Jump to content

Scouts quick take on Dylan Cozens


Xzy89c

Recommended Posts

5 minutes 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.

anything in the 5'10" to 6'2" and maybe even 6'3" range is all the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

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. 

By 'all else' I truly meant everything else. Talent, compete, IQ, etc.  Funny you mentioned compete because I'll absolutely overlook size if a player has great drive.  I value size, but I value compete more.

Completely agree that height doesn't equal size.  I was simplifying there, I value strength more than height, which obviously is hard to judge with 18 year olds, but I think you can get an idea.

I don't think there's much of a negative connotation between height and speed.  Jack is one of the quickest players in the league and he's above average in height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when most people say "size" they really mean strength and length, which are much more meaningful.

Just like when a lot of people say "fast" what they really mean is quick and agile, which, again, are much more meaningful.

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Most people understood what the poster meant. Over the years the Bills have had a number of starting qbs. None of them came close to being a franchise qb. The same logic that applies to the NFL starting qbs applies to #1 pitcher in baseball. You can have a good pitching staff without having an authentic #1 pitcher.  

In hockey, as in most pro sports, the salary structure directly relates to the caliber of player at the position than it does to the position. A true ace on one team is going to get a different pay scale than another #1 starting pitcher. 

The poster was using the scouting evaluation and categorization framework in which scouts rank players and their potential. That's the point the poster was trying to get across. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SDS said:

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.

You are misunderstanding my point.

Im not saying that there is a clear difference in talent level between the 31st 1C and the first 2C (32).  If you want to say that there is not much difference between a low end 1C (~20-31) and a high end 2C (~32-45), that’s fine.  It’s a reasonable argument.

The the point that I’m trying to make is that if you are going to use those positional delineations (1C, 2C, 3C) to separate players, don’t create some arbitrary cutoff point which could be different for each person.  Use the actually numbers that exist in the NHL.

If you want to describe the 10-12 best C’s in the world, 1C is not the tag to use, because there are more than 10 1Cs in the NHL.  Just say elite C’s, or all-star C’s or something, or even top-10.  Say what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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 will argue about it, with the scouts too if given the chance.  😉

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

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

I don’t think so.  I’m just asking that people should say what they mean and not twist the meaning of another term into an unrecognizable definition completely separated from the textbook meaning of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

I will argue about it, with the scouts too if given the chance.  😉

I don’t think so.  I’m just asking that people should say what they mean and not twist the meaning of another term into an unrecognizable definition completely separated from the textbook meaning of the term.

Sadly, I think that @Xzy89c has a point.  They use "1C" for those who are clearly top-flight centres.  Similarly, "2C" is "1C who is clearly behind the top 1Cs to top 2C".  And 3C is behind that, but clearly not a bottom-line C.  So when scouts talk, their evaluation is distributed in the 10-15 1C, 20-30 2C, and 30-45 3C.  Everyone else is "dispensable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Most people understood what the poster meant. Over the years the Bills have had a number of starting qbs. None of them came close to being a franchise qb. The same logic that applies to the NFL starting qbs applies to #1 pitcher in baseball. You can have a good pitching staff without having an authentic #1 pitcher.  

In hockey, as in most pro sports, the salary structure directly relates to the caliber of player at the position than it does to the position. A true ace on one team is going to get a different pay scale than another #1 starting pitcher. 

The poster was using the scouting evaluation and categorization framework in which scouts rank players and their potential. That's the point the poster was trying to get across. 

I understood what he meant, because he had to included a paragraph to explain the term instead of just using a term that is more intuitive.

Scouts very well may use terms in this way, that doesn’t make it smart or intuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Sadly, I think that @Xzy89c has a point.  They use "1C" for those who are clearly top-flight centres.  Similarly, "2C" is "1C who is clearly behind the top 1Cs to top 2C".  And 3C is behind that, but clearly not a bottom-line C.  So when scouts talk, their evaluation is distributed in the 10-15 1C, 20-30 2C, and 30-45 3C.  Everyone else is "dispensable".

Yeah, scouts may talk like this, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to use those terms for those player groups.  It just seems like an antiquated holdover from a time when the league was much smaller.

With these definitions, you apparently don’t even need a 1C quality player on your team in order to win a Cup.  Neither WCF teams have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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). 

I think, coincidentally, assuming good health and decent linemates, we should see numbers from him similar to a younger Eric Staal.  So yes, 70 pts or thereabouts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

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.

Well, exactly. Neither view is the "correct" one, here. 

It just depends on whether we are framing it through the generally accepted level of desired quality, or through the prism of league average.

If you have what people mean when they say 1C, you'll have a better than average first line centre relative to the rest of the league. 

If you have what people mean when they say 2C, you'll have about a league average first line C in your 2 spot hole. 

Any roster that prescribed to the ideal definitions across the board would be a perennial contender. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curt said:

You are misunderstanding my point.

Im not saying that there is a clear difference in talent level between the 31st 1C and the first 2C (32).  If you want to say that there is not much difference between a low end 1C (~20-31) and a high end 2C (~32-45), that’s fine.  It’s a reasonable argument.

The the point that I’m trying to make is that if you are going to use those positional delineations (1C, 2C, 3C) to separate players, don’t create some arbitrary cutoff point which could be different for each person.  Use the actually numbers that exist in the NHL.

If you want to describe the 10-12 best C’s in the world, 1C is not the tag to use, because there are more than 10 1Cs in the NHL.  Just say elite C’s, or all-star C’s or something, or even top-10.  Say what you mean.

More than ten 1Cs in practice, but not in perception. 

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Thorny said:

Well, exactly. Neither view is the "correct" one, here. 

It just depends on whether we are framing it through the generally accepted level of desired quality, or through the prism of league average.

Not sure we're exactly on the same page.  (Maybe my read of your post was incorrect & we are.)  

The predominance of when we hear/read someone say "so & so is A 2C" they are using it in the context of a potential trade or a comparative evaluation.  

When somebody says "so & so is THE 2C" they are referring to how that player's coach deploys him.

It was painfully clear from the OP's description of Cozens as a 2C that the scout was saying if he matures as expected that ideally he'd be the 2nd best C on a team but could likely be the best C on a bad team (or a balanced lines team such as the Sabres of the late '90's - none of Peca, Brown, Barnes, nor Plante or Holzinger was a true prototype #1 C but they went far in the playoffs).  He expects him to be very good, but not Eichel level good.

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

More than ten 1Cs in practice, but not in perception. 

Maybe we are on the same page. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Thorny said:

More than ten 1Cs in practice, but not in perception. 

Well maybe “perception” should get in line with reality, because if you can be a real cup contender without a 1C, then I question the utility of the term.

Edited by Curt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

Well maybe “perception” should get in line with reality, because if you can be a real cup contender without a 1C, then I question the utility of the term.

So, because teams with great goaltending, very good D, and an abundance of very good but non-elite C's can legitimately be Stanley Cup contenders without a true 1C the utility of the term is in question?  

That's like saying because Trent friggin' Dilfer won a Superbowl, "franchise quarterbacks" aren't a thing.

You don't absolutely need one to win; but they sure do help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

So, because teams with great goaltending, very good D, and an abundance of very good but non-elite C's can legitimately be Stanley Cup contenders without a true 1C the utility of the term is in question?  

That's like saying because Trent friggin' Dilfer won a Superbowl, "franchise quarterbacks" aren't a thing.

You don't absolutely need one to win; but they sure do help.

I’m not saying that elite C’s or Franchise QBs don’t exist.

Im saying that it is silly to say that Trent Dilfer wasn’t a starting QB, because scouts say there are only 10 starter level QBs in the league.

Would it make sense to call the 10 franchise QBs, starting QBs, and call the next 20 best QBs backups?  Because that’s basically what’s happening with 1Cs here.

Im saying that some of those very good, but not elite C’s are also 1C caliber players.  Just not elite 1Cs.

If you mean elite C, just say elite C.  Not all good 1C qualify as elite (top 10-12), but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t 1Cs.

Edited by Curt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not sure we're exactly on the same page.  (Maybe my read of your post was incorrect & we are.)  

The predominance of when we hear/read someone say "so & so is A 2C" they are using it in the context of a potential trade or a comparative evaluation.  

When somebody says "so & so is THE 2C" they are referring to how that player's coach deploys him.

It was painfully clear from the OP's description of Cozens as a 2C that the scout was saying if he matures as expected that ideally he'd be the 2nd best C on a team but could likely be the best C on a bad team (or a balanced lines team such as the Sabres of the late '90's - none of Peca, Brown, Barnes, nor Plante or Holzinger was a true prototype #1 C but they went far in the playoffs).  He expects him to be very good, but not Eichel level good.

Maybe we are on the same page. 😉

Funnier version of this: I remember there were several hockey sites in 2005-6 who were incredulous and disgusted that Buffalo's "pond-hockey pansies" (that's a direct quote from a very reputable site) could win so consistently without a true #1 goaltender, a decent top-6 centre, or a great defence.  In this argument: Miller, Biron, and Noronen were considered sub-standard back-ups; the defence was considered adequate; Briere was a low-end 2C while Connolly was a passable 3C and Drury was an overpaid 3C.  The writing team concluded that the NHL had so distorted the game that even though "Lindy Ruff could get blood from stone", the Sabres were bad for hockey and proof that the league "encouraged figure skaters, not hockey players."

I should note that I still go to the site regularly as its Admins are very good analysts and ferret out better-founded rumours.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

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

 

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.

Point taken

I am not the originator of what I relayed regarding player rankings.  Arguing with me is pointless.  I have no dog in fight.  This is how the industry discusses players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

I’m not saying that elite C’s or Franchise QBs don’t exist.

Im saying that it is silly to say that Trent Dilfer wasn’t a starting QB, because scouts say there are only 10 starter level QBs in the league.

Would it make sense to call the 10 franchise QBs, starting QBs, and call the next 20 best QBs backups?  Because that’s basically what’s happening with 1Cs here.

Im saying that some of those very good, but not elite C’s are also 1C caliber players.  Just not elite 1Cs.

If you mean elite C, just say elite C.  Not all good 1C qualify as elite (top 10-12), but that doesn’t mean that they 

u r comparing apples and oranges.  

Go with your definitions.  Find a scout to argue with.  You will talk to their back as they walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Curt said:

I’m not saying that elite C’s or Franchise QBs don’t exist.

Im saying that it is silly to say that Trent Dilfer wasn’t a starting QB, because scouts say there are only 10 starter level QBs in the league.

Would it make sense to call the 10 franchise QBs, starting QBs, and call the next 20 best QBs backups?  Because that’s basically what’s happening with 1Cs here.

Im saying that some of those very good, but not elite C’s are also 1C caliber players.  Just not elite 1Cs.

If you mean elite C, just say elite C.  Not all good 1C qualify as elite (top 10-12), but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t 1Cs.

Except a guy like Briere was a true 1C even though he definitely wasn't elite.  And, even with 2006 Briere included there were well less than 30 1C's back then.

And, for football, they say franchise, quality starter, or Tyrod/Dilfer/Boller quality.  All were starters, only a subset were starters by their team's preferred choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Not sure we're exactly on the same page.  (Maybe my read of your post was incorrect & we are.)  

The predominance of when we hear/read someone say "so & so is A 2C" they are using it in the context of a potential trade or a comparative evaluation.  

When somebody says "so & so is THE 2C" they are referring to how that player's coach deploys him.

It was painfully clear from the OP's description of Cozens as a 2C that the scout was saying if he matures as expected that ideally he'd be the 2nd best C on a team but could likely be the best C on a bad team (or a balanced lines team such as the Sabres of the late '90's - none of Peca, Brown, Barnes, nor Plante or Holzinger was a true prototype #1 C but they went far in the playoffs).  He expects him to be very good, but not Eichel level good.

Maybe we are on the same page. 😉

I'm pretty sure we are, it's a very basic distinction. 

59 minutes ago, Curt said:

Well maybe “perception” should get in line with reality, because if you can be a real cup contender without a 1C, then I question the utility of the term.

Perception is reality. The use of the term "1C" to mean the higher-quality definition others have laid out is pretty widely accepted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...