🚨 The Zayne Parekh show has arrived 🚨

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The guy was just the best player in the world juniors.

Not to be the bearer of bad news but the the most likely scenario for Parekh is that he's never that good defensively and that he's going to be the low end of 'physically ready'. That is what the article is saying - this is a player with deficiencies but he has other extraordinary talents. You need to live with the deficiencies and encourage the extraordinary skill or you are going to waste the opportunity.

In the immediate future I'm more concerned with his physical readiness. He looks frail out there against the big boys, can't take a hit properly, gets hurt.

I can live with some defensive screw ups here and there, I'm more concerned today with him getting hurt often and playing scared. Again.....I would love to be proven wrong, but I have my doubts. Guess I'll cross my fingers and hope he does ok.

[Jason14h]

The Flames issue is actually later first rounders . We seem to never hit on them

We’ve been quiet good at our 4-5-6th overall range , and good / great in later rounds

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Was Gaudreau really any better or was he just playing on a line that dominated possession so much it didn't matter.

I always thought Johnny was good in terms of being a puck hound. He would track back and try to create turnovers in transition.

He was never great in his own zone.

And that's probably what you need to have with Zayne.

Elite in transition and offense and average defensively. Part of elite transition is the ability to move the puck out of your zone, or skate it out effectively. Physicality, gap control, coverage in his own zone - probably aren't going to be his strengths, but he needs to be OK at it.

As opposed to Evan Bouchard who has elite offense and defense that is way below average.

[Rhett44]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

In the immediate future I'm more concerned with his physical readiness. He looks frail out there against the big boys, can't take a hit properly, gets hurt.

I can live with some defensive screw ups here and there, I'm more concerned today with him getting hurt often and playing scared. Again.....I would love to be proven wrong, but I have my doubts. Guess I'll cross my fingers and hope he does ok.

He seems to get hurt a lot. He needs to bulk up and learn how to protect himself.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The Flames issue is actually later first rounders . We seem to never hit on them

We’ve been quiet good at our 4-5-6th overall range , and good / great in later rounds

This is true.
You've got several periods of absolute drought.
2004-2009: Chuck, Pelech, Irving, Backlund, Nemisz, Erixon. 1/6 isn't good enough.

2012-2014 (highlighting late 1sts and high 2nds here, ignoring the high 1sts): Jankowski, Sieloff, Poirier, Klimchuk, McDonald) - I still don't mind the Janko pick but we don't need to get into that.

2017-2020: Juuso, Pelletier, Zary: Zary still a question mark but not looking like he will be a difference maker.

Finding great players is tough in those spots, but you still gotta get some hits. that 2004-2009 stretch under Sutter just killed the pipeline. I remember going to dev camps during those years and there was nothing to watch. Eric Nystrom was the guy that demonstrated the "most" skill by far.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Tkachuk and Monahan were not complete players by any stretch. Nor was Johnny. They all improved as pros including when on the Flames roster. To not give the organization some credit for that strongly suggests you are applying a dose of bias in your analysis.

As I just posted, the problem for the Flames was a lack of talent in the pipeline for a lot of the last couple decades because of poor drafting (Sutter) and pick deficit (BT).

I would ask the question I did earlier: what other high skilled prospects, outside of Sam Bennet, do you think the Flames developed poorly?

If there is a pattern of poor development that you suggest it is, we should be able to look back at their drafts and pick out highly skilled guys that either bombed, or moved onto other organizations and found their way.

I will call out one guy: Sven. But we are going back to 2011, so not sure how relevant, but I think Hartley really f'd that kid up.

One could also point to Juuso. I really believe his knee injury de-railed him - he never had the same mobility he did prior to that.

Perhaps there are other examples.

If you're going to chastise me for excluding Monahan and Tkachuk, why is your argument premised on there are no examples except Sam and Sven, who were drafted 4th and 13th overall, respectively, and should have succeeded but for the Flames?

But in addition to them:

Pelletier
Morgan Klimchuk
Emile Poirier
Tom Erixon
Tyler Wotherspoon
Oliver Kylington
Valimaki (as you say, maybe injuries)
Granlund (maybe)

These are all first and second round picks that were trending in the right direction post-draft and amounted to nothing or less than they could have. And outside of the first and second round, we've found nobody except Gaudreau and, I guess, Mangiapane. The jury is out on whether guys like Suniev, Honzek, and Stromgren will go anywhere.

My view is this organization does not give skill guys the space to succeed and grow at the NHL despite flaws in their game, because we insist that a player has no flaws and makes no mistakes before they're given premium ice time. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in defending this as we've been complaining about it since literally forever.

[PeteMoss]

I think this quote by St.Louis on coaching Demidov is what we are all looking for:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comm...day_on_rookie/

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

On this, notice you only listed one player for each team because these home run picks are exceedingly rare and independent studies have shown the Flames are amongst the best in finding value relative to the number and value of the picks they have.

No I didn't, I went through the list of of the top 30 in NHL in scoring right now and excluded guys picked in the top half of the first round. Then added Datsyuk, because Datsyuk.

You used Boston as an example, but Marchand fits the bill. I left him off because that's a bit of ancient history. But in the past 25 years, outside of the top 10 picks, Boston has drafted and developed:

Patrice Bergeron
David Krejci
Kris Versteeg
Brad Marchand
Milan Lucic
David Pastrnak
Brandon Carlo
Jake Debrusk
Charlie McAvoy
Trent Fredric (included for the lols)

And I've left off like 10+ players with a few hundred games played but who are middle-six forwards or bottom 3 D.

Put another way, since 2003, Calgary's draft picks have a combined 13,782 games of NHL experience and 6,336 points. Boston's have 20,472 games of NHL experience and 10,144 points.

It's not close.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

If you're going to chastise me for excluding Monahan and Tkachuk, why is your argument premised on there are no examples except Sam and Sven, who were drafted 4th and 13th overall, respectively, and should have succeeded but for the Flames?

But in addition to them:

Pelletier
Morgan Klimchuk
Emile Poirier
Tom Erixon
Tyler Wotherspoon
Oliver Kylington
Valimaki (as you say, maybe injuries)
Granlund (maybe)

These are all first and second round picks that were trending in the right direction post-draft and amounted to nothing or less than they could have. And outside of the first and second round, we've found nobody except Gaudreau and, I guess, Mangiapane. The jury is out on whether guys like Suniev, Honzek, and Stromgren will go anywhere.

My view is this organization does not give skill guys the space to succeed and grow at the NHL despite flaws in their game, because we insist that a player has no flaws and makes no mistakes before they're given premium ice time. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in defending this as we've been complaining about it since literally forever.

Most of those guys are dime a dozen prospects, not high end skill guys.
i was focused on high end skill guys since this whole conversation started around Zayne.

And you've got a combination of guys picked but not developed by the Flames.

My sense on the list would be:

Pelletier - bad pick. Guys with his profile rarely make it.
Morgan Klimchuk - not a high end skill guy. Upside was middle 6 at best.
Emile Poirier - de-railed by off ice issues
Tom Erixon - not developed by the Flames
Tyler Wotherspoon - not a skill guy. Upside was stay at home defender.
Oliver Kylington - Actually developed well until things went sideways
Valimaki (as you say, maybe injuries) - I was very high on him, but he lost his mobility.
Granlund (maybe) - not a high end skill guy.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

If you're going to chastise me for excluding Monahan and Tkachuk, why is your argument premised on there are no examples except Sam and Sven, who were drafted 4th and 13th overall, respectively, and should have succeeded but for the Flames?

But in addition to them:

Pelletier
Morgan Klimchuk
Emile Poirier
Tom Erixon
Tyler Wotherspoon
Oliver Kylington
Valimaki (as you say, maybe injuries)
Granlund (maybe)

These are all first and second round picks that were trending in the right direction post-draft and amounted to nothing or less than they could have. And outside of the first and second round, we've found nobody except Gaudreau and, I guess, Mangiapane. The jury is out on whether guys like Suniev, Honzek, and Stromgren will go anywhere.

My view is this organization does not give skill guys the space to succeed and grow at the NHL despite flaws in their game, because we insist that a player has no flaws and makes no mistakes before they're given premium ice time. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in defending this as we've been complaining about it since literally forever.

Wait - you included Tim Erixon (who never was a Flame), Poirier and Kylington (who each had issues that had zero to do with the Flames), and Tyler Wotherspoon (who had 11 points in his draft year and wasn't considered ever to be an offensive prospect)???

Pelletier hasn't been "unlocked" in any other system, nor did Granlund, Klimchuk or Valimaki.

[Enoch Root]

"Flames can't develop offensive players, and their track record proves it!"

"What about Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk, and Iginla?"

"They don't count because they were already offensively talented!"

Umm... so is Parekh.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

No I didn't, I went through the list of of the top 30 in NHL in scoring right now and excluded guys picked in the top half of the first round. Then added Datsyuk, because Datsyuk.

You used Boston as an example, but Marchand fits the bill. I left him off because that's a bit of ancient history. But in the past 25 years, outside of the top 10 picks, Boston has drafted and developed:

Patrice Bergeron
David Krejci
Kris Versteeg
Brad Marchand
Milan Lucic
David Pastrnak
Brandon Carlo
Jake Debrusk
Charlie McAvoy
Trent Fredric (included for the lols)

And I've left off like 10+ players with a few hundred games played but who are middle-six forwards or bottom 3 D.

Put another way, since 2003, Calgary's draft picks have a combined 13,782 games of NHL experience and 6,336 points. Boston's have 20,472 games of NHL experience and 10,144 points.

It's not close.

If you want to do that study properly you would have to normalize for volume of picks and quality of picks. Picking 2003 as your starting point is interesting. Could it be so you could include Patrice Bergeron?

But you are moving the goal posts. I've already highlighted Calgary's periods of drought with bad picks. That's different from the organizations ability to develop skilled players.

So which is it you want to debate. If Calgary drafts well or develops well?

We started in one place and you've now moved to an entirely different topic.

And honestly how relevant is it to look back at things that happened 20 years ago? I guess if you believe nothing has changed in 20 years.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Wait - you included Tim Erixon (who never was a Flame), Poirier and Kylington (who each had issues that had zero to do with the Flames), and Tyler Wotherspoon (who had 11 points in his draft year and wasn't considered ever to be an offensive prospect)???

Pelletier hasn't been "unlocked" in any other system, nor did Granlund, Klimchuk or Valimaki.

I had confused Erixon and Ramholt in my mind. Ramholt is actually a good example of a prospect turned away by this organization (at that time, Darryl Sutter), because he didn't fit our mould. I'd forgotten about Poirier's off-ice issues.

As far as guys being "unlocked" by other organizations, that's an exception and not the norm. The first few years are critical for developmental success. If development is being stunted by our organization, guys are not going to go off and be "unlocked" somewhere else as if they hadn't lost out on key development opportunities at key times.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

No I didn't, I went through the list of of the top 30 in NHL in scoring right now and excluded guys picked in the top half of the first round. Then added Datsyuk, because Datsyuk.

You used Boston as an example, but Marchand fits the bill. I left him off because that's a bit of ancient history. But in the past 25 years, outside of the top 10 picks, Boston has drafted and developed:

Patrice Bergeron
David Krejci
Kris Versteeg
Brad Marchand
Milan Lucic
David Pastrnak
Brandon Carlo
Jake Debrusk
Charlie McAvoy
Trent Fredric (included for the lols)

And I've left off like 10+ players with a few hundred games played but who are middle-six forwards or bottom 3 D.


Put another way, since 2003, Calgary's draft picks have a combined 13,782 games of NHL experience and 6,336 points. Boston's have 20,472 games of NHL experience and 10,144 points.

It's not close.

Yes, Boston is well known for just unleashing offensive prospects and not having them work on defence at all, like Bergeron and Marchand. Jake Debrusk? He's a 14 OA who gets around 40 points. Coronato is a 13 OA who gets similar production.

Why did you include Brandon Carlo as some sort of evidence of developing offence? Dude is just shy of being a first rounder and gets around 16 points a year.

Outside of top 10 picks, Calgary has developed Gaudreau, Coronato, Mangiapane, Dube, Giordano (undrafted but still), Backlund, Brodie, Ferland.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I had confused Erixon and Ramholt in my mind. Ramholt is actually a good example of a prospect turned away by this organization (at that time, Darryl Sutter), because he didn't fit our mould. I'd forgotten about Poirier's off-ice issues.

As far as guys being "unlocked" by other organizations, that's an exception and not the norm. The first few years are critical for developmental success. If development is being stunted by our organization, guys are not going to go off and be "unlocked" somewhere else as if they hadn't lost out on key development opportunities at key times.

I don't think Sutter was good in terms of developing young players. We would agree there. Sutter had a narrow view on what a player should be which impacted prospects but also caused the team to trade away really good players for poor returns (e.g. Lydman)

[PeteMoss]

I think its fair to say the Flames haven't developed enough talent over the years - with some exceptions. The results speak for themselves.

The question is who deserves the blame? Is it development, draft selections, draft strategy (traded away too many picks/not adding as many picks as they should due to not allowing themselves to be really bad).

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If you want to do that study properly you would have to normalize for volume of picks and quality of picks. Picking 2003 as your starting point is interesting. Could it be so you could include Patrice Bergeron?

But you are moving the goal posts. I've already highlighted Calgary's periods of drought with bad picks. That's different from the organizations ability to develop skilled players.

So which is it you want to debate. If Calgary drafts well or develops well?

We started in one place and you've now moved to an entirely different topic.

And honestly how relevant is it to look back at things that happened 20 years ago? I guess if you believe nothing has changed in 20 years.

I'm including 2003 because some of those guys are still playing, and because it's when I started following the Flames again after my first-round PTSD had worn off from the 90s. See my join date.

Dropping 2003 also drops Phaneuf's 1000 games and 500 points so doesn't exactly help the Flames numbers either.

I'm not moving the goalposts. You accused me of having vague assertions unsupported by evidence, and have made several references to long term views ("lost faith"). I fully acknowledge that my views are colored by two decades of consistent disappointment in this organization.

It's honestly crazy that anyone is defending this organization's track record of drafting and development in the last 20 years. It is atrocious. If it is not at the absolute bottom of the league it has to be close. It is only recently starting to rebound, but that's still vibes -- outside of Coronato and Wolf everyone is still really a question mark. Has it actually improved? The jury is out.

If Parekh doesn't turn out, it could be his fault. There's a lot of story left to be written.

But this year has not been a great start to his time in the organization. I am explaining why this makes me apprehensive, because we have absolutely no track record of righting the ship when it starts to wobble.

You keep asking me for "evidence" about this frustration and apprehension. I've provided what I have. Is there some reason, in your view, that I should not be frustrated and apprehensive about how this year has gone for Zayne in the Flames org?

[FBI]

Also Pelletier was #1 in AHL scoring this year, I wouldn't write him off yet.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

It's honestly crazy that anyone is defending this organization's track record of drafting and development in the last 20 years. It is atrocious. If it is not at the absolute bottom of the league it has to be close. It is only recently starting to rebound, but that's still vibes -- outside of Coronato and Wolf everyone is still really a question mark. Has it actually improved? The jury is out.

Independent analysis has been done that shows they are not bottom of the league when normalized for pick volume and quality. This study was done a few years ago by The Athletic looking at draft returns since 2007. It has the Flames at #2.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/508...ng-best-picks/

Here's how they sum it up:
It might be surprising to see Calgary this high but it makes sense once you consider context. The Flames only had 74 picks which is the second fewest of all teams from 2007-2018. We’re measuring teams’ success relative to their draft ammo and in the Flames’ case, they got a strong bang for their (limited) buck.

So when you say they have to be absolute bottom, that's not supported by at least one proper analysis. There could be others. Perhaps you can find one that shows Calgary is at the bottom.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

If Parekh doesn't turn out, it could be his fault. There's a lot of story left to be written.

But this year has not been a great start to his time in the organization. I am explaining why this makes me apprehensive, because we have absolutely no track record of righting the ship when it starts to wobble.

You keep asking me for "evidence" about this frustration and apprehension. I've provided what I have. Is there some reason, in your view, that I should not be frustrated and apprehensive about how this year has gone for Zayne in the Flames org?

You can feel how you want. I'm not telling you how to feel. But don't be shocked and dismayed when others challenge an opinion that seems to be more emotional based than factually based.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I think its fair to say the Flames haven't developed enough talent over the years - with some exceptions. The results speak for themselves.

The question is who deserves the blame? Is it development, draft selections, draft strategy (traded away too many picks/not adding as many picks as they should due to not allowing themselves to be really bad).

My view is
Under Sutter: Bad picks.
Under Feaster: Better but some bad picks.
BT: Not enough picks.
Conroy: More picks (great!). Need higher picks.