Weird comparison since Theodore/Schultz are far inferior players in general. I think anyone would prefer Lindholm-Manson there
A better question is do you take them over 3 sets of Torey Krug-John Carlson. Or something like that
Ummm... we drafted Theodore, Schultz, Lindholm, and Manson. Maybe that's part of the reason why you'd think it's an odd question.
Theo-Schultz are inferior defensive d-men; they not inferior offensive D-men.
The scope here, it seems people lack the continuity, was that people would draft offensive d-men over defensive d-men b/c "it's easier for young d-man to improve on the defensive end than offensive end."
With that AngelDucks' quote, it's disproving the OP thesis and proving mine.
Now, being a Ducks fan, we should know that our defense is usually a pairing of a stay-at-home defenseman with an offensive d-man. That usually works best in games. Then when it comes time to shut down in latter parts of the team to secure a lead, we know it's going to be two defensive d-men together. Hence, Lindholm-Manson.
The Ducks don't draft one or the other. It's whoever falls into their lap in their scouting ranks. We all know Theo has flaws, but he's very good at offense and we can pair him up with a defensive guy. But you have a defensive guy. The Ducks have been fortunate to have drafted Fowler, Lindholm, Manson, and Larsson as defensive guys. The team has drafted Vatanen, Theodore, Welinski, Montour, and Mahura as offensive guys. I don't see Fowler as an offensive machine, just a d-man who skates fast. Montour surpasses Fowler.
Right now, the team needs a Mahura to give the team a spark. To me, Mahura gambles too much offensively and his defense is meh. I still think Welinski is the more defensive-minded offensive guy. Welinski doesn't have what Mahura has right now... confidence. Welinski has confidence in the AHL (already an all-star from last year), but hasn't made that confidence jump at the NHL level yet.