So, who’s better?
The debate over the two players boils down to this: McKenna has the truly special, game-breaking talent, but Stenberg plays the harder, more translatable game. Some would rather take McKenna because they see a talent gap. Others lean to Stenberg because they think he’s a guy you win with.
When you’re spending a top pick on an average-sized winger who isn’t a blazer, which both aren’t, you have to project them into the Stanley Cup playoffs where they are going to need to compete hard to have success. That’s where some front offices favor Stenberg. The way he hunts pucks and creates offense in a simple yet highly skilled manner just looks more like winning playoff hockey. McKenna’s puck play can be incredible, but there’s a real fear among scouts that he will get pushed around when the games get heavy.
Deciding who goes first among the forwards will come down to a team’s philosophical preference and risk tolerance. Both project to be difference-makers at the top of an NHL lineup.
If you want the absolute highest offensive potential — the prospect who might win an Art Ross if everything goes well and runs a devastating power play for a decade — you bet on McKenna.
If you want a top offensive talent who has shown he has what it takes to carry a team and have success against pros despite his size, you take Stenberg.
For me, it’s basically a coin flip, but in my time doing this job, whenever there’s been a tie I’ve usually leaned to the more talented offensive player. There’s no right formula when it comes to ranking players, but anecdotally, I have found that this approach has tended to have favorable results. For that reason, I would lean toward McKenna. He’s been elite for longer, and despite the headaches his game may provide, I don’t think the compete differential is the same as the skill one between him and Stenberg.
www.nytimes.com
