[Signing] Flames sign Kylington to ELC

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Were you not a Flames fan during Phaneuf's tenure? Because despite ample opportunity, mentoring, and coaching he just never learned to read a play or position himself effectively.

If you believe Rhett, then one can conclude that Dion simply did not care to learn the finer points of defending.

As long as this is not the case with Kylington, I wouldn't have the same concerns.

[BigRed]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

OMG Kylington is likely better than Weber!!!


.

My point was : arguably the best D in the game did not play an NHL game in his draft year, so it's perhaps a little optimistic to think a longshot/home run type player might.

[Geeoff]

You can take the boaters test online and cheat your way through it

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

If you believe Rhett, then one can conclude that Dion simply did not care to learn the finer points of defending.

As long as this is not the case with Kylington, I wouldn't have the same concerns.

Well, in Dion's draft year he didn't have the glaring defensive holes Kylington has, which means Dion had either more natural ability or more drive to play defensively at that age.

I'll let you decide which one you prefer to be the case.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Well, in Dion's draft year he didn't have the glaring defensive holes Kylington has, which means Dion had either more natural ability or more drive to play defensively at that age.



I'll let you decide which one you prefer to be the case.

He was also playing beside Woywitka who was an excellent defenseman in the W.

Wait. What are we even talking about?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Well, in Dion's draft year he didn't have the glaring defensive holes Kylington has, which means Dion had either more natural ability or more drive to play defensively at that age.

I'll let you decide which one you prefer to be the case.

I don't think it's a stretch to say Dion was one of the most naturally gifted players the Flames have ever had. He wasn't coachable.

Kyllington seems like he is. Everybody's different

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don't think it's a stretch to say Dion was one of the most naturally gifted players the Flames have ever had. He wasn't coachable.

Kyllington seems like he is. Everybody's different

Based on what?

By all accounts, he dropped considerably in the draft due to a really poor season marked by a frequent insistence on trying to do too much himself and failing to pay attention to his own zone. I can't imagine his coaches were encouraging that. He also repeatedly cited his SEL coach not liking him as a reason for his limited icetime and underwhelming performance.

I'm not branding him a coach killer, but I also don't see anything that screams "coachable", as you contend.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Well, in Dion's draft year he didn't have the glaring defensive holes Kylington has, which means Dion had either more natural ability or more drive to play defensively at that age.

I'll let you decide which one you prefer to be the case.

Not too sure where you are going with this. My point was that Dion - according to Rhett Warrener - did NOT care to be mentored at all by the existing defencemen on the team (namely Rhett and Regehr). They had brought it up to Keenan's attention, and Keenan refused to do anything about it. Dion never got better defensively - some might say he regressed.

Now, my point is that as long as Kylington isn't like that, he should improve defensively. Does he want to improve? Well, based on his interviews since the draft, he does. Will he? Time will tell.

Why are you comparing his defensive game to Phaneuf's? Why do we necessarily care so much how good a player's defensive game is as a 17/18 year old? Are you trying to say that Kylington will never be as good defensively as Phaneauf? I am just not really following the logic here.

I am sure Phaneuf was a much better prospect than a lot of players even in his own draft year - Weber, Suter, etc.. How said prospect develops - and how said prospect WANTS to develop - is something that time will tell. I just don't see where you are going with "Phaneuf was much better defensively than Kylington" statement. Not sure if anyone would argue with it, but I bet there sure as heck would be a very large contingent that would agree with: "If Kylington puts in the time and effort to learn, and has some stability and experienced coaching in the next couple of years, he may very well be a better defencemen than Phaneuf". Why not? I think there is a whole lot of defencemen drafted this year that you can make that blanket statement about. Like everyone in the first 3 rounds at least.

You never know a prospect will develop. Everyone develops differently, hits different plateaus, exceeds expectations or become disappointments.

[Mike F]

This whole discussion started based on the comment that "you can teach defense a lot easier than you can teach offense", implying that a guy with great offensive talent can often turn into a solid defender if he simply decides to try.

I brought up Phaneuf to counter that point - here's a guy who never was able to learn to read a play or figure out defensive positioning.

You countered with, "Well, if you believe Warrener, Dion just never cared to try to play defensively".

My point was that if Dion, who never cared to try to play defensively, was nonetheless a better defensive player at the same age, you'd have to conclude that either he had more natural defensive talent (he was better despite less effort, which is scary given how poorly his natural defensive talent translated to the NHL) OR Dion didn't have more talent defensively but simply worked harder at that aspect (which is scary because his effort at that aspect wasn't up to an NHL level).

Either way, it's worrisome, which explains why a guy with high first round offensive gifts fell to the end of the second round, being passed over by many teams twice, and with the Flames themselves being willing to risk losing out on him to choose another defenseman.

I'm a huge Flames fan. I hope he turns out to be the next Shea Weber-like steal. But some people have developed hard-ons for this kid which have them willing to brush away some serious warts that gave a lot of pro scouts and GMs reason to pause.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Mike F

This whole discussion started based on the comment that "you can teach defense a lot easier than you can teach offense", implying that a guy with great offensive talent can often turn into a solid defender if he simply decides to try.

Worked for Gio, Brodie, and Eric Roy


Except Eric Roy.
*runs away*

[PIMking]

Let him go back to Sweden and not burn a year of his contract

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Let him go back to Sweden and not burn a year of his contract

Being in the WHL or the AHL won't burn a year.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Worked for Gio, Brodie, and Eric Roy


Except Eric Roy.
*runs away*

Serious question - did any of those guys have serious question marks about their ability defensively?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Serious question - did any of those guys have serious question marks about their ability defensively?

I remember Brodie got a lot of tough love from Playfair in Abbotsford. I think Gio had a bit of a wake up call when he went to Russia although I don't remember him having difficulties in his own zone, it wasn't what he took a lot of interest in.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Not too sure where you are going with this. My point was that Dion - according to Rhett Warrener - did NOT care to be mentored at all by the existing defencemen on the team (namely Rhett and Regehr). They had brought it up to Keenan's attention, and Keenan refused to do anything about it. Dion never got better defensively - some might say he regressed.

Now, my point is that as long as Kylington isn't like that, he should improve defensively. Does he want to improve? Well, based on his interviews since the draft, he does. Will he? Time will tell.

Why are you comparing his defensive game to Phaneuf's? Why do we necessarily care so much how good a player's defensive game is as a 17/18 year old? Are you trying to say that Kylington will never be as good defensively as Phaneauf? I am just not really following the logic here.

I am sure Phaneuf was a much better prospect than a lot of players even in his own draft year - Weber, Suter, etc.. How said prospect develops - and how said prospect WANTS to develop - is something that time will tell. I just don't see where you are going with "Phaneuf was much better defensively than Kylington" statement. Not sure if anyone would argue with it, but I bet there sure as heck would be a very large contingent that would agree with: "If Kylington puts in the time and effort to learn, and has some stability and experienced coaching in the next couple of years, he may very well be a better defencemen than Phaneuf". Why not? I think there is a whole lot of defencemen drafted this year that you can make that blanket statement about. Like everyone in the first 3 rounds at least.

You never know a prospect will develop. Everyone develops differently, hits different plateaus, exceeds expectations or become disappointments.

I'm sure the reason the Flames are interested in getting OK to North America is so that they can supervise his development. I have confidence that they talked with the player about his willingness to learn to play without the puck before drafting him.

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Being in the WHL or the AHL won't burn a year.

I thought being in the AHL does, maybe I'm wrong.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

I thought being in the AHL does, maybe I'm wrong.

From what I'm told, being in the AHL burns a year if you're over 20.

[sureLoss]

For an 18 or 19 year old to burn their first year of an ELC, they have to play 10 NHL games.

Being in the AHL does not burn a year if you are 18 or 19 years old.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Mike F

This whole discussion started based on the comment that "you can teach defense a lot easier than you can teach offense", implying that a guy with great offensive talent can often turn into a solid defender if he simply decides to try.

I brought up Phaneuf to counter that point - here's a guy who never was able to learn to read a play or figure out defensive positioning.

You countered with, "Well, if you believe Warrener, Dion just never cared to try to play defensively".

My point was that if Dion, who never cared to try to play defensively, was nonetheless a better defensive player at the same age, you'd have to conclude that either he had more natural defensive talent (he was better despite less effort, which is scary given how poorly his natural defensive talent translated to the NHL) OR Dion didn't have more talent defensively but simply worked harder at that aspect (which is scary because his effort at that aspect wasn't up to an NHL level).

Either way, it's worrisome, which explains why a guy with high first round offensive gifts fell to the end of the second round, being passed over by many teams twice, and with the Flames themselves being willing to risk losing out on him to choose another defenseman.

I'm a huge Flames fan. I hope he turns out to be the next Shea Weber-like steal. But some people have developed hard-ons for this kid which have them willing to brush away some serious warts that gave a lot of pro scouts and GMs reason to pause.

Well, I do think that people have the relative luxury of having hard-ons for Kylington. He has a very, very high ceiling after-all. I think it is fine for people to fall in love with this prospect. Why not?

I don't think anyone is really claiming he is absolutely going to hit his ceiling - or even become a regular NHL'er. This kid could very well bust. However, he could become the next Karlsson after all, so why shouldn't we be excited? It is good to temper expectations of course, but there is no reason to not be excited either.

As for Dion - I really do believe he had the biggest upside in the draft. Very high ceiling, and very high floor. He just never put it together. Brodie had a fairly high ceiling, and was seen as a guy who was a bit of a longshot (to most anyways) of even being a regular at the NHL level. Yes, he was often completely lost in his own zone. However, he worked on it hard, and (imo) has surpassed Dion.

Will Kylington follow Brodie's footsteps? Will he follow Dion and just focus on the strengths in his game and not really care to become a complete player like Weber was in that same draft? Will he even just outright bust? Nobody really knows.

All we know at this stage is that Kylington does indeed possess some serious talent, and he has some serious flaws in his game. Given how the Flames have been drafting and developing of late, I will allow myself to feel very excited about him - but I also know he is far from a guarantee. Just another really exciting prospect with huge holes in his game like Gaudreau was, or Jankowski (sort of) still is, etc. These prospects are a heck of a lot of fun to follow, and I myself feel more optimistic in light of the recent crop of graduates in the last few years (even with Baertschi failing here). They will not all devleop well and hit their ceilings. Some of the 'guaranteed future NHL'er prospects' will fail, some of the ones who we think don't have a chance will succeed, and nobody (including anyone in the Flames' org right now most likely) knows without a doubt whether Kylington will fail or succeed. They are of course betting that he will succeed, and this is why they drafted him.

One thing that Burke kept repeating was something like this: (not verbatim since I don't remember and I am lazy to look up the exact quote - but it was something very much like this):

"I don't draft headcases. I don't take them in the first round, and I don't take them in the 7th round. If a prospect has high-end skill but is a headcase, I cross him off the list. I don't think a headcase is a bargain if he drops a lot. He is still a headcase."

So, this makes me believe that they feel Kylington is at least 'coachable' and not a headcase. Time will tell, but for myself he suddenly became the prospect to follow for this draft year (Gaudreau in 2011, Jankowksi in 2012, Kanzig in 2013, Smith in 2014). They are all unique draft picks with big warts, holes or big question marks, but all have some unique 'upside' and story that make them interesting prospects to follow.

[TX_Flame]

Originally Posted by Mike F

This whole discussion started based on the comment that "you can teach defense a lot easier than you can teach offense", implying that a guy with great offensive talent can often turn into a solid defender if he simply decides to try.

I brought up Phaneuf to counter that point - here's a guy who never was able to learn to read a play or figure out defensive positioning.

You countered with, "Well, if you believe Warrener, Dion just never cared to try to play defensively".

My point was that if Dion, who never cared to try to play defensively, was nonetheless a better defensive player at the same age, you'd have to conclude that either he had more natural defensive talent (he was better despite less effort, which is scary given how poorly his natural defensive talent translated to the NHL) OR Dion didn't have more talent defensively but simply worked harder at that aspect (which is scary because his effort at that aspect wasn't up to an NHL level).

Either way, it's worrisome, which explains why a guy with high first round offensive gifts fell to the end of the second round, being passed over by many teams twice, and with the Flames themselves being willing to risk losing out on him to choose another defenseman.

I'm a huge Flames fan. I hope he turns out to be the next Shea Weber-like steal. But some people have developed hard-ons for this kid which have them willing to brush away some serious warts that gave a lot of pro scouts and GMs reason to pause.

Very few posters are suggesting Kylington is a sure thing. However to write him off because he has defensive shortcomings that show up when he plays above his "weight class" against men is ridiculous. Yes, Phaneuf was a higher rated prospect at his age and didn't look as suspect defensively but he was playing against kids. Also, as already pointed out, even in his own draft year Shea Webber was not as highly rated either. I know who I would prefer now and it's not Dion. This is not to say that Kylington is going to become Shea Webber, but neither is he condemned to be worse than Phaneuf either.