F Brady Tkachuk (2018, 4th, OTT)

[Dominance]

Tkachuk looked great at the WJC -- the ranking seems pretty justified from that. If we are just watching stats Tkachuk and Bowers are almost matching Mittelstadt too (as someone has already pointed out here) so are you still waiting on an explanation of that or do you see the difference? Mittelstadt is 2 months younger than Tkachuk.

That’s all fair enough, if you go to the polls section I addressed the pair of them.

 

[kabidjan18]

Bowers is pretty much the same age (2 months apart).

Their current seasons are pretty much identical with Bowers having more goals. They play on the same team.

So for anyone who knows Boston University well, would a guy like Bowers be a 5th overall pick in this draft?
I’m assuming the answer is no.

Pretty much what I have asked in every single ranking that has Tkachuk higher than 15th, and I’m still waiting on a real answer.

I guess this type of logic has to be dealt with sooner or later...

Cale Makar and Mario Ferraro are teammates at UMass. They are a month and a half apart. Ferraro is tracking higher than Makar is (.64 to .61).

Does this mean that Makar should have gone undrafted his first year of eligibility and gone in the second round as an overager? No...

 

[jnk96]

Cale Makar and Mario Ferraro are teammates at UMass. They are a month and a half apart. Ferraro is tracking higher than Makar is (.64 to .61).

Does this mean that Makar should have gone undrafted his first year of eligibility and gone in the second round as an overager? No...

Ferraro missed 2016 eligibility by two days, so he was simply a second-rounder in his first year of eligibility.

Anyway, age is obviously something that has to be taken into account when scouting players that are 364 days apart but still in the same draft class. But not just to say "this player is old, so he shouldn't be drafted this high."
That "extra year" we get to scout Tkachuk actually helps a lot in figuring out what player he is and what he can become. So much can change between the ages of 17 and 18, so rather than pushing Tkachuk down, I think the extra year is really helping him.

Personally, I've seen more of Tkachuk than Svechnikov or Zadina, so I don't want to make a definitive statement here. But if Tkachuk went 2nd overall, I'd be totally happy with it. He's someone I can see stepping right into the NHL and contributing in a middle-six role.

 

[kabidjan18]

Ferraro missed 2016 eligibility by two days, so he was simply a second-rounder in his first year of eligibility.

Anyway, age is obviously something that has to be taken into account when scouting players that are 364 days apart but still in the same draft class. But not just to say "this player is old, so he shouldn't be drafted this high."
That "extra year" we get to scout Tkachuk actually helps a lot in figuring out what player he is and what he can become. So much can change between the ages of 17 and 18, so rather than pushing Tkachuk down, I think the extra year is really helping him.

Personally, I've seen more of Tkachuk than Svechnikov or Zadina, so I don't want to make a definitive statement here. But if Tkachuk went 2nd overall, I'd be totally happy with it. He's someone I can see stepping right into the NHL and contributing in a middle-six role.

Right, thanks for catching that. The structure remains largely unchanged though because one could retrospectively posit changes and draw conclusions that would be universally recognized as absurd. A name before the cut off date would be like Scott Perunovich.

 

[EdAVSfan]

I guess this type of logic has to be dealt with sooner or later...

Cale Makar and Mario Ferraro are teammates at UMass. They are a month and a half apart. Ferraro is tracking higher than Makar is (.64 to .61).

Does this mean that Makar should have gone undrafted his first year of eligibility and gone in the second round as an overager? No...

I was asking a legitimate question.

I wasn’t trying to put anyone down. I was asking to get a try grasp at the difference between the two.

And to answer your question, had Makar been eligible the year prior, there’s no way of knowing how low he actually would’ve gone in the draft.

PPG in the AJHL isn’t exactly ground-breaking.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I guess this type of logic has to be dealt with sooner or later...

Cale Makar and Mario Ferraro are teammates at UMass. They are a month and a half apart. Ferraro is tracking higher than Makar is (.64 to .61).

Does this mean that Makar should have gone undrafted his first year of eligibility and gone in the second round as an overager? No...

He didn't say Bowers was as good a prospect as Tkachuk. He admitted to looking at stats and asked those who watch what separates the two as prospects.

There was no logic used. There were no assumptions made. There was question asked. Great work jumping down his throat though.

 

[cgf]

Personally, I've seen more of Tkachuk than Svechnikov or Zadina, so I don't want to make a definitive statement here. But if Tkachuk went 2nd overall, I'd be totally happy with it. He's someone I can see stepping right into the NHL and contributing in a middle-six role.

You really should try to catch more of Svechnikov or Zadina because there's no team that should even think about taking Brady ahead of either one. They're just completely different level of talents.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Ferraro missed 2016 eligibility by two days, so he was simply a second-rounder in his first year of eligibility.

Anyway, age is obviously something that has to be taken into account when scouting players that are 364 days apart but still in the same draft class. But not just to say "this player is old, so he shouldn't be drafted this high."
That "extra year" we get to scout Tkachuk actually helps a lot in figuring out what player he is and what he can become. So much can change between the ages of 17 and 18, so rather than pushing Tkachuk down, I think the extra year is really helping him.

Personally, I've seen more of Tkachuk than Svechnikov or Zadina, so I don't want to make a definitive statement here. But if Tkachuk went 2nd overall, I'd be totally happy with it. He's someone I can see stepping right into the NHL and contributing in a middle-six role.

If my team was selecting 3rd overall I would also be totally happy about Tkachuk going 2nd overall lol.

 

[kabidjan18]

I was asking a legitimate question.

I wasn’t trying to put anyone down. I was asking to get a try grasp at the difference between the two.

And to answer your question, had Makar been eligible the year prior, there’s no way of knowing how low he actually would’ve gone in the draft.

PPG in the AJHL isn’t exactly ground-breaking.

He didn't say Bowers was as good a prospect as Tkachuk. He admitted to looking at stats and asked those who watch what separates the two as prospects.

There was no logic used. There were no assumptions made. There was question asked. Great work jumping down his throat though.

Well if this isn't ironic...

You'll notice that in the original post I quote two posts. Not because they say the same thing, but because (if you go back to those original posts) the latter quotes the former. The former provides the contextual information for the latter. The latter quote insinuates that there are (as there have been) no reasonable explanations or justifications for him going above 15th. The first post poses a question, the second post draws a more aggressive query upon dubious logical grounds and is surprised not to receive any reasonable answers. I wonder, which one was I addressing?

But to see you jump down my throat so quickly for jumping down the throats of others? Priceless.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Well if this isn't ironic...

You'll notice that in the original post I quote two posts. Not because they say the same thing, but because (if you go back to those original posts) the latter quotes the former. The former provides the contextual information for the latter. The latter quote insinuates that there are (as there have been) no reasonable explanations or justifications for him going above 15th. The first post poses a question, the second post draws a more aggressive query upon dubious logical grounds and is surprised not to receive any reasonable answers. I wonder, which one was I addressing?

But to see you jump down my throat so quickly for jumping down the throats of others? Priceless.

Both posters you quoted asked the same question. You responded to those posters like they were making assumptions which wasn't the case. They were curious about something.

 

[kabidjan18]

Both posters you quoted asked the same question. You responded to those posters like they were making assumptions which wasn't the case. They were curious about something.

No they weren't.

The first poster was asking a "what" question. "What...separates the two that I have not seen?"

The second poster was asking a "why" question. "Why...is he ranked in any top 15?"

The first asks what stands out about him, the second questions his ranking within the general paradigm of accepted rankings (he is almost universally considered top 15). In order to posit this second question one has to base one's question off a notion, here, that he should be tracking higher than all individuals of the previous draft born within a short timeframe.

The notion, simply, that his spot in the top 15 should be questioned merely because he is tracking similarly to someone of the previous draft class is not a great metric for late birthday athletes. I gave an example why.

 

[cgf]

No they weren't.

The first poster was asking a "what" question. "What...separates the two that I have not seen?"

The second poster was asking a "why" question. "Why...is he ranked in any top 15?"

The first asks what stands out about him, the second questions his ranking within the general paradigm of accepted rankings (he is almost universally considered top 15). In order to posit this second question one has to base one's question off a notion, here, that he should be tracking higher than all individuals of the previous draft born within a short timeframe.

The notion, simply, that his spot in the top 15 should be questioned merely because he is tracking similarly to someone of the previous draft class is not a great metric for late birthday athletes. I gave an example why.

That's a distinction without a difference. "What separates them" and "why one is a top 15 pick and the other a late 1st" are two different versions of the same question.

 

[kabidjan18]

That's a distinction without a difference. "What separates them" and "why one is a top 15 pick and the other a late 1st" are two different versions of the same question.

The difference is that the first knows and notes that he is missing something. I'll give an example.

Is Cale Makar a bust?
Q1: Genuinely curious, as I don't know much about either. Makar has less points than Perunovich, despite being in the same birth year and only separated by two months. What makes Makar a better prospect than Perunovich?
Q2: Why is Makar considered a top 5 defensive prospect when Perunovich scores more and is undrafted and generally unrecognized?

The unspoken principle behind both these questions: Makar should naturally have more points than Perunovich (or all defensemen of the same birth year) if he should be rated higher. The only reason the question arises is because he doesn't, and thus errs from the baseline. This is a baseline assertion you probably don't think is very strong, just as I didn't think the assertion that Tkachuk should be tracking higher than Bowers to naturally be assumed his rank was a sound concept. But the first question acknowledges gaps in his knowledge, essentially acknowledging that the baseline the question is predicated off of is not sound. The second simply posits a question based on this assertion.

 

[S E P H]

Bouchard and Hughes have more dynamic ability than Tkachuck.

Dobson as well.

This is grasping at straws type of post. I get the idea of Hughes being more dynamic than Tkachuk, but Bouchard and Dobson don't come close to his raw ability.

It seems that Brady is getting over-scouted on this board...

 

[cgf]

The difference is that the first knows and notes that he is missing something. I'll give an example.

Is Cale Makar a bust?
Q1: Genuinely curious, as I don't know much about either. Makar has less points than Perunovich, despite being in the same birth year and only separated by two months. What makes Makar a better prospect than Perunovich?
Q2: Why is Makar considered a top 5 defensive prospect when Perunovich scores more and is undrafted and generally unrecognized?

The unspoken principle behind both these questions: Makar should naturally have more points than Perunovich (or all defensemen of the same birth year) if he should be rated higher. The only reason the question arises is because he doesn't, and thus errs from the baseline. This is a baseline assertion you probably don't think is very strong, just as I didn't think the assertion that Tkachuk should be tracking higher than Bowers to naturally be assumed his rank was a sound concept. But the first question acknowledges gaps in his knowledge, essentially acknowledging that the baseline the question is predicated off of is not sound. The second simply posits a question based on this assertion.

Q1 and Q2 are the same question. Both are just different iterations of a request for a comparison of the two players to add context to the statistical analysis.

 

[kabidjan18]

Q1 and Q2 are the same question. Both are just different iterations of a request for a comparison of the two players to add context to the statistical analysis.

Yes, they're both based off the same assumption that I addressed, that is correct. The former, however, acknowledges that his question arises from his own lack of knowledge. So even if the premise is equally questionable (or in this case the exact same, as he was quoted), at the very least the question acknowledges that the premise is likely unsound.

 

[elitepete]

Tkachuk drives to the net with the puck on his backhand, manhandling the defender, and his teammate scores the rebound.

Goal waved off though, since he made contact with the goalie.

 

[cgf]

Yes, they're both based off the same assumption that I addressed, that is correct. The former, however, acknowledges that his question arises from his own lack of knowledge. So even if the premise is equally questionable (or in this case the exact same, as he was quoted), at the very least the question acknowledges that the premise is likely unsound.

Well this is too pedantic even for me when a simple "Tkachuk has better hands and so more potential to become a scoring line player rather than a high end mid-6er" could have answered the original poster's questions without arguing about nothing.

 

[lawrence]

Tkachuk drives to the net with the puck on his backhand, manhandling the defender, and his teammate scores the rebound.

Goal waved off though, since he made contact with the goalie.

would have counted in the NHL.

all good

 

[Mark Kandy]

Has he played more as a center or a winger this season? On the LW with Bowers as the center? And WJC? Can't remember lol, asking for a friend

 

[thelittlecoon]

Has he played more as a center or a winger this season? On the LW with Bowers as the center? And WJC? Can't remember lol, asking for a friend

From games I've seen he's been LW with Bobo Carpenter at C and Greenway RW. Was on the wing the whole WJC as well.

 

[Woodhouse]

LW. Bulk of BU draws are taken by Carpenter, Bowers, and Greenway, while Poehling and Mittelstadt centered Tkachuk's lines at the WJC.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

He looks better to me than Matthew Tkachuk did in his draft year. And I thought very highly of Matthew that year too. I think when it is all said and done, Brady Tkachuk will have as big if not bigger impact than Matthew in the NHL. He can do it all, size, skill, attitude, production, he may be the most impactful winger this draft. Definitely right there in the conversation with Zadina and Svechnikov as best winger in this draft.

 

[93LEAFS]

Has he played more as a center or a winger this season? On the LW with Bowers as the center? And WJC? Can't remember lol, asking for a friend

He hasn’t played center in ages. Norris centred him most of his time at the USNTDP.

You draft him to be a LWer, if you want a center reach for Veleno or Kotkaniemi. I don’t think it’s a wise move but it’s better than trying to move any of the wingers back to center.

 

[JK2K]

Isn’t anyone worried that at every level he has played with the best on his team, potential first rounders, or actual first rounders.?
That makes things so much easier. On one hand you can say he’s earned it, on the others hand you can say he’s been very fortunate.
That does worry me.
A lot like Hayton. And now Veleno (who I like) or any of the Mooseheads.
So much rides on who you play with. So much.