[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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

Pouliot went 4th in a year with very poor depth at the top end. Wanna know who else went in that top 10? Brule, Skille, Setoguchi and Brian Lee. It was a super weak draft at the top end.

This years draft has an extremely strong top end. I'm not sure Pouliot if he was in this draft would go top 15. Tkachuk is a much, much better prospect than Pouliot was.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Role player in what sense? He sure does play a role, he plays the roles of playmaker, finisher, power forward on his line, arguably the best line in junior hockey. Is it the best line in junior only because of Marner and Dvorak? Hell no. Tkachuk is just as important on that line despite having less flash, less wow.

You do win cups by stocking up on role players and having players fit all the roles. Tkachuk fills the role of a playmaking 1st line power forward who can finish. Pretty important role and one we currently lack.

You call him a role player as if he was a 3rd or 4th line grinder. That is massively underrating him. He wouldn't be a consensus top 5 pick in a strong draft if he didn't have 1st line upside.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Agree. I'd add size/strength in there as attractive qualities as well.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Lack of size is most definitely a handicap. Hockey does compare somewhat to football in that both sports feature physical battles where bigger, stronger players have an inherent advantage. In order to get into a prime scoring area (the slot) you are going to have to beat defensemen. Big, strong, physical defensemen will try to prevent forwards from getting into the slot and in front of the net. They will hit forwards, push them down, hold them, obstruct them, etc. A good defensemen can angle a forward to the outside and then rub them out along the boards and strip them of the puck. This is much more easily done to small forwards. The bigger and stronger you are, the harder you are to strip of the puck, push down, check, etc. The smaller and weaker you are, the more easily you are shoved down, checked, held, etc. So yes, smaller players are inherently at a disadvantage.

Now some small players are able to overcome this disadvantage by being fast, agile, sublimely skilled, and super smart and then beat defensemen using those attributes. But they cannot avoid physical battles completely. They will still lose board battles. They will still be cleared out of the net easily. And thus they are less effective on the road when the opposition coach can match up his most physical, shut down players vs your best small players.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I've seen Lidstrom and Rafalski play against some massive forwards, and I've seen Datsyuk and Zetterberg play against some huge defensemen.

Yes, those players have/had superior hockey sense and skill.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Well you can view it in different ways. We don't need to be strong just to match up against our division rivals. We need to be strong so that we're less easily pushed out of the game and so that road match ups aren't as easy for the opposition coach. We need to be strong so that the opposition can't match up against us as easily. It isn't a reactionary measure. It's so that we're harder to play against, harder to match up against, harder to push out of the game, harder to physically dominate.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

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.

Yes there are ideal makeups. Ideally you don't have too many small, weak forwards in the top 6 or you become easy to shut down like Montreal is. Ideally you have a few big, strong, skilled forwards in your top 6 to make your team harder to check, harder to shut down and harder to contain. Big powerforwards make room for the small skilled players. Big powerforwards win the board battles and net front battles so that the small players can dangle and get open. Look how important a guy like Paccioretty is compared to the more skilled Desharnais.

If your best players are all soft/weak and you build around them you're still going to go nowhere. You need some size and strength to be harder to shut down. And you need some size and strength so that you can more easily shut down the opposition.

Size/strength does matter. It's not everything, skill, heart, skating all matter too. But IMO you are underrating the importance of size/strength.