Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
super_dave_1

The great size debate

Recommended Posts

I'm not as optimistic as Top that Ryan is our answer to the #2 center spot in 76 days.

 

But I do agree it's a very interesting signing.

 

I like the fact the Canes are scouring the leagues in Europe for talent.

 

As speculated, and based on the interview that I posted, Pastor Bill loomed large in Ryan's decision to sign with the Canes.

 

This will be a good story to follow.

 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or... The Anti-Semin.

Rem, why are you so sure that Marner is the exception? I guess you have more insight than the ISS final rankings that have Crouse 5th and Marner 6th.

 

Marner

 

Ranked #3 by Hockeyprospect.com

Ranked #6 by ISS Hockey

Ranked #5 by Future Considerations

Ranked #4 by McKeen's Hockey

Ranked #6 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters)

Ranked #4 by TSN/McKenzie

 

Crouse

 

Ranked #8 by Hockeyprospect.com

Ranked #4 by ISS Hockey

Ranked #10 by Future Considerations

Ranked #10 by McKeen's Hockey

Ranked #5 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters)

Ranked #7 by TSN/McKenzie

 

We can now nitpick which ones carry the most weight, but Bob McKenzie is the most recognized name out of the bunch.  These are the major hockey scouters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you guys are so sure.  I'm not, and that's the point I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to make.  It's a beauty contest and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  Team Marner is so cocksure of him being the next big (or smallish) thing.  Size is definitely an issue when every write up on Marner has a variation of the word "smallish" in it somewhere. 

 

I'm fine if GMRF ends up making him the pick.  They have access to a lot more info than I do, sitting on my couch in my underwear eating Cheetos.  Internet GM<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<NHLGM.

 

Oh, and PK, thanks for doing the homework and showing all the rankings.  It's a known thing that Marner is ranked ahead of Crouse in the majority of projections, but it's a split decision.  Some see it differently.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD, I've been listing rankings and mock drafts and historical context for Marner on here since I first read his name. Just search remkin and marner and you'll get pages of it. There is always risk with a draft pick, even McDavid might get injured or who knows.

 

One of the hardest things to do is to figure out the exception to the rule. We've been "burned" w/ smaller players (though maybe not quite as bad as we make out, mid round 1st rounders OFTEN don't work out for teams). We are too soft. So, we need to get bigger. All true. But is there ever a time when the player is so talented that he is worth breaking w/ the gameplan to get him? Can you get one super talented small guy, especially if he checks every other box (competes, grit, backchecks, etc)? Clearly Patrick Kane is a pretty good example that the answer is yes. Not saying Marner is Kane, but that comparison has been made by scouts. Personally, I think maybe a touch less offense than Kane, but more rounded and defensively responsible.

 

Is Marner that exception? There is always uncertainty and for the millionth time, I'm not a scout, but I think his historic level point production and the eyeball test, and my reading of every scouting report and mock draft I can get my hands on says yes.

 

Are you sure that Crouse won't be a 10 goal third liner? Or Rantanen? We can almost never be sure about D men....

 

If we pick Marner, we could trade Skinner at some point. Probably get a bruiser and a pick or more. We could draft size w/ every other pick and make trades that way. A goal is way more important than a hit.

 

I really don't know what else to say, except my opinion is that if it is Marner or the field, I think Marner has a much higher chance of being a highly productive special player than anyone else, and while there are exceptions, (they are random, and few), most guys wtih elite level talent can only be had at the top of the draft.

 

Chicago won the cup w/ a battered defense. What Chicago has that the size argument team sometimes miss, is that they are one of the deepest teams in scoring forwards in the league. And most cup winners are. Kane, Toews, Sharp, Hossa, etc, etc, etc, etc, up front just keep coming at you. Yes, they have Duncan Keith and I'm not deminishing defense, but cup winners almost always have way above average scoring depth and at least a couple of scoring stars. Chicago has made a lot of good moves and found players in later rounds, but do they win the cup if you take Toews and Kane off? Pick #3 and #1 overall?

 

I pick Marner then get size elsewhere. But, as always, if our scouts have concerns, I'm not an expert and I'm fine with what the pros do. I do think we could probalby trade down if we don't want him though, and that could be a sweet move if the team has concerns. I have concerns about concussion. Nothing else. But again, that's just me.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.  No PK wasn't the first to post rankings.  You have surely listed every ranking known to man.

 

Again, look at the rankings PK listed 33% of them have Crouse ahead of Marner.  That's just 2 guys.  Add in all the other players that are in the conversation and it isn't the slam dunk that you keep claiming it to be.  Yes, you'll say that you aren't saying Marner should be the pick, and then give every reason why he should be the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.  No PK wasn't the first to post rankings.  You have surely listed every ranking known to man.

 

Again, look at the rankings PK listed 33% of them have Crouse ahead of Marner.  That's just 2 guys.  Add in all the other players that are in the conversation and it isn't the slam dunk that you keep claiming it to be.  Yes, you'll say that you aren't saying Marner should be the pick, and then give every reason why he should be the pick.

Not that I never argue for the sake of it, (not the only one), but here I would point out:

 

You specifically call my name, ask a question, then say I'm arguing for the sake of it when I respond. You continually ask why I am so sold on Marner. I continually answer. You then accuse me of going on about him. I should just stop the cycle....

 

But you know I can't help myself. Can never be sure if you're just messing w/ me too, but anyhoo...

 

Context subtly changes on posts. That gets lost. The questions get framed differenly and people ignore statments that deal with the differences.

 

I have never said Marner should not be the pick if he is the piece of Stromarnifin left for us. I've always said I think he should be.  one thing I have consistently said is that I would pick whichever one of Stromarnifin is left for us. I have mentioned an attraction really to each of them for different reasons. but in the end settled on Hanifin, Strome, Marner in that order. Most mock drafts have Marner as the one that falls to us.

 

Also, Marner crystalizes the size debate, so he keeps coming up for that reason too. Also in that regard there is a subtle shift in the size vs skill debate in that scouts that rank Marner below say Crouse, do so admitting that it was a size over skill decision to to that.

 

I have said that IF GMRF and company have a less stellar view of Marner, then I defer to them. If they do feel that way, a trade down could be intriguing by nettnig another very good prospect.

 

I have yet to hear who you would pick.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take:

 

To me this discussion has a slightly different feel than past draft discussions on this board. Almost everyone acknowledges that we're just playing around with the info we've got and that we'll defer to the Canes braintrust when it comes to our actual pick. Remember back when several here were adamant that we should pick Nichushkin, PERIOD?

 

At this stage we're voicing what we acknowledge are our respective opinions based on

  1. the limited information we've got (mainly statistics and scouting reports)
  2. our individual ideas as to what's most important regarding the Canes #5 pick.

If people see something out there on the internet that supports their opinion, they may reference it. I think that's only natural. 

 

s_d, I think it's pretty clear that you consider size to be very important (my feel is bordering on critical) and that you think Marner's stature makes him a risky pick at #5. But you'll defer to Canes mgmt and support the pick if we decide to go there. 

 

remkin and others feel that Marner's skills and potential more than offset his size risk and that given the limited amount we know, they'd go with Marner if available. Whether of not it's been specifically articulated, I think they might be weighing opportunity cost a fair amount in forming their opinion  But they've also stated they'll support the Canes decision if mgmt decides that Marner's size should preclude drafting him.  

 

There are different opinions being expressed, based on how individuals weight different criteria. Only time will tell who is right.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You specifically call my name, ask a question, then say I'm arguing for the sake of it when I respond. You continually ask why I am so sold on Marner. I continually answer. You then accuse me of going on about him. I should just stop the cycle....

 

...

 

I have yet to hear who you would pick.

 

I "specifically call" your name, huh?  Look back at your last post and see if the first thing isn't "SD".  Don't place this in my lap.

 

I have yet to say who I'd pick because I don't know enough about the prospects from 3-10ish to make that call.  I have said this as many times as you have said that Marner is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I will say that I would not take Marner at 5.  The size concern is too much for me when I take into consideration the makeup of this team.  I would take another option or trade down a few slots if possible and a good return could be had.  If GMRF is fine with Marner and makes the pick, then okey-dokey.  With my "underwear/couch/Cheetos" knowledge, I don't make that pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I "specifically call" your name, huh?  Look back at your last post and see if the first thing isn't "SD".  Don't place this in my lap.

 

 

There is a fairly distinct difference from my vantage. I am definitely trying to engage in a civilized debate, and have specifically called your name serveral times to ask your opinion reguarding things. The difference is that I don't then offer a disparaging comment about you repsonding. If I have, my bad, but I don't recall it.

 

You:  "why do you keep harping on him?" (a few pages back).

Again above:   "you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now."

 

Both when I was answering a question posed to me. Seems kind of ironic.

 

I'm glad to debate and disuss point by point and mention each other specifically. Not so glad to then be called out for just for answering.

 

Also, if we do feel the need to keep on with this part, we should probably PM it.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a fairly distinct difference from my vantage. I am definitely trying to engage in a civilized debate, and have specifically called your name serveral times to ask your opinion reguarding things. The difference is that I don't then offer a disparaging comment about you repsonding. If I have, my bad, but I don't recall it.

 

You:  "why do you keep harping on him?" (a few pages back).

Again above:   "you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now."

 

Both when I was answering a question posed to me. Seems kind of ironic.

 

I'm glad to debate and disuss point by point and mention each other specifically. Not so glad to then be called out for just for answering.

 

Also, if we do feel the need to keep on with this part, we should probably PM it.

 

Whatever

 

If you throw your opinion out there for public consumption, don't get thin skinned.  You have been the biggest Marner supporter and have basically said that size is an issue, but Marner is too good to pass up.  I get that.  If I wanted to look back through all this drivel, I could find stuff aimed back at me too.  I don't care enough to do so.

 

It's the same as the Sekera issue.  You have your opinion and want to participate in drilling that in to everybody and not discussing anything else.  This is an internet forum and my opinion is as valuable as yours...both have no value in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm good with just leaving it there. When people post a lot, like we both do, there is a lot of chance to build up mixed feelings. Fair enough.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I "specifically call" your name, huh? Look back at your last post and see if the first thing isn't "SD". Don't place this in my lap.

I have yet to say who I'd pick because I don't know enough about the prospects from 3-10ish to make that call. I have said this as many times as you have said that Marner is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I will say that I would not take Marner at 5. The size concern is too much for me when I take into consideration the makeup of this team. I would take another option or trade down a few slots if possible and a good return could be had. If GMRF is fine with Marner and makes the pick, then okey-dokey. With my "underwear/couch/Cheetos" knowledge, I don't make that pick.

Fyi, I did some write-ups on the consensus 3-10 prospects in the draft thread when this size debate started. Hanifin projects to be a Drew Doughty type, who I think is the leagues best dman. That's who Remkin and I really want.

Strome, while a lot of people are down on him because of his playoff performance in the OHL, is projected to be a #1 center. I'd prefer him over Marner because I think he'd serve more purpose on our team.

Crouse is the Lucic type, he had a less than stellar stat sheet which some attribute to a couple of their top players being injured leaving him to carry the load. If that's who RF decides to pick, I'd be fine with it. I can't speak for Remkin, but I'd choose Marner over him because he projects to be a 2nd line 50-60pt player. In my opinion, we have enough 2nd/3rd line players, not enough 1st liners. We need someone who can create offense for others, and i don't think he's that person. Also, most project him 7-10 in mocks.

Provorov is another one I really like and think he's that rink rat RF wants. You read his bio, it's inspiring. He's been compared to top Dmen like Faulk and Subban. Would love it if we drafted him.

Barzal's projects as a potential #1. He's a slick, playmaker, being compared to Giroux. We bit small, probably needs a year or so. Highly doubt Carolina picks him.

Zacha's and huge center, same size as Crouse. He was in the top 5 at the beginning of the season, but fell due to injuries and suspensions. Wouldn't mind him at all, I see Getzlaf from the clips I've seen.

Rantanen is similar build of Crouse as well. Has skill for a guy his size, impressed some at world juniors. He has similar projections as Crouse. Didn't put up huge numbers, but people attribute that to him playing in a men's league. He's known to have an awkward skating style, and is not physical for his size. In my opinion we definitely have enough of those.

And I'll spare you the Marner write up since it's clear you've heard enough.

In my opinion, Hanifin Strome Marner Provorov fill the biggest needs for Carolina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD, I can see how you're getting frustrated. I don't know about Remkin, but I've been following these prospects for the past year, mainly because we were fluxuating around the bottom of the standings and it being a hyped up draft season. I think myself and Remkin have been pretty vocal about Marner, and nobody else has been posting about anyone else much. With the conversations on this board being dry, Marner is probably the main thing you've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's so hard to project Crouse because there really aren't a lot of comparable guys with his size and skating ability.  He didn't put up big numbers, but his team was under manned and basically sucked.  There just aren't a lot of guys at his size and age out there. 

 

Hanifin and Strome guys I'd definitely be on.  Provorov seems to be right there with Hanifin in most scouts' eyes.  I'm highly entertained by the idea of a Crouse style wrecking ball making space for our scorers, but I too question his productivity against "boys".  Marner's size and concussion questions are a concern (for me at least).

 

Rantanen...big, not physical, iffy skating.  No thanks.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PK17, I am on board with Provorov, and stated why I have no qualms about taking a defenseman. Of course with the raging circuitous debate that has consumed this thread, my menial thoughts have been completely ignored. I personally can't wait until this draft is behind us, so we can discuss something else!!!

Edited by KJUNKANE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this discussion has drifted from "The Great Size Debate" to "2015 NHL Entry Draft". Tough to keep threads straight with the overlap between them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PK17, I am on board with Provorov, and stated why I have no qualms about taking a defenseman. Of course with the raging circuitous debate that has consumed this thread, my menial thoughts have been completely ignored. I personally can't wait until this draft is behind us, so we can discuss something else!!!

Agreed on all statements. This draft can't come soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well size could factor into the draft choice, but we have beat that point to death, myself very much included.

 

On Provorov, Kjun, I want to engage but don't want to take this adrift. Maybe I'll throw it in the draft thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this discussion has drifted from "The Great Size Debate" to "2015 NHL Entry Draft". Tough to keep threads straight with the overlap between them.

Well, every thread was becoming a size debate. If we have gotten it down to 2, then good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to think - if what the brain trust has been saying since day one is true - that we take whatever player we're most convinced will develop into the player we want them to be, regardless their size at present.

 

Remember - again, if the brain trust is serious about following what it claims is the plan - we're not gonna see this pick on the 'Canes roster for two years, minimum. Marner, Crouse, Mickey Freakin' Mouse - if the latter allows BP and RF to check off the most boxes on their priority list and is available when our pick rolls around, get out your mouse ears, Mouseketeers.

 

Think about it. It took all of 12 days from the time they learned they weren't getting Eichel or McDavid for Jeff Daniels to be shown the door. Could that be because only one of those two players would have gone straight to Raleigh, and when we knew we weren't getting one of them we also knew that it was time to get serious about player development in Charlotte?

 

My guess is Peters is logging major hours this summer trying to woo a former Detriot or Spokane colleague East for at least a five-year hitch, to be the man in CLT. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already stated that size matters but that I believe NHL teams have recently overvalued size vs. skill (or maybe better put, undervalued skill in favor of size).  I suspect that, like many things, the dynamic is cyclical and is probably coming back towards neutral. Prime example: Sergei Tolchinsky.  Here are some scouting reports on the Smurf before the 2013 draft.  

  • If Sergei Tolchinsky were just a few inches taller, he’d be in the discussion as a first round pick.  What he lacks in height he makes up for in skill and offensive ability.  But because he stands 5’9″, people cast him off as “just another small guy who won’t be able to handle the rigors of the NHL”. Shawn Reznik  - The Hockey Writers
  • Tolchinski is a very electrifying offensive talent who has some of the quickest and most creative hands in the entire draft. He is dangerous every time he touches the puck because of his puck skills and quickness and his shot is quick off his stick. His vision is also very impressive and he is a real weapon on the power play from the half wall.”  Aaron Vickers –  Future Considerations
  • “His size has scared some scouts, including NHL Central Scouting, which didn’t list him on its watch list. Don’t be fooled. Tolchinsky is a special player with elite skating and elite puck skills. He scored 19 goals in the Russian U20 league last year at age 16. That’s not easy to do. Additionally, Tolchinsky was dominant against his own age group in international competition despite his diminutive stature. A big year in the OHL could go a long way to garnering more attention.” Chris Peters – CBS Sports
  • “Size and strength are the obvious concern but Tolchinsky is a wizard with the puck… Uncanny ability to make dazzling moves at high speeds to create offense… Needs to continue to improve his commitment to defensive zone… His talent is worth the risk as a Top 60 player.Scott Campbell – The Scouting Report
  • “A very small, speedy and dynamic player, Tolchinsky is an electrifying and dangerous forward capable of pulling off highlight-reel plays. At this point Tolchinsky is a one-way player so teams will need to carefully weigh the risks and rewards with this scoring star.” Brendan Ross – The Hockey Writer

As we know, Tolchinsky subsequently went undrafted and we picked him up for nothing. I'd wager that in 2015 there's almost no chance that a player like Tolchinsky would have been completely passed over in the NHL entry draft. Hey, there's still no guarantee that the Smurf will ultimately make it at the NHL level but I love his potential, especially since he came at basically no cost. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think quite a few of us, and Lake you were right at the front if I recall have been on Tolchinsky's tiny bandwagon for a long time.

 

As one of the best tiny players ever retires, how great would it be if Tolchinski had even a fraction of St Louis' NHL career? The size debate has gotten to be the third rail around here, but St. Louis is a guy who has to have at least created a potential space for really small guys in the NHL.

 

I can still remember watching that first ever episode of the Canes propsect camp video where they were picking guys up at the airport. A bunch of young guys and then a shot of Tolchinsky and I just thought,  "Oh, one of the players got to bring his little brother." Seriously the kid looked to be about 7th grade. Not just short, but slight and a baby face.

 

The only caveat to his progress thusfar is that we have yet to see him work his magic with NHL defensman looking to take his head off. St. Louis managed to go mostly unhit. Skinner, not so much. Tolchinsky looks to have NHL level skills, even elite ones, but the little guys have to be elusive and slip most hits. I think that will be key. That and he has to figure out some way of contributing at least some in the d zone.

 

What great story he would be if he made it though. St. Louis went undrafted too.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah rem, I was one of the first proponents of signing Tolchinsky on these boards. So I'm probably a bit biased in any subsequent discussions about him, but c'est la vie. :D

 

Sure, the Smurf still has a long way to go and there are no guarantees, but I like the possibilities.

 

I don't see Tolchinsky as being so much in the Martin St.Louis mold, though. St. Louis (and Gerbe) are short but stocky (built kind of like stoves).  I see Tolchinsky as being more akin to some of the more recent smaller, slighter players like Johnny Gaudreau and Tyler Johnson.  I'd bet that Tolchinsky has been by far one of the smallest players on the ice for most of his career.  As such, I hope his need and ability to avoid being squashed are ingrained by this point.  Again, no guarantees, but the Smurf could add some excitement we've been missing for quite a while. 

 

p.s. I was thinking Tolchinsky looked like a puck boy when I first saw him.  :) 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know seeing St. Louis in hockey gear he doesn't really look anything but tiny. But then finding the time he posed for ESPN half naked, the guy was ripped. Need Tolchinsky to work out with St. Louis' personal trainer:

 

BH5PZfTCIAA6ZNOfull.jpg

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...