kipwinger

Yeah, assuming GR will lose Bertuzzi to the main roster, Callahan in the offseason, and maybe Frk to waivers I don't think this is a bad idea. I don't think any of our young forwards are ready to step in so it's not like he's taking a spot from anyway.

This. I remember Sproul looking really good in exactly one game, against Tampa in November when he scored a goal and an assist. Both came on the powerplay where he was used in the Ovechkin spot on the left side. That's pretty much optimal deployment for him and he produced, but otherwise I've never really noticed him that much. He'd definitely need to shape up his 5 on 5 play before he'd be anything I'd worry about losing. I suppose it's possible he's another Justin Schultz and just needs the right situation/team and a little more seasoning. But more likely he's Brendan Smith all over again. An "offensive" defenseman who never scores any offense.

I guess this... Nyquist-Z-Mantha Tatar-Larkin-AA Frk-Neilsen-Svech Helm-Sheahan-Abby Glendening Bertuzzi Dekeyser-Green Daly-Jensen Ouellet-Sproul

I'm a little concerned that our top 10 pick isn't earning consistent time at his natural position in the World Juniors Summer Showcase. Meanwhile, a number of his peers in this draft class are tearing it up. Hope it's just lingering affects from his wrist injury and not because we drafted a dud.

I've never even really watched the guy play much. I had a buddy who was a big Sabres fan and was pumped when they got him, but after he was traded to Colorado I quit paying attention to him. Seems intriguing based on his offensive upside, but I keep reading about work ethic issues. He scored 10 goals in 75 games this season. It's not good by any means, though it would have been 10th on our team. Given his pedigree and upside I'd seriously consider it.

I will preface this question by saying that in general I'm not in favor of signing anyone in free agency. That said, I see that Colorado did not qualify Mikhail Grigorenko and he will become a UFA. Grigorenko is a 23 year old center, former first round pick, has good size, is highly skilled, but has never been been able to put it all together (probably traumatized by having to play for Buffalo at age 18). If you could get him on a two way (prove it) contract, would you sign him?

Right, but we just used our highest draft pick in almost 30 years on him. So presumably you'd like to fill a need with it. Especially if that need is as important as 1C or 1D, both things we need, and neither of which Rasmussen will be if moved to the wing (where we're currently loaded with talent). And even then, if you were going to target a guy to be a goal scoring winger, why not take Tippett who is by all accounts the best goal scoring winger in the draft?

How do the two stack up in terms of powerplay production. One knock I've heard repeatedly on Rasmussen was that more than half his production was on the powerplay. But I haven't looked to see how much of Mantha's came with the man advantage.

You're conflating two discussions, which is partially my fault because I was talking about Ericsson with someone else in this Draft thread. I referenced Nashville's defense while talking about Ericssson because someone else said that Ericsson should be more physical and clear the crease more. I said Nashville doesn't have a "crease clearer", but that their defense is still really good regardless, because they move the puck well. And that hitting, and blocking shots, and crease clearing usually means you don't have the puck, which isn't a good thing. And that's where you jumped in with your comment about Dave Tippett. My whole point was that hitting is not a sound defensive strategy nor is it indicative of team success. That much has been proven. There does, however, seem to be some correlation between good possession metrics and goals against averages. However, I agree that being "good" at the defense you do play is just as important as limiting the amount of time the other team is in your zone.

Yikes, another "Loser" tag for our drafting this year. https://sports.yahoo.com/winners-losers-nhl-draft-2017-211925333.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

Data: https://www.jacketscannon.com/2014/8/8/5983407/to-hit-or-not-to-hit-the-statistic-vs-the-reality "Teams in the Top 10 in hits were significantly more likely to fall in the Bottom 10 in goals per game (38%) than in the top 10 in that category (28%). For those believing that hits is a valid defensive statistic, the numbers do not provide much support. Only 30% of the teams in the Top 10 in hits were among the Top 10 in goals against per game, while 36% fell in the bottom 10 in that category. Conversely, teams that fell in the bottom 10 in hits, were the most likely (38%) to be in the Top 10 in goals per game." Here's another article talking about it: http://nhlnumbers.com/2013/3/7/why-shot-differential-is-important-item-45604 "The data is, of course, hilarious. As a whole, teams did far better when they got outhit than they when they outhit the other side. I suspect that there are two main reasons for this: first, there probably is a great deal of truth to the argument that teams without the puck hit more, which doesn’t facilitate scoring. Second, there’s probably an element of teams that are behind deciding to focus on laying the body to try and turn the momentum – “Send out the energy line!” I suspect that what shows up here contains some score effects although, we know that trailing teams tend to possess the puck more, which would seem to give them less opportunity to hit."

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want Vilardi or Rasmussen, I'm just suggesting there were other players still available with more (or similar) skill. Personally, I'd have preferred we move up one spot and take Mittelstadt, or else trade back 3 or 4 spots, take one of the better offensive d-men still available and then try to get into the late 1st round and take Kostin (the way St. Louis did). As I've said several times now, I don't think Rasmussen is unskilled, I think he's unskilled relative to some guys who were still available and therefore wasn't a good pick at 9th.

I completely understand your argument. I just don't think that him being more physical would make him better. I actually think it would be detrimental to his success. Because if you're hitting, and banging, and crashing, then you aren't usually getting the puck out of your zone. And that's generally bad. I'd rather he work on his passing, and if he can't get better at that, then I'd prefer he retire. I'm just not convinced that hitting more will have a positive influence on the him or the team (other than the cathartic affect you feel when an opposition forward gets crushed).

Fair enough, I'd only revise that statement to say he seems "generally untalented relative to other top ten talent in this year's draft". I thought that would be understood. Didn't figure I'd have to clarify that he's more talented than the last player picked in the draft and/or the person typing this post.

And the thing you seem to ignore is that a 1% difference in possession stats translates to a really large difference in shot volume over the course of a year. Montreal had a 52.5% corsi this season, Washington had a 51.8% corsi. But in terms of actual shot attempts the difference was almost 300 (126 adjusted for differential) shot attempts. So anything you can do to improve your possession by even a percentage point or two translates to a huge volume of shot attempts at the other net. Or conversely, if you concede a percentage point or two it may not seem like a big deal, but it's actually a lot more pucks coming at your net than you realize.

Nobody said he sucks, so get over yourself. Most people, myself included, have argued that he was a bad asset to take with the 9th overall pick. Given how similar type players (Vilardi, Kostin) fell down the board, if you REALLY wanted Rasmussen he probably would have still be there in the 15-20 range, so it would still have been prudent to trade back and get additional assets. And that's only if you REALLY wanted him, which I'm not sure why you would considering there were several better players still available at 9 (Tippett, Necas, Valimaki, Vilardi).

Well his team made the playoffs, and he played with Valimaiki (another first rounder this year) so I doesn't seem like his numbers suffered because he was on a bad team. I completely understand that, but usually the "wait for his upside" argument goes the other way. With Cholowski it was, "he's got lots of skill, wait until he develops physically". In this case it seems to be, "well he's really mature physically, wait until he gets better at playing hockey". That seems more risky to me. Also, Cholowski wasn't a top ten pick. I expect a little more out of picks the higher they are.

Strawman argument. I didn't say the kid should be perfect. I said that he was fairly unimpressive given his massive physical advantage, and that may be indicative of limited skill in other areas. If he's really skilled, and really mobile, and really big and playing against kids much smaller than him then his lack of elite production becomes even more baffling. Based on the scouting reports you put up there, Rasmussen is a big, fast, center who scores goals and passes really well. Ok, but why didn't he score more goals and have more assists at 5on5 then? Something's gotta give. I agree that netfront guys are nice. I just think you maybe don't use the highest draft pick you've had in 30 years on another Tomas Holmstrom. Seems like poor asset management to me.

I realize that. And I'm saying that it's a tautology. "Big players should play big because playing big is what big players should do" completely misses the point that often times "playing big" means playing without the puck, which is actually bad. I'd rather a defenseman never hit anybody, ever, because he always has the puck on his stick making plays. That's way better than clearing creases. Playing big wouldn't make Ericsson, or our team, any better. Being able to get control of the puck, and get it to the forwards competently and efficiently would make Ericsson better.

That's a pretty old fashioned way of thinking about hockey tbh. Nashville had the league's best defense and didn't have a "crease clearer". They're too busy getting the puck up ice and away from their own net. Having some big "crease clearer" out there just conceded the puck to the opposition. In today's game you need guys who can get the puck and get it out of the zone, not bang offensive players while they attempt to camp out in front of your goalie.

A player's size only matters when other skills are relatively equal. Joe Thornton or Corey Perry aren't good because they're big. They're good because they have high end skills, their size makes them better. The problem that I have with Rasmussen is that he doesn't seem to have any high end skills to speak of. He's all size. His skating needs work, his shot isn't great, he's not an especially creative passer or stick handler. I would expect a guy that's 6'6 and playing against children to MURDER them. Instead he had an ok season; which probably says something about how generally untalented he is. Compare that to Mantha (also a HUGE guy, but with skill) who absolutely dominated when playing against kids 1/10th his size

Well, on the plus side, Rasmussen's "net front" skills will be a real benefit when the team inevitably switches him to winger.

Missing the point again, these guys' real strength is their ability to think positively. As a matter of fact, that outweighs any shortcomings they may have in their games. It doesn't matter if you're bad at hockey so long as you're WILLING to improve. And boy are they ever. These guys are the solution my man. Not the problem.

You're missing the point. They're all tremendous competitors though. Like, none of them enjoy losing. And you can't teach that.

My only concern is that nobody we picked seems exceptional in any real way. They're all just safe, steady, picks for a safe, steady, team. Neither bad nor good. Just...safe. Ugh.