Official Tank Nation Topic

[Propellertop]

It seems like such a short time ago that my 'Big' Dream was to make the playoffs...now...I want a TOP draft pick so TANK IT UP Boys!

 

[ontariojames]

Why is everyone so insistent on drafting a forward when our defence needs the most help and there is a stud named Ryan Murray available around the # 4 spot.

You'd say no to a guy that could be Nugent-Hopkins calibre? I would definitely take that chance on a skilled playmaking centre. They don't come around very often - just look at the Richards sweepstakes.

I think porous defense can be fixed, but you can't teach creative offense.

Sure, it can be fixed without adding defensive talent, but the only way to do that is to play a defensive system which will come at the expense of your offense and not many teams can be successful like that, otherwise every bad team would be doing it.

As far as Grigs and Galchenyuk are concerned, drafting either so high would make me nervous. Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams. Galchenyuk has missed an entire year and you have to wonder how much of him looking as good as he did last year was because of Yakupov.

I would draft RM over those two in a heartbeat. 

 

[princedpw]

Florida has won 3 more games than Toronto, and they are 11 points ahead and are 3rd in conference.

What a crazy league the NHL is.

13 OT/SO points and they STILL have a worse GF/GA ratio than us, even after this appalling stretch.

My feeling is that points for OT losses and SO losses do not misrepresent a team's talent.  A point for an OT/SO loss is an indicator a team was good enough to tie a competitor over 60 minutes.  That point faithfully represents the fact that such a team played better (on average) than a team that lost 5-1, 5-3, etc in regulation. 

What misrepresents a team's talent is the extra point for the SO win.  That extra point does not indicate a team is a better hockey team than the team who loses in a shootout, because the shootout isn't hockey -- there is no teamwork, no defense.  So the teams whose point totals misrepresent their talent are the teams with the most SO wins, not the teams with the most SO/OT losses. IMHO.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Florida has won 3 more games than Toronto, and they are 11 points ahead and are 3rd in conference.

What a crazy league the NHL is.

13 OT/SO points and they STILL have a worse GF/GA ratio than us, even after this appalling stretch.

My feeling is that points for OT losses and SO losses do not misrepresent a team's talent.  A point for an OT/SO loss is an indicator a team was good enough to tie a competitor over 60 minutes.  That point faithfully represents the fact that such a team played better (on average) than a team that lost 5-1, 5-3, etc in regulation. 

What misrepresents a team's talent is the extra point for the SO win.  That extra point does not indicate a team is a better hockey team than the team who loses in a shootout, because the shootout isn't hockey -- there is no teamwork, no defense.  So the teams whose point totals misrepresent their talent are the teams with the most SO wins, not the teams with the most SO/OT losses. IMHO.

I was looking more at the 29 v 27 ROWs.  I don't really have a problem with it either, just in conjunction with their poor GF/GA.

EDIT: And only the NYI have scored less goals in the East.  Just seems like a mirage (not that I wouldn't take it).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

 

[ontariojames]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

I realize it's normal for players to put up more points against weaker teams than good teams, so there must be a reason why scouts are signalling out Grigs even if your math is accurate. Also, it wasn't just the one scout that was quoted in that article, another one called him a "dog." For two pro scouts to use such strong language there has to be a good reason.

 

[Tigger]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

I realize it's normal for players to put up more points against weaker teams than good teams, so there must be a reason why scouts are signalling out Grigs even if your math is accurate. Also, it wasn't just the one scout that was quoted in that article, another one called him a "dog." For two pro scouts to use such strong language there has to be a good reason.

Who was the 'other' scout?

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

I realize it's normal for players to put up more points against weaker teams than good teams, so there must be a reason why scouts are signalling out Grigs even if your math is accurate. Also, it wasn't just the one scout that was quoted in that article, another one called him a "dog." For two pro scouts to use such strong language there has to be a good reason.

Who was the 'other' scout?

Same guy who drafted Filatov I bet.

 

[Bender]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

I realize it's normal for players to put up more points against weaker teams than good teams, so there must be a reason why scouts are signalling out Grigs even if your math is accurate. Also, it wasn't just the one scout that was quoted in that article, another one called him a "dog." For two pro scouts to use such strong language there has to be a good reason.

If that's the case then why is the consensus that he is the 2nd overall pick by ISS and TSN?

I don't think you can use one or two scouts' criticisms and act like it's gospel when the other evidence flies in the face of that.

 

[Tigger]

If he really was a dog I'd bet Patrick Roy would have something to say about it.

 

[Bender]

If he really was a dog I'd bet Patrick Roy would have something to say about it.

Which he is. Bob McKenzie stated that instead of just points they're trying to mold him into a good two way player a la Datsyuk and Malkin.

 

[Tigger]

If he really was a dog I'd bet Patrick Roy would have something to say about it.

Which he is. Bob McKenzie stated that instead of just points they're trying to mold him into a good two way player a la Datsyuk and Malkin.

That makes more sense to me, given Roy isn't really afraid to say much and Bobby Mac is generally pretty accurate.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If a scout really did say that he wouldn't pick Grigs at 25 then to me the only logical explanation is that his team is picking in the 4-8 range and he's trying to scare teams off from picking him.

 

[ontariojames]

Grigs has drawn some pretty strong criticism for his lack of compete and his tendency to light up the weak teams in the Q and disappear against the top teams.

Against the top-5 teams in the Q Grigs has scored 1.43 points per game. Against the bottom 5 that rate increases to 1.67. Expand that to the top-8 vs. bottom-8 and those rates are 1.34 vs. 1.54. Considering it isn't exactly out of the ordinary for elite players to light up bottom-feeders, I'd say that those discrepancies aren't really that big of a deal. If there's a scout out there who wouldn't take Grigs at 25 like it was reported than that guy needs his head examined.

I realize it's normal for players to put up more points against weaker teams than good teams, so there must be a reason why scouts are signalling out Grigs even if your math is accurate. Also, it wasn't just the one scout that was quoted in that article, another one called him a "dog." For two pro scouts to use such strong language there has to be a good reason.

If that's the case then why is the consensus that he is the 2nd overall pick by ISS and TSN?

I don't think you can use one or two scouts' criticisms and act like it's gospel when the other evidence flies in the face of that.

Well the TSN article stated that he could slide well down the rankings.

 

[sickbeast]

I have joined the Tank Nation.

I want the Leafs to lose lose lose.

Of course now they will probably start winning like crazy.

 

[maplesyrup]

Stupid Leafs not sucking enough at sucking... Anyway, hearing some nice things about some guys who could go in the 5-10 range too.

 

[Tigger]

Stupid Leafs not sucking enough at sucking... Anyway, hearing some nice things about some guys who could go in the 5-10 range too.

Have a little faith...

 

[Derk]

Leafs climb to the 7th overall pick.

Where was this goaltending for the last month and a half? Of course, it is just one game, after all....

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

Leafs climb to the 7th overall pick.

Where was this goaltending for the last month and a half? Of course, it is just one game, after all....

Now, now. We knew they wouldn't lose every game remaining. Best they win or two now since the chances to have another 5 gamer skid increase.

 

[Deebo]

Can't lose'em all.