2016 NHL Draft

[Poe969]

but if we got one of the Finns, we'd have to put Bennett at center. I like his game on the wing, but we need him to start playing in the middle soon.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

id just move bennett to the wing and have 2 duos.

What do you perceive as the better Duo?

Gaudreau-Matthews-(Frolik?)
(Ferland?)-Bennett-Puljujarvi

vs

Gaudreau-Matthews-(Frolik?)
Bennett-Monahan-(Ferland?)

I just think I prefer the first one. Can't forget we'd still have copious center depth with Backlund and Jankowski.

[Poe969]

personally, I think the second one would be better.

[SuperMatt18]

Also think you mean to have Monahan instead of Matthews at center in the first one.

Unless we are trading Monahan for another top 2 pick and drafting Matthews and Puljujarvi.

Edit: See now that you are proposing we trade Monahan on the previous page.

[Poe969]

ya, his original question was if we won Matthews, would you trade Monahan for Puljujarvi.

As great as it would be to get that big RW, you have to take the center first.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

What do you perceive as the better Duo?

Gaudreau-Matthews-(Frolik?)
(Ferland?)-Bennett-Puljujarvi

vs

Gaudreau-Matthews-(Frolik?)
Bennett-Monahan-(Ferland?)

I just think I prefer the first one. Can't forget we'd still have copious center depth with Backlund and Jankowski.

I prefer the first one as well but i dont see any team trading one of the finns for Monahan. Hes a great #2 centre but just doesnt have the cieling as those 2 guys.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I just think I prefer the first one. Can't forget we'd still have copious center depth with Backlund and Jankowski.

That's not really copious. Backund is topping out as a 3rd line center and Janwkowski is a complete unknown at this point.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by flamesforcup

I prefer the first one as well but i dont see any team trading one of the finns for Monahan. Hes a great #2 centre but just doesnt have the cieling as those 2 guys.

That's the interesting thing. There are a lot of GMs with limited viewings out east that think of him as a budding #1 center who had 30/30 last year, and a lot of teams at the bottom of the standings looking for a #1 center. Columbus for instance, they're basically in Matthews-or-bust mode after trading RyJo for Seth Jones. Who knows, we could even pry out a Rychel in the process.

Everything would have to go right (er... 'wrong') for us to get 1st OA so it's just a hypothetical, though.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That's not really copious. Backund is topping out as a 3rd line center and Janwkowski is a complete unknown at this point.

Backlund is a 2nd line center in the NHL. He's not a 1B but he's definitely a 2. He's the best two-way center on this team and that's really the problem.

[flamesforcup]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That's the interesting thing. There are a lot of GMs with limited viewings out east that think of him as a budding #1 center who had 30/30 last year, and a lot of teams at the bottom of the standings looking for a #1 center. Columbus for instance, they're basically in Matthews-or-bust mode after trading RyJo for Seth Jones. Who knows, we could even pry out a Rychel in the process.

Everything would have to go right (er... 'wrong') for us to get 1st OA so it's just a hypothetical, though.



Backlund is a 2nd line center in the NHL. He's not a 1B but he's definitely a 2. He's the best center on this team and that's really the problem.

I think if cbj is really desperate for a centre and picking #2/3 it might work but than ur going into next year with a rookie and Sam Bennett who hasnt played centre much as your top 2 centres. Also in regards to backlund i dont see him as a very good 2nd line centre, maybe if he has a good winger. Hes more like a 2b/3a

[Poe969]

Backlund is a 2nd line center in the NHL, just on a bad team. For the team to be better, it has to have better players and Backlund being on our second line shows that the Flames don't have depth. Backlund is a poor man's Jordan Staal and Jordan Staal is a borderline second line center.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Backlund is a 2nd line center in the NHL. He's not a 1B but he's definitely a 2. He's the best two-way center on this team and that's really the problem.

Sometimes I have no idea what team/players/prospects you're watching. Michael Backlund is 27 in two moths, he's never hit 20 goals, he's never hit 40 points. He's a good two-way center suitable to the 3rd line. If Backlund is playing over his head on the second line you're probably not a good hockey team.

For clarification see the current edition of the Calgary Flames.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Sometimes I have no idea what team/players/prospects you're watching. Michael Backlund is 27 in two moths, he's never hit 20 goals, he's never hit 40 points. He's a good two-way center suitable to the 3rd line. If Backlund is playing over his head on the second line you're probably not a good hockey team.

For clarification see the current edition of the Calgary Flames.

Yes, Mikael Backlund playing over his head and coming out of most matchups a plus for the last three full seasons is the reason we're discussing Matthews/Puljujarvi/Laine, and he was the reason we got Sam Bennett too

I'm not going to make my case for Backlund, I've watched enough of his career to know that while he has his limitations, he definitely qualifies as copious center depth for any team with two number ones, which has no correlation to a team rolling an overmatched number two as a number one.

[Poe969]

He was part of the reason we got Bennett, partly because having him as a #2 center and not being able to put up 20 goals just isn't good enough and partly because he let the team see that it needed another center for the second line.

[Table 5]

While he might technically be a second on a handful of teams in the league, any team built with serious Cup aspirations in mind will not have Backlund higher than a 3rd line Center. I'm a fan of his, but the guy just doesn't have it offensively. There is no more untapped upside to his game...what you see is what you get.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Yes, Mikael Backlund playing over his head and coming out of most matchups a plus for the last three full seasons is the reason we're discussing Matthews/Puljujarvi/Laine and he was the reason we got Sam Bennett too

I'm not going to make my case for Backlund, I've watched enough of his career to know that while he has his limitations, he definitely qualifies as copious center depth for any team with two number ones, which has no correlation to a team rolling an overmatched number two as a number one.

Again, not even sure what you're talking about sometimes.

No one puts the blame on the player for playing higher than he should, that's the teams fault. And yes having a 3rd line center playing in your top 2 is one of the reasons we're drafting as high as we are, holes in the roster are a problem. Ideally a player like Backlund, with very limited offensive upside, is playing in the middle if your roster. Third line 5on5 and one of your better guys on the PK. That's where he should be.

He doesn't qualify as copious center depth, he qualifies as plain ol' depth IMO. If Backlund is your 3rd line center on a nightly basis, because you have Bennett and Monahan ahead of him.. that's good, that's contending quality depth. Copious would be if we draft Matthews and run with Bennett and Monahan as centers, leaving Backlund as the 4th line guy.

And as much as I've enjoyed watching Jankowski progress recently he's not even anywhere in the conversation at the moment. Maybe he's down the hallway eavesdropping at this point.

Really have to be careful counting our chickens before they hatch. Depth always looks good until it has to test itself. Right now we have Monahan and Backlund. Currently Bennett isn't playing center and we haven't drafted Matthews. I wouldn't be trading from a position of strength until we have it.

[Table 5]

If anything, Granlund is the "copious depth" we have at the moment...but that's only to replace a guy like Backlund.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Again, not even sure what you're talking about sometimes.

No one puts the blame on the player for playing higher than he should, that's the teams fault. And yes having a 3rd line center playing in your top 2 is one of the reasons we're drafting as high as we are, holes in the roster are a problem. Ideally a player like Backlund, with very limited offensive upside, is playing in the middle if your roster. Third line 5on5 and one of your better guys on the PK. That's where he should be.

Thing is, Backlund hasn't played higher than he should in any of those years. Other than being below average at faceoffs, he's been successful in every role he's been put in. +/- isn't a great stat but Backlund was a +4 the year we drafted Bennett and he's a +4 this year as a 2nd line center. He was the one player who wasn't in over his head in his role, and his on-ice role in those years has not been that of the 3C people claim he is. It's easy to look at his counting stats and say "we're not good enough because he doesn't produce" but his line outproduces other team's top 6 lines that they're matched up with. There are guys playing 2C on playoff teams who can "produce offensively" but still barely hold their head above water in given matchups (heck, look at Steven Stamkos the last two years). There are 3Cs who are better power play guys (Ryan Spooner, heck maybe our own Granlund who I don't even consider a 4C) too. But when I think of a term like "2C" I'm not referring to special teams performance.

He doesn't qualify as copious center depth, he qualifies as plain ol' depth IMO.

A successful 2nd line center as your 3rd line center is more than "plain ol' depth". But anyways I don't want to drag this thread further off topic, this is the draft thread. Let's just agree to disagree. If you still want to respond to the above part copypaste it over to the Backlund thread.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Thing is, Backlund hasn't played higher than he should in any of those years. Other than being weak at faceoffs, he's been successful in every role he's been put in. +/- isn't a great stat but Backlund was a +4 the year we drafted Bennett and he's a +4 this year as a 2nd line center. He was the one player who wasn't in over his head in his role, and his on-ice role in those years has not been that of the 3C people claim he is. It's easy to look at his counting stats and say "we're not good enough because he doesn't produce" but his line outproduces other team's top 6 lines that they're matched up with. There are guys playing 2C on playoff teams who can "produce offensively" but still barely hold their head above water in given matchups (heck, look at Steven Stamkos the last two years). There are 3Cs who are better power play guys (Ryan Spooner, heck maybe our own Granlund who I don't even consider a 4C) too. But when I think of a term like "2C" I'm not referring to special teams performance.

Backlund is a good two-way center with limited offensive upside. That's ideally what you want on your third line. If a guy isn't capable of scoring 20 goals, or hitting 40 points despite getting 2nd line minutes, you want that guy pushed down your line up. Center is such an important position that I have high standards of what players should play where. I'm a little less worried about a guy like Frolik, not a 1st line winger, playing on a top line.

Backlund is good in his own end and when matched up defensively against other players. Now imagine him being able to use those defensive tools on a 3rd line matched up against top lines while two other more capable offensive centers are left to do their thing with capable wingers.

Hell, I don't even know what you're arguing. Even if your trade proposals and your fantasy lines you didn't have Backlund there, so even you don't think he's a 2nd line guy on this team. You've easily replaced him with Monahan, Bennet or Matthews putting him on the third line so I have no idea what you're on about.

But anyways I don't want to drag this thread further off topic, this is the draft thread. Let's just agree to disagree. If you still want to respond to the above part copypaste it over to the Backlund thread.

I'm good, thanks.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Hell, I don't even know what you're arguing

Yet you're arguing against it. Smooth.

I'm arguing that long term, a center depth of

Matthews
Bennett
Backlund

with a Gaudreau/Puljarvi on the wings, would be an enviable position at forward because even if a Bennett goes down to injury, you can still win with Backlund filling in as your 2C because he's proven to be able to handle that competition and come out of a positive. Maybe you'll win more games 2-1 instead of 3-2 in that case but you won't fall off the map.

Really have to be careful counting our chickens before they hatch. Depth always looks good until it has to test itself. Right now we have Monahan and Backlund. Currently Bennett isn't playing center and we haven't drafted Matthews. I wouldn't be trading from a position of strength until we have it.

I just think it'd be an interesting situation worth discussing if we got Matthews, and that's looking like an actual possibility. A few years back the Avs had Stastny, Duchene, Ryan O'Rielly, and MacKinnon which is better center depth than we've had in the last 25 years but they didn't use it to really fill any other long term needs.

[Bunk]

A lot of discussion of 1-3

Who would you ideally take at under a realistic scenario where that player is available at?

4th
5th
6th
7th