Puckz said:
Hey Vladdy, all due respect but I had a couple questions for you... You first say that Phaneuf's progress is "very satisfying" and that his style of play is "intimidating" but then you go on to say his comparison to Scott Stevens is far-fetched and that he is simply not as good as Stevens.
My first question is what makes Stevens so good? Isn't it that he is intimidating?
It's a combination of being intimidating, a terrificly skilled player, a superb athlete and over the top leadership/desire. Being intimidating in this league gives you Scott Parker or Peter Worrell
Puckz said:
Phaneuf and Stevens are fairly close to the same size, give Phaneuf an inch or two. Stevens obvious is more solid, it's what I call old man strength, but give Phaneuf time and do you still consider the comparisons to be far fetched?
That will depend on the overall development curve, I guess. I know Phaneuf has a LOT of guts. He is agressive not only with his physical play but his overall game. He asserts himself. And we definitly know he CAN hit hard as hell.
But I don't see the overall hockey sense needed to reach Stevens level. I don't see as much natural athletism and I don't see the same puckhandling abilities in the defensive and neutral zone.
Once Phaneuf is in the offense zone, the guy is MONEY. But to get there, he doesn't impress me (which is why I think Barker will be a safer bet to rack a couple more points, as an aside) all that much.
Puckz said:
In Stevens last junior season, with Kitchener in the OHL (his only full season) Stevens recorded 6 goals and 42 points in 68 games... 158 PIMs, must like Phaneuf.
Basically what I am arguing is that Phaneuf and Stevens are very alike. While Phaneuf may never put up 78 points in a season like Stevens did it will more or less be because of the reduced scoring in the game. In comparison I feel that Phaneuf could put up 50 points or so, contributing both offensively and defensively as well as being a leader... He intimidates and he punishes, just ask Olesz, what more was Stevens at 19 than Phaneuf is not?
Can't say, unfortunately. I must have started watching Stevens when he was maybe 22 and I was far from knowing what I know today so assessments were slightly different. I do think the closest match I have seen to Stevens recently is Brad Stuart. I think he was an unbelievable prospect and I remember being much higher on him than Phaneuf. I don't think he'll ever reach that "Stevens level" of domination.
One thing is for sure, it gets very difficult to compare eras. You're right, scoring has changed, the game has changed. There is less room for fancy plays, etc.
With defensemen, it is harder than forwards. (and goalies, harder than defensemen). It's tough to know how they'll turn out. Some of the top guys end up not doing as much as you expect and there are quiet risers all the time.
I think Phaneuf is in a FANTASTIC environment. It's one of the best development farm in Canada. And you can be sure Brent Sutter won't say it but he's probably pushing even more because his brother is there waiting for this gem. It's great for Phaneuf, but it does have some problems.
I have seen too often Red Deer players being hyped for what they simply can't do. Simply put, the program is SO GOOD that it sometimes makes players look better than what they are. I remember that year Red Deer went to the Memorial Cup against Val D'Or. And everybody was RAVING about their blueline. And it's true, they were very well-trained, doing the right things, big mobile guys. But I saw they weren't as good as advertised. Many went on to be relatively high picks.
I think Phaneuf is much better than most. He is awesome and along with Parise my favorite player in the draft. I love the kid. But unless his development is just unbelievable, I don't think he'll be the next Scott Stevens. Not a chance if I judge him by other young players I have seen (Brewer, Woywitka, Stuart, Pitkanen, Jay-Bo, etc.)
I wish I could compare him directly with young Stevens. Few of us will be able to unless they are old
But knowing what Stuart can be like in the NHL, I can do a ballpark assessment of Phaneuf and don't think he'll reach a Stevens level.
So short answer:
-Stevens > Stuart > Phaneuf
-Stevens better hockey sense than Phaneuf
-Younger Stevens better at rushing the puck in defensive and neutral zone
-Phaneuf surprisingly good once in offense zone. Will probably keep on racking goals and may get some assists also just by shooting hard and teammates getting rebounds
-Phaneuf does not look to me like a better athlete but as you said, age will factor in and may improve (as an aside, Stevens preparation for hockey season is unbelievable, just ask Jason Arnott)
-Phaneuf's mental strength seems impressive. But knowing Stevens is one of the very best of his ERA, we know Phaneuf has a huge mountain to climb to get there
-Development will be key but we know by watching other talents over the years, like Klesla, that it takes enormous talent/development to reach elite level. And Stevens is a top 10 D in his time. He is a legend who has been able to dominate, change his game and still dominate.
Apologies if I took a while to answer. I just thought you raised several good points and were so polite and nice that you deserved a full answer so waited for some quiet time to reply
. I think, and this hurts to say, I'd go with Barker, severely underrated IMO.
