Craig's List 2014 Prospects

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

If you wanna get super high, take what that guy's taking

It's funny, fans want comparisons of what style a prospect plays. When the scouts offer up some comparisons then it's, "OMG how ridiculous are these comparisons".

[nik-]

haha

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not sure why you are convinced that Ehlers has any higher upside than the guys we already have.

Because when it comes to NHL prospects, a bird in the bush is worth two in the hand.

[Poe969]

I'm curious as to what "mold" Ekblad is in? I think if he gets a mean streak in him, he could be like a Pronger but as it stands right now his game seems to be more like a Weber.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The three bigger guys that you mentioned, Perlini and Ritchie are not good enough offensively to the degree where they will be impact players. When Ritchie is getting comparisons to Zach Kassian, who is having a hard showing that he's more than a 3rd liner, then I'd rather spend the pick elsewhere. Dal Colle is adequate, but he plays small, so it's not like he's physically imposing at all either.

Here's some comments from scouts about these big OHL wingers that contradict you.

http://ohlprospects.blogspot.ca/2014...-for-2014.html

Perlini

"A player that loves to have the puck on his stick, Perlini plays a strong puck possession game. He’s a pure goal scorer that has dynamic speed and puck skills which makes him deadly off the rush. The knock has been that he’s not overly physical for being 6’3”, 205lbs. If he adds that element to his game, he’ll climb higher in most rankings." - Anonymous

"The hands are what you notice about Perlini first, then the shot. He's a natural goal scorer and handles the puck so deftly for a guy 6'3. Could stand to add a bit more of a mean streak to his game. Still got 33 goals, despite missing a portion of the season to a shoulder injury. That injury has not slowed him one bit, and a lot of scouts have been in Niagara to see him this year." - Anonymous

Ritchie

"Can be the best Player in the draft, physically dominates at times, disappears far too often, high risk-reward player, hard to handle on the wall." - Anonymous

"So big, powerful and strong but also kills penalties, blocks shots and once given a legitimate center in hunter garlent, has dominated the league.....I question his work ethic and his desire but too many intangibles and maybe the highest ceiling to me in the draft....terrific release." - Anonymous

"A bit of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde scenario for Ritchie. I have been to games this season where he looks like the undisputed top prospect for this draft. A real bull in a china shop who can force his will on anyone physically as well as possessing the offensive skills to singlehandedly dominate the game and carry the Petes to victory, and then some games where he looks disinterested and played like a real dog. Partly due to improved health but lately his contributions and efforts have been more consistent which has his stock rising. Think physical dominance like Milan Lucic but with better offensive abilities (shot, hands, sense)." - Dan Stewart

Dal Colle

"Kid has an excellent release -- that's the first thing I always think of. Power forward with notable skill. Opponents are always on edge when he's on the ice. Excited to see him run over the East in the playoffs this year." - Anonymous

"Surprising to see Dal Colle drop a bit in some complete draft rankings as of late. This is still a player that can challenge to be a Top 3 pick in the draft. The accuracy and velocity on his wrist shot and snap shot are the best to come out of the OHL. It is an NHL caliber shot already that has had many goalies picking the puck out of the back of the net at the General Motors Centre, and has contributed to his 28 multi point games this season. Already extremely strong on the puck and hard to knock off, Dal Colle will get even stronger as the muscle catches up to his lanky frame. (6’ 2”/171LBS) An added benefit: who he has learned from. Playing with Boone Jenner in his rookie season and Scott Laughton this year, learning from two NHL caliber players and the work ethic those two bring to the arena can only help Dal Colle in the maturity department." - Anonymous


So your comments about them lacking offensive upside seem WAY off. Your comments about Dal Colle playing small seem hyperbole.

[nik-]

That "can be the best player in the draft" comment regarding Ritchie seems like quite the outlier. Has anyone said anything even close to that before?

[Muta]

Scouts should make conservative comparisons, in order to over-deliver on their results later on, making them look like geniuses.

Aaron Ekblad - Bobby Dollas
Sam Reinhart - Pavel Torgajev
Leon Draisaitl - Lonny Bohonos
Sam Bennett - Scott Pellerin
Michael Dal Colle - Vesa Viitakoski
Jake Virtanen - Stan Drulia

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

When Ritchie is getting comparisons to Zach Kassian, who is having a hard showing that he's more than a 3rd liner, then I'd rather spend the pick elsewhere. Dal Colle is adequate, but he plays small, so it's not like he's physically imposing at all either.

You can always trade for size if need be.

Ritchie being compared to Zach Kassian? The only comparison I have seen was by a poster in the last page or two of this thread. Kassian had skating issues, was scouted before the draft as having low hockey-IQ, and didn't put up the same points as Ritchie. Ritchie has average skating for top-line speed, but above average quickness and agility, has what some scouts are calling the best shot in the CHL - quick, incredibly hard and accurate release, he can make good plays, and has good hockey IQ. He is also about 20-30lbs (depending on what sites you go off of) heavier than Kassian. Most scouting reports I have seen compare him to Bertuzzi.

Dal Colle - plays small? What is your definition of small? Sounds like anyone plays small if they don't fight or make big highlight-reel hits by what you are describing Dal Colle. Dal Colle goes to the high-traffic areas. He goes to the front of the net and takes abuse there. He is difficult to contain physically. By your logic, does Thornton, Kopitar, Toews, Hossa all play 'small'? Heck, does Monahan and Colborne play small? These players are all difficult to contain and go to high-traffic areas. Monahan isn't the greatest example as he is 19 and physically unimposing still, but as he gets stronger you can expect him to be difficult to contain as well. Dal Colle is a high-end talent with size that the Flames would be lucky to be able to draft this year - once he fills out, he will be extremely difficult to contain because of his combination of size and skill.

Trading for size - sure, you can always trade for big physical plugs cheaply, or just sign any number of available ones every off-season. Try signing or trading a big skilled player. Look at how expensive Tampa traded for Callahan. How often does a Hossa appear on the free-agent market? How difficult and expensive would it be to acquire a Lucic, Perry, Iginla (in his prime), etc? No, you can not trade for size and skill.

Look at the last few seasons' worth of playoff runs. What did every Stanley cup champion have in common? They had both size and skill in their top 6. Edmonton is floundering horribly because their top 6 is below average size-wise. Without question, they have 'skilled' players there - but how good are those skilled players when matching up against some of the other teams in the Western Conference? They become very ineffective.

Montreal tried the 'small and skilled' experiment - made the playoffs and actually went through a few teams. Then what happened? They quickly realized they needed size in their lineup, and have been drafting/trading/signing bigger players.

You are not giving enough importance to having a prospect pool with enough different types. You can't just focus on skill. You need to focus on building a robust pool in all areas to get through this rebuild successfully. Right now, this organization desperately needs Ferland and Poirier to pan out. Flames do not have physical players with any size and skill combination. This is a big hole organizationally - just as big as when you look at 'RW' vs 'LW' vs 'Center' vs 'Defence'. You need to fill each position with enough depth to essentially 'guarantee' yourself a solid chance of being able to have enough graduates to fill those roles adequately - but you need to build a balanced team that makes it easier to match-up against other teams (especially Pacific Division rivals) and that make your team more difficult to match-up against.

You need to have enough skill in your lineup to generate enough offence, but you also need enough physical players with skill who can jam the net and make good plays in-tight. Your run-of-the-mill plugs that can be had for cheap can't do the latter part - they will jam the net and create chaos, but how often does a McGrattan and Westgarth contribute to the scoresheet? Even a Bouma (whom I and most Flames fans love) doesn't contribute that much to the scoresheet.

I totally agree with Flames Draft Watcher - it is extremely difficult to find size+skill outside of the top 10. There are always the highly-skilled but undersized players available (heck, some of them don't even get drafted at all, even though they generate a ton of offence at the junior level). There are always big plugs that could possibly get better with further development too. It is extremely difficult to find that size and skill combination.

1st line center
#1 Defencemen
1st line skilled forward with size
#2 Centers
#2 Defencmen

I think this is how I rank the hierarchy of 'acquisition cost' in the NHL, and this is how I think the Flames need to follow as a 'rough guide', trying to select the best available player for those roles. Other things can be more cheaply acquired.

It is much, much more difficult to defend against a player that has size and skill than it is to defend against a high-end but undersized skill guy.

I think Gaudreau will have success in the NHL - but for him to do so, he needs to have at least another big winger on his line. What good would it do to play him with a plug, however? Someone that can't convert the offence he can generate, or have enough hockey IQ to make the necessary room for Gaudreau, or be enough of an offensive presence to force teams from being able to cheat on their coverage? Skill+size is an absolute necessity.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

That "can be the best player in the draft" comment regarding Ritchie seems like quite the outlier. Has anyone said anything even close to that before?

Well two different scouts said it in a link was posted probably 10-20 pages ago in this same thread. Of course the OP only provided a couple of the quotes on Ritchie and not necessarily the most flattering ones. At the time I thought of posting the rest of the quotes but didn't. I mean this is a guy that scored 5 goals in one game against Sam Bennett's Kingston team.

He's a very intriguing prospect to me. Althought Getzlaf was a centre I think a lot of the same quotes could have described him in his draft year. Both physically dominant players who didn't bring it 100% every night in junior.

I'm intrigued by several of the guys outside the top 4. Still would love to land in the top 4 but I think its great that there are 3 big wingers projected to go in the 5-10 range when size up front is one of our biggest organizational needs. I trust the Flames scouts are doing their due diligence on all of them.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Muta

Scouts should make conservative comparisons, in order to over-deliver on their results later on, making them look like geniuses.

Aaron Ekblad - Bobby Dollas
Sam Reinhart - Pavel Torgajev
Leon Draisaitl - Lonny Bohonos
Sam Bennett - Scott Pellerin
Michael Dal Colle - Vesa Viitakoski
Jake Virtanen - Stan Drulia

lol. Ran out of thanks.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Muta

Scouts should make conservative comparisons, in order to over-deliver on their results later on, making them look like geniuses.

Aaron Ekblad - Bobby Dollas
Sam Reinhart - Pavel Torgajev
Leon Draisaitl - Lonny Bohonos
Sam Bennett - Scott Pellerin
Michael Dal Colle - Vesa Viitakoski
Jake Virtanen - Stan Drulia

But then fans who just say things like "What are they smoking!? Those guys are going to be way better than that!"

Because it's the Internet. And it's sports fans.

[nik-]

Wow, you really got butthurt over that didn't you?

I'm sorry my joke was so offensive to your sensibilities

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Great post Calgary4Life, excellent summary.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wow, you really got butthurt over that didn't you?

I'm sorry my joke was so offensive to your sensibilities

Oh go away! Haha. Really, you get way too offended over my posts, every time I quote you, you take it as some sort of personal assault. I just asked you to clarify, get over it. I find posts like yours funny. It's not unique, it was just one of many posts just like that which pop up no matter what the comparison is, good or bad.

I think those posts are funny. I think you're funny. It's even more funny that you are getting so upset over someone questioning your post. This situation isn't as dramatic as you're making it out to be.

Let's just hug it out.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by strombad

Oh go away! Haha. Really, you get way too offended over my posts, every time I quote you, you take it as some sort of personal assault. I just asked you to clarify, get over it. I find posts like yours funny. It's not unique, it was just one of many posts just like that which pop up no matter what the comparison is, good or bad.

I think those posts are funny. I think you're funny. It's even more funny that you are getting so upset over someone questioning your post. This situation isn't as dramatic as you're making it out to be.

Let's just hug it out.

Fine, but you gotta admit your response post was way too literal. I wasn't upset, more perplexed as to why someone would take a serious tone to what I though was an obvious joke.

[strombad]

Ok, if that makes you happy, my response was probably too literal.

But quit thinking I'm getting on your case when I quote you! It's all good over here!

[Muta]

Would you two now like a pack of condoms and some cigarettes?

[strombad]

Sorry, I quit smoking cigarettes years ago

[nik-]

and I only participate in high risk sexual behaviour

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Not sure why you are convinced that Ehlers has any higher upside than the guys we already have.

Watching him, he has more offensive talent than when Sven was his age, and more than either Poirier or Granlund. He's more likely to hit his potential because of his higher offensive skill. Poirier and Granlund have both taken huge strides in the last 14 months raising their profiles to be in the same conversation as Baertschi, but Ehlers would already be in that conversation before he's even drafted, and if he continues to progress, he could be a dangerous first line forward. He has the same speed as Poirier give or take a bit, but the same shot/passing ability that Sven has, which could be a lethal combo.

That is a ridiculous and absurd thing to say. There's a reason these guys are ranked top 10 and that reason is offense.

Yep, and if they were 6-0 or 6-1, they'd be ranked 25th or so. If they were in the same tier of offensive skill as Ehlers, they'd be in the top 3 if not 1st overall. Perlini isn't as bad in his offensive game, and I would take him before Ritchie, but there's 7 forwards I would take ahead of either (Reinhart, Bennett, Draisaitl, Ehlers, Nylander, Dal Colle, and Virtanen)

Seems you are guilty of selectively reading their scouting reports. Emphasizing their weak points while doing the opposite for Ehlers.

Believe it or not, the amount of scouting reports I've read is minimal. Just what I've read on here. I don't take other people's opinions and create arguments based off them. I watch something and make judgements off what I see, and state them. Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. Just another voice out there. After I make my opinion I look to see if others are seeing what I am, or if they are seeing something different. If they are seeing something different, I try to find out why.

The only argument I've see in favour of Ritchie is that he's 6-3 230 and has good stats. Nothing based on how he accumulates those stats. Just numbers. The thing is that stats are irrelevant. When you're talking about 1st rounders, you expect them to be top junior players and their stats to be awesome. Otherwise they wouldn't be first round guys. So if you disregard that and look at the individual skills and compare them. When that is done, Ritchie does not come out on top often (other than he's big and can push people around, which that advantage will evaporate at the NHL level)

Who said anything about taking an inferior player? There's a reason why many scouting agencies are putting the big guys ahead or around Ehlers.

The reason why Ehlers is in the same group as the bigger guys is because he's small. If he was 6-2, he'd be up there with Reinhart, and if he keeps it up, he might get there anyway. Similarly, the reason why the bigger guys are as high as they are is because they are big. Drafting for size alone is not a good strategy and those forward's offensive game is not in the same tier as the slightly smaller guys. The whole package has to be considered.

False. Not many teams are looking to trade big skilled players who don't have big question marks on their game. They rarely move. And in the draft you have to get extremely lucky to find size + skill outside the top 10 picks. Gotta completely disagree with you there.

Umm, yes, big players do get traded all the time. Big Centers rarely do, but we already are fairly set up the middle with Monahan (6-2) Jankowski (6-3) Knight (6-2). It is something that can be addressed through trades. It's not a huge impossible obstacle to overcome. Additionally, you can address it through free agency as well.