Henkka
Registered User
It could be nothing but a smart move to sacrifise a skill-vise weak 2017 draft class to collect character guys.
Detroit Red Wings #2 Prospect Summer 17/18
- Thread starter The Zetterberg Era
- Start date
It could be nothing but a smart move to sacrifise a skill-vise weak 2017 draft class to collect character guys.
I don't understand this drafting philosophy at all. Why are we placing different value on skillsets/traits depending on the year? Why are we not just evaluating the player as a whole and taking the BPA. If that is a bigger defensemen then great, go ahead and draft him. But did we really pass on say Lipanov because the focus of this draft was big players/Dmen. 'Skilled, creative, two-way center who fell to our third round pick, to bad this draft year is for big Dmen/gritty forwards.' Was that the thought process? It just seems incredibly stupid to value and target players differently from draft to draft. So if this was the draft for skilled forwards would we have selected Lipanov at 38 instead of passing on him at 71?
I guess at least it looks like I get to look forward to the team drafting skilled hockey players again instead of drafting Givani Smith in the 2nd round because he is an ******* on the ice.
Martinez
Go Blue
- Oct 10, 2015
- 6,654
- 2,140
Henkka
Registered User
Hah.
Same thing what I just wrote about.
These are the most important quotes. 2017 draft was made to push 2018 draftees (or earlier draftees) and so on.
It's a bigger building plan than taking just individuals.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Yeah, I don't get it either. If you want to go with Rasmussen with the first pick, I'd have a lot less of an issue with that if you come back and take a flier on someone like Morand, Lodnia, Lipanov, etc. with one of your other picks.
But Rasmussen, Zablocki, Gallant... I mean, not bad players by any means... but was that the BEST you could do as far adding forwards with offensive upside? Like, I don't see how you could say it was.
I guess I just don't see the logic/balance here. If your first pick is Nick Suzuki, ok coming back and taking a guy like Gallant makes a lot of sense.
But for a guy saying rebuilds take 10 years and that's not what I want... saying we'll focus on skilled guys NEXT year... um yeah, that's how you make rebuilds take 10 years.
Last edited:
No two draft years are the same though. I distinctly remember a comment from Mark Edwards on the pipeline show talking about ranking kids outside of the first round and feeling as if they would go much later in other draft years. This tells me that this purported "skill" we passed on wasn't all that skilled in the grand scheme of things (at least outside of the first round). It is nice to hear the brass admit that they thought that defensemen were a comparable strength of this class. I would much rather the scouts play to the strength of a class than try to turn water into wine with a kid who is only skilled in comparison to a weak draft class. This organization absolutely needs more high-skill prospects, but we shouldn't go forcing the issue and run the risk of walking away with no NHL players.
I am honestly shocked that people think that the Wings only took Ras because of character and size. Do people honestly think that our scouting staff pegged him as an unskilled center with a third-line ceiling when they made their draft list? Do they really think the staff saw nothing else about him that projected really well at the professional level? Maybe I am just missing a bunch of super skilled playmaking centers that we passed on.
Pavels Dog
Registered User
He seems to adress concerns such as yours directly here:
Personally I just don't see the huge skill-gap between a Larkin/Svech/Rasmussen and the other options available. AA and Mantha also add dynamic skillsets.
I think they've added lots of high-end skill on D between Hronek/Saarijarvi/Cholo, with guys like Sambrook/Lindstrom/Setkov/Kotkansalo/etc also being interesting despite being bigger guys.
We haven't taken many forwards in the last 2 drafts. Maybe there were some higher potential guys available, I wouldn't have said no to taking some more boom/bust guys but maybe our scouts just didn't like those possibilities much? I think it made sense to focus on D the last two drafts, and so far our 1st rounders are looking good enough that I want to give Ras the benefit of the doubt that he's more than a grinder, right now I think people are hugely overreacting. It was a weak draft and none of the available options were more than longshots to be one of the pieces we desperately need, a #1C or #1D.
Maybe the organization just has more faith in Larkin/AA/Mantha/Svech/Ras than you? You bring our D up to speed and who knows what the forward group we're building can really do? We're all in agreement our D is one of the bottom 3, bottom 5 in the league. Changing that is priority #1, #2 and #3.
Henkka
Registered User
Looks you want to handle every draft's every single player as a single pick. Teams won't do that way. Looks like Tyler Wrights's Red Wings will concentrate for certain area in certain years. They will make an analyze of big picture, what is this draft generally good for.
So if 2017 was overall weak draft in skill, why concentrate on skill? Why not going towards character if that's an organizational weakness in prospect core. Defence was also depleted, so it was a mix of defence and character. TOP10 was full of Centers, and it was also clear need. They went after a character center. Kind of sticking on a plan.
***
What I understood from Nashville discussion, Poile concentrates every second year on defence and every second year on forwards. Not 100%, but there is a weighted balance.
Why that way? Because when you concentrate on certain area, you know that area better. You can't know every area and players enough well, there's not enough time and scouts for that.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
I do agree with that. But as I said my issue is more with the big picture.
Yeah, and when they had faith in Smith/Kindl and stopped drafting defenseman that turned out real well.
Until one of these guys proves it Larkin/AA/Mantha/Svech, you should keep taking skilled guys. A hot half of a rookie season for Larkin and AA having good pts/60 shouldn't make you start looking for another dimension and assume you're all set. Until one of Cholo/Hronek/Saarijarvi does something noteworthy in the NHL, you should keep taking puckmovers, even if they're small.
My suggestion was literally exactly the opposite of that.
I do agree this was a weaker draft, and have said as much. But there will be skilled gems that emerge from rounds 2-7 of this draft, just like every other draft. I think there is some upside with the Gallant, Kotkansalo, Lindstrom picks. I just think we could have been bolder with possessing 11 picks this year, and I just didn't get the strategy with where this team is sitting.
But I do like hearing Wright say they want to go for more high-end skill forwards starting next year. Just also bittersweet for me.
Last edited:
Cyborg Yzerberg
Registered User
Such a strange call out, as the Flyers have the brightest future of any team in the league that doesn't have a McDavid or a Matthews.
They have three potential top pairing defensemen, one of whom looks like a franchise defensemen. They have countless goaltending prospects, they have a number 1 center, and a core that's a bubble team as is. None of these prototypical Flyers have been prioritized since Ron Hextall took over.
Cyborg Yzerberg
Registered User
You can't. And their verbiage doesn't imply that they took the BPA with the 9th overall pick. Even Lindstrom was a massive reach, which we all give a pass to because it's probably Hakan's pick, but still.
Honestly, the way we drafted this year, you'd think Vince McMahon was our GM or something.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
How doesn't it? They said they had 3 guys ranked in a group, and said they considered trading down, but decided not to. Given that they kept the pick, and that picked ended up being Rasmussen, wouldn't you have to infer that he was who they deemed to be their BPA of that grouping?
I'd like to know who the other guys were, and I may not agree, but in their opinion I'm pretty sure they took who they deemed to be the BPA. Unless maybe they deemed the other guys were wingers, and took Rasmussen because he was their top ranked center or something?
I don't really see where you are drawing that conclusion from, that they willingly refrained from taking the BPA.
I find that it more conducive to my sanity to be primarily a reader than a contributor, but I agree completely with that post and want to add some comments about Rasmussen just to contribute to a balance of opinion and also make a couple of factual points about his season that have been largely overlooked in the discussion. Apologies in advance for probably going too long to keep anyone's attention.
I consider Rasmussen the best prospect in the system. He’s simply a sound fundamental player in every respect with better skills, both skating and with the puck, and better on-ice awareness and hockey intelligence, than a number of posters have stated. As his coach said, he’s an evolving player, a bit of a chameleon in that he can do anything you want him to do. That might be an accurate description of both his strengths and weaknesses, because while it’s nice to be able to do anything, it’s not a good thing to be 6-feet-6 of invisibility. I think to a lot of fans the Wings right now are boring and consider Rasmussen the epitomy of a boring prospect. There is very little flash to his game. He is not an explosive skater nor does he stickhandle (or even seemingly try to stickhandle) through 2-3 guys or deke a goaltender out of his jock.
What critics are doing though IMO is conflating flash to upside. There are plenty of flashy players who are third-liners (if they even survive in the league) because they are unaware of what’s going on around them when they have the puck, or relatively clueless without it. There are also plenty of top six forwards in the NHL who essentially just execute the right play without a lot of flash, with most of their elite qualities based on strength on the puck and how difficult they are to handle in one-on-one battles. Invariably their hockey IQ and work rate are at a very high level.
Breaking down his skills, start with Rasmussen being a better skater than most seem to acknowledge. I've seen no mention of the fact that at the CHL Top Prospects Game he tested third overall among 24 forwards in on-ice skating tests, a series of 10 drills with and without the puck. The top two forwards were Formenton and Hischier, the tests validating what most observers recognize as two elite skaters. Rasmussen was in the top three of only one individual drill, but his combined score was better than the likes of notable fast and/or agile skaters like Tippett, Yamamoto, Thomas, Entwhistle, Morand, etc.
Rasmussen does not hold onto the puck except when he is in puck-protection mode along the boards and around the net, which he is very good at. Otherwise he gets the puck and advances it with simple, easy plays. This is considered a good thing in Canadian junior hockey and it’s not much different in the NHL. He does get a few greasy goals, but a lot of his so-called garbage goals are the result of having very good hands. He can find and control the puck in traffic and finish. He has great hand-eye coordination and gets deflection goals with his stick instead of his ass. He has an accurate wrist shot and can pick a corner from inside 20 feet.
Many posters are critical or at least dubious about his passing ability but that is not the opinion of many internet scouting services. Steve Kournianos’ positive comments about Rasmussen’s playmaking skills at the Hlinka Tournament are echoed elsewhere. “Underrated vision and playmaking ability†(Future Considerations); “good playmaking vision†(Dobber Prospects); “effective vision and passing skills†(Draftsite); “His vision is very good, as is his ability to pass the puck through tight spaces … when scoring chances present themselves he can take advantage with a good pass†(Last Word on Sports); “Has good passing skills. Uses his good vision and passing skills to distribute the puck effectively†(Hockey Prospectus); “Excellent playmaking ability recognizing opportunity and setting up in the offensive zone†(NHL Central Scouting). Redline Report was a modest critic and undoubtedly there were others but to a large extent the criticism was based on statistical breakdown rather than scouting impressions of his play.
The ES point production is being turned from a curious anomaly in an injury-shortened season into a so-called “advanced stats†red flag. He had almost identical ES point production to Getzlaf in his WHL Draft year (24 ES points in 49 games before the injury vs. Getzlaf’s 35 ES points in 70 games). Getzlaf was a much worse skater at the same age and didn’t become an elite set-up man until he started playing with an elite finisher and higher quality teammates overall. People have overlooked that Rasmussen did not play a full year. In the last 12 games prior to the wrist injury, he scored 16 points including eight at even strength, so perhaps the statistical imbalance was already working itself out. If he had played the last two months of the WHL season at that pace we might be wondering if he was a goal-centric centre prospect more similar to Jeff Carter than guys like Jake Virtanen or Lawson Crouse (who are poor comparables). He’s not the skater Carter was in Junior, but he’s a lot closer to Carter’s skating level and skill-set than some posters want to believe.
In his limited playing time with top age-group peers Rasmussen has played very well. Kournianos ranked him as Canada’s best player at the Hlinka Tournament, in which he was second on the team in scoring with a goal and three assists. He played center and was trusted with most defensive zone faceoffs. Kournianos noted that Rasmussen liked to crash the net but also that he made a lot of subtle plays to set up teammates’ scoring chances. Subtle is a good description of Rasmussen’s stick work. The puck is soft on his stick, he has his head up and he makes quick, effective plays to advance possession or ice position. If your linemates can’t finish, you aren’t going to get a lot of ES assists. Rasmussen also had a good performance playing left wing with Cody Glass and Kole Lind at the Top Prospects Game. His hands and awareness were shown off a number of times, most notably on the goal he scored and on a play where he chased down and stripped the puck from a defenseman, button-hooked in the offensive zone and found the trailer to create a great scoring chance. At the U17 Tournament he was fourth on his team in scoring.
Rasmussen is probably going to stick at center. He’s been tasked with a lot of defensive zone faceoffs at all levels and gets credit for his defensive awareness and how well he uses his stick. As noted by another poster, he is going to have to work on driving the middle of the ice to both take advantage of his size and create space for wingers. He’s willing to use his size but being a bit nastier would help. Physicality is another area where he is capable and pretty effective, but doesn’t dominate. He’s nowhere close to the way Getzlaf for example bullied opponents at the same age. There are scouting reports that indicated Rasmussen went through stretches where he was not particularly noticeable and a guy with his size should at least be making a physical impact if he’s not scoring. That’s the negative side of him being a bit of a chameleon at this stage of his development.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Rasmussen has the upside of a top six or even top line center. Whether you think he can reach it is another matter. Part of the argument is whether you can be a top six center by being better than average at just about everything, but not necessarily elite in any measurable skill. I think it’s pretty obvious that he has the potential to become a very good possession player simply because of his length, soft hands, skating ability and awareness of teammates, and being a good shooter/finisher. Those are traits he has already demonstrated in the CHL and in best-of-age events.
I don’t think the Wings picked him mostly because of his size or “intangiblesâ€. I think they picked him because they think he will be a better NHL player than everyone who was available in a generally weak draft. He might never rack up 40 assists, but if your flashy 40-assist man can’t play in his own zone or handle the physicality of the NHL, then he’s probably not going to be as good an NHL player as a guy who goes 30-30-60 and can play in all situations and both ends of the ice. The Wings should not be picking players in the first round solely because of how their specific skills might mesh with future teammates. You pick who you think will be the best player and sort out the combinations years later.
The WHL site goes back 20 years with annual stats, just go through their stats menu. In 2002-03 Getzlaf had 25 PP points and eight shorthanded points.
And I agree, Rasmussen stylistically is not similar to Carter at the same age. Carter was already at that age a very smooth and powerful skater and had a great shot. He was also a more evolved athlete. Rasmussen is still filling out and getting all his long limbs working together. But the end result of their skills is not dissimilar. Rasmussen still has room to add a step to his skating and quicken the release of his shot. He's probably better than Carter in terms of puck protection in tight spaces.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,243
- 14,753
Ok, on mobile the site only showed PP assists, but on a computer I see the PP goals now as well. Good to know.
Yeah, I agree on the stylistic differences you list there. I see what you mean. Don't disagree with too much in that write-up.
The biggest thing like I've said, Getzlaf showed tremendous improvements in playmaking after he was drafted. If Rasmussen could do similar, that's worth getting excited over. I think it's something worth tracking this year. I've honestly been contemplating getting WHL live this year, and I know Sirloin said he catches a bunch of WHL games.
waltdetroit
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2010
- 2,649
- 526
Pavels Dog
Registered User
Fantastic writeup, this is the kind of insight I often find so lacking around here when prospects are discussed.
This bit in particular seemed really interesting. Might add some insight into why the Wings scouts didn't get discouraged too much by his ES/PP splits.
I used to watch a lot of the Dub on TV and it's pretty entertaining, once you get your senses readjusted to the quality of the production, poor lighting and lack of creativity in the WHL. I expect both Cholowski and Rasmussen to get mixed reviews for their play this coming season because they are simply not risk-takers or particularly flashy. I'm not too concerned about Rasmussen's play-making ability and I don't particularly like the Getzlaf comparison, partly because Getz is a rare, nasty beast and partly because I'm not sure there is a Perry or even an Andrew Ladd for Rasmussen to play with. Ras and Cholo are still many years away from the kinds of players who can make a difference for the Wings.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: 4/27/24 - 5:00PM EDT - #1 Florida vs #1 WC Tampa Bay [ECQF GAME 4]- Latest: These Are The Days
-
-
GDT: ECQF Game 4:- #1 Florida Panthers vs #1 WC Tampa Bay Lightning | 5:00PM ET
- Latest: Boss Man Hughes
