Not really, they already pay healthy scratches full ride to look good in tailored suits in the arena press box.
It's the same difference today.
Prospect Info: 2020 NHL Draft 19th Overall Pick, Braden Schneider, D
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
Not really, they already pay healthy scratches full ride to look good in tailored suits in the arena press box.
It's the same difference today.
kovazub94
Enigmatic
- Aug 5, 2010
- 12,473
- 8,320
You’re right. Don’t know why I’d been thinking extra cash when I watched KHL lineups.
Yeah and you do it to see who "gets math" versus not. Learned it from a bunch of old guys in round the table meetings. Tells you where you know where your apples are coming from if your out there trying to score goals.
GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
JD said "Schneider may be going here you think?" when the Jets were on the board. Kinda nuts that he thought Schneider would be the pick with Perfetti available.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 44,868
- 40,391
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Rangers had him at 12, so he was certainly in the range at that point.
Winnipeg had him in their top 10.
Interesting listening to Scott Wheeler on the Rangers draft and he really disagreed with Schneider and Cuylle as picks. I think he is kind of missing the points of the picks though and looking at it as points being the end all to everything. He somewhat dismissed Schneider because he didn't think you should "waste" a first round pick on a defenseman who wouldn't play on your PP, but I think that's downplaying how much playing defense can be a skill as well. I'd take a guy who plays 20 minutes per night on the PK and even strength and is a pain in the ass to play against, good defensively, etc, over a guy who plays on your PP but is meh in other situations (unless he is scoring mad points like DeAngelo).
Schneider feels to me like the player that every team wants and people say "well maybe you can find that guy in later rounds/in free agency" but it's extremely hard to actually do that.
Somewhat the same with Cuylle though my feeling is that the Rangers just see him differently than Wheeler, who sees his upside as a 4th liner. I think the Rangers see more to his offensive game than Wheeler who was very down on his scoring
Wheeler seems like he basically wants teams to swing at the biggest offensive talent/point producer with every pick. Maybe that's good maybe that's bad
Schneider feels to me like the player that every team wants and people say "well maybe you can find that guy in later rounds/in free agency" but it's extremely hard to actually do that.
Somewhat the same with Cuylle though my feeling is that the Rangers just see him differently than Wheeler, who sees his upside as a 4th liner. I think the Rangers see more to his offensive game than Wheeler who was very down on his scoring
Wheeler seems like he basically wants teams to swing at the biggest offensive talent/point producer with every pick. Maybe that's good maybe that's bad
But did Winnipeg have him so high because of need as well? They lost the whole right side of their D from the 18-19 season. I am not saying the upside isn’t there or the interest is unwarranted, just curious if WPG had him high for a certain reason. I think you said other teams had Schneider high, or at least I think you said that.
Regardless, at the time I was only down about it because I thought there were some centers there we should have taken. But by no means do I dislike Schneider as a player and quite frankly he could end up being a better prospect than Lundkvist. Or maybe he can move to the left side. Time will tell.
This is something they alluded to in the war room. You look at the cup champions over the last handful of years... how many actually have that dynamic one dimensional offensive defensemen? You could throw Krug and Schultz in there, maybe Shattenkirk too. Nothing wrong with having that type of player but it's probably gotta be limited. Guys like Carlson, Letang, Doughty, Hedman, Pietrangelo... they'll give you numbers but they can defend. Sure it's nice to have the Burns and Karlssons that'll give you 70 points but not in exchange for subpar defense and poor positioning. You look at the Dmen the Rangers have been drafting, seems they're motivated to build a D group that value shut down ability, size, skating and sound positioning over pure production. Schneider fits that bill
A lot of defenseman find their offense in the pros. If you’re smart and have a good outlet pass, the offense comes off the transition.
McDonagh and Skjei are two good examples of that. I can see Schneider following a similar trajectory.
McDonagh and Skjei are two good examples of that. I can see Schneider following a similar trajectory.
Posted about this several times. Yes. JD is/was right. It's also why Button was screaming take the best player available with the WPG pick.
Carlson actually can't defend for crap, at least not anymore. He put up a ton of points but it pretty much came at the expense of his defense
Otherwise yeah, you need to build a team not just a group of players
OrlandK
Registered User
In all fairness Wheeler didn't miss the point of the picks at all. He believes in using high picks for the most talented players with the highest upsides. He likes Schneider but didn't believe in trading up for him when more talented options were available. He does not think much of Cuylle who he has watched many times. If your looking for grit he says there are better and other ways to acquire it than drafting less talented players.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable philosophy, even if it goes against the grain of a fan base that wants to embrace it's new toys.
eco's bones
Registered User
One of the comparables I've heard for Cuylle is Tom Wilson. That might be a bit of a reach but I think Cuylle at least gets you kind of into Blake Coleman territory. A hard driving third line winger with size who has a good shot and can win board battles and drops the gloves now and again. That's a valuable asset if he can reach that. When it came to 60--he was the guy left on the board that I wanted most.
As far as Schneider that big and strong hard to play against defender is something we're short of. His is a simple game that doesn't need a whole lot of refinement but any team that goes deep into the playoffs has a player like this--sometimes two or three.
Entrancemperium
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2005
- 736
- 158
I wanted Lapierre I will admit it.
But then I remember how we've complained about not having any grit or a crease clearer... I will be much more comfortable if we are the ones delivering the hits instead of taking them. See Fast, Jesper.
The argument is of course that you can acquire these players through trades...... but can you though? Are they really made available? And what's the cost. Grit is a talent, so is being mean. I've warmed up to the pick and as someone else pointed out, offense and flash isn't the only way to measure talent.
But then I remember how we've complained about not having any grit or a crease clearer... I will be much more comfortable if we are the ones delivering the hits instead of taking them. See Fast, Jesper.
The argument is of course that you can acquire these players through trades...... but can you though? Are they really made available? And what's the cost. Grit is a talent, so is being mean. I've warmed up to the pick and as someone else pointed out, offense and flash isn't the only way to measure talent.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I didn't get the impression it was based on need. Anaheim was at least one other team that him in their top 10 as well. I'm fairly sure San Jose had him around the 10-12 spot as well, but I'd have to double check. I'd say a good number of teams probably had him top 10, or just outside.
Probably the one center I would've considered over Schneider is Lapierre. I can't say the other centers really would've been my pick at that slot.
I think Schneider was pretty well seen as a top 15 candidate on these boards, until we took him at 19. I do think there was at least some element of people talking themselves into taking a center --- even if some of those names had some decent question marks surrounding them.
SA16
Sixstring
Carlson is horrendous defensively and the only reason he likely has the reputation of being good is because he's 6'3 220 whereas other guys are smaller (Karlsson 6'0 190, DeAngelo 5'11 180, Krug 5'9" 190 etc.)
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
I've always felt there's a misperception that you just go out and "find" these guys when you need them. For starters, if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a huge market for it in the first place. Beyond that, and to your point, what do you end up paying as a price? A first, a second, or the "skill" guy you already have. So you're correct, there's really no clear incentive not to take certain players when your scouts identify them.
In Schneider's case I almost think the "grit" and "size" aspects are overblown. Yeah, he's gritty and tough to play against. But he's also a guy who might have a total of one fight per season in the NHL. The whole McIlrath comparison was just...not there.
But more than grit, he's a smart defensive player. The kid knows his reads, he knows his angles, and he knows how to defend. He's far more likely to box a forward out of prime real estate on the ice than he is to deliver a thunderous check. Think Sauer more than McIlrath.
Size wise, he's actually only a little bigger than Lafreniere. I want to say out of all the 2019-2020 draft picks, he's something like 6th or 7th in size. So it's not like we drafted him just for the sake of having a "big man" on the blue line.
I also think some people are sleeping on the skill combination with some of these picks. They didn't take a kid like Cuylle because they only think he's capable of being a fourth liner. They took him because they think he can be more than that and the hope is that he combines the physical play with enough skill that he can complement a finesse-oriented, more creative forward.
Sometimes you make a pick in the first or second, and the player becomes Brendan Lemieux. And sometimes they become Tom Wilson or Wayne Simmonds. That's the gamble.
But here's your blind taste test for the four names I just mentioned in their respective draft seasons, all in the OHL:
Player A: 66 GP, 23 G, 26 A, 49 Pts, 112 PIMs
Player B: 49 GP, 9 G, 18 A, 27 Pts, 141 PIMs
Player C: 62 GP, 22 G, 20A, 42 Pts, 37 PIMs
Player D: 65 GP, 27 G, 26 A, 53 Pts, 145 PIMs
And just for good measure, here are the numbers of a player who was taken in the fourth round (but would probably be a second round pick in a redraft):
Player E: 65 GP, 12 G, 18 A, 30 Pts, 96 PIMs
Last edited:
kovazub94
Enigmatic
- Aug 5, 2010
- 12,473
- 8,320
See this is what Levi was pointing out. Wheeler doesn't consider ability to be 20+min, toughest defensive assignments as a talent. He's not the only one.
Personally I disagree with this including the notion that you can get these players in later rounds. Chances of getting these players in later rounds (make sure not to mistake them with 3rd pair /7th D) just as low as getting offensive talents.
kovazub94
Enigmatic
- Aug 5, 2010
- 12,473
- 8,320
I don't even think offense vs grit was a part of the consideration. IMO it was solely due to his history of injuries and the related high risk (relative to the pick) that it would prevent him from reaching NHL altogether.
Defense wins cups. Players like Schneider are incredibly hard to find. You don't get many nasty, physical, defenseman with high hockey IQ's, great strength, way above average skating ability who can shut down first lines. The morons in the media have fallen in love with defenseman who get points. They aren't what you need in those tough, close, playoff games unless they are also studs defensively. All Cuylle has to become to me is a Matteau type. You need those guys to get those garbage goals in the playoffs. If he's a 15 G 15 A, 3rd line forward who wears defenseman down, that's enough. This team will be top heavy with elite talent with their first two lines.
Edge
Kris King's Ghost
Exactly.
One of the major challenges I see emerging in the last 5 or so years, is that talent is defined by offensive ability, or the ability to make something look pretty. I think it's particularly been a problem the last few years as more online outlets pop up and they take on a little bit of the old ESPN formula --- AKA your play of the day is the guy diving for a catch when he would've caught it just fine if he kept running at full speed.
To that last point, it changes the dynamic by which we view players. Being a 5 goal, 25 point, 20+ min per night defenseman is not a role without talent. It's also not inherently a role for which you just go out and make a simple trade for, or a guy you just find sitting there in the second round.
Year, after year, after year, we see teams trade first round picks, we see teams trade top prospects, and we see teams offer a lot of money to acquire players who can fill that role well. As a team we've also seen the vacuum created when we lose a player like that (Sauer, McD, etc.).
So if you're willing to trade all of those assets for that type of player when he's 27 or 28 years old, then there's little reason you shouldn't go for them early and also enjoy the benefit of having them at 23-26 years of age as well.
Yeah, you can find a defensive player in later rounds, just like you can find a middling scorer who temporarily fills a niche as a second line wing. But good enough and well are two different concepts.
I think identifying talent also comes from years of experience. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but many of the "experts" we're quoting here, simply don't have that experience...yet.
The reason they're in some of these positions is, to be frank, because they're young and the positions don't pay a hell of a lot. You very well could be looking at someone who, for all the wonder of the platform they have, has only been out of college for 3 or 4 years. That's part of the risk of social media platforms and journalism in general right now.
In most other professions, these are the people who are studying under colleagues who have been doing the same work for 10, 15, 20+ years. They're learning the industry and coming to the realization that they don't yet know what they don't know. And that's a very sobering process.
That's not to say they won't get there. Some of them will if they stick with it. But I think we do have to take into account that some of these writers are barely older than some of the prospects they are covering.
And I include myself in those conversations, because that was me 23 years old writing for HockeysFuture.com. And it's not to say I didn't have some good insight and instincts, but comparing what I would know 10 or 20 years later is like night and day.
I say that as a round-about way to point out that some of the young talent evaluators out there still have a very long road of learning ahead of them and we have to at least take that into account before we anoint their views as expert opinions. And, like any generation of writers or obeservers, there are certain bias or group-think approaches that they're going to have evolve out of if they want to make a long career in the industry.
OrlandK
Registered User
I think Wheeler's philosophy is being mis-characterized a bit. He likes Schneider - sees his realistic upside as 2nd pair. So Wheeler says if you have say 8 high draft picks over a number of years and go after Schneider level talent you will wind up with say 5 guys that make it, but none are 1st pair dmen or 1st line forwards. He rather swing for the fences and pick riskier high end talent so that you would wind up with perhaps 3 guys that make it but at least one is an all star type. And that result, he believes, is more likely to produce a better team. And yes he devalues anyone a bit who doesn't have some significant offensive upside. Not saying I agree with him but I do find him interesting and I respect his viewpoints, which certainly go against the grain.
Fans generally fall in love with their new prospects, especially when buying into the front office's reasoning and accolades, and then get defensive when the nationally based prospect evaluators present a different view. It's a running joke among guys like Pronman that each fan base wants to know why they hate their team.
Fans generally fall in love with their new prospects, especially when buying into the front office's reasoning and accolades, and then get defensive when the nationally based prospect evaluators present a different view. It's a running joke among guys like Pronman that each fan base wants to know why they hate their team.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: ECSF: New York Rangers vs. Carolina Hurricanes- Latest: WaitingForThatCab
-
-
Series Talk: ECQF: Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple Leafs (Series Tied 3-3)- Latest: mandiblesofdoom
-
