2015 NHL Entry Draft

[Frank E]

Well, still, if we're talking about how that translates into a strong NHL career, only 8 guys out of 60 top point getters are "Marner sized", according to your earlier post.

We know that, but that's not the point. The point is how many "Marner sized" hockey players are there/have there been who are as good as Mitch Marner? Based on the information that we have at this point the answer is very, very few. So there's good reason to believe that his talents will make him an exception to the rule just like Giroux and Kane's talent made them the exception as well.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement here...You believe that because the ranking takes his height to weight ratio into consideration, his skill set can overcome it.

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

I'm not going to be disappointed if they take Marner.  I love watching Pat Kane play hockey.  I'm just concerned with taking a guy with a definite physical uphill battle at 4th overall, given the options available to the Leafs with that pick.

 

[Kin]

It should, at this point, also be taken into consideration that NHL listed weights aren't updated from year to year so we really have no idea how heavy players in the league are.

But Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman and Wayne Gretzky were all about 5'11 and 185. Nobody's saying that Marner will be as good as one of those guys but the idea that smaller guys being terrific NHL players is some sort of freak occurrence to be dismissed as presenting a huge advantage for one prospect over the other just doesn't really play out by the numbers.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

But what is a "more similar frame to successful NHLers"?  You can rattle off a whole host of bigger players who failed to live up to their junior billing.

Even those examples have issues - Hamill was a quirk of his birthday falling past the September cut-off so he was really a 2006 draft age group but was not eligible until the 2007 draft.  By that point he was into his 3rd full WHL season, while someone like Logan Couture who went one pick later was in his 2nd.  These sorts of things (age, experience) make a big difference in junior points totals.

With someone like Filatov, the knock was always his commitment to playing hard that was the common refrain.  That he wasn't able to dedicate himself to the pro game like he should have.  And that may have been an issue of not doing due diligence on him, rushing him, etc.  But I don't see how it was an issue of size holding him back.

 

[ZBBM]

Well, still, if we're talking about how that translates into a strong NHL career, only 8 guys out of 60 top point getters are "Marner sized", according to your earlier post.

We know that, but that's not the point. The point is how many "Marner sized" hockey players are there/have there been who are as good as Mitch Marner? Based on the information that we have at this point the answer is very, very few. So there's good reason to believe that his talents will make him an exception to the rule just like Giroux and Kane's talent made them the exception as well.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement here...You believe that because the ranking takes his height to weight ratio into consideration, his skill set can overcome it.

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

I'm not going to be disappointed if they take Marner.  I love watching Pat Kane play hockey.  I'm just concerned with taking a guy with a definite physical uphill battle at 4th overall, given the options available to the Leafs with that pick.

Frank, you've stated my own feelings very well.  I won't be distraught if they take Marner.  It's just a higher risk IMO.  I also think there's a bit of irrational exuberance around him right about now.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Well, still, if we're talking about how that translates into a strong NHL career, only 8 guys out of 60 top point getters are "Marner sized", according to your earlier post.

We know that, but that's not the point. The point is how many "Marner sized" hockey players are there/have there been who are as good as Mitch Marner? Based on the information that we have at this point the answer is very, very few. So there's good reason to believe that his talents will make him an exception to the rule just like Giroux and Kane's talent made them the exception as well.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement here...You believe that because the ranking takes his height to weight ratio into consideration, his skill set can overcome it.

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

I'm not going to be disappointed if they take Marner.  I love watching Pat Kane play hockey.  I'm just concerned with taking a guy with a definite physical uphill battle at 4th overall, given the options available to the Leafs with that pick.

Frank, you've stated my own feelings very well.  I won't be distraught if they take Marner.  It's just a higher risk IMO.  I also think there's a bit of irrational exuberance around him right about now.

What's irrational about it?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Nylander was 160 lbs when drafted and is now close to 190.

 

[Kin]

Nobody's actually explained why Marner's size would be a problem. All this "increased risk" just comes from a pretty pointless establishment that the size of NHL players isn't evenly distributed. Right now there are probably as many if not more great forwards listed at 185 pounds or under than there are great forwards listed at 6'5 or over. Would that make the second coming of Mats Sundin a "risky" pick because he'd be unusual?

The vast majority of forwards are going to be between, say, 5'11 and 6'3. Resultingly the vast majority of good forwards will fit somewhere in there too. There are some great players who are 6'4 and over and some who are 5'10 and under. But there's really not much of a difference there.

 

[Frank E]

Nylander was 160 lbs when drafted and is now close to 190.

Great! Right?

 

[ZBBM]

Well, still, if we're talking about how that translates into a strong NHL career, only 8 guys out of 60 top point getters are "Marner sized", according to your earlier post.

We know that, but that's not the point. The point is how many "Marner sized" hockey players are there/have there been who are as good as Mitch Marner? Based on the information that we have at this point the answer is very, very few. So there's good reason to believe that his talents will make him an exception to the rule just like Giroux and Kane's talent made them the exception as well.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement here...You believe that because the ranking takes his height to weight ratio into consideration, his skill set can overcome it.

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

I'm not going to be disappointed if they take Marner.  I love watching Pat Kane play hockey.  I'm just concerned with taking a guy with a definite physical uphill battle at 4th overall, given the options available to the Leafs with that pick.

Frank, you've stated my own feelings very well.  I won't be distraught if they take Marner.  It's just a higher risk IMO.  I also think there's a bit of irrational exuberance around him right about now.

What's irrational about it?

Lots of glowing talk and not much about his faults, which all players have.  I suppose scorers are more exciting to talk about. 

 

[ZBBM]

Nobody's actually explained why Marner's size would be a problem. All this "increased risk" just comes from a pretty pointless establishment that the size of NHL players isn't evenly distributed. Right now there are probably as many if not more great forwards listed at 185 pounds or under than there are great forwards listed at 6'5 or over. Would that make the second coming of Mats Sundin a "risky" pick because he'd be unusual?

The vast majority of forwards are going to be between, say, 5'11 and 6'3. Resultingly the vast majority of good forwards will fit somewhere in there too. There are some great players who are 6'4 and over and some who are 5'10 and under. But there's really not much of a difference there.

Well, if he gets to 185 there's no argument.  But if he stays at, say 170 or 175, which you said the other day isn't an issue, then it's a potential concern.  Maybe not to you, but apparently to most GMs since there is in fact a debate about whether taking him is a risk.  If he were already 185 we wouldn't be going over this ad nauseam.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Lots of glowing talk and not much about his faults, which all players have.  I suppose scorers are more exciting to talk about. 

Do you think that there's been a lot of talk about Strome and Hanifin's faults? I haven't seen many really slamming those 2 in any way. And I mean even on scouting reports the only real weakness listed in Marner's game is his size, which has been covered quite a bit here obviously.

 

[Kin]

Maybe not to you, but apparently to most GMs since there is in fact a debate about whether taking him is a risk.

Other than McDavid and Eichel, every single player's potential downsides are being debated right now and, outside of McDavid and Eichel, every single player has them.

The fact that people are talking about his size, and as people have established a pro-size bias is something that is popular in the NHL without a lot of statistical basis, doesn't actually make it a problem.

And, again, if he stayed below 185(and you'll note I used the handy "and under" modifier) there would still be more great forwards in the NHL under 185 than over 6'4. That doesn't in and of itself establish your point. Just like 6'9 defensemen aren't risks because there's only one really great one.

 

[L K]

I'm less convinced that his weight won't become an impediment to him being able to be a great producer.  I'm more concerned than you are about him being a Filatov or a Hamill than I am a Pat Kane, and so my vote goes to a player that has similar production plus a more similar frame to successful NHLers.

But what is a "more similar frame to successful NHLers"?  You can rattle off a whole host of bigger players who failed to live up to their junior billing.

Even those examples have issues - Hamill was a quirk of his birthday falling past the September cut-off so he was really a 2006 draft age group but was not eligible until the 2007 draft.  By that point he was into his 3rd full WHL season, while someone like Logan Couture who went one pick later was in his 2nd.  These sorts of things (age, experience) make a big difference in junior points totals.

With someone like Filatov, the knock was always his commitment to playing hard that was the common refrain.  That he wasn't able to dedicate himself to the pro game like he should have.  And that may have been an issue of not doing due diligence on him, rushing him, etc.  But I don't see how it was an issue of size holding him back.

I think it should also be said that even with Hamill playing in his 3rd OHL season during his draft year was that he still wasn't a 100 point player.  In their career leading up to their NHL draft:
Marner - 127 GP 185 points
Hamilll - 183 GP 187 points

I don't think that's necessarily a fair knock on Marner to put him in the same territory as Hamill.  As for Filatov, I think everyone knew the issue with him was his head and work ethic.  If Marner proves to be a head case over the offseason and doesn't follow a good workout plan, I think that is a fair argument to be worried about the guy, but up until this point he has done nothing to indicate that he has that kind of problem.  He's a hard worker on and off the ice with the Knights.  He's also a guy who recognizes where his strengths are and has put a lot of work into making sure they are an incredible asset (his mobility and lower body strength).  He's never going to be Jaromir Jagr along the boards but Marner isn't a guy who gets ragdolled (unless a guy crosschecks his face while he comes around the net...thanks Erie).

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Ivan Provorov is a long shot but hey:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EMCt6GNLx4[/youtube]

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Ivan Provorov is a long shot but hey:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EMCt6GNLx4[/youtube]

He looks like a good one but considering we'd have to trade for a top 10 pick to land him, I'd prefer to use that pick on Barzal (if we manage to get one and he's available). Provorov skill set seems a little redundant at this point with Rielly and Gardiner in the plans (unless Gardiner is leaving).

 

[herman]

This is a misleading title, but a pretty good fanpost about how the Leafs need to prioritize their drafting down the road.

Why the Leafs shouldn't bother drafting good skaters

I'm #TeamMarner. Is that a thing?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I see Jack Eichel presented Don Cherry with a team USA polo for "all his support of our program over the years".

I like Eichel. lol

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I like Eichel. lol

You might say you Leichel.

I'll show myself out.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

Given the debate about Marner's size, I thought this was interesting in an article today:

?My brother is six-two. He grew late. He just stopped growing now at 22,? said Marner...

If this kid hits 6' 2", that would be a pretty good combination of skill and size.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/marner-would-love-to-play-for-leafs-hunter/

 

[Highlander]

supposedly Matt Gilroy a finalist for the Hobey Baker a few years back grew from 5'8" at 18 to 6'1 but the time he was 22. Many players can gain height/weight after 18 years of age.