Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
Whaler1

2015 NHL Entry Draft

Recommended Posts

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of factors/tiebreakers that go into choosing between player A and player B.  Each factor swings the balance one way or the other.  Scoring ability, skating, passing, vision, personality, size, readiness to contribute, etc. each plays into the equation. 

 

If they weighed all the options and couldn't decide between player A and player B, do you think that the ability to use a player next season would not factor in?   I don't want that to be the reason to take a player and have often said that I want them to look deeper than the immediate future.  All that being said, I can see it being a factor if they have 2 players closely rated.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it could be a factor (which is the point you were making), but it shouldn't be IMO (which is the point I'm making).

Also, I know you are/have been an advocate of developing players properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I get blasted, let me start with the disclaimer: speculation on my part for the sake of discussion. I'll happily defer to actual knowledge when the Canes make their decision. 

 

I love the physical attributes/ style that Crouse would bring.  What concerns me, and the reason I think he probably hasn't received as much hype as some of the others, is that those haven't translated into particularly impressive numbers.  If Crouse hasn't "produced" playing against kids in the OHL, what are realistic expectations once he starts competing against full grown men?  In every sport there are examples of athletes with exceptional raw physical attributes that just don't produce at a level commensurate to their athleticism. I'm not necessarily putting Crouse in that category, but given his numbers I don't know if I want to take that risk with the #5 pick.  Now if we trade down a couple of spots and Crouse is still available (which is a possibility), then I say go for it.

 

Let me add a second disclaimer. The above doesn't take into account "non-measurable" contributions, which can be big (see the Canes before and after J. Stalls injury this season).  But the fact that you can't measure those doesn't help my unease with taking someone with Crouse's numbers at #5.  

 

Final thought: if we draft Crouse based in big part on his style of play rather than the production it brings, wouldn't that be somewhat analogous to drafting based on positional needs rather than taking the BPA?  To me, you take the BPA near the top of the draft; as you go down, positional needs carry more weight.

 

OK, I'm ready!

:couch:                

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me just state for the record since it's been a while, that I am no expert. My ego does not allow me to consider my opinions a moronic, so my level of expertise is somewhere in between Master Hockey Expert Genius and Moron.

 

Second, if there are any bonefide experts on the board, please raise your hand and let us know, because we should put a star by your avatar. Then we should ask you why you are here.

 

Third, this is really a great discussion all of the sudden. I had asked way back for someone to provide some insight for us on why Crouse was seen as a possible #4 pick in this richest of drafts, and Coastal did it. After reading that, I feel a little better about Crouse (not that my feelings matter, just sharing them).

 

My concern in theory is that Crouse is sooo tempting for us given our history of tiny dancers. Crouse is the apparent antidote to the whole "we get pushed around thing". Why is that bad? It's not, but my nature is contrarian. So for us, we just need to be extra sure, we're just not falling in love with idea of Crouse, rather than the actual player at that position in the draft.

 

But that's what makes the board an unexpected pleasure sometimes. Crouse is the perfect elixir for all of the soft and small problems and understandably Coastal's post brought that out in a lot of people, and they could well be right. But just when it seemedl like it might snowball into a monolithic chant for Francis to draft Crouse now, Lake throws down the other side of the argument, and we have a discussion.

 

After Coastal's post, I "get" the idea of Crouse much more. Jordan Staal is a good example of a big man affecting the game without putting up big numbers. I had forgotten that Crouse is 6'6".  That is huge and he can skate. I get his appeal more, and especially to a team with size and grit issues. But this team also needs scoring a lot of it, and true elite scoring is only had at the top of the draft or w a lot of luck for teams like us. And it does not appear that anyone is thinking Crouse will be an elite scorer.  And I  share Lake's inquisition: Why could this hulking freakishlly big guy with talent not impose himself to the tune of more points playing against kids?

 

To me this makes for a discussion. And on here, a discussion amoung non experts. It's what this is. So as Coastal sometimes says, carry on :popcorn: .

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been poking around looking for some more scouting reports for Provorov when I came across this.  I think as an artifact of the big two, plus Strome and Marner getting so much attention, Crouse gets kind of lost in the mix.  This kind of report is why I keep saying the guy is a freak and helps me understand why he gets such a high spot in the CSS and ISS rankings.  We need a lot of what he brings.

 

http://www.thedraftanalyst.com/prospects/lawson-crouse/

 

Okay. Say to yourself  “I’ve never heard of Lawson Crouse before.” There. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s talk about the 2015 Entry Draft’s best power forward. This talented specimen is deserving of his reputation as a top draft eligible for a variety of reasons. He has as much of a chance to develop into a star as any of his peers, and will prove to be a fantastic asset for any team who gives him the chance to shine. Simply put, Crouse is a low-maintenance, one-man demolition crew. He possesses an exception blend of power and determination, and everything good that happens to him on the ice is a consenquence of it. At 6’6, 220 pounds, Crouse has the potential to become a dominating power forward at the NHL level because he has the shot and net presence opposing coaches can only talk about neutralizing. He was given an opportunity to lead an understrength Kingston team and conducted himself with aplomb, playing in all types of on-ice situations and leading by example. Crouse does not have many flaws. He’s not a speed demon, but he’s a good skater with great balance who uses his long strides to cover ground in a hurry. He has a reputation as a fearless hitter and tireless worker; he’s at his best when he’s causing havoc along the boards and creating turnovers with his relentless forechecking, then positioning himself for a quality chance. He has very good stamina for a guy his size; he doesn’t tire out in the middle of a cycle in either zone. He sacrifices his body to make the smart play — a lost art in today’s game. Furthermore, he’s the last guy to look towards the bench for a change when an opposing attack isn’t neutralized. He is a good passer for a big man, but don’t expect him to get fancy or fool around with the puck. You notice him when he’s not scoring, and in a good way.

 

For comparative purposes, here's the scouting report on Pavel Zacha from the same site that coastal referenced above.  No recommendations here regarding Zacha vs. Crouse.  Zacha has some flags that Crouse doesn't have, but he also brings grit and physicality and likely to go several spots lower than Crouse.

 

Scouting Report

Zacha’s numbers as an OHL rookie may not be eye popping in comparison to others in his draft class. But that’s because he wasn’t on the ice enough to make them look gaudy. Make no mistake; Zacha is a man child. He may not have had the breakthrough season many expected after Sarnia made him the first overall pick in the import draft, but when he did play, he certainly made his mark on the OHL. A strong center with a variety ways to beat you, Zacha’s at his best when he’s unbridled in open ice and exploding up the ice as if he was shot out of a howitzer. He’s a devastating hitter who toes that line between acceptable and dirty. His physicality coupled with his speed are reasons why the seas in the offensive zone seem to part whenever he has the puck. Zacha possesses an excellent shot and an even better release, and his one-timer is devastatingly accurate. He is very good at exiting his own end and entering the other. While he shouldn’t be categorized as a selfish player, Zacha tends to hold onto the puck longer than he should. Chalk it up to youth and overconfidence. Regardless, he’s built to sustain the rigors of the NHL almost immediately.

 

Name: Pavel Zacha

Position: Center

Shoots: Left

Height/Weight: 6’3″ 210 lbs

Born: April 6, 1997, Brno, Czech Republic

Obtained: 2014 CHL Import Draft (1st Round, 1st Overall)

Central Scouting Rankings (Prelim/Mid/Final): “A” / 8th NA / 8th NACentral Scouting Rankings (Prelim/Mid/Final): “A” / 8th NA / 8th NA

Notes: Finished second among OHL rookies with a 0.92 points-per-game average..Had Sarnia’s second highest PPG average…Scored five goals in five games at 2015 U18 World Championships…Suspended two games for slew foot vs. Niagara on Nov. 8th…Suspended six games by OHL for boarding against Erie on Nov. 21…Did not participate in CHL Top Prospects Game due to slash he received in game vs. Plymouth on Jan. 16th.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. .

I had forgotten that Crouse is 6'6".  . . .

 

I've seen him listed at both 6'3" and 6'4" (212lbs), not at 6'6".  Still very big, especially for a kid who won't turn 18 until June . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen him listed at both 6'3" and 6'4" (212lbs), not at 6'6".  Still very big, especially for a kid who won't turn 18 until June . . .

 

I guess that's why I forgot. Coastals source said 6 6" 220. Still big either way, but 6'6" blows the curve, while 6'3" is just big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big enough! I really have no idea who we will take or if we will stay put with the 6 pick. I'm very curious to see how this all plays out. Since we are probable looking 2-3 years down the road with whoever we take in this draft could give us the first indication of RF vision for the team a couple of more years down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big enough! I really have no idea who we will take or if we will stay put with the 6 pick. I'm very curious to see how this all plays out. Since we are probable looking 2-3 years down the road with whoever we take in this draft could give us the first indication of RF vision for the team a couple of more years down the road.

 

Umm . . . did you hit the wrong key, or do you know something we don't know? ^_^ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really a great discussion all of the sudden. I had asked way back for someone to provide some insight for us on why Crouse was seen as a possible #4 pick in this richest of drafts, and Coastal did it.

After Coastal's post, I "get" the idea of Crouse much more. Jordan Staal is a good example of a big man affecting the game without putting up big numbers.

Actually I've already talked about Crouse's attributes (size, skating, physicality, nastiness, competitiveness, two-way play, willingness to stick up for teammates / drop the gloves, etc.) awhile back and why he has been described as "a coach's dream."

Obviously the profile was a little more lengthy, although I have no idea where they got 6'6 from.

I've also called him a possibly meaner, nastier J. Staal.

I've also compared him to Jordan Staal (a couple of times), in that his contributions cannot easily be measured by raw statistics as there are numerous other factors (which Hag pointed out well).

I don't mean to sound like a jerk (which I will) or like I'm looking for some pat on the back (again, I will). I'm just saying this stuff was brought up before.

.

Edited by Kyrule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Marner is more of a "hit or miss" type of prospect.  Either he bulks up and becomes the elite playmaker\scorer he was in the OHL, or he's a bust relative to the hype he's gotten in the draft.

 

So, you can find that "other side of the coin" as easily with Marner as you can with Crouse. 

 

From an NHL perspective, I think the risk with Marner is greater than anyone that's listed in the top 5 or 6 players.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Marner is more of a "hit or miss" type of prospect.  Either he bulks up and becomes the elite playmaker\scorer he was in the OHL, or he's a bust relative to the hype he's gotten in the draft.

 

So, you can find that "other side of the coin" as easily with Marner as you can with Crouse. 

 

From an NHL perspective, I think the risk with Marner is greater than anyone that's listed in the top 5 or 6 players.

 

That's certainly a valid perspective. Outside of McEichel, (and to a lesser extent maybe Strome) there aren't any lead pipe locks imo.  Marner's lack of size has to add to his "risk" rating, while his production to date likely gives him a higher "reward" rating (not counting McEichel or Strome).  In the end, it will all come down to how Canes mgmt conducts it's own risk/ reward analyses . . .    

 

Edit: coastal's point about risk is a big part of the reason I don't mind us trading down.  I'd be happy with any of what I consider to be the top 10 prospects (obviously with the right additional resource coming to us if we were to trade the #5 pick).

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I've already talked about Crouse's attributes (size, skating, physicality, nastiness, competitiveness, two-way play, willingness to stick up for teammates / drop the gloves, etc.) awhile back and why he has been described as "a coach's dream."

Obviously the profile was a little more lengthy, although I have no idea where they got 6'6 from.

I've also called him a possibly meaner, nastier J. Staal.

I've also compared him to Jordan Staal (a couple of times), in that his contributions cannot easily be measured by raw statistics as there are numerous other factors (which Hag pointed out well).

I don't mean to sound like a jerk (which I will) or like I'm looking for some pat on the back (again, I will). I'm just saying this stuff was brought up before.

.

All true Krule. All good stuff contributed on the bigger discussion. I was only commenting on this thread's very recent history which has IMHO been a bit better than just befor that. Also, while all of those things you mentioned about Crouse are important, they still beg the question of the #4 pick (his recent ranking) in this supposed dream draft. Not why would a team want Crouse, but does a forward need to bring a certain level of offensive potential to be picked in that slot? Still some question of that but somehow seemed a bit clearer. Still no one is saying that the ppg will be as huge and that is an issue drafting so high in a great draft year.

 

I'm almost assigning him like a #2 pick in a more typical draft year (if he's picked at #4). I'm trying to remember a guy drafted that high on size and all of his type of attributes in the past. And as this kind of debate would suggest, the mock drafters have him all over the place in the top 10.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I stumbled across a way to not lose the "previous post" formatting when you go back and edit a post that contains a previous post (like what happened to remkin above)

 

The formatting disappears when you're editing and and then use the "delete" or "backspace" key. One way around that is to use the "cut" function instead of the delete or backspace key.  Much easier: before you edit, go to the end of the post you're editing.  Add a couple of extra lines using the "enter" key.  Then, when you go back up and do your editing It doesn't seem to delete the "previous post" formatting (shaded box).  Must have to do with some kind of special formatting linked to the very end of the post?

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the high road Remkin, I appreciate it.

As for the Marner vs. Hanifin vs. Crouse vs. trading down vs......

I need a break. There is so much potential, and so much potential for disaster, that over-analyzing it can make you dizzy.

The more I see and read the more uncertain I am about everyone and every scenario.

The thing is, we need to get this right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for taking the high road Remkin, I appreciate it.

As for the Marner vs. Hanifin vs. Crouse vs. trading down vs......

I need a break. There is so much potential, and so much potential for disaster, that over-analyzing it can make you dizzy.

The more I see and read the more uncertain I am about everyone and every scenario.

The thing is, we need to get this right.

 

We're all just playing around. This is where Ronnie (with input from Peters) needs to earn those big bucks. :crossfingers:

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm . . . did you hit the wrong key, or do you know something we don't know? ^_^

 

Haha..now thats funny. I hit the wrong key but maybe I'm being guided by the hockeygods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha..now thats funny. I hit the wrong key but maybe I'm being guided by the hockeygods

 

I used to believe in the hockey gods. Then Edmonton won the lottery. My faith was shattered. How could any hockey god allow that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to believe in the hockey gods. Then Edmonton won the lottery. My faith was shattered. How could any hockey god allow that?

 

Hockey gods like to toy with mere mortals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I've already talked about Crouse's attributes (size, skating, physicality, nastiness, competitiveness, two-way play, willingness to stick up for teammates / drop the gloves, etc.) awhile back and why he has been described as "a coach's dream."

Obviously the profile was a little more lengthy, although I have no idea where they got 6'6 from.

I've also called him a possibly meaner, nastier J. Staal.

I've also compared him to Jordan Staal (a couple of times), in that his contributions cannot easily be measured by raw statistics as there are numerous other factors (which Hag pointed out well).

I don't mean to sound like a jerk (which I will) or like I'm looking for some pat on the back (again, I will). I'm just saying this stuff was brought up before.

.

 

I was going to make a similar remark as Remkin.  I don't think anyone is suggesting your earlier posts about Crouse aren't still valid, but the rankings have been updated over the last few weeks, and as the draft creeps closer, maybe some here have become more familiar with the risks\rewards that accompany both these players, and a more in-depth discussion followed.

 

I hope that makes sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the choices are close, I'm definitely more comfortable taking a bigger, more physical player than the next Boychuk or a 1 dimensional player like Skinner with this high pick.  Skinner had a great 1st year, and then has regressed and many have thought the team would be better off trading him for a different type of player (defense/more physical/etc).   Everything I read says that this (softness) isn't the case with Marner, but I bet the same things were written about Boychuk and Skinner. 

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that the choices are interesting. That's why we're struggling kicking the tires on them. Only Edmonton and Buffalo have it easy, but Arizona's choice is really down to two probably: Hanifin or Strome. But we have a lot of possible options, which may include trading down, just to complicate it further. Of course we're all speculating, but that's what we do. Otherwise we would sit quietly with our hands folded until the draft.

 

We are affected by our past. And JR took a lot of smaller players as what I perceived as attempted value picks, guys who were thought to have more skill than their draft position that dropped due to size. Skinner is still a singular talent. For good or bad, there is no one quite like him. The concussions have slowed what otherwise might be a torrid scoring pace. Boychuk? Well he was picked later, but just never developed into and NHL player. Murphy? On the cusp of declaring himself one way or the other. But the total effect has been smaller players.

 

Marner is different. But he is a smaller player. Not tiny, but light. My read and watching his tape is that he really is closer to Patrick Kane, a former #1 overall player. Super skilled, plays hard, super shifty, point getter. Still, even Kane is no heavyweight. The Blackhawks are not the same team w/o Kane, but they are even less so without Toews and Keith so there is room for debate on these picks.

 

But anyway, Marner is not really a short guy, but he is also not a heavy guy. He weighs significanly less than Gerbe. The main thing is that he has to add muscle weight and boy to man weight. He is a much more traditional skilled player than Skinner.

 

The way I look at it though, if it goes McEichelstromehanifin. Francis will have to decide on Marner. If he feels that he is just too wary of the size issue, trading down really seems intriguing. Crouse, Rantanan, Provorov, Werenski, Zacha all intriguing at 10 plus another pick around 30 would be two picks around #35 in this super deep draft. It is difficult to accomplish and takes a lot of discpline to pull off, but could be a nice move.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point.

 

It's hard to think about moving down in such a hyped-up draft when you are holding the 5th pick.  But picking up a high second from a team just behind us in this draft could be considered gaining an additional first round pick in other drafts.

 

I just wonder if a team behind us would actually consider giving up their second rounder, particularly when the top prospects outside the top 2 seem to be so close now?

 

I still don't see RF passing up on Hanifin if he's there at 5.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the choices are close, I'm definitely more comfortable taking a bigger, more physical player than the next Boychuk or a 1 dimensional player like Skinner with this high pick.  Skinner had a great 1st year, and then has regressed and many have thought the team would be better off trading him for a different type of player (defense/more physical/etc).   Everything I read says that this (softness) isn't the case with Marner, but I bet the same things were written about Boychuk and Skinner. 

 

Dang . . . I was kind of hoping for the next Boychuk. :lol:

 

But seriously, looking back at the 2010 draft, I'd say we did about as good as could be expected with Skinner (unless you want to cherry-pick and say we should have drafted Cam Fowler who the next 4 teams also passed by)

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2010e.html

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a point.

 

It's hard to think about moving down in such a hyped-up draft when you are holding the 5th pick.  But picking up a high second from a team just behind us in this draft could be considered gaining an additional first round pick in other drafts.

 

I just wonder if a team behind us would actually consider giving up their second rounder, particularly when the top prospects outside the top 2 seem to be so close now?

 

I still don't see RF passing up on Hanifin if he's there at 5, but I'm no expert, more so a defensive kind of fan, so the discussion continues.

 

What we need is a bidding war on our pick.  Who get's that stuff started? 

 

I suspect that will depend on who gets taken in the 3 and 4 spots.  I could see a team potentially having a hard. . . er, wanting Hanifin (and maybe Marner) bad enough that if he was still available at #5 they might be tempted to do the deal.  This could get very interesting, although I have a feeling the odds of us ever learning the juicy details are pretty slim.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...