I agree that it would be a complete waste to turn Kane into a typical two-way forward, but every player on the ice has to be defensively responsible to a certain point. So far, Kane has shown almost zero defensive responsibility. That may very well be a result of the London way of doing things, but it does raise questions about his ability and desire to be more than a cherrypicker.
Agreed with you here.
I've notice in the past few years that players who graduated out of the London Knights were all pretty poor Defensively !!
Rick Nash, Rob Schremp, Corey Perry, David Bolland, Dylan Hunter, Patrick Kane and Sam Gagner now, and so on. All offensive stars when they played with London, but Zero notions of what defence was !!
Rick Nash and Corey Perry are slowly learning the defensive side of the game in the NHL, so is Bolland and Schremp in the AHL.
The only one that is good in all 3 zones when they were in juniors is Sergei Kostitsyn who is the most complete player of the London Knights.
The fact is, because of the London System, the offensive stars of London that graduated comes in the PRO and don'T know anything about Defence, which is not a very good thing because they will need time to learn it.
Patrick Kane will follow the same path no doubt. The only one I see having an immediate impact in the NHL is Sergei Kostitsyn, but he will likely play in the AHL for 1 year.
With all that said, That's why Patrick Kane is behind Jakub Voracek. Voracek has size, has the offensive skills and plus he has the two-way play !! Which can not be said for Patrick Kane. To play in the NHL, you have to know the minimum defensive side of the game or else, coaches will not give you big minutes and you'll be an unidimensional player. Not saying that Patrick Kane has to become a two-player, but he has to learn the minimum if he don't want to be a Pylon in the defensive zone.