Everybody in our range seems really good. It'll be fun to cheer for a lucky high pick, but there's nothing to worry about even if they don't get it. The Flames are guaranteed to get an exciting player.
The Following User Says Thank You to Henry Fool For This Useful Post:
What style of forward is he then if not a power forward?
Powerforward: ala Simmonds, Lucic, Paccioretty, Wheeler, Hartnell, Foligno, Perry, Maroon, etc
Grinder: ala Hathaway, Bouma, Jooris
First of all I don't think Wheeler is a power forward. He's a finesse forward in that Thornton group. Likewise I'm not sure I put Pacioretty in that group, I've never thought of him as a power forward.
Anyways from what I know about Tkachuk, I think to encapsule the kind of player he is, you need to classify them as 'Skill Grinders': Kunitz, Dupuis, Hornqvist, Landeskog, Gallagher, Frolik, Stempniak, Burrows.
These guys might play a "heavy" game but I don't think of them as Power Forwards. What separates these guys from Power Forwards I would say is.. Power. They might lean off you but they won't go through you, they'll go around you. I do believe that's a key distinction because it's the difference in actua effectiveness.
In our division most teams are built around a heavy game, there's no denying it but the only guys who are true power forwards in this division are Perry, Brown (in his prime, maybe not anymore?), Lucic, prime Doan, Kesler off the top of my head. These guys are significant because before every game teams are circling their names as guys to be acutely aware of. If your name is being circled it means you're dominant.
I just have reservations on whether Tkachuk will be dominant like the guys I named. I actually think Pierre-Luc Dubois and Sam Bennett have more potential to develop into power forwards. As for skilled grinders, the question still boils down to how much skill is there. Is Tkachuk a primary piece or secondary on his line?
The one guy being criminally underrated in this thread is Rubtsov. Russian factor I know, but has the size, skill, and defensive ability to be a dominant player. That's what I want more than anything, a player who can drive his line alongside Bennett.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 04-10-2016 at 03:45 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
Would it be fair to say that after the consensus top 3, there seems to be a lot of fluctuation between the rest of that 4-10 group? Because there doesn't seem to be a common choice as to who should go 4th, 5th, 6th etc.
I can honestly see teams drafting for team needs and being able to justify it by claiming the player they chose was BPA. I mean, say the draft order doesn't change after the lottery. Say it goes 1) Leafs, Matthews. 2) Oilers, Laine. 3) Vancouver, Puljujarvi. Columbus could decide they need a defenceman, so take Chychrun and argue he was the BPA. Or, they could want a winger and take Tkachuk. We could take Dubois and do the same. Or we could decide to add a piece on the back end if Chychrun is still available, or we could have Sergchyev/Julovei ranked higher and take them.
Honestly, I'll be happy with whatever player we take. I'd be a little more down on Nylander due to his apparent lack of size, but all the others should translate into excellent NHL players should they develop properly. I think the management will be after a forward and they should at least have one of Dubois, Nylander and Tkachuk to choose from, even if we drop back a spot or 2. Works for me and that's not even taking into account the possibility of winning a lottery either.
I've read some reports that Laine's all around game is actually more developed than Puljujarvi, aside from the shortcomings of his skating. Not sure if or to what extent that's true but I'm not jumping to the assumption that Puljujarvi has an edge in that regard.
I would go with this opinion, but it's probably a matter of taste. Laine seems to already have a really good idea of what he wants to be, and more confidence in his game. He also seems to have that hunger and drive for goals and winning games that often separates the good players from the great ones.
Then again those are differences that are not actually measurable, and could just disappear in a matter of months. I very much agree with people who say that Puljujärvi might end up being the best player in this draft. He's just not an absolute guaranteed good choice like Matthews and Laine.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The one guy being criminally underrated in this thread is Rubtsov. Russian factor I know, but has the size, skill, and defensive ability to be a dominant player. That's what I want more than anything, a player who can drive his line alongside Bennett.
Been watching and reading all I can on this player. I like him a bunch. Russian factor could potentially push him down to Dallas' pick if it becomes the Flames'. I can live with that, bit time.
What style of play would you describe his as if you had to sum it up?
He's a solid two way forward. Sorry, I just don't see anything outstanding about him. He's not a great skater, he's not a great passer, he doesn't have an overpowering shot, and he isn't a big guy. He plays hard, but Sam Bennett played hard too, that didn't make him a power forward. I don't see Tkachuk being a physical specimen that is going to dominate any of the big men in the game. Tkachuk has a really good skill set but I don't see anything that he does at the elite level. To be hyped as big as he is, he should do something at the elite level. The only thing I honestly see elite about him is his line mates.
I think any junior player that is successful cause of their size but isn't actually above average size for an NHL player is an immediate red flag.
I haven't watched him but if thats true I want to stay far away. Screams bust since he won't be able to play a big mans game in the NHL.
I hate this argument. I see it every year at the draft. I don't understand the logic of it at all
Player X is big. Therefore player X must be dominating because of size. Therefore player X won't translate to the NHL where players are bigger and he's only average size.
Part of the problem with this argument is that Junior is actually filled with tons of huge players too. Tkachuk is facing 6'3, 6'4, 6'5, 6'6 dmen on the regular. Now not every defenseman on a team is that big, but each team usually has a couple. Scouts are seeing how well he does physically against bigger players on an nightly basis. They don't have to question if he can play his style against bigger players because you can see him match up against bigger d-men every night.
Here's a few things I believe about hockey:
1. Your level of physicality is not determined by your size. Mike Peca was one of the biggest hitters I've ever seen at forward and he was 5'11. There's 6'5 220 lb wingers who play soft, Eric Daze comes to mind. Tkachuk plays a hard game and at 6'1 200lbs he's not too small to play that style. Gilbert Brule was 5'10, played a powerful style, was rushed and got destroyed in the NHL. 6'1 200lbs is not too small to play a physical style.
2. Your game will more easily translate to the NHL if you are willing to go to the dirty areas and fight for the puck vs if you're too small, scared or soft to do so. This is where I'm saying guys like Baertschi and Granlund are having trouble excelling in the NHL. They just can't win board battles or net front battles and because of that big, strong defensemen can physically shut them down and erase most of their skill level. But remember Scotty Nichol? He was like 5'8 and fearless. Remember Paul Byron? He didn't shy away from the hard areas, he'd go there and fight. That's where you hear the phrase, he plays a big man's game, or he plays big for size. You want your players to willing to do the dirty work, to grind the boards, to crash the net. That's part of playing in the NHL. If you aren't willing to do that it's going to be much harder for your game to translate to the NHL. Tkachuk isn't afraid to go to the dirty areas, isn't afraid to compete for pucks. This makes his game more easily able to translate to the NHL.
Someone says he's got decent size and he plays physical so his game won't translate. To me that is completely backwards and the reverse is actually the truth. His game is going to translate more easily because he already excels in areas that you have to be good in to succeed against NHL defensemen, he's good at mucking along the boards, making small passes in tight, using his wide skating stance and butt to protect the puck and allow him to make a play.
I have zero time for that argument. Tkachuk is skilled and plays an NHL style game. His game translates very easily into the NHL and we've read scouts from quotes that say exactly that.
"Like his attitude and work ethic to go along with excellent one ice awareness and small space skills. Still growing, getting stronger. As good as anyone below hash marks offensively, where the NHL game is played." - Todd Warriner
"What impresses me most about Tkachuk is his ability to play any style the game commands. He can play finesse as demonstrated by his 70 points in 37 games. He can play the physical game as a 6’1”, 194 pound power forward. He can think the game at an elite level for his peer group. All this wrapped up with his impressive bloodlines make him a highly attractive and safe prospect." - Peter Harling
"As good as Mitch Marner and Christian Dvorak are, Matthew Tkachuk might be this year’s Knight ‘MVP’. He has added another dimension to an already gifted team, and they’ve been unstoppable offensively as a result. Love the way he plays with both power and finesse. Not an extremely good skater, but he can handle the puck and score as well as he can pass. He has an edge to his game that makes him a complimentary fit with pretty much any type of centre. Tkachuk’s relentless on loose pucks and excellent at lifting them off defenders to create turnover. He’s going to excel in the NHL soon rather than later because of his maturity." - Scott Wheeler
"He has good hands, a nice scoring touch and can also fight for pucks in the dirty areas of the ice." - Mike Morreale
Scouts are saying he's safe and will play in the NHL sooner rather than later because his game plays so well in the dirty areas and because he's got decent size. That's a pro for him, a reason why his game will easily translate. Not a knock against him or a reason why it wouldn't.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
I just want to say - thanks for the great discussion. I have to say I love reading draft prospect talk more than anything else hockey related. Really informative, especially since I won't have time to do any research myself, except maybe skim the THN draft issue when it comes out...
In our division most teams are built around a heavy game, there's no denying it but the only guys who are true power forwards in this division are Perry, Brown (in his prime, maybe not anymore?), Lucic, prime Doan, Kesler off the top of my head. These guys are significant because before every game teams are circling their names as guys to be acutely aware of. If your name is being circled it means you're dominant.
Good post. My definition would be far wider for LA and ANA although there's a fine line between power forward and grinder I suppose. I'd have guys like Clifford, Nolan, King all as borderline powerforwards/grinders for LA. Getzlaf, McGinn are definitely power forwards for me for ANA and so was Maroon and so will be Nick Ritchie.
First of all I don't think Wheeler is a power forward. He's a finesse forward in that Thornton group. Likewise I'm not sure I put Pacioretty in that group, I've never thought of him as a power forward.
I think for both those players their size and strength is a big part of their success. Wheeler can drive the net at will because he has the outside speed to beat you but he's also so huge you can't prevent him from cutting to the nut. He "powers" through checking easily due to his combination of size, strength and speed. He uses power moves on the boards and when driving up the wing.
This is an area where Colborne still needs improvement. He doesn't have the core strength to just cut to the net at will. When he attempts to do it he can get knocked over or down by shorter, heavier defensemen.
Like I've said, the way I'm using the term power forward probably isn't the way most people are using it. But how do I describe the difference in style of play of someone who actually physically powers through checking vs a guy who can't physically do that? By my definition Laine and Puljujarvi are power forwards as well. They are so big, strong and fast that they'll be able to power through or shrug off attempts at checking them. There has to be something about the way you describe them that captures this powerful nature of their game.
What is it that makes someone hard to physically check? You can't get the puck off Getzlaf. But its not just Getzlaf's pure skill that makes him hard to check. His size and strength and the way he uses it to his advantage is an inherent part of his game and why he's so successful. Getzlaf is a power forward for sure in my books. He's so powerful in possession of the puck that you'd have to be abnormally powerful yourself to be able to shove him off the puck. Guys like Pronger, D. Hatcher, Chara, those are some of the only d-men in recent memory who can physically contain power forwards like Getzlaf.
I would go with this opinion, but it's probably a matter of taste. Laine seems to already have a really good idea of what he wants to be, and more confidence in his game. He also seems to have that hunger and drive for goals and winning games that often separates the good players from the great ones.
Then again those are differences that are not actually measurable, and could just disappear in a matter of months. I very much agree with people who say that Puljujärvi might end up being the best player in this draft. He's just not an absolute guaranteed good choice like Matthews and Laine.
For the record:
Just so it's clear that my opinion isn't special, I don't really watch SM-liiga much even though I'm a Finn, especially not recently. I've seen these guys maybe like 8 full games, and that's including the U20:s
Good post. My definition would be far wider for LA and ANA although there's a fine line between power forward and grinder I suppose. I'd have guys like Clifford, Nolan, King all as borderline powerforwards/grinders for LA. Getzlaf, McGinn are definitely power forwards for me for ANA and so was Maroon and so will be Nick Ritchie.
Interesting to see everyone's opinion.
You're definition is very different from mine. I define a power forward by playing that heavy game where they dominate physically, not just along the boards by in one-on-one battles when they have puck in open ice. These guys have the talent to beat you regularly with a Gordie Howe hat trick. They will beat you up along the boards, beat you up in front of the net, knock you on your ass as they roll to the net and beat the goaltender by going top shelf. These guys are few and far between. Guys like Iginla in his prime, Lucic, Getzlaf, Perry, Brown a couple years ago, etc. Very few of these guys in the league. What you describe to me is a north-south grinder, with some scoring touch. Quite a few of them, but for the most part they aren't feared because they are a support player. They need someone else to carry the mail for them, which a power forward does not.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Out of thanks (and quotes aren't working for me right now), but good post FDW - also Itse. Nice to hear what a Finnish poster has to say on Finnish prospects.
I would just like to add to FDW's post here. I think that the 'he is big for junior and that is why he is excelling now, but once he goes to the NHL that advantage will be erased and he will suck' analysis fails.
I think you have to look at why these big guys are excelling or not. Just looking at stats - including their height/weight stats is lazy. You have to see for yourself WHY they can or can't translate. Are they poor skaters? Do they do things at too slow of a pace? Are they not tenacious enough? Do they have a certain level of skill? How is their IQ (hugely important). You have to look at their individual strengths and weaknesses to properly assess if a kid is translatable or not, or if he is merely living off his size.
There are TONNES of huge kids in junior that don't translate ever, and even more that don't get drafted at all. They simply don't translate because they have no skill, or no IQ, or simply take too long to make decisions with and without the puck.
Also, I think it helps to see how physically developed a player is. For instance, look at Rocco Grimaldi vs Johnny Gaudreau. They were both thought of as 'top 5 talents' in their draft class, but were both undersized. Compare Grimaldi's physique at the time (and probably still now) to Gaudreau's. Grimaldi was very physically developed - an 'early bloomer'. He relied on his strength and speed to do what he needed to do. He needed to develop more of an IQ to be elusive, as he would for sure be physically over-matched in the NHL. I don't think Grimaldi will be a regular NHL'er - I see him now as a fringe NHL'er.
Mark McNeil - also an over-physically developed prospect that relied on his strength. I bet he doesn't make the NHL - at least not anything more than just a plug.
Then you have oddities like Keegan Kanzig, Jamie Oleksiak and Nikita Zadorov. Huge guys, with fairly high IQ, who are already fairly 'built'. I think these guys are the most difficult to get a firm grasp on, but when they hit their upsides are really big (pun intended). Again, you have to see HOW they play - of course their size advantages obviously help them, but how do they read the plays? How are their games with and away from the puck. That is what makes or breaks these prospects.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
One of the things I like most about Tkachuk is he's mean. They say that you can't teach offense, but I don't think you can teach a player to really be mean either. I hate playing against MArchand, but man would I love to have him on my team driving everyone else nuts. I see Tkachuk as a bigger, playmaking Marchand.
One more quick point on Tkachuk. I think because a lot of what he does that you like is on a shift by shift basis, highlight films of him don't really capture that. Who's going to put out a highlight of him keeping possession of the puck along the boards on the cycle? Who's gonna put the highlight of him maintaining a good screen in front of the goalie to let Marner pick the top corner? As a result the 5 min youtube videos of him are underwhelming. He's not the flashy, deke 3 guys and then pick top corner type player like Nylander. Youtube scouting inherently favours these flashy prospects and downgrades guys who do the little things on a consistent basis that you aren't going to highlight. I'm guessing that's the main reason he isn't as well liked on a place like HF as compared to where the scouts have him.
If anybody wants to watch a full game of Tkachuk from a year ago I linked a video many pages back to the World U18s from last year that had Tkachuk, Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, Keller and MacAvoy all in the same game.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 04-10-2016 at 07:22 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
