2016 NHL Draft

[Poe969]

If Brown was anywhere close to the level that Thornton was, he'd be ranked top 3 for sure. He just plays the same style as him, not the same level as him.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Poe969

If Brown was anywhere close to the level that Thornton was, he'd be ranked top 3 for sure. He just plays the same style as him, not the same level as him.

Exactly. Actually a taller Colborne is probably a much better comparison from what I have seen. I want no part of Brown at 6.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Colborne is ok, Thornton is not. People are really reaching with the Thornton comparison, he was the clear cut #1 in his draft year.

I think the comparison is meant as a playing style comparison. Both Brown and Thornton are big, playmaking centres who use their size and reach to protect the puck before making a pass. I think Ryan Johansen is a better comparable if you're trying to find a kid who is similar to Brown in his draft year. The comparison is not meant to suggest that Brown is currently as good as Thornton was in his draft year. And this is why scouts shy away from making stylistic comparisons.

[Poe969]

Brown is a good mid round pick. I just don't see things translating for him to the NHL. Same with Keller, I think against much bigger and tougher guys he'll be less successful. With this pick, I hope they stay away from extremes of small but skilled or really big and less skilled.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Exactly. Actually a taller Colborne is probably a much better comparison from what I have seen. I want no part of Brown at 6.

Is Colborne really a big playmaking centre who uses his size and reach to protect the puck before passing? I think the Colborne comparison fails because he lacks that vision and playmaking ability that Brown has. I didn't watch Colborne in his draft year but I've watched him lately and I wouldn't describe him as a playmaker with good vision. In fact his lack of vision and mediocre playmaking is why I think he looks better as a winger.

I'm not convinced Brown should be our pick at #6 either but I think the Colborne comparison is a bit off. Brown reminds me much more of Thornton stylistically than Colborne.

[djsFlames]

I want a stockier Colborne with the stick handling abilities of at least two Colbornes.

That's what this team needs. And maybe a couple more Colborne-lites to fill in the bottom six. Then we'll be ready to Col...I mean contend.

[bubbsy]

Another stupid question...

Would the lightening be willing to move drouin for 6th overall? Would the flames do it? If flames had to add, what would it take?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Another stupid question...

Would the lightening be willing to move drouin for 6th overall? Would the flames do it? If flames had to add, what would it take?

zero chance of a straight trade.

before these playoffs, when his trade request went public, most figured the ask would be Bennett for Drouin...

Now? it's be the 6 plus a front line prospect for sure + a 2nd...

TB isn't going to trade Drouin, esp if they let Stamkos walk

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

zero chance of a straight trade.

before these playoffs, when his trade request went public, most figured the ask would be Bennett for Drouin...

Now? it's be the 6 plus a front line prospect for sure + a 2nd...

TB isn't going to trade Drouin, esp if they let Stamkos walk

Pretty much. Now that Drouin is getting serious ice time I doubt he still wants out. With the game he has shown and how far TB has gotten without Stamkos you have to believe they will let Stamkos go to UFA.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Pretty much. Now that Drouin is getting serious ice time I doubt he still wants out. With the game he has shown and how far TB has gotten without Stamkos you have to believe they will let Stamkos go to UFA.

yup agree with all of that...

funny though; if TB wasn't flush with young talent, fans would be livid about letting him walk for nothing...I mean maybe they are but we don't here about it... but boy, if calgary had a Stamkos and let him walk for nothing the anger would be pretty high i would think...

except for that, Yzerman has done a pretty incredible job for a first time GM.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

yup agree with all of that...

funny though; if TB wasn't flush with young talent, fans would be livid about letting him walk for nothing...I mean maybe they are but we don't here about it... but boy, if calgary had a Stamkos and let him walk for nothing the anger would be pretty high i would think...

except for that, Yzerman has done a pretty incredible job for a first time GM.

Take it for what it's worth but from what I've read, most TB fans have taken a very pragmatic approach to Stamkos. They like him and they want him to stay, but they notice he isn't what he was and are very leery of overpaying him. Many would rather let him walk then see him cripple the team's salary structure. Like you mentioned, it probably doesn't hurt that the team is flush with young talent. Really eases a blow that would decimate most teams.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

Take it for what it's worth but from what I've read, most TB fans have taken a very pragmatic approach to Stamkos. They like him and they want him to stay, but they notice he isn't what he was and are very leery of overpaying him. Many would rather let him walk then see him cripple the team's salary structure. Like you mentioned, it probably doesn't hurt that the team is flush with young talent. Really eases a blow that would decimate most teams.

yeah, i could see that...in the cap era, you do have to be careful... still though, getting a few draft picks would have been nice...but i suppose if they get to the Cup Finals, having a fresh Stamkos may actually be worth a lot more than few extra dice rolls.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Brown is a good mid round pick. I just don't see things translating for him to the NHL. Same with Keller, I think against much bigger and tougher guys he'll be less successful. With this pick, I hope they stay away from extremes of small but skilled or really big and less skilled.

I think people often say this about big and small players, but it often comes across as a blanket statement without much insight (and sorry, I am not attacking you or anything - this is a sentiment that pops up REGULARLY when talking about prospects at either end of the size spectrum).

When you see an oversized prospect, before we can assume he will continue being successful against bigger guys or not, we have to assess a number of factors.

1) Frame. Is he built like a tank already, or does he have a lot of room to grow? Some prospects play their draft year with a fairly mature physique. For instance, Oleksiak (who has been underwhelming since his draft year) or Mark McNeil (who also has been underwhelming). I look at Virtanen and think the same thing - living off above average size and strength and using them consistently to gain advantage over his peers. One thing I say about players like this is that they are often 'one dimensional' - at least when describing their offensive acumen. Maybe 'one-trick ponies' is another phrase?

2) IQ - touched upon above. What is their repertoire in terms of creating offence? Just the same power moves? What are their weaknesses that are inherently an issue for other prospects that make the NHL? Do they have the 'brains' to possibly overcome them? What evidence is there to confirm or contradict them having an above average IQ?

When I see Brown, I don't see a guy that is bowling guys over or one-handing them on his way to the net. I see a finesse guy with a strong set of skills on a fairly thin and fairly underdeveloped frame who has extremely good vision and passing skills (this takes pretty high IQ). I see him going around guys and shielding the puck, I see him cycling fairly well in the corners, I see him making toe-drags in open ice and going around guys. I see him generating offence in many different ways. To me, I think it shows that he is able to adapt to different circumstances and possesses a number of tools (including a good brain in using them) to help him at the next step. I see a guy who if he bulks up another 30 lbs and continues to develop his tool-set, would be an extremely valuable player that other teams would find very difficult to contain. That is why I really love Brown this draft.

Now, conversely, let's take a look at Keller. Let's go back to the 2011 draft. 2 guys really stood out for all the right and wrong reasons - Gaudreau and Grimaldi. Both were undersized and extremely talented. Both I believe were labeled as "Top 3 talent" in the draft.

Why is it then that only one worked out so far (and worked out so well)? Look at their game-styles, physiques and IQ - you see players of relatively equal height who were both thought of as being highly skilled, but COMPLETELY different.

Gaudreau didn't have amazing acceleration or top end speed, but he was shifty. Grimaldi did. Gaudreau as a consequence developed into a much more agile player - much more elusive. Grimaldi tried using his blazing speed to go around guys instead, rather than trying to be so elusive.

Gaudreau was THIN. What.. 135lbs WITH added weight to his jock-strap? Grimaldi was solid on draft day - he had a very mature frame already. You could see the difference between them. I never saw Gaudreau out-muscle anyone in his highlight videos. You saw it with Grimaldi - he would out-muscle larger guys. He would win puck-battles and then blast off. Grimaldi had what I think of as a very mature physique - almost over-developed. He spent a lot of time at the gym it looked like - very powerful build on him.

Gaudreau had a LOT more room to develop, and his 'strengths' were a lot more translatable given the player he was than Grimaldi's strengths. Gaudreau continues to rely on his agility vs break-away acceleration, on being elusive rather than rely on board-battles or straight away speed, on much more reliant on his IQ than physical attributes.

So, when referencing whether a kid is translatable or not due to size, we really have to analyze how he is translatable. I still think, for instance, that Nick Ritchie is a damn good prospect and I bet he becomes an important player for Anaheim. Why? Because he has that combination of skill, size and speed - though I do think his IQ is only average to slightly above. Ritchie was more developed than Brown at the same age, and relied on his physical strengths more (though, unlike Virtanen, he showed a greater range in terms of offensive acumen than Virtanen ever has), but Ritchie didn't have a 'mature body' yet, and thus one can imagine as he puts on the size and strength, he will be able to often (not always of course) do what he did in junior.

Brown relies a LOT less on his physical gifts than Ritchie did. I think he is just starting to add physicality to his repertoire, as evidenced in the U18s. He can become a scary good player as he has a lot of range in his skill-set and abilities. I think outside of the top 3 picks, he probably has the most 'range' out of the draft, but of course his floor is also quite a bit lower, thus the lower ranking.

[Bingo]

I think the anti-Brown camp are a little guilty of jumping to worse case scenarios as a way of pounding on best case scenarios.

Thornton was the consensus top pick of the 1997 draft. So you have a point in saying that's a reach for Brown, and I get that.

But Colborne was a midround pick of the 2008 draft, that has been traded once as a blue chip and again to avoid being lost on waivers.

He's less than Brown in draft pedigree, and discounted since given his progression (and this isn't to say Colborne is a bad player, just not a star).

Brown lies somewhere in between, and rightly so.

If Calgary scouts believe he's on an arch to push closer to the Thornton side of the ledger than Colborne then they have to take him.

[TheScorpion]

Joe Colborne kinda reminds me of Joe Colborne, you know what I mean?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think the anti-Brown camp are a little guilty of jumping to worse case scenarios as a way of pounding on best case scenarios.

Thornton was the consensus top pick of the 1997 draft. So you have a point in saying that's a reach for Brown, and I get that.

But Colborne was a midround pick of the 2008 draft, that has been traded once as a blue chip and again to avoid being lost on waivers.

He's less than Brown in draft pedigree, and discounted since given his progression (and this isn't to say Colborne is a bad player, just not a star).

Brown lies somewhere in between, and rightly so.

If Calgary scouts believe he's on an arch to push closer to the Thornton side of the ledger than Colborne then they have to take him.

Colborne wasn't a mid-round draft pick, he was a mid-first round draft pick. 16th overall.

Brown's average ranking is around 12th in this years draft.

He's a lot closer to Colborne in his draft year than anyone else.

[Commandant]

2nd half of the mock draft.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/05/...2-picks-16-30/

[cral12]

Latest mock draft is live.
Mocking permitted. (Including where PLD lands and how Flames chose to let him slide)

Full 2 rounds with notes on all prospects.

Link to Round 1

Link to Round 2

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Colborne wasn't a mid-round draft pick, he was a mid-first round draft pick. 16th overall.

Brown's average ranking is around 12th in this years draft.

He's a lot closer to Colborne in his draft year than anyone else.

Meant mid first round.

But my point stands.

A guy that could go top 5 isn't Thornton who was a consensus #1, but it isn't a guy that is a mid round pick that failed to miss the mark and was dealt to avoid being lost for nothing.

One comparison is steep. The other unfair.

Any guy that is slated to go 5-10 in a decent draft has to be weighed as such.

Neither extreme make sense.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Meant mid first round.

But my point stands.

A guy that could go top 5 isn't Thornton who was a consensus #1, but it isn't a guy that is a mid round pick that failed to miss the mark and was dealt to avoid being lost for nothing.

One comparison is steep. The other unfair.

Any guy that is slated to go 5-10 in a decent draft has to be weighed as such.

Neither extreme make sense.

Thornton has hit 120 points, and now Colborne has hit 40+ points. How many points do you think Brown will get in his peak? Could Brown be a 60 point guy? If so, I think he'd be a great pick.

I agree that Brown is probably between Thornton/Colborne in terms of prospect quality. He definetely has skill, but his vision is nowhere near Thornton's. Despite Thornton being a good prospect prior to his draft, it still took several years for him to develop into a star.

I think Brown is closer stylistically to Thornton, but at the same time, he's closer to Colborne in terms of prospect quality.