Best D-man in the 11 draft

[Kershaw]

Larsson, Hamilton, Murphy, Brodin, Klefbom, Morrow, Harrington, any one of these guys can be the best.

 

[Bjorn Le]

• Thats your opinion and what you are getting from the games and thats perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinions. IMO, although he doesn't have a deadly shot or like to pinch into the offensive zone, I think he is just so slick and smart that on the right team, he can put up 30-40 points regulary.
  
• While I accept your argument above, this argument is just stupid. You lost all credibility with that remark to me... Should I go after the "well ... X was drafted 20nd-30th overall"? I think I should. Jordan Eberle (22nd), Claude Giroux (22nd), Mike Green (29nd). Draft position means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when it comes to players. While I understand the reference to Lidstrom might be a tad much, how about reference to Kenny Jonsson? He has been compared to him as well and from what I can tell, seems to be a clone of him.

If draft position means's nothing then why do players go where they do instead of teams picking players out of a hat?

Those players you named developed significantly after and weren't exactly safe picks. No one could have anticipated what they would have done, not 10 months after they were drafted at least. If Brodin was thought to have "very elite level potential", he wouldn't have been considered a safe pick at number 10, he would have been considered a steal and we would have seen talk of him going much higher.

And Kenny Jonsson was a #2 defensemen in the NHL, who put up around 30 points on average. If Brodin is a clone of him I hit the nail pretty much right on the head.

Compared to other defensemen from that draft, Brodin just doesn't stack up potential wise.

 

[Jayevs]

1. Larsson - there is no comparable for this kid IMO, he just brings such poise smarts and skill to the table he could have a career similiar to keiths norris season
2. Hamilton - comparable to Weber/Pietrangelo, but i dont think he will ever be quite at that level
3. Morrow - i love Morrow as a prospect, i think he could be a similiar player to Letang, has game-breaker ability
4. Siemens - you can call me a homer if you want, but his meanstreak combined with that skating ability and vision is unheard of, he could be a hybrid of Seabrook and Keith
5. Murphy - could be a PPG dman great skating vision and shot, will have to be played in the right situations of course and will get burned and manhandled deffensively

 

[Circulartheory]

If draft position means's nothing then why do players go where they do instead of teams picking players out of a hat?

Those players you named developed significantly after and weren't exactly safe picks. No one could have anticipated what they would have done, not 10 months after they were drafted at least. If Brodin was thought to have "very elite level potential", he wouldn't have been considered a safe pick at number 10, he would have been considered a steal and we would have seen talk of him going much higher.

And Kenny Jonsson was a #2 defensemen in the NHL, who put up around 30 points on average. If Brodin is a clone of him I hit the nail pretty much right on the head.

Compared to other defensemen from that draft, Brodin just doesn't stack up potential wise.

See, this part is totally ridiculous IMO.

This is no longer about just Brodin, I have something very much against this type of thing, whether it be Brodin or some other prospect.

Lets start with this point. Because Brodin does not have elite potential just because he was picked 10th overall, that must mean you don't think Ryan Murphy has some either right? In addition, what is your thoughts on Hamilton because he was picked just 1 pick before. Are you making the distinction of 'elite potential' because of a pick difference between 9 and 10?

Next point. You say "Those players you named developed significantly after and weren't exactly safe picks". Well, isn't that the point of the draft? Selecting players and hope they develop significantly? That is the whole point, regardless of #1 or #200. But lets play along with that quote. You say they weren't exactly safe picks, and they were drafted 20-30th overall and are now elite players. Brodin was selecting 10th, so maybe, just maybe, he has similar potential PLUS not as risky?

Draft position is not a gauge of who is more talented 1 year after. It is a gauge of who the teams think is more valuable ON THAT DAY. Because things change. Players get bigger, they get smarter, they get more determined. Their team gets better coaches, the players get more playing minutes. Hell, maybe a meteor strikes and they gain superpowers. Point is, you can't use draft position to say who is better now.

I can accept you position on if whether Brodin is elite or not based on YOUR VIEWINGS! That is a very reasonable argument and I have no place to say your take was wrong. I even think your analysis on several reports, even if not yours but from good sources, is a good argument. You could very well be right based ON YOUR TALENT EVALUATION. But using draft position is ridiculous!

 

[Bjorn Le]

Now you're taking one part of what I'm saying and ignoring the other part. I'm not saying its all about draft position which you seem to think I am. Brodin went 10th, was never considered to go any higher than that, was considered a safe pick. Hamilton had top 5 consideration. Murphy had top 5 consideration. That's what seperates them, and I've said that.

And you're right this isn't about Brodin anymore, you're ranting about me apparently saying something that I didn't even say. I never said Brodin isn't better because of draft position, I said if he had "very elite potential" he would have been considered a better prospect draft day than he was.

And don't give me that ******** of bringing up that he wasn't seen enough or scouted well enough. A first round talent playing in a top league is scouted plenty, if he had elite potential we would have known about it. Eberle, Giroux ect the guys mentioned, very talented, but no one could have expected them because no one is expected to perfectly fill out their complete potential.

 

[boredmale]

Way too early but the front runners seem to be Larsson Hamilton and Brodin.

Wow you are really going out on a limb picking the first 3 defensemen picked int he draft as the front runners

 

[Circulartheory]

Now you're taking one part of what I'm saying and ignoring the other part. I'm not saying its all about draft position which you seem to think I am. Brodin went 10th, was never considered to go any higher than that, was considered a safe pick. Hamilton had top 5 consideration. Murphy had top 5 consideration. That's what seperates them, and I've said that.

And you're right this isn't about Brodin anymore, you're ranting about me apparently saying something that I didn't even say. I never said Brodin isn't better because of draft position, I said if he had "very elite potential" he would have been considered a better prospect draft day than he was.

And don't give me that ******** of bringing up that he wasn't seen enough or scouted well enough. A first round talent playing in a top league is scouted plenty, if he had elite potential we would have known about it. Eberle, Giroux ect the guys mentioned, very talented, but no one could have expected them because no one is expected to perfectly fill out their complete potential.

Please tell me where I said he wasn't scouted enough. I did say there is more to developing players than drafting them and I did say there are alot of factors that play into that develop AFTER being drafted. However, I did not say he wasn't scouted enough.

Reason why I am ranting is because of the way you are using draft position to justify that he does not elite potential or not. And I do apologize if I come off ... crazy ...

I will agree, I don't think he has Lidstrom potential. And I will agree, his ability to run the offense is somewhat lacking. And if you said that because you read reports and saw him play, I like that argument.

What I do not like, is saying "if he was elite, he would be drafted higher" because that is disregarding the extra 2-4 years he has to develop AFTER being drafted.

Reason why I have this 'ranting' aggressiveness to my argument is because I think that is simply not true, using draft position because in 2 years, that part of his game could develop drastically, like those players you mentioned at 20-30th that you said "No one could have anticipated what they would have done, not 10 months after they were drafted at least."

There are just so many instances of players developing at a rate that "no one could have anticipated what they would have done" that maybe the idea of 'projecting' players is more art than science, alot of hoping and praying goes into those years of development. Scouting gives you a basis of the type of player you are getting, but no one besides a fortune teller can tell you how they well develop. All you can do is draft a player who is in the right situation with the right tools and surrounded by the right people.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not just talking about risky players with projected elite upside but risky to make it. I am also regarding players who were projected to be 'safe' but become more than just that

 

[Bjorn Le]

Please tell me where I said he wasn't scouted enough. I did say there is more to developing players than drafting them and I did say there are alot of factors that play into that develop AFTER being drafted. However, I did not say he wasn't scouted enough.

Reason why I am ranting is because of the way you are using draft position to justify that he does not elite potential or not. And I do apologize if I come off ... crazy ...

I will agree, I don't think he has Lidstrom potential. And I will agree, his ability to run the offense is somewhat lacking. And if you said that because you read reports and saw him play, I like that argument.

What I do not like, is saying "if he was elite, he would be drafted higher" because that is disregarding the extra 2-4 years he has to develop AFTER being drafted.

Reason why I have this 'ranting' aggressiveness to my argument is because I think that is simply not true, using draft position because in 2 years, that part of his game could develop drastically, like those players you mentioned at 20-30th that you said "No one could have anticipated what they would have done, not 10 months after they were drafted at least."

There are just so many instances of players developing at a rate that "no one could have anticipated what they would have done" that maybe the idea of 'projecting' players is more art than science, alot of hoping and praying goes into those years of development. Scouting gives you a basis of the type of player you are getting, but no one besides a fortune teller can tell you how they well develop. All you can do is draft a player who is in the right situation with the right tools and surrounded by the right people.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not just talking about risky players with projected elite upside but risky to make it. I am also regarding players who were projected to be 'safe' but become more than just that

A player doesn't become elite, they have the potential in them. Any player that was ever disregarded and became something special had that talent in them. Brodin has been heavily scouted, and there is nothing to suggest he will ever become an elite talent overall, much less offensively. My arguement was if he had that talent, he would have been regarded as such. Since he was a high pick, there is no excuse for why that wouldn't be known.

Like I said, you're ranting about something I didn't even say. I don't know if it's misreading my post or something else, but I never said he can't be elite because of his draft position, I said if he was regarded as a very elite potential player, it would have reflected during the draft and before when people talked about hi,.

 

[Baba Booey]

Id take Hamilton but Larsson looks great.

 

[TCJ]

Prophet of glennie you havent made a logical statement this entire thread. You are trying to base potential on draft position. Just because a player doesn't go top 5 doesn't mean he doesn't have elite potential. How do you explain the girouxs and the eberles. The most skilled player in the world went undrafted twice... You are also judging defenseman and their potential on points. Do you think Erik karlsson is the best defenseman in the league? I agree with you that brodin won't put up much more than 30 points in a season but that doesn't mean he can't be elite. You mentioned that the only thing brodin has on Hamilton is defense as an argument that Hamilton is better... Isn't that the position they play? Lol they're different players and they will both have great careers in the league IMO but you cannot judge a player based on points and draft position.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Now you're taking one part of what I'm saying and ignoring the other part. I'm not saying its all about draft position which you seem to think I am. Brodin went 10th, was never considered to go any higher than that, was considered a safe pick. Hamilton had top 5 consideration. Murphy had top 5 consideration. That's what seperates them, and I've said that.

I've seen various people implement this type of thinking, and it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, you are merely speculating, because you have no idea where NHL teams had each player ranked at the draft. It's plausible that various teams had Brodin in their Top 5.

Secondly, the idea that being prevously ranked in the Top 5 means they have greater upside because seems entirely contradictory. How can a player be deemed to have more upside, yet such player falls in the rankings? Why does he fall in the rankings? Rankings are somewhat flawed anyway, but usually remain fluid and ever changing because player development is not linear, and can be random.

So Brodin gets drafted higher, but you deem another player to have higher upside based on a speculated ranking that occurred before either were drafted. Do you not see how this is contradictory? You are using draft rankings to attempt to prove a point, whilst actually ignoring the draft results ... the very thing the draft rankings exist to attempt to predict. It's a bizarre way of thinking.

And you're right this isn't about Brodin anymore, you're ranting about me apparently saying something that I didn't even say. I never said Brodin isn't better because of draft position, I said if he had "very elite potential" he would have been considered a better prospect draft day than he was.

Well, you did say it. Of course, we can merely use this strange logic to prove you wrong.

If Murphy had elite potential, he would have been considered a better prospect draft day than he was.

Of course you won't agree with this, but i am using the same basic logic you used. So if you do not agree with this, you again undermine and contradict the argument you attempt validify.

And don't give me that ******** of bringing up that he wasn't seen enough or scouted well enough. A first round talent playing in a top league is scouted plenty, if he had elite potential we would have known about it. Eberle, Giroux ect the guys mentioned, very talented, but no one could have expected them because no one is expected to perfectly fill out their complete potential.

The latter half of this is actually quite important. Percieved potential changes as players develop. Hence, draft rankings from years back become less and less meaningful, and what they are doing now becomes more and more relevant. So, how players were ranked at the draft or during their draft year becomes somewhat redundant, because it has no relevance to how a player develops. Drafts are ways of acquiring assets. People need top stop using them as the main measurements of potential, because players do not stop developing at 17/18.

If you feel Brodin doesn't have elite upside based on viewings, that seems a reasonable belief. However, nothing you've said after is remotely logical.

 

[Bjorn Le]

i've seen various people implement this type of thinking, and it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, you are merely speculating, because you have no idea where nhl teams had each player ranked at the draft. It's plausible that various teams had brodin in their top 5.

Secondly, the idea that being prevously ranked in the top 5 means they have greater upside because seems entirely contradictory. How can a player be deemed to have more upside, yet such player falls in the rankings? Why does he fall in the rankings? Rankings are somewhat flawed anyway, but usually remain fluid and ever changing because player development is not linear, and can be random.

So brodin gets drafted higher, but you deem another player to have higher upside based on a speculated ranking that occurred before either were drafted. Do you not see how this is contradictory? You are using draft rankings to attempt to prove a point, whilst actually ignoring the draft results ... The very thing the draft rankings exist to attempt to predict. It's a bizarre way of thinking.

It's not flawed, every arguement against it is attempting to use semantics against it and not actually any arguement. You take one thing I say and twist it so you can argue against it. That's what's flawed.

You can say anything is speculation. You could say every team had Ryan Nugent-Hopkins as number one on their draft board, it's very likely, but it's still speculation. I can say it's very likely no team had Brodin top five and only a handful had him top 10. I could care less it's speculation, using what information we have avaiable to us, it's very likely. All the reports on Brodin were he's a safe pick, will be an NHL'er.

You're acting like we don't know a single thing about the players drafted last year, that they're a mystery to all but the NHL teams and we can't say anything about them because we're not NHL teams. That's simply silly.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards to the third thing you said. You seem to be thinking I'm reffering to some magic speculatory ranking to determine potential and I'm wondering where the in the world you pulled that from.

I'm not using draft rankings for anything. This is where reading would a beneficial thing. I said if Brodin had "very elite potential" he would have been more highly regarded during the time surrounding the draft and he would have gotten consideration to be taken higher than he did. Brodin during that time, by most sources was considered a safe pick without the same potential guys like Larsson, Hamilton, and Murphy had. That's not speculation, that's well known. Brodin hasn't suddenly gone from being a safe pick to being some guy who's Lidstrom-in-waiting.

well, you did say it. Of course, we can merely use this strange logic to prove you wrong.

If murphy had elite potential, he would have been considered a better prospect draft day than he was.

Of course you won't agree with this, but i am using the same basic logic you used. So if you do not agree with this, you again undermine and contradict the argument you attempt validify.

If you're going to try to use "logic" against me you may want to take a little more time making your posts instead of just repeating nonsense, because nonsense is these three paragraphs.

the latter half of this is actually quite important. Percieved potential changes as players develop. Hence, draft rankings from years back become less and less meaningful, and what they are doing now becomes more and more relevant. So, how players were ranked at the draft or during their draft year becomes somewhat redundant, because it has no relevance to how a player develops. Drafts are ways of acquiring assets. People need top stop using them as the main measurements of potential, because players do not stop developing at 17/18.

If you feel brodin doesn't have elite upside based on viewings, that seems a reasonable belief. However, nothing you've said after is remotely logical.

It's been a 10 months since Brodin was drafted. He hasn't developed to a significant level that he's gone from safe pick, 25-30 point defensemen with strong defense to an very elite potential defensemen.

And how many times do I have to say I wasn't talking about draft rankings, I was talking about how Brodin was percieved around draft time. No one percieved Brodin to have elite potential then, and beside one poster in this thread I haven't seen anyone else say that now. Maybe in 3-4 years you can make a different judgement, but what was said about him during and leaeding up to the 2011 draft still holds weight now, and nobody then, or now has said he had elite potential, and if he did, he would have been thought of more than just a safe pick.

 

[squidz*]

I've seen various people implement this type of thinking, and it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly, you are merely speculating, because you have no idea where NHL teams had each player ranked at the draft. It's plausible that various teams had Brodin in their Top 5.

To expand on that, while teams don't ever actually reveal their draft boards, the rumor is that New Jersey had Brodin as #2 on their draft board behind Larsson (well the actual phrasing: "if Larsson was off the board, Brodin would have been the pick"). In addition to that, while the Wild picked Brodin at 10th overall, they had him ranked in the top 5, and considered trading up to ensure they got him. The exact quote (from the draft table as seen on Becoming Wild) was:

[Unknown speaker]: "He says Boston's putting 'Hamilton' on a jersey, so that's who they're picking."
Flahr: "Then we get one of our two guys."
Fletcher: "And that's why you don't trade up here, we got him anyway."

 

[squidz*]

It's not flawed, every arguement against it is attempting to use semantics against it and not actually any arguement. You take one thing I say and twist it so you can argue against it. That's what's flawed.

You can say anything is speculation. You could say every team had Ryan Nugent-Hopkins as number one on their draft board, it's very likely, but it's still speculation. I can say it's very likely no team had Brodin top five and only a handful had him top 10. I could care less it's speculation, using what information we have avaiable to us, it's very likely. All the reports on Brodin were he's a safe pick, will be an NHL'er.

Nope. You're 100% wrong, and provably so. There's no point in arguing it with you though because your only response ever is "you're twisting my words" or some other vain attempt at yet another strawman.

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

To expand on that, while teams don't ever actually reveal their draft boards, the rumor is that New Jersey had Brodin as #2 on their draft board behind Larsson (well the actual phrasing: "if Larsson was off the board, Brodin would have been the pick"). In addition to that, while the Wild picked Brodin at 10th overall, they had him ranked in the top 5, and considered trading up to ensure they got him. The exact quote (from the draft table as seen on Becoming Wild) was:

[Unknown speaker]: "He says Boston's putting 'Hamilton' on a jersey, so that's who they're picking."
Flahr: "Then we get one of our two guys."
Fletcher: "And that's why you don't trade up here, we got him anyway."

Exactly.

I'd also like to challenge what upside means? It seems people assume upside means point projection, and thus rank accordingly. Of course, i find rankings somewhat pointless and would rather see a grouping based on player type (So, say, these players project to be Top Pairing etc). Upside isn't just offensive point totals. Brodin may score 20 less points, but he may also exceptional defensively, something which is harder to rank statistical. That Defensive contribution can be far far more important than those extra points.

 

[Bjorn Le]

And I get attacked for speculation...

Rumours are rumours, you hear something every year and from that bottom quote you can't tell where they have him listed. Getting one of their two guys could mean they were targeting two guys at that pick and they got them. When teams rank guys, they're have guys they're targeting and guys their ranking, because the majority of guys they rank they will not get. It's likely Minnesota had Brodin between 6-8.

Nope. You're 100% wrong, and provably so. There's no point in arguing it with you though because your only response ever is "you're twisting my words" or some other vain attempt at yet another strawman.

There's no point posting if you're just going to scream "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong?" without putting any effort in reason behind it. And your reason for not giving a reason is laughibly bad.

Exactly.

I'd also like to challenge what upside means? It seems people assume upside means point projection, and thus rank accordingly. Of course, i find rankings somewhat pointless and would rather see a grouping based on player type (So, say, these players project to be Top Pairing etc). Upside isn't just offensive point totals. Brodin may score 20 less points, but he may also exceptional defensively, something which is harder to rank statistical. That Defensive contribution can be far far more important than those extra points.

Name an elite defensemen who regulalry puts up negligible offensive numbers. I suspect you'll have difficulty.

 

[WolfgangAmadeusEller*]

no love for beaulieu in this thread

This.

 

[Dosing]

Not gonna debate with any of the self-anointed experts about brodins draft status, imo he got the biggest star potential of all young swedish D right behind OEL, and he could very well become better then larsson, guy is simply amazing.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Oleksiak has become pretty overrated around here. I took him in a fantasy pool I did last year, and I have to say he's been very dissappointing.

The guy is much more likely to be a Boris Valabik then a Myers, IMO he's going to end up being a 5-6 type guy, nothing more.

My Top 10 right now:

Larsson
Murray
Hamilton
Murphy
Morrow
Siemens
Klefbom
Brodin
Percy
Beaulieau

 

[Pay Carl]

Oleksiak has become pretty overrated around here. I took him in a fantasy pool I did last year, and I have to say he's been very dissappointing.

The guy is much more likely to be a Boris Valabik then a Myers, IMO he's going to end up being a 5-6 type guy, nothing more.

My Top 10 right now:

Larsson
Murray
Murphy
Morrow
Siemens
Klefbom
Brodin
Percy
Beaulieau
Sproul

You forgot the OHL defenseman of the year LMAO

 

[Bjorn Le]

Oleksiak has become pretty overrated around here. I took him in a fantasy pool I did last year, and I have to say he's been very dissappointing.

The guy is much more likely to be a Boris Valabik then a Myers, IMO he's going to end up being a 5-6 type guy, nothing more.

My Top 10 right now:

Larsson
Murray
Murphy
Morrow
Siemens
Klefbom
Brodin
Percy
Beaulieau
Sproul

Yeah here in Dallas we're super disappointed in Oleksiak we expected him to make our team last year and contribute 30-40 points in his rookie year. Safe to say he didn't achieve these unlofty goals

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Who the hell cares where a guy was picked? it's irrelevant to how good someone is

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

It's not flawed, every arguement against it is attempting to use semantics against it and not actually any arguement. You take one thing I say and twist it so you can argue against it. That's what's flawed.

Of course it's flawed. Your using the reasoning that because Murphy was ranked Top 5 at some point months before the draft by independant agencies, it somehow confirms that he has more upside than Brodin. That alone, just doesn't work. Why did he fall? What did Brodin rise? Why did Brodin go higher?

You cannot simply use a draft ranking to prove a point when you categorically ignore the draft results.

Before you say we are twisting your words. We are not. You have questioned Brodin's "elite upside" based on his draft position. Well the player you think has higher upside, was drafted below. I don't see how you don't see the utter ridiculous of this.

You can say anything is speculation. You could say every team had Ryan Nugent-Hopkins as number one on their draft board, it's very likely, but it's still speculation. I can say it's very likely no team had Brodin top five and only a handful had him top 10. I could care less it's speculation, using what information we have avaiable to us, it's very likely. All the reports on Brodin were he's a safe pick, will be an NHL'er.

I haven't speculated anything. So the above is irrelevant. Your speculation is basically your own opinion. Your opinion cannot be construed as reputable, given you do not know where NHL teams had him ranked, given you are assuming draft position somehow definitively predicts potential.

You're acting like we don't know a single thing about the players drafted last year, that they're a mystery to all but the NHL teams and we can't say anything about them because we're not NHL teams. That's simply silly.

I haven't discussed any players or their abilities. I have responded to something which i see as fundamentally flawed. You used a false, contradicted measurement of potential.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about with regards to the third thing you said. You seem to be thinking I'm reffering to some magic speculatory ranking to determine potential and I'm wondering where the in the world you pulled that from.

Do you not read and understand what you write? Only explanation for the above.

I'm not using draft rankings for anything. This is where reading would a beneficial thing. I said if Brodin had "very elite potential" he would have been more highly regarded during the time surrounding the draft and he would have gotten consideration to be taken higher than he did. Brodin during that time, by most sources was considered a safe pick without the same potential guys like Larsson, Hamilton, and Murphy had. That's not speculation, that's well known. Brodin hasn't suddenly gone from being a safe pick to being some guy who's Lidstrom-in-waiting.

During the time surrounding the draft? What does this mean? Nothing. The only thing to look at our draft results. What you percieve to be hype, or the things you heard months before are not that relevant.

If Bordin had elite potential he'd have gone higher, or atleast recieved consideration for such? Well firstly, you don't know whether he recieved consideration, given you don't access to such knowledge. Consideration is impossible to measure given we'd need to talk to NHL teams about their rankings.

Secondly, i'd suggest going 10th overall, he must be pretty highly regarded. He didn't go 100th .... he's a high 1st round pick. Anyway, Murphy went after, yet he has potential?

BUT IF MURPHY HAD ELITE POTENTIAL HE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE HIGHLY REGARDED AND HE WOULD HAVE GOT CONSIDERATION.

.... See. See how the above is absolutely ridiculous.

It's been a 10 months since Brodin was drafted. He hasn't developed to a significant level that he's gone from safe pick, 25-30 point defensemen with strong defense to an very elite potential defensemen.

Developed to a significant level based on whose opinion? Brodin had an excellent season and looks to be a sure fire impact NHL defender.

Upside isn't merely offensive, and there are various ways to bring a big and important contribution to a team. Of course it isn't statistical measurable, so it becomes sexier to simple side with offensive totals.

And how many times do I have to say I wasn't talking about draft rankings, I was talking about how Brodin was percieved around draft time. No one percieved Brodin to have elite potential then, and beside one poster in this thread I haven't seen anyone else say that now. Maybe in 3-4 years you can make a different judgement, but what was said about him during and leaeding up to the 2011 draft still holds weight now, and nobody then, or now has said he had elite potential, and if he did, he would have been thought of more than just a safe pick.

Percieved by who? You base your opinions on draft rankings and media hype, given how else would you form an opinion of Brodin?

I percieve Brodin to have elite NHL upside. I think he can become a world class defender. I don't think he'll be producing 50-60 point seasons regularly, but then such totals aren't required to be an elite NHL defenseman.

The problem you seem to have is you think projections and views on prospects remain stationary. Unfortunately, they do not.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Yeah here in Dallas we're super disappointed in Oleksiak we expected him to make our team last year and contribute 30-40 points in his rookie year. Safe to say he didn't achieve these unlofty goals

I didnt say that what I excpected him to do..... My fantasy pool has been going on for 3 years now, every year we draft 3 rookies, and those 3 rookies can be inserted into the lineup any year you choose, so long as there still on there rookie contract.

I used one of my picks on him because I excpeceted that in 2-3 years, he might have been able to do that. At this point im quite confident that he wont come anywere near those numbers.

He didnt impress me at the Juniors, and hasnt impressed me since. I dont think he's going to amount to anything anymore. I once had alot of confidence in him and was dissapointed when the Avs didnt take him. Now I am very happy they didnt.

 

[judge301]

I'm surprised so many people still have Brodin ahead of Klefbom. The was a thread here several days ago in which Klefbom and Brodin's coach had stated Klefbom had surpassed Brodin as a dman. I'm not stating this as a known fact. Merely an observation in which I'm surprised Klefbom isn't getting more love. I think Brodin is great so please no attacks.