Krug Early Calder Favorite

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    NHL.com is doing all of the major trophy "early favorites".  Which is like being voted most likely to ... in High School.

    Have to admit I was put off by the Crosby ballwashing that was the Hart piece, especially because they didn't acknowledge Steen at all.  Not even as a potential runner up.  At the time, Steen was leading the NHL in goals and points ahead of Poster Boy with a game or two in hand.  How do you overlook that and pick Crosby when St. Louis was about 5 points better than Pitt in the standings?

    Then against, why do I give a fu--?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

    It is. That's why you need to be under 25 & not played in any other pro league in order to be eligible. As long as the player is within that range I don't think it should matter. An 18 yr old deserves no better treatment. 


    Maybe so.  But I know I'm more impressed with a teenage kid who becomes an impact player as a rookie, than a 26 year old who played 4 years of college and 4 years of pro hockey already and then shows he can compete with his peers (eventually) in the NHL.  

     

    Just a personal perference -- not a request to change the rules/voting.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, I guess I understand this, but I don't like it.  Thing is - and I am not unaware of the irony in what I'm about to say - I don't think you should devalue the performance of kids who go the college route.  Same is true for kids who aren't physically ready for the NHL at 18/19 like Drouin. Kids are all over the map in terms of physique at that age, not because of training but because of genes.  So if you give more credit to, say, Monahan than Hertl because Hertl needed an extra year in the Czech league before he was mature enough to come over, you're not really "leveling the field"; you're choosing a different set of variables to handicap the race.

    I think age should be a factor, but sort of like ROW is a factor in the standings.  Things have to be pretty close before you bring it into consideration.  Say Mark Arcobello and Hertl finish 1-2 in the rookie scoring race, and you correct the +/- for team strength, and Arcobello wins the stats race on the virtue of 4 additional points.  Do you say "well...but Arcobello has 4 years of Yale, 3 years of AHL experience, whereas Hertl has played the equivalent of one full NHL season in the Czech pro league, so Hertl's numbers are more impressive"?  Or do you say where the 6'2", 210lb Hertl performed despite inexperience, Arcobello overcame his diminutive size and worked his way up from being an undrafted free agent. 

    Or, to process another example, many believe that, in an open competition, Spooner out-performed Seguin in camp and in the preseason when both were just drafted.  Now Spooner is three years out from his draft and still looking to arrive at the NHL level because no one has shoe-horned him into the lineup.  One could argue that Seguin received an opportunity Spooner didn't, and now we'd be holding that against Spooner if, next year, his performance is identical to, say Max Reinhart.

    I think it has to boil down to something like 90% performance and 10% expectations.  18 year olds doing really well are exceeding expectations.  23 year olds - not so much.  I do support the 26 year old cut-off, though.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oh for God's sake...

    Can't I just have an opinion without having to back it up with all this logic and reasoning?  I don't even know where to sta...forget it, you're right...damn it.

    I just like Calder winners to look like actual rookies.  It's more exciting that way, because you can only imagine how good they'll be at 25.

    To paraphrase; I like em' young.  The younger the better.  I love teenagers...

    Now try to find something wrong with that.

    The takeaway here, is my consistent questioning of NCAA players and Bookboy's unwavering support for those guys.  We've seen it a million times... 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's ok for you to have a wrong opinion and not back it up.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to red75's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to jmwalters' comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Not really - the runners-up were Zetterberg and Nash.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Youch!! How could the hockey gods allow such a travesty? lol

     

    Seriously, what the hell? Were the voters on something that year?

    [/QUOTE]

    No, Jackman just had a really good year. He looked incredible back then.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mxt. Show mxt's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite


    Funny thing is, that may have been Jackman's best year. He's look pretty average the past 10 seasons.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    In response to OatesCam's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    No, Jackman just had a really good year. He looked incredible back then.

    [/QUOTE]


    I am sure playing with Macinnis and Pronger probably helped......

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    Jackman is that story of a guy who breaks in, breaks something, and is never what he looked like he was on his way to being.  I couldn't remember the injury - had to look it up - but he had a chronic shoulder problem in his second year that didn't really get better until two years later after the lockout.  Not good.  He was never going to be a stats machine.  You look at his junior numbers and his first NHL year and the think you'll notice is his PiM.  Dude was a rock.  I remember that the story was partly how he was insanely tough for his size, but he was bigger than I remember at 6' 210. 

    Part of the story is that he "replaced" Pronger and the Blues didn't skip a beat.  Part of it is the romance of a guy who was, at the time, compared to hard rock throw back nasty bastiches of the past.  He was a good defenseman.  Is.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    I think Jackman has put together a solid career - not spectacular by any means, but a respectable career NHLer. But wow has he been injury plagued. Look at his injury history here

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/teams/players/bio/?id=1923

    Doesn't look like there's a part of his body he hasn't hurt. He's a bit of a "what if?"

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    Krug looked terrible last night.

    Gotta lose sleep if you get burned by Dorsett.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite


    Yes he did NAS. I mentioned this on another thread but it looked like the Rangers went out of their way to challenge him and he was not up to it...at least last night anyway. Had the least amount of icetime for a d-man too which suggests alsoCJ noticed this.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Krug Early Calder Favorite

    In response to OatesCam's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's ok for you to have a wrong opinion and not back it up.

    [/QUOTE]

    A statement of personal preference on this is neither right nor wrong, Oates.  I didn't say the system should change or anything like that.  I said that I like one scenario better than another.  A matter of personal preference.  Capiche?

     

Share