Zayne Parekh 2024 1st round pick- 9th Overall

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

he can borrow some of my weight if he wants.   with regards to putting on weight, I would say that I am at an elite level.

Mind or body? lol

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

Interview on Parekh, with comments from his junior coach who is also an asst with Canada, at the summer showcase. https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/video/flames-prospect-parekh-aims-to-impress-hockey-canada-with-creativity~2968598

 

mentions how he is trying to put on weight and talks about how his style of game at the camp. 

 

During the Red-White game last night he was on the 3rd pairing but 1st PP unit. That gives a lot of insight to his game right now i'd say. 

Imho only, he really needs to develop his D game. People saying, "it isn't as bad as some are saying". Well, it is. Stop insulting us.

He's a bright kid, hopefully he starts taking the critique seriously.

He said something along the lines of, "the coaches have to get used to how I like to play". That attitude will suck for you.

I kinda like the confidence, but jesus man, you're going to have to reign that Satoshi Nakamoto in. They are literally your teachers. Don't get ahead of yourself.

[robrob74]

12 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Imho only, he really needs to develop his D game. People saying, "it isn't as bad as some are saying". Well, it is. Stop insulting us.

He's a bright kid, hopefully he starts taking the critique seriously.

He said something along the lines of, "the coaches have to get used to how I like to play". That attitude will suck for you.

I kinda like the confidence, but jesus man, you're going to have to reign that Satoshi Nakamoto in. They are literally your teachers. Don't get ahead of yourself.

I did the eeeeeeee kind of thing when he said the team drafted him for a reason which was his offensive game... I like confidence but the comment kind of gave me the slight worries. 

[conundrumed]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

I did the eeeeeeee kind of thing when he said the team drafted him for a reason which was his offensive game... I like confidence but the comment kind of gave me the slight worries. 

I'm not concerned that he's 3rd pair/1st PP. Most countries run their stuff that way. Older guys get preference. These are U20 tryouts, so closer to scrimmages. The US is now amalgamating their Blue and White teams, but resting guys they already know will be on their U20 team, for example.

I have 2 more visits in store for the Summer Showcase. Likely next weekend. But the boss will tell me. lol

Then my house will be girl party.

We were heading to the Bruce peninsula this past weekend. Glad that got pushed back, and not because of me. But Blockchain is it hot here. Our lows are, like, 23C at 2am. My buddy's cottage/house doesn't have AC. I was going to by one as a gift. Honestly.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Imho only, he really needs to develop his D game. People saying, "it isn't as bad as some are saying". Well, it is. Stop insulting us.

He's a bright kid, hopefully he starts taking the critique seriously.

He said something along the lines of, "the coaches have to get used to how I like to play". That attitude will suck for you.

I kinda like the confidence, but jesus man, you're going to have to reign that Satoshi Nakamoto in. They are literally your teachers. Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

I'm with you and not with you.    

 

There is some truth to it, and most of the time, life fixes that.    If it doesn't and he becomes a murderer/gambler/predator we can always trade him to Edmonton for full price.

 

On the other hand, context.  Two true things in his interviews:

1.  He is young

2. He is highly intelligent

 

So, you also have to consider context.    

 

Quote

In Parekh’s Words

"Weird answer, but Steven Stamkos was my favorite player growing up. I’ve worn 91 my whole life until minor midget. He was my favorite player. He’s a Markham boy, so it’s tough not to root for him. I like to watch a lot of Makar, (Adam) Fox, (Quinn) Hughes and (Erik) Karlsson, too. They’re all so good at what they do, and I think I fit in that mold of defenseman. I like to skate with the puck, I like to hold on to pucks, so I try to take little bits and pieces from their games and add them to mine.

“It’s the new age of the game. You need your defensemen to contribute offensively, and you need them to make plays on retrievals and exits. It’s the new age of defensemen. It’s not really that you’re drafting kids just for height or you’re drafting them for how strong they are. It’s a new age in the era of hockey, and it suits me well.

“I think my game is pretty transferrable. I don’t think I’m down at the netfront ever as a defenseman. I like to make plays from the blue line, and that’s how I go about things. I’m not stick slipping or going through guys’ triangles. I’m skating pucks up the ice and trying to create for myself in terms of cutbacks or in that sense. I know some teams play a simpler style of the game, but it’s not really going to change what I want to do with the puck or how creative I am.”

 

 

Is that the quote you're referring to?

 

Cause....

 

He's right.     

 

 

 

(caveat:  Is he as defensively responsible as Makar, or Fox?  Ha.    So this is where he'll have to learn.    And we can be sure it will be pointed out to him)

[cross16]

I don't see it the same way. One of the problems I have with sports today is this idea that there needs to be rules for everyone or that there is a template for everyone to play the same way. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. 

 

I'm with Parekh. Does he need to improve in certain areas, absolutely, but what is just as important is improving in those areas while also embracing what makes him special. Don't hamper special talent to produce a robot, embrace it. 

[conundrumed]

I appreciate your opinions. I'm not trying to Satoshi Nakamoto on the guy. Honestly.

[Heartbreaker]

5 hours ago, jjgallow said:

he can borrow some of my weight if he wants.   with regards to putting on weight, I would say that I am at an elite level.

 

Me too! I also have elite offensive ability.

 

Love.

[conundrumed]

54 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Me too! I also have elite offensive ability.

 

Love.

How am I pronouncing offensive here? Then maybe we can talk. lol

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

I don't see it the same way. One of the problems I have with sports today is this idea that there needs to be rules for everyone or that there is a template for everyone to play the same way. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. 

 

I'm with Parekh. Does he need to improve in certain areas, absolutely, but what is just as important is improving in those areas while also embracing what makes him special. Don't hamper special talent to produce a robot, embrace it. 

 

We too often try to pigeon hole players instead of letting their elite skills stand out.

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, cross16 said:

I don't see it the same way. One of the problems I have with sports today is this idea that there needs to be rules for everyone or that there is a template for everyone to play the same way. I think that's the wrong way to look at it. 

 

I'm with Parekh. Does he need to improve in certain areas, absolutely, but what is just as important is improving in those areas while also embracing what makes him special. Don't hamper special talent to produce a robot, embrace it. 

I wonder if this is a slight change of philosophy as the Flames have always seemed to draft solid guaranteed 200' players. 

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I wonder if this is a slight change of philosophy as the Flames have always seemed to draft solid guaranteed 200' players. 

 

I think "yes", but it's contingent on "slight"

 

They still drafted a lot of good 200' players.   With Parekh, yes, they decided to go with the skill.   So that is a slight change, and I think it is a good change.

 

But to go all Washington Capitals and then form a team like that, I think would be a mistake.    I think it's more like, develop Parekh, guide him, let him improve it.   Then when you know what you have (like 5 years from now), you either trade him (for top dollar), or make him your captain (if he's really solved it all) or pair him with a defensively strong LD (if he's improved but still not enough).

 

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I wonder if this is a slight change of philosophy as the Flames have always seemed to draft solid guaranteed 200' players. 

I fairly doubt it's by philosophy, as Button has run the scouting show for what seems forever. I'd say it's changing conditions. How many picks you have and where, etc.

The scouts aren't on individual islands. If you're really high on a player, people are coming to audit you. Submit your report, it will be audited. It helps remove biases.

So I think, although it can look that way, it's based on conditions. We were scouting Andersson when Mangiapane popped up.

We selected Coro-nado when he had just torn up the USHL for goals.

But I'm gonna say it again. Make the draft ALL of the same birth year. Cut that effing date cut off right out of there. That's not how life works. If I could change 1 thing in the NHL, that's the 1.

When I was in Grade 12, we laughed at the Grade 11's when we were playing sports.

If my Grade 12 friends said, "screw you, go play with the Grade 11s loser", I'd probably feel a little defeated. These guys are maybe a year removed from that.

Just make it 19. Let guys go to drafts with their buddies. Not a year later. It's kind of pathetic. Let them be kids together. You change what they've known their lives. That leaves a stain.

You start thinking Zary is a year younger/behind Pelletier when he isn't. lol

 

 

[conundrumed]

Speak of the devil. lol

 

[cross16]

10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

I wonder if this is a slight change of philosophy as the Flames have always seemed to draft solid guaranteed 200' players. 

 

I don't think that's really true unless you are going back to Sutter era. 

 

the reality is the Flames don't draft high very often so you are not in a position to take talents like this. 

[robrob74]

29 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

I don't think that's really true unless you are going back to Sutter era. 

 

the reality is the Flames don't draft high very often so you are not in a position to take talents like this. 

i think i felt that way because the rhetoric surrounding this recent draft was different. 
 

Maybe it's part of luck and how some players "fell too us ." Somehow this one seemed a bit different because they drafted seemingly higher skill throughout? 
 

Maybe that's part of having more picks than usual? 

[cross16]

Just now, robrob74 said:

i think i felt that way because the rhetoric surrounding this recent draft was different. 
 

Maybe it's part of luck and how some players "fell too us ." Somehow this one seemed a bit different because they drafted seemingly higher skill throughout? 
 

Maybe that's part of having more picks than usual? 

 

I think its was how the board fell. 

 

Conroy has made some tweaks to scouting but I think the core of what this team is looking for and what they are targeting remains largely the same as it was under Treliving. He made some tweaks to what they were doing under Feaster, who made very large tweaks to what they did under Sutter. 

 

Have more high picks certainly helps which is why I contend that I think he Flames have very good scouting. It's the lack of picks, and in particular higher picks, that have influenced their results and not the actual scouting itself. 

[jjgallow]

55 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i think i felt that way because the rhetoric surrounding this recent draft was different. 
 

Maybe it's part of luck and how some players "fell too us ." Somehow this one seemed a bit different because they drafted seemingly higher skill throughout? 
 

Maybe that's part of having more picks than usual? 

 

The drafting was without question different imho.

 

The skill level, however you define that but at least by stats, was unlike anything we've done since at least 2011.    Yes, 2016 shows up on the radar, but imho was still just a shadow of what we did this year.     Mostly 2016 was about high draft order, but there were still many "what the" moments where we picked people for no apparent reason to this day, and of course a few of our picks were missing so there's that.   Time will tell, but I don't think there are any comparables this decade to how we just drafted.   And...yes, keeping our picks is a part of that but it's not a "small thing".   It's a Big thing, that we kept our picks and even added to them.

 

Skill-wise there is for sure a philosophy change.     200' foot wise, like in your first post, I think only slight.   Most of the players we drafted still had 200' games.   The difference was that we were willing to sacrifice that depending on what out-weighed it.

[robrob74]

29 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

The drafting was without question different imho.

 

The skill level, however you define that but at least by stats, was unlike anything we've done since at least 2011.    Yes, 2016 shows up on the radar, but imho was still just a shadow of what we did this year.     Mostly 2016 was about high draft order, but there were still many "what the" moments where we picked people for no apparent reason to this day, and of course a few of our picks were missing so there's that.   Time will tell, but I don't think there are any comparables this decade to how we just drafted.   And...yes, keeping our picks is a part of that but it's not a "small thing".   It's a Big thing, that we kept our picks and even added to them.

 

Skill-wise there is for sure a philosophy change.     200' foot wise, like in your first post, I think only slight.   Most of the players we drafted still had 200' games.   The difference was that we were willing to sacrifice that depending on what out-weighed it.

 

I was thinking about the picks of players that seem like the out of no where types, like for no reason. There were still 1-2 of those in this draft, like the over age in the lower USHL league. There was also the other over age player that iggy liked? Maybe mixing a couple of those up though.

 

 Some  might scratch their heads at the goalie selected when they hadn't played much. Pekka Rinne was that kind of guy. 
 

i like the Parekh pick. Remember when the flames couldn't get the puck out of their own zone until we traded for Bouwmeester's rights? That was some of the hardest hockey to watch. Then people didn't like him because he wasn't scoring a lot, but our team was able to play in 3 zones after aside from none. 
 

if Parekh's style is back check and transition out quick, it could be why he hasn't developed in zone play. If he's hardly in zone he doesn't have to. Although he has to in the nhl if he wants to m be a #1

[cross16]

End of the day I don't think the Flames drafted a player or a profile that they have not drafted over the last 7-8 drafts. Did they draft more of them, yes but that's the opportunity part of the draft. 

 

but in terms of the process or types they were picking there isn't a change there IMO. 

[The_People1]

29 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

if Parekh's style is back check and transition out quick, it could be why he hasn't developed in zone play. If he's hardly in zone he doesn't have to. Although he has to in the nhl if he wants to m be a #1

 

From what I've read, Parekh doesn't play physical but defends decent with his stick and smart Xs and Os.  When he gets beat, it looks extra bad because he didn't take the body and got caught waving his stick only.

 

I don't know what we want from a #1 D who leans offensive... I'm thinking Quinn Hughes isn't know for physical play either.  He needs a D-first partner to pair with or else he's a total disaster out there.

[jjgallow]

34 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

From what I've read, Parekh doesn't play physical but defends decent with his stick and smart Xs and Os.  When he gets beat, it looks extra bad because he didn't take the body and got caught waving his stick only.

 

I don't know what we want from a #1 D who leans offensive... I'm thinking Quinn Hughes isn't know for physical play either.  He needs a D-first partner to pair with or else he's a total disaster out there.

 

It's really important to make sure to wave your stick when you get beat.  quite frankly it's rude not to

[robrob74]

45 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

From what I've read, Parekh doesn't play physical but defends decent with his stick and smart Xs and Os.  When he gets beat, it looks extra bad because he didn't take the body and got caught waving his stick only.

 

I don't know what we want from a #1 D who leans offensive... I'm thinking Quinn Hughes isn't know for physical play either.  He needs a D-first partner to pair with or else he's a total disaster out there.

 

word on the street is Hughes has picked up his

D game and is a lot better at it now. Think when you're a true competitor you do what you have to to win. 

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

I was thinking about the picks of players that seem like the out of no where types, like for no reason. There were still 1-2 of those in this draft, like the over age in the lower USHL league. There was also the other over age player that iggy liked? Maybe mixing a couple of those up though.

 

 Some  might scratch their heads at the goalie selected when they hadn't played much. Pekka Rinne was that kind of guy. 
 

i like the Parekh pick. Remember when the flames couldn't get the puck out of their own zone until we traded for Bouwmeester's rights? That was some of the hardest hockey to watch. Then people didn't like him because he wasn't scoring a lot, but our team was able to play in 3 zones after aside from none. 
 

if Parekh's style is back check and transition out quick, it could be why he hasn't developed in zone play. If he's hardly in zone he doesn't have to. Although he has to in the nhl if he wants to m be a #1

 

I'm a huge fan of over-agers, I find they have a higher success rate because scouts have a tendency to overlook them, hyperfocus on the age category they were assigned.     

 

Trajectories change.  If a guy wasn't in a certain trajectory and then all of a sudden he's better than the guys you drafted last year, why not take him?   If you're really looking to maximize skill you can't limit yourself by things like slight age differences.

 

So many times I see guys actually improve past their age peers, but because they weren't there in their draft year they are seen as washed up.   Once again, we should move the draft age up by one year at least.     

We can save that convo for later, I fully intend to do a thread on Trevor Hoskin.   He goes to US College this year, and I think we will find out really quick that his high skills are transferable.   Nobody is going to care about the late drafting if he lights that league up.    Eric Jamieson was a 6th rounder, but still, we drafted more than one whisky-themed player this year so it's a win either way.   

 

 

[travel_dude]

35 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I'm a huge fan of over-agers, I find they have a higher success rate because scouts have a tendency to overlook them, hyperfocus on the age category they were assigned.     

 

Trajectories change.  If a guy wasn't in a certain trajectory and then all of a sudden he's better than the guys you drafted last year, why not take him?   If you're really looking to maximize skill you can't limit yourself by things like slight age differences.

 

So many times I see guys actually improve past their age peers, but because they weren't there in their draft year they are seen as washed up.   Once again, we should move the draft age up by one year at least.     

We can save that convo for later, I fully intend to do a thread on Trevor Hoskin.   He goes to US College this year, and I think we will find out really quick that his high skills are transferable.   Nobody is going to care about the late drafting if he lights that league up.    Eric Jamieson was a 6th rounder, but still, we drafted more than one whisky-themed player this year so it's a win either way.   

 

 

 

The bigger question about the player was why a 3rd time draft eligible player gets selected before Misa?  Could he not have been drafted later?  Or like a guy not drafted in his 3rd draft, just get signed for freezies?  We have drafted a similar type before and it didn't work out. Austin Carrol says hi.  It's fair to say that 10 years ago, overagers were a different breed and a gritty player just ran over players as a 20 year old.  But still.