Sixty Minute Man
Registered User
I always thought Stanley's breakout was one of his strongest attributes.
If it was, then I think he'd be defending less and there would be an increase in his secondary assists.
I always thought Stanley's breakout was one of his strongest attributes.
Why is scoring for a defenseman deemed to be so important? It would be nice on this team to have a big mean defense first defenseman.
At no point would I call any of these players a bust. Cederholm was always a longshot, but I still have hope for him; just like I still have hope for Stanley, and all of our prospects. Just don't want to overrate them. Despite drafting these guys, our D pool is still our weak point, so I would like to have another D- heavy draft
I look at Griffin Reinhart as being the poster boy for this cautionary tale of how great junior shut down defenders still need to score.
He had a very decent draft -1 year and was just over .5 PPG for the Oil Kings. I remember thinking that he was looking really good. I started getting a bit concerned in his draft year when the scoring needle didn't really move much and when I watched him play I thought he was positionally sound and big but really soft and on draft day I said I want any of the top D guys except Reinhart. The following 2 seasons in junior his raw scoring numbers actually decreased??? Meanwhile he was doing ok with Team Canada and even helped lead the Oil Kings to the memorial cup as the "shut down" defender. The red flag was always that he didn't have the skill to dominate offensively especially for a top 10 pick in an NHL draft. Perhaps one day Griff will make the NHL but if he couldn't crack that Oiler D line up last season it will take a miracle for things to change.
I know another story about another "shutdown" dman that didn't score much at the junior level and really started to take it to another level in his final year of Junior. His draft year he could be considered plodding and offensively anemic and was just a .25 ppg player. His second year while better only saw him go to .56 ppg. He did make team canada his final year and had a memorable tournament playing a very heavy shutdown game. During his draft year he fell to the 2nd round with teams passing on him because of his limited offensive upside but as it stands now he is the highest point producer of his draft class by D while still playing that heavy shutdown game he was noted for. That D man was Shea Weber.
Now I am not saying Stanley will become Shea Weber but I also can't say he won't either.
Why is scoring for a defenseman deemed to be so important? It would be nice on this team to have a big mean defense first defenseman.
You can win the lottery, but it doesn't mean trying to is sound financial advice.
I know another story about another "shutdown" dman that didn't score much at the junior level and really started to take it to another level in his final year of Junior. His draft year he could be considered plodding and offensively anemic and was just a .25 ppg player. His second year while better only saw him go to .56 ppg. He did make team canada his final year and had a memorable tournament playing a very heavy shutdown game. During his draft year he fell to the 2nd round with teams passing on him because of his limited offensive upside but as it stands now he is the highest point producer of his draft class by D while still playing that heavy shutdown game he was noted for. That D man was Shea Weber.
Now I am not saying Stanley will become Shea Weber but I also can't say he won't either.
The likely hood that Stanley falls in between Reinhart and Weber is probably pretty good.
If Stanley turns out to be a D that gets 20+ points and plays 18 to 22 minutes a night for 10 years in the NHL is that a good use of that selection then?
I think that is the risk they took. I don't think he is there yet. I will be able to tell you next season if he will bet that guy.
Some posters have cited Stanley as an example of the "Hillier effect" in drafting, but Stanley is right out of Comeau's playbook...
Valabik 2004
Denny 2005
Chiarot 2009
Sol 2009
Melchiori 2010
All big, low-scoring D.
Comeau replaced Dan Marr as Director of Scouting when the Thrashers moved here I thought. Both had been with the Thrashers for a long time though. The whole organization had a pretty abysmal drafting record when they got here. It certainly appears they fired the right guy in 2011...
Comeau replaced Dan Marr as Director of Scouting when the Thrashers moved here I thought. Both had been with the Thrashers for a long time though. The whole organization had a pretty abysmal drafting record when they got here. It certainly appears they fired the right guy in 2011...
Comeau was Director of Amateur Scouting from 2003-4...
http://www.eliteprospects.com/staff.php?staff=2368
Comeau was Director of Amateur Scouting from 2003-4...
http://www.eliteprospects.com/staff.php?staff=2368
"Marr, who was released from his duties as Atlanta's Director of Amateur Scouting and Player Development when the franchise relocated to Winnipeg in June, replaces McGuire, who died April 7 following a five-month battle with cancer.
Marr served as Atlanta's chief scout for more than three years, from 2000-03, before being promoted to director of amateur scouting and player development in July 2003. He joined the Thrashers as a head scout in September 1998 after spending more than 12 years with the Maple Leafs."
Because it is a huge signal of future success.
In fact, it has been shown that scouts undervaluing scoring for defenders is a reason for scouts being inefficient as they are in drafting defenders:
Top/Mid/Low - 1st, 2nd, 3rd+ round drafted
Scorer/Non - over, under 0.6 pt/gp
1st round drafted defenders who score under 0.6 pt/gp tend to be as good as bet as 2nd round drafted defenders who score over 0.6 pt/gp on average... that's something.
I don't think Eliteprospects got it right Whileee Dan Marr ran the show in Atlanta (From NHL.com in 2011):
Comeau was head scout. Matt was director of scouting, I think.
The likely hood that Stanley falls in between Reinhart and Weber is probably pretty good.
If Stanley turns out to be a D that gets 20+ points and plays 18 to 22 minutes a night for 10 years in the NHL is that a good use of that selection then?
I think that is the risk they took. I don't think he is there yet. I will be able to tell you next season if he will bet that guy.