rinaldos post just got me started on a downward spiral from the get go

despite how disingenuous my posts may seem, i really was trying to get an idea of how you judge hockey IQ. All of your posts regarding prospects seem to revolve around it TBH and to me it borders along the lines of subjective and cliche. Its a hockeyism in a lot of ways, even though it is important
- YuenglingJagr

I would define hockey IQ, in a nutshell, as the ability to read the game, to anticipate instead of react, to control play, and to most importantly improve the play of your teammates. It's an amorphous definition, and how I nitpick it depends on the player, but it is one of those things that you know when you see. I think signs of low hockey sense can be: passivity, indecisiveness, floating, chasing plays etc.. When you watch Ghost 3 steps ahead of an opposing forward with the puck and then jump the pass and rush the other way....you just know it. I do make certain distinctions between forward and defense hockey sense though, but we are just talking forwards today. I also don't think it's misleading to note a link between analytic stats and hockey IQ. The #s do a lot of the defining for us.

I don't think anything is more important than "hockey IQ" or "hockey sense." If you are very smart, even if your skills or skating aren't elite, you can be a very good player. Without hockey IQ, it's much harder to do the opposite. We love Coots because of it. Schenn, even though he did well this year and even scored more, can leave a more puzzling taste in our mouths watching him. Even if we like him, and I do, do we really love his game? All that you-can't-teach-size mumbo jumbo...intelligence is what you really can't teach and what matters most. I guess it is cliched, but cliches are usually cliches because they're true. We're just tired of hearing them.

I would define hockey IQ, in a nutshell, as the ability to read the game, to anticipate instead of react, to control play, and to most importantly improve the play of your teammates. It's an amorphous definition, and how I nitpick it depends on the player, but it is one of those things that you know when you see. I think signs of low hockey sense can be: passivity, indecisiveness, floating, chasing plays etc.. When you watch Ghost 3 steps ahead of an opposing forward with the puck and then jump the pass and rush the other way....you just know it. I do make certain distinctions between forward and defense hockey sense though, but we are just talking forwards today. I also don't think it's misleading to note a link between analytic stats and hockey IQ. The #s do a lot of the defining for us.

I don't think anything is more important than "hockey IQ" or "hockey sense." If you are very smart, even if your skills or skating aren't elite, you can be a very good player. Without hockey IQ, it's much harder to do the opposite. We love Coots because of it. Schenn, even though he did well this year and even scored more, can leave a more puzzling taste in our mouths watching him. Even if we like him, and I do, do we really love his game? All that you-can't-teach-size mumbo jumbo...intelligence is what you really can't teach and what matters most. I guess it is cliched, but cliches are usually cliches because they're true. We're just tired of hearing them.
- Mononoke

I agree that hockey IQ is very important, but where I question it is how it translates to playing in the NHL. Are we assuming that hockey IQ cant change? Or that playing within a certain system makes hockey IQ more/less important? That is really where my questions lie. I personally think it is something that evolves during a players career, but as you have acknowledged, even players with lower hockey sense can have a place where they fit.

I have no issue with you valuing it, just wanted to get an idea of how you feel about it overall and which NHL players you think excel or not. Scott Laughton is a good example right now of a guy who may not have translated well so far. He isnt the first and wont be the last.

rinaldos post just got me started on a downward spiral from the get go

despite how disingenuous my posts may seem, i really was trying to get an idea of how you judge hockey IQ. All of your posts regarding prospects seem to revolve around it TBH and to me it borders along the lines of subjective and cliche. Its a hockeyism in a lot of ways, even though it is important
- YuenglingJagr

say what holmes?

This sounds like the justification of a man with a low hockey IQ.
- jmatchett383

That is very mean...ive played hockey and once covered a puck in the crease

say what holmes?
- rinaldo

Oh, you know

Do you think the Flyers would be willing to give up Sanheim to move up into the top 5?

With Gostisbehere's emergence and Morin and Provorov ahead of him on the depth chart Sanheim and the 18th pick would be a very enticing package to either Edmonton or Vancouver.

I agree that hockey IQ is very important, but where I question it is how it translates to playing in the NHL. Are we assuming that hockey IQ cant change? Or that playing within a certain system makes hockey IQ more/less important? That is really where my questions lie. I personally think it is something that evolves during a players career, but as you have acknowledged, even players with lower hockey sense can have a place where they fit.

I have no issue with you valuing it, just wanted to get an idea of how you feel about it overall and which NHL players you think excel or not. Scott Laughton is a good example right now of a guy who may not have translated well so far. He isnt the first and wont be the last.
- YuenglingJagr

I didn't watch Scott Laughton play juniors. I'd be curious to see his game there re-examined. Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't as good defensively or as smart as people thought. Speed and hustle can often mask someone not being particularly smart on the ice defensively. That's good enough at wing, not at center. And he was also far from a big scorer in his draft or d+1 year, so maybe he was labeled "2-way center." He's not dumb, and his defensive game will improve. That's always easiest to improve with work. He has even showed flashes of finishing ability.

Systems you can learn (and I question what intelligent player can't be good in any hockey system...none are drastically different from each other. This isn't spread offense vs. pro style). Defensive coverage or whatnot...that's not rocket science. That can be improved. But that isn't what I mean by "hockey sense." If you're looking at an 18 year old who isn't particularly skilled...is it unfair to say that's not going to markedly change? I don't view intelligence any differently. Players do grow, but you can't just project growth. You have to have a reason for projecting it. I do think there's only so much a player can grow too in that facet. And there is the Red Queen effect too....while you're trying to grow, at the same time, so is everyone else.

I didn't watch Scott Laughton play juniors. I'd be curious to see his game there re-examined. Maybe, just maybe, he wasn't as good defensively or as smart as people thought. Speed and hustle can often mask someone not being particularly smart on the ice defensively. That's good enough at wing, not at center. And he was also far from a big scorer in his draft or d+1 year, so maybe he was labeled "2-way center." He's not dumb, and his defensive game will improve. That's always easiest to improve with work. He has even showed flashes of finishing ability.

Systems you can learn (and I question what intelligent player can't be good in any hockey system...none are drastically different from each other. This isn't spread offense vs. pro style). Defensive coverage or whatnot...that's not rocket science. That can be improved. But that isn't what I mean by "hockey sense." If you're looking at an 18 year old who isn't particularly skilled...is it unfair to say that's not going to markedly change? I don't view intelligence any differently. Players do grow, but you can't just project growth. You have to have a reason for projecting it. I do think there's only so much a player can grow too in that facet. And there is the Red Queen effect too....while you're trying to grow, at the same time, so is everyone else.
- Mononoke

I think that there is a number of factors that you could be potentially overlooking. Need to be very careful in making a rush to judgement on a young player, with a small sample size of NHL games to judge from. A lot of things can happen with a young player, that can mask hockey IQ if we want to call it that. Injuries, and early struggles, can really lead to a breakdown in confidence, as well as the pressure of trying to succeed. To the point where a player tries to do too much, and makes bad decisions. Need to let it play out.
The videos of Couturier scoring is a perfect example. Now there were comments made that he was in the open, and had a lot of time and space, but that really missed the point. The point was that the right decision was to shoot, and he let it rip, and beat the goaltender. We've also seen Couturier struggle offensively, and make poor decisions and trying to force plays, instead of just letting it flow. When a player is confident, healthy, and playing within himself, they tend to make good decisions and good plays, and let their natural talent and ability take charge.
We saw it this past season, with Jake Voracek. His decision making with the puck for long stretches of the season, was horrible. Which is why he went 30 games and only scored 1 goal. Did his hockey sense and IQ disappear? Compared to the previous season, where got on a roll, and it seemed like everything he did, worked. Throw in some injuries, loss of ice time due to struggles, and a young player can look lost. I think we need to have some patience with Laughton, and see what happens, before it is decided he has low hockey sense or IQ.

I would define hockey IQ, in a nutshell, as the ability to read the game, to anticipate instead of react, to control play, and to most importantly improve the play of your teammates. It's an amorphous definition, and how I nitpick it depends on the player, but it is one of those things that you know when you see. I think signs of low hockey sense can be: passivity, indecisiveness, floating, chasing plays etc.. When you watch Ghost 3 steps ahead of an opposing forward with the puck and then jump the pass and rush the other way....you just know it. I do make certain distinctions between forward and defense hockey sense though, but we are just talking forwards today. I also don't think it's misleading to note a link between analytic stats and hockey IQ. The #s do a lot of the defining for us.

I don't think anything is more important than "hockey IQ" or "hockey sense." If you are very smart, even if your skills or skating aren't elite, you can be a very good player. Without hockey IQ, it's much harder to do the opposite. We love Coots because of it. Schenn, even though he did well this year and even scored more, can leave a more puzzling taste in our mouths watching him. Even if we like him, and I do, do we really love his game? All that you-can't-teach-size mumbo jumbo...intelligence is what you really can't teach and what matters most. I guess it is cliched, but cliches are usually cliches because they're true. We're just tired of hearing them.
- Mononoke

Do you think the Flyers would be willing to give up Sanheim to move up into the top 5?

With Gostisbehere's emergence and Morin and Provorov ahead of him on the depth chart Sanheim and the 18th pick would be a very enticing package to either Edmonton or Vancouver.
- dirt_face

Well it's not a bad idea I just think the timing isn't right to do it this year. I think Hextall is still focused on collecting pieces rather than making them fit. The d prpspects are still young. We're not sure what we have in them. Unless the flyers are in absolute love with a tkachuk or Dubois they're in no rush to put the pieces together this summer. I think next draft there'd be more of a likelihood of a trade for fit involving the flyers d prospects

Are we assuming that hockey IQ cant change?
- YuenglingJagr

I don't think it really does to any significant degree.

Good example would be Jack Johnson... he might be conditioned to stop/start doing certain things in certain situations, but deep down, he's still the same hockey dumbass he was the day he was drafted. You can still see it in the decisions he makes.

Or that playing within a certain system makes hockey IQ more/less important?
- YuenglingJagr

Probably, but those teams probably don't do much winning anymore.

I don't think it really does to any significant degree.

Good example would be Jack Johnson... he might be conditioned to stop/start doing certain things in certain situations, but deep down, he's still the same hockey dumbass he was the day he was drafted. You can still see it in the decisions he makes.
- Tomahawk

There's always the rare exception. But usage or being an unheralded prospect or the ever present size knock can often cloud the true abilities of a player. I think that's how most of the Pavelskis or Keiths of the world materialize tbh...it's not that they significantly grew -- beyond your standard growth -- but that someone finally noticed them. Keith put up better numbers than probable top 15 pick Fabbro put up on the same team, same league. He went undrafted his first year. Did he suddenly grow in skill or intelligence? That's the easy hindsight narrative. Coots is a good example of projectable growth. We all saw the offensive potential, even though the naysayers said otherwise. That's projectable growth imo. And it's not like he wasn't QMJHL MVP his draft year. Offense was always there.

And it is a dirty secret that players peak sooner than people think, and much of what is there at 18 probably will be there at 26. It's all about noticing it and refining it.

I think the standard for size in the NHL has changed. to me, if you're 6-1, 190, and skate well and play with an edge to your game, that is effective size for an NHL player. I don't think a player has to be 215 pounds to be considered a player with size.

And it is a dirty secret that players peak sooner than people think, and much of what is there at 18 probably will be there at 26.
- Mononoke

True true.

I feel like people look at Jones and Gauthier (and Nichushkin, and Tuch, and Tom Wilson, and Zack Kassian) and let their imaginations take over... they see the tools, the size, and start projecting to the max.

If those kids really had that kind of expansive upside, and few/no question marks, they'd be clear-cut consensus lottery picks.

(yeah, the occasional Corey Perry does happen, but not that often)

Do you think the Flyers would be willing to give up Sanheim to move up into the top 5?

With Gostisbehere's emergence and Morin and Provorov ahead of him on the depth chart Sanheim and the 18th pick would be a very enticing package to either Edmonton or Vancouver.
- dirt_face

Morin is only ahead of him in age. Sanhiem has a much higher ceiling in my opinion.

That said, if Sanhiem and 18 got you to top 5 I do the trade in a heartbeat. Realisticly I think Sanhiem and 18 get you something more like 8-10th overall, which I would probably not do.

True true.

I feel like people look at Jones and Gauthier (and Nichushkin, and Tuch, and Tom Wilson, and Zack Kassian) and let their imaginations take over... they see the tools, the size, and start projecting to the max.

If those kids really had that kind of expansive upside, and few/no question marks, they'd be clear-cut consensus lottery picks.

(yeah, the occasional Corey Perry does happens, but not that often)
- Tomahawk

And Perry's knock wasn't ability. It was skating. I guarantee you the elite offensive instincts were always there in potential.

I just am not a fan of hand waving when it comes to prospect questions and red flags, most especially when it comes to what they do on the ice. Projectable scouting is good. Presumptive scouting is another story.

I think that there is a number of factors that you could be potentially overlooking. Need to be very careful in making a rush to judgement on a young player, with a small sample size of NHL games to judge from. A lot of things can happen with a young player, that can mask hockey IQ if we want to call it that. Injuries, and early struggles, can really lead to a breakdown in confidence, as well as the pressure of trying to succeed. To the point where a player tries to do too much, and makes bad decisions. Need to let it play out.
The videos of Couturier scoring is a perfect example. Now there were comments made that he was in the open, and had a lot of time and space, but that really missed the point. The point was that the right decision was to shoot, and he let it rip, and beat the goaltender. We've also seen Couturier struggle offensively, and make poor decisions and trying to force plays, instead of just letting it flow. When a player is confident, healthy, and playing within himself, they tend to make good decisions and good plays, and let their natural talent and ability take charge.
We saw it this past season, with Jake Voracek. His decision making with the puck for long stretches of the season, was horrible. Which is why he went 30 games and only scored 1 goal. Did his hockey sense and IQ disappear? Compared to the previous season, where got on a roll, and it seemed like everything he did, worked. Throw in some injuries, loss of ice time due to struggles, and a young player can look lost. I think we need to have some patience with Laughton, and see what happens, before it is decided he has low hockey sense or IQ.
- MJL

Thanks boo

I don't think it really does to any significant degree.

Good example would be Jack Johnson... he might be conditioned to stop/start doing certain things in certain situations, but deep down, he's still the same hockey dumbass he was the day he was drafted. You can still see it in the decisions he makes.



Probably, but those teams probably don't do much winning anymore.
- Tomahawk

My point with that is, using the Flyers this year as an example, we saw the same players (mostly) in the same system work to varying degrees. Were they a bunch of idiots that finally figured it all out after two months or did a system work (where players do instead of think). I tend to think there is some automation at the NHL level where players know where they have to be at every situation. That's over simplifying it but yeah...

My point with that is, using the Flyers this year as an example, we saw the same players (mostly) in the same system work to varying degrees. Were they a bunch of idiots that finally figured it all out after two months or did a system work (where players do instead of think). I tend to think there is some automation at the NHL level where players know where they have to be at every situation. That's over simplifying it but yeah...
- YuenglingJagr

Thank you also boo!

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Some Preliminary Thoughts on 2016 Draft
- bmeltzer

Max Jones

Were they a bunch of idiots that finally figured it all out after two months or did a system work (where players do instead of think). I
- YuenglingJagr

Hak's system is more fluid, aggressive and less robotic, conservative than Berube's, right?

And it wasn't entirely the same group of players... no Vinny, Grossmann, Amac (for most of the year), Rinaldo, and Luke Schenn for only 20+ games... meanwhile they added Ghost (!!!!) and a few other guys who are a bit on the smarter side.

Hak's system is more fluid, aggressive and less robotic, conservative than Berube's, right?

And it wasn't entirely the same group of players... no Vinny, Grossmann, Amac (for most of the year), Rinaldo, and Luke Schenn for only 20+ games... meanwhile they added Ghost (!!!!) and a few other guys who are a bit on the smarter side.
- Tomahawk

Good points, but there was definitely a clear progression in how the team advanced through the season, in terms of playing as a team, in the system structure.

Hak's system is more fluid, aggressive and less robotic, conservative than Berube's, right?

And it wasn't entirely the same group of players... no Vinny, Grossmann, Amac (for most of the year), Rinaldo, and Luke Schenn for only 20+ games... meanwhile they added Ghost (!!!!) and a few other guys who are a bit on the smarter side.
- Tomahawk

Yeah, and it's not like G and Jake and Coots and all those guys weren't doing their thing most of the year. It wasn't something they suddenly found in March-April. October was tough, but after that? Seemed fine to me, certain stretches aside. That's just systems work anyways....it's like on the job training. And really it was the bottom 6 that held the team back, which had nothing to do with the top players or system.

Tyler Benson

Rubstov, Kunin, Bellows in that order at 18