Im talking about Q since we're comparing at the same age.
Crosby in the Q was very much pass first. Sure you can point out his GPG numbers but that is because he was so good at that age. He also had 102 assists though. Mackinnon, on the other hand, has more goals than assists.
Crosby wasn't a "pass first" guy, imo. He was just really good at it. As balanced as they come, imo. Even cracked the top 20 in shots taken in his rookie year in the NHL. Did a bit more passing when someone of Malkin's calibre joined the powerplay, and instead of puck carrying so much after coming back from '07/08, but guess what? 5th in the league and 51 goals the next year. The biggest/most obvious changes in his game since junior is his attention to detail playing without the puck, not what he does when he has it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapes
Drouin has a higher IQ than Nate, as well. Not a knock on Nate at all, Drouin plays an extremely smart game. Sidney at that age was just off the charts good. I remember watching him and I would be in complete "aw" at how he played. You just knew he was going to be something.
Nate = Hossa/Kovy
Drouin = Eberle/Giroux
Pick your poison.
While I don't think the comparisons at the bottom are necessarily far off at all, the bolded part cannot be stated as fact by any stretch. Different tools doing different things, and if anticipation, or "seeing the play happen before it does", tells us more than anything else about someone's "hockey I.Q.", then I submit that it's actually MacKinnon with the upper hand here.
Crosby wasn't a "pass first" guy, imo. He was just really good at it. As balanced as they come, imo. Even cracked the top 20 in shots taken in his rookie year in the NHL. Did a bit more passing when someone of Malkin's calibre joined the powerplay, and instead of puck carrying so much after coming back from '07/08, but guess what? 5th in the league and 51 goals the next year. The biggest/most obvious changes in his game since junior is his attention to detail playing without the puck, not what he does when he has it.
While I don't think the comparisons at the bottom are necessarily far off at all, the bolded part cannot be stated as fact by any stretch. Different tools doing different things, and if anticipation, or "seeing the play happen before it does", tells us more than anything else about someone's "hockey I.Q.", then I submit that it's actually MacKinnon with the upper hand here.
But nate is a PURE goal scorer regardless, where Sid wasn't. His passing was unbelievable. So they still were different. Regardless, tough comparing guys style when skill level was way different.
Well hockey IQ is very subjective so I won't argue it much. At least I think we can agree both have very high IQ that should make them successful.
But nate is a PURE goal scorer regardless, where Sid wasn't. His passing was unbelievable. So they still were different. Regardless, tough comparing guys style when skill level was way different.
Well hockey IQ is very subjective so I won't argue it much. At least I think we can agree both have very high IQ that should make them successful.
Classifying Nate as a "pure goal scorer" is kind of ridiculous, though, when it's what he does with the puck (and without these days) in the other 2 zones, too, that makes him as great as he is. Which is to say, that moniker sells his talent way short, and doesn't quite reflect the reality of how he makes an impact on games.
I'm going to disagree with the Roenick comparison, but it's only because a large part of Roenick's game (like Forsberg, or Ovechkin, to use a more modern example) involved initiating a lot of contact - sometimes borderline recklessly, but almost always at high speed. More feisty, intense and instigating physical player, whereas Nathan just plays a positional game that involves being strong on his skates and doesn't include pulling out of hits. Not nearly as focused on making contact wherever he goes, and not as chippy either, as MacKinnon plays a style that is much more concerned with staying calm, focused, and out of the penalty box. He commented as much during one of his interviews last week on Sportsnet. Roenick definitely fought for his inches of ice every night with more ferocity than you'll see from MacKinnon.
The "tools" and some of those rushes, though, are Roenick-esque enough. Someone with only Youtube to follow could be excused for not being able to see just how dissimilar their games actually look over the course of an entire game.
Roenick was certainly more reckless, abrasive and violent. No doubt about that. Look no further than PIMs.
That said, the entire reason I make the Roenick comparison is because in the games I've seen MacKinnon DOES seem to initiate contact whenever possible.
MacKinnon is certainly the much more toned down player, but it is 2012. NOBODY plays like they did in the 90s in terms of recklessness and violence.
Roenick was certainly more reckless, abrasive and violent. No doubt about that. Look no further than PIMs.
That said, the entire reason I make the Roenick comparison is because in the games I've seen MacKinnon DOES seem to initiate contact whenever possible.
MacKinnon is certainly the much more toned down player, but it is 2012. NOBODY plays like they did in the 90s in terms of recklessness and violence.
MacKinnon finishes more checks this year, and dives right into/through traffic when he has the puck, but he doesn't go out there and try to make plays happen from a momentum changing hit, or get to laying the body as often as possible on "energy shifts" to wake up his team, like Roenick basically patented. MacKinnon plays much more of a controlled retrieval game coupled with explosive transition.
To put it more simply, Roenick most often went out on shifts looking for contact, or the chance to use it to create openings. MacKinnon seems way more content to just take the opportunities to bang around a bit as they come. Actually, a little more assertion in this area would probably be a good thing for his career in the long run.
While I don't think the comparisons at the bottom are necessarily far off at all, the bolded part cannot be stated as fact by any stretch. Different tools doing different things, and if anticipation, or "seeing the play happen before it does", tells us more than anything else about someone's "hockey I.Q.", then I submit that it's actually MacKinnon with the upper hand here.
Feel free to disagree, but while there are many who like to give Drouin the advantage in the vision department, I don't think anyone worth listening to would give the anticipation/read advantage to him. And like I said, since the early days of Gretzky I've been led to believe that anticipation like that is directly related to the idea of "hockey I.Q.".
I'll read anything you present in terms of exploring what hockey I.Q. "is", and how these guys apply it, but don't drop an "oh come on" like that as if you're an authority who knows better, lol.
Feel free to disagree, but while there are many who like to give Drouin the advantage in the vision department, I don't think anyone worth listening to would give the anticipation/read advantage to him. And like I said, since the early days of Gretzky I've been led to believe that anticipation like that is directly related to the idea of "hockey I.Q.".
I'll read anything you present in terms of exploring what hockey I.Q. "is", and how these guys apply it, but don't drop an "oh come on" like that as if you're an authority who knows better, lol.
Hockey IQ isn't really a think you can quantify. It is the ability to create offense for yourself and others without even touching the puck. It's making your teammates better when you have that puck. This could mean opening lanes with movements or simply distributing the puck. When it comes to offensive hockey IQ Drouin is the total package. I just don't see how anyone can have MacKinnon in the same conversation at this time. MacKinnon is the definition of elite skillset. It seems in this thread you severely overate him however.
Hockey IQ isn't really a think you can quantify. It is the ability to create offense for yourself and others without even touching the puck. It's making your teammates better when you have that puck. This could mean opening lanes with movements or simply distributing the puck. When it comes to offensive hockey IQ Drouin is the total package. I just don't see how anyone can have MacKinnon in the same conversation at this time. MacKinnon is the definition of elite skillset. It seems in this thread you severely overate him however.
I don't "rate" anyone; I describe their game to the best of my ability, and compare where applicable. But looking at your elaboration into hockey I.Q., it seems to me that you're describing MacKinnon more so than Drouin. If you want to talk offensive skills, then maybe the scale tips toward Drouin (lots of slick precision), but hockey I.Q. exhibits himself in what I mentioned earlier (anticipation/reading, play without the puck) and decision-making, imo, and I don't think Drouin has proven MacKinnon's equal in those departments, let alone his better.
I don't "rate" anyone; I describe their game to the best of my ability, and compare where applicable. But looking at your elaboration into hockey I.Q., it seems to me that you're describing MacKinnon more so than Drouin. If you want to talk offensive skills, then maybe the scale tips toward Drouin (lots of slick precision), but hockey I.Q. exhibits himself in what I mentioned earlier (anticipation/reading, play without the puck) and decision-making, imo, and I don't think Drouin has proven MacKinnon's equal in those departments, let alone his better.
I love you OJ, always quality stuff from you, but from the little I've seen, Drouin has a clear advantage in hockey IQ.
Mackinnon reminds me a bit of Subban (let me finish!!) in the sense that, the fact that he's a master of most all of the technical skills (strength, power, shot, stickhandling, etc.) and possessing the work ethic and will of a champion makes him look a bit better than he really is. Nothing wrong with that, as I feel that he will be very special in his own way, but he doesn't belong in the same sentence as Crosby. Imo guys like RNH, JT, Stamkos are all better players as well. To me, he's in the Taylor Hall, Ovy, Yakupov class.
He's much better than PK Subban at thinking the game and all that, I was just trying to make a point.
I've been able to watch MacKinnon about 5 times this season (not a lot). and the problem is he definitely hasn't impressed me in all the games I've seen compared to RNH (a year before), Jones, or Barkov. I know he's got fantastic vision, explosive skating, and the ability to put up points through passing, shooting, PP, or PK. But to me in those games he hasn't looked like a 1st overall pick, there are times that he went for the hit, getting out of position, and leading to prime scoring chances for the other team. Also looked pretty selfish at times, ie: trying to stick handle through the other team and he can do it easily against junior players, but I doubt it will work out so well in the pros. So my question is has Jones, Barkov, Monahan, others closed the gap for the 1st overall or do a lot of you believe that MacKinnon will go 1st overall anyway?
I love you OJ, always quality stuff from you, but from the little I've seen, Drouin has a clear advantage in hockey IQ.
I still think people are missing the distinction between vision and "pre-vision" as relates to hockey I.Q. and decision-making, but I won't belabor the point beyond encouraging everyone to spend more time watching them without the puck. Drouin is great at seeing the ice when the puck is on his stick, but I still think he reads and reacts (quickly and effectively, mind you) compared to MacKinnon who seems more instinctual with his anticipation. It's hard to watch players without the puck when the play is going on (especially watching back-checkers when a rush is on the go), but I'm fairly confident an astute observer will notice the greatest difference between the two without the puck.
I know he's got fantastic vision, explosive skating, and the ability to put up points through passing, shooting, PP, or PK. But to me in those games he hasn't looked like a 1st overall pick
lol What does the guy have to do to be a #1 pick in your eyes?
He is also really improving on his two way game, and he has a physical edge to his game too.
He just turned 17 in September... until a recent goal scoring slump, he was on pace for a goal per game (he can get back that pace quickly with a couple good games). He should make the World Junior team, and he put up 1G 3A against an older, almost world junior russian squad.
I don`t see where he doesn`t measure up to the other guys you mention. When he is 21-22, he will be an absolute force in the NHL.
lol What does the guy have to do to be a #1 pick in your eyes?
He is also really improving on his two way game, and he has a physical edge to his game too.
He just turned 17 in September... until a recent goal scoring slump, he was on pace for a goal per game (he can get back that pace quickly with a couple good games). He should make the World Junior team, and he put up 1G 3A against an older, almost world junior russian squad.
I don`t see where he doesn`t measure up to the other guys you mention. When he is 21-22, he will be an absolute force in the NHL.
He's great no doubt, but he hasn't impressed like RNH and Yakupov have in both of thier draft years.
Didn't notice him too much tonight... Still 5th in league scoring
By his own standards I agree with that, however by a regular player's standards he was still a standout in many areas of the game tonight. Strong on the puck, made the simple plays, and played with intensity.
By his own standards I agree with that, however by a regular player's standards he was still a standout in many areas of the game tonight. Strong on the puck, made the simple plays, and played with intensity.
For sure, he looked good physically. But as you said, by MacKinnon and Drouin standards it wasn't their best night. Pretty sluggish 1st period the team as a whole, and the first line couldn't get out of our own zone.
So for those who are seeing him on a daily basis, Nathan Mackinnon the first line center or Nathan Mackinnon the first line winger?
Centre, he uses his body, he's great on faceoffs, his mobility allows him to rove around the ice in a way that a winger wouldn't be able to. I also think his defense is coming along at a decent rate (MacKinnon and Drouin are a penalty-killing duo).
Centre, he uses his body, he's great on faceoffs, his mobility allows him to rove around the ice in a way that a winger wouldn't be able to. I also think his defense is coming along at a decent rate (MacKinnon and Drouin are a penalty-killing duo).
A very underrated part of his game. His speed allows for him to be an excellent backchecker. Lately he's been using that to his advantage a lot more and getting back to break up 3 on 2's etc..
