Quote:
Originally Posted by Poe969
Brown is a good mid round pick. I just don't see things translating for him to the NHL. Same with Keller, I think against much bigger and tougher guys he'll be less successful. With this pick, I hope they stay away from extremes of small but skilled or really big and less skilled.
|
I think people often say this about big and small players, but it often comes across as a blanket statement without much insight (and sorry, I am not attacking you or anything - this is a sentiment that pops up REGULARLY when talking about prospects at either end of the size spectrum).
When you see an oversized prospect, before we can assume he will continue being successful against bigger guys or not, we have to assess a number of factors.
1) Frame. Is he built like a tank already, or does he have a lot of room to grow? Some prospects play their draft year with a fairly mature physique. For instance, Oleksiak (who has been underwhelming since his draft year) or Mark McNeil (who also has been underwhelming). I look at Virtanen and think the same thing - living off above average size and strength and using them consistently to gain advantage over his peers. One thing I say about players like this is that they are often 'one dimensional' - at least when describing their offensive acumen. Maybe 'one-trick ponies' is another phrase?
2) IQ - touched upon above. What is their repertoire in terms of creating offence? Just the same power moves? What are their weaknesses that are inherently an issue for other prospects that make the NHL? Do they have the 'brains' to possibly overcome them? What evidence is there to confirm or contradict them having an above average IQ?
When I see Brown, I don't see a guy that is bowling guys over or one-handing them on his way to the net. I see a finesse guy with a strong set of skills on a fairly thin and fairly underdeveloped frame who has extremely good vision and passing skills (this takes pretty high IQ). I see him going around guys and shielding the puck, I see him cycling fairly well in the corners, I see him making toe-drags in open ice and going around guys. I see him generating offence in many different ways. To me, I think it shows that he is able to adapt to different circumstances and possesses a number of tools (including a good brain in using them) to help him at the next step. I see a guy who if he bulks up another 30 lbs and continues to develop his tool-set, would be an extremely valuable player that other teams would find very difficult to contain. That is why I really love Brown this draft.
Now, conversely, let's take a look at Keller. Let's go back to the 2011 draft. 2 guys really stood out for all the right and wrong reasons - Gaudreau and Grimaldi. Both were undersized and extremely talented. Both I believe were labeled as "Top 3 talent" in the draft.
Why is it then that only one worked out so far (and worked out so well)? Look at their game-styles, physiques and IQ - you see players of relatively equal height who were both thought of as being highly skilled, but COMPLETELY different.
Gaudreau didn't have amazing acceleration or top end speed, but he was shifty. Grimaldi did. Gaudreau as a consequence developed into a much more agile player - much more elusive. Grimaldi tried using his blazing speed to go around guys instead, rather than trying to be so elusive.
Gaudreau was THIN. What.. 135lbs WITH added weight to his jock-strap? Grimaldi was solid on draft day - he had a very mature frame already. You could see the difference between them. I never saw Gaudreau out-muscle anyone in his highlight videos. You saw it with Grimaldi - he would out-muscle larger guys. He would win puck-battles and then blast off. Grimaldi had what I think of as a very mature physique - almost over-developed. He spent a lot of time at the gym it looked like - very powerful build on him.
Gaudreau had a LOT more room to develop, and his 'strengths' were a lot more translatable given the player he was than Grimaldi's strengths. Gaudreau continues to rely on his agility vs break-away acceleration, on being elusive rather than rely on board-battles or straight away speed, on much more reliant on his IQ than physical attributes.
So, when referencing whether a kid is translatable or not due to size, we really have to analyze how he is translatable. I still think, for instance, that Nick Ritchie is a damn good prospect and I bet he becomes an important player for Anaheim. Why? Because he has that combination of skill, size and speed - though I do think his IQ is only average to slightly above. Ritchie was more developed than Brown at the same age, and relied on his physical strengths more (though, unlike Virtanen, he showed a greater range in terms of offensive acumen than Virtanen ever has), but Ritchie didn't have a 'mature body' yet, and thus one can imagine as he puts on the size and strength, he will be able to often (not always of course) do what he did in junior.
Brown relies a LOT less on his physical gifts than Ritchie did. I think he is just starting to add physicality to his repertoire, as evidenced in the U18s. He can become a scary good player as he has a lot of range in his skill-set and abilities. I think outside of the top 3 picks, he probably has the most 'range' out of the draft, but of course his floor is also quite a bit lower, thus the lower ranking.