6-10

[OccamsRazor]

Drops this guy pretty quick with a nice right.

 

Yeah but he did come in from behind and start throwing blow while the guy was still on his knees and he never really got the chance to recover so not impressed so much with that. Had the guy had a chance to go toe to toe with him and that was the results it would have been more impressive...plus it was a good hit no need to fight the guy.

[JackStraw]

Agreed. Watch them take Crouse....

 

I wouldn't mind that at all. I've only seen a little of him but he looked good to me. Most importantly, he looked like a guy who's game will translate well to the NHL. He also fits a team need for a top line LW pretty much to a "T". It's all well and good to say "take the BPA", but how do you know who that is really? Outside of the top 3-5 how sure can you be that the 6th ranked guy on your list is actually going to be a better NHL player than the 9th ranked guy on your list. Another team may have your 9th ranked guy as their 6th ranked guy. Who is the smartest guy in the room?

 

At some point you have to put together a roster. You can't have a roster full of "BPAs" who don't actually form an NHL team. You can say, we'll take the BPA and then trade for need, but how do you know that a) some other team has what year need and b) is willing to trade him for something you have and are willing to give up. It seems to me that this strategy is what the Flyers have been doing for a long time and it has resulted in them trying to fit square pegs into round holes or scrambling to make trades to fill holes that might have been filled by the draft.

 

It's not fantasy hockey. I would be pretty optimistic about things if the Flyers come out of the first round with either Crouse or Bittner- both big left wings who can skate and score goals. I don't care if neither of them can generate offense on their own, Scott Hartnell didn't generate offense on his own but he was an excellent complimentary piece on Giroux's line with either Jagr or Voracek.

 

It wouldn't bother me if they take another D like Werenski or somebody, but please not another center even if he is "BPA".

[TedZep]

Hey admitting it doesn't bother you to lose is tanking!

 

You have to admit they are "tanking" with style, beating the likes of the Blackhawks, Predators, Rangers, Caps, Penguins, etc. and only losing to the teams in direct contention with them for a high pick in the draft. 

[Digityman]

They sorely need a 1st line LW to play with G/Jake.

If Crouse is the player that fits the bill, then I expect that's who they would take if available.

BPA is good if you have a plan to fill the most glarring holes you have - that being 1st LW.

[BobbyClarkeFan16]

They sorely need a 1st line LW to play with G/Jake.

If Crouse is the player that fits the bill, then I expect that's who they would take if available.

BPA is good if you have a plan to fill the most glarring holes you have - that being 1st LW.

Best Player Available is best player available, regardless of position.

 

If you start drafting for need, you end up reaching for a player (see Hickey, Thomas)

 

If Crouse is legitimately the 6th best player they have rated, then draft him. However, if they have Barzal or Werenski ahead of Crouse and if all three are available, then they should draft the best of the three, not what they need.

[JackStraw]

I'm pasting some excerpts from a couple posts (by the same poster) in a thread about Crouse on hfboards (which everyone hates, I know. But it's still the best site for learning about prospects).

 

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=99646161&postcount=728

 

Sure, but nobody has the perfect foresight to predict who the key piece (I'd call Crouse a core piece) is going to be once you move outside of the lottery. And teams picking 5-10 usually DO have some pieces already assembled, let's look at the standings. Toronto probably has to look for a #1 C at 4 overall, if Strome is gone then they'll probably take a guy who can be a #1 D in Hanifin or even Marner who should be a 1st line player no question, I don't really see Crouse a fit for Toronto. Then you have Carolina at 5. They have SOME pieces, they're not bad down the middle, they drafted Fleury and added McKeown in last year alone, they could probably already start looking at Crouse in a realistic scenario. Columbus at 6 already has strong blocks all over the line-up, could definitely look at Crouse and the type of dimensions he brings to the table. NJ will probably rather have a more skilled F up front, but Crouse is a classic Devils player, same thing with Philly, I bet Hextall loves Crouse. 

Again, around 5 is where Crouse is likely going to become a serious consideration with any team. But, it would be impossible for me to select Crouse ahead of McDavid, Eichel, Hanifin, Strome, and Marner, after that though I don't see on what basis you could say that there is someone definitively worthy of being selected ahead of Crouse, with the knowledge you have today, because there simply isn't any player without legitimate question marks roughly as big as Crouse's. There is probably going to emerge a player selected later that will be better if not more players, but that happens every year to players of every kind, not just the Crouse's of the world. In Crouse you have almost a guarantee to get a useful player with an unique skillset that is huge for the culture of the team and has unique value both in being skilled enough to be cast in a top 6 role but also excel as a forechecker, wall-player, traffic and net presence and in a defensive role, which has a multiplying effect on his linemates ability to produce even if he isn't always directly involved on the score-sheet. Unless you are completely devoid of significant skill pieces in the line-up, then there is absolutely no reason to question Crouse at 6th overall any more than any other player. The only argument I'd see for Crouse dropping is not because there are a lot of forwards who deserve to be ahead of him, but because getting a center or a defense piece is probably preferable, and that's entirely a function of his position not a value judgement on him as a player that would lack the qualities to be a top 10 pick. 3rd overall is certainly a bit too much in my book, but this board really likes to adopt a negative outlook against players of his ilk. 

I personally have Crouse ranked 9th right now, but I wouldn't bat an eye if he is taken 6th and I wouldn't object to someone thinking that highly of him, to me that is a legitimate ranking depending on some team factors. The point is, you have to add the player that is going to be the best player for your team, if you aren't a genius prodigy, after you move out of top 5 there's probably going to be a player selected behind that will end up better, but you have to walk away from the table with a valuable core player and Crouse fits that mold perfectly even if he is the 10th or whatever BPA in retrospect after 5 years. Once you move out of the very top, I doubt there is a list in the world that will have it perfectly in order to what it will play out down the line (and you have take into account the developmental factors here as well), you have to ask yourself whether you walked away from your pick with value that was reasonable for your position and the information you had available at the time, did that player significantly contribute to an assembling of a Cup contender? If the answer is yes, you can't look at some star player selected as a late first round pick or whatever and say oh we should have picked him, you can research why you failed picking him up and hope you pick him up the next time, but that stuff literally happens every year to almost every team and through a big enough time frame every team has that moment. What you need to do, is walk away with value from the table that has helped move the wagon towards the Stanley Cup and value that was reasonable for the position. That's it. And in my opinion, Crouse fits that mold once you start looking at the 6th pick, given the information we have today.

 

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showpost.php?p=99622855&postcount=722

 

The bottom line why Crouse is ranked highly is because his skillset is translatable. HF has little regard for the translatability of the skillset, they see a 17 year old do something against junior players and think that he will magically be capable of doing the same against NHL players. Some of the stuff that you see at junior level will simply NEVER work at the NHL level. The reason why Crouse is ranked highly is because he is a translatable player, the skills he does utilize will work against NHL competition. That's the bottom line. It isn't about "size", Crouse plays the game in a manner that is similar to what is being played in the NHL. He could be 5'10 180 and that would still be true (see: Robby Fabbri).

 

This is the kind of thinking that I hope Hextall & Co. are employing. "Does taking this player actually move us closer to being a Cup contender?"

 

Edit: I added the bolding because I think those comments are directly relatable to the Flyers situation.

[OccamsRazor]

I wouldn't mind that at all.

 

Me either it's always best player available and need has to be considered as well. And when its close like say Crouse is on the board and say Werenski is too then need needs to be weighed into the equation as well especially when you consider they just spent picks on Sanheim, Morin, Hagg and Ghost. The LW need should be considered...and with Crouse's projection as possible top 6 talent....he is the obvious choice.

[OccamsRazor]

Best Player Available is best player available, regardless of position.
 
If you start drafting for need, you end up reaching for a player

 

To be honest they both must be weighed and when it's close like it looks it may be then you go with the need....which will be LW.

[JackStraw]

Me either it's always best player available and need has to be considered as well. And when its close like say Crouse is on the board and say Werenski is too then need needs to be weighed into the equation as well especially when you consider they just spent picks on Sanheim, Morin, Hagg and Ghost. The LW need should be considered...and with Crouse's projection as possible top 6 talent....he is the obvious choice.

 

If both Werenski and Crouse were available and they took Werenski (who I haven't seen so can't really judge him fairly) I wouldn't be too upset, because there are no guarantees with the prospects they already have and you can never have too many good D. But the reality is, this team has one decent LW and that's Raffl. It's not just a minor need, it's a huge need.

[Podein25]

It wouldn't bother me if they take another D like Werenski or somebody, but please not another center even if he is "BPA".

 

 

Fair enough. I go back and forth on the whole BPA vs need debate. For me the whole power forward label has lost it's cache. You need tough, smart players. Period. They have to play big. Look at the Jets. The only real power forward they have is Wheeler. But they get 60 hard minutes from guys like Little, Perreault and Frolik every game. None of them are big. But they play big.

 

Again, I will say that I think they should take smart players. And that does make me interested in Barzal, even if he is a center. Crouse doesn't strike me as being of the highest hockey IQ. But what do I know. 

 

EDIT: The only other thing I'd say is that you have to see all these picks and players merely as assets that can help you get what you need. In that respect, I'd be fine with them taking another D - Weresnki - since the market for elite D-men is at an all-time high. So you could move one of our other D prospects

[OccamsRazor]

If both Werenski and Crouse were available and they took Werenski (who I haven't seen so can't really judge him fairly) I wouldn't be too upset, because there are no guarantees with the prospects they already have and you can never have too many good D

 

Oh me either but realistically even though i mentioned Sanheim and the other technically you can't count them i think till they have made it full time of the BIG club you kind of have to take it like they aren't certain to make it and thus must still have to weigh BPA.

 

But the draft is no exact science. So at the same time say if Werenski was available and Hexy would rather lean toward need a little more folks need not be too upset because they could still say take another defenseman with Tamp's 1st....or vice versa take the LW with Tampa's 1st.

[Polaris922]

You have to admit they are "tanking" with style, beating the likes of the Blackhawks, Predators, Rangers, Caps, Penguins, etc. and only losing to the teams in direct contention with them for a high pick in the draft.

Dr Jekyll I presume?

[JackStraw]

Fair enough. I go back and forth on the whole BPA vs need debate. For me the whole power forward label has lost it's cache. You need tough, smart players. Period. They have to play big. Look at the Jets. The only real power forward they have is Wheeler. But they get 60 hard minutes from guys like Little, Perreault and Frolik every game. None of them are big. But they play big.

 

Again, I will say that I think they should take smart players. And that does make me interested in Barzal, even if he is a center. Crouse doesn't strike me as being of the highest hockey IQ. But what do I know. 

 

EDIT: The only other thing I'd say is that you have to see all these picks and players merely as assets that can help you get what you need. In that respect, I'd be fine with them taking another D - Weresnki - since the market for elite D-men is at an all-time high. So you could move one of our other D prospects

 

I agree but that goes back to what I said before. You have to hope that the trade will be there. Go back to the JVR trade, the Flyers were pretty desperate for D, so they trade JVR for Luke Schenn. Now, there wasn't a whole lot of love for JVR at the time, but I think virtually everyone acknowledged that on a value for value basis, JVR was the more valuable asset. If they could have a Roman Josi for JVR that would be great. Getting Luke for JVR is clearly less great. So you have to weigh the likelihood of maximizing the value of an asset through trade to fill a need vs using a draft pick to fill that need. And if the if you have two players ranked closely on your draft list and one fills a more obvious need then to me the smart (and safe) thing to do is take what's sitting in front of you.

 

Look at Laughton vs Maata, Laughton (who I do like) is still in the AHL while Maata (who would have filled a huge need at the time) has been a key piece on a much better team in the NHL. So I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you rank players on your draft list? Are just saying, "player A is more skilled and was better in juniors than player B"? Or are you taking into account how much of a difference there is between two, and how well drafting the player moves you closer to the ultimate goal?

[Podein25]

I agree but that goes back to what I said before. You have to hope that the trade will be there. Go back to the JVR trade, the Flyers were pretty desperate for D, so they trade JVR for Luke Schenn. Now, there wasn't a whole lot of love for JVR at the time, but I think virtually everyone acknowledged that on a value for value basis, JVR was the more valuable asset. If they could have a Roman Josi for JVR that would be great. Getting Luke for JVR is clearly less great. So you have to weigh the likelihood of maximizing the value of an asset through trade to fill a need vs using a draft pick to fill that need. And if the if you have two players ranked closely on your draft list and one fills a more obvious need then to me the smart (and safe) thing to do is take what's sitting in front of you.

 

Look at Laughton vs Maata, Laughton (who I do like) is still in the AHL while Maata (who would have filled a huge need at the time) has been a key piece on a much better team in the NHL. So I guess what I'm getting at is, how do you rank players on your draft list? Are just saying, "player A is more skilled and was better in juniors than player B"? Or are you taking into account how much of a difference there is between two, and how well drafting the player moves you closer to the ultimate goal?

 

 

Re: the JVR trade. That was a bad trade by Homer. Nobody thinks they got equal value. They should have got a 2nd or 3rd round pick along with the lead-footed Schenn. If you can't get that don't trade the asset. They could have got a D-man off of FA who is better (or no worse, at least, than Luke). 

 

I'm still thinking about your last question...for now I will say you take the player, all else being equal, that has shown consistent and constant improvement from one game to the next, from one week to the next etc. Because he's the one that will prosper in the NHL. This was the thing that the scouts said about Sanheim: that he just got better and better with each viewing. And he's still getting better. 

[OccamsRazor]

Re: the JVR trade. That was a bad trade by Homer. Nobody thinks they got equal value. They should have got a 2nd or 3rd round pick along with the lead-footed Schenn. If you can't get that don't trade the asset. They could have got a D-man off of FA who is better (or no worse, at least, than Luke). 

 

I'm still thinking about your last question...for now I will say you take the player, all else being equal, that has shown consistent and constant improvement from one game to the next, from one week to the next etc. Because he's the one that will prosper in the NHL. This was the thing that the scouts said about Sanheim: that he just got better and better with each viewing. And he's still getting better. 

 

 

I think the Schenns get moved together at the draft or the offseason. Then down the middle you'd still have G-Coots-Laughton-VLC (YUCK) Bellemare if need be. Maybe the get moved in the combo for the coveted 1st line LW or a prospect who is close to being NHL ready. You have to give up something to get something. Say just for example........the Schenns for Michael Dal Colle.

[JackStraw]

I'm still thinking about your last question...for now I will say you take the player, all else being equal, that has shown consistent and constant improvement from one game to the next, from one week to the next etc. Because he's the one that will prosper in the NHL. This was the thing that the scouts said about Sanheim: that he just got better and better with each viewing. And he's still getting better. 

 

But how do you know that just because someone shows improvement in junior that he will in fact prosper in the NHL? Improving in junior can involve getting bigger and stronger and faster, developing coordination, while playing against teenagers. Then you get to the NHL and you have to apply those skills against grown men, many of whom were also pretty successful in junior hockey.

[Podein25]

But how do you know that just because someone shows improvement in junior that he will in fact prosper in the NHL? Improving in junior can involve getting bigger and stronger and faster, developing coordination, while playing against teenagers. Then you get to the NHL and you have to apply those skills against grown men, many of whom were also pretty successful in junior hockey.

 

 

Because we're talking about the progression of 16-18 year olds playing, mainly, against 19-20 year olds. We're not talking about drafting over-age 21 year olds playing against 18-19 year olds.

[jammer2]

Crouse doesn't strike me as being of the highest hockey IQ. But what do I know.

 

 I've been thinking along the same lines, but impossible to tell from his WJC....he was on the checking line in a checking role, so kinda hard to judge stuff off that assignment. This is where my hockey streams will come in handy. Once we find out where we are picking, I intend to watch 10 games each from all the guys in and around our wheelhouse.

 

  Just so you guys know, hockeystreams.com does not require a 1 year 100 dollar commitment like I bought. They have all kinds of packages, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc....and all games from all teams are DVR'ed on that site. If we all *really* want to judge things from a position of strength, that is the way to go.

 

 Just checked the prices....

 

 1 day....7.49

 1 week...12.99

 1 month...17.99

 

 

 At those prices, it seems like the 1 month option for 17.99 is the best option....a small price to pay for the unlimited access to all the prospects you could ever want to watch. It is in high def also, and rarely choppy.

[OccamsRazor]

 I've been thinking along the same lines, but impossible to tell from his WJC....he was on the checking line in a checking role, so kinda hard to judge stuff off that assignment. This is where my hockey streams will come in handy. Once we find out where we are picking, I intend to watch 10 games each from all the guys in and around our wheelhouse.

 

  Just so you guys know, hockeystreams.com does not require a 1 year 100 dollar commitment like I bought. They have all kinds of packages, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month etc....and all games from all teams are DVR'ed on that site. If we all *really* want to judge things from a position of strength, that is the way to go.

 

 Just checked the prices....

 

 1 day....7.49

 1 week...12.99

 1 month...17.99

 

 

 At those prices, it seems like the 1 month option for 17.99 is the best option....a small price to pay for the unlimited access to all the prospects you could ever want to watch. It is in high def also, and rarely choppy.

 

 

That does sound tempting............

[JackStraw]

Because we're talking about the progression of 16-18 year olds playing, mainly, against 19-20 year olds. We're not talking about drafting over-age 21 year olds playing against 18-19 year olds.

 

Right, and my point there was that at age 16-18 there could be a significant amount of progress in a kid's development due to a variety of factors, and that kid might not be a better NHL player than one who maybe didn't show as much progress, but whose game translates better at the NHL level. There are just so many factors that go into determining success at the pro level that you can't make it an exact science.

 

Suppose you have two players, A and B both ranked closely on draft day. Player A has shown greater progress in the most recent season, but doesn't fill a need on your team. Player B has been on more of a plateau recently, but fills a real need, AND has obvious skills that translate to the NHL. Who do you take? If they're that close I would lean towards B.

[jammer2]

That does sound tempting............

 

 

  When you really look at things, all we *really* get from the net is other scouts and fans opinions and short snipets of video....which can be very misleading...and I might point out, the short video you get is all highlights, but does not show you any weakness or negative aspects of the prospects game....so yeah, for under 20 bucks you get a whole month to research these guys and form your own rock solid opinion, based on whole games played. I think watching a 10 game package from a prospect gives you a real nice handle on what they can and can't do.

[JackStraw]

  When you really look at things, all we *really* get from the net is other scouts and fans opinions and short snipets of video....which can be very misleading...and I might point out, the short video you get is all highlights, but does not show you any weakness or negative aspects of the prospects game....so yeah, for under 20 bucks you get a whole month to research these guys and form your own rock solid opinion, based on whole games played. I think watching a 10 game package from a prospect gives you a real nice handle on what they can and can't do.

 

That does sound tempting.

[OccamsRazor]

And my biggest problem now is finding time to watch it. The only way most times i can even post here is on my phone...because it goes everywhere with me.

 

So time is the biggest obstacle for me. That why by reading other comments/fans/scouts/video clips is all i got most times....it sucks.

[jammer2]

And my biggest problem now is finding time to watch it. The only way most times i can even post here is on my phone...because it goes everywhere with me.

 

So time is the biggest obstacle for me. That why by reading other comments/fans/scouts/video clips is all i got most times....it sucks.

 

 

 Yeah, the time restraints are the thing that holds anyone back....I guess it all comes down to priority....I will gladly give up an entire week of my life to get a proper fix on these guys, it's a labour of love, scouting is one of my fav things to do on the whole planet....lol. Plus, this particular draft has me so excited, I really want to know as much as I can possibly cram into my brain.

[Podein25]

Suppose you have two players, A and B both ranked closely on draft day. Player A has shown greater progress in the most recent season, but doesn't fill a need on your team. Player B has been on more of a plateau recently, but fills a real need, AND has obvious skills that translate to the NHL. Who do you take? If they're that close I would lean towards B.

 

 

Ok, so there's where we can agree to disagree: I take player A over the guy (B) who has plateaued. Every day. Twice on Sundays.