I'm trying in vain to make dynamism a thing you can understand in written form. I guess the easiest way is to look at those terms used by McDonnell and Takko and describe another player with exactly those strengths. It doesn't say anything about a shot, or about passing or stick handling, and straight lines make me think he doesn't have much trickery with the puck. What's the picture of that straight line player who can skate but doesn't have plus offensive skills look like for you? What role does he have on the Stars going forward?
I'd encourage you to look up the way our guys talked about Gurianov and Tufte. When guys have skills, people talk about them in these kinds of blurbs. A Finnish poster saying he's not dynamic fits perfectly with the quotes you posted and I suspect they have more experience watching him than you or I or the boxscores.
I'd really like Hintz to work out and be a bigger Janmark or a more defensive Nichushkin, but his cieling is right around where Faksa is and the only reason to give him a 1st round grade is if the draft was weak. But that's not what you said:
Laine is much more versatile, he can play on any line in any league because goal scoring is all-important in hockey. Laine has more goals in 70 NHL games than Hintz has in 126 SM Liiga games, even if they were the same age there is no comparison between the two in terms of productivity. As I said, Laine's draft year is better than Hintz's draft+2 and he had 2 fewer points in 18 playoff games in his draft year as Hintz had in 42 regular season ones in his.
I'm not sure you understand what the word versatile means, or the word dynamic for that matter. In fact your argument is incredibly hard to follow because it's all over the place and you're using extremely vague thinking and talking points. Did you really just say Hintz's draft year was weak too? You know he was drafted in 2015 right?
1 Connor McDavid
2 Jack Eichel
3 Dylan Strome
4 Mitchell Marner
5 Noah Hanifin
6 Pavel Zacha
7 Ivan Provorov
8 Zach Werenski
9 Timo Meier
10 Mikko Rantanen
11 Lawson Crouse
12 Denis Guryanov
13 Jakub Zboril
14 Jake DeBrusk
15 Zachary Senyshyn
16 Mathew Barzal
17 Kyle Connor
18 Thomas Chabot
19 Evgeny Svechnikov
20 Joel Eriksson Ek
21 Colin White
22 Ilya Samsonov
23 Brock Boeser
24 Travis Konecny
25 Jack Roslovic
26 Noah Juulsen
27 Jacob Larsson
28 Anthony Beauvillier
29 Gabriel Carlsson
30 Nick Merkley
There's constant complaints about not taking those bottom 15 players over Guryanov, yet seemingly Dallas would have also taken Hintz above those players as well. So now you're treading the line that you know these players much better than Dallas' scouts, which we already know plenty of fans like to think that but you'd be hard pressed for someone to take you seriously on that.
If you're going to tell me that McDonnell is pandering by saying Hintz was in Dallas' top 15 then there's no room for logic in this argument and the discussion should end there. Sebastian Aho is a smaller version of Hintz with better skating, he was drafted in the 2nd round as well and is tearing it up for Carolina. You wanna explain that phenomenon?
Also, I don't know how many times I stated that I'm not saying Hintz and Laine are comparable in this aspect. I'm just using Laine as a benchmark for how players produce in the Liiga and used those numbers to Hintz favor.
Laine is not a versatile player, he's an offensive weapon. His accurate and powerful shot and ability to seperate himself in the offensive zone is why he's thriving in the points category. Hintz is a high IQ 2-way forward with physical presence and great playmaking ability, all while being labled a straight to the net power-forward'esque type player. His only knock his draft year was that his skating is choppy and corners are wide, which i've seen improvements on both ends this year. That is versatility. It's also bold move assuming that just because someone is from Finland that they've had more exposure to Hintz than I have just because I used concrete stats as my talking points. I've watched quite a few of HIFK games this year, but I didn't use that in my initial argument because it's not relevant to my argument.
I could go on forever why your statements doesn't hold water but I'm not trying to get into a heated debate when I can't even tell what the end-game of your argument is.