The All-Purpose 6th Overall Discussion Thread PT VIII

[The Stig]

Continue from here.

And keep the Armchair GM stuff in the Armchair GM thread please

Click to read more...

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Monahan is going to be a star and you know it, Lindholm is going to be a top 2-3 D. You're being silly by looking back at who went 6th overall in past drafts. Why should we even bother picking then by your logic? We're basically drawing straws to try and find a decent player?

If and when Monahan becomes a star player, then you can certainly add him to the list. Even if you do want to add him, the odds are still vastly in favour of the #1 pick.

We aren't drawing straws. But it's ridiculous to assume that every player we draft will end up a fantastic value pick, historically, especially since our scouts' draft record is far from stellar.

You could make the exact same argument you're making now in every single one of the prior drafts, but that didn't stop teams every year from failing to get a star player at 6 or a ROR level player at 9. What makes you think that we'll do any better this year? Sure we want to hope for the best, but you shouldn't evaluate your assets based on best case scenario. Best case scenario we could get a Pavel Datsyuk in the 7th round, that doesn't mean we should expect to draft a Datsyuk and refuse to trade a 7th round pick for a decent 3rd liner.

 

[opendoor]

If and when Monahan becomes a star player, then you can certainly add him to the list. Even if you do want to add him, the odds are still vastly in favour of the #1 pick.

We aren't drawing straws. But it's ridiculous to assume that every player we draft will end up a fantastic value pick, historically, especially since our scouts' draft record is far from stellar.

You could make the exact same argument you're making now in every single one of the prior drafts, but that didn't stop teams every year from failing to get a star player at 6 or a ROR level player at 9. What makes you think that we'll do any better this year? Sure we want to hope for the best, but you shouldn't evaluate your assets based on best case scenario. Best case scenario we could get a Pavel Datsyuk in the 7th round, that doesn't mean we should expect to draft a Datsyuk and refuse to trade a 7th round pick for a decent 3rd liner.

What if Reinhart doesn't go #1? What if he drops to #3 or #4? Do his prospects for success become a lot more dim? Because that's essentially the line of reasoning you're using. If he slips from #1 to #3 for instance, his comparables go from Crosby, Stamkos, Ovechkin, etc. to ones that include guys like Barker, Gudbranson, Turris, Johnson, Horton, etc. Does that make him a worse player?

I can't be the only one that finds it odd that people are using draft position to predict Reinhart's future when we're nearly a month before the draft and when there isn't really a consensus #1. It'd be like using Crosby as a basis for predicting Seth Jones' future around this time last year.

 

[Verviticus]

that uncertainty is necessarily included in the projection. that's how probability works

 

[Love]

thefeebster:

Let's be serious here. He isn't under-rated by anyone. 90% of HFCanucks chose him as 1st on their draft boards.

Craig Button has him first.
ISS has him first.
McKeens has him first.
Bobby Mac has him as the 1st forward.

Where is "nobody" taking him seriously as 1st overall?

First off, I dont care what HF Canucks fans say. Canucks fans on HF have an unhealthy obsession with local boys.

The reason Im saying he isnt being taken seriously is the countless times I've heard people saying things like, "There is no true #1 this year." Then people claim he hasnt been as impressive offensively as past #1's in their draft years, only to realize he has been just as impressive as most or more.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

What if Reinhart doesn't go #1? What if he drops to #3 or #4? Do his prospects for success become a lot more dim? Because that's essentially the line of reasoning you're using. If he slips from #1 to #3 for instance, his comparables go from Crosby, Stamkos, Ovechkin, etc. to ones that include guys like Barker, Gudbranson, Turris, Johnson, Horton, etc. Does that make him a worse player?

I can't be the only one that finds it odd that people are using draft position to predict Reinhart's future when we're nearly a month before the draft and when there isn't really a consensus #1. It'd be like using Crosby as a basis for predicting Seth Jones' future around this time last year.

Reinhart is hands down the best player of the draft for me except for maybe Ekblad. If he falls then I'd liken it to Eric Staal being picked 2nd because Pittsburgh wanted a goalie(no offense to Ekblad, who I think is still a top-notch prospect). I mean, if you think Reinhart only deserves to go 4th then more power to you, and I wish you a job as a scout for any non-Vancouver based team in the league.

But given that Reinhart is listed at either 1st or 2nd on virtually every single scouting agency, I think it's more than fair to treat him as such if we take him at 1st overall, same as Mackinnon despite having been in a race with Jones, or Tavares despite swapping places with Hedman pre-draft, or Stamkos with Doughty. If Hedman or Doughty had been taken #1 instead that wouldn't have affected my opinion of Tavares/Stamkos as the best player.

And while I'm not projecting Reinhart to be as good as Tavares or Stamkos, I do think there is still a huge gap between #1 and #6 this draft.

For me, the absolute top tier consists of solely Reinhart and Ekblad. Last year it was Mackinnon, Jones, Drouin, and maybe Barkov.

In 2006 it was Johnson, Staal, Toews, Kessel, and Backstrom. But just because all those players were of a similar calibre doesn't mean that the guy taken 6th(Brassard) is anywhere close in value to them.

If we had the 2nd or even 3rd pick, yeah, I wouldn't trade up. But at 6th? Absolutely.

 

[LiquidSnake]

To me, Reinhart is not the best player in a draft where there clearly is not a franchise player. That's why a guy like Reinhart isn't being hyped to no end like other top end players in previous drafts (Tavares, Stamkos). I'd say McDavid would go first this year over him if he was draft eligible.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

To me, Reinhart is not the best player in a draft where there clearly is not a franchise player. That's why a guy like Reinhart isn't being hyped to no end like other top end players in previous drafts (Tavares, Stamkos). I'd say McDavid would go first this year over him if he was draft eligible.

Crosby would go first over Taylor Hall or Rick Nash, but that doesn't mean either of them aren't legitimate top line players.

I think the biggest issue is it's not that I'm projecting Reinhart to be a generational talent.

It's that I don't have faith in Horvat and the 6th overall combined providing more value than a 17-year old virtually guaranteed to be a top line player.

 

[thefeebster]

Well I'd agree Reinhart at 17 isn't as "resilient" as the Sedins or Thornton in their primes in terms of puck possession along the boards. But I do expect it to improve as he matures and grows stronger like anyone else. Neither the Sedins nor Thornton were elite possession players their first season in the NHL, and I'm sure they had their share of being pushed around as well.

I think that "softness" and a lack of "resiliency" are fairly similar, unless you are referring to a lack of a mean streak/excessive physicality. I don't want to see Reinhart lay out big hits, I want to see him do what he does best. As I said above, his possession game and pushback strength will get better with time.

I don't care about emotion in battles, I care about winning them. And please don't debate semantics, exaggerate and over-exaggerate are pretty much synonymous in terms of what I was trying to convey.

All mention his puck possession, ability to battle, being good on the wall, stripping players of the puck, etc. So yes, I do think you are exaggerating.

Again, I wasn't trying to draw an exact comparison from the Gaunce quote, which is why it was paraphrased when I was originally trying to recall it. All I was trying to convey was that more intense is not always better.

There are "intense" players that I like, such as Ehlers. And there are "non-intense" players that I also like, such as Mantha. Playing a high-energy game is more about playstyle than it is a positive/negative factor towards a player's effectiveness.

When I say resilient, I am comparing their in their respective leagues and relative to their peers. Thornton/Sedins resilient in the NHL, Reinhart not as much at the CHL level, IMO. Maybe that improves like you expect with seasoning and strength, maybe it doesn't.

Softness is not the same as lack of resiliency. I am talking about a slight avoidance of contact, not brute force or physical play like hitting. Where did I say I want Reinhart or top players making huge hits? That's not what I'm talking about here. What I do like to see is a high battle level. He relies a lot on stick plays to win his board battles, lifting sticks or poking at the puck from outside a scrum like that lone rugby player outside of the scrum. And he is quite good at that. But he needs someone else in there to do the heavily lifting, to gain the body position against larger, stronger guys.

I'm talking about intensity/emotion in a board battle. There is not enough fight in him, sometimes. If he doesn't gain possession of the puck by poking at it in a scrum or lifting someone's stick he does not win those battles on a frequent basis, IMO. It is quite a hyperbole to say I am over-exaggerating. I'm simply pointing out issues I've seen in my viewings rather than regurgitating scouting reports. Reinhart is not a flawless player, nor is he the standout best player in this draft. If simply pointing out an issue I see (Didn't even use terms like AINEC or any other hyperbole) is called exaggerating, then maybe its better to not even bring it up.

 

[Labamba]

Reinhart is hands down the best player of the draft.....

If we had the 2nd or even 3rd pick, yeah, I wouldn't trade up. But at 6th? Absolutely.

I hold a lot of value in the fact that he is from Vancouver.

This is a rare opportunity that will forever be linked to GMJB win or lose.

How many chances does a franchise have to draft their hometown boy at 1st overall?

 

[thefeebster]

First off, I dont care what HF Canucks fans say. Canucks fans on HF have an unhealthy obsession with local boys.

The reason Im saying he isnt being taken seriously is the countless times I've heard people saying things like, "There is no true #1 this year." Then people claim he hasnt been as impressive offensively as past #1's in their draft years, only to realize he has been just as impressive as most or more.

You said "nobody is taking him very seriously as a potential 1st overall selection". That means not one single person or publication. Fine you don't care about HFcanuck posters, throw their opinions out. How about the numerous reputable scouting agencies that do have him number one in their rankings?

That original statement simply does not equate "I'm surprised he isn't the consensus number 1 pick". There is no true number one because each of these top guys have flaws and question marks on their game, even Reinhart, and there is relatively little separating their talent level and potential.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

When I say resilient, I am comparing their in their respective leagues and relative to their peers. Thornton/Sedins resilient in the NHL, Reinhart not as much at the CHL level, IMO. Maybe that improves like you expect with seasoning and strength, maybe it doesn't.

Softness is not the same as lack of resiliency. I am talking about a slight avoidance of contact, not brute force or physical play like hitting. Where did I say I want Reinhart or top players making huge hits? That's not what I'm talking about here. What I do like to see is a high battle level. He relies a lot on stick plays to win his board battles, lifting sticks or poking at the puck from outside a scrum like that lone rugby player outside of the scrum. And he is quite good at that. But he needs someone else in there to do the heavily lifting, to gain the body position against larger, stronger guys.

I'm talking about intensity/emotion in a board battle. There is not enough fight in him, sometimes. If he doesn't gain possession of the puck by poking at it in a scrum or lifting someone's stick he does not win those battles on a frequent basis, IMO. It is quite a hyperbole to say I am over-exaggerating. I'm simply pointing out issues I've seen in my viewings rather than regurgitating scouting reports. Reinhart is not a flawless player, nor is he the standout best player in this draft. If simply pointing out an issue I see (Didn't even use terms like AINEC or any other hyperbole) is called exaggerating, then maybe its better to not even bring it up.

That's fair enough, and I think at this point it's simply an agree to disagree as to whether his boardwork and puck battles is really that big an issue. As I posted in the other thread, all those scouting reports mentions things like "battles hard", "showing some grit," "show ability to protect the puck on the cycle and is willing to play in the dirty areas" "constantly strips the puck off of players in the offensive zone" etc.

So I don't feel too outlandish in presuming that it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

 

[just22]

He's not even a Canucks fan so I don't see why being a hometown boy matters.

 

[Skead]

To me, Reinhart is not the best player in a draft where there clearly is not a franchise player. That's why a guy like Reinhart isn't being hyped to no end like other top end players in previous drafts (Tavares, Stamkos). I'd say McDavid would go first this year over him if he was draft eligible.

FUNNY you mention Stamkos and Tavares. He is right in between them for point scoring.

 

[Ho Borvat]

Vancouver
1st Overall (Reinhart)
24th Overall
Etem

Anaheim
Kesler

Carolina
10th Overall
36th Overall

Florida
6th Overall (Nylander)
7th Overall (Ehlers)

 

[biturbo19]

A large amount of Reinhart's domination happens away from the puck. It's probably the main reason he's been getting so little hype compared to the top prospects of the past. Shepherding defencemen to their backhand and forcing them to play pucks into lanes that allow teamates to pick off passes in the neutral zone, driving the corner when the puck is along the wall to draw defencemen to open passing lanes for teamates, using body and stick positioning to intercept passes in transition. These are all plays that don't look sexy in a highlight reel but they do win hockey games; and Reinhart does them consistently on a level that is extremely impressive. When you watch the games you see Reinhart's linemates picking off passes or threading passes through the slot, but it's actually Reinharts play that is allowing that to happen. My guess is when Reinhart makes it to the next level and people start tracking his advanced stats, he'll be one of those outliers that crushes scoring chances for vs against year after year.

Hopefully quoted this right from the previous thread.

I think you're mostly right on this. I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. One of the most remarkable things about Reinhart as a prospect is the consistency in what he does. He is "reliable" in that sense. Is very clearly a cerebral player who has a very good sense for what is going on around him. But the issue (and i'm not making this out like he's going to be a bust or it's some kiss of death for him as a player or anything, as i said, i have Reinhart/Ekblad as #2a/b basically), is that he naturally tends to use his smarts and vision in finding ways to be successful in a less engaged sort of way. As someone else quoted in the previous thread, something to the tune of, "Reinhart is an expert at making hockey a non-contact sport". His smarts and positioning allow him to play that game, and even excel playing that way. But there is still something missing there, when we're talking about a potential #1 overall pick, and a "superstar #1C" as many seem to be projecting.

It's a mentality thing, and i'm not sure how much that is really malleable over time. Draisaitl for example, despite getting reamed for "pace/tempo/intensity" concerns, is a guy who i have seen take on a "dominant" engaged mentality and really take over on the ice. That 50/50 puck in the corner...he's going to shove the opposition out of the way and take that, and never give it back, sort of attitude. He doesn't adopt that demeanor near as consistently as you'd like to see and that's an issue...but i think consistency is one of those things that can grow with time, and maturity.

The comments from Draisaitl's WHL boss were i think telling in that regard. Suggesting that part of his disappointing WJCs was in being on a team that simply wasn't competitive, and the frustration of not being able to singlehandedly drag that team with him up to the level of the "contenders". Misguided application of that attitude, but it's there...and i think learning to direct that more appropriately is part of the significant maturing process he needs to undergo. But it's not necessarily an attitude i see many flashes of with Reinhart. It's something that has been deeply evident to me with the "clear cut #1" types and even a lot of the other top picks in recent years. Different players go about it in different ways.

It's not about driving guys through a wall or skating a million miles an hour or dropping the gloves. It's not about being "afraid" or anything. I don't think that's an issue with Reinhart...he'll take a hit to make a play, he'll go to the "hard areas". It's just about the way a player "attacks the game". It's a very "eyeball test" and "gut feel" sort of thing that is really hard to quantify or put into really concrete terms (for me at least). But it's there and it's a knock that i don't think i'm the only one seeing in Reinhart.

Is he really the "Alpha Dog" you lean on as a Cup Contender? The guy who goes out there and sets the tone as a dominant #1C? I just don't see it.

Again though, that doesn't make him a bad player by any stretch. I reiterate...he's my #2/3 sort of player in this draft. It's just part of this draft being lackluster at the very top. An outstanding talent...i just think it's that sort of thing that differentiates Reinhart from these other "#1 picks" here. It's why we don't have a "consensus first overall", why the Panthers are interested in trading down, why mock drafts are all over the place. Reinhart just isn't on that same level as other top picks we've seen in recent years and are poised to see next year. Despite the impressive point totals. He's just got too many "knocks" to be a surefire slam dunk.

 

[biturbo19]

When I say resilient, I am comparing their in their respective leagues and relative to their peers. Thornton/Sedins resilient in the NHL, Reinhart not as much at the CHL level, IMO. Maybe that improves like you expect with seasoning and strength, maybe it doesn't.

Softness is not the same as lack of resiliency. I am talking about a slight avoidance of contact, not brute force or physical play like hitting. Where did I say I want Reinhart or top players making huge hits? That's not what I'm talking about here. What I do like to see is a high battle level. He relies a lot on stick plays to win his board battles, lifting sticks or poking at the puck from outside a scrum like that lone rugby player outside of the scrum. And he is quite good at that. But he needs someone else in there to do the heavily lifting, to gain the body position against larger, stronger guys.

I'm talking about intensity/emotion in a board battle. There is not enough fight in him, sometimes. If he doesn't gain possession of the puck by poking at it in a scrum or lifting someone's stick he does not win those battles on a frequent basis, IMO. It is quite a hyperbole to say I am over-exaggerating. I'm simply pointing out issues I've seen in my viewings rather than regurgitating scouting reports. Reinhart is not a flawless player, nor is he the standout best player in this draft. If simply pointing out an issue I see (Didn't even use terms like AINEC or any other hyperbole) is called exaggerating, then maybe its better to not even bring it up.

Exactly.

The Gaunce Quote to me is aimed much more at the "David Booths" of the hockey world in any event. We all know that type. Skating 110% in completely the wrong direction. Skates miles only to end up in the same spot they started. There's that type of thing, but that's not really what's at issue here with regards to Reinhart.

It's about the way Reinhart "engages" in the game at "stick length" to me.

Ironically, if Gaunce can't figure out how to ramp that sort of play up in his game, he doesn't have near the natural gifts and skillset that Reinhart has to get by playing that way. Gaunce may not be much of an NHLer if he can't get away from that "passive" and "detached" style of play he trends towards.

That's fair enough, and I think at this point it's simply an agree to disagree as to whether his boardwork and puck battles is really that big an issue. As I posted in the other thread, all those scouting reports mentions things like "battles hard", "showing some grit," "show ability to protect the puck on the cycle and is willing to play in the dirty areas" "constantly strips the puck off of players in the offensive zone" etc.

So I don't feel too outlandish in presuming that it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

I don't think anyone is making it out to be that big of an issue with Reinhart. It's just...an issue. It's not a "he's so horrendously detached from the game i wouldn't even draft him" or "he's not a top-5 pick" or anything of the sort. It's that Reinhart has issues to the extent that, 1)he's not a clear cut first overall pick, and 2)as a potential top pick, he's not on the same sort of level as other recent 1st overall picks.

 

[Icebreakers]

FUNNY you mention Stamkos and Tavares. He is right in between them for point scoring.

Damn I didnt realize Barbashev had the same PPG as Dal Colle.


But to compare Reinhart with Stamkos and Tavares numbers as an argument is pretty silly. Stamkos had 58 goals with Sarnia and had 92 points as a rookie. This was also Sams 3rd full year in the WHL.

 

[ahmon]

For those worried about reinhart's battle level or ability to play through physicality. From my viewings he is easily grittier than either sedins.

if the twins can dominate the league cycling.( and i think i was one of the first few to predict the sedins dominating with their cycle) when they were 30-40 pt guys i constantly posted how their cycling would kill teams).


I find a calm intensity in Reinhart, biturbo, he is going to be a big game player.

 

[Wilch]

When I say resilient, I am comparing their in their respective leagues and relative to their peers. Thornton/Sedins resilient in the NHL, Reinhart not as much at the CHL level, IMO. Maybe that improves like you expect with seasoning and strength, maybe it doesn't.

Softness is not the same as lack of resiliency. I am talking about a slight avoidance of contact, not brute force or physical play like hitting. Where did I say I want Reinhart or top players making huge hits? That's not what I'm talking about here. What I do like to see is a high battle level. He relies a lot on stick plays to win his board battles, lifting sticks or poking at the puck from outside a scrum like that lone rugby player outside of the scrum. And he is quite good at that. But he needs someone else in there to do the heavily lifting, to gain the body position against larger, stronger guys.

I'm talking about intensity/emotion in a board battle. There is not enough fight in him, sometimes. If he doesn't gain possession of the puck by poking at it in a scrum or lifting someone's stick he does not win those battles on a frequent basis, IMO. It is quite a hyperbole to say I am over-exaggerating. I'm simply pointing out issues I've seen in my viewings rather than regurgitating scouting reports. Reinhart is not a flawless player, nor is he the standout best player in this draft. If simply pointing out an issue I see (Didn't even use terms like AINEC or any other hyperbole) is called exaggerating, then maybe its better to not even bring it up.

Very well written.

To properly analyze players, you really have to break it down to the specifics.

Lazy people or media spoonfeeding casual fans usually put highly different skills under the same massive umbrella.

The attributes you've described above would all get cluttered into a "board battle" sub-category and then into the all-encompassing "grit" or "physicality" category.

To add on to feebs point: speaking from personal experience, players who avoid contact and prefer to use their stick are much easier to fend off. Guys with the balls to engage themselves into a puck battle that may end up catastrophically for them (i.e. taking a hard hit or colliding at full speed into the boards) are the toughest to beat in a puck chase.

Most of it being mental, the other being skating ability and general strength. For Reinhart's case, it could very well be a mental issue he needs to overcome.

And to echo what most well informed posters here have said, there is no clear cut #1 here.

 

[LiquidSnake]

Crosby would go first over Taylor Hall or Rick Nash, but that doesn't mean either of them aren't legitimate top line players.

I think the biggest issue is it's not that I'm projecting Reinhart to be a generational talent.

It's that I don't have faith in Horvat and the 6th overall combined providing more value than a 17-year old virtually guaranteed to be a top line player.

there's less guarantee in Reinhart being a top line player than even Yakupov (who I like).

 

[LiquidSnake]

FUNNY you mention Stamkos and Tavares. He is right in between them for point scoring.

Would you like to make a bet that he won't be better than either of those players? Or out score them?

 

[ahmon]

there's less guarantee in Reinhart being a top line player than even Yakupov (who I like).

Yakupov is 5'10 probaly undersize. Dosnt really share the play (bit of puckhog) and doesnt play defense.

Sam reinhart is already 6'1 so size to better translate in the nhl. Better reach, reinhart is an elite playmaker, and can play defense.

Ehlers is more like yakupov with a bit less skill/hype.

 

[LiquidSnake]

1)he's not a clear cut first overall pick, and 2)as a potential top pick, he's not on the same sort of level as other recent 1st overall picks.

Exactly. It's amazing to me that so many are using examples of other top picks as comparables.

 

[LiquidSnake]

Yakupov is 5'10 probaly undersize. Dosnt really share the play (bit of puckhog) and doesnt play defense.

Sam reinhart is already 6'1 so size to better translate in the nhl. Better reach, reinhart is an elite playmaker, and can play defense.

Ehlers is more like yakupov with a bit less skill/hype.

That's all opinion btw. And I'll disagree respectfully.

And just to add, Yakupov plays with an edge that Reinhart has rarely if ever exhibited.