I think you just proved the point he was making. Elite or superstar should be viewed as perennially 90+ points per season as a play driver / forward. We have some high end prospects IMO with Dvo, Jiricek and Lindstein (and maybe Stancl, Stener and Snuggy by the time its all said and done) but they are not elite from what we know now. I believe the only caveat to this might be Jiricek. He is so young and raw at this point, we really don't know yet. He could be elite or superstar in the making. Have to wait to see.
The Blues have had plenty of elite players over the years but we actually won a cup with a depth of high end players. Just sayin.
There were 25 players last year who reached PPG. Thomas was one of them. Most pundits would say Thomas is elite, but not all (the ones that matter to me, do). I vaguely understand the range at the NHL level in which a player can be called elite. For a prospect, I have no earthly idea what it means to be elite. If I was only hearing 1-3 players every draft were elite, I think I could start to zero in on it. But there are generally 10+. And ultimately 7 of those guys are going to be no more (and likely less) productive at the NHL level than Jordan Kyrou.
Ultimately what I'm saying is when pundits say x-pool is better than y-pool because of 'elite' talent, it's bullshit. There just aren't that many truly elite players out there. When I look at some of the pools eliteprospects or the athletic has in front of us, I don't see a big gap between [insert prospect] and Dvorsky. There are a few, sure. But some of those guys come with much bigger question marks than Dvorsky, IMO. And I don't know that I buy a guy like Eiserman is sure-fire better than Snuggerud as another example.
@taylord22 I’m not sure if you were a scout at some point in your life but you obviously have a very nuanced and technical understanding of the game. I would love to know your definition of the term “play driver”…this is a fairly recent terminology if I’m not mistaken as I’ve skated since I was 5, broadcast hockey in a former life (and was around many scouts and former high level players at this time and never heard the term used) and watched hockey all my adult life. I’ve never heard this term until the last handful of years. Is it just a proxy for a player that generates possession? Is a puck moving defenseman a “play driver” because he starts the rush? Is an elite checking forward a “play driver” because he negates chances and initiates counter attacks? Robert Thomas because of his elite vision, defensive acumen and playmaking? Kyrou because of his ability to consistently generate scoring chances 5 on 5? All of the above?
Would love your take on how you define that term cause it’s used a lot and seems abstract to me.
I appreciate it! Never a professional, though. Just a failed hockey player
The only thing I would claim to be legitimately knowledgeable about are shot mechanics. I was very nerdy at a young age of taking videos/pictures of my shot trying to conform it to Hullies.
I think you're right about it being a newer term. Hard to pinpoint exactly where it began, but I think it was around the time the red line was removed, which would make some sense in how I interpret it. Your assumptions of what a play driver is are nearly identical to mine. I think we've had two recent players in Thomas and Petro who I would call play drivers. Transition machines who can win the lines, maintain possession, create time and space, and defensively obstruct to create counter windows. O'Reilly was elite in the NZ and at the lines but he willed outcomes more than he created them, IMO.
I think where it gets a bit messy is that there are players like Kaprizov, Kucherov, etc. who are clearly the engine that drive play for their respective teams, but aren't great 3-zone players. Their impact in 1-2 zones in just so high that they warrant the label.
Ultimately I think the term is used to describe players who are proficient at creating time and space and/or who force other skaters into adjustments. And perhaps the latter is really the key. One of the plays Petro was so good at here (and one of the more valuable plays in hockey, IMO) was impeding the rush just as the puck carrier crossed the blue line. He would slow the play up just enough to give the backcheckers time to get into position. Small thing, but more times than not, it led to a short possession and the puck going the other way. And if they tried to dump it, he was so damn proficient at retrieving and finding the exit play. The 2012 series against the Kings was lost for a lot of reasons, but Sutter having them dump the puck in the opposite corner of Petro was so effective.
I suspect the advanced stat community would say zone exits and entrances are a way to quantify who is/isn't a play driver. I agree those are valuable metrics, but there are so many other subtle plays that effect the flow and possessions of a game that don't show up on the stat sheet. Thomas is a blast to watch under a magnifying glass (as was Petro). Tons of little plays to obstruct a stick or pull coverage at the right time. There are much more obvious/louder/productive instances of play-drivers out there (Makar, MacKinnon, McDavid, M Tkachuk, Hughes-squared, etc.), but without fail they're almost always +skaters and +IQ talents as the common thread.
Another thing is that in the past we did not have a 1C as good as Thomas that we didn't have to worry about finding, which makes it a lot easier to fill in around him. It's not impossible Dvorsky ends up better, but we don't need him to be better than Thomas just the best he can be. Removes pressure off the system. [Cornerstones help so much, that's why I've been so adamant about what happens when you have a true 1D]
exceptional post, completely agree
100% So many years here pining for a 1C pre-cup, it was exhausting. We have the inverse problem now that we did then. We didn't have any real lottery tickets for a 1C back then, either. At least now, we have some long shots on D. At the very least we have a good collection of assets that are very likely to appreciate in value.
