You know the answer, I already told you. It was a very long time ago, it’s true. So I repeat: yes.
Beyond seeing a player play, there is above all the effort to project the player's profile from the perspective of the NHL market.
It is not the most talented who are taken in the draft but those who have the potential to be the most effective on the NHL circuit.
This stubbornness in not wanting to understand, draft after draft, amazes me.
I too, at first, thought it worked differently. I was amazed at the slide of talented players or even their non-selection. On my draft list, I found myself mainly with talented small players. Players, who are, for the most part, in minor leagues today.
The physical aspect remains fundamental in the game. Tristan Luneau, after a relatively unsuccessful season, was selected after Maveric Lamoureux and Noah Warren. But obviously he was a better player. And yet Luneau is really not a small defender. If he had been very dominant, he would have been. And if he had been smaller, he would have had to be even more dominant. Willander was less good than Sandin and he was taken before because he was more physical. Gulyayev is indefinitely more talented than Simashev.
The Recruitment Center shares the same perception as mine and for good reason, I have evolved mine so that it corresponds to theirs.
Even so, I will rely on the statistics (your argument when I talk about physical size) and you, with the supposedly expert eye which sees Galvas as a potential top 10, my Czech top 4 is 100% approved, yours is completely off the mark. Will the Recruitment Center only rely on statistics ?