Edge, this Stepan kid is not in the mold of a Dubinsky, Anisimov, or Tyutin - he's exactly like those other guys I listed - thin slick offensive guys who make noise in the college/minors and look like career AHL'ers at their highest peak.
You're right about taking a shot at top line potential, but again, we did that with Olver, seems like our scouts have a one track mind sometimes.
How can you say that though? Just because he's playing college hockey?
Dubinsky was a 5'11, 180 pound center who wasn't a great skater and lacked size when we drafted him.
Anisimov was 6'3, 180 pounds and had the knock against him for getting pushed around by smaller players.
It seems like the only argument we can find against the kid is based on what Olver did (or didn't) do. That's like saying Del Zotto is destined for better things because he is similar to Sanguinetti. I just don't think that's a fair way to look at these kids.
Stepan might make it. He might not. That's the nature of the pick, but it's not like they took someone ranked 200th with their second round pick. Just because he's not a hyped prospect doesn't mean he's destined to failure.
How can you say that though? Just because he's playing college hockey?
Dubinsky was a 5'11, 180 pound center who wasn't a great skater and lacked size when we drafted him.
Anisimov was 6'3, 180 pounds and had the knock against him for getting pushed around by smaller players.
It seems like the only argument we can find against the kid is based on what Olver did (or didn't) do. That's like saying Del Zotto is destined for better things because he is similar to Sanguinetti. I just don't think that's a fair way to look at these kids.
Stepan might make it. He might not. That's the nature of the pick, but it's not like they took someone ranked 200th with their second round pick. Just because he's not a hyped prospect doesn't mean he's destined to failure.
Dubinsky fought and was gritty, at that size it meant something, there wasnt much talk about his size cause he utilized what he did have. Stepan doesnt seem like the type, thats my point - he's alot closer to guys like Olver than he is Dubi or Anisimov(there wasnt a big stink about him being soft as far as i recall, and even if there were he's 6'3, theres room to grow there).
there wasnt a big stink about him being soft as far as i recall, and even if there were he's 6'3, theres room to grow there)..
There was a lot of talk about how skinny Anisimov was/still is. He's never going to be a big body out there, in my opinion. some guys just can't fill out to 220 or something and still be in hockey shape
There was a lot of talk about how skinny Anisimov was/still is. He's never going to be a big body out there, in my opinion. some guys just can't fill out to 220 or something and still be in hockey shape
I'm not saying he's gonna destroy guys with his size, he's got a large frame on him, nobody's just gonna knock him down. Can't say that about a guy like Stepan.
Thats my point, thats what we said about Olver and the like !
And Edge's point was that you could have said the same about a guy like Dubinsky. It's a crap shoot. Until they come up with some kind of wild predicting technology that lets you figure out how much someone is going to grow, you just have no way of knowing what will happen (well, maybe aside from looking at their parents!).
In the end, better to draft based on skill than size, if you're looking for someone to be a scorer
And Edge's point was that you could have said the same about a guy like Dubinsky. It's a crap shoot. Until they come up with some kind of wild predicting technology that lets you figure out how much someone is going to grow, you just have no way of knowing what will happen (well, maybe aside from looking at their parents!).
In the end, better to draft based on skill than size, if you're looking for someone to be a scorer
Ok i'll say it again - Dubinsky utilized what size he had, thats why you can't use him as an example - Olver, Inman, Falardeau, Roche, Ryan - these guys are all pretty much the same player. Stepan fits their mold more than he does a Dubi or Anisimov.
You're right, its great to draft skill, just seems like its always the same type of player, with pretty unspectaular results as far as turning out NHL'ers.
Ok i'll say it again - Dubinsky utilized what size he had, thats why you can't use him as an example - Olver, Inman, Falardeau, Roche, Ryan - these guys are all pretty much the same player. Stepan fits their mold more than he does a Dubi or Anisimov.
You're right, its great to draft skill, just seems like its always the same type of player, with pretty unspectaular results as far as turning out NHL'ers.
Most draft picks end up being busts anyway, theres nothing inherent about skilled players that make them more likely to fail. I don't get any impression there is some fatal flaw with Stepan that makes him doomed to fail.
Ok i'll say it again - Dubinsky utilized what size he had, thats why you can't use him as an example - Olver, Inman, Falardeau, Roche, Ryan - these guys are all pretty much the same player. Stepan fits their mold more than he does a Dubi or Anisimov.
You're right, its great to draft skill, just seems like its always the same type of player, with pretty unspectaular results as far as turning out NHL'ers.
Why because Olver didn't make it? If we're going to go with that approach we need to look at every defenseman the Rangers drafted in the last 10 years who is 6'3 and above.
Kloucek, Jarvis, Henry, etc. I just don't think we're really fishing to try and make this point work.
And how in the world is Stepan anything like Falardeau? There's about 3 inches and and entire playing style seperating them.
So Dubinsky utilized his size. Did Anisimov? Did Amonte when he was 6'0, 165 pounds on draft day? The point is we don't know, but we're not even juding Stepan on his own merits, the best argument we can come up against him is the play of others.
Should we never draft a big forward in the top 90 because of the failures of Jessiman, Jonasen and Falardeau?
Based on previous experience, Lundqvist would've been a waste of time based on the drafting of guys like Asplund and Holmqvist.
Fact of the matter is no matter who you draft, the best teams are still going to fail about 66% of the time. There is no exact science to this, there's no rulebook that says "Guys who are 6'0 and lighter will never make it." While they haven't yet for the Rangers, you could point to plenty of guys around the NHL who have.
If Stepan doesn't make it, it will be because he didn't cut the mustard. Not because Olver and Roche didn't make it.
If Stepan doesn't make it, it will be because he didn't cut the mustard. Not because Olver and Roche didn't make it.
And that's really the crux of it. If anything the success of Lundy vs Montoya or Dubinsky vs Brendl is that talent is everywhere in the draft, and it's really up to the player and their advisers how they turn out.
Yes, we might try to do some forecasting on past history, but that tends to get tricky with those meddling kids and whether or not they have the testicular fortitude to make a go of it.
The more I think about Stepan the more I like the pick. Maybe he wasn't highly touted in the national rankings, but starring for Shattuck's and leading all Minnesota HS players in scoring sure isn't bad in my book.
And the comparisons to Olver and Ryan are off the mark in my opinion. Maybe they have similar body types, but that's it. Last time I checked those two went to Northern Michigan and Maine, two currently middling programs (although Maine is on their way back). Stepan is going to one of the top 5 NCAA programs in my opinion.
Billy Ryan actually went to Maine, which has a decent program I think.
The Maine program got gutted after they were found to be in NCAA rules violations the year after Kariya won the Championship with them. It's never been the same since, although they seem to be clawing their way back.
