Yep, much, much rather go for D with at least middle pairing upside there than for that sort of player. We already have a few players on this team doing what Davidsson could do someday and also have the likes of Pu and Asplund in the pipe. I still think there was no reason to make this pick for redundancy purposes not because he won't become some sort of competenet middle 6 forward. I really hope he is traded for equivalent D prospect, thus fixing what was broken at the draft. We need those much more. The D we got were Bryson and Laaksonen, come on...So, let’s recap.
You don’t like the pick because he projects as another Girgensons type. And he’s only got 1 point.
Your only viewing of him are tournaments. No SHL viewings.
Girgensons is the type of chemistry winger who is helping Eichel focus on offensive.
Yep. Bad pick.
I am not arguing that he likely becomes good role forward some day. My point is we have many of those in the organization and we should have gone with something else with that pick, be it D prospect or at least someone more risky with higher scoring upside. I guess the low TOI contributes to why he seems invisible to me...but again thats what you get with depth, role players like him. Would have much rather taken a risk at some D with middle pairing upside there (be it shutdown or puck mover, we need both). Someone bumped the draft rating thread and I think I said C there. I am still at that grade for that pick even if he becomes some sort of middle 6 NHL forward in a couple of years. Once again we completely ignored organization need and went for some safe pick in a position that we didn't actually need.Davidsson has the second lowest ToI of all Swedish forwards and is playing a checking/grinding role and yet he's still managed to be tied for 5th for their forwards in shots on goal. Given his usage and how his line has held up, I have zero complaints. He's still a 2-way guy with excellent speed and versatility. There will be places for him to play up and down a lineup.