I understand that people value a defenseman that plays D well first and foremost (shocker I know). But it's a two sided coin. If a defenseman is solid on D but struggles to translate his offense to the NHL, he's going to have a hard time with helping to keep the puck in the offensive zone. That creates more stress playing D which can be just as bad as playing D poorly for shorter periods of time. Vice versa. Good offense means you can clear the D zone well and help hold the puck in the opponents end longer. Either way, teams need to commit to the guys they take and avoid trying to make them fit into a system if its not advantageous to do so.