Craig's List 2014 Prospects

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by nik-

Scoring doesn't tell it all, but draft history sort of tells enough about the pitfalls. There's like three D men in the league who went top 5 and are worth it. The rest just aren't, and a high ratio of the highly picked D are disappointments.

I agree with going center.

For me history means squat. You take what's available now and if the best player is a defenceman, that's what you take.

Even taking history into account some of the best results the Flames have had is with picking a defenceman. Gauthier, Morris and Phaneuf were some of our better first round picks.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

For me history means squat. You take what's available now and if the best player is a defenceman, that's what you take.

Even taking history into account some of the best results the Flames have had is with picking a defenceman. Gauthier, Morris and Phaneuf were some of our better first round picks.

The point is we've heard this over and over and over. "The next Pronger", "elite D man", can't miss", "can't pass on this kind of talent" and history shows that it's usually not the case.

[dammage79]

I get the whole taking a center thing. But at the end of the day, how many people are going to lose their marbles if they take Ekblad? Highly doubt many will. Kid is good. Darned good. Good enough to be mentioned for top pick in the draft. Good enough to possibly bump the top centers from the number one spot. The Flames have many holes in the roster from top to bottom but they've addressed the center issue pretty nicely the last couple of seasons. They've addressed it enough to take a potential pass on drafting a center this year to see what they have in the system and take that potential inpact D-man that the team also sorely needs.

There's absolutely nothing wrong at all with giving preference to Ekblad.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

The point is we've heard this over and over and over. "The next Pronger", "elite D man", can't miss", "can't pass on this kind of talent" and history shows that it's usually not the case.

The top drafted guy usually turns out just fine it seems to me.

2002 - Despite some CGY fans hate for his type of game, Bouwmeester turned into a pretty solid top pairing defenseman. Arguably the best player available that year at #3.
2003 - Ryan Suter was solid at #7. Some might take him higher in a re-do.
2005 - Jack Johnson looks decent, not many better players taken after him.
2006 - Eric Johnson has finally turned it around. Injuries derailed his career a bit early. He looks like he may start to justify that pick more. That year I think it was a toss up if you preferred a d-man or a forward.
2007 - Hickey was an off the board pick that didn't turn out. Didn't like that pick at the time and it wasn't supported by any scouting services. The highest ranked d-man Alzner has turned out okay but was never expected to be a star.
2008 - Doughty is obviously good as are most of the d-men taken in the 1st that year. You had Erik Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Bogosian, MDZ, L. Schenn, Myers, Gardiner, Carlsson etc.
2009 - Hedman is looking like a solid pick and potential franchise defenseman.

I think its a bit too early to tell on the rest.

So what are we talking about? That Cam Barker sucked? I wasn't a fan of his in his draft year. That some of the draft years sucked? Sure. Jack Johnson is no Niedermayer, but his draft year wasn't amazing either.

Seems this idea that top ranked defensemen don't turn out is a bit of a myth IMO. Certainly in recent history. I'm not sure drafting in the 90's has much to do with drafting today so I discount the Hamrlik, Redden, Phillips, etc data.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The top ranked guy usually turns out just fine it seems to me.

2002 - Despite some CGY fans hate for his type of game, Bouwmeester turned into a pretty solid top pairing defenseman. Arguably the best player available that year at #3.
2003 - Ryan Suter was solid at #7. Some might take him higher in a re-do.
2005 - Jack Johnson looks decent, not many better players taken after him.
2006 - Eric Johnson has finally turned it around. Injuries derailed his career a bit early. He looks like he may start to justify that pick more. That year I think it was a toss up if you preferred a d-man or a forward.
2007 - Hickey was an off the board pick that didn't turn out. Didn't like that pick at the time and it wasn't supported by any scouting services. The highest ranked d-man Alzner has turned out okay but was never expected to be a star.
2008 - Doughty is obviously good as are most of the d-men taken in the 1st that year. You had Erik Karlsson, Pietrangelo, Bogosian, MDZ, L. Schenn, Myers, Gardiner, Carlsson etc.
2009 - Hedman is looking like a solid pick and potential franchise defenseman.

I think its a bit too early to tell on the rest.

So what are we talking about? That Cam Barker sucked? I wasn't a fan of his in his draft year. That some of the draft years sucked? Sure. Jack Johnson is no Niedermayer, but his draft year wasn't amazing either.

Seems this idea that top ranked defensemen don't turn out is a bit of a myth IMO. Certainly in recent history. I'm not sure drafting in the 90's has much to do with drafting today so I discount the Hamrlik, Redden, Phillips, etc data.

Its not that they "dont turn out". Its that the alternative tends to be a heck of alot better. We are talking opportunity cost. Hedman or Tavares?? Ill take Tavares. Doughty or Stamkos?? Ill take Stamkos. Kane or Hickey? Ill take Kane. It just seems that the forwards are still a better choice. Its harder to find elite scoring forwards in later rounds but its easier to find a top dman.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Its not that they "dont turn out". Its that the alternative tends to be a heck of alot better. We are talking opportunity cost. Hedman or Tavares?? Ill take Tavares. Doughty or Stamkos?? Ill take Stamkos. Kane or Hickey? Ill take Kane. It just seems that the forwards are still a better choice. Its harder to find elite scoring forwards in later rounds but its easier to find a top dman.

Seems like you're using some bizarre scenarios. Tavares and Stamkos were both pretty close to consensus picks. So the question wasn't Hedman vs Tavares. It was Hedman vs Duchesne. The question wasn't Doughty vs Stamkos. It was Doughty vs Bogosian vs Pietrangelo vs Filatov vs Wilson vs Schenn.

It isn't like Bennett or Reinhart is the consensus #1 pick like Stamkos and Tavares were. So your scenarios don't really reflect history or the choice we will have.

[Caged Great]

Ekblad doesn't appear to think the game extremely well, and is not the fastest player out there. The rest of his skills though are fairly decent. Doing a direct comparable, he reminds me a lot of Zach Bogozian. A solid player, but not exactly a cornerstone piece.

If Ekblad is a "Bogo" type defenseman (solid #3), and you have the opportunity to get either Reinhart (Monahan 2.0) or Bennett (who looks a little bit like Matt Duchense), I would rather go with the forward.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Seems like you're using some bizarre scenarios. Tavares and Stamkos were both pretty close to consensus picks. So the question wasn't Hedman vs Tavares. It was Hedman vs Duchesne. The question wasn't Doughty vs Stamkos. It was Doughty vs Bogosian vs Pietrangelo vs Filatov vs Wilson vs Schenn.

It isn't like Bennett or Reinhart is the consensus #1 pick like Stamkos and Tavares were. So your scenarios don't really reflect history or the choice we will have.

Thats not actually true there was a debate about quite a few of these guys through the year in their draft year. My point is taking a forward seems to be a better choice than taking a D man high historically. I don't think your response really has anything to do with what im talking about tbh. No one is saying these Dman are busts but taking a forward seems to make more sense. So this does reflect history and does actually pertain to the choice we will have. We are looking at one of 5 top guys and that list does include a dman, so the dman vs forward debate is quite relevant.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Thats not actually true there was a debate about quite a few of these guys through the year in their draft year. My point is taking a forward seems to be a better choice than taking a D man high historically. I don't think your response really has anything to do with what im talking about tbh. No one is saying these Dman are busts but taking a forward seems to make more sense. So this does reflect history and does actually pertain to the choice we will have. We are looking at one of 5 top guys and that list does include a dman, so the dman vs forward debate is quite relevant.

Sure but arguably Doughty was the best pick available at #2 and he was a defenseman. So is history showing to take the defenseman in that scenario?

Hedman was arguably a decent pick ahead of Duchesne and very much debateable vs Kane and Schenn. So again history isn't proving there that you have to take the forward.

So the history you picked showed that those defensemen were worthy of being picked top 3. Just like this year where Ekblad will likely go top 3. Those two years certainly aren't telling us to avoid defensemen high, that would be a crazy conclusion to draw from those draft years.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Sure but arguably Doughty was the best pick available at #2 and he was a defenseman. So is history showing to take the defenseman in that scenario?

Hedman was arguably a decent pick ahead of Duchesne and very much debateable vs Kane and Schenn. So again history isn't proving there that you have to take the forward.

So the history you picked showed that those defensemen were worthy of being picked top 3. Just like this year where Ekblad will likely go top 3. Those two years certainly aren't telling us to avoid defensemen high, that would be a crazy conclusion to draw from those draft years.

I think I value scoring forwards more than you then by the sounds of it because to me I do feel the forward alternatives are better.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Ekblad doesn't appear to think the game extremely well, and is not the fastest player out there. The rest of his skills though are fairly decent. Doing a direct comparable, he reminds me a lot of Zach Bogozian. A solid player, but not exactly a cornerstone piece.

If Ekblad is a "Bogo" type defenseman (solid #3), and you have the opportunity to get either Reinhart (Monahan 2.0) or Bennett (who looks a little bit like Matt Duchense), I would rather go with the forward.

Where do you get the lack of hockey sense? From everything I've been reading and listening to what folks are talking about this seems the exact opposite.

Outlet passing and positioning are top notch. Zone entries and keeping the puck in the zone have noted many times to be top tier. Skating is a fixable issue and was one of the noted flaws in Monahans game and look how that turned out.

From Future considerations and Eliteprospects.com:

An exceptional talent, Ekblad has an impressive blend of size and strength for his age. He's mature, confident and poised in all three zones, skates well and is strong in transition.

Just the second player to be granted exceptional status in the OHL. Ekblad is a true "two-way" defenseman. He makes great passes, uses his size to his advantage, plays the body, quarterbacks the power play, can take over the game in any of the three zones and has great hockey sense.

Craig Button:
Aaron is the proverbial 'workhorse' defenceman. Capable of playing significant minutes, he has a seemingly ability to get better the more he plays and he seems to thrive on these types of demands. Smart and capable of playing in all situations, he is also capable of dominating opponents. Defensively, offensively, skill game or physical game, Aaron can excel in all types of games. Top 2 type defenceman."
Profile from: TSNs Director of Scouting Craig Button

From ze Flames: http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=694729

Truth is he is just as viable of an option to draft than any of the forwards. And something the Flames need just as badly.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Its not that they "dont turn out". Its that the alternative tends to be a heck of alot better. We are talking opportunity cost. Hedman or Tavares?? Ill take Tavares. Doughty or Stamkos?? Ill take Stamkos. Kane or Hickey? Ill take Kane. It just seems that the forwards are still a better choice. Its harder to find elite scoring forwards in later rounds but its easier to find a top dman.

In the one example, I'd take Doughty. I think what this discussion comes down to is that some inexperienced, stupid, stats loving, fatherless, motherless, drug addled, cockalorum, lickspittle, smellfungus, snollygoster, ninnyhammer, mumpsimus, milksop, hobbledehoy, pettifogger, and mooncalf posters just don't value defencemen.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Where do you get the lack of hockey sense? From everything I've been reading and listening to what folks are talking about this seems the exact opposite.

Outlet passing and positioning are top notch. Zone entries and keeping the puck in the zone have noted many times to be top tier. Skating is a fixable issue and was one of the noted flaws in Monahans game and look how that turned out.

From Future considerations and Eliteprospects.com:

An exceptional talent, Ekblad has an impressive blend of size and strength for his age. He's mature, confident and poised in all three zones, skates well and is strong in transition.

Just the second player to be granted exceptional status in the OHL. Ekblad is a true "two-way" defenseman. He makes great passes, uses his size to his advantage, plays the body, quarterbacks the power play, can take over the game in any of the three zones and has great hockey sense.

Craig Button:
Aaron is the proverbial 'workhorse' defenceman. Capable of playing significant minutes, he has a seemingly ability to get better the more he plays and he seems to thrive on these types of demands. Smart and capable of playing in all situations, he is also capable of dominating opponents. Defensively, offensively, skill game or physical game, Aaron can excel in all types of games. Top 2 type defenceman."
Profile from: TSNs Director of Scouting Craig Button

From ze Flames: http://flames.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=694729

Truth is he is just as viable of an option to draft than any of the forwards. And something the Flames need just as badly.

From what I have heard Ekblad is a shoe in for 1 d man and Reinhart is a shoe in for 1st line 2 way center. But Bennett has the highest ceiling (lower floor though as well) and is the one that could actually be a superstar out of all these guys supposedly.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In the one example, I'd take Doughty. I think what this discussion comes down to is that some inexperienced, stupid, stats loving, fatherless, motherless, drug addled, cockalorum, lickspittle, smellfungus, snollygoster, ninnyhammer, mumpsimus, milksop, hobbledehoy, pettifogger, and mooncalf posters just don't value defencemen.

No they are just easier to get in later rounds.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In the one example, I'd take Doughty. I think what this discussion comes down to is that some inexperienced, stupid, stats loving, fatherless, motherless, drug addled, cockalorum, lickspittle, smellfungus, snollygoster, ninnyhammer, mumpsimus, milksop, hobbledehoy, pettifogger, and mooncalf posters just don't value defencemen.

You missed Cottonheaded Ninnymuggins.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Where do you get the lack of hockey sense? From everything I've been reading and listening to what folks are talking about this seems the exact opposite.

Compared to the average 18 year old prospect, his hockey sense is better than theirs. However, from what I've watched of him, he doesn't have that upper tier of thinking the game like most exceptional D-men like Doughty have. From what I've seen, I don't think he has top pairing upside on a good team.

That doesn't mean he'll be bad. He's the type of guy that'll likely play 1000 games in his career, but I don't see him being a great player.

Outlet passing and positioning are top notch. Zone entries and keeping the puck in the zone have noted many times to be top tier. Skating is a fixable issue and was one of the noted flaws in Monahans game and look how that turned out.

I am not saying that he's bad, Zach Bogosian is a good defenseman. Just that I don't think he'll be a great defenseman. Not someone worth using a top 3 pick on. If we were picking 4th or 5th and he was on the board, sure but not when there are guys that have a higher ceiling than him on the board.


The Flames really do need defensemen. Badly. If Ekblad was looking like Doughty 2.0 or something similarly exceptional, then I'd be all for taking him. I just don't see that being the case. Because of that, I'd rather take the safer option and get a forward that's pretty much guaranteed to be a top 6 guy.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Psytic

No they are just easier to get in later rounds.

So you believe you can get an Ekblad in a late round, good luck.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

So you believe you can get an Ekblad in a late round, good luck.

I can get a Weber a Keith a Subban etc Dman don't have to be drafted high to find good ones.

Edit: i'll even add in Gio who was undrafted and we can now consider to be a solid number one since he's an injury call up for team Canada.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Compared to the average 18 year old prospect, his hockey sense is better than theirs. However, from what I've watched of him, he doesn't have that upper tier of thinking the game like most exceptional D-men like Doughty have. From what I've seen, I don't think he has top pairing upside on a good team.

That doesn't mean he'll be bad. He's the type of guy that'll likely play 1000 games in his career, but I don't see him being a great player.



I am not saying that he's bad, Zach Bogosian is a good defenseman. Just that I don't think he'll be a great defenseman. Not someone worth using a top 3 pick on. If we were picking 4th or 5th and he was on the board, sure but not when there are guys that have a higher ceiling than him on the board.


The Flames really do need defensemen. Badly. If Ekblad was looking like Doughty 2.0 or something similarly exceptional, then I'd be all for taking him. I just don't see that being the case. Because of that, I'd rather take the safer option and get a forward that's pretty much guaranteed to be a top 6 guy.

Fair enough, we're all going to have different views. I'm perhaps drinking the Ekblad kool-aid but I will disagree with the minimal projection of his talent. Better than Bogosian but not quite the offensive level of Doughty.

But the good thing is is that Ekblad is on pace to blow his seasons points totals out of the water this year. That to me is a good indication that he is trending the right way towards being that top two D-man.

[CliffFletcher]

You take the number one center over the d-man. But I don't think there's a number one center in this draft. I think Reinhart projects as a Krejci, not a Getzlaf or Stamkos.