I dig it. But I wouldn't call Mavrik last season start as disappointment or "down". Fact is that he came from QMJHL to AHL. This is from pond hockey to pros.
The amount of time and space Mavrik has in those QMJHL clips is insane. Nothing like that happens in pro hockey. But he has been able to adapt to quicker and more aggressive game very quickly.
Going through this phase takes time. Only Wyatt has done it without AHL practice. Miro played pro hockey in Finland two years before Dallas. Mavrik still needs to improve but his definitely on his way.
I think that's part of it re: Bourque. But I think another part of it is that the AHL isn't geared towards playmakers. It's very north/south hockey where a lot of forward linemates are dudes who just don't process the game in an east/west fashion. Every now and then you get someone like Mattias Maccelli in Arizona who just dominates but that kid's an absolutely stud. For the most part, however, production alone is nothing to write home about. Dickinson, McKenzie, Shore...while not necessarily the norm, it happens frequently enough, and I think it reflects the simplistic game AHLers play.
What's up with the second guessing of yourself? Or is this a Jack Nicholson type "you can't handle the truth" moment?
The AHL is going to be a good measuring stick for a lot of these players who we haven't seen play real pro hockey. We all love the mystery box because it gives us a chance at hope, when reality we should probably put stock in the knowns and look at their development. Bourque didn't wow first thing, but it might be even more impressive that he was able to develop. Really want to see him play a few games up I-35 this year. Stank should be good, but the hype around him is making it hard to know what to trust. If he makes the team out of camp, then I'll truly believe.
I studied philosophy. Second guessing yourself is a way of life.
But also I think it's useful to respect your audience. A bunch of casual fans wondering why Dallas' golden boy (Stankoven) isn't #1 might not take the ranking seriously. This doesn't mean I'm pandering to them. It just means that for me, there's the professional ranking, and then my personal ranking (speaking of which, that's a good idea for a post!). And to be fair, I'm not a full time draft analyst, so some of my personal ranking is built entirely from intuition.
1st of all: keep these pieces coming I absolutely love them
2nd: I’m with you 100% on Bourque possibly being stars best prospect. His vision and IQ are very Robertson-esque imo. Put him on a line with people that can help grow and maximize those skills and he could be dangerous.
3rd: semminoff and stankoven are going to be fun to watch together. I could see them being 2/3 of this “new” 3rd line build. Skilled enough to score goals consistently while still being very hard to play against
Glad you're digging it Justin. I'm really wedded to the idea that Hintz + Bourque = the future. I also like Bourque plays a more defensively aware game than Robertson. I know I poo poo "defensive responsibility" in forwards, but only at the low levels. High level forwards who play a strong defensive game are the truly elite IMO.
Who are your future pairs then and what skillset do they need to dominate. This is assuming 3-5 year horizon (No Benn, Seguin twilight, Marchment only if he re-ups)
Hintz + Bourque feels like it needs a finisher and it could probably live with a Kessel type who may not really love playing defense.
Robo + Seguin - Does this pairing work, or is it another Seguin/Marchment odd couple. Would want to add some speed here
Stank + Semminoff I don't know that well, my SWAG would be get a breakaway specialist who can play defense (Janmark when he went to chicago). Could also be a place where skilled kids could drink their cup of coffee without having to be knuckle draggers.
Dellandrea + Steel(?) keep a 4th line spirit without them having to play anti-hockey? Almost anyone fits here as long as they aren't career FCC types.
The first line's speed might be something of a concern, but while Johnston is not fast, he's fluid, and certainly fluid enough to jailbreak plays. Stankoven can more than compensate for the other two.
Re: the second line. The reason why playmakers are so good is that they don't need finishers if they have each other. I always thought that was the most fascinating thing about Ryan Stimson's study on player clusters. Three playmakers were better than two playmakers + a shooter or two shooters + a playmaker. Someone like Connor Brown/Zach Hyman/Conor Garland would be perfect for them.
Dellandrea can put in the work for Seguin, and I think he has top six upside. I think they're fine.
I never think about what teams need so much as what they can maximize. Colorado ostensible needed size. Instead they maximized what they were already good at. Tampa could have used more speed on the backend. Instead they made a big blueline even bigger, focusing on a system (in this case their five tight/collapse scheme) that allowed them to use their size to broad effect.
Totally spaced on Johnston, the contact in cap friendly is short so I glossed right over him since he wasn't with the AHLers.
Chemistry and identity trump needs. Much like a girl I dated in college, what you think is your perfect fit and what you actually need can be quite different. As much as we bemoan Bowness and his style of play, if everyone does their part it can be effective (what is exhausting in the regular season can be a perfect fit in a tournament).
On the playmakers, 3 together can work wonderfully. They can set up plays that make you think "even I could score that goal". The only worry is if you have guys who are always pass first and aren't selfish enough to take a shot. In the Bowness days, you'd have guys trying to not take the bad shot, and would give up a decent chance to stay out of the doghouse. Avoid this and playmakers are like friends, you always want more.
I dig it. But I wouldn't call Mavrik last season start as disappointment or "down". Fact is that he came from QMJHL to AHL. This is from pond hockey to pros.
The amount of time and space Mavrik has in those QMJHL clips is insane. Nothing like that happens in pro hockey. But he has been able to adapt to quicker and more aggressive game very quickly.
Going through this phase takes time. Only Wyatt has done it without AHL practice. Miro played pro hockey in Finland two years before Dallas. Mavrik still needs to improve but his definitely on his way.
I think that's part of it re: Bourque. But I think another part of it is that the AHL isn't geared towards playmakers. It's very north/south hockey where a lot of forward linemates are dudes who just don't process the game in an east/west fashion. Every now and then you get someone like Mattias Maccelli in Arizona who just dominates but that kid's an absolutely stud. For the most part, however, production alone is nothing to write home about. Dickinson, McKenzie, Shore...while not necessarily the norm, it happens frequently enough, and I think it reflects the simplistic game AHLers play.
What's up with the second guessing of yourself? Or is this a Jack Nicholson type "you can't handle the truth" moment?
The AHL is going to be a good measuring stick for a lot of these players who we haven't seen play real pro hockey. We all love the mystery box because it gives us a chance at hope, when reality we should probably put stock in the knowns and look at their development. Bourque didn't wow first thing, but it might be even more impressive that he was able to develop. Really want to see him play a few games up I-35 this year. Stank should be good, but the hype around him is making it hard to know what to trust. If he makes the team out of camp, then I'll truly believe.
I studied philosophy. Second guessing yourself is a way of life.
But also I think it's useful to respect your audience. A bunch of casual fans wondering why Dallas' golden boy (Stankoven) isn't #1 might not take the ranking seriously. This doesn't mean I'm pandering to them. It just means that for me, there's the professional ranking, and then my personal ranking (speaking of which, that's a good idea for a post!). And to be fair, I'm not a full time draft analyst, so some of my personal ranking is built entirely from intuition.
Just saying.
Very good article . Bourque had more of a Down then UP season chronologically speaking 🙄
Fair enough. And thanks!
1st of all: keep these pieces coming I absolutely love them
2nd: I’m with you 100% on Bourque possibly being stars best prospect. His vision and IQ are very Robertson-esque imo. Put him on a line with people that can help grow and maximize those skills and he could be dangerous.
3rd: semminoff and stankoven are going to be fun to watch together. I could see them being 2/3 of this “new” 3rd line build. Skilled enough to score goals consistently while still being very hard to play against
Glad you're digging it Justin. I'm really wedded to the idea that Hintz + Bourque = the future. I also like Bourque plays a more defensively aware game than Robertson. I know I poo poo "defensive responsibility" in forwards, but only at the low levels. High level forwards who play a strong defensive game are the truly elite IMO.
Who are your future pairs then and what skillset do they need to dominate. This is assuming 3-5 year horizon (No Benn, Seguin twilight, Marchment only if he re-ups)
Hintz + Bourque feels like it needs a finisher and it could probably live with a Kessel type who may not really love playing defense.
Robo + Seguin - Does this pairing work, or is it another Seguin/Marchment odd couple. Would want to add some speed here
Stank + Semminoff I don't know that well, my SWAG would be get a breakaway specialist who can play defense (Janmark when he went to chicago). Could also be a place where skilled kids could drink their cup of coffee without having to be knuckle draggers.
Dellandrea + Steel(?) keep a 4th line spirit without them having to play anti-hockey? Almost anyone fits here as long as they aren't career FCC types.
Here's what I'd like to see.
Robertson-Johnston-Stankoven
Benn(cheap deal)/FA-Hintz-Bourque
Marchment-Seguin-Dellandrea
Who cares...
The first line's speed might be something of a concern, but while Johnston is not fast, he's fluid, and certainly fluid enough to jailbreak plays. Stankoven can more than compensate for the other two.
Re: the second line. The reason why playmakers are so good is that they don't need finishers if they have each other. I always thought that was the most fascinating thing about Ryan Stimson's study on player clusters. Three playmakers were better than two playmakers + a shooter or two shooters + a playmaker. Someone like Connor Brown/Zach Hyman/Conor Garland would be perfect for them.
Dellandrea can put in the work for Seguin, and I think he has top six upside. I think they're fine.
I never think about what teams need so much as what they can maximize. Colorado ostensible needed size. Instead they maximized what they were already good at. Tampa could have used more speed on the backend. Instead they made a big blueline even bigger, focusing on a system (in this case their five tight/collapse scheme) that allowed them to use their size to broad effect.
d
Totally spaced on Johnston, the contact in cap friendly is short so I glossed right over him since he wasn't with the AHLers.
Chemistry and identity trump needs. Much like a girl I dated in college, what you think is your perfect fit and what you actually need can be quite different. As much as we bemoan Bowness and his style of play, if everyone does their part it can be effective (what is exhausting in the regular season can be a perfect fit in a tournament).
On the playmakers, 3 together can work wonderfully. They can set up plays that make you think "even I could score that goal". The only worry is if you have guys who are always pass first and aren't selfish enough to take a shot. In the Bowness days, you'd have guys trying to not take the bad shot, and would give up a decent chance to stay out of the doghouse. Avoid this and playmakers are like friends, you always want more.