Hypothetical: Reinhart or Ekblad?

[Sylvanfan]

I think you can't draft by postion, it has to be based on talent. Ekblad as a 17 year old is showing some pretty solid indicators that he can be a true number one defenceman. Reinhart still leaves questions as to whether he'll be a real top line center. I know there is risk in taking defenceman that high, and that they can take longer to develop...but to me Ekblad seems like you're going for the potential Ferrari with Chevy downside, whereas Reinhart is buying a Toyota and hoping it's more like a Lexus.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I think you can't draft by postion, it has to be based on talent. Ekblad as a 17 year old is showing some pretty solid indicators that he can be a true number one defenceman. Reinhart still leaves questions as to whether he'll be a real top line center. I know there is risk in taking defenceman that high, and that they can take longer to develop...but to me Ekblad seems like you're going for the potential Ferrari with Chevy downside, whereas Reinhart is buying a Toyota and hoping it's more like a Lexus.

#### you, 80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. We should be so lucky with our 1st overall pick...

[bubbsy]

there happens to be a blog about "Risk/Reward of picking defencemen in the 1st round" non eklund's site today:
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklun...-Round/1/56048

Interesting conclusions:

Last but not least, using a first-round pick to draft by positional need for teenaged defensemen and goalies is often ill-advised strategy. I will illustrate why with some research I did on current NHL defensemen and the spot in which they were originally drafted.

After the 2011-12 season, I compiled a list of the top 152 defensemen in the NHL this past season: the list includes Chris Pronger and the now-retired Nicklas Lidström, plus the mathematical equivalent of a top-5 starting defenseman corps for the 30 NHL teams (although not all teams have five players on the actual list).

A little more than one-third of the list is comprised of defensemen who were former first-round picks and their ranks include some of the top defensemen in the league. That's to be expected.

However, as you move down to the nearly two-thirds who were not first-round picks, you will find that just as many of the league’s All-Star and even Norris Trophy caliber defensemen in the NHL were selected after the first round in their draft years.

In fact, a few fairly prominent blueliners in the NHL -- such as Dan Girardi, Dan Boyle and Jason Garrison -- were originally rookie free agents who were never drafted at all.
Using a first-round selection to take a lower-ceiling but "safe" blueliner over a higher-ceiling forward is more often than not a recipe to look back at the draft round with regret in the years to come.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

If we can get Ekblad and McDavid in the next 2 drafts I honestly think we win the cup by 2020 barring major injuries. Lots of character guys in the system and having a prospect like Monahan be your #2 C would be a massive luxury

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

#### you, 80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. We should be so lucky with our 1st overall pick...

David Legwand is the Toyota of the NHL. 920 games with the same franchise, is tough to criticize as a pick. But for all the miles, how much excitement did he deliver?

[bubbsy]

Legwand has been a solid #2 line 2-way player throughout his career. It doesn't come across as a "sexy" pick, but in the end, it's a solid pick.

I think monohan's lower level potential is in the same realm of solid second line 2-way Center.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get the best player available thing, but I think you have to put a rider in there. Look at Edmonton, if your drafting BPA year after year and not filling team needs, you over stack the team in one or two positions and never balance it out.

I think you have to go deeper then picking up the consensus hockey news pick at that position and pick BPA by position based on organizational need. If you have good forward depth, then maybe you pick bpa by defenseman.

But to blindly pick bpa I think is a recipe for Oily disaster.

Edmonton didn't take the best player available each year in the eyes of everyone. They took the most skilled offensive forward each year (until Nurse). Not necessarily the same thing for a lot of teams. I know the Flames had Galchenyuk ahead of Yakupov. I know the Leafs had Reilly 1st on their list in the Yakupov year.

BPA should take into account the relative importance of positions. A big, skilled potential #1 centre is more important than an average sized goal scoring winger. A big, strong top 2 defenseman is more important than an average sized goal scoring winger. Edmonton's scouts don't see to realize this and seem to think they can build a team around average sized offensively skilled players.

If the Oilers thought they took the best player available each year then they are emphasizing the wrong attributes/positions IMO.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

http://www.tsn.ca/window/podcastcent...id=22936&id=65

Craig Button's podcast on the 2014 draft. Some people seem to think Button doesn't watch these players himself very much but he actually does.

Very interesting talk and perspective for those interested in the draft.

If people want some more info of guys who might be available at #3 this podcast is a good one because they talk with Todd Gill the head coach of the Kingston Frontenacs who have Sam Bennett and Roland McKeown. Button thinks Bennett is one of the elite players in this draft. McKeown was described as a Niedermayer like skater who plays more physical than Niedermayer by his coach. Obviously he's not saying he will be a hall of famer but it gives you a good idea of his skating and offensive skill.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i would love to see the first forward and first defenceman picked in each draft where both are selected in the top 3, and play the "which would you have picked" game.

screw it, let's see how this goes if we go back about 10 years:
2013: Mackinnon(1) / Jones(4th) -> too soon
2012: Yakupov(1) / Murray(2nd) -> too soon
2011: Hopkins(1) / Larsson(4th) -> forward
2010: Hall(1) / Gudrabson(3) -> forward
2009: Tavares(1) / Hedman(2) -> forward
2008: Stamkos(1) / Doughty(2)... (interesting, Bogosian(3), Pietrangelo(4), Schenn(5)) -> forward, but damn it's close. great year for dmen.
2007: P.Kane(1) / Hickey(4) -> forward
2006: E. Johnson(1) / J.Staal(2)... (interesting, Toews(3)) -> forward
2005: Crosby(1) / J.Johnson(3) -> forward
2004: Oveckin(1) / Barker(3) -> forward
2003 ignored as that draft was just unreal......

not sure if this really means anything, as it's a very limited analysis in longevity or depth into the draft (ie. would love to analyze all the top F vs top C drafted up)... but in any case, i think your just playing the odds better by going for the concensus top forwards rather than dmen.

Not a fair comparison at all as the average forward pick was 1.1 and the average defenseman was 2.8

You're essentially comparing a bunch of #1 overalls against a bunch of #3 overalls

(I am a big believer in taking the forward as a general rule btw)

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Edmonton didn't take the best player available each year in the eyes of everyone. They took the most skilled offensive forward each year (until Nurse). Not necessarily the same thing for a lot of teams. I know the Flames had Galchenyuk ahead of Yakupov. I know the Leafs had Reilly 1st on their list in the Yakupov year.

BPA should take into account the relative importance of positions. A big, skilled potential #1 centre is more important than an average sized goal scoring winger. A big, strong top 2 defenseman is more important than an average sized goal scoring winger. Edmonton's scouts don't see to realize this and seem to think they can build a team around average sized offensively skilled players.

If the Oilers thought they took the best player available each year then they are emphasizing the wrong attributes/positions IMO.

What scouts, the draft panel at the Hockey News?

the Oilers pretty much took the concensus BPA's with their number one picks.

BPA if I understand the definition right is not about fitting to a position or even looking at a certain skill set or atribute. Its the guy deemed the best player by draft epectation position.

If the Oilers did BPA by position they might have picked that defensemen or center instead of wingers that were all ranked number 1 and strangely similar.

[Enoch Root]

While I believe in taking the forward generally, and I strongly believe in building down the middle, I would go with Ekblad in this case.

1) I think he is the better player (though it is pretty much impossible to tell at this stage)
2) we got a C last year and the year before
3) looks like next year is another great year for Cs
4) we lack size on the D and also could use more with the D prospects
5) we lack a high-end offensive D prospect

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

While I believe in taking the forward generally, and I strongly believe in building down the middle, I would go with Ekblad in this case.

1) I think he is the better player (though it is pretty much impossible to tell at this stage)
2) we got a C last year and the year before
3) looks like next year is another great year for Cs
4) we lack size on the D and also could use more with the D prospects
5) we lack a high-end offensive D prospect

6) Right handed D-man as well. The package is a rare one to draft.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

While I believe in taking the forward generally, and I strongly believe in building down the middle, I would go with Ekblad in this case.

1) I think he is the better player (though it is pretty much impossible to tell at this stage)
2) we got a C last year and the year before
3) looks like next year is another great year for Cs
4) we lack size on the D and also could use more with the D prospects
5) we lack a high-end offensive D prospect

I agree with everything you've said. The only thing that prevents me from jumping on the Ekblad Express is this:

St Louis drafted Erik Johnson and two picks later watched their division rival select Jonathan Toews. I don't want to imagine a world where somehow the Oilers get a Hall of Famer and we get the guy we'll give up on in five years.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the Oilers pretty much took the concensus BPA's with their number one picks.

With Hall I agree that he was probably consensus over Seguin. RNH probably topped most teams lists but it wouldn't surprise me if Larsson, Landeskog or Huberdeau topped some teams lists. I don't think Yakupov was a consensus pick at all and we have info on the Flames (Galchenyuk) and Leafs (Reilly) who didn't have Yakupov #1. I would guess the Blue Jackets had Murray #1 overall. And the Islanders who offered their entire draft for the #2 pick probably had Murray #1 overall as well. Wouldn't surprise me if less than half the teams in league had Yakupov #1.

Certainly Yakupov is the most controversial of their picks. He was somewhat redudant with Hall and Eberle already on the team. He brings the Russian factor and that has already decreased his trade value since the draft. It would have been a perfect year for them to deal down and take a defenseman, just take Galchenyuk at #1 or just trade the pick.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

BPA if I understand the definition right is not about fitting to a position or even looking at a certain skill set or atribute. Its the guy deemed the best player by draft epectation position.

If the Oilers did BPA by position they might have picked that defensemen or center instead of wingers that were all ranked number 1 and strangely similar.

BPA is certainly swayed by what attributes and skills an organization emphasizes in their scouting. There's no objective "best player available". If your scouts think size, leadership and physical play is important than you might think a guy like Landeskog is the best player available over a kid like RNH who was probably the most purely skilled forward available that year. If your scouts emphasize skill and hockey sense above all else than RNH probably would've been your guy. It seems like the Oilers scouts value offensive skill above all other considerations. And so they've built a team with some offensive skill but has very little size, physical play and two-way play at their top end.

Some scouts and managers think centre is the most important position up front. Therefore you would think a potential #1 centre is the best player available over a potential #1 goal scoring winger. Some scouts and managers think it is so hard to get a big top two defenseman with size that they will bump those types of players up their list. Watch the behind the scenes videos with the Philadelphia Flyers at last years draft and you'll see they had guys like Morin, Zadorov, etc ahead of Monahan. That type of thinking isn't necessarily drafting by position. Drafting by position is saying well we have a ton of centre prospects so we won't take a centre. I don't think many teams draft by position except in regards to goaltenders.

So unfortunately best player available is still very subjective and does certainly rely on what attributes, skills and positions management and scouts emphasize. I think our organization doesn't emphasize pure offensive skill above all other attributes like the Oilers have seemed to.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

double post

nm

[Flames Draft Watcher]

In the podcast I linked above Button actually tries to answer this exact question from a Buffalo fan.

His answer? Well paraphrasing he basically says while Buffalo has some nice depth at centre (Grigorenko, Girgensons, Hodgson) and defense (Ristolainen, Zadorov, Myers) he says they don't possess any young players of the calibre of Ekblad/Reinhart and so you'd be happy to get either guy because both guys are rare, elite talents. I agree with Button here. He says last year was similar in that you'd love to have any of MacKinnon, Drouin, Jones or Barkov, all elite players with different styles. You just pick your favourite flavour.

Flames can't go wrong if the question is Reinhart vs Ekblad. It will be interesting to see how the depth at the top end shakes out at the end of the year. Sounds like Button considers Bennett an elite talent as well. Not sure if Nylander/Dal Colle are in the same conversation at the moment.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

With Hall I agree that he was probably consensus over Seguin. RNH probably topped most teams lists but it wouldn't surprise me if Larsson, Landeskog or Huberdeau topped some teams lists. I don't think Yakupov was a consensus pick at all and we have info on the Flames (Galchenyuk) and Leafs (Reilly) who didn't have Yakupov #1. I would guess the Blue Jackets had Murray #1 overall. And the Islanders who offered their entire draft for the #2 pick probably had Murray #1 overall as well. Wouldn't surprise me if less than half the teams in league had Yakupov #1.

Certainly Yakupov is the most controversial of their picks. He was somewhat redudant with Hall and Eberle already on the team. He brings the Russian factor and that has already decreased his trade value since the draft. It would have been a perfect year for them to deal down and take a defenseman, just take Galchenyuk at #1 or just trade the pick.

I don't think Yakupov was really a bad (or wrong) pick. I think too much is being made of him being a KHL flight-risk - the kid came over to play junior hockey in Canada. I think the KHL is there to help increase his pay as I am sure he will field a few offers from there when the time comes (which is a larger and more realistic problem than being a flight risk for teams selecting high-end Russians), but I would imagine the KHL is just a backup plan in case things don't work out for him in the NHL.

I do think that Galchenyuk would have been the better pick though - not only from an Oiler's POV, but as BPA. It would have been more of a risk though, as he was out for most of the season. What made me think that Gally was a better pick was something I read about when either of these guys were out of the lineup - Yakupov's points decreased a bit, but Gally's stayed fairly constant (obviously the season before the draft eligible one). Kind of like the "Howse/Horak" comparison. However, I do think that in time, Yakupov will be looked at as a solid selection.

I just think that the Oilers have done atrociously at the draft table over the years. When comparing the depth of the Oiler's prospect base to the Flames, it is atrocious. When thinking that the Flames were in 'win-now' mode much more lately than the Oilers and would trade away picks/prospects in an effort to win now, coupled with a less than stellar drafting history at least up until 2008-10 (arguable, as some people say they were still bad, but I see improvement)...it just makes you shake your head. A rebuilding team that didn't put enough resources (or good people, or both!) into drafting and development.

Having Hall, RNH and Yak, with a great late 1st round pick in Eberle SHOULD have been more than enough to get that club competitive again. It was their futility in surrounding these picks with better talent, and the development/coaching that set them back. These guys still don't know how to play a 200ft game, and don't have any support to win consistently in the NHL. It looks like they put all their resources into looking at the top 5 picks, without a care for the rest of the draft or something.

[Jakester]

From the perspective of organizational need, Ekblad has a lot going for him. The current defense corps in one of the smallest and softest in the league and there isn't much help coming in the foreseeable future. The Flames are critically short of top end defense prospects and the prospects they do have are mostly on the small side. Consider the following:
Sieloff - 6'0" 198 lbs
Wotherspoon - 6'1" 203 lbs
Culkin - 6'1" 188 lbs
Ramage - 6'1" 190 lbs
Kulak - 6'1" 175 lbs

Even if each of these guys were to add 10-15 lbs of muscle, that still puts them at about average for defensemen in the NHL at best. Drafting Ekblad would certainly add size and skill to their defense prospect pool.

Ekblad is not a perfect prospect. He can score and for his size he seems to be quite a good skater, however, he's also a minus player on a middle of the pack Barrie Colts team. In general, NHL scouts seem to be better at spotting elite forwards than elite defensemen at the junior level. Also, fairly or unfairly, whenever a player who's bigger and stronger than most of his opponents excels at the junior level, there's always the question of whether his dominance is due to superior skill or simply being bigger and stronger.

In all, picking Ekblad would be a risk, but it would be a risk that could potentially pay huge dividends if it succeeds. I'm still undecided about who Flames should pick if they end up winning the draft lottery: Ekblad has too many unknowns, but Reinhart really hasn't shown himself as a clear favourite either. In the more likely event that the Flames end up picking between 2 and 5, I think Ekblad's our man all the way if he's still on the table when we pick.

[StAlbertFlame]

Take Ekblad in 2014 and McDavid in 2015