Age group doesn't matter either, it actually helps to reiterate that the RS wingers are rarer since every 40 + goal scorer is over the age of 25 (Ovi, Kutch and Nylander) and only Kyru and Caufield are under 25 in the 30+ goal range. So yeah RH scoring wingers (especially young ones) are rarer than offensive RHD (6 40 point+ and 3 50 point+ players under 25). Want to keep going or have you leant your lesson yet?

I agree with you on your evaluation of the offer

Ok fair. But if we compare it to Dobson's first 123 games, Caufield looks like a superstar.

Defensemen take roughly 200 games to develop. The development arcs of forwards and defensemen aren't CLOSE to being comparable.

By that logic: Lafreniere, Kakko, Kotkaniemi, Holtz, Turcotte (I could go on and on...) Are all flops?

Edit: Dach too!

Second Edit: also Marchand & MSL !

The isles need puck moving top 4 D that drive offense a lot more than a scoring winger

Wasn't he taken off of PP#1 because of how much he struggled early in the year?

He was taken off PP1 for game 6 just to shake things up. Dobson has been above average on the powerplay the past 2 seasons. And he’s the isles best offensive defenseman by far at 5v5.

Now that IS interesting! Thank you for sharing. I stand corrected.

What "logic" are you referring to? I didn't imply, let alone say, that forwards should produce in their first two seasons. Why are you putting words in my mouth? That's really dishonest.

My point is that forwards may or may not produce right from the start. Kids like Tage Thompson or Gabe Vilardi are not that exceptional, nor are the examples you cite. But defensemen should never be expected to be good right from the start. Adam Fox and Cale Makar ARE the exception. Compare Dobson's first two years with those of Mikey Anderson and Matt Roy -- they're comparable, and both Kings are pretty reasonable players, although neither will ever be as good as Dobson.

Caufield for Dobson is more than fair but I don't see either team doing so. It is trading to make a trade. Just roll the dice on Barron, Mailloux, and maybe, Reinbacher, this draft. Keep Caulfield.



That is why no one should be surprised that Reinbacher goes 5th overall yet many I'm sure will question it.

No need for a 1st going to MTL... If I were giving up Dobson, a little better prospect than Kovacecic (a B-tier prospect) or additional 2nd/3rd (we've seen how many steals there are in the 2nd round in recent years... Hutson being one of them) but besides that, pretty even

Listen, I really appreciate the discussion and I am not trying "to put words in your mouth". I am not here to upset anyone and if you interpreted anything I wrote as disrespectful, let's just say I apologize and leave it at that?

Let me try to explain what I intended to say:

When you wrote:



I interpreted that to mean that you felt there is a statistical model to the speed at which successful forwards in the NHL develop, and that it always takes defensemen longer to develop than forwards.

I very much disagree with that philosophy and while I know it is true that every player begins to decline physically at one point, I subscribe to the theory that the brain can and should continue to develop and create new patterns well into the late 30s.

There are many examples of players like MSL or Brad Marchand who got better with age, and when people on this site assume a player "will not reach their potential" because they are 22-23 and they "have not reached it yet", I think that is incredibly small minded.

I think Cole Caufield IS going to reach his peak athletic potential and be the best version of himself at one point, just as I think Dobson will. If and when that happens is up to many more factors than their age.

Apology accepted and no hard feelings. Part of the reason for the strength of my reaction is that I have come to respect your views and evaluations and this unexpected post bothered me a lot more than it would have coming from some random CF person.

My view is this, and I'm only going on a perception acquired over the years, not much more developed or evidentiarily based than osmosis: it feels to me that if you plotted the "success" rate over time for both forwards and defensemen against the x and y axes, the lines would be almost mirror images of each other -- the forward one would rise sharply and then level off to the right, and the defensemen one would start out close to horizontally and then rise upward (perhaps sharply) after three or four seasons. From which I infer that a forward may or may not improve significantly as he gets experience, so we should be careful about writing him off, but most defensemen DO improve over time, so we should not be concerned about their early struggles.

Fair enough! Thanks for your understanding and the kind words.

I respect the quality of your insights as well, and I'm certainly not going to get every post right.

I will mention also that I think I under-estimated Dobson beaded on some articles I read about him prior to posting this. Db1899's comment was compelling and I could understand how this rubbed you the wrong way!

Way too much. Caufield is better than Dobson and that is not negotiable

Isles shake ur hand block ur. Umber run far far away

We have an accord!