he'd actually be a heck of a hockey player.
Fair enough. But as far as I can tell Vitranen is in better shape, more athletic, faster, more consistent, better shot, better release all while being a lot younger.
When I see Ritchie I see a guy with concussion issues already with constancy concerns. Not to mention he's a "soft" 230lbs. He seems to be out of shape (comparatively). You have to keep in mind Ritchie's body type can carry him through the OHL right now. He is a lot bigger then his peers and can physically "bull" his way around people. This won't fly in the NHL
I also can't help but get the impression people think Ritchie is the next Lucic. Let's get one thing straight, he's not. If you've been watching the playoffs the last few season this year in particular, you realize the need for speed and physical play. This screams Vitranen more then ANYONE in the draft.
Not that I'd be disappointed with Ritchie. But assuming there's no fallers, I'd be upset taking Ritchie over JV. I can't think of a single thing about JV that reminds me of Booth. Saying JV is like Booth is like saying Ritchie is like Lucic, it's just not true. Although they may share some qualities they're not accurate comparisons.
cc
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 9,690
- 1,577
Ritchie's shot is actually very good. It's a very heavy and quick release. I don't think there is much of a difference between jv and ritchie in terms if their shot. The difference is in their overall speed.
My pick would be ritchie as well. Just seems to have more dimensions to his game.
Bad News Benning
Fallin for Dahlin?
Ritchie isnt some slow slug and youre right when you say he isnt the next Lucic. Id say he is much more advanced than Lucic was at the same age. Ritchie has decent speed, which will improve like Kassian once he sheds some weight. Anyone think Kassian is slow? no, and Ritchie is faster than Kass was at the same age.
as for bullying his way because of his size advantage...How do you suppose Ritchie scored 40 goals while not having a ton of talent around him? He has a wonderful skillset thats why. This isnt Hunter Smith situation.
I never said Ritchie was slow. The only negative I mentioned was Ritchie's weight. People often compare players just because they share some of the same qualities.
Meyers isn't Chara just because he's tall
Ritchie isn't Lucic just because he's big
Virtanen isn't Booth just because he drives to the net
Etc..
But if you're comparing Virtanen to Ritchie facts are facts. Virtanen has a better shot, a lot faster, more consistent and plays physical. Fact it's well Ritchie is carrying excess fat, and has concussion issues. I would be happy with either but I'd be more pleased with Virtanen
Meyers isn't Chara just because he's tall
Ritchie isn't Lucic just because he's big
Virtanen isn't Booth just because he drives to the net
Etc..
But if you're comparing Virtanen to Ritchie facts are facts. Virtanen has a better shot, a lot faster, more consistent and plays physical. Fact it's well Ritchie is carrying excess fat, and has concussion issues. I would be happy with either but I'd be more pleased with Virtanen
cc
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2002
- 9,690
- 1,577
If you watch the highlights of Ritchie's goals, you will see that a lot of his goals aren't merely bulling his way through. Most of his goals are from having a great shot.
If you looked at more recent pictures of him, you wouldn't say that he was soft. He works out a lot now but probably not in every right way. Put him on kassians workout and diet and shedding some bulk shouldn't be too difficult
The Stig
Your hero.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Post-Series Talk: Boston Bruins Defeat Toronto Maple Leafs (win 4-3)- Latest: The Gr8 Dane
-
