Prospect Info: 2018 Draft Thread (STL #1 via WPG is 29th OA)

[EastonBlues22]

Since this seems to have taken off a bit, to clarify:

What I mean by “fan anxiety” is somebody gets mad that he didn’t go to their CHL squad, or has an elitist/biased attitude towards Canadian players - especially high quality ones - choosing to play hockey in America over hockey in Canada. They get salty, post derogatory things, and then spend most of their time looking for things they don’t like about their game. For every positive or at least reasonable post, there’s 10 more talking about how his development would have been better served playing for Barrie or whatever, and that’s the reason he sucks now. And so public opinion about that player plummets, even in the face of positive reports from professional scouts. And it completely disregards the particulars of each player’s situation - like leaving the country at 17 to play in a completely different league (e.g. Bowers), or playing in kind of a crappy team and being asked to do a lot of things other than score (e.g. McBain). That, to me, is fan anxiety.

So when I see talk about how McBain’s skating is “atrocious” or whatever the term used was, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it just looks to me like a descendent of that process; it looks like fan anxiety to me.

For example, I can say Niklas Nordgren’s shot has mechanical flaws and will never work in the NHL, and he gets washed out along the boards on every play. Ok... prove me wrong on that. It would be very difficult to. And neither of those things are accurate, but they’re so specific as to be almost unverifiable without being an actual pro scout, which none of us are. So just because I dislike the player (which is also untrue, I think he’s fantastic), I can poison the well so to speak, to justify my irrational opinion of the guy. Go ahead, tell me you value the scouting reports more, or offer examples of little guys making it in the NHL, it doesn’t matter because I’ve decided I don’t like the guy and I’ve found my hook that completely renders all of it invalid. Tyler Johnson made it to the NHL even though he’s short? Doesn’t matter, Nordgren has mechanical flaws. Alex Debrincat? Doesn’t matter, mechanical flaws. Scouting reports, accessible video, and stats? Doesn’t matter, mechanical flaws. It’s meaningless, it’s just a way to shut down the conversation.

I think that you have a good point about the way that people will often react to prospects (and established players, coaches, and GMs as well) if they have an emotional investment in that person's actions.

I think you have to consider the source, though, when deciding if that perspective bias might be coming into play. Do you think that I'm invested in McBain's development path or that I'm in some way "poisoned" against him? How about guys like Dominic Tiano who are paid to evaluate players?

Quick tangent: We might not all be pro scouts, but a lot of us have played hockey, and some of us have coached hockey, a handful have even scouted hockey, and almost all of us have watched a lot of hockey. It seems unreasonable to me to dismiss the seemingly reasonable opinions of otherwise knowledgeable people simply because they aren't paid to formulate those opinions, but to each their own, I suppose.

Anyway, just because someone has something to say that can be considered negative about a prospect doesn't automatically mean that it's the product of having an axe to grind or some sort of personal bias. All prospects have flaws and things they need to improve...that's just a cold fact. Since those flaws are subjective, however, people will disagree about them and their significance, and thus it becomes a discussion. That happens in places like these forums, within services that are trying to evaluate and rank these prospects, and within the organizations that are considering drafting them.

If I disagree with something that's being said, I think it's generally more productive to say why I disagree than to find a reason to dismiss the other person's opinion. It's not that some don't deserve to be dismissed...some absolutely do. Once you start going down that path, though, you run the risk of dismissing opinions that you shouldn't be dismissing, and doing that fosters the potential for confirmation bias (as there is now a "lack" of credible dissenting opinions to challenge your own beliefs).

Put another way, if you want to have a real discussion about a topic, at some point you have to assume that a person who disagrees with you is attempting to approach the subject with some level of intellectual honesty. We all have our biases which influence the opinions we form, and those should be recognized as best we can, but that doesn't mean everyone is actively pushing an agenda. Far from it, in my experience.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I feel a little validated by Corey’s inclusion of Logan Hutsko and Simon Johansson on his list. I hope we can grab both, because I think they’ll both be around after the 3rd round (hopefully).

I’m also encouraged by how high he is on Dellandrea in particular, he usually doesn’t go for the big power forward types. Same goes for the group of big Russians. Will we go for another Toropchenko pick this year? Couldn’t hurt, right?

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I think that you have a good point about the way that people will often react to prospects (and established players, coaches, and GMs as well) if they have an emotional investment in that person's actions.

I think you have to consider the source, though, when deciding if that perspective bias might be coming into play. Do you think that I'm invested in McBain's development path or that I'm in some way "poisoned" against him? How about guys like Dominic Tiano who are paid to evaluate players?

Quick tangent: We might not all be pro scouts, but a lot of us have played hockey, and some of us have coached hockey, a handful have even scouted hockey, and almost all of us have watched a lot of hockey. It seems unreasonable to me to dismiss the seemingly reasonable opinions of otherwise knowledgeable people simply because they aren't paid to formulate those opinions, but to each their own, I suppose.

Anyway, just because someone has something to say that can be considered negative about a prospect doesn't automatically mean that it's the product of having an axe to grind or some sort of personal bias. All prospects have flaws and things they need to improve...that's just a cold fact. Since those flaws are subjective, however, people will disagree about them and their significance, and thus it becomes a discussion. That happens in places like these forums, within services that are trying to evaluate and rank these prospects, and within the organizations that are considering drafting them.

If I disagree with something that's being said, I think it's generally more productive to say why I disagree than to find a reason to dismiss the other person's opinion. It's not that some don't deserve to be dismissed...some absolutely do. Once you start going down that path, though, you run the risk of dismissing opinions that you shouldn't be dismissing, and doing that fosters the potential for confirmation bias (as there is now a "lack" of credible dissenting opinions to challenge your own beliefs).

Put another way, if you want to have a real discussion about a topic, at some point you have to assume that a person who disagrees with you is attempting to approach the subject with some level of intellectual honesty. We all have our biases which influence the opinions we form, and those should be recognized as best we can, but that doesn't mean everyone is actively pushing an agenda. Far from it, in my experience.

I’m not suggesting that everyone who “experiences fan anxiety” is grinding their axe, but I don’t think that it’s too far of a stretch to say that a lot of our opinions - for people who spend a lot of time on these forums - are in some way affected by what others say. Bias is very rarely intentional, in my experience. But what’s the phrase: if you say a lie often enough it becomes the truth? I think if enough people have hard feelings about a player like McBain or whoever, it very much colors our perspective of that player. Which, given the fact that reality cares not what a bunch of hockey dorks on an obscure internet forum have to say about it, can be unfair and take things to a place well beyond what is actually happening on the ice. And so it becomes reductive.

I don’t mean to disparage anybody’s hockey knowledge or say that we aren’t trained enough to have valid opinions on players. But there are guys whose job is to have an opinion on these players, and I trust their opinions because I hope they are above the kind of petty complaints some folks harbor against 17 year olds chasing their dream, but I know that even that isn’t completely true either. But at least they’re accountable for their opinions. Nobody in the Blues front office cares what I have to say about McBain vs Dellandrea or whatever, even if they totally should because my opinion is infallible and I’ve never been wrong about anything ever in my entire life (/s). But if Barmstrong was only taking guys from his junior team and harbored a grudge against guys who slighted the Canadian National Team, we’d have serious problems. Thankfully that isn’t the case.

I welcome discussion about players, or team building, or hockey strategy, or whatever, and it’s totally fine if it isn’t completely in line with what I believe. What I have a problem with is when those other opinions are clearly built on flimsy premises, sophomoric bitterness, and games of forum telephone. Somebody says something on the prospect forums, it gets referred to on the trade boards, and then it ends up on our boards stated as fact, when it very much isn’t. Hence “fan anxiety”: wringing your hands over things that have their basis in hearsay and bitterness.

I don’t know what to do about it other than giving it a name

 

[EastonBlues22]

I’m not suggesting that everyone who “experiences fan anxiety” is grinding their axe, but I don’t think that it’s too far of a stretch to say that a lot of our opinions - for people who spend a lot of time on these forums - are in some way affected by what others say. Bias is very rarely intentional, in my experience. But what’s the phrase: if you say a lie often enough it becomes the truth? I think if enough people have hard feelings about a player like McBain or whoever, it very much colors our perspective of that player. Which, given the fact that reality cares not what a bunch of hockey dorks on an obscure internet forum have to say about it, can be unfair and take things to a place well beyond what is actually happening on the ice. And so it becomes reductive.

I don’t mean to disparage anybody’s hockey knowledge or say that we aren’t trained enough to have valid opinions on players. But there are guys whose job is to have an opinion on these players, and I trust their opinions because I hope they are above the kind of petty complaints some folks harbor against 17 year olds chasing their dream, but I know that even that isn’t completely true either. But at least they’re accountable for their opinions. Nobody in the Blues front office cares what I have to say about McBain vs Dellandrea or whatever, even if they totally should because my opinion is infallible and I’ve never been wrong about anything ever in my entire life (/s). But if Barmstrong was only taking guys from his junior team and harbored a grudge against guys who slighted the Canadian National Team, we’d have serious problems. Thankfully that isn’t the case.

I welcome discussion about players, or team building, or hockey strategy, or whatever, and it’s totally fine if it isn’t completely in line with what I believe. What I have a problem with is when those other opinions are clearly built on flimsy premises, sophomoric bitterness, and games of forum telephone. Somebody says something on the prospect forums, it gets referred to on the trade boards, and then it ends up on our boards stated as fact, when it very much isn’t. Hence “fan anxiety”: wringing your hands over things that have their basis in hearsay and bitterness.

I don’t know what to do about it other than giving it a name

It seems very strange to me that your jumping off point for this discussion about "opinions built on flimsy premises, sophomoric bitterness, and games of forum telephone" was my post.

The clear implication is that you associate one or more of those things with what I said. I'm not at all sure why that would be the case.

 

[Blueston]

More interesting to me were his tiers. He ranked the prospects like NHL teams do in tiers. Granted he probably had far less tiers than NHL scouts. His first round tier (which was after a few top-end tiers) went from 11th to 21. After that starts his 2nd round tier, from 22 to 42. So it seems like he only thinks 21 guys are worth a first round pick. 8 teams before us would have to go off board for us to get a 1st round talent (by his board). That makes me think we may want to trade the pick after-all, although we might get less value if other teams agree with his assessment. I have not done the research to agree/disagree with his rankings. There are guys I like that we could grab, but whether they are "1st round talent" or not, I have no clue.

He seemed to have lots of Russian players much higher than most other lists. Also seemed like while he is huge on "hockey sense" he severely under rates importance of speed, particularly for smaller players. Track record of small players who aren't great skaters isn't very good.

 

[hawkeerox]

He seemed to have lots of Russian players much higher than most other lists. Also seemed like while he is huge on "hockey sense" he severely under rates importance of speed, particularly for smaller players. Track record of small players who aren't great skaters isn't very good.

Nowadays, with how fast the NHL game is becoming, any player who is not a great skater will likely not have a great track record of success. The biggies will have to move quickly.

 

[MissouriMook]

Nowadays, with how fast the NHL game is becoming, any player who is not a great skater will likely not have a great track record of success. The biggies will have to move quickly.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that. It is possible to "play fast" with a team that doesn't have a ton of fast skaters and it is possible for a guy who isn't a particularly good skater to "play fast" on a line with two guys that do. Paajarvi was a perfect example of a guy who could get around the ice really fast but not really be able to do anything with that speed. Playing fast is as much about decision making and capitalizing on teammates being in areas where the other team isn't defending properly and getting the puck to those areas as it is blazing up and down the ice. Vegas' formula is about keeping the pressure on the opponent in all three zones, forcing mistakes, and capitalizing on those mistakes, whether that is blown coverage resulting in odd man rushes or turnovers that quickly turn into scoring chances. The goal by Tuch in Game 5 was a perfect example of the latter.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

Nowadays, with how fast the NHL game is becoming, any player who is not a great skater will likely not have a great track record of success. The biggies will have to move quickly.

I see this a lot and it just isn’t true. Speed/skating is good because it allows you to create space for yourself. Yes, it is absolutely an important asset to have, but size/physicality also creates space, which can be just as effective as trying to skate laps around everyone. Speed helps you back defenders off of the blue line, but we’ve also seen Tarasenko dance around people and nobody is confusing him for McDavid out there anymore. Magnus Paajarvi is a terrific skater, it doesn’t make him good. It just isn’t the asset that people want to believe it is. The reason we didn’t make the playoffs last year isn’t because we were slow or bad at skating.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and skating isn’t the magic pill that some people are looking for, nor is it a blind spot in our radar. Seventeen year olds can learn how to skate better. Most of them can’t learn a world class shot or how to nail a pass through heavy traffic.

That’s why Pronman’s rankings usually look different than everybody else’s. He’s looking for the things you can’t learn, and putting faith in the idea that the things that can be learned will be. Unless the guy is literally beer league level, whinging about a guy just being an average skater seems silly at that point in their development.

Once again, Brayden Point was not a good skater either when he was drafted

 

[EastonBlues22]

Speaking of Pronman, his prospect rankings came out the other day and he listed McBain as a "Mid to Late Round Pick" at #48 overall (basically, one step below a second round grade).

He had 21 guys with a first round grade or better and 42 with a second round grade or better, for some context.

Not that it means anything by itself. Just another opinion in a sea of opinions.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I see this a lot and it just isn’t true. Speed/skating is good because it allows you to create space for yourself. Yes, it is absolutely an important asset to have, but size/physicality also creates space, which can be just as effective as trying to skate laps around everyone. Speed helps you back defenders off of the blue line, but we’ve also seen Tarasenko dance around people and nobody is confusing him for McDavid out there anymore. Magnus Paajarvi is a terrific skater, it doesn’t make him good. It just isn’t the asset that people want to believe it is. The reason we didn’t make the playoffs last year isn’t because we were slow or bad at skating.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and skating isn’t the magic pill that some people are looking for, nor is it a blind spot in our radar. Seventeen year olds can learn how to skate better. Most of them can’t learn a world class shot or how to nail a pass through heavy traffic.

That’s why Pronman’s rankings usually look different than everybody else’s. He’s looking for the things you can’t learn, and putting faith in the idea that the things that can be learned will be. Unless the guy is literally beer league level, whinging about a guy just being an average skater seems silly at that point in their development.

Once again, Brayden Point was not a good skater either when he was drafted

You are so reactionary when it comes to this topic.

Speed/skating is good for a lot of reasons, both offensively and defensively, some of which you mention and a number of which you don't. It's not a "magic pill" (and you are pretty much the only person who ever implies that it is), but it's pretty clearly the direction the league has been trending in for awhile now, for a number of reasons.

Mobility is important in the modern game. It isn't everything. Nothing is everything. But it's still important, and it's frankly rather silly to deny that it is at this point. To be clear, an assertion to that effect is not an assertion that all other things are NOT important.

Back when guys could use their size and "physicality" to completely negate speed and bully smaller players through the good old clutch-and-grab, water-skiiling, cross-checking, and the like, the scales were tipped the other way on that four point spectrum. It was hard to leverage speed nearly as effectively, and size/strength gave one a decided advantage in the series of physical contests that constituted moving the puck up and down the ice.

It's not that league anymore.

 

[Ranksu]

Pronman top31 is really interesting. He has listed 4 finnish guys top31 and Kotkaniemi is #4. This just from Finnish point of view.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

You are so reactionary when it comes to this topic.

Speed/skating is good for a lot of reasons, both offensively and defensively, some of which you mention and a number of which you don't. It's not a "magic pill" (and you are pretty much the only person who ever implies that it is), but it's pretty clearly the direction the league has been trending in for awhile now, for a number of reasons.

Mobility is important in the modern game. It isn't everything. Nothing is everything. But it's still important, and it's frankly rather silly to deny that it is at this point. To be clear, an assertion to that effect is not an assertion that all other things are NOT important.

Back when guys could use their size and "physicality" to completely negate speed and bully smaller players through the good old clutch-and-grab, water-skiiling, cross-checking, and the like, the scales were tipped the other way on that four point spectrum. It was hard to leverage speed nearly as effectively, and size/strength gave one a decided advantage in the series of physical contests that constituted moving the puck up and down the ice.

It's not that league anymore.

I’m not saying skating isn’t important, it pretty clearly is. But it’s pretty much the only skill anybody calls out by name here anymore. There’s no concern for plus shooting, playmaking, or vision, when each of those have about as much likelihood of tilting the ice in our direction as good skating does. You can forgive me for thinking people put too much stock into it when it’s the only thing anybody ever talks about.

The development of this league isn’t linear. Chasing whatever trend is happening right now, you’re already 5 years behind the curve, because the teams that play that way have either drafted their way into players who play that way or are Vegas. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be trying to get quicker, we absolutely should be, but focusing down onto that one attribute to dis/qualify players as being good for this team and ignoring every other contribution they could make is silly. And yes, it seems to me like that is what some people are doing.

And it seems to me that strategically, if speed used to be negated by physicality, does it not make maybe a little bit of sense to move in that direction instead to counterbalance the small speedy dudes? Guys with long reaches and decent skating can contain those guys, especially if they’re able to rub them out along the boards and have a bit of a mean streak. Enter McBain. His skating isn’t bad, it’s merely average. That’s fixable. The rest of the tools are already there.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I’m not saying skating isn’t important, it pretty clearly is. But it’s pretty much the only skill anybody calls out by name here anymore. There’s no concern for plus shooting, playmaking, or vision, when each of those have about as much likelihood of tilting the ice in our direction as good skating does. You can forgive me for thinking people put too much stock into it when it’s the only thing anybody ever talks about.

The development of this league isn’t linear. Chasing whatever trend is happening right now, you’re already 5 years behind the curve, because the teams that play that way have either drafted their way into players who play that way or are Vegas. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be trying to get quicker, we absolutely should be, but focusing down onto that one attribute to dis/qualify players as being good for this team and ignoring every other contribution they could make is silly. And yes, it seems to me like that is what some people are doing.

I don't think people are generally as hyper-focused on it as you seem to be suggesting.

I'll suggest that you might perhaps be a bit sensitized to the issue at this point?

And it seems to me that strategically, if speed used to be negated by physicality, does it not make maybe a little bit of sense to move in that direction instead to counterbalance the small speedy dudes? Guys with long reaches and decent skating can contain those guys, especially if they’re able to rub them out along the boards and have a bit of a mean streak. Enter McBain. His skating isn’t bad, it’s merely average. That’s fixable. The rest of the tools are already there.

No, not really IMO.

Physicality used to negate speed effectively because the rules and how they were enforced facilitated that. Those foundations are no longer in place, and there's little indication that the league wants to implement institutional foundations that remove speed from the game moving forward. Quite the opposite, actually. They've made a number of conscious decisions to bring the league to this point because they seem to feel that a faster paced high event game is more marketable and appealing than one that isn't. Until that particular pendulum shows some signs of swinging back in the other direction, there's little hope to find some sort of competitive edge by preemptively taking that contrarian approach.

I feel like we're confusing things by inserting McBain into this conversation, personally. His straight line speed is fast enough to play the NHL game. His mobility otherwise isn't brilliant, but it's not going to keep him out of the league. The question with him is his upside. Is there more in him than playing a good third liner's game?

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I've talked about McBain, I've been talking about his skills relative to the standards that I think are generally set by top six quality players. As I discussed in-depth earlier, I don't see many, if any, top six quality skills currently on display with him. That doesn't mean he's incapable of developing one or more to that point. That's a possibility for virtually everyone, just like it's a possibility for someone who already has those skills, but who has other damning issues, to address their specific flaws.

I discussed earlier why I'd rather take a shot on a guy whose floor is the current concern, not the ceiling. That's true for me in general, but especially so in the early rounds while there's still a solid selection of those types of players. If that's not your philosophy, that's fine. There's no "proof" that one is superior to the other and we can agree to disagree. Just try not to dismiss criticisms leveled along those lines as some sort of agenda driven nonsense. Two reasonable people can look at the same thing and have differing opinions.

 

[simon IC]

David Backes wasn't a great skater when he was drafted. He went to Finland to address that aspect of his game. He has had a great career as a result. Skating can be taught.

 

[Blueston]

Skating can improve, but only to a point. You can' teach someone to be Connor McDavid. Or MPS for that matter. High end speed is still great attribute to have. And while MPS was clearly overdrafted, he is still a reasonably effective bottom 6 player and skating is his only real asset.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

This just from Finnish point of view.

You don’t say!

 

[EastonBlues22]

David Backes wasn't a great skater when he was drafted. He went to Finland to address that aspect of his game. He has had a great career as a result. Skating can be taught.

This truth is a double-edged sword.

Clearly, just because everyone's skating can improve doesn't mean that everyone's skating will improve. On the other side of the coin, the fact that everyone's skating can improve means that all those currently better skaters can improve as well, leaving a newly improved "bad" skater still well behind the curve. The law of diminishing returns applies, but the point that you can't assume one person will progress while everyone else stays static still stands.

I think it's pretty simple, honestly. If you value something, try to make sure you draft/acquire guys who have already have it to some degree and continue emphasizing it organizationally (via coaching and chosen strategies) from there. Don't draft/acquire guys without it and hope that they'll acquire it down the road.

 

[Itsnotatrap]

I tend to be contrarian towards these things, but the pendulum just seems to have started swinging on this one. Teams just handed Vegas a forechecking machine, and people like Nate Schmidt seem to just skate away from pressure, and for all the talk from all levels about how it is a speed game nobody saw what they might be able to do.

Maybe that’s a black swan. I appreciate what Morty is saying. If everyone values an attribute too highly, well then you probably have value in zagging. This feels like a previous market inefficiency evaporating away rather than being an inefficiency the other way. But, yeah, in a few years we might be celebrating the Kings style again.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I tend to be contrarian towards these things, but the pendulum just seems to have started swinging on this one. Teams just handed Vegas a forechecking machine, and people like Nate Schmidt seem to just skate away from pressure, and for all the talk from all levels about how it is a speed game nobody saw what they might be able to do.

Maybe that’s a black swan. I appreciate what Morty is saying. If everyone values an attribute too highly, well then you probably have value in zagging. This feels like a previous market inefficiency evaporating away rather than being an inefficiency the other way. But, yeah, in a few years we might be celebrating the Kings style again.

The Kings had a physical defense (with other talents, to be sure) which nicely complemented a very aggressive and talented goalie by winning a lot of interior battles.

Their offense wasn't really all that fast, but it wasn't really all that physical, either, save for Dustin Brown and to a lesser extent Stoll. Kopitar, Carter, Richards, Williams, Toffoli, Gaborik...a lot of those guys were big, but none of those guys were pounding anyone into submission. The net result was a suffocating defense and a mediocre (at best) offense that won largely on the strength of the former.

The Blues are nowhere close to matching that template, IMO. The Blues defense has vastly different strengths, and their goaltending is inferior and has a very different style, just for starters. The Blues tried making the suffocating defense with mediocre offense thing work for them in their own way, and they failed pretty miserably on a regular basis, so they started moving in a different direction.

It's certainly possible another team might come along and make it work again, but I don't think the Blues should be the ones pushing that envelope.

 

[Dbrownss]

The Kings had a physical defense (with other talents, to be sure) which nicely complemented a very aggressive and talented goalie by winning a lot of interior battles.

Their offense wasn't really all that fast, but it wasn't really all that physical, either, save for Dustin Brown and to a lesser extent Stoll. Kopitar, Carter, Richards, Williams, Toffoli, Gaborik...a lot of those guys were big, but none of those guys were pounding anyone into submission. The net result was a suffocating defense and a mediocre (at best) offense that won largely on the strength of the former.

The Blues are nowhere close to matching that template, IMO. The Blues defense has vastly different strengths, and their goaltending is inferior and has a very different style, just for starters. The Blues tried making the suffocating defense with mediocre offense thing work for them in their own way, and they failed pretty miserably on a regular basis, so they started moving in a different direction.

It's certainly possible another team might come along and make it work again, but I don't think the Blues should be the ones pushing that envelope.

This part made me chuckle
"Allen's style involved alot more goals against"

I like that the Blues have shifted their focus to speed and skill. It's been an ugly transition but hopefully over the next couple seasons it will blossom

 

[Itsnotatrap]

The Kings had a physical defense (with other talents, to be sure) which nicely complemented a very aggressive and talented goalie by winning a lot of interior battles.

Their offense wasn't really all that fast, but it wasn't really all that physical, either, save for Dustin Brown and to a lesser extent Stoll. Kopitar, Carter, Richards, Williams, Toffoli, Gaborik...a lot of those guys were big, but none of those guys were pounding anyone into submission. The net result was a suffocating defense and a mediocre (at best) offense that won largely on the strength of the former.

The Blues are nowhere close to matching that template, IMO. The Blues defense has vastly different strengths, and their goaltending is inferior and has a very different style, just for starters. The Blues tried making the suffocating defense with mediocre offense thing work for them in their own way, and they failed pretty miserably on a regular basis, so they started moving in a different direction.

It's certainly possible another team might come along and make it work again, but I don't think the Blues should be the ones pushing that envelope.

Don’t disagree with any of that. Your post a while back on a different topic about all the ways speed gains you an edge was fantastic reading. I just think teams are pretty awake to all this by this point in time. The Blues made a push to transition their style, and I certainly don’t want them constantly yo-yo’ing back and forth in an incoherent manner.

Still, in terms of drafting, you still want to bring speed into your system, but the 5’8” winger with speed, edgework, and skill isn’t going to slip the same way he might have as recently as a few years ago. The 6’3” guy that needs a slower pace, but can work the boards and the front of the net relentlessly if he gets it, might slip a round from where he would have 2 years ago.

The game can easily change again. It’s not exactly baseball in that way, but there certainly is still a cyclical element to the game.

 

[Ranksu]

Pronman's top 31:

1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Zadina
4. Kotkaniemi
5. Hughes
6. Wahlström
7. Boqvist
8. Bokk
9. Tkachuk
10. Merkley
11. Veleno
12. Kupari
13. Denisenko
14. Ylönen
15. Kravtsov
16. Wilde
17. Iskhakov
18. E. Bouchard
19. Marchenko
20. Dobson
21. Smith
22. Wise
23. Hayton
24. Berggren
25. Der-Arguchintsev
26. McLeod
27. Farabee
28. Addison
29. Dellandrea
30. Nordgren
31. Lundeström

Pronman loves finns. Smart guy.

You don’t say!

 

[simon IC]

Pronman's top 31:

1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Zadina
4. Kotkaniemi
5. Hughes
6. Wahlström
7. Boqvist
8. Bokk
9. Tkachuk
10. Merkley
11. Veleno
12. Kupari
13. Denisenko
14. Ylönen
15. Kravtsov
16. Wilde
17. Iskhakov
18. E. Bouchard
19. Marchenko
20. Dobson
21. Smith
22. Wise
23. Hayton
24. Berggren
25. Der-Arguchintsev
26. McLeod
27. Farabee
28. Addison
29. Dellandrea
30. Nordgren
31. Lundeström

Pronman loves finns. Smart guy.

Eeewww .... dammit Ranksu, did you have to? I can't "un-see" that now!

 

[Majorityof1]

Just gonna drop this here. Pronman's top 38:

1. Dahlin
2. Svechnikov
3. Zadina
4. Kotkaniemi
5. Hughes
6. Wahlström
7. Boqvist
8. Bokk
9. Tkachuk
10. Merkley
11. Veleno
12. Kupari
13. Denisenko
14. Ylönen
15. Kravtsov
16. Wilde
17. Iskhakov
18. E. Bouchard
19. Marchenko
20. Dobson
21. Smith
22. Wise
23. Hayton
24. Berggren
25. Der-Arguchintsev
26. McLeod
27. Farabee
28. Addison
29. Dellandrea
30. Nordgren
31. Lundeström
32. Thomas
33. KAut
34. Sandin
35. Noel
36. Miller
37. Mozorov
38. Hallander

Pronman loves Swedes. Smart guy.

 

[MissouriMook]

Pronman sure has a lot of Candians on his list. Has anyone else noticed this?