Players that should NOT be on this team next year

[dudacek]

24 minutes ago, Weave said:

Running the goalie situation back is inherently risky.  Given the state of this franchise, I think it is resources well spent to de-risk it.

Not many NHL goalie situations that aren’t inherently risky.

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

20 nhl starts doesn’t make a solution. It represents only a potential one. The problem exists until it’s solved, not until it hypothetically could be 

See, the latter sentence gets to the nut of it.

And it gets back to my initial question: what exactly is the “problem” you’re trying to solve? It sounds like something that can only be addressed with a Hellebuyck or a Shesterkin. Because to me, the rest of them all look like hypothetical or potential solutions.

[dudacek]

Basically you started last season with 3 unproven goalies, none of them with a defined role, one of them with negligible pro experience, and a loose, unearned pecking order 

Next season you’d be starting with a clear number one, who played very well in his single year in that role, and an unproven number 2 who was dominant in the AHL and put up a winning record along with a respectable .901 and 3.06 over 27 NHL starts.

Would I like to add a 200-game vet on a 1-year deal and similar numbers to Levi? Absolutely because I too want to cover my bases. UPL could go all Tage Thompson on us. But I don’t think it’s the same situation at all as it was last summer in terms of risk management.

The context has significantly changed.

[Thorner]

33 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not many NHL goalie situations that aren’t inherently risky.

See, the latter sentence gets to the nut of it.

And it gets back to my initial question: what exactly is the “problem” you’re trying to solve? It sounds like something that can only be addressed with a Hellebuyck or a Shesterkin. Because to me, the rest of them all look like hypothetical or potential solutions.

I’m not convinced we have a single problem on the roster by the prism of this logic lol

What do you want to do, zoom out as far as Jupiter so we can divide goalies into “Hellebuyck (who no one wanted, anyways haha) or question mark” when in reality perfect need not be the enemy of good.

If you don’t think we can find a net minder who at least provides a reasonable amount of competition in camp to a guy with 20 nhl starts of mediocre play, we’ll just have to disagree. If you don’t think it’s worth paying for Levi to have to beat that player out, we just don’t have the same priorities.

This franchise has bent over backwards to anoint Levi a spot: this doesn’t need to be argued - they granted him a spot this year when objectively he proved not yet ready. I do agree with you it’s very unlikely they bring in a player who provides an obstacle to him seizing G2. But your overall stance has moved much more in line with KA’s than apart over the course of this year’s likely playoff miss 

Edited April 3 by Thorny

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Basically you started last season with 3 unproven goalies, none of them with a defined role, one of them with negligible pro experience, and a loose, unearned pecking order 

Next season you’d be starting with a clear number one, who played very well in his single year in that role, and an unproven number 2 who was dominant in the AHL and put up a winning record along with a respectable .901 and 3.06 over 27 NHL starts.

Would I like to add a 200-game vet on a 1-year deal and similar numbers to Levi? Absolutely because I too want to cover my bases. UPL could go all Tage Thompson on us. But I don’t think it’s the same situation at all as it was last summer in terms of risk management.

The context has significantly changed.

The context has changed both ways. We have UPL, but the pitfalls of missing the playoffs and thus urgency in addressing any issue we can should be going way up.

It’s both more likely Levi succeeds as G2 and, at the same time, even more disastrous if he does not

My willingness to pay is a reflection of the fact the GT *has* to work out. I’m actually assuming UPL DOES work out. We absolutely cannot afford to manually torpedo that because the guy taking the other 30 starts isn’t good enough 

Edited April 3 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I’m not convinced we have a single problem on the roster by the prism of this logic lol

What do you want to do, zoom out as far as Jupiter so we can divide goalies into “Hellebuyck (who no one wanted, anyways haha) or question mark” when in reality perfect need not be the enemy of good.

If you don’t think we can find a net minder who at least provides a reasonable amount of competition in camp to a guy with 20 nhl starts of mediocre play, we’ll just have to disagree. If you don’t think it’s worth paying for Levi to have to beat that player out, we just don’t have the same priorities.

This franchise has bent over backwards to anoint Levi a spot: this doesn’t need to be argued - they granted him a spot this year when objectively he proved not yet ready. I do agree with you it’s very unlikely they bring in a player who provides an obstacle to him seizing G2. But your overall stance has moved much more in line with KA’s than apart over the course of this year’s likely playoff miss 

I think the fundamental disagreement here is in our rating of Levi.

Simply put, I think he’s a better bet to give us 3.06, .901 goaltending or better for 30 games next season than most of the goalies you’d consider to be in the 25-50 range of NHL goalies. 

And that tempers how much I’m willing to invest in another goalie like the 20 or so I listed upthread.

Or you’re saying that every team needs 3 NHL goalies when likely playoff teams we’re chasing like Washington, Detroit, Tampa and Toronto clearly don’t. Wants 3? Of course we do.

As to the bold, absolutely my stance has moved on our goalie situation, because this year has given me reason to believe we have 2 good ones when last summer it was only blind faith in Levi that led me to believe we had any.

Like I said, the frame of reference has changed.

 

Edited April 3 by dudacek

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think the fundamental disagreement here is in our rating of Levi.

Simply put, I think he’s a better bet to give us 3.06, .901 goaltending or better for 30 games next season than most of the goalies you’d consider to be in the 25-50 range of NHL goalies. 

And that tempers how much I’m willing to invest in another goalie like the 20 or so I listed upthread.

As to the bold, absolutely my stance has moved on our goalie situation, because this year has given me reason to believe we have 2 good ones.

 

 

No, I don’t see that as the fundamental disagreement. I more less share your analysis of Levi. Our fundamental disagreement is in the prioritization of next season. Hypothetically, if we could bring in a guy we adjudged to have a 45% chance of providing the goaltending we need for G2 relative to Levi’s 50% likelihood, I bring in that guy to increase the odds and hedge the bet, and see how they look in camp 

I’d rather have a bird in hand for G2, too: I take your meaning. But I’d also rather have 2 birds in the bush than 1 bird in the bush 

Edited April 3 by Thorny

[Thorner]

Adams employed this exact principle (to the detriment of the team, but eventual emergence of a candidate) this very season. 3 long shots led to one emergence. I’d give Levi some healthy competition for G2. I just wouldn’t enter into the season with 3 on active roster 

But if they actually use training camp to get this team off and running as if their fans’ fandom depends on it (and it does), a nice healthy camp battle between Levi and a backup candidate better than, checks notes…Comrie is something I’d like to see 

Yes, it’s not going to happen. I understand we have anointed him a spot. Adams is the “don’t block” guy not the “healthy competition” guy, in general. I get the idea he only defaulted to the “let these 3 duke it out” situation in net last year because Levi didn’t seize the role to the extent he thought he would 

I also appreciate the fact I have to argue strenuously to support the idea that counting on a *20 year old* with all of 20 starts in his career, in year we HAVE to make the playoffs, to provide 30-35 quality starts MIGHT provide a bit of reason for pause…but such is the nature of the Adams’ era

If the best we can do in year 5 of a GM’s tenure is, “well, it might work out, we might make the playoffs, I don’t really see any less risky bets” then I suppose that’s the bed he’s made that he needs to lie in 

But just because other options were also risky doesn’t mean he’s not amendable to the results of his equally risky bet. His job is to choose the course of action that yields the desired results, not merely make defensible decisions by prism of moment. It’s not a “what could even have been done?” situation if it doesn’t work out. 

Edited April 3 by Thorny

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Adams employed this exact principle (to the detriment of the team, but eventual emergence of a candidate) this very season. 3 long shots led to one emergence. I’d give Levi some healthy competition for G2. I just wouldn’t enter into the season with 3 on active roster 

But if they actually use training camp to get this team off and running as if their fans’ fandom depends on it (and it does), a nice healthy camp battle between Levi and a backup candidate better than, checks notes…Comrie is something I’d like to see 

Yes, it’s not going to happen. I understand we have anointed him a spot. Adams is the “don’t block” guy not the “healthy competition” guy, in general. I get the idea he only defaulted to the “let these 3 duke it out” situation in net last year because Levi didn’t seize the role to the extent he thought he would 

I also appreciate the fact I have to argue strenuously to support the idea that counting on a *20 year old* with all of 20 starts in his career, in year we HAVE to make the playoffs, to provide 30-35 quality starts MIGHT provide a bit of reason for pause…but such is the nature of the Adams’ era

If the best we can do in year 5 of a GM’s tenure is, “well, it might work out, we might make the playoffs, I don’t really see any less risky bets” then I suppose that’s the bed he’s made that he needs to lie in 

But just because other options were also risky doesn’t mean he’s not amendable to the results of his equally risky bet. His job is to choose the course of action that yields the desired results, not merely make defensible decisions by prism of moment. It’s not a “what could even have been done?” situation if it doesn’t work out. 

It’s not at all the same principle.

This year, three unproven goalies, toss them in a blender, and hope 2 emerge in some shape or form as a competent duo.

Next year, clear-cut #1 coming off a strong year, promising #2 who has looked fine in limited rookie sample size.

Devon Levi is 22, not 20, and he’ll turn 23 by Christmas. He’s 15-10-2 as an NHL goalie.

He’s also 11-5-3 with a .927 save percentage in the AHL after a few seasons of being one of the best goalies in NCAA.

Looking at the numbers, pencilling him in as 1 of 2 goalies this October is very much in line with doing the same for Jake Oettinger with Holtby in 20/21, or Jeremy Swayman with Ullmark in 21/22. 

It’s a risk, but a justifiable one.

In fact, looking around the league, I’d wager the odds of having 2 good goalies at the same time is far more likely rolling the dice in this fashion than signing or trading for the “best goalie available.”

Edited April 3 by dudacek

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s not at all the same principle.

This year, three unproven goalies, toss them in a blender, and hope 2 emerge in some shape or form as a competent duo.

Next year, clear-cut #1 coming off a strong year, promising #2 who has looked fine in limited rookie sample size.

Devon Levi is 22, not 20, and he’ll turn 23 by Christmas. He’s 15-10-2 as an NHL goalie.

He’s also 11-5-3 with a .927 save percentage in the AHL after a few seasons of being one of the best goalies in NCAA.

Looking at the numbers, pencilling him in as 1 of 2 goalies thus October is very much in line with doing the same for Jake Oettinger with Holtby in 20/21, or Jeremy Swayman with Ullmark in 21/22. 

It’s a risk, but a justifiable one.

In fact, looking around the league, I’d wager the odds of having 2 good goalies at the same time is far more likely rolling the dice in this fashion than signing or trading for the best goalie available.

No, you are talking strategy. It’s not the same strategy, I get it. I said principle: the idea a victor will emerge from competition. 

I was just using the theory of that principle to illustrate my point. Haggling over straw man, here: “competition breeds results” that old thing that’s all I’m saying 

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorny said:

No, you are talking strategy. It’s not the same strategy, I get it. I said principle: the idea a victor will emerge from competition. 

I’m not saying adding competition is bad. On the contrary, I’d like it.

I am saying it’s necessity at this position in my mind has greatly diminished.

[Thorner]

I don’t mean to claim it’s not a justifiable risk: merely that’s it’s not such a sure thing, “only real option available, or worth considering” that if it doesn’t work, Adams isn’t amendable to result. It’s justifiable, but it’s also justifiable to want to bring in a more veteran back up so we have 2 kicks at the G2 can in training camp.

Going with UPL/Levi is defensible right now, in the moment, but that doesn’t stop it from being judged purely based on the results it yields. 

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’m not saying adding competition is bad. On the contrary, I’d like it.

I am saying it’s necessity at this position in my mind has greatly diminished.

Exactly. Like I said, “no stone unturned”. Our only difference is what we’d pay to bring in that competition, I guarantee it  

Edited April 3 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

I still would like a vet #2 and let Levi keep simmering in Rochester. If the vet loses to Levi, great; if not we would still be safe. 
 

I also somewhat think there’s a chance Tokarski is resigned as a 3/4 goalie. Since you need at least 3 goalies with NHL experience going into a year.

[dudacek]

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don’t mean to claim it’s not a justifiable risk: merely that’s it’s not such a sure thing, “only real option available, or worth considering” that if it doesn’t work, Adams isn’t amendable to result. It’s justifiable, but it’s also justifiable to want to bring in a more veteran back up so we have 2 kicks at the G2 can in training camp.

Going with UPL/Levi is defensible right now, in the moment, but that doesn’t stop it from being judged purely based on the results it yields. 

Exactly. Like I said, “no stone unturned”. Our only difference is what we’d pay to bring in that competition, I guarantee it  

Most poor decisions can be justified at the time. Most good decisions can be justifiably criticized at the time.

I thought Victor Olofsson could serve as adequate insurance for Jack Quinn because he scored 28 last year. I was wrong.

I thought the goalie situation was extraordinarily risky to start this year. Turns out Adams was right that his goalies were good enough, it just took him too long to figure out how to deploy them.

[FrenchConnection44]

On 3/31/2024 at 9:26 AM, WhenWillItEnd66 said:

This team is in need of a come to hockey God makeover. Here is my list of players that need to go immediately:

Jost - Ahl player only

Girgs- sorry guy, you bring nothing to the table

Olofsson - should have been gone last year. 

Power - pipe dream I know but he is an embarrassment to the man card. His end of season chat need to start with "Grow a pair"

Skinner - time for him to move on. Slow,  lazy, defensive liability. 

Comrie - just not needed, nor good

Krebs - not good as 3rd liner just not enough talent. Not to mention we need a good flush of players.  

 

What do you think??

While I agree about Power having a terrible year and lacking significant toughness (I’ve been discussing this issue with most of the team for over a year), no way do you get rid of him. 

You get in his face and challenge his weak ass. Tell him he needs to come to camp much stronger and not even think about putting skates on unless he’s at 225 to 230 with added muscle. And faster. 
 

I agree with most of the others but Krebs. You just can’t dump half a team without legit replacements. At least Krebs adds a modicum of toughness to an otherwise soft team. The softest team in hockey. 

[Crusader1969]

4 minutes ago, FrenchConnection44 said:

While I agree about Power having a terrible year and lacking significant toughness (I’ve been discussing this issue with most of the team for over a year), no way do you get rid of him. 

You get in his face and challenge his weak ass. Tell him he needs to come to camp much stronger and not even think about putting skates on unless he’s at 225 to 230 with added muscle. And faster. 
 

I agree with most of the others but Krebs. You just can’t dump half a team without legit replacements. At least Krebs adds a modicum of toughness to an otherwise soft team. The softest team in hockey. 

So you want to turn into Risto 2.0?

[SwampD]

I hate having to wake up early, but love waking up early to have found that the Canadians were talking hockey. What a great way to spend drinking my morning coffee.

Thanks @dudacekand @Thorny.

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

Most poor decisions can be justified at the time. Most good decisions can be justifiably criticized at the time.

I thought Victor Olofsson could serve as adequate insurance for Jack Quinn because he scored 28 last year. I was wrong.

I thought the goalie situation was extraordinarily risky to start this year. Turns out Adams was right that his goalies were good enough, it just took him too long to figure out how to deploy them.

That reminds me, I put olofsson's goal total at 22.5 and said I'd take the under. A large contingent around here said no, he's got the potential to get 30 and 22 was his floor. He's got 7g on the season, you don't score without opportunity and he's bad at getting opportunity. Was a good 7th round pick and I wish him the best. 

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, FrenchConnection44 said:

While I agree about Power having a terrible year and lacking significant toughness (I’ve been discussing this issue with most of the team for over a year), no way do you get rid of him. 

You get in his face and challenge his weak ass. Tell him he needs to come to camp much stronger and not even think about putting skates on unless he’s at 225 to 230 with added muscle. And faster. 
 

I agree with most of the others but Krebs. You just can’t dump half a team without legit replacements. At least Krebs adds a modicum of toughness to an otherwise soft team. The softest team in hockey. 

Owen Power is never going to be a physical guy. I tried to tell ppl that in his draft year and was basically told to zip it. He's a mostly finesse and I doubt very much even a new coach can get him to change his game to use his body more. 

[JohnC]

44 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Owen Power is never going to be a physical guy. I tried to tell ppl that in his draft year and was basically told to zip it. He's a mostly finesse and I doubt very much even a new coach can get him to change his game to use his body more. 

I don't understand why there is such a chorus of criticism for his lack of physicality because that's how he played in college. (As you point out.) When the Sabres drafted him with the first pick in that draft year, they, like all teams scouting him, were well aware of the type of player he was in college and would be in the NHL. He still was considered the consensus (not unanimous) first pick in that draft. I'm happy we drafted him. 

[mjd1001]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand why there is such a chorus of criticism for his lack of physicality because that's how he played in college. (As you point out.) When the Sabres drafted him with the first pick in that draft year, they, like all teams scouting him, were well aware of the type of player he was in college and would be in the NHL. He still was considered the consensus (not unanimous) first pick in that draft. I'm happy we drafted him. 

I agree for the most part. People wanting him to hit, to be a "Chris Pronger" type, thats just not his game. It doesn't matter that he is as big/tall as he is.

Most of us know the stats. Hits per 60 minutes...Power is at 1.57 this year.  Clifton is a 9.45, Samuelsson 7.7. Dahlin at 5.5 Byram at 5.  The Sabres are a team notorious for not hitting and its almost like Power shys away from contact. The top D-men around the league are around 15 hits per 60.

But..there are a lot of guys like Power below 2 hits per 60 that are very good D-men.  Hampus Lindholm in Boston is 1.8. Pesce and Slavin in Carolina are below 2. Cale Makar is at 1.2. Josi at 1.39. Quinn Hughes at 0.79!  So, you don't have to hit to be a very good/great D-man.  Is Power any of those guys...No, not yet, but he is still developing his game.

So, people see a big body and they want hits.  Power just might have the skillset/gamestyle/mentality closer to those guys I listed above, its just that he happens to be that in a much larger/taller body.  Hopefully he will turn into a D-man that gets you 10-20 goals, 50+ points, one who makes a great first pass out of the zone, is a very good penalty killer, and is skilled enough offensively to fill in on the Power play (and be effective  handling the puck) when Dahlin or Byram are out or need a break.  You get a guy like that (which I think is his projection and he is on his way there), then he can be a great D-man without hitting anyone.

Would a few more hits be nice? Yeah, at times, but just becaue he is tall that doesn't mean that is who he is, he can be very good without playing that way.

[French Collection]

20 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand why there is such a chorus of criticism for his lack of physicality because that's how he played in college. (As you point out.) When the Sabres drafted him with the first pick in that draft year, they, like all teams scouting him, were well aware of the type of player he was in college and would be in the NHL. He still was considered the consensus (not unanimous) first pick in that draft. I'm happy we drafted him. 

I know he’s never going to a tough, physical Dman. I watched him in the World Championships, World Juniors and the Olympics. He had the skating ability, reach and IQ to stand out in those events.

In the NHL, his idea of physical is to turn his back on an opponent while pinning the puck on the boards, waiting for an opening. I am not asking for him to become Pronger, just to throw the odd hit when it’s available, stand up for himself in a scrum and push a guy out of the crease. 
 

He is still young and will get stronger so he will become better. If he tries to add 10% more grit that would give him more room and help his confidence.

[JohnC]

Just now, French Collection said:

I know he’s never going to a tough, physical Dman. I watched him in the World Championships, World Juniors and the Olympics. He had the skating ability, reach and IQ to stand out in those events.

In the NHL, his idea of physical is to turn his back on an opponent while pinning the puck on the boards, waiting for an opening. I am not asking for him to become Pronger, just to throw the odd hit when it’s available, stand up for himself in a scrum and push a guy out of the crease. 
 

He is still young and will get stronger so he will become better. If he tries to add 10% more grit that would give him more room and help his confidence.

You hit on the central issue why he is receiving some criticism for his play in your last sentence. He's a young player who is going to get better with more experience. Let's remember that Dahlin wasn't instantly a good defenseman. It took time for him to mature both physically and as a player. He's a tall and lanky player. It's going to take time for him to fill out. Let's not forget that took time for Dahlin, Tage, Mitts etc. to both physically and evolve as players. I'm glad that we took him with our first pick in that draft year. 

[Pimlach]

On 4/1/2024 at 5:15 PM, mjd1001 said:

Dahlin looks to be up on goals since last year but way down on assists.  A simple reason he is down on assists? The guys in front of him (that he plays with most often) just aren't shooting as well. Tuch's Shooting percentage is down from over 16% to about 11%.  Thompson from about 16% to only near 11% this year. Skinner down from 14.5% last year to about 12% this year.  Cozens nearly cut in half from over 14% last year to about 8% this year.

The thing is, those guys are getting about the same number of shots per game as last year, and a month or so ago the advanced fancy stats showed that at least with Cozens and Thompson, they were getting shots from the high danger areas (quality chance) about the same as last year.  Meaning, Dahlin is getting the pucks up the ice and on to those guys sticks, they just aren't putting them in the net and he is getting less assists because of it. (which also impacts his plus-minus in a negative way).

And as for those 'league leaders' and 'Norris candidates' ahead of Dahlin....Quinn Hughes in Vancouver. Makar. Josi. Hedman.  What do they have that Dahlin doesn't have?  Not any (or many) more goals, but they do have forward on their team that put the puck in the net a lot better than the Sabres forwards, giving them a lot more assists than Dahlin gets.  Vancouvers top 4 goal scorers up front average almost 20% shooting percentage between them.  Colorado's top 3 guys are at 13.1, 15.8, and 17.7. Tampa's top 4 guys have almost 140 goals between them and are average about 20% shooting.  

Buffalo? Every single player on the team with at least 10 goals is shooting under 13%.

And when you break down the Sabres shooting..."high danger" chances (directly in front of the net), the league besides the Sabres shoots about 20%. The Sabres...14.1%.  Colorado?  20.5%  Vancouver?  23.4%.

So, Dahlin not being near the top of the league in points and assists (along with goals) might just be more of a function of the players he plays with being SO MUCH worse than the rest of the league at putting the puck into the net, even from prime scoring areas.  

As you said, leading the league in ice time, improving corsi, improving hits, improving blocked shots....if he had the assists that would go with better play up front, he just might be in the Norris converstation this year (and when looking at those numbers, if the Sabres were even AVERAGE at how much they produce from the high danger areas, they would probably be in the playoffs right now.

Excellent post.   I think Dahlin is as complete a package, one more so, than many of the usual Norris contenders.  

[LGR4GM]

48 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand why there is such a chorus of criticism for his lack of physicality because that's how he played in college. (As you point out.) When the Sabres drafted him with the first pick in that draft year, they, like all teams scouting him, were well aware of the type of player he was in college and would be in the NHL. He still was considered the consensus (not unanimous) first pick in that draft. I'm happy we drafted him. 

 

29 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I agree for the most part. People wanting him to hit, to be a "Chris Pronger" type, thats just not his game. It doesn't matter that he is as big/tall as he is.

Most of us know the stats. Hits per 60 minutes...Power is at 1.57 this year.  Clifton is a 9.45, Samuelsson 7.7. Dahlin at 5.5 Byram at 5.  The Sabres are a team notorious for not hitting and its almost like Power shys away from contact. The top D-men around the league are around 15 hits per 60.

But..there are a lot of guys like Power below 2 hits per 60 that are very good D-men.  Hampus Lindholm in Boston is 1.8. Pesce and Slavin in Carolina are below 2. Cale Makar is at 1.2. Josi at 1.39. Quinn Hughes at 0.79!  So, you don't have to hit to be a very good/great D-man.  Is Power any of those guys...No, not yet, but he is still developing his game.

So, people see a big body and they want hits.  Power just might have the skillset/gamestyle/mentality closer to those guys I listed above, its just that he happens to be that in a much larger/taller body.  Hopefully he will turn into a D-man that gets you 10-20 goals, 50+ points, one who makes a great first pass out of the zone, is a very good penalty killer, and is skilled enough offensively to fill in on the Power play (and be effective  handling the puck) when Dahlin or Byram are out or need a break.  You get a guy like that (which I think is his projection and he is on his way there), then he can be a great D-man without hitting anyone.

Would a few more hits be nice? Yeah, at times, but just becaue he is tall that doesn't mean that is who he is, he can be very good without playing that way.

To both of these points, I think Power can be a good defender without being a exceedingly physical one but he needs to be more physical than what he currently is. He should learn from Benson and Quinn on to use your body to create space and shield the puck because Power kinda sucks at it. 

25 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I know he’s never going to a tough, physical Dman. I watched him in the World Championships, World Juniors and the Olympics. He had the skating ability, reach and IQ to stand out in those events.

In the NHL, his idea of physical is to turn his back on an opponent while pinning the puck on the boards, waiting for an opening. I am not asking for him to become Pronger, just to throw the odd hit when it’s available, stand up for himself in a scrum and push a guy out of the crease. 
 

He is still young and will get stronger so he will become better. If he tries to add 10% more grit that would give him more room and help his confidence.

The problem with his skating ability is that his quickness has not improved. Hedman spent years working on his quickness because he knew that was what matters. Power has slow feet at times and it limits his abilities. I am less interested in him adding 20lbs of muscle and more interested in seeing him increase his foot speed. 

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You hit on the central issue why he is receiving some criticism for his play in your last sentence. He's a young player who is going to get better with more experience. Let's remember that Dahlin wasn't instantly a good defenseman. It took time for him to mature both physically and as a player. He's a tall and lanky player. It's going to take time for him to fill out. Let's not forget that took time for Dahlin, Tage, Mitts etc. to both physically and evolve as players. I'm glad that we took him with our first pick in that draft year. 

Rasmus Dahlin was basically and instantly very good. PPL seem to forget his rookie year where he was 18 as compared to Power at 19. Dahlin then hit a wall when Barf Krueger became the coach. I will give Granato credit for helping to bring Dahlin back but this myth that Dahlin was bad and then had some glow up is false. He was good and then a truly horrendous coach ruined him for 2 years. That  said, I agree that Power is still very young and has probably another 2 years of maturing to do but it won't happen with Marty Wilford coaching the defense. He needs a new voice and that if no other reason, is why the coaching assistants at a minimum all need to go (Bales excluded). 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Owen Power is never going to be a physical guy. I tried to tell ppl that in his draft year and was basically told to zip it. He's a mostly finesse and I doubt very much even a new coach can get him to change his game to use his body more. 

I remember reading your posts on this and hoping you were wrong.  So far you are not. 
 

So far he does not use his size at all.  Rarely even for leverage our blocking out a player.  I was hoping for some growth in this area in year 2.  Nada.