[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Most of the ones.

I think most teams would take Saad over Johnson.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Brandon Saad is a line driver? Well I mean, he drives play at times, but most would consider him a complimentary piece, not unlike Ryan Callahan or Brad Marchand, albeit a bit taller.

I never said he was a line driver. That is some weird terminology that you brought to the conversation and I'm not quite sure what it means. IMO in general lines are driven by the centre. There are some exceptions like Gaudreau and Kane but in general the centre drives the play for me.

Saad I consider a 1st line goal scoring winger with game breaking speed.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I never said Dubois and Pulju aren't more attractive prospects as they are two way monsters with strong offense, they are. But there are more concerns about them offensively than Keller.

I think there are more concerns on Keller due to his size and questions about whether he can translate his game to the NHL and survive against the biggest and meanest in the NHL.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

He didn't have one crazy year. He had other years putting up similar numbers but played less minutes. You don't finish top 10 in scoring in the NHL as a 2nd line winger.

He did have one crazy year. And the year after that he spent time on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd lines, was traded to a stronger team and ended up a 3rd liner on a playoff team. So did he go from a 1st liner to a 3rd liner in the space of a year? Or was he more of a "true" or "ideal" 2nd liner who could fit and compliment the crazy skill of Little Johnny and thus put up crazy points with them due to chemistry?

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

And yet on no line is he the third option. Unlike Saad, who is the third option on most lines. RyJo may be inconsistent, but let's not pretend Monahan is a model of consistency either. These are young centers.

I'm not sure what you mean by third option. There's some new terminology that you haven't defined. Saad is a 1st line goal scoring winger with game breaking speed. How does that make him the 3rd option? 3rd option for what? Please explain.

Johansen has great scoring and playmaking. I think if he was more determined and a little quicker the sky would be the limit for him. I tend to think he'll be a decent 1st line centre overall.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Ideal 2nd line center who as 1st line center took his team to the cup final where they were a goalie injury away from winning a Stanley Cup. And now Ideal 2nd line center who has his team be the first to enter into a conference final. While the team is without its Ideal 1st line center who is actually a functional 2nd line center that gets a lot of power play goals.

No, no we don't. Because you have this constant "ideal" concept in your head that blinds you to "actual". Ask a Tampa fan if Tyler Johnson is an actual 1C or a 2C.

Well you love stats right? 38 points in 69 games, does that scream legit 1st line centre to you? It doesn't to me. That's what he put up this regular season. It's like when Benning says there's only 8-10 true #1 defensemen in the NHL. I believe there aren't 30 "true" or "ideal" #1 centres in the NHL. And some teams are hogging two of them (see Crosby/Malkin). Crosby, Toews, Malkin, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Bergeron these are ideal #1 centres. Some teams don't have an ideal #1 centre but are still a good team. Johnson didn't take his team to the conference finals, the team did. Hockey is a team game. Johnson is a good player and its no insult to him that he's not an ideal #1 centre. Like I said, he's an ideal #2 centre and can be your #1 in a pinch.

Lets use some Flames comparables. Langkow took the Flames took the playoffs as our #1 centre. Does that mean he was an "ideal" #1 centre? No. On a stronger team he would have been a #2 centre. On a team with a true #1 centre, Johnson would be a great #2 centre. Let's use another Flames comparable. Conroy "took" his team to the Stanley Cup finals. Does this mean Conroy was an ideal or true #1 centre? Nope. If we had a true #1 centre he would've been an amazing #2.

This "ideal" or "true" concept I use is used by scouts and GMs. Listen to enough interviews and you'll hear it. Just because a team is successful with an ideal #2 as their #1 centre doesn't mean that player is a #1 centre in the league wide sense. Does Dallas have a true #1 defenseman? No, but they were the best in the West and they have made it to the 2nd round. Nobody is going to call Demers or Russell or Klingberg or Oduya or Goligoski an ideal #1 defenseman are they? Do they even have a single d-men that would play top pairing on the Predators? I don't think so. Again there probably aren't 30 true or ideal #1 d-men in the entire league. And some teams may be hogging a couple of them.

Hopefully you get my point there.