[Poll] Who do you think the Sens will draft?

SensFan71 wrote:holy cow batman

Great shot, great speed, great over-all athleticism, plays with an edge, PKs, etc. There's a reason he was taken 1st over-all in the OHL draft, but there's also a reason why he hasn't ripped the OHL a new ***hole. Murray just has decide whether it's a maturity/motivation thing (like Getzlaf, who Murray picked at - to add fuel to Neely's fire - 19 in 2003) or a lack of a tool-box to put everything together (though, again, people will point out the international play where he was tremendous).

SensFan71 wrote:

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:A guy like MacFarland has everything Johansson has, just way more immature, so why do it?

There's definitely no doubting McFarland's tools, but there's definitely a camp out there that says he doesn't have the tool-box. He definitely hasn't done enough in Sudbury to warrant being a first round pick IMO, but his international play (e.g. at the Ivan Hlinka) puts me more in your camp in thinking it's a motivation/maturity problem

Check out his combine results:

• 1^st in Anaerobic Fitness: Peak Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 3^rd in Anaerobic Fitness: Mean Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: Standing Long Jump (in)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: 4 Jump (Mat) Mode: Avg Jump
  Height (in)
  
• 7^th in Musculoskeletal: Right Hand Grip (lb)
  

http://thehockeywriters.com/2010draft-prospect-profile-john-mcfarland/

Exactly. So if your The Sens and you are looking for a number 2 center behind Spezza and you actually have MacFalrand higher then Johanssen, why move up and give up assets? Same with Bennett.

IMO aside from a few guys like Hall, Seguin, and Gudbransson, I dont think the tallent in the top 10 is so far beyond that of picks 15-30 that you should move up. If anything, you should move down because of how deep the draft is.

ISS have McFarland ranked at # 30, so unless Murray thinks he will last to the 3rd round or trades down to get this guy either with a later 1st round or early 2nd round pick, he will be gone between our 1st and 3rd picks.

Flaws/Aspects He Needs To Work On:

• Continue to train to increase strength and mass.
  
• Consistency.
  
• Prove he has the necessary drive necessary to make it at the next level.
  
• Improve play without the puck
  

That's BS right there. He killed at the combine so these knocks are just people trying to knock a kid off his high horse, which he is defently on.

Like I said, I think MacFarland is the next Ottawa Senator and Murray trades down to get him. 100% reminds me of the Getzlaf pick in 03.

SensFan71 wrote:

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:A guy like MacFarland has everything Johansson has, just way more immature, so why do it?

There's definitely no doubting McFarland's tools, but there's definitely a camp out there that says he doesn't have the tool-box. He definitely hasn't done enough in Sudbury to warrant being a first round pick IMO, but his international play (e.g. at the Ivan Hlinka) puts me more in your camp in thinking it's a motivation/maturity problem

Check out his combine results:

• 1^st in Anaerobic Fitness: Peak Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 3^rd in Anaerobic Fitness: Mean Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: Standing Long Jump (in)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: 4 Jump (Mat) Mode: Avg Jump
  Height (in)
  
• 7^th in Musculoskeletal: Right Hand Grip (lb)
  

http://thehockeywriters.com/2010draft-prospect-profile-john-mcfarland/

Exactly. So if your The Sens and you are looking for a number 2 center behind Spezza and you actually have MacFalrand higher then Johanssen, why move up and give up assets? Same with Bennett.

IMO aside from a few guys like Hall, Seguin, and Gudbransson, I dont think the tallent in the top 10 is so far beyond that of picks 15-30 that you should move up. If anything, you should move down because of how deep the draft is.

ISS have McFarland ranked at # 30, so unless Murray thinks he will last to the 3rd round or trades down to get this guy either with a later 1st round or early 2nd round pick, he will be gone between our 1st and 3rd picks.

Flaws/Aspects He Needs To Work On:

• Continue to train to increase strength and mass.
  
• Consistency.
  
• Prove he has the necessary drive necessary to make it at the next level.
  
• Improve play without the puck
  

Or BM will just take him at 16 and be done. It's not a reach if BM and his scouts have McFarland as one of their targets.

N4L wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:And Bjugstad? Any opinions on him? 6'5 scoring centre -- seems like he fits the bill, too. Am I missing something?

High School kid, tough to actually get a solid read on him. It's like being drafted out of midget hockey. Sure, he domiantes but really, the compition is lacking to say the least.

Ah. That makes sense. I'm looking him over and wondering why he isn't more of a draw.

Anyways, I think there are guys that will be better NHLers then Jr players, MacFarland is one of them. His ceiling is as high as any forward, maybe higher, outside of Hall and Seguin.

Murray has to swing for the fences IMO and MacFarland is that guy. I wouldnt be shocked to see Nashville take him either.

N4L wrote:Anyways, I think there are guys that will be better NHLers then Jr players, MacFarland is one of them. His ceiling is as high as any forward, maybe higher, outside of Hall and Seguin.

Murray has to swing for the fences IMO and MacFarland is that guy. I wouldnt be shocked to see Nashville take him either.

I think I'd rather take him than Bennett. I just wish he'd done more in the OHL - his point totals actually went down from his rookie season which people thought had been sub-par.

I suppose, though, that if he had done more we wouldn't be having this conversation now because he'd be a lock for the top-8.

rooneypoo wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:A guy like MacFarland has everything Johansson has, just way more immature, so why do it?

There's definitely no doubting McFarland's tools, but there's definitely a camp out there that says he doesn't have the tool-box. He definitely hasn't done enough in Sudbury to warrant being a first round pick IMO, but his international play (e.g. at the Ivan Hlinka) puts me more in your camp in thinking it's a motivation/maturity problem

Check out his combine results:

• 1^st in Anaerobic Fitness: Peak Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 3^rd in Anaerobic Fitness: Mean Power Output (watts/kg)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: Standing Long Jump (in)
  
• 1^st in Musculoskeletal: 4 Jump (Mat) Mode: Avg Jump
  Height (in)
  
• 7^th in Musculoskeletal: Right Hand Grip (lb)
  

http://thehockeywriters.com/2010draft-prospect-profile-john-mcfarland/

Exactly. So if your The Sens and you are looking for a number 2 center behind Spezza and you actually have MacFalrand higher then Johanssen, why move up and give up assets? Same with Bennett.

IMO aside from a few guys like Hall, Seguin, and Gudbransson, I dont think the tallent in the top 10 is so far beyond that of picks 15-30 that you should move up. If anything, you should move down because of how deep the draft is.

ISS have McFarland ranked at # 30, so unless Murray thinks he will last to the 3rd round or trades down to get this guy either with a later 1st round or early 2nd round pick, he will be gone between our 1st and 3rd picks.

Flaws/Aspects He Needs To Work On:

• Continue to train to increase strength and mass.
  
• Consistency.
  
• Prove he has the necessary drive necessary to make it at the next level.
  
• Improve play without the puck
  

Or BM will just take him at 16 and be done. It's not a reach if BM and his scouts have McFarland as one of their targets.

where is the drama in doing that though? I am sure Tim and Bryan have a plan already in place, does it correspond who we think they will be picking? well I guess time will tell, dammit, come on 8 pm already.

rooneypoo wrote:Pop quiz:

Dreger is saying ATL's pick (the 8th) may be in play.

If you're ATL, do you trade that pick for anything like, say, the 16th overall + Foligno?

If you're OTT, does it make sense to give up Foligno to move up 8 spots? If so, who do you take at 8th? Nino, Connolly, Skinner?

Thoughts, please.

I would swap the 16th and Foligno for Nino...

I'm biassed as I was blessed enough to be out west to watch him 3 times. He's big, strong can finish and he's already proven he can play against men (he played well at the world chamipoinships). He wasn't intimidated, so for what it's worth I believe that initial OMG these guys are big/fast won't have as big an impact on him, because he's already played against some.

No question if ATL does, that, do I move into that slot. I am confident after watching him in person that he would play next year for Ottawa in Foligno's role if we wanted him to.

I'd rather get the BPA quietly than have drama and miss out on the player we really want. If it's McFarland and he's available at 16, let's do it.

rooneypoo wrote:I'd rather get the BPA quietly than have drama and miss out on the player we really want. If it's McFarland and he's available at 16, let's do it.

I dont think teams touch him who need a sure fire NHLer, ie low risk. Murray can actually do that having Spezza here despite both yours and I opinions on him. He doesnt need to step in and be anything more then a 2nd or 3rd line guy. No pressure on him with Spezza here and that actually gives him time to develope and learn without being crucified like he would be in Ottawa.

MacFarland is available at 19, I dont have too much doubt about that.

N4L wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:And Bjugstad? Any opinions on him? 6'5 scoring centre -- seems like he fits the bill, too. Am I missing something?

High School kid, tough to actually get a solid read on him. It's like being drafted out of midget hockey. Sure, he domiantes but really, the compition is lacking to say the least.

Lee and Turris (among others) are prime examples of why choosing high school kids high is a terrible idea. They may both turn out in the end, but right now, they look like bad selections.

McFarland, Skinner and Burmie. One of these three needs to be a Sen tonight IMO.

I heard it somewhere, but I don't remember who exactly, but there are a group of American kids (high school or the development program) who have comitted to playing in the OHL next year.

Anyone remember who they were? Given all things being equal, i'd prefer to take one of those over one staying in the US as playing 80 games in a league who's rules and travel..etc mimic the NHL

N4L wrote:I dont think teams touch him who need a sure fire NHLer, ie low risk. Murray can actually do that having Spezza here despite both yours and I opinions on him. He doesnt need to step in and be anything more then a 2nd or 3rd line guy. No pressure on him with Spezza here and that actually gives him time to develope and learn without being crucified like he would be in Ottawa.

MacFarland is available at 19, I dont have too much doubt about that.

I've never met McFarland but from what I've read, pressure wasn't really the issue - allegedly when he was drafted he had a sort of Kabanov-like complex and father and expected everything to be handed to him. He didn't battle for the puck, he didn't treat his team-mates well, etc. He became physical when he was frustrated and not scoring (actually, though, that's better than just becoming invisible like Kovalev). This past season, I read that goalies figured out a move that gave him success last season, which led to a slow start offensively.

There was a clear commitment to improving his defence this season, which hopefully means he's out-grown some of the bad attitude that had some people comparing him to Rob Schremp (with less junior success). It's also incredible to watch him play for Canada where he has more talent around him instead of the lousy Wolves - this would hopefully be the benefit of playing in the NHL, although he would at the same time be against better competition.

Even with Stamkos-like skills, I see him as a complementary player more than a guy to build around. But, of course, I don't think you should be holding out hope that your mid-first-round pick will be a franchise player. And, maybe if he cracks the Sens' roster quickly enough, he'd learn a little from His Alfieship.

SpezDispenser wrote:McFarland, Skinner and Burmie. One of these three needs to be a Sen tonight IMO.

if by Burmie you mean Burmistov, that is a pipe dream, the Sens are going anti Russia in the first round anyway, possibly the whole draft. I am being intrigued this draft by McFarland as I was a couple years back about Kassian, but let's hope I don't have to watch another team pick the player I was hoping to be a Sen, mind you, the year Kassian was drafted, which I think was last year, we got Cowen, nothing wrong with that.

Gohan wrote:

N4L wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:And Bjugstad? Any opinions on him? 6'5 scoring centre -- seems like he fits the bill, too. Am I missing something?

High School kid, tough to actually get a solid read on him. It's like being drafted out of midget hockey. Sure, he domiantes but really, the compition is lacking to say the least.

Lee and Turris (among others) are prime examples of why choosing high school kids high is a terrible idea. They may both turn out in the end, but right now, they look like bad selections.

Turris wasn't a high-school pick. He played in the BCHL like Bennett.

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:I dont think teams touch him who need a sure fire NHLer, ie low risk. Murray can actually do that having Spezza here despite both yours and I opinions on him. He doesnt need to step in and be anything more then a 2nd or 3rd line guy. No pressure on him with Spezza here and that actually gives him time to develope and learn without being crucified like he would be in Ottawa.

MacFarland is available at 19, I dont have too much doubt about that.

I've never met McFarland but from what I've read, pressure wasn't really the issue - allegedly when he was drafted he had a sort of Kabanov-like complex and father and expected everything to be handed to him. He didn't battle for the puck, he didn't treat his team-mates well, etc. He became physical when he was frustrated and not scoring (actually, though, that's better than just becoming invisible like Kovalev). This past season, I read that goalies figured out a move that gave him success last season, which led to a slow start offensively.

There was a clear commitment to improving his defence this season, which hopefully means he's out-grown some of the bad attitude that had some people comparing him to Rob Schremp (with less junior success). It's also incredible to watch him play for Canada where he has more talent around him instead of the lousy Wolves - this would hopefully be the benefit of playing in the NHL, although he would at the same time be against better competition.

Even with Stamkos-like skills, I see him as a complementary player more than a guy to build around. But, of course, I don't think you should be holding out hope that your mid-first-round pick will be a franchise player. And, maybe if he cracks the Sens' roster quickly enough, he'd learn a little from His Alfieship.

I agree with all of that, Im just saying that sometimes having support up top like a Spezza who is the legit 1st line center in Ottawa without doubt can allow a kid like MacFarland to come in and really produce and get comfortable at The NHL level very quickly.

Say Nashville takes him with their pick, he's going to be thrust into that number 1/2 center role within a few years, they have no other options at this point. That could kill a career, especially someone who has attitude problems and seems to get discouraged.

Ottawa takes him, he is put in a place where he can probably succeed right away. He will have some tallent surrounding him on the wings and the pressure is on the top guys in Ottawa, not on him. A lot like Getzlaf in Anahiem with MacDonald there.

I think both Ottawa and MacFarland are a perfect match, it just makes so much sense on so many levels.

N4L wrote:I agree with all of that, Im just saying that sometimes having support up top like a Spezza who is the legit 1st line center in Ottawa without doubt can allow a kid like MacFarland to come in and really produce and get comfortable at The NHL level very quickly.

Say Nashville takes him with their pick, he's going to be thrust into that number 1/2 center role within a few years, they have no other options at this point. That could kill a career, especially someone who has attitude problems and seems to get discouraged.

Ottawa takes him, he is put in a place where he can probably succeed right away. He will have some tallent surrounding him on the wings and the pressure is on the top guys in Ottawa, not on him. A lot like Getzlaf in Anahiem with MacDonald there.

I think both Ottawa and MacFarland are a perfect match, it just makes so much sense on so many levels.

So long as Murray thinks it's a motivation/environment issue and not a hockey IQ issue, I'm in total agreement. It's not like picking Seguin but the boom is arguably about as high.