Scouts quick take on Dylan Cozens

[Xzy89c]

Spoke to fiend who is a senior amateur scout for NHL team:

His take on Cozens is he is good player with definite chance to be a good second line center in the league.  He is big, good skills, very good skater, and can make plays at top speed.  

I have been very hesitant to get on Dylan bandwagon, but was happy to hear this.

FYI: there are only 10-15 true first line centers in the league.  When the scout says he could be a good second line center that is a big compliment.  Like saying a pitcher could be a number two starter.  There are only 5-10 true number one starters in baseball.  The aces.

Second line centers can play in any situation, and will be among top 20% scorers depending on PP time.

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, Xzy89c said:

FYI: there are only 10-15 true first line centers in the league.  When the scout says he could be a good second line center that is a big compliment.  Like saying a pitcher could be a number two starter.  There are only 5-10 true number one starters in baseball.  The aces.

This drives me completely crazy.  Do words have no meaning!?  I reject this purposeful misuse of words.

If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.

[mphs mike]

32 minutes ago, Curt said:

This drives me completely crazy.  Do words have no meaning!?  I reject this purposeful misuse of words.

If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.

I understand exactly - for instance the Sabres have a starting goalie, frankly by default. The fact that he is the starter in Buffalo may make him "#1"  but that doesn't mean he is  a top 31 goalie.

Bob Kaufman was an NBA all star  for the Braves. All it meant was that he was the best player on an expansion team

[SDS]

17 minutes ago, Curt said:

This drives me completely crazy.  Do words have no meaning!?  I reject this purposeful misuse of words.

If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.

I think there is a solid understanding that 1st line center isn't equivalent to center who plays on first line.

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, mphs mike said:

I understand exactly - for instance the Sabres have a starting goalie, frankly by default. The fact that he is the starter in Buffalo may make him "#1"  but that doesn't mean he is  a top 31 goalie.

Bob Kaufman was an NBA all star  for the Braves. All it meant was that he was the best player on an expansion team

It’s fine to say the Sabres #1 is not an NHL starter quality player.  But somewhere out there, there are the 31 best goalies in the league.  Those are the starting caliber players.  There are not 10 #1 quality goalies, and 50 #2 quality goalies.

[Curt]

Just now, SDS said:

I think there is a solid understanding that 1st line center isn't equivalent to center who plays on first line.

See above comment.  Whichever 31 Cs are the best, those are the #1Cs.  There are not 12 #1Cs, 30 #2Cs, and 45 #3Cs...........That’s just arbitrary.

[SDS]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

It’s fine to say the Sabres #1 is not an NHL starter quality player.  But somewhere out there, there are the 31 best goalies in the league.  Those are the starting caliber players.  There are not 10 #1 quality goalies, and 50 #2 quality goalies.

That is completely wrong. That assumes some sort of step function between 31 and 32. It doesn't. At all. There could be little substantive difference between 25 and 35. A flip of the coin. That does not mean whose who get heads are 1st line centers and those that get tails are not.

[Trettioåtta]

8 minutes ago, SDS said:

I think there is a solid understanding that 1st line center isn't equivalent to center who plays on first line.

Yeah but both Malkin and Crosby are 1st line centres. I agree with Curt. People expect a 50 point centre to be an average third line centre because of this. And that just isn’t the case.

Glad to hear a positive view on Cozens. Although I think I’d welcome someone having one about Casey 😛

[Xzy89c]

22 minutes ago, Curt said:

This drives me completely crazy.  Do words have no meaning!?  I reject this purposeful misuse of words.

If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.

This is how scouts refer to players.  There are few first line players.  Lots of second line players, most of league is third liners.  Don't argue with me.  I am following how scouts refer to players.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

12 minutes ago, Curt said:

See above comment.  Whichever 31 Cs are the best, those are the #1Cs.  There are not 12 #1Cs, 30 #2Cs, and 45 #3Cs...........That’s just arbitrary.

You might be confounding the issue by using the number 31. There are some 2C's that are better than some #1 C's. Malkin would be one example. He may be a top 31 but is #2 on Pitt.

Edited September 17, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[LGR4GM]

Cozens projects out to a 60+ point center in his prime with 2 way ability. So high end 2nd line center. He could have a few years over 70 points but I think we should expect 25-30g and 30-35a in his prime (which is 2-4 years away). 

[Xzy89c]

2 minutes ago, Trettioåtta said:

Yeah but both Malkin and Crosby are 1st line centres. I agree with Curt. People expect a 50 point centre to be an average third line centre because of this. And that just isn’t the case.

Glad to hear a positive view on Cozens. Although I think I’d welcome someone having one about Casey 😛

You nailed it with this.  Both of them are number ones who are on same team.  It is measure of productivity, skill level, etc...  not the minutes you play.

I did ask about casey.  Mitts has not shown anything to make him think he will be NHL regular.  

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Cozens projects out to a 60+ point center in his prime with 2 way ability. So high end 2nd line center. He could have a few years over 70 points but I think we should expect 25-30g and 30-35a in his prime (which is 2-4 years away). 

Which is fantastic.....

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Xzy89c said:

You nailed it with this.  Both of them are number ones who are on same team.  It is measure of productivity, skill level, etc...  not the minutes you play.

I did ask about casey.  Mitts has not shown anything to make him think he will be NHL regular.  

Which is fantastic.....

If he makes it, yes. Long way to go still. 

[tom webster]

24 minutes ago, mphs mike said:

I understand exactly - for instance the Sabres have a starting goalie, frankly by default. The fact that he is the starter in Buffalo may make him "#1"  but that doesn't mean he is  a top 31 goalie.

Bob Kaufman was an NBA all star  for the Braves. All it meant was that he was the best player on an expansion team

Thank you for the Bob Kaufman reference. Still miss the Braves and still believe if they had the right ownership they would have been Buffalo’s first “major” sport champion.

[Xzy89c]

14 minutes ago, Curt said:

See above comment.  Whichever 31 Cs are the best, those are the #1Cs.  There are not 12 #1Cs, 30 #2Cs, and 45 #3Cs...........That’s just arbitrary.

to scouts there are.  They rank by productivity, ability, size etc...  big difference between Crosby and whomever is playing first line for last place team.

[Taro T]

Really don't understand why some won't accept that there are fewer #1C's & #1G's than there are available job openings for that role.  Or that there are more than 31 3LW's available to slot into those roles.

When people say a guy is a #2C, they mean that IDEALLY that guy slots in behind one of the handful of true #1's such as the Sabres #2 will do so behind Eichel.

Edited September 17, 2020 by Taro T

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Xzy89c said:

to scouts there are.  They rank by productivity, ability, size etc...  big difference between Crosby and whomever is playing first line for last place team.

that word right there is why I stopped trusting scouts. 

[Xzy89c]

22 minutes ago, Curt said:

It’s fine to say the Sabres #1 is not an NHL starter quality player.  But somewhere out there, there are the 31 best goalies in the league.  Those are the starting caliber players.  There are not 10 #1 quality goalies, and 50 #2 quality goalies.

that is exactly how scouts refer to them.  The sabres do not have a number one goalie.  They have a goalie who plays majority, but scouts would call him a number 2.  Hutton is not even that.

[Shootica]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

that word right there is why I stopped trusting scouts. 

It can certainly be overstated sometimes, but size absolutely matters.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Shootica said:

It can certainly be overstated sometimes, but size absolutely matters.

How does size matter. 

[Xzy89c]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

How does size matter. 

The data shows it does.  How many players below 5'8" are there.  Not many.  Small guys used to be able to hook and hold, but not anymore.  U have to be off the charts in other areas to make it as small player.  

Size is not just height either.  Mitts is what 6'?  He is beanpole though with no explosiveness or just plain strength.  

[Shootica]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How does size matter. 

A bigger player, in general:

-Has a greater reach on defense.

-Will be able to hold their ground better in the corners and at the netmouth.  Harder to push off the puck.

-Will be a better screen out front.

I'm not saying we should draft objectively worse players because they're big.  But if all else is equal and I'm choosing between a 5'9 player and a 6'2 one, I'm taking the bigger player ten times out of ten.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Xzy89c said:

The data shows it does.  How many players below 5'8" are there.  Not many.  Small guys used to be able to hook and hold, but not anymore.  U have to be off the charts in other areas to make it as small player.  

Size is not just height either.  Mitts is what 6'?  He is beanpole though with no explosiveness or just plain strength.  

So you are talking about extremes. 5'8" would be short but 5'10"-6'3" is basically all the same. 

Strength matters for sure. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Shootica said:

A bigger player, in general:

-Has a greater reach on defense.

-Will be able to hold their ground better in the corners and at the netmouth.  Harder to push off the puck.

-Will be a better screen out front.

I'm not saying we should draft objectively worse players because they're big.  But if all else is equal and I'm choosing between a 5'9 player and a 6'2 one, I'm taking the bigger player ten times out of ten.

I'm not. I am not sure what you mean by all else but I assume you mean talent. Let's argue that Jarvis at 5'10" has the same talent as Lundell at 6'1", I am taking Jarvis because his compete is higher. Also players are never equal. You are deciding that size is a characteristic you value more. 

Size does not equal strength. 5'9" 190lb is just as effective as 6'3" 200lb. 

Again, prioritizing size, especially when drafting is silly. Most of these kids will add anywhere from 1-3 inches in height and 20-40lbs of muscle before all is said and done. Further 6'5" may give you more reach but it also means you are slower, the number of quick guys at that height is exceedingly low which gives an advantage to a 5'11" guy. 

[nfreeman]

43 minutes ago, Curt said:

See above comment.  Whichever 31 Cs are the best, those are the #1Cs.  There are not 12 #1Cs, 30 #2Cs, and 45 #3Cs...........That’s just arbitrary.

This seems kinda like getting hung up on semantics, innit?

 

34 minutes ago, Xzy89c said:

This is how scouts refer to players.  There are few first line players.  Lots of second line players, most of league is third liners.  Don't argue with me.  I am following how scouts refer to players.

I generally agree with the points you've been making in this thread, but the bolded is a strange, and unwelcome, directive to issue on a message board.