infant is better then hamill

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

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    hamill cannot be fairly evaluated yet...3 games at the nhl level? the body of work is too small- gotta give him a few more games to prove his worth. he and caron should be competing for playing time- the better guy stays up, after they make their "big move"- or god forbid paille rejoins the team(not b/c of check, b/c his play has been awful)--or who knows they could just be showcasing these guys for that trade? who knows?

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

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    Tempest, meet teapot.

    Hamill hasn't proven he will be a consistent NHL player yet.  On that, roler is correct.  But dez also has a point in that Hamill has proved, with points in two of three NHL games, that he can play well enough to be an NHL player.  What kind of player, and in what role and on what team...who knows.  But we all know that that was the first hurdle he had to get over; his AHL career made him look like the kind of guy you'd cringe to see on the ice.  He has been much better than that.  So - tempest in a teapot.  You're just talking about different points on a common spectrum.

    To be clear, Bochenski proved he could have been an NHL player, but for whatever reason he couldn't wrap his head around the things he needed to add to his knack for scoring goals.  Kessel showed us how he was capable of playing if he wanted to.  He doesn't want to.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill:
    hamill cannot be fairly evaluated yet...3 games at the nhl level? the body of work is too small- gotta give him a few more games to prove his worth. he and caron should be competing for playing time- the better guy stays up, after they make their "big move"- or god forbid paille rejoins the team(not b/c of check, b/c his play has been awful)--or who knows they could just be showcasing these guys for that trade? who knows?
    Posted by adkbeesfan

    You're right in that it's too early to predict what type of impact he will have as a player but what he did prove is that he wasn't overmatched by the talent level of the NHL.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    BadHab - I wonder if we don't cut the kid too little slack for having suffered a fairly serious wrist injury.  Plenty of examples of NHL star players - even just Bruins - who were never the same after a serious wrist injury: Allison, Samsonov, Oates....  Oates apparently couldn't shoot for the last half dozen years of his career. 

    We've been hammering on the kid for so long, it feels like he's 30, but this is only his third pro year.  If you think of the impact of an injury that affects your ability to feel the puck on the development of an offensive player, and add the impact of both getting injured and dealing with the consequnces of injury on the psyche of a young guy, maybe expectations have been out of whack.  If he does finally prove NAS wrong, it will be because he convinces himself that that's in the past and he's back to where he had hoped to be all along - a guy who can have an NHL career.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    All I will say is two words. The intelligent people will know EXACTLY what I mean!..................Ryan Kesler................!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill:
    All I will say is two words. The intelligent people will know EXACTLY what I mean!..................Ryan Kesler................!
    Posted by nitemare-38

    Strange how many Canucks have taken a long time to develop over the years.Kesler,the Sedins',Naslund,Bertuzzi.....all guys that seemed to take unusually long to develop but when they did,they went on to having some great years....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    Dez,
    get real, hamill isn't proving he belongs in the nhl at this point, as everyone stated this is to small a body of work, he hasn't proven to be any better then trent whitfield in his 3 games of play.. Its not enough to decide what he is at this point, all he managed to do was not stand out as being awful..

    I expect him to be an impact player, he was a high first rounder.. He can take time to develop be he has shown very little..

    Also not one of the names you dropped is really relevant in discussing hamill.. Kesler was a late first rounder, you expect him to play in the NHL, his expectations would be similar to caron (2nd-3rd line wing).. He also played in the nhl in his 2nd season was playing full time by his 3rd.

    the sedins played one year in sweden after being drafted and jumped pro..

    Bertuzzi is a big player, they take longer to develop, you should be likening his curve more to something like lucic..

    All of these players though were making impacts in the NHL, not just making it to the NHL..

    Maybe hamill will stick the rest of the year, but after 3 games he hasnt proven anything, he could play an awful game friday and be in providence for the rest of the year..
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill:
    Dez, get real, hamill isn't proving he belongs in the nhl at this point, as everyone stated this is to small a body of work, he hasn't proven to be any better then trent whitfield in his 3 games of play.. Its not enough to decide what he is at this point, all he managed to do was not stand out as being awful.. I expect him to be an impact player, he was a high first rounder.. He can take time to develop be he has shown very little.. Also not one of the names you dropped is really relevant in discussing hamill.. Kesler was a late first rounder, you expect him to play in the NHL, his expectations would be similar to caron (2nd-3rd line wing).. He also played in the nhl in his 2nd season was playing full time by his 3rd. the sedins played one year in sweden after being drafted and jumped pro.. Bertuzzi is a big player, they take longer to develop, you should be likening his curve more to something like lucic.. All of these players though were making impacts in the NHL, not just making it to the NHL.. Maybe hamill will stick the rest of the year, but after 3 games he hasnt proven anything, he could play an awful game friday and be in providence for the rest of the year..
    Posted by rolerhoky19

    Those names were specifically  in reference to the post I had replied to(the one that stated the smart folks would understand so I'm not surprised it went over your head).And this everyone else you speak of is totally discounting(as usual)anyone who isn't in total agreement with you.as usual,you've managed to try and take your argument to somewhere else that I don't care to go.Sorry to disagree as I know it hurts you inside.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill:
    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill : Those names were specifically  in reference to the post I had replied to(the one that stated the smart folks would understand so I'm not surprised it went over your head).And this everyone else you speak of is totally discounting(as usual)anyone who isn't in total agreement with you.as usual,you've managed to try and take your argument to somewhere else that I don't care to go.Sorry to disagree as I know it hurts you inside.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Way to take the high road,
    since the comments immediately following say hamill hasnt played enough to be evaluated (which would go alont the lines of he hasnt proven anything) seem to complete back up your point..

    and none of those players are relevent to hamill, he is not in a similar situation to any of them, so keep throwing out un related names ..

    I will add, theres not one person on here but you saying hamill has proven anything, all the other post are optimistic with his play, but most seem to understand you have to give him some time, the only one to appoint him as anything as this time is FCuk, as the worst player ever, and you as him having proven himself in 3 games...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: infant is better then hamill

    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill:
    In Response to Re: infant is better then hamill : Way to take the high road, since the comments immediately following say hamill hasnt played enough to be evaluated (which would go alont the lines of he hasnt proven anything) seem to complete back up your point.. and none of those players are relevent to hamill, he is not in a similar situation to any of them, so keep throwing out un related names .. I will add, theres not one person on here but you saying hamill has proven anything, all the other post are optimistic with his play, but most seem to understand you have to give him some time, the only one to appoint him as anything as this time is FCuk, as the worst player ever, and you as him having proven himself in 3 games...
    Posted by rolerhoky19

    That pass on (Michael) Ryder’s first goal was a thing of beauty,” the coach said. “He found him and I know he looked before he passed. It wasn’t a blind pass or lucky pass. It was intended to go there. That’s what he’s capable of doing. That’s his strength. When you come here and are asked to play for the team, you have to show what your strengths are. He’s done that.”
    Yeah Roler,he hasn't proven anything to anyone right........
     
Sections
Shortcuts