How is Reilly so low? Behind Girgensons really. Reilly is up there with Lindholm and Trouba and has just as good a shot at the Norris, smae goes for Maata. Girgensons looks like he wont be a true #1 and more like a solid #2. TT should be higher that Girgensons since the Hawks have developed him slow and hes looking like hes going to be elite.
I don't see Reilly as being up there with Lindholm and Trouba at all. He might have the best offensive upside of the group, but not by much and not close to the all-around game those two have.
As far as rankings for Maata/Girgensons vs Reilly/TT, again, I mentioned it's a question of whether someone wants a risk but possibly greater payoff, or a safer pick that's a better player now. Either way, I see the top-2 (Trouba and Lindholm) being way ahead of everyone else (though their order is certainly debatable), then 3 and 4 IMO are similarly well defined right now, and only after that is the risk/reward trade-off a big effect on rankings. Reilly could just as easily be 5th on my list if that makes you feel better, but I absolutely don't consider putting him any higher than that.
Of course, it's still very early. So when I say the top-2 and to a lesser extent the top-4 is well in the lead, it's always possible someone else will emerge.
To be fair reilly isn't insulated on a good team like most of the other top d
And has been pretty good for us with back to back 29 point seasons and has been improving his game all round
Trouba actually carries the worst LHD on the team in Mark Stuart. Stuart is a blackhole of possession. Not even Byfuglien, who is an advanced stats wizard, could make Stuart look serviceable in recent years. Stuart made Bogosian look like a brain-dead bottom-pairing D who couldn't do anything but turn the puck over. If anything, Trouba insulates Byfuglien and (especially) Myers by taking all the D-zone starts and PK time, and with the worst partner.
Suggesting that Trouba and Lindholm were insulated while Reilly wasn't is absurd:
In terms of rankings on their respective teams (i.e. usage):
in Corsi QoC: Reilly (6th), Lindholm (5th), Trouba (3rd)
in ES OZS%: Reilly (6th), Lindholm (6th), Trouba (6th)
ES TOI: Reilly (4th), Lindholm (2nd), Trouba (3rd)
PP TOI: Reilly (3rd), Lindholm (4th), Trouba (4th)
PK TOI: Reilly (6th), Lindholm (2nd), Trouba (1st)
At ES they all faced the least % of OZS on their teams, with Trouba deployed against tougher competition and Lindholm for more minutes - Reilly was the most sheltered of the 3, though none was heavily sheltered relative to their age. As far as how they performed, Reilly had the 4th best Corsi on his team, while Lindholm's was 4th and Trouba's was 1st.
Reilly averaged 30 seconds more of PP time than Trouba and >50 seconds more than Lindholm. Reilly played almost no PK time - his ranking would actually be worse but I excluded replacement level players (<15 GP), but it's somewhat telling that 3 of them were used more than Reilly.
Undoubtedly, Reilly was the most sheltered of the 3. This isn't to say Reilly is heavily sheltered - he's still logging a lot of minutes and being deployed outside the offensive zone a lot - but you can't pull the weak excuse of him being sheltered less than Trouba and Lindholm. Quantitatively everything points to the opposite.
Reilly is developing nicely but nothing currently suggests he should be considered with Trouba and Lindholm, both of whom are playing huge roles on good teams (and are big parts of why their teams are good).
With how much these rankings differ from the actual draft, Leaf fans should be happy they didn't get one of the guys that has fallen instead of taking it personally that other people prefer players that have shot up the rankings.
