Sorry I haven't popped in the thread yet to get in on the discussion.
First off:
Gibson/Theodore debate.
Very difficult. Personally, goaltending is very very difficult to project. It is a position that has to clear the highest hurdles, do the most work to adjust, and overall it takes the longest. Outstanding minor league goalies and outstanding collegiate and junior goalies sometimes just do not quite get to the highest of ceilings. Gibson is probably going to be a very good No. 1. I know a lot of scouts were saying the guy was basically the next jesus in goalie pads, but that was before he faced the next level. We are going to see this with a lot of high rated goalies. Hell, Marc-Andre Fleury was taken NO. 1. OVERALL, and he has turned into a fairly average to above average NHL No. 1. Inexact science at its best, and goalies are a beast to project.
Lundqvist's unorthodox style saw him fall to the 7th round of 2000, while Jonathan Bernier's outstanding positioning and fundamentals landed him in the first round. You just never know with some of these guys.
Theodore is a safer bet, and one heck of a player. He for sure will be an impactful NHL player in my eyes. Gibson is getting there. By midterm Gibson may very well solidify himself in the NHL and overtake No. 1.
The rankings discussion....yea...I feel you guys. We are in the process of potentially redefining our definitions of the rankings and the examples we use. An 8.0 is essentially a guy like Jonathan Quick, Jaro Halak, Steve Mason, Corey Crawford, Braden Holtby etc. etc. Pretty much a good solid NHL starter. In the range of 5-15 in the league. We ARE however looking into redefining our definitions and outdated examples.
It's also not really true. While there are defensemen who bloom late, the average(in number, not ability) defenseman takes a predictable path. If it were that volatile, you'd see defensemen treated more like goaltenders in drafts. Their development isn't nearly that uncertain. It's just a bit harder to predict than forwards. Personally, I think some of that is physical development, but some of it is the structure, system play, and, especially, intelligence needed at the NHL level. Kind of just my feeling though.
Outstanding post.
Defenseman are a bit more of a project because they have to develop reads to the game that are way more comprehensive and risk-ladened. Speed has a lot to do with that, so as players develop in the minors they get more and more exposed to thinking the game and assessing those risks at the next level. That is why it is so rare that a player like Doughty or Karlsson steps in right away and excels. Also, the league takes note of players like that and adapts to them. Look at Myers and Bogosian for example. Look really strong to start off entering the league so young, and then tapered off significantly. Defensemen are exposed to so many more things compared to forwards. Sojourn is spot on, some of it is personal and physical development, other parts are system and structure stuff.
With that being said, perhaps Fowler was hurt by being introduced early by the Ducks, but overall he is turning into a good defenseman in his own right. Maybe not top 2, but you do not need a team full of top 2 defenseman. Slotting in at 3-6 is absolutely fine. Drafting is very difficult, and if you ask any NHL GM if he would take a solid 100% for certain No. 4 defenseman in the first round he'd say absolutely.
