Maddox Dagenais Scouting Reports

[Younghopp1991]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

Whats with all the negativity on every thread?

It’s who he is…..
Just ignore him.

Thanks. Will do

[Snuggyfresh]

Mad dog daggenais

[Cahokanut]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

Whats with all the negativity on every thread?

Why are true statements that don't blow smoke considered negative. And what's wrong with negative is it the new black. Do we as a society, only want the good job, here's your participation trophy, opinions. Or are we one that needs to [shirt] on a group that's different then them, so to feel bigger, better about ourselves. Do we need to separate people because of the DNA they were given, whether that be color, gender, height, weight. Do we need others to tell us what we should listen to, respond to, or treat as human, because of there feelings on what should be allowed.
As of now we are still allowed to be ourselves and those that want to put people in groups are the ones that should concern you. As they'll always need another group to call whatever names society will allow for the time.

[The Average Gatsby]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

Whats with all the negativity on every thread?

Why are true statements that don't blow smoke considered negative. And what's wrong with negative is it the new black. Do we as a society, only want the good job, here's your participation trophy, opinions. Or are we one that needs to [shirt] on a group that's different then them, so to feel bigger, better about ourselves. Do we need to separate people because of the DNA they were given, whether that be color, gender, height, weight. Do we need others to tell us what we should listen to, respond to, or treat as human, because of there feelings on what should be allowed.
As of now we are still allowed to be ourselves and those that want to put people in groups are the ones that should concern you. As they'll always need another group to call whatever names society will allow for the time.

Huh?

[sneptsmoustache]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

Whats with all the negativity on every thread?

Why are true statements that don't blow smoke considered negative. And what's wrong with negative is it the new black. Do we as a society, only want the good job, here's your participation trophy, opinions. Or are we one that needs to [shirt] on a group that's different then them, so to feel bigger, better about ourselves. Do we need to separate people because of the DNA they were given, whether that be color, gender, height, weight. Do we need others to tell us what we should listen to, respond to, or treat as human, because of there feelings on what should be allowed.
As of now we are still allowed to be ourselves and those that want to put people in groups are the ones that should concern you. As they'll always need another group to call whatever names society will allow for the time.

Sir, this is a Wendy's

[kimzey59]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

[Cahokanut]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

I don't disagree. He could be a hell of a power forward. What makes him safe is at the very least. He'll be able to bang, or grind on a fourth line.

My view is this can be found in the second or third round pick.
I believe if your picking right your first round pick should be a bust more then a boom. I thinking with the first, you should be looking for first line elite talent that uses their skill, speed, and touch to score and put up points. A real boom or bust. Either they'll be the next "Oates, Petro" or the next "Bokk"

[DawgDad]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

I don't disagree. He could be a hell of a power forward. What makes him safe is at the very least. He'll be able to bang, or grind on a fourth line.

My view is this can be found in the second or third round pick.
I believe if your picking right your first round pick should be a bust more then a boom. I thinking with the first, you should be looking for first line elite talent that uses their skill, speed, and touch to score and put up points. A real boom or bust. Either they'll be the next "Oates, Petro" or the next "Bokk"

You appear to be searching for something to disagree with. The Blues appeared to be focused on drafting this particular player, the reasons are laid out there for public consumption. Nobody "knows" what he will become, but it's absolutely clear the Blues are comfortable with their pick.

[sneptsmoustache]

I finally just watched the clip on the Blues website from when they drafted him...man, his dad is an absolute beast. Seems like this kid has the potential to fill out a LOT...like 6'4 225. Will be interesting to see how he develops, seems like he would be at least 3-4 years from the NHL but could be a monster when he arrives.

[TBone]

Why are true statements that don't blow smoke considered negative. And what's wrong with negative is it the new black. Do we as a society, only want the good job, here's your participation trophy, opinions. Or are we one that needs to [shirt] on a group that's different then them, so to feel bigger, better about ourselves. Do we need to separate people because of the DNA they were given, whether that be color, gender, height, weight. Do we need others to tell us what we should listen to, respond to, or treat as human, because of there feelings on what should be allowed.
As of now we are still allowed to be ourselves and those that want to put people in groups are the ones that should concern you. As they'll always need another group to call whatever names society will allow for the time.

Sir, this is a Wendy's

[BluesDom]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

I don't disagree. He could be a hell of a power forward. What makes him safe is at the very least. He'll be able to bang, or grind on a fourth line.

My view is this can be found in the second or third round pick.
I believe if your picking right your first round pick should be a bust more then a boom. I thinking with the first, you should be looking for first line elite talent that uses their skill, speed, and touch to score and put up points. A real boom or bust. Either they'll be the next "Oates, Petro" or the next "Bokk"

Hes not a safe pick at all.
I hated the pick but he seems like an exciting top line player. I hope he makes it.
I wanted any of these guys---

Hermansson, Morozov, Belchetz or Suvanto.

Seems like a horrible pick at the time. I know that the scouts know more than I do. Definately not a safe pick. Honestly all these guys have risk. All have similar risk.

What pick would you have made? Cahokia

[Cahokanut]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

I don't disagree. He could be a hell of a power forward. What makes him safe is at the very least. He'll be able to bang, or grind on a fourth line.

My view is this can be found in the second or third round pick.
I believe if your picking right your first round pick should be a bust more then a boom. I thinking with the first, you should be looking for first line elite talent that uses their skill, speed, and touch to score and put up points. A real boom or bust. Either they'll be the next "Oates, Petro" or the next "Bokk"

Hes not a safe pick at all.
I hated the pick but he seems like an exciting top line player. I hope he makes it.
I wanted any of these guys---

Hermansson, Morozov, Belchetz or Suvanto.

Seems like a horrible pick at the time. I know that the scouts know more than I do. Definately not a safe pick. Honestly all these guys have risk. All have similar risk.

What pick would you have made? Cahokia

I would of picked the guy with the highest potential to become a top line player that has the skill, speed, and offensive abilities(if all goes right) to become elite.

I also tried to explained why it's a safe pick. I'll give it another go.
At best scouts think he tops as a second liner, who goes to the tough spots, and plays a physical game.(In short)
That's if all goes well. If he doesn't top out. He'll most likely be able to grind the fourth line. And chances(percentages) are hell be closer to a Backes, then a Oates. And for me, that's what makes it safe. Because management would rather have a guy who will score a point with NHL games played on some best drafting gm chart, then who can put up actual points, on a elite top line.
While many of third and fourth liners can be found in later rounds. Elite top line talent isn't found there as much. Even most offensively skills mid first round don't become elite. But I'd rather have a first round bust then another guy to play a position that is played by 80% of the NHL and 90% of the ahl and that can be found, crafted, trained, and grow from later round picks.

Answer me this. Why do you feel a safe pick is a bad pick.

[BluesDom]

https://www.nhl.com/blues/video/dagenai ... 9512483112

I think he might be a big scorer for us. I did not have him in my sites. But it might end up being a very good pick. Wicked shot

[Cahokanut]

https://www.nhl.com/blues/video/dagenai ... 9512483112

I think he might be a big scorer for us. I did not have him in my sites. But it might end up being a very good pick. Wicked shot

I think (hope) he is too.
But if not. He is the guy to put in those grinder minutes or the all important "play up"

[BluesDom]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

I don’t view Dagenais as a “safe pick” at all. He’s extremely boom or bust.
When he’s on; yes, he’s responsible at both ends of the ice with a real nasty streak and a legitimate goal scoring touch.
When he’s not; he’s Zach Sanford. Completely invisible on both ends of the ice.

If he can shed the Sanford moments, he can be a real difference maker up front. He might even be a Brady Tkachuk level power forward.
If he can’t, he might not even make the NHL. And I really don’t see much of a middle ground with him.

People are over hyping his B game at the moment. I chalk it up to the shiny new toy factor but the shine will come off eventually.

I don't disagree. He could be a hell of a power forward. What makes him safe is at the very least. He'll be able to bang, or grind on a fourth line.

My view is this can be found in the second or third round pick.
I believe if your picking right your first round pick should be a bust more then a boom. I thinking with the first, you should be looking for first line elite talent that uses their skill, speed, and touch to score and put up points. A real boom or bust. Either they'll be the next "Oates, Petro" or the next "Bokk"

Hes not a safe pick at all.
I hated the pick but he seems like an exciting top line player. I hope he makes it.
I wanted any of these guys---

Hermansson, Morozov, Belchetz or Suvanto.

Seems like a horrible pick at the time. I know that the scouts know more than I do. Definately not a safe pick. Honestly all these guys have risk. All have similar risk.

What pick would you have made? Cahokia

I would of picked the guy with the highest potential to become a top line player that has the skill, speed, and offensive abilities(if all goes right) to become elite.

I also tried to explained why it's a safe pick. I'll give it another go.
At best scouts think he tops as a second liner, who goes to the tough spots, and plays a physical game.(In short)
That's if all goes well. If he doesn't top out. He'll most likely be able to grind the fourth line. And chances(percentages) are hell be closer to a Backes, then a Oates. And for me, that's what makes it safe. Because management would rather have a guy who will score a point with NHL games played on some best drafting gm chart, then who can put up actual points, on a elite top line.
While many of third and fourth liners can be found in later rounds. Elite top line talent isn't found there as much. Even most offensively skills mid first round don't become elite. But I'd rather have a first round bust then another guy to play a position that is played by 80% of the NHL and 90% of the ahl and that can be found, crafted, trained, and grow from later round picks.

Answer me this. Why do you feel a safe pick is a bad pick.

So who is the guy you would have picked instead of this guy? you have all the options--what's his name?

"I would of picked the guy with the highest potential to become a top line player that has the skill, speed, and offensive abilities (if all goes right) to become elite. " This is not an answer--what's the draft picks name?


Who would you have picked instead of Dagenais?

[clemonsonroots]

So pretty safe pick and he will play or be able to grind in the NHL. Pretty normal pick for the blues. Important for our last gm, to point at games played as the test of brilliance and that has been passed on to our nee gm.

I rather have first rounds picks that has top line potential. Rather then another that top out as mid six. But we love the grind, and game played sells, whether it's playing up or grinding on the fourth.

Whats with all the negativity on every thread?

Why are true statements that don't blow smoke considered negative. And what's wrong with negative is it the new black. Do we as a society, only want the good job, here's your participation trophy, opinions. Or are we one that needs to [shirt] on a group that's different then them, so to feel bigger, better about ourselves. Do we need to separate people because of the DNA they were given, whether that be color, gender, height, weight. Do we need others to tell us what we should listen to, respond to, or treat as human, because of there feelings on what should be allowed.
As of now we are still allowed to be ourselves and those that want to put people in groups are the ones that should concern you. As they'll always need another group to call whatever names society will allow for the time.

Sir, this is a Wendy's

lol