🚨 The Zayne Parekh show has arrived 🚨

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by jg13

I'm far more confinced Silayev is a much closer comparable to Zadorov than Chara. There is no doubt in my mind I take Zayne or Buium over this guy 10/10 times.

I agree. Last year’s draft was deep for defensemen.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I think people don’t remember how good Karlsson was when he had an ankle bone

If Parekh is 80% that good we are laughing

Originally Posted by stemit14

Yeah. His peak year with Ottawa and the playoff run with them, he was MVP quality.

The 2017 Penguins, who won the cup, were one game 7 OT away from losing to Karlsson's Senators. And he didn't have a Draisaitl as a sidekick. Not to take away from Mark Stone or anything. But the Sens are also historically not a cap spending team either.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I think people don’t remember how good Karlsson was when he had an ankle bone

If Parekh is 80% that good we are laughing

Karlsson also rewrote how a defenceman could play. He really showed how valuable an offensively orientated d-man who can skate could be. Prior to Karlsson the league was still stuck with that notion that you had to be a big hard hitting player to be a defenceman.

There's likely no Quinn Hughes without Erik Karlsson.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by blankall

Karlsson also rewrote how a defenceman could play. He really showed how valuable an offensively orientated d-man who can skate could be. Prior to Karlsson the league was still stuck with that notion that you had to be a big hard hitting player to be a defenceman.

There's likely no Quinn Hughes without Erik Karlsson.

Phil Housley has entered the chat

[Bingo]

Not sure about Karlsson for Parekh's eventual offensive prowess, but everything I see, hear and read about the kid tells me he is going to work his butt off to get his defensive floor higher.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Phil Housley has entered the chat

There was definitely d-men who were offensively better than both Housley and Karlsson. The attitude towards d-men in the 2000s was that they should be big. Karlsson brought back the idea of the offensive d-man. It's likely things would've shifted that way anyway, once the anti-obstruction rules became established, but Karlsson definitely changed the way scouts looked at d-men.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by blankall

There was definitely d-men who were offensively better than both Housley and Karlsson. The attitude towards d-men in the 2000s was that they should be big. Karlsson brought back the idea of the offensive d-man. It's likely things would've shifted that way anyway, once the anti-obstruction rules became established, but Karlsson definitely changed the way scouts looked at d-men.

I'm not seeing your point that Karlsson 'brought back the idea of the offensive d-man'. It had never left.

Rafalski, Schneider, Niedermayer...

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I'm not seeing your point that Karlsson 'brought back the idea of the offensive d-man'. It had never left.

Rafalski, Schneider, Niedermayer...

Such players were rare in the 2000s; very few were drafted during the dead puck era, because scouts were obsessed with size. All three of those guys were drafted well before 1995, when the New Jersey Devils trapped their way to the Cup. Expansion teams seized on that blueprint with glee, because it looked like it made talent optional, and they couldn't afford talent.

There was a stretch when 40 points was considered high production for a defenceman. None of the three players you listed ever had a 70-point season. All the thinking revolved around hulking D-men with big wingspans who stayed at home – a five-man defence countering a three-man attack. It was miserable hockey, and traces of that mindset lingered on for years after the rules were changed.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

It is funny looking back.


If Parekh = Karlsson, and Silayev = Chara, I would pick Chara every single time and it isn't even close.



I actually think it is going to be a lot more interesting than what people assume. I think Parekh is much closer to the Hughes/Makar type than the Karlsson/Bouchard type. In that case, I am picking Parekh, and I won't think twice. This was the big fear around Parekh - that he was basically the next Karlsson, which sounds great, but Karlsson doesn't win team trophies, only individual ones. Now I think Parekh is going to be an effective defencemen in all 3 zones. I don't think he will be a defensive stalwart by any means, but I also think he is going to be just fine most of the time and people aren't going to freak out with his turning pucks over all the time. I think he is going to be a much more complete defencemen with high end offensive production. That's a franchise-level defencemen.


SIlayev I thought wasn't a risky pick at all - it was the safe pick. I think he has a fairly high floor - he is already dominating against men at the KHL level. I think he is going to dominate at the NHL level too, but the only question that remains unanswered in my mind is how much offence will he be able to generate. It won't be nothing. The KHL is a notoriously stingy league when it comes to young players, especially defencemen (for example, you may think he didn't put up a lot of points in his draft year, but that broke the record for most points by a draft eligible, which was held by Tarasenko - a forward!). So his offensive ceiling isn't 'nothing'. How big of something is the question. I think he has a great shot still at becoming a franchise level D as well. I think given Parekh's focus on defence this past season, I am much more inclined to bet that Parekh will be the better and more important defencemen. I am just saying that nobody should be sleeping on Silayev either - kid might be something pretty special in his own right.

I can't believe I have to quote myself!



Should have been more clear - "If Parekh = Karlsson and Silayev = Chara" - the IF is right there, meaning... IF, and NOT meaning definite ceilings. This is going straight back to arguments being made before the draft, comparing and contrasting these two defencemen using their comps (which are a STYLISTIC COMPARISON, and not a direct expectation of who they will become).


Also, stating that I prefer Chara over Karlsson as I believe this style is more likely to result in winning a championship over Karlsson's style who seems to only win individual trophies - again, not saying Karlsson sucks, or is overrated, or anything of the like. In fact, I don't know why people were so bent out of shape with Karlsson wining the Norris a few seasons ago - that was quite the accomplishment, even if he is terrible defensively. My point still stands - in the playoffs, it makes it difficult to win when you have a player who is prone to making defensive lapses, as you often can't outscore your problems. This is partly why I pick Chara - he will smother the opposition, while also providing offence, even if the offence comes at a much lower rate, plus the obvious physically intimidating presence and play. Nowhere did I say that Karlsson sucks, just that if given the choice, I pick Chara every single time and it isn't even close.



To be clear, I would rather have BOTH on my team, but if I had to choose, Chara all the way!


However, the point of the post was that all of the above is moot now - those arguments are no longer valid. Although I think Silayev is being underrated, I still see his comp (again, stylistic comparison and not expectation) as being a Chara. The argument is moot for me because I see Parekh embracing the defensive side of the game more like Hughes and Makar, so I feel his comp has changed from Karlsson to Hughes/Makar. Again, COMP, not EXPECTATION. lol Again, to be clear, I am not expecting Parekh to score at the rate that Hughes, Makar or Karlsson does. Simply the comparing they style of play. I think Karlsson is his offensive ceiling (not floor, ceiling!), and that he is likely to hit between 60-70pts while being decent (not a stalwart, but trustworthy!). That's significant to me. Anything more than that would be gravy (and possible), but my expectation is not 100+ points a season at the NHL level. Wouldn't shock me if he hit that at some point depending on what the makeup of the team is, but that's extremely lofty expectations to push on this kid. 60-70 during his peak is probably more realistic, with perhaps a couple PPG seasons.



See.. this is why I write long posts. I try to shorten them down, and people find every hole! I think I got all the bases covered now. hahaha Sigh.. I am sure someone will find a hole.

[bdubbs]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

*snip*

Too long, didn't read. I'm just going to reply with the assumption you mean direct comparisons to the names you posted about, absent all context.

Am I doing it right?

[VilleN]

Yeah, IMO there is no question that Chara is a superior, and more dominant player. Since I've been watching hockey I would say (for me) the top 3 Dmen are Lidstrom, Niedermeyer, Chara (in that order).