Prospect Info: 9OA: Nate Danielson

[Run the Jewels]

I'm generally of the opinion that physicality is more of an inherent trait than a learned one. Physical play is as much mental as it is physical. That's not to say a player's physicality can't be improved, but it needs to be building on a mental foundation that's already there. There are countless examples of teams trying to cultivate that element in a player to no avail,.

Having an 8 year old son who plays lacrosse, I have noticed there are certain kids who either naturally take to the physical aspects of play or have it ingrained in them by their parents, typically their father who keeps yelling to be more physical. My son decided the physical play and all that running wasn't for him, so he plays goalie.

Now with that being said I do believe positioning can be taught which makes you more effective in winning and distributing pucks along the boards. So for me, there's a difference between being an aggressive checker, which is more ingrained, and someone who develops strong positional play in order to win battles. We often hear about the defender who gets taken out of position to run a guy through the boards. There's two different skills at play here.

 

[The Zermanator]

At lower levels a lot of guys are a lot less physical. They need to show a willingness to engage. While yes Kasper relishes that element almost in a way that reminds me of Landeskog at a young age. He is one of the more physical guys to go in the top 10 with the talent and not a reach in a while so I love that element.

But a bunch of players, especially key players are often told not to engage in this aspect. The coach understands the significance of keeping them on ice. What you look for is compete in battles, a frame to build and a hockey sense that shows when they close the door or are physical. I think Danielson passes this test and I look forward as he tops 200lbs how much more physical he becomes. I firmly believe that is in there.

I do agree that most overtly physical guys show it very early on. In that sense I have little doubt Kasper is going to be a very physical guy. MBN also shows this upside. Not surprisingly both of them have grown up in men’s leagues where showing you’re physically capable wasn’t discouraged. It is one of the advantage to the European model especially as some of the more physical areas of North American hockey have been discouraged in the junior and youth ranks. A key indicator for me is the acceleration in physicality once you reach NCAA hockey as an example. Just my opinion.

Well that would certainly be a nice bonus if he can incorporate that element into his game on a consistent basis. I think highly enough of his overall hockey IQ to be confident that he would apply it appropriately, and that's where I can see merit in comparing him to Kesler in a physical sense should Danielson ultimately refine that element of his game.

Not all physicality is created equal, you have guys like Tom Wilson who will go headhunting and put their team in a precarious situation because he put himself completely out of position to deliver the hit. Kesler never struck me as the type of player who sacrifices the broader interests of the team for the sake of doing something physical. His physicality was complementary to his overall game and I imagine that's how it would be for Danielson too.

The best part of the debate is we are looking at winning 200 ft hockey. Yes these names are all very optimistic. The style of play though is what reliably lead to winning hockey. You can see elements that translate to the highest levels and most crucial elements of where games are decided.

Nice to talk high level hockey tendancies with zero personal attacks, the original purpose of this board. Great discussion guys/gals. Really excited we probably start seeing them as soon as this year.

I love how the team is shaping up to be an absolute nightmare to play against in a few years.

Down the middle we may have a PPG defensively responsible 1C in Larkin, a 60-70 point defensively responsible 2C in Danielson, and a 40-50 point defensively responsible agitator and pest in Kasper at 3C. Seems to be a lot of doom and gloom about the centre depth around here, but I'm loving what I'm seeing.

Then on the wings you have Raymond and MBN who will make other teams pay for their mistakes in various ways, MBN as the power forward and Raymond as the shifty puck hound with a nose for the net.

Then on the back end, one of Seider or Edvinsson will be patrolling for most of the game, assuming they're split up to each anchor their own pairing. And in specific situations, you can pair them together for maximum effect. And you'll have ASP to make teams pay for their penalties when the Wings send out their PP unit.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, isn't "Ball Hockey Sucks" a personal attack on a former poster?

Earned and permanently banned, I wish he would have been charged for what he eventually did to finally earn that. I won't hide from it and that will always be under my name as a result of that person's own actions. The same story across several different Wings boards over different sites over the years.

 

[The Zermanator]

Now with that being said I do believe positioning can be taught which makes you more effective in winning and distributing pucks along the boards. So for me, there's a difference between being an aggressive checker, which is more ingrained, and someone who develops strong positional play in order to win battles. We often hear about the defender who gets taken out of position to run a guy through the boards. There's two different skills at play here.

I guess this is where it gets a bit weedy in terms of everyone having their own definition of what constitutes physical play. I personally wouldn't consider a player who is strong positionally and battles along the boards as a physical player per se, but I can see why others would. Rather than get bogged down in what every individual considers physical play, I'd say we can place pretty well any player in one of three broad categories:

1) players who shy away from physical contact;​

​

2) players who seek it out; and​

​

3) players who will use it when they need to.​

I would put Danielson into the 3rd category, and I think that's likely where he stays for most of his career. Whereas a guy like Kasper I put into the 2nd category, he's in his element when he's jamming things up in the thick of it. For me, a player is a "physical player" if their physicality is a core component to their game. For Danielson, while it may be a tool at his disposal, I don't think physicality is or will ever be a core component of his game.

 

[jkutswings]

Now with that being said I do believe positioning can be taught which makes you more effective in winning and distributing pucks along the boards. So for me, there's a difference between being an aggressive checker, which is more ingrained, and someone who develops strong positional play in order to win battles. We often hear about the defender who gets taken out of position to run a guy through the boards. There's two different skills at play here.

As an extreme example, Nick Lidstrom was elite at positioning yet (partly because of this) rarely displayed much physicality. Yes, the approach of forwards is inherently different than defensemen, and no, I'm not in any way calling Danielson the Lidstrom of forward prospects, but I hear what you're saying.

At a minimum, it will be interesting to see what a player like Nate does at the NHL level when his (seemingly sound) positional play occasionally breaks down, and when a player like him gets his first taste of NHL playoff hockey, which ratchets all types of intensity up a few notches. I absolutely look forward to it.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, isn't "Ball Hockey Sucks" a personal attack on a former poster?

To be honest… Ball hockey DOES suck. It is what you did in gym class with everyone and if you were remotely athletic, you dominated.

I simply do not understand why you’d choose Ball Hockey over Ice Hockey.

I played street hockey because you could do it in the summer outdoors and it was actually a cheap way to dick around with your friends.

I mean, Ball Hockey when you could play Ice is like driving a Ford Pinto when you could drive a Mustang. Or eat Hydrox cookies when you could have Oreos.

 

[OldnotDeadWings]

I don't think anyone should doubt Danielson's willingness to be physical, but just like every other part of his game he's not going to be reckless about it, ie take chances that aren't worth it, make a hit that leaves him behind the play, lose his cool to the point of stupid retaliation, etc. He's got a fair-play attitude that could earn him Lady Byng votes in the future. He's a lock IMO to get Selke votes if he puts up 50-plus point seasons, which I think are much more likely than 65-plus points seasons. He's simply better defensively than offensively and players usually end up gravitating to roles/usage that reflect what they're best at. That doesn't mean he can't or won't be productive at a high rate down the road, especially if he's the puck-carrying engine on a line with more skilled wingers, but overall I think his offensive upside is a little overrated here.

 

[Axel Sandy Pelikan]

I will say that I personally feel the "grawr physical" necessity is VERY overrated on these boards and among hockey heads. I mean, take Datsyuk and Zetterberg... neither were overly physical players but they were by no means soft.

It's more about what physicality you can absorb and keep moving forward than it is how much you can deal out. A guy like Maltby or Avery has a role because they're little annoying pricks that are a pain to play against. But teams demonstrably worry about the guy like Zetterberg who can just tote their big heavy D around the ice while maintaining control of the puck.

In other words... "It ain't about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done."

 

[newfy]

I will say that I personally feel the "grawr physical" necessity is VERY overrated on these boards and among hockey heads. I mean, take Datsyuk and Zetterberg... neither were overly physical players but they were by no means soft.

It's more about what physicality you can absorb and keep moving forward than it is how much you can deal out. A guy like Maltby or Avery has a role because they're little annoying pricks that are a pain to play against. But teams demonstrably worry about the guy like Zetterberg who can just tote their big heavy D around the ice while maintaining control of the puck.

In other words... "It ain't about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done."

Its actually about both though. Datsyuk and Zetterberg, especially Datsyuk, were fairly physical for star forwards of their calibre. But after watching teams like Vegas, Florida, and the Blues win half of the last 6 cups, plus a team like Tampa in there that was also fairly tough..... its pretty obvious that big, heavy hockey is winning hockey.

Dishing it out over a playoff series and not getting pushed around is huge in todays league where a lot of players are softer and cant handle it

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I will say that I personally feel the "grawr physical" necessity is VERY overrated on these boards and among hockey heads. I mean, take Datsyuk and Zetterberg... neither were overly physical players but they were by no means soft.

It's more about what physicality you can absorb and keep moving forward than it is how much you can deal out. A guy like Maltby or Avery has a role because they're little annoying pricks that are a pain to play against. But teams demonstrably worry about the guy like Zetterberg who can just tote their big heavy D around the ice while maintaining control of the puck.

In other words... "It ain't about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done."

The NHL goes through cycles, but you don't get less big or easier to play against over 7 games. I get that toughness is the big thing here, but I think as long as you stick to having the required skating and skill having that extra reach and being harder to push out or having an easier time pushing the opposition out of high priced real estate has a lot of value. I want that mix. Raymond is an example of a guy I know will stick his nose in it like Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

I like a lot of the components Yzerman has setup and balanced in our prospect pool. I can understand that vision, we need to start putting them on the roster and figuring out where all of the pieces fit and how to supplement it through trade. But the darkest times are behind us. Having a team with one of the best arena advantages with a big fast physical bent to them especially on the back-end is going to be a nightmare. It will be in the dog days of the season, but in particular it makes that climb up the hill when you're down in the series all the more difficult. The same way the Panthers sit on teams chests late in the game. I can see the logic. Strong two-way centers, massive D that can skate and a bunch of guys that have high compete levels. Those are really good qualities, I don't think they are bad ones to chase and while some might want homerun risk picks a lot of these guys have more upside than I think people give them credit for.

 

[Run the Jewels]

I will say that I personally feel the "grawr physical" necessity is VERY overrated on these boards and among hockey heads. I mean, take Datsyuk and Zetterberg... neither were overly physical players but they were by no means soft.

It's more about what physicality you can absorb and keep moving forward than it is how much you can deal out. A guy like Maltby or Avery has a role because they're little annoying pricks that are a pain to play against. But teams demonstrably worry about the guy like Zetterberg who can just tote their big heavy D around the ice while maintaining control of the puck.

In other words... "It ain't about how hard you can hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done."

Yes, people complained about Datsyuk and Zetterberg being soft during the 2006 series against the Oilers. They were both very good young forwards who learned how to thrive during playoff hockey when the ice gets smaller.

 

[Oddbob]

Kesler wasn't ONLY a shadow, but it's what won him a selke and built his reputation. He developed into a good scorer and a core piece of both the Canucks and the Ducks. I can see greater things for Danielson than becoming another Ryan Kesler.

Another way to look at Bedard's statement is this; Danielson elevates his game based on who he's playing against, the importance of the game, etc.

Danielson was probably the best player in the WHL playoffs and carried his team on a nightly basis. He was really doing it all.

If he becomes like Kesler he needs to be much more likeable as I always couldn't stand him.

 

[Oddbob]

To be honest… Ball hockey DOES suck. It is what you did in gym class with everyone and if you were remotely athletic, you dominated.

I simply do not understand why you’d choose Ball Hockey over Ice Hockey.

I played street hockey because you could do it in the summer outdoors and it was actually a cheap way to dick around with your friends.

I mean, Ball Hockey when you could play Ice is like driving a Ford Pinto when you could drive a Mustang. Or eat Hydrox cookies when you could have Oreos.

Ball hockey is all I played, but never had access to good ice consistently to have a choice. That said I had lots of fun playing it and don't consider it to suck, though we played on blades rather than feet which made it much more fun.

"That Guy" though is another story as he was pretty much terrible with every post.

 

[Oddbob]

Yes, people complained about Datsyuk and Zetterberg being soft during the 2006 series against the Oilers. They were both very good young forwards who learned how to thrive during playoff hockey when the ice gets smaller.

To be fair, Datsyuk got a lot tougher from his first seasons to his peak. Much tougher to knock off the puck especially at the boards. My only complaint of Datsyuk early on, was I was screaming lots of times for him to "shoot the puck" as he basically exclusively passed at every opportunity and I always thought he had more to his shot than he showed early on, plus always just passing becomes predictable after awhile.

 

[Geezer WC]

Having a team with one of the best arena advantages

Could you explain please? It's always looked to me that the ice at LCA....isn't that good.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Could you explain please? It's always looked to me that the ice at LCA....isn't that good.

The JLA had the second nicest ice in the league behind Edmonton in my opinion and the boards were certainly a big favor to people that played there. While it could get loud other elements of it didn't necessarily measure up to a massive advantage. Certainly the biggest issue in the modern world was the complete lack of amenities in the concourse but most importantly beneath for the players.

So that was a unique aspect of the old barn. The LCA was primarily based off the Bell Centre in Montreal. It has state of the art acustics, primarily designed for major performing acts, but the fact remains it creates a unique sound environment. It was built on steeper angles mostly for viewing benefit but it also has a massive impact on the acustical quality and noise of the building. The players often reference just how loud LCA would get this year because were finally good enough to consistently see it. Yes as a duel purpose facility shared with the Pistons that means the ice quality isn't the same as the single purpose arenas. However, it has some of the nicest features for players in the league and fans. It will be a pretty massive home ice advantage when we do roll into the post-season as we know Wings fans can be among the loudest in the league even without the advantages of the state of the art roof and acustic system. You can see it in games where people actively engage. It has been harder to see with our downturn as an organization, but I maintain it is one of the best arenas in North America and will be a massive advantage when this team is competitive. That a lot of the buildings have mix-used purposes now also means "bad ice" is more of an aspect around the league in general.

 

[Hen Kolland]

The JLA had the second nicest ice in the league behind Edmonton in my opinion and the boards were certainly a big favor to people that played there. While it could get loud other elements of it didn't necessarily measure up to a massive advantage. Certainly the biggest issue in the modern world was the complete lack of amenities in the concourse but most importantly beneath for the players.

So that was a unique aspect of the old barn. The LCA was primarily based off the Bell Centre in Montreal. It has state of the art acustics, primarily designed for major performing acts, but the fact remains it creates a unique sound environement. It was built on steeper angles mostly for viewing benefit but it also has a massive impact on the acustical quality and noise of the building. The players often reference just how loud LCA would get this year because were finally good enough to consistently see it. Yes as a duel purpose facility shared with the Pistons that means the ice quality isn't the same as the single purpose arenas. However, it has some of the nicest features for players in the league and fans. It will be a pretty massive home ice advantage when we do role into the post-season as we know Wings fans can be among the loudest in the league even without the advantages of the state of the art roof and acustic system. You can see it in games where people actively engage. It has been harder to see with our downturn as an organization, but I maintain it is one of the best arenas in North America and will be a massive advantage when this team is competitive. That a lot of the buildings have mix-used purposes now also means "bad ice" is more of an aspect around the league in general.

How loud it becomes is directly tied to how well Jared Goff is playing, or if he is in attendance.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

How loud it becomes is directly tied to how well Jared Goff is playing, or if he is in attendance.

Should be plenty loud in a Super Bowl winning season then next year.

 

[Frk It]

Should be plenty loud in a Super Bowl winning season then next year.

 

[SirloinUB]

Im really excited to follow Danielson's jump to the pro ranks.

Nate Danielson has put himself on the radar for an NHL roster spot

That and more observations from the Red Wings prospects at Traverse City.

www.shapshotshockey.com

A member of the Dallas Stars brass, who closely watched the games, told me Danielson was the best player in the Traverse City prospect games and that the first-round pick, “looked NHL ready to me.”

 

[19 for president]

Im really excited to follow Danielson's jump to the pro ranks.

Nate Danielson has put himself on the radar for an NHL roster spot

That and more observations from the Red Wings prospects at Traverse City.

www.shapshotshockey.com

I kind of expect Danielson to make the team unless MBN comes in and just blows everyone away in camp. I think this is what Cleary was sort of hinting at as well in his recent comments about having his own opinion that he'd keep to himself.

I don't think he'll play center his 1st year but we clearly have space for him offensively. For him to knock off Motte he needs to be good enough defensively to take a spot on the PK, and probably could do that with his defensive prowess.

DBC-Larkin-Ray (I thought DBC looked his best with this group last season)
Danielson-Compher-Kane (Gives Kane another smart young player to play with but one he'll defer to less for shooting, and maybe a player that will be able to better incorporate Compher into things)
Berggren-Rasmussen-Tank (I really like the makings of this as a 3rd line, keeps Tank a little sheltered on a lower line, which seemed to work better for him last year)
Veleno-Copp-Fisher (Defensive line, accept that Veleno doesn't have the offensive game so let him truly focus and learn the D side of it)

 

[stillwater]

So, you've got Danielson beginning his NHL career in the top 6, playing his off-wing.

What could possibly go wrong? No pressure at all.

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

Yzerman already has made comments that he'd rather play a guy in GR than give them bottom 6 time in the NHL.

Would be shocked if Danielson makes it.

 

[heyfolks]

So, you've got Danielson beginning his NHL career in the top 6, playing his off-wing.

What could possibly go wrong? No pressure at all.

That isn't going to happen. He will be the #2 center man with Kane and Tarasanko on the Wings. Now, he may start as the 3rd center with Compher in the 2 spot, but I don't like that space for him.

I'll keep saying it, ND is going to make this roster. Jaster brought up a good point in the other thread. Mo will eat up ALL the cap space for 24, if not EXCEED it. From there, it is all on who Yzerman has to move out. I won't get into that salary dump. HOWEVER, hitting the cap ceiling makes a minimum salary prospect more likely to make the team.

Some of this may depend on who the Wings dump. After that is who is NHL ready. That list is few in number. Wallinder, Kasper and Danielson.


Since I was fired from the Brady Cleveland fan club President's role, I am sticking with this one. ND will make the Wings roster.

 

[sepster]

Since I was fired from the Brady Cleveland fan club President's role, I am sticking with this one. ND will make the Wings roster.

Really? Is it the Copp thread I have to check to see what happened?