🚨 The Zayne Parekh show has arrived 🚨

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by FBI

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

Currently he is 4th. Phillips also finished 4th. He has a good motor, but I still think he is a tweener.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Conroy and Huska has both said that Parekh's offensive game will not be changed. That he was drafted as a certain kind of defencemen, and that they were not going to model him into something else.


If you want to figure out what they do want Parekh to do defensively is listen to Ray Edwards.


Before that, however, what is defence? Let's look at some former Flames defencemen and see if we can figure it out?


Regehr - Regehr used his IQ, and physical attributes to have good gap control, and crush guys long the boards, and clear the front of the net. Well, Parekh isn't Regehr, obviously, so he won't play defence like him.


Phaneuf - Phaneuf played defence by blowing guys up in the middle of the ice and scoring goals. Yeah, there isn't a model here except what not to allow. Keenan never held Phaneuf accountable. Do people want to see Phaneuf 2.0??


Tanev - great stick, great gap control and a wilingness to eat pucks. I don't know about you guys, but I don't think Parekh is the kind of defencemen you want diving head first in blocking shots.


What he can do is utilize Regehr's impressive gap control and IQ, and Tanev's really good stick. He isn't going to be a defensive stalwart, but he will become defensively strong WITHOUT being stifled offensively. In fact, I think he will produce MORE if he plays defence at a higher level.


What Edwards was working on with Parekh is to stuff plays. Break-up the break-outs. Parekh's gap control isn't terrible. He needs to be sheltered still because he isn't strong enough, and he doesn't know the NHL yet. He doesn't know the players. You listen to a lot of NHL defencemen talking, and the ones that were good defensively watched tape on the opposition, and knew tendencies. Parekh just needs seasoning, he needs coaching, and he needs to be held accountable.


Edwards had been showing tape to Parekh on how Hughes stuffs plays, and how Makar stuffs plays. He isn't going to be physical like Makar is - Makar can be downright aggressive and 'mean' out there. He will likely play defence much more like Hughes, and this will lead to better point production out of him. Why? Because when a play gets broken up and a puck gets turned-over, it often leads to an odd-man rush. With Parekh's playmaking, that could be lethal on the transition - especially when fast guys like Gridin are on the ice.


You see Hughes breaking up plays all the time. That's what Parekh will turn out to be.


I am 100% firmly of the opinion that Parekh's defence is NOT good enough right now for the NHL, but I am 100% confident that it WILL be. I doubt that the Flames are going to 'Phaneuf him" and not hold him accountable. Phaneuf realized that he needs to improve defensively way too late. All that the Flames need to do to motivate Parekh is show him social media posts about Bouchard.


At any rate, like I said, both Conroy and Huska (and Edwards I believe) have all stated that they are not intending on changing Parekh's game, and that they want him to bring his offensive talents into the NHL and provide the environment for him to thrive in. However, he has (and I believe will) need to improve defensively. I think after he is done, he may end up being a really special defencemen that can take games over. One that will often win you a game, and one that will only very rarely ever lose you a game.


I think people are just too worried for no reason to be honest. The messaging thus far from top down has been consistent - Parekh is and will continue to be an offensive dynamo, but he will learn to be better defensively. His IQ is off the charts. Just takes the reps, that's all. Reps and a little accountability, as well as encouragement from his teammates (and I mean positive encouragement - high-5s from the players and recognition from the coaching staff for when he makes strong defensive plays). Flames will not Phaneuf-up Parekh.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

First off, I've enjoyed the conversation, despite the disagreement.

I think we're trying to make two different points. I think you're arguing that the Flames' drafting has been good relative to pick quantity and quality. I'm arguing that the draft has not contributed enough to the Flames success.

Sorry for snipping your reply but no need for me to quote the entirety.
First - I agree. I've enjoyed the conversation despite the disagreement because it's real debate, without things becoming personal.

Second. I think we actually have ended up in place of general agreement.
For me both things are indeed true: The Flames have done well from a draft efficiency point of view but over the last 20 years (more or less) the draft has not contributed enough to the Flames success.

And then we can get into the reasons as to why which include pick deficit, lack of high picks, and a poor hit rate for picks ranging from mid 1st to early 2nd.

And, not explored here in full, but that lack of "draft contribution" leads to a poor asset base, which than compounds with relying on free agents to fill gaps, or trading MORE picks to fill roster holes. This is basically the cycle the team functioned under through the Sutter/Feaster/Tree years. The lack of a proper developed pipeline compounded over time, even if they were relatively efficient with the picks they did have.

This is what all of us hoping has now changed under Conroy where finally the team seems to place value in picks, quality of picks, and prioritizes skill in the draft.

It needs time to play out to see how successful that is, but my optimism is largely based on those shifts that I see.

Good discussion.

[Jay Random]

One thing I have seen over and over with young players breaking into the NHL, and defencemen particularly, is that their offence dries up temporarily while they are learning to play an NHL defensive system at NHL speed. It's new to them and they have to think about what they are doing until the new habits form. Once they are comfortable with their defensive responsibilities, the offence nearly always comes back. Sometimes it only takes weeks; sometimes as much as a year or two. Generally, wingers adapt the fastest because their defensive role is the simplest to play.

Parekh will be fine, but he does need to bulk up some and learn the system thoroughly. Once the puck is on his stick, the ‘system’ becomes one that he already knows: Look for plays and use your imagination, because many of your opponents will not be quick enough to guess your next move.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Sorry for snipping your reply but no need for me to quote the entirety.
First - I agree. I've enjoyed the conversation despite the disagreement because it's real debate, without things becoming personal.

Second. I think we actually have ended up in place of general agreement.
For me both things are indeed true: The Flames have done well from a draft efficiency point of view but over the last 20 years (more or less) the draft has not contributed enough to the Flames success.

And then we can get into the reasons as to why which include pick deficit, lack of high picks, and a poor hit rate for picks ranging from mid 1st to early 2nd.

And, not explored here in full, but that lack of "draft contribution" leads to a poor asset base, which than compounds with relying on free agents to fill gaps, or trading MORE picks to fill roster holes. This is basically the cycle the team functioned under through the Sutter/Feaster/Tree years. The lack of a proper developed pipeline compounded over time, even if they were relatively efficient with the picks they did have.

This is what all of us hoping has now changed under Conroy where finally the team seems to place value in picks, quality of picks, and prioritizes skill in the draft.

It needs time to play out to see how successful that is, but my optimism is largely based on those shifts that I see.

Good discussion.

And the bolded is why I don't like this respectful discourse. Borrring. Call eachother sickos or something, more fun for the rest of us.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

And the bolded is why I don't like this respectful discourse. Borrring. Call eachother sickos or something, more fun for the rest of us.

If I don’t see a post with “MOD EDIT” in it then the back and forth just ain’t worth reading.