We sure Changed "D" Prospect situation around quick
- Thread starter Llewzaher
- Start date
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
I honestly think we've got a pretty good top six NHL D group also. On paper. On the ice they are an absolute train-wreck. Just awful. I think it's coaching.
kihekah19*
Registered User
moosemeister
5,000 strong
Coaching?
Really?
Yes really.
Since Playfair took over our defense has not improved at all. He had one good year when he inherited an already top rated defense. Since then the defensive skill has gone down.
While I'm not going to blame this entirely on the coaching staff, it comes as no surprise that the defense just doesn't seem to get better with the same defensive coach helming that duty.
moosemeister
5,000 strong
_Del_
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2003
- 15,426
- 6,738
It's not coaching. It's just a four year cold streak. Or the players aren't executing or something.
kihekah19*
Registered User
You may be on to something (the blue part earlier), the offensive zone time and time of possession are terrible.
Of course we're quite troubled in our own end as well.
It's a shame because I don't want to move any prospects, until,they prove to be a problem and our coach has been locked up, on what appears to be a financially strapped ownership that can't afford the gamble of him getting signed elsewhere.
My my..... what will we do?
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
It's not just the defense.
Here were some of our "top" prospects at conclusion of the 2012-13 season:
Domi
Gormley
Rundblad
Samuelsson
Dauphin
Murphy
Lessio
Brown
Visentin
LaPlante
We added Szwarz, Miele, Shinnimin, and Rieder over time. Our defense was barren. 3 of top 10 prospects as D is fine, but Murphy was played before he was ready b/c Gormley and Rundblad were bad. Yes, RHS and all for Murphy, but if it was necessary to go left and left on a D pairing, you can do that.
Domi is fine. Dauphin and Samuelsson haven't been proven yet. So by my count from 5 years ago, two of our top 10 in the NHL, with one additional getting some burn. That's not a good success rate. Now, we go about 7 or 8 deep before we even get to Samuelsson or maybe even Dauphin, for that matter.
I actually tend to think that was the first area that Arizona wanted to clean up. Remember that Chayka had to present his services to NHL teams with Stathletes, so he probably saw the different devotion of franchises to: scouting, video review, drafting, and how it flowed from top down.
Pretty sure this was a much needed upgrade and part of the reason that ownership got him in the associate role while starting to expand scouting, etc.
Here were some of our "top" prospects at conclusion of the 2012-13 season:
Domi
Gormley
Rundblad
Samuelsson
Dauphin
Murphy
Lessio
Brown
Visentin
LaPlante
We added Szwarz, Miele, Shinnimin, and Rieder over time. Our defense was barren. 3 of top 10 prospects as D is fine, but Murphy was played before he was ready b/c Gormley and Rundblad were bad. Yes, RHS and all for Murphy, but if it was necessary to go left and left on a D pairing, you can do that.
Domi is fine. Dauphin and Samuelsson haven't been proven yet. So by my count from 5 years ago, two of our top 10 in the NHL, with one additional getting some burn. That's not a good success rate. Now, we go about 7 or 8 deep before we even get to Samuelsson or maybe even Dauphin, for that matter.
I actually tend to think that was the first area that Arizona wanted to clean up. Remember that Chayka had to present his services to NHL teams with Stathletes, so he probably saw the different devotion of franchises to: scouting, video review, drafting, and how it flowed from top down.
Pretty sure this was a much needed upgrade and part of the reason that ownership got him in the associate role while starting to expand scouting, etc.
_Del_
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2003
- 15,426
- 6,738
Yep. Same exact seven D the whole time too.
It's too bad the EVP of Hockey Ops/Head Coach/de facto GM wasn't able to evaluate our blueline and bring in players who can execute and managed to gut our center depth at the same time. Given that this collection of nonexecuting players is clearly the worst in the league (lofted to the heights of 2nd worst in the standings on the pure merit of excellent coaching), it should not have been hard to upgrade on them by making more waiver claims.
Chychrun was selected for need
The Coyotes targeted Wood and DeAngelo in trade due to need
Need still plays a role.
Matias Maccete
Chopping up defenses
- Sep 21, 2014
- 9,697
- 3,619
It's hard to say who is drafting for need and who has players rated higher than others. I don't think it's really relevant outside of the top 10, and some general notions, like "hey, we should probably grab a decent goalie prospect in the first three rounds if possible."
The impetus behind moving up to get Chych is based on need. If he's a forward - say a smallish LHS - I don't see it happening. If the scouts spent extra time on him and fell in love with him as a result, it was due to organizational need.
Falling in love with certain archetypes is more likely to get you in trouble, like the big center (Strome) over the smaller guy that has fewer flaws (Marner). Strome may round into a good player but a guy producing at a high rate earlier ends up the better player most of the time.
I'm referring to tiebreaker situations where you have two players that are widely acknowledged as being interchangeably close and one fits an organizational need more. A team's personal list also isn't necessarily the same as the media/fan consensus. Chychrun was passed over despite not looking out of place in the NHL this season, for example.
PhoPhan
Registered User
- Feb 27, 2002
- 14,724
- 100
The Chychrun pick was not made out of "need." If it were, they would have taken him 7th. The Chychrun pick was them seeing a valuable player dropping and an opportunity to take on some cap hit to acquire him.
At any rate, my point was that going into the draft, many folks identified defense (specifically right defense) as an organizational need. But rather than going off the board and drafting for positional need over a more holistic analysis, they picked a player far lower than they had him ranked and traded for a depressed asset (DeAngelo). In Wood, they've seen a second tier prospect blossom into a blue chip.
Without going off the board, the Coyotes managed to turn an organizational weakness into a legitimate strength. Thanks to that discipline, they have a strong future on the back end and Clayton Keller in the fold. Center seemed like the last thing the Coyotes needed with Strome and Dvorak penciled into the lineup, but with neither looking quite as shiny as he did a year ago, I don't think anyone is upset about having some additional security down the middle.
It's hard to project what your needs will be even a year from now, and most prospects need at least a few years before they're really ready to contribute. "Needs" change constantly and as such are functionally impossible to predict.
At any rate, my point was that going into the draft, many folks identified defense (specifically right defense) as an organizational need. But rather than going off the board and drafting for positional need over a more holistic analysis, they picked a player far lower than they had him ranked and traded for a depressed asset (DeAngelo). In Wood, they've seen a second tier prospect blossom into a blue chip.
Without going off the board, the Coyotes managed to turn an organizational weakness into a legitimate strength. Thanks to that discipline, they have a strong future on the back end and Clayton Keller in the fold. Center seemed like the last thing the Coyotes needed with Strome and Dvorak penciled into the lineup, but with neither looking quite as shiny as he did a year ago, I don't think anyone is upset about having some additional security down the middle.
It's hard to project what your needs will be even a year from now, and most prospects need at least a few years before they're really ready to contribute. "Needs" change constantly and as such are functionally impossible to predict.
