I think there might be some truth to that. He was up there looking out at all the teams that passed on him. So, if he was scowling a bit, maybe that's why. And he also said in his interview that he was honest with teams and the Isles liked him for what he is. Hopefully he's a little pissed off and translates that to doing the hard work needed to succeed.
Yzerman has thus far fallen struggled in Detroit, he hit on so many draft picks in Tampa in such a short period of time that he hasn’t been able to replicate in Detroit.
Struggled? I wouldn't say struggled. He had 3 incredible hits drafting in Tampa: Kucherov, Point, and (to a lesser extent) Palat. Vasilievsky was a good gamble, but not an extraordinary pick. He had some big misses, too (Connolly, Drouin). But his picks really are idiosyncratic, aren't they? They were like that in Tampa, too. Sometimes that really works for him (Seider). Sometimes it really doesn't (like the whole 2020 draft apart from Raymond).
That's correct. That type of player isn't in my draft philosophy anyhow, but even if I was looking for potential bottom sixers at some point later in the draft, my list wouldn't start with Bednarik certainly. I don't know, I just don't see it.
I want his coach to teach him how to properly give and take contact , something that Wahlstrom never learned at the lower levels .
Wrong? No. There's so much room for interpretation between "Right/Wrong", "Yes/No", "Good/Bad" in this arena. As someone who is really invested in trying to call this all as correctly as possible, I don't think they're very close to each other as prospects. I had little doubt Nelson would play - I wasn't even sure it would be at forward - but I had little doubt he'd be a player in some capacity (which, of course, he isn't yet - but he's tracking well). I'm basically completed inverted in my feeling on Bednarik.
This isn't a question about draft strategy - it's a question about the evaluation of those tools. I like Nelson, a lot. But I think Bednarik is ahead of Nelson in every category except, of course, size. Granted that's a huge factor - Nelson is going to be able to push people around at every level, while Bednarik is possibly slightly undersized for a center. But the thing I'm really unclear about is your treatment of hockey sense, coachability, and technique. That + a very high motor is something Bednarik has. He's going to play probably 2 years is college, and when he signs his ELC, there's no reasons he shouldn't already be very close to being NHL ready. Nobody is going to have to teach him good habits or a pro game- he'll just need to get stronger, and get used to the higher pace of play.
I think we will see that in the next 2 years. I think that’s the plan.
I really don't understand or share how these evaluations stand except IQ (Nelson looks like he doesn't have to think/deliberate to maintain triangles) unless 'for his size' applies in each case for Nelson. Bednarik's acceleration, athleticism, etc. seem much better than Nelson's with the proviso that for 6'3 210+, Nelson does pretty well. And the word on Nelson was that his motor/pace of play needed work. Seems the opposite is true of Bednarik. (Possibly Nelson's 'motor' criticism was simply a result of him transitioning from D to F.)
