Sabres, 8th overall pick: Jack Quinn

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, dudacek said:

I waited a few hours looking forward to this thread and it didn’t disappoint.

It was far more restrained than I thought it would be. Kudos to LGR for some great, informed posting. This Brawndo post captures exactly what the pick should have felt like to informed fans.

This is the type of misinformation and Ill-informed rage I expected to see much more of.

This is entirely fair in the first paragraph and entirely wrong in the second. I suspect Taro’s views will change when he gets a better grasp of the raw stats and the circumstances.

I am not clear about how this spits in the face of what they said they were doing. It is clearly the product of what they were doing. Occam’s razor suggests you didn’t understand what they were doing. (And how many of you have insight into the analytics the Sabres applied here.)

 As others have pointed out, calling Quinn a one-dimensional goal scorer shows a complete lack of knowledge of the player.

 

I always thought it was weird that Quinn would get handwaved as being old and playing on a good team but we never heard those things about Rossi, who plays on the same team and is almost exactly the same age.

I also thought it was weird that people would talk about his goals being padded by the PP when he was the best even-strength goal scorer in the draft.

But what really intrigued me was that he was potentially the best goal scorer In the draft but was also a top PKer And a good forechecker and a defensively responsible matchup guy. And he was a hard working character kid who could skate and his size was fine. The best goal scorers usually have multiple red flags we are asked to overlook because of their scoring.

I pulled the Mark Stone card myself on this board.

This was delightful to me because Quinn was my crush for the draft, the guy I thought deserved to be picked higher than where the charts were slotting him. I talked myself into being fine with Holtz or Lundell or Sanderson because they seemed to be worthy of the pick, but Quinn was the guy I really liked out of the guys I thought we might be picking from.

But there were two guys I also really liked In this draft that I didn’t think were going to be available. And then the draft fell and Perfetti and Rossi were both there for the taking.

My reading of the Sabres pre-draft was that Rossi was their guy; I was so convinced that when Adams said Ottawa my head nod started then vanished into a “wait, what?”

So I got a player I really liked and wanted who I think will be a similar, but better Sabre than Jason Pominville. And I missed out on the most competitive (Rossi) and the most intelligent (Perfetti) skilled players in the draft.

It’s possible Quinn’s mix of skill and compete will elevate him above the other two, but that’s not how I saw it.

The Sabres “informed dreaming” process thought otherwise. Like every other draft, we will find out in five years.

You haven't judged my take yet!😉

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorny said:

You haven't judged my take yet!😉

I agree that Perfetti and Rossi were better prospects.

I disagree that the Sabres thought that as well and drafted based on need.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I agree that Perfetti and Rossi were better prospects.

I disagree that the Sabres thought that as well and drafted based on need.

Actually asking - would you hypothetically rather have more of a problem with their talent analysis, or draft strategy? Given a choice?

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny

[ubkev]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Not everyone thought highly of Captain Pull-up.  Quite a few people here didn't like that pick.

Quite a few people on here posted videos of themselves and their wives doing more pull-ups than him the minute he was drafted.

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, jsb said:

Scott Wheelers take in @theathletic

LOSERS:

24. Buffalo Sabres

Pick: 8. Jack Quinn
My ranking: No. 15 (change: +7)

Though I didn’t love the Senators taking Sanderson at No. 5, Quinn was the first real reach of the draft for me. And that has less to do with Quinn’s ability as a prospect (he’s a multi-faceted individual creator who’s game has detail and who’s frame lends itself to continue growth and potential yet-to-be-scratched level) than it does with who else was available. As good as Quinn is, and as exciting as his late-blooming development curve is, there just isn’t a case, for me, for him as a better prospect than a Perfetti or a Rossi. That Rossi was on Quinn’s team, and clearly the best player on that team, makes the pick a weird one for me.

So weird that my instinct says "NEED"

[jsb]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

So weird that my instinct says "NEED"

Just so you and possibly others know, that wasn't necessarily my opinion, just putting out information. 

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

Not sure that’s accurate.

Allen had an astronomical rise, the jumps he took year over year were absolutely uncommon

Just now, jsb said:

Just so you and possibly others know, that wasn't necessarily my opinion, just putting out information. 

Yup, thanks. 

[Eleven]

6 minutes ago, ubkev said:

Quite a few people on here posted videos of themselves and their wives doing more pull-ups than him the minute he was drafted.

You mean, videos of themselves and their wives doing AT LEAST ONE pull-up, without the benefit of having foreknown for years that they would be required to do pull-ups on precisely that day.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Eleven

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorny said:

Actually asking - would you hypothetically rather have more of a problem with their talent analysis, or draft strategy?

I would have a huge problem with them picking their lower-ranked player in order to meet a perceived need in the  upper first round. I think it's stupid; and they clearly said they don't draft that way, just two days ago.

I disagree with them taking Quinn over Rossi and Perfetti, but I don't have a problem with it; partly because I like Quinn and I think he's in their ballpark, but mostly because I am not well-informed enough to be confident my judgement is better than the Sabres. I've never interviewed the players, or their teammates and coaches, or tested them, or delved into their analytics and why they produced those analytics. I've never even seen any of them play a full game of hockey.

[thewookie1]

Could it be possible they weren't drafting for immediate need but for a specific type of player? 

One thing we certainly lacked was an elite scorer type prospect where as we technically did have Rossi type in Cozens. While I'd disagree with the decision; I will say it does make some sense. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I would have a huge problem with them picking their lower-ranked player in order to meet a perceived need in the  upper first round. I think it's stupid; and they clearly said they don't draft that way, just two days ago.

I disagree with them taking Quinn over Rossi and Perfetti, but I don't have a problem with it; partly because I like Quinn and I think he's in their ballpark, but mostly because I am not well-informed enough to be confident my judgement is better than the Sabres. I've never interviewed the players, or their teammates and coaches, or tested them, or delved into their analytics and why they produced those analytics. I've never even seen any of them play a full game of hockey.

 

Quinn's is broken into 3 parts but here is part 1

 

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I would have a huge problem with them picking their lower-ranked player in order to meet a perceived need in the  upper first round. I think it's stupid; and they clearly said they don't draft that way, just two days ago.

I disagree with them taking Quinn over Rossi and Perfetti, but I don't have a problem with it; partly because I like Quinn and I think he's in their ballpark, but mostly because I am not well-informed enough to be confident my judgement is better than the Sabres. I've never interviewed the players, or their teammates and coaches, or tested them, or delved into their analytics and why they produced those analytics. I've never even seen any of them play a full game of hockey.

Didn't answer my question and spoken like a true politician kudos 😄

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Didn't answer my question and spoken like a true politician kudos 😄

Did I miss the point?

Edited October 7, 2020 by dudacek

[nfreeman]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Actually asking - would you hypothetically rather have more of a problem with their talent analysis, or draft strategy? Given a choice?

This question is based on an assumption that assumes away the whole conversation -- i.e. you are assuming that they drafted based on need as opposed to BPA.  There is zero evidence that this is the case.  More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think.

As I mentioned in a different thread, it would be nuts for the Sabres to have taken JQ because they are deficient at RW today -- so nuts as to be highly implausible. 

 

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I would have a huge problem with them picking their lower-ranked player in order to meet a perceived need in the  upper first round. I think it's stupid; and they clearly said they don't draft that way, just two days ago.

I disagree with them taking Quinn over Rossi and Perfetti, but I don't have a problem with it; partly because I like Quinn and I think he's in their ballpark, but mostly because I am not well-informed enough to be confident my judgement is better than the Sabres. I've never interviewed the players, or their teammates and coaches, or tested them, or delved into their analytics and why they produced those analytics. I've never even seen any of them play a full game of hockey.

Of course, which is why @Thorny's assumption is deeply flawed.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Did I miss the point?

 

I didn't think you did I assumed you just didn't want to answer my question within the parameters I laid out (which would be fair, I was just legitimately curious). 

I wanted to know if, given the hypothetical choice, you'd rather be opposed to their draft strategy, or their talent analysis?

For me personally, I see them drafting for need, but I can't rule out a bit of that is wishful thinking because, the idea they AREN'T drafting for need, and adjudged Quinn to be the "best", is pretty eye-brow raising to me. If their evaluation is bad it'll have more wide ranging implications. 

And it flies in the face, to me, to their stated desire to adhere to analytics. 

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This question is based on an assumption that assumes away the whole conversation -- i.e. you are assuming that they drafted based on need as opposed to BPA.  There is zero evidence that this is the case.  More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think.

As I mentioned in a different thread, it would be nuts for the Sabres to have taken JQ because they are deficient at RW today -- so nuts as to be highly implausible. 

 

Of course, which is why @Thorny's assumption is deeply flawed.

I'm not assuming anything, except my own opinion? This is ridiculous. 

If I'm on the hook for assuming need you are on the hook for assuming it's not. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I didn't think you did I assumed you just didn't want to answer my question within the parameters I laid out (which would be fair, I was just legitimately curious). 

I wanted to know if, given the hypothetical choice, you'd rather be opposed to their draft strategy, or their talent analysis?\

For me personally, I see them drafting for need, but I can't rule out a bit of that is wishful thinking because the idea they AREN'T drafting for need, and adjudged Quinn to be the "best", is pretty eye-brow raising to me. If their evaluation is bad it'll have more wide ranging implications. 

Well maybe this is a political answer, but aren't they equally bad?

They both result in you drafting the wrong player.

I guess, I'd rather have them be right on talent analysis, because when it lines up with need they'd take the right person. There's no guarantee of that the other way.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This question is based on an assumption that assumes away the whole conversation -- i.e. you are assuming that they drafted based on need as opposed to BPA.  There is zero evidence that this is the case.  More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think.

As I mentioned in a different thread, it would be nuts for the Sabres to have taken JQ because they are deficient at RW today -- so nuts as to be highly implausible. 

 

Of course, which is why @Thorny's assumption is deeply flawed.

It doesn't assume away the whole conversation at all, both sides have stated their opinion and established it already. I was merely asking a hypothetical, with variables filled in on either side (it wasn't assuming they drafted for need, at all, in the hypothetical) because I wanted to see how someone I see as very smart would analyze the hypothetical question I was proposing. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, WildCard said:

Anyone else just forget Mittlestadt exists? I've basically just written him off lol

Casey Mittelstadt has lots of talent. My biggest problem with him isn't his level of skill but his level of heart. He just doesn't have that get better or die attitude and that type of player has been prevalent in Buffalo for a long time. 

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This question is based on an assumption that assumes away the whole conversation -- i.e. you are assuming that they drafted based on need as opposed to BPA.  There is zero evidence that this is the case.  More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think.

As I mentioned in a different thread, it would be nuts for the Sabres to have taken JQ because they are deficient at RW today -- so nuts as to be highly implausible. 

 

Of course, which is why @Thorny's assumption is deeply flawed.

If you think it's a "deeply flawed" argument to think teams factor in need, I've got news for you about 99 percent of the arguments on this website. 

[nfreeman]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not assuming anything, except my own opinion? This is ridiculous. 

If I'm on the hook for assuming need you are on the hook for assuming it's not. 

Well, your question related to their strategy, which I took to mean that you assumed that they drafted for need and not BPA.  Is that not the case?

In any case, you are certainly welcome to your opinion/evaluation/interpretation that they drafted for need and not because they think JQ is a better player than Rossi, Perfetti, etc.  I just think it is highly unlikely that they did so -- and in fact so unlikely as to be unrealistic.  You are right that that is my opinion/interpretation.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Well maybe this is a political answer, but aren't they equally bad?

They both result in you drafting the wrong player.

I guess, I'd rather have them be right on talent analysis, because when it lines up with need they'd take the right person. There's no guarantee of that the other way.

For me, I come down on this side because, if their talent analysis was shot, it's going to factor into many other areas than simply drafting. As I explained I'm exploring my own thoughts here (which I find to be healthy thing for anyone to do) to determine what's real and what's bias. I think I see need, but maybe I'm seeing need cause the alternative is so frightening to me. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think.

Nor is there evidence that the Sabres did view Quinn as BPA.  We don't know.

But there IS evidence that they took need into account.  It might be scant, but there's at least something:  The team might lose its best RW next year.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, your question related to their strategy, which I took to mean that you assumed that they drafted for need and not BPA.  Is that not the case?

In any case, you are certainly welcome to your opinion/evaluation/interpretation that they drafted for need and not because they think JQ is a better player than Rossi, Perfetti, etc.  I just think it is highly unlikely that they did so -- and in fact so unlikely as to be unrealistic.  You are right that that is my opinion/interpretation.

Nope. 

My question was, would you hypothetically rather have a problem with talent analysis, or drafting for need? It wasn't assuming a poor draft strategy at all. Indeed, one of the two options was a problem with "analysis", inherently implying the draft strategy was fine, should that be the option selected in the proposed question. 

And I wasn't stating you HAD to have a problem with either. I clearly phrased my question as a hypothetical. 

Information is gathered through the isolation of variables. This is what I attempt to do. Of course the hypothetical fills in CERTAIN things/variables, that's the point. But one of them wasn't even "the strategy was definitely bad". 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny

[SwampD]

Can't we all just be happy that we got lucky in that the BPA just happened to be what the Sabres need.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Allen had an astronomical rise, the jumps he took year over year were absolutely uncommon.

It's interesting that it coincides with the talent of his receivers.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Can't we all just be happy that we got lucky in that the BPA just happened to be what the Sabres need.

 

 

It's interesting that it coincides with the talent of his receivers.

Of course that's a factor. One part of the unlikelihood of those things happening is, how often do you see a net-talent increase to the point we saw with Allen? It's just another variable that needs to break your way for the desired scenario to unfold. 

It's never one thing. There are always multiple variables that need to coincide - this is where the very unlikelihood of some of these things arising comes from. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Thorny