Prospect Info: 2021 2nd Rd Pick (#57 OA) - Matthew Knies (LW) - Tri-City (USHL)

[ACC1224]

What's the earliest date Knies could join the team?

 

[francis246]

Our size is fine, and our defense actually isn't that small.
Tampa may have some giants on the back-end, but does that mean it's going to be hard for our forwards, or does that mean it's going to be hard for their defenders to keep pace?
Probably a bit of both. There are always trade-offs, which some people don't seem to get.
And for all of their redwoods, we've been a better defensive team than them.

I find this post laughable, we all know the answer. It’s a problem for the entire league. It’s a part of the reason why they’ve been to 3 straight finals.

 

[kb]

How many is too many though?

From the 3rd round on, Dubas has selected 8 players under 5'11 in his 5 years of drafting so far out of 28 selections. That's less than a third.

I don't think Dubas cares much about size. He targets BPA that focuses on skill and hockey IQ. By all accounts he looks for value in his pick by using advanced stats and underlaying numbers.

A recent article from The Athletic had the Leafs' prospect pool ranked 18th. It's fairly mid-tier but considering the Leafs haven't had a 1st round pick to considering since 2018 (Amirov's status is up in the air) that can speak to the solid drafting done beyond the first round.

These facts absolutely don't matter.

The only thing that matters (and is real) is what the "size before talent" posters think that Dubas is thinking.

 

[francis246]

Jamie Benn, Anders Lee, Roope Hintz, Jason Robertson, Brandon Saad, Josh Anderson, Miles Wood, Drake Batherson, Mark Stone, Yegor Sarangovich, Michael Bastian, Nick Paul, Tanner Jeannot are just a few names off the top of my head that would be non first round big body NHL versatile players. Quite a few of them are Ottawa and Dallas products. It’s not an accident some organizations go and find these types on a consistent basis.

Add Ryan O’Reilly to that list, he was a second rounder, prime Wayne Simmonds

 

[kb]

Yup, you can go back to any of our posts I think myself, you and others have said what makes Matthew Knies so intriguing is his combination of size and skill about 100 times.

And what's not intriguing is drafting for size without talent while thinking that is a viable and sustainable draft strategy.

Lmao right on cue KB coming in hot with his insults cause someone opposes his opinion

Hey, how is Liljegren doing? Any chance he can become a regular? Top-4 maybe?

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Stephen]

Yup, you can go back to any of our posts I think myself, you and others have said what makes Matthew Knies so intriguing is his combination of size and skill about 100 times.

Drafting for size vs skill still comes down to results and has nothing to do with whether a player type is valid or not. A big body fridge that can’t play like Rasanen is useless but big body fridge that can play like Ekholm is a gem. Doesn’t mean you give up on drafting that type of player.

A highly skilled Timashov isn’t any more astute than picking a Kenny Ryan when neither are NHLers. But I still say you can swing for a home run in Kaprizov if your scouting intel is on the mark.

And in situations where you’re looking at low percentage odd balls, just mix it up.

 

[francis246]

And what's not intriguing is drafting for size without talent thinking that is a viable draft strategy.


How is Liljegren doing? Any chance he can become a regular? Top-4 maybe?

Yo Pot, meet kettle.

I never insulted anyone, I didn’t think much about Liljegren but I never took personal shots at anyone. You do it to so many posters daily.

 

[Stephen]

Add Ryan O’Reilly to that list, he was a second rounder, prime Wayne Simmonds

Good call on both. They’re out there. In the Knies range too.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I find this post laughable, we all know the answer. It’s a problem for the entire league. It’s a part of the reason why they’ve been to 3 straight finals.

It seems you don't know the answer though. You just seem to think size trumps everything, always. Tampa's forwards and goaltending have factored into why they've been to 3 straight finals way more than their defense, and their size is also probably the least relevant thing about their defense.

 

[francis246]

And what's not intriguing is drafting for size without talent while thinking that is a viable and sustainable draft strategy.


Hey, how is Liljegren doing? Any chance he can become a regular? Top-4 maybe?

Pot, meet kettle.

I have never advocated for that. Continue to do what you do, come into threads, respond without reading. If you read, Stephen, myself and others have advocated for prioritizing more skill + size combo players. That’s all.

 

[francis246]

It seems you don't know the answer though. You just seem to think size trumps everything, always. Tampa's forwards and goaltending have factored into why they've been to 3 straight finals way more than their defense, and their size is also probably the least relevant thing about their defense.

Am I missing something or did I say it’s a part of, or the sole reason? Just remind me?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Am I missing something or did I say it’s a part of, or the sole reason? Just remind me?

You're giving that position more credit than it deserves for the playoff results you saw, and arbitrarily attributing it to their size based on nothing.
Teams full of bigger defenders have won. Teams full of smaller defenders have won.
There is no one way. There is no one attribute that trumps all.

 

[francis246]

Good call on both. They’re out there. In the Knies range too.

Yup, I don’t think it’s that those players aren’t out there. It’s just our team doesn’t prioritize them like other teams do. The 2nd part of it is you have to have a team culture that buys into playing physical while being skilled. Boston is the best example of it.

 

[Stephen]

Yup, I don’t think it’s that those players aren’t out there. It’s just our team doesn’t prioritize them like other teams do. The 2nd part of it is you have to have a team culture that buys into playing physical while being skilled. Boston is the best example of it.

I think they draft for skill in volume hoping they can cast a wide net and find a Brayden Point, Kirill Kaprizov or Torey Krug out of all the random fliers out there. But unless you’re getting the 0.1% at that player type you might be stuck with a lot of guys who… can’t really play. Again I’m not saying don’t draft those guys. But just be mindful of the mix and diversity in draft class so your pipeline is flowing for different roles.

 

[Gabriel426]

When you are talking about talents, what type of talents should be identified in the mid to later rounds?
Playing physical is a talent and so is scoring goals.
And that’s where the boom or bust debates come in.
I will admit I never follow the CHL much and only really look into the drafts during those years where the Leafs can get a high pick. But when I look at where Carlo was picked-a few spots after Dermott, I really wonder what did the scouts not like about Carlo.

 

[kb]

Is this the Matthew Knies thread, or is this the "Referendum on Leafs Drafting Strategy - the I know better" thread?

I know what the title says, but somehow I don't think most do.

 

[Gabriel426]

I think they draft for skill in volume hoping they can cast a wide net and find a Brayden Point, Kirill Kaprizov or Torey Krug out of all the random fliers out there. But unless you’re getting the 0.1% at that player type you might be stuck with a lot of guys who… can’t really play. Again I’m not saying don’t draft those guys. But just be mindful of the mix and diversity in draft class so your pipeline is flowing for different roles.

Tend to agree with you. They are pretty much betting on the same numbers in Lotto Max hoping they will hit, lol.

For real, I think it comes down to the type they want to draft and then magnify the weakness of players who doesn’t fit their type in order to justify passing them over for guys they want.

 

[kb]

Tend to agree with you. They are pretty much betting on the same numbers in Lotto Max hoping they will hit, lol.

For real, I think it comes down to the type they want to draft and then magnify the weakness of players who doesn’t fit their type in order to justify passing them over for guys they want.

Except that it's a figment of many poster's imaginations. And has been repeatedly debunked.

But again......I thought this thread was about Matthew Knies? Who is tasked with keeping threads on topic?

 

[hotpaws]

How many is too many though?

From the 3rd round on, Dubas has selected 8 players under 5'11 in his 5 years of drafting so far out of 28 selections. That's less than a third.

I don't think Dubas cares much about size. He targets BPA that focuses on skill and hockey IQ. By all accounts he looks for value in his pick by using advanced stats and underlaying numbers.

A recent article from The Athletic had the Leafs' prospect pool ranked 18th. It's fairly mid-tier but considering the Leafs haven't had a 1st round pick to considering since 2018 (Amirov's status is up in the air) that can speak to the solid drafting done beyond the first round.

i quickly went through Dubies draft's , i counted 17 picks 5'11'' and under out of 35 picks as well as a fair number a couple of inches shorter , that seems like too many especially if you considered our needs when he took over

there's no such thing as BPA outside of very very top of the draft for the most part , it just comes down to teams personal preferences and Dubie got too wrapped up in trying to draft in what he believed to be ''draft inefficencies'' which he thought were smurfs and overagers

it's hard trying to find an impact player after the 2nd rd regardless of size and people are right when they say big skilled guys usually don't drop that far but neither do very skilled 5'10''/11'' guys either

usually what your left with is big guys who have some attributes but are projects and smaller somewhat skilled guys who produce at the lower levels but aren't good enough to transition their game to the NHL

and as i said in my previous post , the vast majority of picks amount to nothing regardless of size so that's why i'm not one of these posters who believe you can get 2-3 quality players every draft , i'd be more than happy with our drafting if we could hit on two top 6/9 frwds or top 4 D every 3 drafts as well as another depth player or two who can stick and fill a lower role

 

[All Mod Cons]

I see so much in here about how important the banging and crashing role players are, even if they lack skill because it wears people down.

If it's so important why not go get some Practice Squad NFL Middle Linebacker or Defensive End, they're usually in the 6'4 240 range and pretty good at hitting people lol, just gotta spend a bit of time learning to skate a bit.

If you're up or down a few goals send him in there to take out the other team's D men for the next game in the series.

Because that's one of the most ridiculous comments ever made on this site.

It's as if you haven't read a single comment.

Booooo

 

[Pholus]

i quickly went through Dubies draft's , i counted 17 picks 5'11'' and under out of 35 picks as well as a fair number a couple of inches shorter , that seems like too many especially if you considered our needs when he took over

Do you consider Sidney Crosby to be a smurf? What about Cale Makar? You must, since they're both 5'11. I personally think that different people have different definitions of what a 'smurf' is, which is a factor in the size vs skill argument.

Also, one page back you inferred that a 'smurf' is 5'10" or smaller, yet now you're including 5'11" as a smurf:

the fact is , the vast majority of every teams picks bust or become nothing more than fringe players regardless of size . picking large amounts of 5'-9"/10" 170lbish outside of the 1st/2nd isn't some recipe for success since you can really have only so many in your lineup even if they could be become decent NHLers

This is similar to me claiming that there's too many billionaires in the world, and then counting up the number of people whose net worth is over ~900 million. I'm intentionally not fulfilling my criteria to emphasis my point, and it comes off as disingenuous.

For what it's worth, I agree that impact players tend to not drop too far in the draft regardless of size. That being said, you're more likely to see a small impact player drop than a large one, and that is the market inefficiency that Dubas has attempted to exploit (and been defended for doing so) since he has not had the high picks necessary to get the big impact players. There's also some amount of peoples' personal risk aversion at play when it comes to drafting prospects and projecting their ceiling and floor, and the people who defend Dubas the strongest seem to be the ones who are more happy with drafting a guy that has a 10% chance to be an impact player and a 0% chance to be a depth player, than pick a guy with a 1% chance to be an impact player but a 50% chance at being a depth player.

and as i said in my previous post , the vast majority of picks amount to nothing regardless of size so that's why i'm not one of these posters who believe you can get 2-3 quality players every draft , i'd be more than happy with our drafting if we could hit on two top 6/9 frwds or top 4 D every 3 drafts as well as another depth player or two who can stick and fill a lower role

If you look at Dubas' first draft in 2018, both Sandin and Durzi are looking like they will be top4 D, with Holmberg potentially developing into a 3rd line forward (a top 9 frwd), plus 3 other picks who have played at least 1 NHL game before turning 24, which might be enough to meet your criteria of "depth player... who can stick and fill a lower role." I would think you would be overjoyed about Dubas' drafting considering that with just 9 picks, he's managed to hit on what you would be happy with getting from 3 drafts.

For the record, I agree that it would be really nice to have a bunch of prospects who have 'snarl' and 'bite' to their game, but there aren't always opportunities to add that player, and I don't think the Leafs should be going out of their way to prioritize prospects that they don't have much history of success with. They seem to do better with prospects who have not relied on physically dominating the competition at lower levels, but instead use their brains to out-think the physically dominating players.

 

[ULF_55]

I would hope they take the BPA.
If big good.
If not big tough.

From a quick review of the draft Leafs take 3 out of 5 players who are 6'1" or taller.

For evidence see: 2022 draft.

That's all the research we need for this ...

 

[therealkoho]

Who knows but I'd say if you're into the 3rd round the guy who is 6'2" is probably just as skilled as the guy who is 5'8"

Hockey is a game that requires as much skill as it does physicality. It shouldn't be a hard decision on who you take, but apparently for whatever reason Kyle doesn't see it that way.

 

[Gallagbi]

I think they draft for skill in volume hoping they can cast a wide net and find a Brayden Point, Kirill Kaprizov or Torey Krug out of all the random fliers out there. But unless you’re getting the 0.1% at that player type you might be stuck with a lot of guys who… can’t really play. Again I’m not saying don’t draft those guys. But just be mindful of the mix and diversity in draft class so your pipeline is flowing for different roles.

Arent we mindful of the mix though? Hasnt that been shown throughout the thread? From guys you and others have mentioned in Rasanen, Korshkov, Knies through to the opposite smurf esque players like Bracco, Voit, etc

 

[hotpaws]

Do you consider Sidney Crosby to be a smurf? What about Cale Makar? You must, since they're both 5'11. I personally think that different people have different definitions of what a 'smurf' is, which is a factor in the size vs skill argument.

Also, one page back you inferred that a 'smurf' is 5'10" or smaller, yet now you're including 5'11" as a smurf:

This is similar to me claiming that there's too many billionaires in the world, and then counting up the number of people whose net worth is over ~900 million. I'm intentionally not fulfilling my criteria to emphasis my point, and it comes off as disingenuous.

For what it's worth, I agree that impact players tend to not drop too far in the draft regardless of size. That being said, you're more likely to see a small impact player drop than a large one, and that is the market inefficiency that Dubas has attempted to exploit (and been defended for doing so) since he has not had the high picks necessary to get the big impact players. There's also some amount of peoples' personal risk aversion at play when it comes to drafting prospects and projecting their ceiling and floor, and the people who defend Dubas the strongest seem to be the ones who are more happy with drafting a guy that has a 10% chance to be an impact player and a 0% chance to be a depth player, than pick a guy with a 1% chance to be an impact player but a 50% chance at being a depth player.



If you look at Dubas' first draft in 2018, both Sandin and Durzi are looking like they will be top4 D, with Holmberg potentially developing into a 3rd line forward (a top 9 frwd), plus 3 other picks who have played at least 1 NHL game before turning 24, which might be enough to meet your criteria of "depth player... who can stick and fill a lower role." I would think you would be overjoyed about Dubas' drafting considering that with just 9 picks, he's managed to hit on what you would be happy with getting from 3 drafts.

For the record, I agree that it would be really nice to have a bunch of prospects who have 'snarl' and 'bite' to their game, but there aren't always opportunities to add that player, and I don't think the Leafs should be going out of their way to prioritize prospects that they don't have much history of success with. They seem to do better with prospects who have not relied on physically dominating the competition at lower levels, but instead use their brains to out-think the physically dominating players.

which one's of our draft picks are Crosby or Makar , lol

the poster i replied to used 5'11'' and i responded using his criteria , no idea how you missed that

yup it looks like his first draft is his best since it turned out 3 NHLers , i guess it's just coincidence it also was the one he had the least input in since he just took over , lol

and just an fyi , your life will not change one iota if the team doesn't get by the first rd and Dubie is dismissed , they'll be another GM you can worship and if he fails they'll be another one after that so regardless how many GM's the team employs during your lifetime your day to day life will not be affected in any way