I remember the good ol' days when the great debate was who was better, Phaneuf or Weber. I recall one poster here who once said we can finally lay to rest the argument since Phaneuf > Weber after his Norris nomination season.
Oh how the mighty have fallen. It's a real shame what happened to him since as I recall Phaneuf was the best young defenseman in the game, and might have taken the title of best overall young player if Crosby and Ovechkin didn't exist. Although the return for him wasn't up to par, I'm glad we have moved on past him.
This is why 'potential' is so dangerous and precarious as an asset.
It was not wrong at the time to say that Phaneuf was better, or that he had a hgiher ceiling. But his growth stopped dead, while Weber continued to improve.
No one - NO ONE - would have claimed that Chara had more potential or a higher ceiling than Phaneuf. Chara was down right awful as a defenseman for quite a few years. Now look at him.
Potential is great. But projecting ceilings for players is dicey at best.
This is why 'potential' is so dangerous and precarious as an asset.
It was not wrong at the time to say that Phaneuf was better, or that he had a hgiher ceiling. But his growth stopped dead, while Weber continued to improve.
No one - NO ONE - would have claimed that Chara had more potential or a higher ceiling than Phaneuf. Chara was down right awful as a defenseman for quite a few years. Now look at him.
Potential is great. But projecting ceilings for players is dicey at best.
Yeah, wow did potential ever flop indeed. I still remember in the WJC where he was dynamite in between the goal line and the blue line. I thought he had fantastic hockey sense, but maybe it was just that he was physically dominant over his others. I still remember the game against the Russians where they were getting tired of getting hit when gaining the zone, so they dump the puck in and dog it so they wouldn't get hit. Even in juniors, out playing Woywitka/Lynch as a 17 yo and showing great hockey sense and mobility.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Yeah, wow did potential ever flop indeed. I still remember in the WJC where he was dynamite in between the goal line and the blue line. I thought he had fantastic hockey sense, but maybe it was just that he was physically dominant over his others. I still remember the game against the Russians where they were getting tired of getting hit when gaining the zone, so they dump the puck in and dog it so they wouldn't get hit. Even in juniors, out playing Woywitka/Lynch as a 17 yo and showing great hockey sense and mobility.
I think (or thought at the time) that his hockey skills and shot were as dominant as his size.
However, your point is key. It is very difficult to separate the physical dominance that some players have at that age from a dominance in skill and ability.
This is a huge issue with respect to Jones as well, IMO. And since C is so important to building a championship team, my preference would still be MacKinnon, despite Jones' current dominance.
I think (or thought at the time) that his hockey skills and shot were as dominant as his size.
However, your point is key. It is very difficult to separate the physical dominance that some players have at that age from a dominance in skill and ability.
This is a huge issue with respect to Jones as well, IMO. And since C is so important to building a championship team, my preference would still be MacKinnon, despite Jones' current dominance.
Good point, I have been pro Seth Jones for 2 years now, but never really thought of this factor.
I think (or thought at the time) that his hockey skills and shot were as dominant as his size.
However, your point is key. It is very difficult to separate the physical dominance that some players have at that age from a dominance in skill and ability.
This is a huge issue with respect to Jones as well, IMO. And since C is so important to building a championship team, my preference would still be MacKinnon, despite Jones' current dominance.
A #1 D is at least as important as a #1 C in building a championship team.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to timbit For This Useful Post:
Remember that time Dion checked laraque out of his skates?
Those were the days. Those were the days.
They were good while they lasted:
While extremely exciting for fans I am glad all these rules have come in. Its created a faster/more skilled game. Most of Dion's hits would all be deemed illegal today which I believe to be a huge factor in the decrease of his play.
Forwards used to be intimidated to come in on him & go into the boards with him which made it easier for him to make the defensive play.
The new rules make it much more difficult D men actually stand a guy up or go 1 v 1.
Stricter leaving the feet rules +
No head shots +
Blind sides often called +
A head high slap shot no teammate wants to go to the net for
=
Dion having very little to offer anymore!
__________________ OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300
Hmmm i wonder if the Fall of Phaneuf began when he started dating Kim Bauer. It's pretty worrisome. Her dad can kill you in 250 different ways and she is always in danger of being kidnapped.
predicting how defensemen will turn out at 18 is harder and less exact than evaluating forwards. Always has been.
Weber and Keith were the 13th and 14th d-men taken in their resepcetivedraft years (I might have that reversed).
Doughty worked out. But if you look at top 5 picks overall, getting the d-men right is far more precarious.
Also, acquiring them is easier. Neidermeyer and Chara come immediately to mind. Pronger. Many more examples of #1 D acquired by trade or UFA than #1 Cs.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Just changing the names to show it can work the other way. Unless you (or someone else?) has a list that maps one-to-one of failures and homeruns (not that I would expect that, that would take a lot of time) sparsely picking a name here and there doesn't really prove your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
predicting how centers will turn out at 18 is harder and less exact than evaluating D. Always has been.
Bergeron and Kesler were the (late forwards) taken in their resepcetivedraft years
Staal worked out. But if you look at top 5 picks overall, getting the C right is far more precarious. (see Horton who is drafted next)
Also, acquiring them is easier. Spezza and Thornton come immediately to mind. Richards. Many more examples of #1 C acquired by trade or UFA than #1 Ds.
FTR: # of C drafted in the first round the past 15 years... Daniel Tkaczuk (6th), Backlund (24th).... versus Derek Morris (13th), Phaneuf (9th), Pelech (26th), Eriksson (23rd) and Jankow this year... I don't know how you can argue one over the other very easily.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Just changing the names to show it can work the other way. Unless you (or someone else?) has a list that maps one-to-one of failures and homeruns (not that I would expect that, that would take a lot of time) sparsely picking a name here and there doesn't really prove your point.
FTR: # of C drafted in the first round the past 15 years... Daniel Tkaczuk (6th), Backlund (24th).... versus Derek Morris (13th), Phaneuf (9th), Pelech (26th), Eriksson (23rd) and Jankow this year... I don't know how you can argue one over the other very easily.
Calgary's experience is irrelevant. Also, we have been talking about lottery picks, not first rounders (different conversation).
Here are the players taken top 3 since 2000 by position (C F D G):
What happens if the D is projected to be better than Doughty and Mackinnon by your scouts. Do you pass on because of historical data?....keeping in mind that top end D almost always have a longer development team curve than forwards, but also longer careers
If you have time and enjoy doing this... how does the top 10 look?
I agree, drafting a winger makes the most sense. For the Flames, we seem to have more success developing D... so I'm somewhat bias there.
Maybe I'll take a look next time I'm impersonating Cowperson and sitting poolside.
The problem though, as you incorporate more and more data, is that it becomes convoluted - a 10th pick in a mediocre draft is a very different animal than a lottery pick in a strong draft. So it becomes an issue of: what are you comparing"
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
What happens if the D is projected to be better than Doughty and Mackinnon by your scouts. Do you pass on because of historical data?....keeping in mind that top end D almost always have a longer development team curve than forwards, but also longer careers
Keep in mind though, that in each of the cases listed, the D-man was rated above the forwards - that's why they were taken. (sure, there may have been one or two off-the-board picks, but that should balance out both ways).
The whole point about looking at the past numbers is that it presents actual examples of what you are speculating on. The guys were drafted because they were the top prospects - and the numbers show that the likelihood of success was lower when picking a defenseman.
Last edited by Enoch Root; 01-30-2013 at 03:15 PM.
