Michkov's playmaking has some weaknesses too. Like Caufield, he often misses the obvious passing option. Caufield's game has consistently grown since his draft year. Many reports on Michkov is that parts of his game have stagnated including his skating.
One thing your arguments never seem to consider is that high end talent evaluators can also assess the likelihood of one's game growing/developing. You dwell on simple numbers that kids put up at 16 and 17 with very little context and without ever mentioning the role that mechanics, physiology, hockey IQ and associated advantages or limitations have on their likelihood to perform at higher levels...ultimately the NHL in playoffs.
This could be why every year you have high affinity for the big name draft candidates who were huge phenoms at 16 like Wright and Michkov. Someone like Bader likely never played high level sports as a kid or been around high level hockey as an adult which means he has never witnessed the monumental changes in the pecking orders every year when kids are in their teens. Someone like Kent Hughes who is very smart and played at high levels as a kid -- played college, has been recruiting prospects as a player agent for 20+ years, coached elite level youth hockey, has kids who have made it all the way to NCAA, one drafted by the NHL-- is a terrific person to understand these evolutions and be one of the leaders and coordinators of our evaluation process. He has seen several evolutionary cycles of the long-term hockey development process. Furthermore, he's known as an around the clock workaholic.
I have seen statements from NHL scouts who are super high on Michkov's potential and others who are lukewarm on it at the NHL level. We'll see what happens. It's narrow minded however to completely dismiss the detractors just as it is for the detractors to dismiss the kid's talent level and accolades. We haven't even dipped into the Russian factor.
