[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Well its really hard to make sense of your rationale since it seems to be inconsistently applied. Tkachuk has high end skill, intelligence and work ethic and you are down on him for no obvious reason. He was top 5 on 9 out of 10 scout's lists that Bob Mackenzie talked to. Consensus top 5 pick and you have him at 11. And you choose to compare him to Benoit Pouliot? Strange and very questionable all around. Seems very irrational to me.

Not sure what's so questionable about Pouliot. Pouliot was a 4th overall pick. His scouting report?

Originally Posted by RLR

Pouliot has come further, and faster, than anyone in this year's class. With his speed, vision and passing ability, he can play a finesse game, but he also has the power and disposition to get mean and physical with teams that want to play that way.

But some players just don't put it together. Tkachuk may have great stats playing with Marner and Dvorak right now but every time I've seen him whether at WJC or when the Knights were on TV all I saw was a role player. You don't win cups stocking up on role players. Agree to disagree, I know I'm not the only one who just sees a role player in Tkachuk.

Keller is super high on your list despite his size limitations that may limit his effectiveness in the NHL. I know the list makes sense if your own head but I can't make much sense of what you value. The way you go on about Datsyuk, Johnson, Palat and Kucherov all the time has to make me think you overrate small skilled players.

Every prospect, in every sport, in a draft or otherwise, has limitations that may limit their effectiveness in the big leagues. And they have strengths that maximize their effectiveness in the big leagues. The key is weighing them in a manner that you think translates.

I value High-end Skill, Motor, IQ, and Speed. Small players don't have any advantage in that, though usually to get to this level they need more of that stuff than bigger players. But big players can and do have that stuff too. Ideally every player is Mario Lemieux but they're not.

Size is not a handicap, in this sport that is not vertical like Football or Basketball. Reach helps, but isn't the end-all be-all. I've seen Lidstrom and Rafalski play against some massive forwards, and I've seen Datsyuk and Zetterberg play against some huge defensemen. The idea that you need to build to "match up" to the opponent is what I don't agree with. You build a team to make others match up to your strengths. And you can't always just fit every peg into every hole. Perron absolutely did not fit in Pittsburgh and Hagelin absolutely did not fit in Anaheim, yet both fit perfectly when they were traded for each other. WHich brings me to:

Philosophically we'll never agree on the ideal makeup of a team

No, we won't, because I don't think there's an "ideal" makeup of a team, I believe you can win many different ways, and good "ideal" players won't always fit. You build around your best players, not around your "ideal" players. And if your best players aren't good enough, that's when you're screwed.