A SERIOUS DISCUSSION: Alex Nedeljkovic

[A Star is Burns]

For me, Ned's height and size are more of a concern when he's being too jittery in the net. He's calmed that down a lot, and I don't know if that's his increased confidence, the team playing tighter in front of him so he doesn't need to scramble, or if he's just gotten his positioning that much better (and I mean even from earlier starts this season). Maybe it's all of the above. Whatever it is, if he's not all over the place all of the time, I think his prospects of being a long time NHL goalie are very good. I like that he's athletic, and that can certainly help him with any size limitations, but I think it was about doing less better as a certain someone might say. And he has. At this point, my biggest issue with his current play is he still makes some mind boggling decisions with his stickhandling and puck playing. But if he can continue to have it not bite him in the ass, good on him I suppose. Yeah, his size will lead to more sniping and probably deflections getting by him as time goes on, but it was those coupled with goals from being too jittery that were my concern.

At this point, all that's left is to see if he can keep it up as teams see him over and over, as we return to playing more than a handful of teams across the league, and once he gets a bigger workload and plays consecutive games. And a lot of that is a long term proposition. For now, I hope he kicks ass as long as he's called on and we'll worry about the rest as time goes on.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Yep, size is a legitimate factor. The challenge is keeping that factor appropriately balanced against all the other factors. Too often people key in on the one without considering the rest. I remember arguments against smaller skaters because they're going to lose puck battles. Often true, but that needs to be weighed against the times a smaller quicker player gets to the puck first, avoiding a puck battle in the first place.

Anyone remember "we don't want Marner, he's too small"?

Going back to that draft and seeing the 3 picks after the 3 guys the Bruins picked in round 1 go Barzal, Connor, Chabot is so amusing. The Bruins could’ve just won the last 3 cups with plenty more to come if Sweeney picked even 1 of those correctly, never mind all 3.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

I'm just enjoying the ride while it lasts. well, that and the fact the team is good, so it's not as if this is the only bright spot for people to cling to desperately.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

Going back to that draft and seeing the 3 picks after the 3 guys the Bruins picked in round 1 go Barzal, Connor, Chabot is so amusing. The Bruins could’ve just won the last 3 cups with plenty more to come if Sweeney picked even 1 of those correctly, never mind all 3.

A major cap crunch probably would've led to either Connor or Chabot playing for another team right around last season, but still, the assets they would've recouped in such a trade would've been ginormous.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

They probably would have traded Chabot away for "not being a Bruins player" or whatever for a 2nd and 1 year of Michael Ferland. The talent they've shed for pennies on the dollar, I can't tell whether "culture" is not only real but the most critical aspect to team success, or if the Bruins are the luckiest damn team for being competitive while setting house money on fire.

 

[Tryamw]

I'm not sure how accurate NHL listed heights are, but Ned is listed as 6'0 189 lbs. Ward, Mrazek and Quick are only 6'1"

I think Ned's measurement is probably accurate because the official 2014 draft combine measurements had him at 5'11.75", 190 lbs.

Other then the weight that's me!!! (Don't ask about the other,...)

 

[WreckingCrew]

I'm not sure how accurate NHL listed heights are, but Ned is listed as 6'0 189 lbs. Ward, Mrazek and Quick are only 6'1"

I think Ned's measurement is probably accurate because the official 2014 draft combine measurements had him at 5'11.75", 190 lbs.

It's not accurate though (maybe with skates on). If you've seen him NEXT to someone listed at those heights, he's visibly shorter, maybe closer to the 5'10" range. Just like FWDs who are 5'6" - 5'9" aren't really significantly shorter than guy's who are 6'1", it's enough that they have to up their game to match...all other things equal, their ceiling is still lower (due to reach, stick length etc)*

I agree, Ned has settled down a LOT as he's gotten comfortable, certainly less sprawly and jittery than his first few seasons in Charlotte. Right now, he is 100% above-average backup goaltending...and he proved in Charlotte he can take a heavy load, though not yet proven that at the NHL level. I have 0 issues with calling him our de-facto backup right now and even next year, but I still wouldn't want to lock up a contract on him more than 2 years, there's a lot left to prove. I do still worry somewhat about even making him a platoon 1B for at least another year, because that's what Mrazek requires (he hasn't started >50% since 16-17). I think he's a lot like Mrazek, when he's on and feeling confident, he's excellent! He also hasn't really faced huge adversity yet, a game where he's gotten shelled for 40 shots and/or 6 goals. How does he handle that and rebound from a truly bad game?

One standout trait of Neds is that he KEEPS himself active in a game. Even when he's not facing shots a lot he's pokechecking, retrieving, and puckhandling a fair amount and I think that helps him maintain focus (how many goalies seem to get "sleepy" when they're not tested much?). He's a little too aggressive/ballsy sometimes, and that could bite him in the @$$, but he can also take some pressure off the D and add another dimension for getting the puck out of the zone

TLDR: He's looking like an above-average backup+ RIGHT NOW. Once Mrazek is back he should be #2/1B over Reimer. I'd be fine rolling the dice on him as our backup next year, possibly even as a platoon behind Mrazek.

* I know there are like 5 short jokes in that one sentence

 

[MinJaBen]

Charles Barkley was one of the best rebounders in the NBA in the 80s, when the league was chock full of 7-foot centers, even going so far as to lead the league in his third year.

Charles Barkley is 6'4".

This is a great analogy, actually. Yes, Barkley was undersized and still was able to do all he did. How many other guys that size have done that since he did? Any? I don't know, but I'm going to guess few or none. He was a rare breed because in that position in that sport, size does have advantages. It's not everything, but it's a lot. Is it more likely Ned the "Charles Barkley" of undersized goalies, or is he just an undersized goalie? I know which way I would be betting if I had to put real money on it.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

This is a great analogy, actually. Yes, Barkley was undersized and still was able to do all he did. How many other guys that size have done that since he did? Any? I don't know, but I'm going to guess few or none. He was a rare breed because in that position in that sport, size does have advantages. It's not everything, but it's a lot. Is it more likely Ned the "Charles Barkley" of undersized goalies, or is he just an undersized goalie? I know which way I would be betting if I had to put real money on it.

I hope I'm wrong.

Well, in Barkley's case, he was a small-baller before his time. There's recently been an influx of smaller C/PF hybrids in the NBA, such as Draymond Green during the Warriors' 3 titles, because the speed and athleticism of a smaller guy, when combined with elite shooters that can space the floor, can often overwhelm larger teams with (naturally) less foot speed. The "tweener" designation isn't as much of a stigma anymore for that reason. It's possible that Ned can pave the way for a different kind of goaltender in the future, as well.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

It's not accurate though (maybe with skates on). If you've seen him NEXT to someone listed at those heights, he's visibly shorter, maybe closer to the 5'10" range. Just like FWDs who are 5'6" - 5'9" aren't really significantly shorter than guy's who are 6'1", it's enough that they have to up their game to match...all other things equal, their ceiling is still lower (due to reach, stick length etc)*

Except I'm fairly certain the draft combine numbers are indeed accurate. That's the whole purpose of them doing these measurements is because a lot of prospects lie about their height and weight so they do these measurements so teams know for real.

Ned measured 5'11.75", 190 lbs at the draft combine. So unless they screwed up at the combine (which is always possible but I doubt), or he's shrunk since then, I find it hard to believe he's 5'10" or less.

NHL Combine 2014: Full Results, Measurements, Highlights and Top Prospects

 

[A Star is Burns]

Except I'm fairly certain the draft combine numbers are indeed accurate. That's the whole purpose of them doing these measurements is because a lot of prospects lie about their height and weight so they do these measurements so teams know for real.

Ned measured 5'11.75", 190 lbs at the draft combine. So unless they screwed up at the combine (which is always possible but I doubt), or he's shrunk since then, I find it hard to believe he's 5'10" or less.

NHL Combine 2014: Full Results, Measurements, Highlights and Top Prospects

 

[GoldiFox]

This is a great analogy, actually. Yes, Barkley was undersized and still was able to do all he did. How many other guys that size have done that since he did? Any? I don't know, but I'm going to guess few or none. He was a rare breed because in that position in that sport, size does have advantages. It's not everything, but it's a lot. Is it more likely Ned the "Charles Barkley" of undersized goalies, or is he just an undersized goalie? I know which way I would be betting if I had to put real money on it.

I hope I'm wrong.

90% of size issues can be covered with perfect positioning and movement. In Barkley's case and potentially in Ned's. Cue Tripp's TED talk about big goal, small goal. This doesn't mean that size doesn't matter, just that it is part of a bigger picture.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

90% of size issues can be covered with perfect positioning and movement. In Barkley's case and potentially in Ned's. Cue Tripp's TED talk about big goal, small goal. This doesn't mean that size doesn't matter, just that it is part of a bigger picture.

In addition to positioning, guys like Barkley and Dennis Rodman (who was 6'7" so much shorter than a lot of power forwards and centers), also succeeded because they wanted it more. They continuously took a beating and outworked guys in order to get the ball.

 

[Discipline Daddy]

I just want to laugh at the Bruins' colossal ****-up in the 2005 draft. I feel bad as a Canes fan for not taking Werenski or Provorov, who in retrospect are much better players. But day-um. You had THREE grade A darts and you screw up all three. Right now you couldn't trade Senyshyn, Zboril, DeBrusk, AND a 2021 Bruins' first round pick for Barzal, Connor, or Chabot. I mean what a massive, massive failure. Looking back 2015 was one of the strongest drafts in recent memory. The Bruins and Canes bailed themselves out a bit with great 2nd rounders (Aho obviously for us and Carlo for them). Wait a minute holy butts the Bruins had 3 2nds too. That is unreal. So still very bad value when they have all these high picks and will probably end up with DeBrusk as the only strong NHL asset. The Canes had Hanifin (pretty bad for #5), Aho (amazing), Callum Booth and Nic Roy in the 4th (pretty good TBH), Stevens and Smallman in the 5th (bad), Massie and Cotton in the 6th (pretty solid), and Loretnz in the 7th (amazing). All in all a superb draft with 4 or 5 NHLers in that bunch.

 

[GoldiFox]

I just want to laugh at the Bruins' colossal ****-up in the 2005 draft. I feel bad as a Canes fan for not taking Werenski or Provorov, who in retrospect are much better players. But day-um. You had THREE grade A darts and you screw up all three. Right now you couldn't trade Senyshyn, Zboril, DeBrusk, AND a 2021 Bruins' first round pick for Barzal, Connor, or Chabot. I mean what a massive, massive failure. Looking back 2015 was one of the strongest drafts in recent memory. The Bruins and Canes bailed themselves out a bit with great 2nd rounders (Aho obviously for us and Carlo for them). Wait a minute holy butts the Bruins had 3 2nds too. That is unreal. So still very bad value when they have all these high picks and will probably end up with DeBrusk as the only strong NHL asset. The Canes had Hanifin (pretty bad for #5), Aho (amazing), Callum Booth and Nic Roy in the 4th (pretty good TBH), Stevens and Smallman in the 5th (bad), Massie and Cotton in the 6th (pretty solid), and Loretnz in the 7th (amazing). All in all a superb draft with 4 or 5 NHLers in that bunch.

Even the act itself was laughable. IIRC Sweeney just walked up and rattled off 3 names while taking zero time to discuss trades or options. Boston was coming off a down year but they had won a Cup a couple years earlier. Connor and Barzal were considered by some as top-10 picks. Surely some teams would have called and presented trade options.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I just want to laugh at the Bruins' colossal ****-up in the 2005 draft. I feel bad as a Canes fan for not taking Werenski or Provorov, who in retrospect are much better players. But day-um. You had THREE grade A darts and you screw up all three. Right now you couldn't trade Senyshyn, Zboril, DeBrusk, AND a 2021 Bruins' first round pick for Barzal, Connor, or Chabot. I mean what a massive, massive failure. Looking back 2015 was one of the strongest drafts in recent memory. The Bruins and Canes bailed themselves out a bit with great 2nd rounders (Aho obviously for us and Carlo for them). Wait a minute holy butts the Bruins had 3 2nds too. That is unreal. So still very bad value when they have all these high picks and will probably end up with DeBrusk as the only strong NHL asset. The Canes had Hanifin (pretty bad for #5), Aho (amazing), Callum Booth and Nic Roy in the 4th (pretty good TBH), Stevens and Smallman in the 5th (bad), Massie and Cotton in the 6th (pretty solid), and Loretnz in the 7th (amazing). All in all a superb draft with 4 or 5 NHLers in that bunch.

Yeah, the Canes had really good efficiency in the 2015 draft despite missing out on Werenski (IMO Provorov is still a bit of a wild-card as he's incredibly inconsistent at times despite sometimes looking like a superstar defenseman). Even Hanifin was a key piece in the Hamilton trade, which recouped the on-ice value of that pick considerably. Add to that Aho, Roy, Cotton, and Lorentz? That's a great draft for any team.

 

[MinJaBen]

Well, in Barkley's case, he was a small-baller before his time. There's recently been an influx of smaller C/PF hybrids in the NBA, such as Draymond Green during the Warriors' 3 titles, because the speed and athleticism of a smaller guy, when combined with elite shooters that can space the floor, can often overwhelm larger teams with (naturally) less foot speed. The "tweener" designation isn't as much of a stigma anymore for that reason. It's possible that Ned can pave the way for a different kind of goaltender in the future, as well.

Barkley was by far the smallest. Rodman was the next smallest since Barkley at 6'7". Yes, the team approach now used works pretty well as a team, but the guys leading the league even over the last few years have all been 6'10" or above except for Kevin Love's one year. And he is 6'8". I think my point still stands. Ned "may" do it like Barkley, but it will be an exceedingly rare thing. Not something you bet the farm, or your cup window, on.

 

[DaveG]

Even the act itself was laughable. IIRC Sweeney just walked up and rattled off 3 names while taking zero time to discuss trades or options. Boston was coming off a down year but they had won a Cup a couple years earlier. Connor and Barzal were considered by some as top-10 picks. Surely some teams would have called and presented trade options.

I legitimately still think they collectively lost their minds when both us and Arizona told them to piss off when they tried trading up to get Hanifin at 3 first, then 5 when Arizona said no way. Like that they literally hadn't done their homework on anyone at that point the draft when making their draft list because they were convinced there's no way someone would pass on 3 early-mid firsts for that pick and they went full Philippe Paradise and took guys from their day 2 list. Literally only thing I can come up with.

 

[MinJaBen]

I legitimately still think they collectively lost their minds when both us and Arizona told them to piss off when they tried trading up to get Hanifin at 3 first, then 5 when's Arizona said no way. Like that they literally hadn't done their homework on anyone at that point the draft when making their draft list because they were convinced there's no way someone would pass on 3 early-mid firsts for that pick and they went full Philippe Paradise and took guys from their day 2 list. Literally only thing I can come up with.

I bet both the Canes and the Yotes wish they had taken Boston's offer in hindsight.

 

[geehaad]

TIL the 1.25-inch difference between Jonathan Quick and Ned is the difference between a Conn Smythe Trophy winner and a stop-gap.

 

[The Faulker 27]

TIL the 1.25-inch difference between Jonathan Quick and Ned is the difference between a Conn Smythe Trophy winner and a stop-gap.

Well, he'll probably be fine McDonalds is always hiring.

 

[LakeLivin]

This is a great analogy, actually. Yes, Barkley was undersized and still was able to do all he did. How many other guys that size have done that since he did? Any? I don't know, but I'm going to guess few or none. He was a rare breed because in that position in that sport, size does have advantages. It's not everything, but it's a lot. Is it more likely Ned the "Charles Barkley" of undersized goalies, or is he just an undersized goalie? I know which way I would be betting if I had to put real money on it.

I hope I'm wrong.

Well, in Barkley's case, he was a small-baller before his time. There's recently been an influx of smaller C/PF hybrids in the NBA, such as Draymond Green during the Warriors' 3 titles, because the speed and athleticism of a smaller guy, when combined with elite shooters that can space the floor, can often overwhelm larger teams with (naturally) less foot speed. The "tweener" designation isn't as much of a stigma anymore for that reason. It's possible that Ned can pave the way for a different kind of goaltender in the future, as well.

Barkley was 6'4" tall but he was also 280 lbs. He was built like a stove and could clear out space better than a lot of much taller players. And he was athletic; the man had some hops. All of which goes back to accounting for different factors instead of hyper-focusing on just one.

I've got to believe the NHL has some way to measure reflex quickness for goalies. It would be fascinating to see a standard metric reported, much like they report 40 yard dash times in the NFL. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Ned scored notably better than a lot of his bigger competition. Of course size is an advantage for a goalie (probably even more so than skaters imo). But there are obviously other factors that have contributed to Ned's greater degree of success than a lot of bigger goalies so far in his career. Thing is, those factors have no real metrics as far as I know, whereas 6'0'' vs 6'4" jumps off the page.

 

[MinJaBen]

Barkley was 6'4" tall but he was also 280 lbs. He was built like a stove and could clear out space better than a lot of much taller players. And he was athletic; the man had some hops. All of which goes back to accounting for different factors instead of hyper-focusing on just one.

I've got to believe the NHL has some way to measure reflex quickness for goalies. It would be fascinating to see a standard metric reported, much like they report 40 yard dash times in the NFL. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Ned scored notably better than a lot of his bigger competition. Of course size is an advantage for a goalie (probably even more so than skaters imo). But there are obviously other factors that have contributed to Ned's greater degree of success than a lot of bigger goalies so far in his career. Thing is, those factors have no real metrics as far as I know, whereas 6'0'' vs 6'4" jumps off the page.

Umm, what success? Don't you think the sample size is a bit small to be labelling what he's done so far as anything more than chance?

 

[LakeLivin]

Umm, what success? Don't you think the sample size is a bit small to be labelling what he's done so far as anything more than chance?

Chance? Really?

 

[geehaad]

Umm, what success? Don't you think the sample size is a bit small to be labelling what he's done so far as anything more than chance?

...yet we all lament Mrazek's injury derailing the great season he could've had if not for an injury suffered in his [checks the internet] 4th game of the year.