If we get a Rick Nash out of this, I'd be thrilled.
Rick Nash "failed" because Columbus tried to build a team around a winger, and expected him to do it all by himself for most of his tenure (hmm, sounds familiar). But a Rick Nash-type to help round out a group of talented forwards and defensemen...where do I sign?
Laine goes to the net with more power than Puljujärvi and has the stick skills to challenge defenders and deke the goalies. The puck stays on his stick way better than on Puljujärvi's. He also has good awareness of his linemates in the offensive zone and smooth passing skills. Calling him a perimeter scorer just because he happens to be so damn good at shooting the puck is unfair.
Recently we've seen Puljujärvi score from far away as well, on the PP, and that to me has been positive, because earlier I was worried that he wasn't getting many quality shots on net.
Without looking for stats, my impression is that the two players have produced about the same amount offense since the U20, which is good for Puljujärvi since in november-december he looked like he was struggling too much for a potential top-3 pick.
Puljujärvi was just hurt but should come back for the playoffs. He plays for the best team in the league, with Sebastian Aho who is among the top forwards in the league at this point. He's in a good position to improve his standing in the post season if he's healthy
The Following User Says Thank You to Henry Fool For This Useful Post:
If you rewatch Laine's highlight's from the U20, of course you see him score the goals from where you expect, but you also see his coordination, how he catches a waist-high pass right at the beginning of the video or how he very quickly rotates for his tip-in goal. You see that when he pushes past a defender, the defenseman at this level has no chance at all to stop him. He doesn't slow down when he goes to the net, he goes straight into the equally big defenseman in front of the net without hesitation. I personally haven't seen Puljujärvi equal that.
It's totally legitimate to prefer Puljujärvi of course. I'm not an expert. But to me Laine's upside is just too high.
Neither of them are major goal scorers close to the net at the moment. Both have heavy, accurate shots from afar. It's easier for me to imagine Laine being more dangerous closer to the net as well, with his quicker release, better stick handling and coordination, and more belligerent attitude.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Henry Fool For This Useful Post:
I can see why some would like the Flames to pick Laine or Puljujarvi being that they are right wingers, but if the Flames do end up picking #1, I can't see them or any other team passing on Matthews. I still think he's still strongly considered to be the BPA.
I can't even seeing the Flames dropping down a spot(if they in fact pick # 1), unless the team they flip the pick to gives them more than what they'd want to.
__________________
You’ll find that empty vessels make the most sound.
-Johnny Rotten
I can see why some would like the Flames to pick Laine or Puljujarvi being that they are right wingers, but if the Flames do end up picking #1, I can't see them or any other team passing on Matthews. I still think he's still strongly considered to be the BPA.
I can't even seeing the Flames dropping down a spot(if they in fact pick # 1), unless the team they flip the pick to gives them more than what they'd want to.
I have mentioned it a few times but Arizona would have the ability to offer the Flames a ton of they got the top pick. They have 2 1st round picks and have Strome as assets they could dangle for Matthews. In my opinion they might be the only team willing to massively overpay for Matthews.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
The draft lottery is preventing me from falling in love with any of the top 5 or 6 guys. I am forcing myself to like them all equally (and it is difficult).
With that being said, I think some people are too worried about Puljujarvi not being able to score goals. He has a very, very nice slap shot that can score in the NHL. Throw him out on the PP, and Gaudreau/Monahan/Brodie can feed him cross-ice passes, and he will make us remember Iginla there.
I definitely am not the expert on the Finns that Henry Fool seems to be - but judging by what he says and then seeing all the youtube videos (horrible way to really get to know a prospect) I would say that Henry really does seem to be bang-on with his comments.
On HF, there is some talk about Gauthier having lower IQ. That may not be horrible for him, as with his size, speed and shot, he should be quite the effective NHL'er. Anyone who watches him closely confirm this? Does he have a bit of 'Jake Virtanen' in him? Difficult to judge IQ on youtube highlight packages where you can't focus on the player for the duration of a game. Even on TV, you often don't get to see anticipation very often, as the camera just follows the puck around. Anyways, that seems like a huge red flag to me if he was Tkachuk's size, but I seem less concerned about it (though I have tentatively ranked him lower in my personal list).
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
You're talking about the same Auston Matthews that many scouts said would go ahead of Jack Eichel if he were old enough for the 2015 draft?
Are you talking about the same scouts that rated Phil Kessel ahead of Crosby if he was eligible for the 2005 draft? (Gare Joyce: Future Greats and Heartbreaks).
My point is that often scouts feel the need to be counter culture when players are greatly hyped.
No, I don't think he is as a lot of scouts have said that about Matthews, I even heard McKenzie say that. Matthews has been hyped for a while and not just by some, it seems the ones who drop him from 1 are the ones going with left field ideas just to get attention. I don't think I've heard of anyone before this saying they though Kessel would go ahead of Crosby.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
Are you talking about the same scouts that rated Phil Kessel ahead of Crosby if he was eligible for the 2005 draft? (Gare Joyce: Future Greats and Heartbreaks).
My point is that often scouts feel the need to be counter culture when players are greatly hyped.
Haha Gare Joyce wrote some pretty ridiculous things saying how McDavid is already better than Crosby or some such noise when McDavid was still playing junior. Anything to get clicks.
Thanks for the highlights, looks like I oversold that Tkachuk goal a little. I was seated by the penalty boxes and from my (drunken) vantage point that defender appeared closer on the goal than he was. That being said, he had a similar rush in the first period from my side of the ice, where he definitely one armed a d-man with one hand on his stick, shot and got his own rebound.
Still a pretty slick move on the goal, at least I got that part right
Have to be careful here though, because there are few to no precedents for 18 year olds coming over from those leagues.
They used NHLe for players 25 and under for Laine and Puljujarvi. I don't think that's fair at all. I wonder if there are ANY 18 year olds in that data.
As for Matthews, not very many first round prospects ever come to the NHL from the Swiss league. So again, I think his NHLe is pretty meaningless.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Wow. Too much read into stats as per usual from that site. No one is drafting by NHL-e. Massive oversimplification of things. I find the numbers mildly interesting. Certainly nowhere near a substitution for scouting as this guy attempts to make them. Real head shaker for me but I'm very skeptical of any attempt to scout players by numbers and not actually watching them. Give me scouting reports every day over this stuff
For those that do love stats, apparently this site is a goldmine if you have the scripting skills to pore through the poorly laid out results and do some lists or calculations.
Wow. Too much read into stats as per usual from that site. No one is drafting by NHL-e. Massive oversimplification of things. I find the numbers mildly interesting. Certainly nowhere near a substitution for scouting as this guy attempts to make them.
It's certainly a different perspective worth considering. You wouldn't draft a player 3rd OA based on one scout's opinion, you'd want discourse among many scouts about the pros and cons, and in this case this is just another set of pros and cons. So of course, stats need context but if you treat them for what they are, one not insignificant part of the puzzle, they do raise a bit of a red flag.
It's certainly a different perspective worth considering. You wouldn't draft a player 3rd OA based on one scout's opinion, you'd want discourse among many scouts about the pros and cons, and in this case this is just another set of pros and cons. So of course, stats need context but if you treat them for what they are, one not insignificant part of the puzzle, they do raise a bit of a red flag.
Except they really don't.
I agree that stats are just another source of information, and that all information is good.
However, using stats (properly and usefully) requires understanding how to interpret them.
Taking the NHLe for all players 25 and under from the SM-Liga is extremely misleading. If a 22 year old gets 30 points, that's one thing. But if a 17 year old gets 30 points in the same league, that is something else entirely.
There simply isn't enough data to make any kind of assessment of these guys with respect to an NHLe.
Are there ANY players that have come over as 18 year olds from that league?
Certainly there aren't any 18 year olds from the Swiss league. So how can one calculate an NHLe when there are ZERO prior data points?
Stats are great. ONLY if the analysis is sound.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
For more clarity, Tkachuk's NHLe is a much more valid and useful stat. There are plenty of data points from the CHL to make his numbers a useful source of information.
I agree that stats are just another source of information, and that all information is good.
However, using stats (properly and usefully) requires understanding how to interpret them.
Taking the NHLe for all players 25 and under from the SM-Liga is extremely misleading. If a 22 year old gets 30 points, that's one thing. But if a 17 year old gets 30 points in the same league, that is something else entirely.
There simply isn't enough data to make any kind of assessment of these guys with respect to an NHLe.
Are there ANY players that have come over as 18 year olds from that league?
Certainly there aren't any 18 year olds from the Swiss league. So how can one calculate an NHLe when there are ZERO prior data points?
Stats are great. ONLY if the analysis is sound.
There's Barkov. Different leagues bring different types of players to the NHL, through different paths, at different ages. Finland for example simply hasn't produced scorers in many years.
Stats are of course relevant, but NHLe doesn't add to our understanding of them in any way as far as I can see. You can just look at stats and have enough of an idea without adding extra layers of ambiguous methodology.
Waste of energy as far as I have been able to tell.
Are there ANY players that have come over as 18 year olds from that league.
Barkov. He had 61% more points per game than Puljujarvi in Liiga, and as an NHL rookie put up alright, but unimpressive stats. He's now as a 20 year old he's a 60+ point forward, which took quite a while for him to arrive at. So at the very least, this data tells us Puljujarvi is less productive than a young player who didn't really find his NHL offense until he was 20.
It's information that's obviously a lot more useful to the scouts than it is to us. I hope the scouts are looking at his stats and trying to understand the "why" behind them, rather than ignoring the stats outright.
The Following User Says Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
