LOL what? I understand that he may have an injury that was limiting him and would explain his performance, but he was still downright dreadful in the tournament. He shouldn't have even played a few of their games he was so bad.
It's what
@Guadana and
@Jason MacIsaac and I keep saying -- these mediocre "draft analysts" will completely get it wrong with strong, vocal takes on certain players, and then instead of admitting their mistakes they double down on them even if all evidence is to the contrary.
This is absolutely sinful if you have any integrity, but it's done all the time. I have made many mistakes over the years -- as somebody who is relied upon to express pointed convictions and is imperfect, this is inevitable. Yet to me, the worst thing I can do is continue to be wrong. To me, it's better to admit where I was wrong, and then analyze my mistake in order to not repeat it the next time. I believe it's called
learning.
Just three years ago, I had a tough draft in 2017 with forwards. I've always been a bit stronger at projecting defensemen, but I really dropped the ball with forwards in the 2017 draft. I ranked Nolan Patrick over Nico Hischier and Casey Mittelstadt over Elias Pettersson. But I really went to work in 2018 in order to correct some of my personal biases which I felt were bleeding into my prospect analysis and muddying them. If I were one of these "Mukmadullin Haters" I'd probably still be writing about how Nolan Patrick would have been a 100-point player but for injuries, and I'd still be writing that Hischier is overrated or whatever. I'd be trying to rationalize that Buffalo was ruining Mittelstadt and picking apart Pettersson film for any flaw I could find. Instead, I realized my screw-up and corrected it.
The end result is that my 2018 and 2019 mock drafts and prospect rankings are far closer to home than almost all of the big-name prospect writers. I don't see why these cynics in the prospect world don't want to improve. Do they think they are perfect and there is no need to be better? I don't know. I still drag myself over the coals for everything I get wrong. Was I too high on Tristen Robins last year to keep my credibility? Was I too hard on Jeremie Poirier considering his tremendous potential? I really beat myself up.
This is why it frustrates me to read some of these prospect writers. A guy who has seen Mukhamadullin twice and dismissed him will see the Devils drafted him far above the consensus and rip the pick. Then, when Mukhamadullin is clearly the #1 defenseman in. Russia's WJC plans, instead of going back to watch more film, they'll Tweet "what is Russia thinking, don't they know Mukhamadullin stinks?" Then, when Mukhamadullin is the best Russian on the ice in the first WJC game (prelim vs. Canada), they'll find the one bad play he made and Tweet it out. It goes the opposite for players they overrate. Though he is certainly talented, Philip Broberg was a player who was a complete disaster in the defensive zone in his draft year, and his hockey sense was questionable. But many draft writers falsely equate "being Swedish" with high hockey IQ, and ignore defensive miscues selectively for players they like. There's no contest that Broberg was the most disappointing player in the 2021 WJC -- he was truly abominable. Watch the film of the entire Russia game, I've never seen one player so thoroughly dominated by one other player like Podkolzin owned Broberg all game. Watch the film of Finland's game winning goal -- Broberg's lack of positioning, effort and anticipation on that -- incredibly crucial -- play is nothing short of pee-wee hockey. But "experts" who ranked Broberg 5th or 6th overall in a stacked 2019 draft -- ahead of studs like Zegras and Podkolzin and Cozens and Turcotte -- need to defend the fact that they weren't really paying attention to the actual player they over-ranked, but rather were ranking based on inane bias and "going along with the consensus".
Ultimately,
truth itself becomes the victim, and we are all victimized by this. We watch a Russia v. Sweden game where Mukhamadullin is very good and Broberg is a disaster, we all see it in front of our eyes, but still the writers who ranked Broberg #6 and Mukhamadullin #92 and praised one pick while relentlessly shredding the other tell us that Mukhamadullin was completely awful and Broberg played well.
And thus, WE are the victims. Because while guys who do this intensively like
@Guadana and
@Jason MacIsaac and myself can laugh and say "that writer is completely wrong", some younger, less educated hockey fans can be taken for a ride by these poor takes. And that's just wrong.