[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Every year guys are taken higher than they should be because they have size.

Higher than they should have? That's your valuation. Sometimes teams see raw potential in huge players that doesn't end up getting realized. That doesn't necessarily mean the pick was bad, players bust or disappoint for a variety of reasons, many of which cannot be anticipated. And sometimes teams take a small skilled player and that player has trouble making a huge impact in the NHL. Markus Granlund is very skilled but he isn't an impact NHLer. Why? Size/strength and lack of elite skating IMO. Lack of size/strength can really limit your upside. Some players overcome a lack of size through a combination of superior skating, agility, skill (see Gaudreau) but not all do or not all have enough of an edge in those areas to erase their size disadvantage.

Sure some players are taken as projects. Which means that scouts are projecting them into the future. I look at Logan Stanley for example and I see the potential for him to turn into a Derien Hatcher type. Will he? You can't know for sure, scouting is not an exact science.. But a Derien Hatcher type is very rare these days. There aren't enough big, physical defensive d-men who can play top 4 to go around. If Logan Stanley goes in the teens and doesn't turn does that mean he was taken too high? Not necessarily. He has a chance to be a Derien Hatcher type and that type of player is very valuable so a team will take a chance on him at some point.

The upside is generally bigger when you have a big skilled player vs a small skilled player. There are exceptions like Kane and Gaudreau but there's also a ton of small players stuck in the minor leagues. Lemieux was near unstoppable because he combined size, strength, skill and skating. Same for Jagr. Were they more purely skilled than a guy like Fleury? Probably not, but their size and strength gave them an advantage, they excelled because of it.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I think my argument makes complete sense. In Junior he has a bigger size differential than he would in the NHL. Therefore, his size will give him more advantage in Jr than in the NHL. Of course size is an advantage, I'm not saying otherwise.

You were saying otherwise because you are saying he's potentially overrated due to size. This is using his size against him. Saying it's a bad thing when in fact its a good thing.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

But, his success in Jr could be overblown because of his size differential and not necessarily his skill.

If it was then he wouldn't be rated so highly by the scouts. They aren't ranking players in the top 10 strictly because of size otherwise all the 6'6 guys would be in the top 10 wouldn't they?

His success in junior isn't being overblown, he scored a lot of goals and points and scouts project him to be a scoring forward in the NHL.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Did you watch the highlights I posted? His shots weren't overpowering and most of his goals he used his size/strength to drive to the net, which I said may not be as easy for him to do in the NHL.

I've seen highlights where he has an NHL calibre slapshot. He has the size to be able to drive the net at the NHL level, that's part of why he's rated so high. You'd rather have a guy who has the size to drive the net than someone who is too small or too scared to. He doesn't have the shooting ability of Nylander, but Nylander doesn't have his size/strength and power game.

Offense in the NHL is often generated through screens, tips, rebounds. In order to generate screens, tips and have someone close enough for the rebound you usually need someone who is big and strong enough to crash the net but still has the skill to pass/shoot. Offense in the NHL is sustained through puck possession and a good part of that is being able to cycle the puck. Smaller or softer players can struggle to cycle the puck effectively because they can't win board battles (see Baetschi/Granlund/Raymond for recent Flame examples.)

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Watch his breakaway at 3:10. Where's the top-5 pick skill? I don't think he's a finisher.

It sounds like maybe you just prefer purely skilled forwards? Were you a big fan of Huselius and Val Bure? Huselius had infinitely more skill than Milan Lucic but no one would take Huselius in his prime over Lucic in his prime. Why is that? Maybe pure skill isn't the only thing that matters? Maybe being so big and strong that you are hard to check, hard to move, can protect the puck more easily, maybe that matters too?

Dubois is skilled, big, strong and fast. It's an appealing combination. Is he as purely skilled as Nylander or Keller? Nope. But he still may be a more effective NHLer overall because he has better size/strength than they do combined with a high skill level.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

Watching PLD versus Puljujarvi is a massive difference.

There should a massive difference, one is a top tier player, a potential franchise player and the other likely isn't.

Originally Posted by Bourque's Twin

I'm praying for a lottery pick.

We all are.