KoZed Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I dug and found a 2005 Mock Draft I had written for the site: http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=823 Forward to 2009 and Anze Kopitar is the league's top scorer with 19 pts. In the meantime, Carey Price has had the history we all know and is platooning with 9th round pick Jaroslav Halak. In hindsight, do you still think the Habs made the best pick by getting Price in 2005? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Impossible to tell. Goalies take much longer to mature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habsfan Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I think we'll have to wait another 2-3 years before we can start talking about if the Habs did the right thing in picking Price over Kopitar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 That answer will not be clear for another 10 seasons. If you asked the question, who was the better pick in 2003, Eric Staal or Marc Andre Fleury the answer in October 2006 would have been Eric Staal. Staal was coming off a 100 pt season and a Stanley Cup championship. Fleury was 17-41-8 with a 3.36 GAA and a .897 SV%. What is the answer 3 seasons later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 That answer will not be clear for another 10 seasons. If you asked the question, who was the better pick in 2003, Eric Staal or Marc Andre Fleury the answer in October 2006 would have been Eric Staal. Staal was coming off a 100 pt season and a Stanley Cup championship. Fleury was 17-41-8 with a 3.36 GAA and a .897 SV%. What is the answer 3 seasons later? Ryan Getzlaf? Dion Phaneuf? Zach Parise? Mike Richards? Jeff Carter? (man that draft year was good) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycing Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I really wanted Kopitar that year, he's the big centre the team was, and still is missing. However, I still have faith in Price and I believe the Habs are sitting pretty with two great, young goaltenders. Time will tell, maybe next decade as someone mentioned, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) Given that Halak looks like a potentially good NHL starter, it is indeed quite possible that the Price pick is turning out to have been an error. I am anything but a Price-basher, and I agree that Price probably has a higher ceiling than Halak. But think about the scenario of Getzlaf as our #1 C, with Halak as our #1 G. It's far from clear at this point that Price is or will be an improvement on THAT arrangement. Consider, too...if we draft Kopitar or Getzlaf, then we don't need to trade to acquire Gomez and his toxic contract. Etc., etc.. The mind reels. Edited October 25, 2009 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzer Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Of course, you're assuming that the Habs development system, much maligned lately, would have properly developed those other players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Given that Halak looks like a potentially good NHL starter, it is indeed quite possible that the Price pick is turning out to have been an error. I am anything but a Price-basher, and I agree that Price probably has a higher ceiling than Halak. But think about the scenario of Getzlaf as our #1 C, with Halak as our #1 G. It's far from clear at this point that Price is or will be an improvement on THAT arrangement. Consider, too...if we draft Kopitar or Getzlaf, then we don't need to trade to acquire Gomez and his toxic contract. Etc., etc.. The mind reels. ... and therefore we dont land Gionta and Cammy.... Be a whole different team, and Halak would probably still be backup to Huet! During our 5 game losing streak we would all be wondering why we didn't draft Price, who without the pressure of Montreal has become a certified #1 in LA. What if Montreal had not given Richard a chance? What if , what if.... We have Price, who knows what the league would look like if we didn't. I still believe he will be elite, in his own time and am happy with the current lineup and the strength of the Dogs following them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Given that Halak looks like a potentially good NHL starter, it is indeed quite possible that the Price pick is turning out to have been an error. I am anything but a Price-basher, and I agree that Price probably has a higher ceiling than Halak. But think about the scenario of Getzlaf as our #1 C, with Halak as our #1 G. It's far from clear at this point that Price is or will be an improvement on THAT arrangement. Consider, too...if we draft Kopitar or Getzlaf, then we don't need to trade to acquire Gomez and his toxic contract. Etc., etc.. The mind reels. Getzlaf was picked in 03 when we chose Kostitsyn. Price was chosen in 05 when the big centre was Kopitar. It will be interesting to compare Kopitar to Price in 5 years. But we already know that next on our pick list were Bourdon and Staal. Kopitar was never going to be chosen by us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Brodeur: Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 1991-92 NJ 4 2 179 2 1 0 0 0 10 3.36 85 75 .882 0 (Ignored, because it's 4 games) 1993-94 NJ 47 46 2625 27 11 8 0 0 105 2.40 1238 1133 .915 3 1994-95 NJ 40 38 2184 19 11 6 0 1 89 2.44 908 819 .902 3 1995-96 NJ 77 75 4433 34 30 12 0 8 173 2.34 1954 1781 .911 6 1996-97 NJ 67 64 3838 37 14 13 0 5 120 1.88 1633 1513 .927 10 1997-98 NJ 70 69 4128 43 17 8 0 4 130 1.89 1569 1439 .917 10 1998-99 NJ 70 70 4239 39 21 10 0 4 162 2.29 1728 1566 .906 4 1999-00 NJ 72 72 4312 43 20 8 0 3 161 2.24 1797 1636 .910 6 2000-01 NJ 72 72 4296 42 17 11 0 2 166 2.32 1762 1596 .906 9 2001-02 NJ 73 73 4347 38 26 9 0 5 156 2.15 1655 1499 .906 4 2002-03 NJ 73 73 4374 41 23 9 0 4 147 2.02 1706 1559 .914 9 2003-04 NJ 75 75 4555 38 26 11 0 4 154 2.03 1845 1691 .917 11 2005-06 NJ 73 73 4365 43 23 0 7 2 187 2.57 2105 1918 .911 5 2006-07 NJ 78 78 4697 48 23 0 7 5 171 2.18 2182 2011 .922 12 2007-08 NJ 77 77 4635 44 27 0 6 8 168 2.17 2089 1921 .920 4 2008-09 NJ 31 30 1814 19 9 0 3 2 73 2.42 870 797 .916 5 Luongo: Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 1999-00 NYI 24 20 1292 7 14 1 0 2 70 3.25 730 660 .904 1 2000-01 FLA 47 41 2628 12 24 7 0 6 107 2.44 1333 1226 .920 5 2001-02 FLA 58 56 3030 16 33 4 0 4 140 2.77 1653 1513 .915 4 2002-03 FLA 65 61 3627 20 34 7 0 7 164 2.71 2011 1847 .918 6 2003-04 FLA 72 72 4252 25 33 14 0 7 172 2.43 2475 2303 .931 7 2005-06 FLA 75 73 4305 35 30 0 9 4 213 2.97 2488 2275 .914 4 2006-07 VAN 76 75 4490 47 22 0 6 3 171 2.28 2169 1998 .921 5 2007-08 VAN 73 73 4233 35 29 0 9 3 168 2.38 2029 1861 .917 6 2008-09 VAN 54 54 3181 33 13 0 7 5 124 2.34 1542 1418 .920 9 Price Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 2007-08 MON 41 40 2413 24 12 0 3 2 103 2.56 1282 1179 .920 3 2008-09 MON 52 49 3036 23 16 0 10 4 143 2.83 1513 1370 .905 1 Have a look at the stats of Brodeur and Luongo. Now before you dismiss this as incomparable and skewed information, based on different eras, blah blah, consider that scoring has gone up since the lockout, suggesting Price's stats may be the inflated ones. Either way, it's a relative analysis I'm trying to show, in other words, examine each goalie's stats against his own. Note: I eliminated the 2009-2010 season, as the sample of games is simply too small to consider the stats reflective of an entire season. Brodeur: Considered to be one of the best goalies of all time, almost a lock for the Olympic team, and mentioned in the same breath as Patrick and co. Look at his early career stats: -47 & 40 games played in first 2 seasons -Two of the three highest GAAs of his career in his first 2 seasons, 3 of top 5 in first 3 seasons. -Even in his first year with 70+ games (which was his 3rd season), he suffered 30 losses. Then, NJ became a defensive powerhouse. No doubt it helped his stats, but the point is that his play in his first two, or even three seasons in the NHL were not up to par with what we consider now to be standard Brodeur performances. Had he played his entire career with those types of numbers, he wouldn't be anywhere near the goalie he is now, and probably wouldn't have any cups. The point is when Brodeur was young (first 3 years), he was just another promising goaltender. Until he exploded in his 4th year and never looked back. Luongo: Considered to be top 3 in the world, if not the best right now. Lock for the Olympic team, captain of the Canucks, regularly carries his team. Luongo differs from Brodeur in his early career because he was on bad teams compared to Brodeur. Luongo started with only 24 starts in his first year, then, on a bad Florida team, it took him another 2 seasons before playing over 60 games. While Luongo's Save% has been steadily impressive, consider that in 65 games in 01-02, he received 2000+ shots compared to Brodeur's 1633 in 67 games in 96-97. High shot totals have been historically accompanied by higher Save% in the modern day NHL. Luongo continued with these steady stats in Florida until he exploded for 47 wins in Vancouver in his first season there. While it appears Luongo likely has the statistical edge over Price in his first couple of years, Luongo's stats, in those days, were often credited to his brutal team's defensive ineptitude. The bottom line is Luongo took three years before playing a full 65 games and being the undisputed #1 on his team. Which was a bad team. Price: Lucky enough to be selected 5th overall in an extremely deep draft by a historically overachieving team with an overcritical and demanding fan base. Price started out as a backup, before becoming the de facto #1 when Huet was traded. He played extremely well down the stretch on a conference winning team, but bowing out in the second round, with losses that were not his fault. His second season coincides with the well documented centennial catastrophe in Montreal, where on and off ice distractions, along with injuries crippled the team. With an aging, uninterested core turning the coach into a lame duck, the team fell apart around Price, until he himself began to go off course. His first year stats are good, impressive for a rookie, but reflective of a first place team. His second year stats are reflective of a bad season for both himself and his team, one which was brought on by the other, and in his third year, he's being criticized, after essentially stealing points in the first two games all by himself, because his backup (who is a very good goalie in his own right) has started three games in a row. Yes, the rookie sensation goalies such as Dryden, Roy and most recently Mason do happen. But how many are there? You'd be in a shitty goalie world if you proclaimed any goalie who didn't have a torrid start in his first season like the three aforementioned goalies is a wasted draft pick. I've compared Price to two of the best goalies in the world and the way those goalies progressed statistically. Could you honestly say that if you looked at all three side by side in their third years in the league, that one would be miles ahead of the others? I don't think so. Price has given his team a chance to win in every game this season, except in Vancouver. To dismiss him now is simply ludicrous. Neither Luongo or Price stormed the league in their first seasons. Or their second. Or even their third. And look at those two now. You can't say Price won't be any good based on a bad second season. Relax, give Price a break. Heck, he'd probably do even better with less people bitching and booing, and more people cheering. Don't throw out a cake before it's even burnt. I could think of another million or so metaphors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Ask me again in 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 Getzlaf was picked in 03 when we chose Kostitsyn. Price was chosen in 05 when the big centre was Kopitar. It will be interesting to compare Kopitar to Price in 5 years. But we already know that next on our pick list were Bourdon and Staal. Kopitar was never going to be chosen by us. The main reason the Habs weren't too keen on drafting Kopitar was because he was from Slovenia, a minor hockey nation. We already had picked Kostitsyn from Belarus in 2003 and 2 years later he was already showing signs of slow development; so Kopitar became too risky. Sort of like the Nordiques not wanting to pick Jagr the season after picking Sundin because Euros were risky. Also we had drafted a big C in 2004 with Chipchura, so the need for a big C was less pressing. So if we dont draft Kostitsyn in 2003 and Chipchura, Kopitar would have become much more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexstream Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I dug and found a 2005 Mock Draft I had written for the site: http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=823 Forward to 2009 and Anze Kopitar is the league's top scorer with 19 pts. In the meantime, Carey Price has had the history we all know and is platooning with 9th round pick Jaroslav Halak. In hindsight, do you still think the Habs made the best pick by getting Price in 2005? It was just after the lockout, every team crapped their pants because of the "european factor"... L.A. took a huge risk in everyone's opinion. The concensus #5 was Gilbert Brule. No way was it at any time Kopitar. yes I wish. yes you got the better pick in your mock draft. but the question would be more accurate if it was : Brule or Price. Brodeur: Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 1991-92 NJ 4 2 179 2 1 0 0 0 10 3.36 85 75 .882 0 (Ignored, because it's 4 games) 1993-94 NJ 47 46 2625 27 11 8 0 0 105 2.40 1238 1133 .915 3 1994-95 NJ 40 38 2184 19 11 6 0 1 89 2.44 908 819 .902 3 1995-96 NJ 77 75 4433 34 30 12 0 8 173 2.34 1954 1781 .911 6 1996-97 NJ 67 64 3838 37 14 13 0 5 120 1.88 1633 1513 .927 10 1997-98 NJ 70 69 4128 43 17 8 0 4 130 1.89 1569 1439 .917 10 1998-99 NJ 70 70 4239 39 21 10 0 4 162 2.29 1728 1566 .906 4 1999-00 NJ 72 72 4312 43 20 8 0 3 161 2.24 1797 1636 .910 6 2000-01 NJ 72 72 4296 42 17 11 0 2 166 2.32 1762 1596 .906 9 2001-02 NJ 73 73 4347 38 26 9 0 5 156 2.15 1655 1499 .906 4 2002-03 NJ 73 73 4374 41 23 9 0 4 147 2.02 1706 1559 .914 9 2003-04 NJ 75 75 4555 38 26 11 0 4 154 2.03 1845 1691 .917 11 2005-06 NJ 73 73 4365 43 23 0 7 2 187 2.57 2105 1918 .911 5 2006-07 NJ 78 78 4697 48 23 0 7 5 171 2.18 2182 2011 .922 12 2007-08 NJ 77 77 4635 44 27 0 6 8 168 2.17 2089 1921 .920 4 2008-09 NJ 31 30 1814 19 9 0 3 2 73 2.42 870 797 .916 5 Luongo: Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 1999-00 NYI 24 20 1292 7 14 1 0 2 70 3.25 730 660 .904 1 2000-01 FLA 47 41 2628 12 24 7 0 6 107 2.44 1333 1226 .920 5 2001-02 FLA 58 56 3030 16 33 4 0 4 140 2.77 1653 1513 .915 4 2002-03 FLA 65 61 3627 20 34 7 0 7 164 2.71 2011 1847 .918 6 2003-04 FLA 72 72 4252 25 33 14 0 7 172 2.43 2475 2303 .931 7 2005-06 FLA 75 73 4305 35 30 0 9 4 213 2.97 2488 2275 .914 4 2006-07 VAN 76 75 4490 47 22 0 6 3 171 2.28 2169 1998 .921 5 2007-08 VAN 73 73 4233 35 29 0 9 3 168 2.38 2029 1861 .917 6 2008-09 VAN 54 54 3181 33 13 0 7 5 124 2.34 1542 1418 .920 9 Price Year Team GP GS MIN W L T OTL EGA GA GAA SA SV SV% SO 2007-08 MON 41 40 2413 24 12 0 3 2 103 2.56 1282 1179 .920 3 2008-09 MON 52 49 3036 23 16 0 10 4 143 2.83 1513 1370 .905 1 Have a look at the stats of Brodeur and Luongo. Now before you dismiss this as incomparable and skewed information, based on different eras, blah blah, consider that scoring has gone up since the lockout, suggesting Price's stats may be the inflated ones. Either way, it's a relative analysis I'm trying to show, in other words, examine each goalie's stats against his own. Note: I eliminated the 2009-2010 season, as the sample of games is simply too small to consider the stats reflective of an entire season. Brodeur: Considered to be one of the best goalies of all time, almost a lock for the Olympic team, and mentioned in the same breath as Patrick and co. Look at his early career stats: -47 & 40 games played in first 2 seasons -Two of the three highest GAAs of his career in his first 2 seasons, 3 of top 5 in first 3 seasons. -Even in his first year with 70+ games (which was his 3rd season), he suffered 30 losses. Then, NJ became a defensive powerhouse. No doubt it helped his stats, but the point is that his play in his first two, or even three seasons in the NHL were not up to par with what we consider now to be standard Brodeur performances. Had he played his entire career with those types of numbers, he wouldn't be anywhere near the goalie he is now, and probably wouldn't have any cups. The point is when Brodeur was young (first 3 years), he was just another promising goaltender. Until he exploded in his 4th year and never looked back. Luongo: Considered to be top 3 in the world, if not the best right now. Lock for the Olympic team, captain of the Canucks, regularly carries his team. Luongo differs from Brodeur in his early career because he was on bad teams compared to Brodeur. Luongo started with only 24 starts in his first year, then, on a bad Florida team, it took him another 2 seasons before playing over 60 games. While Luongo's Save% has been steadily impressive, consider that in 65 games in 01-02, he received 2000+ shots compared to Brodeur's 1633 in 67 games in 96-97. High shot totals have been historically accompanied by higher Save% in the modern day NHL. Luongo continued with these steady stats in Florida until he exploded for 47 wins in Vancouver in his first season there. While it appears Luongo likely has the statistical edge over Price in his first couple of years, Luongo's stats, in those days, were often credited to his brutal team's defensive ineptitude. The bottom line is Luongo took three years before playing a full 65 games and being the undisputed #1 on his team. Which was a bad team. Price: Lucky enough to be selected 5th overall in an extremely deep draft by a historically overachieving team with an overcritical and demanding fan base. Price started out as a backup, before becoming the de facto #1 when Huet was traded. He played extremely well down the stretch on a conference winning team, but bowing out in the second round, with losses that were not his fault. His second season coincides with the well documented centennial catastrophe in Montreal, where on and off ice distractions, along with injuries crippled the team. With an aging, uninterested core turning the coach into a lame duck, the team fell apart around Price, until he himself began to go off course. His first year stats are good, impressive for a rookie, but reflective of a first place team. His second year stats are reflective of a bad season for both himself and his team, one which was brought on by the other, and in his third year, he's being criticized, after essentially stealing points in the first two games all by himself, because his backup (who is a very good goalie in his own right) has started three games in a row. Yes, the rookie sensation goalies such as Dryden, Roy and most recently Mason do happen. But how many are there? You'd be in a shitty goalie world if you proclaimed any goalie who didn't have a torrid start in his first season like the three aforementioned goalies is a wasted draft pick. I've compared Price to two of the best goalies in the world and the way those goalies progressed statistically. Could you honestly say that if you looked at all three side by side in their third years in the league, that one would be miles ahead of the others? I don't think so. Price has given his team a chance to win in every game this season, except in Vancouver. To dismiss him now is simply ludicrous. Neither Luongo or Price stormed the league in their first seasons. Or their second. Or even their third. And look at those two now. You can't say Price won't be any good based on a bad second season. Relax, give Price a break. Heck, he'd probably do even better with less people bitching and booing, and more people cheering. Don't throw out a cake before it's even burnt. I could think of another million or so metaphors. ---------- oh and what about every French speaker in Qc salivating at the thought of having Benoit :puke: Pouliot?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 It was just after the lockout, every team crapped their pants because of the "european factor"... L.A. took a huge risk in everyone's opinion. The concensus #5 was Gilbert Brule. No way was it at any time Kopitar. yes I wish. yes you got the better pick in your mock draft. but the question would be more accurate if it was : Brule or Price. ---------- oh and what about every French speaker in Qc salivating at the thought of having Benoit :puke: Pouliot?? I watched him play alot in Sudbury, but was never all that impressed. But I was what, 15 the season before he was drafted? I just remember thinking how he wasn't able to control the play, and that if he was really that good, he'd dominate alot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I remember this past summer hearing someone in the Habs organization (Gainey? Savard maybe?) say they were trying to decide between Marc Staal and Price. They thought either or both could be franchise players and there was an argument about which of the two we should pick. They picked Price because a franchise goalie is worth more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I remember this past summer hearing someone in the Habs organization (Gainey? Savard maybe?) say they were trying to decide between Marc Staal and Price. They thought either or both could be franchise players and there was an argument about which of the two we should pick. They picked Price because a franchise goalie is worth more. Marc Staal also played in Sudbury, and I went to every home game when they were in the playoffs that year. They had an unexpected run, bascially on the back of Staal, to the OHL final. Plymouth won the series, but Staal won the playoff MVP. He was scary good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 The main reason the Habs weren't too keen on drafting Kopitar was because he was from Slovenia, a minor hockey nation. We already had picked Kostitsyn from Belarus in 2003 and 2 years later he was already showing signs of slow development; so Kopitar became too risky. Sort of like the Nordiques not wanting to pick Jagr the season after picking Sundin because Euros were risky. Also we had drafted a big C in 2004 with Chipchura, so the need for a big C was less pressing. So if we dont draft Kostitsyn in 2003 and Chipchura, Kopitar would have become much more interesting. umm, how and why do people consider Chips big? While he isnt small per se, he sure as hell isnt big. Nobody claims Laps is "big", but they are the same size. Its like when the Habs got Lang, and everybody cheered because the Habs hadnt had that much size up the middle in years. Ya, 1 year, Bonk is the same size as Lang. Hands down, Kopitar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 It was just after the lockout, every team crapped their pants because of the "european factor"... L.A. took a huge risk in everyone's opinion. The concensus #5 was Gilbert Brule. No way was it at any time Kopitar. yes I wish. yes you got the better pick in your mock draft. but the question would be more accurate if it was : Brule or Price. ---------- oh and what about every French speaker in Qc salivating at the thought of having Benoit :puke: Pouliot?? Brule was a small, injury-prone center and he was anything but a consensus pick. Some saw him as high as #2 but other thought he was barely top 10. Pouliot was that out-of-nowhere guy who miraculously gets a good season when his draft year comes. I remember rumors that he was on juice that season and his lack of track recorded turned many teams off. Kopitar was already playing in Elitseren at 16 yrs old, an impressive feat in itself and had blown away the scouting community with a 10-goals performance at the WJC 2nd Tier. It was already mentioned then that he had perhaps the best game-breaking scorer of any prospect in that draft, but being Slovenian was indeed a huge knock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 umm, how and why do people consider Chips big? While he isnt small per se, he sure as hell isnt big. Nobody claims Laps is "big", but they are the same size. Its like when the Habs got Lang, and everybody cheered because the Habs hadnt had that much size up the middle in years. Ya, 1 year, Bonk is the same size as Lang. Hands down, Kopitar. 6-2 205 is the beginning of "big". Chips was drafted at 6-2, 200. At 6-2, he had the frame to be big if he had put weight on, which he didnt. Lapierre is 6-2, 207 but was about 190 lbs when he was drafted. In comparison, Latendresse is 6-2, 230. That is real big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_Boagalott Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 6-2 205 is the beginning of "big". Chips was drafted at 6-2, 200. At 6-2, he had the frame to be big if he had put weight on, which he didnt. Lapierre is 6-2, 207 but was about 190 lbs when he was drafted. In comparison, Latendresse is 6-2, 230. That is real big. No way in hell 6'-2" 205 is the beginning of big. 6'-2" 205ish isnt "big" at all. Half the NHL is 6"-6"2 200-205 lbs . Moen is 6'2" and he's 215 and Moen isnt even "big". However Moen is "big enough". The players that are Moens size are big enough to hit, injure, win fights etc against the 6"-6"2 200-205 lbs guys. Also at 6'2" 215+ lbs they can still hit, injure, and fight guys that are a lot bigger. Think of UFC. The 6'2" 215+ guys are Brandon "the truth" Vera. They cant pretend to be heavy weights but the truth is they are really only light heavy weights. They dont need to cut much to make 205. Lats is way big? Is Mike Grier huge too at 6'1" 225? Guys like Lats and & Grier might be big, but their not really big, they are just big for their size. They dont have the height to be really big. They are just really strong, its not like they have the reach of 6'-4"+ guys. Cube had a lot of weight for his size too. I wish Bob had tried to get Antropov, he's big at 6-6 230, but he's far from really big. Theres lots of guys like Komi, Artyhuken etc that are 6'-4" 240 lbs + Kopitar is 6'-4" 221. Is he huge compared to Lats? Not really but while Kopitar might be a bit lighter he'd have a lot longer reach. Dont think thats important? watch some highlights of E Staal, Malkin, etc. I still swear E Staals stick is illegal length, watch when he scores and raises his stick over his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 it is very simple....... you build from the goaltender out. Price was the right choice at the time. no goalie no cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Of course, i can't believe people are still bitching about this. Halak was average at best against the Rangers but the team scored 5 times. When Price is average they score 1 goal. I guess even when they are playing well people need to complain about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafikz Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I currently prefer Halak, but it's too early to bash Price Price has talent, he has size, but his work ethic sucks; not sure if he is ready mentally for the NHL; he will be a great goalie in the future, but he is not ready right now Of course, i can't believe people are still bitching about this. Halak was average at best against the Rangers but the team scored 5 times. When Price is average they score 1 goal. I guess even when they are playing well people need to complain about something. What game did you watch? It wasn't Halak fault in the 1st period; our D was a total mess, we were disorganized in our zone, so much that you could anticipate those Ranger goals Edited October 26, 2009 by rafikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I currently prefer Halak, but it's too early to bash Price Price has talent, he has size, but his work ethic sucks; not sure if he is ready mentally for the NHL; he will be a great goalie in the future, but he is not ready right now What game did you watch? It wasn't Halak fault in the 1st period; our D was a total mess, we were disorganized in our zone, so much that you could anticipate those Ranger goals Was that same D oh so organized in front of Price? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.