kipwinger

At least two of you think that...because you said so explicitly. Like here. And here.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Tons of skilled player, most more skilled than Mantha, see regular or exclusive net front time on the PP. Off the top of my head, Benn, Perry, Pacioretty, Wheeler, Backes, Kreider, JVR, and Simmonds are all highly skilled players who also play in front of the net. So maybe there's something to it and it's not that Blashill is "wasting" a skill player. Maybe it's actually preferable to have a skilled guy there.

Here's an article in which all the goals scored in the 2016 NHL season were mapped by their location on the ice as well as by the type of shot. https://www.omha.net/news_article/show/667329-the-science-of-scoring

You stated you'd be happy if it worked AFTER you said that you wanted it Blashill to stop doing it once Rasmussen was on the team. Which is it? If Mantha is successful doing it (as you've said) and you're happy he's successful doing it (as you've said) then why would you want Blashill to stop doing it? It's not easier to score around the net than it is to score from the perimeter. That's why there's so few Holmstroms and so many Hudlers, Tatars, and Nyquists.

Oh Christ, this is going to turn into another Jurco/Smith situation isn't it. If a guy doesn't perform exactly as we imagined he would then he's been "ruined" by the coach. Mantha was top 50 among all forwards in powerplay goals and that's considered a bad thing? 9 of his 24 goals came on the powerplay. His 15 even strength goals (where he's not a "net front" presence) would have tied him for the top 100. Hell, his even strength goal scoring isn't even the best on the team (Nyquist and AA). If anything, moving him to net front on the pp made him a more productive goal scorer, not the other way around. Mantha can't play like he did in juniors because it wouldn't work. He dominated a bunch of kids because he was more physically developed. He won't be able to blow by NHL level defensemen and beat NHL goalies clean off the rush. He also probably won't score much as a shooter on the PP either because his lateral quickness isn't great. So Blashill makes a tweak to his game to give him more success (which works) and people *****. He had a 900% improvement on his PP goalscoring over the year before and Blashill is misusing him? Jesus.

You said that 15 years ago you'd have said "possibly" if someone had said Keith was going to be elite. Which is bull. Pretty much nobody saw that coming. I doubt you'd have been any different. That was my point. And that's really my larger point overall. Defensive prospects are hard to gauge at 18 years old. Some of the best modern defensemen looked unimpressive on draft day. Chara, Keith, Subban, Weber, Byfuglien, Letang, Yandle, Klingberg, Josi were all drafted outside of the first round. Karlsson, Carlson, and Burns all went in the first, but not as high as their talent has born out. Only some of the best defensemen actually projected to be that on draft day (Suter, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Hedman, Ekblad). Compare that to forwards. Almost all your top forwards were valued highly on draft day. Suggesting that pretty much nobody knows what's going to make a defenseman turn out to be any good, while pretty much everybody can spot a winner at forward.

I feel like you'd have said "I don't see him as anything more than a 3rd pairing guy" based on his lack of draft pedigree and unimpressive NCAA and Junior stats.

Are those things mutually exclusive? Couldn't this all be a charade AND a guy's played through a tough injury and is now hanging em' up to go golfing and hang out with his supermodel wife?

Wait, where did I say he's average at anything? I've already said, he's like Franzen. Good wheels (for a big guy), good shot, good size, good net front. He's good at all of it. If he were excellent at all of it he'd be Blake Wheeler. He isn't. His best attribute, and one that you consistently fail to mention because it doesn't support your "Mantha is a shooter" narrative, is that he's really good at protecting the puck and making good passes for scoring chances in the offensive zone. If anything I'd say he's under rated as a PLAYMAKER. Which is probably the only thing that will set his career apart from Franzen. He'll score 28-35 goals a season, but his ceiling will depend on how many assists he has.

Nobody thought Duncan Keith had "Duncan Keith" upside either when he was drafted, which is why he went 54th overall. They've actually had very similar careers so far. Both BCHL, both dispappointed in NCAA, both went to junior hockey later and tore it up. Both skate well, both defend well, have similar physical attributes.

Since we're making projections about defensemen, I'll do you one better. Dennis Cholowski follows in the footsteps of another former BCHLer, Duncan Keith, and becomes a top pairing mainstay and all around badass. He goes on to win a few Cups, a few gold medals, and a Conn Smythe. "Generational" superstar Dahlin scores a bunch of points and wins nothing, just like Erik Karlsson before him.

I think that's his floor. Which isn't a bad position to be in. But I think his ceiling is probably a bit higher. Especially when he's feasting on all those tasty Zetterberg minutes. Larkin has room for growth on the PP, he's going to get top end wingers now, AND the team in general is going to start producing more as their defense starts to improve. That should be good for another 15 pts. The real question is, is Larkin REALLY the player we saw last season, a 65 pts. guy? Or is he a 55 pts. guy? Because if you add another 15 pts. onto that and you've got his ceiling. He might end up topping out as a 65-70 pts. center, like Ryan Johansen or Toews. Or he might end up an 80 pts. center, though there's really not anybody in that point range who I think has a comparable skillset to him. Also: Kadri is really good defensively and Larkin kinda blows defensively at this point in his career.

An issue, no. But do I think it's an asset? Also no. I don't view him as a Blake Wheeler or Rick Nash type (e.g. big guys whose skating is very good). He reminds me more of Corey Perry or Todd Bertuzzi (e.g. gets around fine for their size). That's actually why I think he needs to take Blashill's advice and learn to play like Van Riemsdyk. I don't think his wheels (although decent for a big guy) are good enough to beat defensemen wide. I think he's basically another Franzen, which I'm thrilled about, but he'd better learn to score a bunch of different ways (like Johan did) if he's going to maximize his output at the NHL level because a sniper he ain't.

This is all a charade. I think he's known since the end of the season that he wasn't going to play and they're just saying all the right things to make it seem like an injury and not a retirement.

This is excellent news. We'll be terrible again this year. Hopefully Holland hold Zadina and Hronek out of the lineup until after he trades Nyquist and Daly at the deadline and the Wings are solidly in a lottery spot. Imagine... Bert-Larkin-Mantha Vanek-Neilsen-AA Frk-Helm-Abby Helm-Glen-Ras We'll get crushed. One more terrible year and we'll sitting pretty going into next year's draft with a boatload of picks in another deep draft. Yes please.

I'm curious, how good do you think Mantha is? Like, right now? Not what you think he projects as.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the Wings took Rasmussen at 9 because of his size and regardless of his skill. While I do think there were better players still available, they didn't "reach" on Rasmussen at all. The went almost exactly where he was projected to go all season long. He was always supposed to go 9th or 10th and he did.

For what it's worth, here's a excerpt from an Athletic article which polled NHL scouts on aspects of the 2018 draft. Here's what they had to say about Dahlin. It was no surprise to see Swedish defenceman Rasmus Dahlin as the top-pick though there was disagreement about whether he is in fact a “generational talent.” It seems like each year there’s another player being slapped with that label, so a question was posed as to whether it was a fair assessment or more so a media construct. “While he is pretty special, I think that term is getting a little overused,” said one NHL scout. “For various reasons we have to keep building these guys up.” “I think by definition a ‘generational talent’ is the best player of his generation,” said another scout. “Therefore, some of these generational talents should likely be labelled as stars. Rasmus is more of a star than a generational talent as of now.” “I think for the most part it is a media construct but I do believe as a whole, players are getting better each year because of the on ice and off ice training programs all of the kids are on starting at a young age,” said a third scout. “I think Dahlin very well could end up being a generational talent but so much goes into being in the right place at the right time. He is definitely built for today’s game.” “Generational talent gets thrown around too much,” said yet another evaluator. “By definition we should only see a few of these players in our lifetime, right? It’s not fair to put that type of label on any 17/18-year-old player. Franchise player seems more realistic. He looks like a player to build your team around.”

We're not pivoting to anything. The conversation started when I told KRSmith that it's not unreasonable to think that Pettersson and/or Svechnikov will turn out to be better players than Dahlin. He disagreed because Dahlin is "generational" . My argument is that he's not "generational". That's all hype. He's more likely to be an Ekblad than a McDavid.

You're definitely not following. My argument is that people are overly hyping Dahlin because they overhype just about every number one pick. And that he'll most likely turn out just like other number one picks, good but not "generational" as he's being labeled. I used Aaron Ekblad as an example of someone who also never lived up to the massive hype he had when he was drafted first overall. And as evidence of that hype, I pointed out that Ekblad was only the second player to be given exceptional status in probably the world's best amateur hockey league. A feat which was (at the time though not anymore) a really really big deal. But here's a simpler way of stating my argument: Since the inception of the draft in the 1960's, only one defenseman drafted 1st overall has gone on to be a "generational" player. Denis Potvin. Scores of forwards have though. So if you're trying to figure out which "top of the draft" players are going to turn out to be the best (which is how this conversation started), it's always safer to go with a forward in lieu of any other information. High end forwards are a surer bet.

No, I think Veleno wasn't as hyped as Dahlin. I think Ekblad was. I've also explained why I think so. Very clearly. Being excpetional status was a bigger deal a few years ago. Hence, Ekblad being labeled exceptional carried more weight with it than Veleno's status did. Veleno, along with Sean Day before him, is precisely why people don't think it's a big deal anymore. At the time Ekblad was drafted it was still a VERY big deal to be "excpetional" in the OHL, particularly given that 6 of the previous 13 first overall draft picks before Ekblad came from the OHL while 7 came from the rest of the world combined.

I did answer you question on Veleno by alluding to the fact that it's not really a valid argument because attitudes about "exceptional" players have changed since Ekblad's time. Veleno is clearly not as hyped as Dahlin. However, when Ekblad was drafted being an "exceptional status" player was considered a much bigger deal. After Sean Day, and now Veleno, people realize that it's pretty bogus. But the first three exceptional players were Tavares, Ekblad, and McDavid and all of them were MASSIVELY hyped. Every year since forever there's been some kid who's on another level. Since 2000 I'd say only three players have actually turned out to be generational: Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid. Tons have turned out to be very good players: Kovalchuk, Nash, Stamkos, Hall, McKinnon, etc. I think Dahlin is much more likely to be in the latter group than the former.

At the time the only other player who'd been granted exceptional status was Tavares. So it wasn't readily understood to be the joke that it is. But the fact that there's a thing called "exceptional status" and that unexceptional players get tagged with it is the very definition of hype. For what it's worth he was also the OHL rookie of the year, took home all the top honors in the OHL coaches polls for defensemen, and captained Team Canada to gold at the Hlinka tourney, all as an underager. So yeah, he was a pretty big deal in his draft year. And yeah, he really hasn't lived up to it. Dahlin will probably be a pretty good NHL defensemen, but he probably won't be the Connor McDavid of defensemen, which is how some folks have built him up around here. I think there's every chance that two or three of the defensemen drafted in this year's class turn out to be as good or better than Dahlin does.

He's not nearly as good as he was hyped. And he was HYPED. Only the second player ever granted exceptional status, and the first defenseman. You think he wasn't? Lol. Short memory. Like I said, recency bias. Doesn't matter, by the time everyone figures out that Dahlin is only as good as Roman Josi they'll be on to some other teenage "phenom".