D Ryan Merkley - Peterborough Petes, OHL (2018, 21st, SJS)

[shello]

Turn him forward

 

[Lion Hound]

I think he goes 17-25 first round

 

[BigFatCat999]

From what I'm reading, he may be the most toxic prospect? True?

 

[sammystl5]

From what I'm reading, he may be the most toxic prospect? True?

I posted a piece I wrote on the last page on some of the character issues that have been linked to him.

 

[BigFatCat999]

I posted a piece I wrote on the last page on some of the character issues that have been linked to him.

Just curious. Top 10 talent 7th round brain?

 

[sammystl5]

Just curious. Top 10 talent 7th round brain?

Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitating

 

[BigFatCat999]

Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitating

That scares me more than immaturity.

 

[93LEAFS]

Hockey I.Q. wise he is very smart. It is a lack of effort on the defensive end and some character flaws that have people hesitating

He has good vision. I honestly question his hockey sense due to how often he makes boneheaded plays trying to do something fancy. So, the issue is trying to separate his ability to assess risk while on the ice, from his general apathy towards team play.

 

[Fantomas]

I hope he turns into Paul Coffey. Would be hilarious.

 

[HC7]

He has good vision. I honestly question his hockey sense due to how often he makes boneheaded plays trying to do something fancy. So, the issue is trying to separate his ability to assess risk while on the ice, from his general apathy towards team play.

There are 0 issues with his hockey IQ on the offensive end, if you question that you're honestly clueless. The amount of chances he creates is absolutely insane.

 

[93LEAFS]

There are 0 issues with his hockey IQ on the offensive end, if you question that you're honestly clueless. The amount of chances he creates is absolutely insane.

He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.

His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.

 

[LeafChief]

There are 0 issues with his hockey IQ on the offensive end, if you question that you're honestly clueless. The amount of chances he creates is absolutely insane.

You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.

I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.

 

[HC7]

He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.

His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.

You wont see me arguing with you about how pitiful his defensive, and neutral game is without the puck.

With that said I'd take some of the risks he takes in the offensive zone because more times than not he's making plays that puts the puck on his teammates stick in the slot, or back door with nobody on them. He's able to casually play keep away with the puck which draws so much attention that eventually defenders will make a mistake and he capitalizes on that. It sounds so simple, but it's very effective. Marner does the same thing. You'll notice that he's able to wait the extra second and just use space to be able to keep the puck and so much opens because of it.

 

[93LEAFS]

You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.

I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.

I haven't seen him play live 25 times. I watch a bunch of OHL.

I can see the dispute if you are thinking I'm saying he lacks vision. But, the kids risk assessment is off when it comes to things to try. Which I do think is an important part of Hockey IQ. Now, how much of that is caused by his apathy towards defensive play is another question.

 

[HC7]

You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.

I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.

Brian Burke was an NHL GM, what's your point?

 

[93LEAFS]

You wont see me arguing with you about how pitiful his defensive, and neutral game is without the puck. With that said I'd take some of the risks he takes in the offensive zone because more times than not he's making plays that puts the puck on his teammates stick in the slot, or back door with nobody on them. He's able to casually play keep away with the puck which draws so much attention that eventually defenders will make a mistake and he capitalizes on that. It sounds so simple, but it's very effective. Marner does the same thing. You'll notice that he's able to wait the extra second and just use space to be able to keep the puck and so much opens because of it.

Marner does that stuff, but he was never a massive detriment to his team and has a very high success rate. Merkley's issues show up with his offensive game. He'll try high-end moves when his team has an empty net, he's rushing the puck, and just directly turns it over and gives up. That isn't something that is an isolated incident in his game. When you do stuff like that, it makes me wonder what someones ability to assess risk on the ice is. In regards to his vision, I have no issues and he opens up stuff with his edge-work. But, he also does a lot of very stupid things when he's rushing up ice as the last man back.

 

[LeafChief]

Brian Burke was an NHL GM, what's your point?

Great post.

 

[ijuka]

You're arguing with someone that has watched him play live upwards of 25 times and heavily scouts the OHL.

I respect your opinion but understand that you're talking to someone that knows what they're talking about.

With such players, it's always difficult to figure out the real reasons behind their decision making. Is it actually because he doesn't know any better? Or perhaps he just wants to attempt stuff that might or might not work, but when playing in a serious environment and when he decides that he needs to make smart plays, he's able to flip a switch and indeed just make those smart plays. It's something that's very difficult to know for sure. Personally, I'm not a fan of Merkley's play but if it turns out that he's able to actually play smart when he decides to... It's not a huge surprise. It's the challenge with evaluating such players.

 

[kabidjan18]

Defensemen have and should have a shorter leash taking offensive risks because you are the last line of defense preventing a 2v1.

 

[HC7]

This mans prob reading it lol

 

[biotk]

I suspect he easily goes mid to late first round. The pick will either look terrible or genius 6 or 7 years down the line.

 

[DFAC]

Anthony DeAngelo 2.0

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.

His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.

This entire assessment sounds a lot like Brent Burns. Although I think Burns gets by more on sheer athleticism and natural gifts, rather than the vision and offensive IQ that allows Merkley to excel.

I really hope San Jose picks him at #21.

 

[NotProkofievian]

He has very limited risk assessment. He tries fancy stuff that fails all the time and then magnifies it by not tracking back. His reads at trying to deny zone entries on the defensive ends is pitfull. Yes, when his stuff works it looks unreal, but there are so many failed attempts that you have to question his risk assessment abilities, which is an important aspect of hockey-Iq as you move up levels.

His vision is absolutely unreal, I'll agree on that, but his inability to find a balance between what works and doesn't, is worrying. As the windows to do that stuff only gets smaller as you move up levels.

I agree on the hockey IQ assessment. I'm actually not sure how good his vision could be said to be, though, while ''risk assessment'' remains such a glaring issue for him. Like, if he can't see that the risky pass through two players out of his own zone is stupid, is his vision super great? Did he not see that the pass was dangerous, or too stupid to realize it? You can't really tell, both conditions look the same from the outside. I think he's just constantly looking for anything that looks like a passing lane. To me, that's not indicative of great ''vision,'' that's just ''looking around.'' Discerning quality opportunities from speculative ones is, to me, a big part of ''vision.'' Otherwise it's just throwing shit at the wall until something sticks.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

While I get staying away from them, the under any circumstances part is moronic. Like, really, he's available in the 4th round and you don't take him because he comes off as a *****ebag?

Look, I get teams scare away from "me-first" players with Egos, especially at his age, but unless there is some truly revolting stuff that hasn't come to light yet, if you have a chance to draft this guy past the second round (I'd argue even top 35 picks), you do it. If he's a bad influence on the other prospects, kick him to the curb, but at least roll the dice.

Also, if you're that worried of him poisoning other young player's attitudes, if the other prospects were that easily influenced, they probably weren't going to find much success anyways.

No doubt I'd take him if he was availible in the 4th.

Sometimes the attitude stuff works out in the end; Laine threatened to kill his coach at 16-17 and had a huge ego