• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Les Habitants Prospects Thread

Tiger's Wood said:
However, finding guys who are skilled, lightweights and height-challenged is easy. A lot of them go undrafted.

Point is, you also have to draft bigger and heavier players and take a chance that some of them won't pan out. It's a percentage play. No reason to favor diminutive types with your last picks in the draft, by way of example.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean we get rid of our skilled players before those drafties are ready to take on the roles in the top 9.
 
BKerr said:
Sure, but that doesn't mean we get rid of our skilled players before those drafties are ready to take on the roles in the top 9.
Click to expand...

You don't have to get rid of your current skilled players. Incoming talent will be on a development curve. When the newly-drafted assets are ready for the NHL, then you worry about which ones have the talent to overtake any of your top 9. Redundant assets can always be moved.
 
LeftCoast said:
Agreed. But he shouldn't be the only one doing it.
Click to expand...

Except, you either have that type of give-it-all approach or you don't. Gallagher goes all out, every game. Up to the team to surround him with players who contribute in ways that Gallagher can't and who at the same time, serve as a deterrent to opposition players who want to take liberties with our smaller players.
 
Tiger's Wood said:
However, finding guys who are skilled, lightweights and height-challenged is easy. A lot of them go undrafted.

Point is, you also have to draft bigger and heavier players and take a chance that some of them won't pan out. It's a percentage play. No reason to favor diminutive types with your last picks in the draft, by way of example.
Click to expand...

Actually I see it the other way. By the end of the draft, all the big bodies who can marginally play have already been taken, so you have better luck finding a small skilled player who can make it to the NHL than a big player. In the earlier rounds, unless there is an exceptional talent, I'd favor skill with size.

There seems to be a strange misconception that we draft small players, which is simply not true. We've just been better than other teams to find small players, often undrafted ones, that can make it to the NHL.
 
Isaac25 said:
Max plays a skill game so Grapes has no use for him. Seriously though, we will draft Domi guaranteed...
Click to expand...

If he's available at the rank we're at, I'd be pissed if we didn't.

The same people who constantly whine that we're too small are the same mother****ers who constantly whine we didn't pick Claude Giroux.
 
Good point, Waz. I like the idea of drafting skill throught the draft. Also, I do believe we'll see more and more smaller, skilled players in the future. With the rumours of bodychecking moving up to Bantam as soon as next year you'll see smaller players stay in the game longer and have a chance at a pro career.
 
GrandWazoo said:
Actually I see it the other way. By the end of the draft, all the big bodies who can marginally play have already been taken, so you have better luck finding a small skilled player who can make it to the NHL than a big player. In the earlier rounds, unless there is an exceptional talent, I'd favor skill with size.

There seems to be a strange misconception that we draft small players, which is simply not true. We've just been better than other teams to find small players, often undrafted ones, that can make it to the NHL.
Click to expand...

I only gave an example of where low risk size could be had. A lot of players in the late rounds won't even see an NHL game however, you get the odd player who makes it. I wasn't suggesting that you should only look for big-sized players in the late rounds, but only that it's a low risk place to look for them, assuming you've also done your homework on those bigger skilled players that are available to you in the earlier rounds.

We've found smaller players cause other teams don't value them as much as we do. They fill their contract quotas with larger bodies with a modicum of skill, as a general rule. Kind of pointless to seek a smaller player in the draft, unless his skill level is through the roof and represents an appreciably better asset than anyone available at your draft slot in that tier. Other than that, our needs dictate that years of midgetry beg for us to redirect the course.
 
Last edited:
GGpX said:
If he's available at the rank we're at, I'd be pissed if we didn't.

The same people who constantly whine that we're too small are the same mother****ers who constantly whine we didn't pick Claude Giroux.
Click to expand...


So true...also, I really like the Knights as a program. Horvat is another kid that I'd love to draft.
 
Tiger's Wood said:
I only gave an example of where low risk size could be had. A lot of players in the late rounds won't even see an NHL game however, you get the odd player who makes it. I wasn't suggesting that you should only look for big-sized players in the late rounds, but only that it's a low risk place to look for them, assuming you've also done your homework on those bigger skilled players that are available to you in the earlier rounds.

We've found smaller players cause other teams don't value them as much as we do. They fill their contract quotas with larger bodies with a modicum of skill, as a general rule. Kind of pointless to seek a smaller player in the draft, unless his skill level is through the roof and represents an appreciably better asset than anyone available at your draft slot in that tier. Other than that, our needs dictate that years of midgetry require a us to redirect the course.
Click to expand...

Since Timmins is directing the draft, we've only drafted 3 players that are 5'10 or less, Gallagher, Dumont and Locke. It's not like we draft a lot of midgets, it's more than we rarely draft the really big players. It seems like all our picks are in the 5'11-6'1 range. I have a bigger issue about how we fill our roster on the free agency with small players.
 
GrandWazoo said:
Since Timmins is directing the draft, we've only drafted 3 players that are 5'10 or less, Gallagher, Dumont and Locke. It's not like we draft a lot of midgets, it's more than we rarely draft the really big players. It seems like all our picks are in the 5'11-6'1 range. I have a bigger issue about how we fill our roster on the free agency with small players.
Click to expand...

Yep. Been agreeing with you on this for a long time. Small guys like DD, Gallagher, Grabo make it despite the odds of being drafted 150th or not at all. There is no midget fetish.
 
GrandWazoo said:
Since Timmins is directing the draft, we've only drafted 3 players that are 5'10 or less, Gallagher, Dumont and Locke. It's not like we draft a lot of midgets, it's more than we rarely draft the really big players. It seems like all our picks are in the 5'11-6'1 range. I have a bigger issue about how we fill our roster on the free agency with small players.
Click to expand...

I didn't check where Archambault and Hudon came from.

Also, I don't mean small simply by height, but weight. A player is not big just because of a couple of inches of more height. Weight is a key factor, together with height.
 
Tiger's Wood said:
I didn't check where Archambault and Hudon came from.

Also, I don't mean small simply by height, but weight. A player is not big just because of a couple of inches of more height. Weight is a key factor, together with height.
Click to expand...

Don't forget girth and horn size.

dwight-in-office.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top