Quest for #1

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
I understand that, but when you have players cemented in position, like their skates are cemented on the ice sometimes, there has to be a choice made.

Right now we have two real good veteran goaltenders, they are making some 10 bell saves, then letting little shit get thru.

The current push for teams is having a big center who will also run you over like McDavid. Last night Haydon had plenty of chances to just steam roll puck carriers with legal hits and he backed off, apparently the thought is you get on the top line, you have to play with Finesse, whether thats your game or not. It happened back with carbomb. Put the lunatic on the line to keep the finesse guys clean and pay back when they get hit, since our D men dont seem to like to do that.
For me, and I'm not saying it's the only way, but the Draft is all about asset acquisition, not about instantly filling holes in the lineup. If you can do both great. But get the best possible player available every time in order to accrue organizational value and have more flexibility to fill the holes in the future. I'd much rather fill a hole in free agency or via trade than to have to rely on draft picks working out.

I personally see draft picks as being more valuable to get the pieces you need than actually being the pieces you need. Luckily not all GMs feel the same way which is why so are very hot on trading for young unknown players to turn out to be the next Kane. While you draft in hopes of that, more often than not the player is not NHL level vs. is NHL level. I'd take the safer route, especially when rebuilding. If we were loaded and set for year, then maybe you get more risky.
 

Bigfoot

Moderator
Staff member
At least we finally had an aggressive forecheck. Funny how when that happens the other team turns the puck over, and creates chances.

Always go Best player in the draft. Fill holes in F/A
 

anotheridiot

Active member
For me, and I'm not saying it's the only way, but the Draft is all about asset acquisition, not about instantly filling holes in the lineup. If you can do both great. But get the best possible player available every time in order to accrue organizational value and have more flexibility to fill the holes in the future. I'd much rather fill a hole in free agency or via trade than to have to rely on draft picks working out.

I personally see draft picks as being more valuable to get the pieces you need than actually being the pieces you need. Luckily not all GMs feel the same way which is why so are very hot on trading for young unknown players to turn out to be the next Kane. While you draft in hopes of that, more often than not the player is not NHL level vs. is NHL level. I'd take the safer route, especially when rebuilding. If we were loaded and set for year, then maybe you get more risky.
Well, the bowman way is draft someone who could play day 1, then stash him somewhere so you keep his rights for another year so you can hold off paying them what they are worth, even thought he would be top 4 d man, possibly top pair.
 

LordKOTL

Scratched for Vorobiev
At least we finally had an aggressive forecheck. Funny how when that happens the other team turns the puck over, and creates chances.

Always go Best player in the draft. Fill holes in F/A
The problem is that we have 2 goatse.cx sized holes for top-pairing D.

That's going to cost a small fortune on the FA market.

I agree you need to get the best player in the draft, but it's something to consider. Hughes, while a great talent, doesn't solve the clusterfuck on the backend.
 

Bigfoot

Moderator
Staff member
As of now Hawks sit in last place. Time to embrace the suck boys.

#lose4hughes
#kookoo4kappo
#unknownRussianProspectgainingsteam
 

anotheridiot

Active member
They had an aggressive forecheck, a solid fourth line with Martinson, Kruger and Haydon that was punishing and producing and somehow Martinson got shipped back to Rockford. Punishing, aggressive forecheck, are we back to not wanting our finesse players checked?
 

Bigfoot

Moderator
Staff member
They had an aggressive forecheck, a solid fourth line with Martinson, Kruger and Haydon that was punishing and producing and somehow Martinson got shipped back to Rockford. Punishing, aggressive forecheck, are we back to not wanting our finesse players checked?
That is my main problem with them outside of the defence breakdowns is the forecheck. Most teams run an aggressive forecheck causing mistakes, but yet we play that passive nonsense.
 
Top