I struggle with some of your definitions and word usage. I'm not sure how many teams would take Johnson over Saad given the choice of the two.
Most of the ones.
Quote:
Saad has game breaking speed, nice size, 30 goal scorer. Who wouldn't want him? How is he a complimentary player?
Brandon Saad is a line driver? Well I mean, he drives play at times, but most would consider him a complimentary piece, not unlike Ryan Callahan or Brad Marchand, albeit a bit taller.
Quote:
And how are Dubois and Puljujarvi questionable as game breakers but Keller is a game breaker? I don't understand that distinction at all. Puljujarvi has game breaking speed, playmaking and shooting. His puck handling isn't as good as Nylander/Keller's but overall he's a much, much more attractive prospect.
I never said Dubois and Pulju aren't more attractive prospects as they are two way monsters with strong offense, they are. But there are more concerns about them offensively than Keller.
I don't think Puljujarvi or Dubois have gamebreaking skill.
I do think Puljujarvi and Dubois have gamebreaking overall packages.
I do think Keller has gamebreaking skill.
I also think Matthews and Laine have gamebreaking overall packages AND skill.
Quote:
Hudler - 2nd line winger with skill and hockey sense who had one crazy year with Gaudreau/Monahan but who lacks size and skating and seems to be on the decline because of that and his advancing age
He didn't have one crazy year. He had other years putting up similar numbers but played less minutes. You don't finish top 10 in scoring in the NHL as a 2nd line winger.
What he wasn't though was a play driver.
Quote:
Johansen - 1st line centre in skill, but his foot speed could be better and he struggles with work ethic at times. I wouldn't call him a consistent driving player although he definitely drives the offence when he wants to
And yet on no line is he the third option. Unlike Saad, who is the third option on most lines. RyJo may be inconsistent, but let's not pretend Monahan is a model of consistency either. These are young centers.
Quote:
Johnson - ideal 2nd line centre but can be your 1st liner in a pinch. Definitely drives play with his speed and tenacity
Ideal 2nd line center who as 1st line center took his team to the cup final where they were a goalie injury away from winning a Stanley Cup. And now Ideal 2nd line center who has his team be the first to enter into a conference final. While the team is without its Ideal 1st line center who is actually a functional 2nd line center that gets a lot of power play goals.
Quote:
I guess we just don't see players quite the same in general.
No, no we don't. Because you have this constant "ideal" concept in your head that blinds you to "actual". Ask a Tampa fan if Tyler Johnson is an actual 1C or a 2C.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 05-08-2016 at 11:01 PM.
5'10 doesn't sound that tiny but when I saw him play a the U18s I couldn't help but think, "Holy cow that kid looks tiny!" I'm kind of curious what his combine measurements will come out at since they are very standardized. Teams often bring their strength and conditioning coaches to the combine and interviews to give them opinions on how much weight they think their frames will hold. Not every 5'10 kid can end up 195. I'm very skeptical that Keller can ever be as strong on the puck as a Marchand for example. Marchand and Crosby are freaks, they are abnormally strong for their height. So far Keller shows no sign to me of being that strong for his height but I'm not strength and conditioning coach so I'd defer to their opinions.
For example Crosby at 5'11 is almost impossible to knock off the puck. But Baerstchi and Granlund at 5'11 and 6'0 were quite easy to knock off the puck even after years of development and attempts to add strength.
If Keller can end up 5'10-5'11 and 195 then yeah his size shouldn't be a big issue. But if he's more like 5'9.5 and can't add a ton of strength to his frame then it may still be a big issue in the future. I'm sure the combine will play a role for some teams and how big they think Keller will end up when fully developed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Brandon Saad is a line driver? Well I mean, he drives play at times, but most would consider him a complimentary piece, not unlike Ryan Callahan or Brad Marchand, albeit a bit taller.
I never said he was a line driver. That is some weird terminology that you brought to the conversation and I'm not quite sure what it means. IMO in general lines are driven by the centre. There are some exceptions like Gaudreau and Kane but in general the centre drives the play for me.
Saad I consider a 1st line goal scoring winger with game breaking speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
I never said Dubois and Pulju aren't more attractive prospects as they are two way monsters with strong offense, they are. But there are more concerns about them offensively than Keller.
I think there are more concerns on Keller due to his size and questions about whether he can translate his game to the NHL and survive against the biggest and meanest in the NHL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
He didn't have one crazy year. He had other years putting up similar numbers but played less minutes. You don't finish top 10 in scoring in the NHL as a 2nd line winger.
He did have one crazy year. And the year after that he spent time on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd lines, was traded to a stronger team and ended up a 3rd liner on a playoff team. So did he go from a 1st liner to a 3rd liner in the space of a year? Or was he more of a "true" or "ideal" 2nd liner who could fit and compliment the crazy skill of Little Johnny and thus put up crazy points with them due to chemistry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
And yet on no line is he the third option. Unlike Saad, who is the third option on most lines. RyJo may be inconsistent, but let's not pretend Monahan is a model of consistency either. These are young centers.
I'm not sure what you mean by third option. There's some new terminology that you haven't defined. Saad is a 1st line goal scoring winger with game breaking speed. How does that make him the 3rd option? 3rd option for what? Please explain.
Johansen has great scoring and playmaking. I think if he was more determined and a little quicker the sky would be the limit for him. I tend to think he'll be a decent 1st line centre overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Ideal 2nd line center who as 1st line center took his team to the cup final where they were a goalie injury away from winning a Stanley Cup. And now Ideal 2nd line center who has his team be the first to enter into a conference final. While the team is without its Ideal 1st line center who is actually a functional 2nd line center that gets a lot of power play goals.
No, no we don't. Because you have this constant "ideal" concept in your head that blinds you to "actual". Ask a Tampa fan if Tyler Johnson is an actual 1C or a 2C.
Well you love stats right? 38 points in 69 games, does that scream legit 1st line centre to you? It doesn't to me. That's what he put up this regular season. It's like when Benning says there's only 8-10 true #1 defensemen in the NHL. I believe there aren't 30 "true" or "ideal" #1 centres in the NHL. And some teams are hogging two of them (see Crosby/Malkin). Crosby, Toews, Malkin, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Bergeron these are ideal #1 centres. Some teams don't have an ideal #1 centre but are still a good team. Johnson didn't take his team to the conference finals, the team did. Hockey is a team game. Johnson is a good player and its no insult to him that he's not an ideal #1 centre. Like I said, he's an ideal #2 centre and can be your #1 in a pinch.
Lets use some Flames comparables. Langkow took the Flames took the playoffs as our #1 centre. Does that mean he was an "ideal" #1 centre? No. On a stronger team he would have been a #2 centre. On a team with a true #1 centre, Johnson would be a great #2 centre. Let's use another Flames comparable. Conroy "took" his team to the Stanley Cup finals. Does this mean Conroy was an ideal or true #1 centre? Nope. If we had a true #1 centre he would've been an amazing #2.
This "ideal" or "true" concept I use is used by scouts and GMs. Listen to enough interviews and you'll hear it. Just because a team is successful with an ideal #2 as their #1 centre doesn't mean that player is a #1 centre in the league wide sense. Does Dallas have a true #1 defenseman? No, but they were the best in the West and they have made it to the 2nd round. Nobody is going to call Demers or Russell or Klingberg or Oduya or Goligoski an ideal #1 defenseman are they? Do they even have a single d-men that would play top pairing on the Predators? I don't think so. Again there probably aren't 30 true or ideal #1 d-men in the entire league. And some teams may be hogging a couple of them.
BPA is subjective to the scouts/organization. It is influenced by philosophy on what is successful in the NHL and how to build a successful team. Therefore who the Flames think the BPA available at #6 is could be drastically different than who another organization thinks the BPA at #6 is.
So who is BPA at #6 for the Flames? I'd look for players who possess a blend of skill, skating, size, hockey sense and compete. That is why I am skeptical the Flames will have Nylander/Keller that high. Hopefully that makes sense. It's not that the Flames have a fixation on size but at the same time you can't ignore that part of the equation because the Flames do factor it in to their decision making when debating and making their list.
for sure... I agree with that.
funny thing is, i think that Nylander/Keller have everything you list...except size and in Nylander's case, maybe compete/battle. But neither are midgets either.. Keller is what 5'10"? and Nylander 6'0"... probably not far off from the average NHL'er height wise...
I guess, looking at Brown's highlights, i don't see what people are talking about? Granted, its a highlight/goal scoring tape, so you don't see other things, like dominating a cycle along the boards or physically beating up an opponent over the course of a game.
However, to my untrained eyes, I don't see a particularly skilled guy that is dynamic... i see a big guy with better than average skills. That's it...
can anyone point to something in the highlights that suggest 6th overall?
because when i compare Brown's tape to Max Jones, Jones looks so much better on tape. Faster, more dynamic, more skilled, imaginative and explosive.. imo of a highlight tape at least.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszkPj3fjcc
if you could nab him with a late first, that would be amazing. I'd take Jones over Brown 7 days a week.
Last edited by oldschoolcalgary; 05-08-2016 at 11:43 PM.
I guess, looking at Brown's highlights, i don't see what people are talking about? Granted, its a highlight/goal scoring tape, so you don't see other things, like dominating a cycle along the boards or physically beating up an opponent over the course of a game.
However, to my untrained eyes, I don't see a particularly skilled guy that is dynamic... i see a big guy with better than average skills. That's it...
can anyone point to something in the highlights that suggest 6th overall?
Well I'll preface this by saying I'm not really pushing Brown as a guy who should be our pick. I just think he may be in the conversation. He's not really who I'm hoping for, he's not really my favourite for the pick. But I do think he has a massive upside that he may achieve.
It depends what you're looking for in highlights. Brown has been compared to Ryan Johansen and Joe Thornton. What do highlight packages of those players look like? I'm not sure, kind of depends who makes the video and how well they emphasize the player's strengths. Part of their appeal is that they use their size to protect the puck and then use their playmaking and vision to set someone up. So in a highlight package that may focus a lot of their goals it certainly may not wow you. Playmaking centres are primarily useful for setting players up but they need to have some level of finishing ability otherwise the defensemen don't have to respect their shot and can just play the pass the whole time.
So if you're looking for Brown dekeing out several guys and picking the corner he's not that type of player. Nylander is flashier. But he can control the puck on the powerplay and basically play keep away with it like Thornton does. I dunno, does a big, playmaking centre ever really wow you in a highlight reel? Probably not like a dynamic goal scoring winger does. I guess a Malkin type does because of his tremendous skill level but a Johansen type might be more underwhelming in the highlight reels. A big, playmaking centre is one of the most valuable and hard to find commodities in the NHL. I'd argue they are much more valuable than a goal scoring winger with average size.
Definitely part of the appeal with Brown is that you just won't be able to check him. What defenseman in the NHL is strong enough to shove him off the puck when he's fully filled out considering that he's 6'6 218 or so already? Chara? Maybe Weber? The NHL is really lacking that Chris Pronger/Derien Hatcher type at the moment, I'm struggling to think of huge guys who can physically overpower any forward. So Brown if he uses his size to his advantage will basically be unstoppable. That is why his upside is so big, that is why he's very appealing to some teams.
Is he the most purely skilled guy in this top end? No. But he does have some of the best size/strength. And his skating is amazing for his size. Does he have above average skill? Yes. Teams that value that size/skating/skill combo are going to think his upside is insane because you won't be able to stop him physically with his size/strength/reach combo. Any team that values pure skill above all else probably won't have him as high.
I dunno feels like I'm rambling, I dunno if that clarified anything on Brown. I think he may inch up the draft boards for teams that lack a top two line centre with size. Because the Flames aren't as in need of that as some other teams we may be one of the teams that doesn't have him as high. But I could also see how any team might have him top 6 due to his skating/size/skill combination. He's a real wildcard.
PS I really like Jones too. Go Dallas! I'd love to be able to trade up into the teens and grab Jones in addition to the player at #6.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 05-09-2016 at 12:08 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Yep, he's extremely attractive as a prospect. I think I'm leaning towards Sergachev/Chychrun as my favourites at #6 if Tkachuk/Dubois are gone. Sergachev just has fantastic skating, shooting, passing, poise and solid size. Definitely see top pairing potential there.
For those who are convinced Dubois has zero chance of being there at 6 though
"Chychrun was the only defenceman to be ranked in anyone's top four prospects. One scout had him at No. 4 overall"
"In contrast, Juolevi’s highest rank was No. 5 overall"
"Penticton Vees' defenceman Dante Fabbro, who played for Canada at the World U-18 Championship in Grand Forks, didn't quite make the cut for TSN's Top 15, but he did get one vote in the Top 10 (No. 5) and was deemed the top defenceman by that one scout."
So there are scouts that have Chychrun top 4. There are scouts that have Juolevi top 5. Even a scout that has Fabbro top 5. And now we've got rumours that teams have Brown have top 5.
It seems like Tkachuk/Dubois are consensus top 5 but the closer you look the murkier it appears. I think there's almost no chance Tkachuk is there at #6. But there does seem to be some chance that Dubois is. All it will take is for the Canucks to decide that Dubois and a defensemen are close enough that they should prioritize organizational need and take the defenseman. Or maybe EDM trades the pick and that team takes Brown or a d-man. Or maybe VAN takes Brown over Dubois.
I don't think we can rule out Dubois yet I still believe there's a chance!
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 05-09-2016 at 12:06 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Well I'll preface this by saying I'm not really pushing Brown as a guy who should be our pick. I just think he may be in the conversation. He's not really who I'm hoping for, he's not really my favourite for the pick. But I do think he has a massive upside that he may achieve.
It depends what you're looking for in highlights. Brown has been compared to Ryan Johansen and Joe Thornton. What do highlight packages of those players look like? I'm not sure, kind of depends who makes the video and how well they emphasize the player's strengths. Part of their appeal is that they use their size to protect the puck and then use their playmaking and vision to set someone up. So in a highlight package that may focus a lot of their goals it certainly may not wow you. Playmaking centres are primarily useful for setting players up but they need to have some level of finishing ability otherwise the defensemen don't have to respect their shot and can just play the pass the whole time.
So if you're looking for Brown dekeing out several guys and picking the corner he's not that type of player. Nylander is flashier. But he can control the puck on the powerplay and basically play keep away with it like Thornton does. I dunno, does a big, playmaking centre ever really wow you in a highlight reel? Probably not like a dynamic goal scoring winger does. I guess a Malkin type does because of his tremendous skill level but a Johansen type might be more underwhelming in the highlight reels. A big, playmaking centre is one of the most valuable and hard to find commodities in the NHL. I'd argue they are much more valuable than a goal scoring winger with average size.
Definitely part of the appeal with Brown is that you just won't be able to check him. What defenseman in the NHL is strong enough to shove him off the puck when he's fully filled out considering that he's 6'6 218 or so already? Chara? Maybe Weber? The NHL is really lacking that Chris Pronger/Derien Hatcher type at the moment, I'm struggling to think of huge guys who can physically overpower any forward. So Brown if he uses his size to his advantage will basically be unstoppable.
Is he the most purely skilled guy in this top end? No. But he does have some of the best size/strength. And his skating is amazing for his size. Does he have above average skill? Yes. Teams that value that size/skating/skill combo are going to think his upside is insane because you won't be able to stop him physically with his size/strength/reach combo. Any team that values pure skill above all else probably won't have him as high.
I dunno feels like I'm rambling, I dunno if that clarified anything on Brown. I think he may inch up the draft boards for teams that lack a top two line centre with size. Because the Flames aren't as in need of that as some other teams we may be one of the teams that doesn't have him as high. But I could also see how any team might have him top 6 due to his skating/size/skill combination. He's a real wildcard.
PS I really like Jones too. Go Dallas! I'd love to be able to trade up into the teens and grab Jones in addition to the player at #6.
no, i think that makes sense... i am sure many of us arm chair GMs have our own filters when looking at highlight tapes... which can lead to tunnel vision or locking into a particular prospect.
again, though we disagree, i think the discussion has been agreeable. Thanks for that.
should be an interesting couple of months.
The Following User Says Thank You to oldschoolcalgary For This Useful Post:
Also agree with this, he is the youngest of the top 3 dmen (still 17), he put up the most PPG at .85 (Chychrun .79 and Juolevi at .74) and he is also the biggest of the 3 at 6"3, 206LB.
Hilarious that in the video at 4:10 they say he is expected to go late second round early third round in this years draft, must be commentary from very very early into the season.
Well you love stats right? 38 points in 69 games, does that scream legit 1st line centre to you? It doesn't to me.
I don't "Love stats". I'm just willing to look into them instead of ignoring them.
Just like I'm willing to look into the fact that Johnson broke his wrist last year and admittedly spent most of this year recovering while playing through it. I don't "love" blaming injuries but when they're real, they're real.
And Just like I'm willing to look into the fact that he had a 72 points in 77 games regular season a year before this injury plagued one. Know how good that is? That's a 77 point pace. That would be on par with the best season of Jonathan Toews' career. And like Toews, Johnson, not Stamkos/Kane, was the anchor of the top line.
Quote:
Johnson didn't take his team to the conference finals, the team did.
You did not watch/follow last year's playoffs did you?
TJ was the leading scorer of the entire 2015 playoffs up until the Final where he... broke his wrist. Not just for his team, but period.
Quote:
Hopefully you get my point there.
Your point that the leading scorer in the entire playoffs before he broke his wrist was a Daymond Langkow/Craig Conroy?
You really do see only what you want to see.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 05-09-2016 at 12:36 AM.
I don't "Love stats". I'm just willing to look into them instead of ignoring them.
Just like I'm willing to look into the fact that Johnson broke his wrist last year and admittedly spent most of this year recovering while playing through it. I don't "love" blaming injuries but when they're real, they're real.
And Just like I'm willing to look into the fact that he had a 72 points in 77 games regular season a year before this injury plagued one.
Know how good that is? That's a 77 point pace. That would be on par with the best season of Jonathan Toews' career.
You did not watch/follow last year's playoffs did you?
TJ was the leading scorer of the entire 2015 playoffs up until the Final where he... broke his wrist.
Your point that the leading scorer in the entire playoffs before he broke his wrist was a Daymond Langkow/Craig Conroy?
Well Conroy was 5th in playoff scoring the year we went to the cup finals. Did that make him an "ideal" or "true" #1 centre? Nope. The only centre that outscored him in the playoffs was Brad Richards. The further you go in the playoffs the more opportunity you have to rack up points. Conroy had more playoff points than Joe Sakic! Would you take him over Sakic? Conroy had more points than Lecavalier. Would anyone at that time take him over Lecavalier as a #1 centre? Hells no.
Is any of Johnson's success attributable to being on a high scoring, good team with good line mates who had insane chemistry? You keep touting Palat and Kucherov as elite so doesn't that help Johnson and boost his point totals? How many points would he score on the 2nd line behind Kopitar in LA? 70+ again? Or did premium ice time and great line mates help him there? Hudler had 70 points the same year Johnson had 70 points but he's no #1 winger, in fact he was a 3rd liner on a good team post trade deadline this year.
How many points does Johnson score on the Leafs this year if healthy? 70 again? Does he carry them to significantly higher in the standings? Would Toews? Would Kopitar? Would Crosby? Would Malkin? I'm not sure how many people would actually believe that Johnson could single handedly carry a weak team like a true #1 centre could.
Johnson is a great player. But he's not a "true" or "ideal" #1 centre league wide in the sense that GM's and scouts use the word. He's not pushing Toews down to #2 centre, I don't care if he scored more points than Toews.
We'll never agree since you don't seem to understand my usage of the word "ideal" or "true" #1 centre. Just like I don't understand your concepts of "driving" the line or being "3rd option." W/E. We have different hockey philosophies.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 05-09-2016 at 12:46 AM.
You're confusing the "Generational" label with Franchise. There are 30 franchises. That should mean there's upwards potential of ~30 Franchise players, and probably more since some teams are going to have multiple franchise players at different key positions (Franchise Center + Franchise Dman + Carey Price)
In the past we had Kipprusoff and Iginla, they were our franchise players. The Kings have Doughty and Kopitar, the Hawks have Keith/Kane/Toews.
Yes, that's what the term 'franchise player' has come to mean in recent years. But that's not the way it was always used. Back in the 80s-90s, it meant a player who could single-handedly turn a franchise around, revive its fortunes on and off the ice. Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Brodeur. There were only a handful in the league at any time. Most teams did not have a franchise player.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-09-2016 at 06:27 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
If we are taking a D man, I want Mikhail Sergachyov:
I see a bit of Gio here.
I think Sergachev is probably the best of the defenders available, but I don't put any of them in the top 10 at this point. On the Flames list they might even be lower. I don't see anything about them that says top end talents, with the exception of Chychryn's skating. I definitely don't see any bit of Giordano in any of them.
I think Sergachev is probably the best of the defenders available, but I don't put any of them in the top 10 at this point. On the Flames list they might even be lower. I don't see anything about them that says top end talents, with the exception of Chychryn's skating. I definitely don't see any bit of Giordano in any of them.
Yeah this is not a great draft for defensemen in regards to a future number one defenseman being available. Any team that takes one of these guys in the top 10 is likely a team with deficiencies in their system in regards to the position.
I'm glad there's no definite number 1 defenseman available in this draft. If there was, there's a good chance Edmonton would be taking him at 4. They would be getting something that they so desperately need.
If there was someone truly elite available, we likely wouldn't be getting him.
Yes, that's what the term 'franchise player' has come to mean in recent years. But that's not the way it was always used. Back in the 80s-90s, it meant a player who could single-handedly turn a franchise around, revive its fortunes on and off the ice. Sakic, Yzerman, Bourque, Lemieux, Hawerchuk, Brodeur. There were only a handful in the league at any time. Most teams did not have a franchise player.
I think we need a lexicon around this place to reference because some terms get thrown around way too liberally. Franchise player, generational talent, and power forward are just a few terms that get tossed around without recognizing what the word has traditionally meant. It would be very helpful if those words were properly defined so people would use them in an appropriate manner.
I completely agree with your definition. A franchise player is just as you describe. A singular player that could be added to any roster and make that team competitive. Another way to look at it is, if a team were allowed to start fresh and select only one player in the league to start their team, who would that player be. That defines a franchise player. Since there are 30 member clubs there would only be 30 votes, and you can bet that there would be many repeat votes. That tells you who your franchise players would be and just how few of them there are in the game at any one time.
The concept that every team has a franchise player, or every team has more than one franchise player at different positions, cheapens the term. Going back to the 1989 Stanley Cup Champion Flames, there was not a single franchise player on that roster. There was a lot of good talent on that team, but not a franchise player. Just like right now, there is not a franchise player on the Flames. That is not an insult to the talent level on the team, or an insult to the players, that is just the way it is.
I still believe there's a chance!
