Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt
Very interesting comparison. And the answer definitely is Johnny Hockey.
I want to touch on something else though in another post above. People comparing size/skill vs BPA. Its true we are in division of big bodied players. We certainly need to get bigger everywhere.
BUT do our skill players need to be big ? Can we not have a roster of 6'3 215 players, some 6'5, 230, and have 3 skill players who arent huge?
Bennett
Gaudreau
2016 1st round pick
Gaudreau literally never gets touched - so i dont worry about him contributing to our size disadvantage. Sure he wont throw big checks but hes mastered how to be effective while being very undersized.
Bennett is no #####-cat. He takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. He thrives on that kind of game. Hes going to the dirty areas regardless of his size, and he will win a lot of battles based on speed, agility, tenacity and hockey IQ. So im not too concerned with him.
Say we take a small player in the top end of this draft who has off the charts skill. Can we not cover these players up with bigger bodies every where else? Or do we need to apply that get bigger philosophy to the top of the 1st round.
I'd like to know what people think.
Personally I get it - we need to be bigger. But I think its dangerous rating players higher or lower because they are smaller or bigger. These are kids. They can grow 2 inches and 20lbs, in fact many do after draft day. Not to mention you can get bigger in free agency, and via trade. The draft is serious business, you can pass on a super talented player who is 5'11 and will play in the all star game one day and take a career AHLer who is 6'3. It would make me sweat and lose sleep more than a lot of other things. More than anything but giving contracts out and making trades. After that i would be very wary of passing on people because they are normal sized human beings.
But also I'd hate to be a franchise/GM who had a scout telling them this undersized player has out of this world skill, and it will translate to the NHL - plus he could grow, but the GM goes with the less talented player, with the bigger frame - hoping instead that this larger player offensive talent / skating / whatever grows instead of drafting a small skill player and praying they grow.
I think its dangrous. Im sure some team in the NHL had a scout raving about johnny and a lot of other players who arent even as small as johnny, but slightly undersized like 5"10 185. or a 5'11 190 dman with all types of skill being skipped over for a 6'4 220 kid who has skating and passing issues but hits hard and has a big shot.. Both kids have played maybe 2 seasons in junior. Little guy has tons of points, tons of good reviews from scouts, big guy has a few big holes in his game but projects to be a 5-6 dman at the worst. If im a GM I take that smaller guy who is more skilled, not every time...but when it makes sense and hes very very skilled and you can see him being able to compete and play his game in the NHL, then you take him.
Not to the point you have a roster of 5'10 185 players going against the kings, but in the top of the 1st round - elite talent levels, future superstars and franchise players... i would certainly not ignore size, but i wouldnt look at it as much as others or i would certainly factor in potential and ceiling not just floor and ability to step in right away.
My point is we can carry 3 small offensively gifted forwards if they compete and carry their weight. It can actually be a good technique to snipe players falling for no reason other than size as the GMs go for safe big framed picks.
We cant do it too much - but its a great way to snag high level talent outside the top picks or top rated picks.
I think in 5 years people will look at what marner, gaudreau, nylander, drouin, etc do and will draft differently.
PS.. I want Tkatchuk over Nylander as well - for a variety of reasons...but its an interesting discussion
|
Well, it isn't that cut and dried really. Flames have tried big guys (Colborne, Jones, Bollig, etc) on the top line, and we can all see they just don't produce.
You can't really go 'small' in the top 6, and expect it to even out by including all 6'5" guys in the bottom 6. The top 6 will still get muscled out all the time, and that is where the production needs to happen.
I don't for a second think (or want) that the Flames will pick a 6'3" career AHL'er over a 5'11" superstar. Of course not. It is just that especially at the top end of the draft, that is where you can find the big guys WITH the skill needed. That is where the difference lies.
It isn't like Tkachuk is a vastly inferior player skill-wise to Nylander. It also evens out a bit more when you factor in that perhaps Tkachuk's skill will translate better than Nylander's? There are many things to consider.
Just keep in mind that the Flames aren't going to pass up a sure-fire all-star just because he may be more diminutive than a big guy who has a lower ceiling. I can see them passing up on SOME skill for size, but not much (if at all).