HighOnHockey
-
Posts
1,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by HighOnHockey
-
-
1 hour ago, R3aL said:
Interesting rank on those three right now. Maybe I need to go back and watch it again. I was just so impressed with Eiserman offensively and watching Moore with most of my focus maybe I missed what you saw with Hagens. Lots of runway next year for me to se it though!
with Moore i think he just needs a patient path. Since he’s getting a sheltered role now, and next year. He will have lots of time to develop that. And he will need 1-2 years at least after being the number 1 C on a team to really get that experience and improve his IQ and with the right coaching I could see a world he really hits.
im just not super confident it will all go that way. And I think for him it will almost benefit him to be drafted outside of the top 10 since that always comes with more patience. Same with Yager I think he’s a prospect that’s really gonna benefit from going later in the draft.
Absolute worst case moore is a checking winger that brings a speed element to any line he plays on and would be an annoying forechecker to play against. I’m just not completely sold on his ceiling.
Ah, yes, important to note I'm talking about all my combined viewings on Hagens-Eiserman, not just U18s. I've also watched them at U17s and a few other games when they were up with the U18 team. The U17s in particular was pretty special for them, as Hagens and Eiserman both broke the tournament points record. There against his own age group Hagens just outsmarted everyone all over the ice every time. At the U18s of course Eiserman was going to stand out, he's so explosive and was scoring goals at such a ridiculous rate. Hagens' game is much more cerebral and so more subtle, and he's 150 lbs, playing 13 mins a game on the third line. I knew what to expect and was watching him closely and sure enough he made a lot of great plays and created scoring chances, but of course Eiserman attracts the attention (well-deserved though, and Hagens will have an extra year to show what he can do before his draft anyway). There was the one play in the 1st period of the gold medal game where Hagens snuck in and stripped David Edstrom directly in front of Sweden's net for a scoring chance, and he does shit like that all the time.
-
21 hours ago, R3aL said:
I couldn't help but lean to it being Eiserman.
Whereas I was impressed by Wood much more than Moore with how he played with Macklin if that comparison makes sense?
I gotta go a little off topic here, but I really think Hagens is the brains behind the operations there. I've seen quite a bit of them both already, and Eiserman has so many outstanding qualities - athleticism, explosiveness, tenacity, competitiveness, and then there's obviously the raw skills, but the one area I'm less than sold is his hockey IQ and playmaking. Let's put this in perspective though, I'm talking relative to a surefire top 5 pick and 1st overall contender. Of course I'm not saying his hockey IQ is a weakness, but Hagens is, like Celebrini a 200-foot hockey genius. We'll have to wait and see how they turn out size-wise, but for now I don't mind saying I prefer Hagens to Celebrini or Eiserman.
Inside the offensive zone and particularly inside the top of the faceoff circles, Eiserman is unstoppable, but he's another one who does most of his best work off the puck and doesn't tend to hold on to it for very long before he's firing it on net. Hagens is the one who loves to have the puck on his stick and make plays, but he also always has the puck because he does so much great work off the puck defensively that he's always getting it back. It's what makes Hagens and Eiserman so dynamite together though is that they complement eachother so well - Eiserman is the runaway train in first on the forecheck wrecking havoc and Hagens is the man back waiting to pounce on a mistake, Hagens does the heavy lifting in the defensive and neutral zones, both defensively and in transition, and Eiserman runs the show in the offensive zone, winning battles, making quick passing plays and getting to areas to use his shot.
So yeah, of course putting a player of Moore's calibre on a line with those two is gonna create sparks. He played on their powerplay unit most of the tournament too and even there it always felt like Hagens and Hutson were the ones driving the play creatively, although certainly Moore's speed is invaluable at getting to loose or contested pucks. Been watching/rewatching some footage and I still have the same question marks about whether his processing speed can keep up with the skating speed, but I'm also starting to see the excitement people have about what if he does figure it out. Floor is at least a 3rd line two-way PKing center, and the upside could be an extremely dynamic offensive weapon.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Pure961089 said:
Such a deep draft when a d as tanented as Gulyeyev is a second round pick. Did Canucks management not know that when we included our 2nd rounder we gave them what would be the equivalent in any other year TWO 1st round picks? This is quite devistating.
2 hours ago, Alflives said:How is it deviststing to have moved Horvat for Hronek (a 25 year old elite right shot D + New Beau - who is better than old Bo - and Raty)?
Your idea that moving Bo is devistati g makes absolutely zero sense. We are way better and have a great you D man and a great young centre prospect because of the Bo trade. We are so much better now. Crazy to be a fan who sees the Horvat trade as negative.
My favorite part about this exchange is when "devistating" becomes "deviststing" becomes "devistati g".
-
1
-
3
-
-
Well that was interesting. Overall pretty happy with how the draft went. We wanted to get a head start on getting prospects into the system without touching the current roster, so swapping 2025 picks was our only move. After last year's draft I talked about just wanting to get bodies that might also have some upside. Ohgren, Hayes, McConnell-Barker are all coming along nicely. This year we decided to swing for pure upside. Aram Minnetian is a player I've been a fan of since his U17 year. I've seen him more than I've seen just about any player in the draft so I'm aware of the flaws but I'm also thrilled about the potential, and I knew I'd want to trade up if he was there around 60, especially as we saw some of the targets we hoped would be there in the 4th start to vanish.
Jake Richard was one of those players we had targetted for the 4th, so as poor as the optics are of trading a 4th for a late 5th, we used a 4th to get a player we had ranked in the 4th. Richard was a player that caught my eye at WJAC with his hands and playmaking in tight around the net. Also helps with our situation that he's an extra year into his development and drafted to an NHL team in Buffalo we think has a bright future.
-
San Jose selects Jake Richard.
-
6 hours ago, R3aL said:
Ya its his number one issue. Almost like Raymond he takes himself out of plays, or he doesn't harness his speed wisely.
Which could be line mates / system related or it could be his IQ.
In an interview he himself acknowledged hes working on his IQ and learning how to use his speed smarter.
Like he skates himself into danger or into a dead end play with no support at times. Or literally into the boards/corner.
I also find hes not the best puck carrier similar to Mason Raymond again in that regard.
Whereas say Nate Danielson knows how to use his speed effectively and usually pulls defenders into him to make space for his line mates.
And Nate didn't work with the most talented line mates or team so I think it is an IQ difference between them that almost negates the marginal speed difference. I think Nate is a very effective and fast skater.
-
His shot is kind of a strength and a weakness I think. In close it looks good, like quick and accurate but from distance I dont see it. Maybe with power / strength training that will come quick though.
Second line he also go softer matchups to exploit. And I happened to watch him play some really uninspiring games that really left a bad impression I haven't been able to fully shake for him.
I do like his progression path in front of him if hes given lots of patience. I think he needs years before coming to the NHL. Like he needs a year or two at the NCAA after Cooley leaves to be the GUY for the first time in his career.
And then you are looking at a guy who has been kind of sheltered for many development years that top end guys, or playing high up on lineups getting the hard matchups.
I know its not a popular opinion but it is mine that Danielson > Moore.
Thanks for that I appreciate the response. I am hoping it isn't just a bias now I have between the two and that I am seeing things clearly.
But end of the day I like Moore too. I am just more worried about his Hockey IQ than anything else.
I've had some question marks around his overall play creation too, but he did look pretty damn good when he was between Eiserman and Hagens. I have Eiserman ranked 3rd for 2024 and Hagens 1st for 2025 so far, so it's easy for anyone to look good with them, but it did seem like when he didn't have to be counted on to be "the guy" driving play offensively, he did ok keeping up with those two.
Rewatching the U18s gold medal game today, and that was one of the game-altering changes USA's coaching made down 2-0 after two. As Craig Button explains it, Hagens and Eiserman had been called up a few weeks prior and played with Moore and had an immediate spark, but USA wanted to get Hagens back to his natural center position so they moved them down to the third and Moore played mostly with Fine, Terrance and Hendrickson through the U18s. But struggling to create offense and with the gold medal on the line they went back to that dynamic 1-2 line punch and it was just too much for Sweden to handle in the third period. Now again, I'm not sure how much credit should go to Moore as he's the veteran on the line but those kids are two of the best prospects in recent years.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pure961089 said:
What Will Smith did against his peers in the U18's was impressive but I do t think it compares to what Fantilli did agAinst men in both the NCAA and in the Worlds for Canada.
Will Smith's 29 points in 16 games against NCAA DI opponents works out to 1.8125, almost identical but just ahead of Fantilli's 1.80556.
Smith is only 5 months younger than Fantilli, but Fantilli is a full year of development ahead of Smith - Fantilli had already played two seasons of USHL coming into this year, while Smith had played one.
You could argue that Will Smith had the benefit of playing with his all-star linemates, but all three were boys against men, Smith was the primary play-driver, and Fantill was surrounded by the likes of Luke Hughes, Seamus Casey, Mackie Samoskevich, Rutger McGroarty, Gavin Brindley.
You could also argue that these are considered exhibition games by the college players so they're not treating them like legit games, but the NTDP players sure consider them real, and you know the college players aren't looking to get embarrassed by a bunch of cocky high school kids. I believe this was the best record ever by an NTDP program against DI teams, going 13-3.
Another argument would be that Fantilli for the most part played against better teams in the Big Ten than some of the teams Smith and the NTDP played. This one I think would be the best argument. The NTDP sets it up so they play a mix of some pretty good and some not so good DI teams, but Smith did have good games against some tough teams, putting up 2 points (0+2) against 11th ranked Michigan Tech, 3 points (2+1) against 12th ranked Michigan State, 2 points (0+2) against 22nd ranked RIT, 2 points (0+2) agaisnt 4th ranked BU.
I dunno, kinda just playing devil's advocate. Food for thought.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, eeeeergh said:
you dont feel like his production is kind of underwhelming considering his size & the size of his opponents in the WHL?
also why is nobody taking kalan lind?
Nah. It's his second full WHL season. He led his non-playoff team in scoring, for a team that had 3 players surpass 50 points, and 4 players surpass 40. And while I expect he'll play in the NHL at 200+, it's not like we're talking about Dvorsky or Koehn Ziemmer here who are already mountains, Danielson weighed in at 186 at the combine. But my point was he plays heavy.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:
The more I think about it, the more I want Danielson.
He's got size, can skate like the wind, and a good skater too, not just fast. He's a natural C and would form a really nice 1-2 punch at C (Pettersson-Danielson). He can make nice passes, good hands, great shot, good defensively and who knows how good he'll get with proper development. Maybe he even grows a bit more and gets to 6'3" 200.
Kuzmenko - Pettersson - Beauvillier
Miller - Danielson - Lekkerimaki
Something like this down the road? Maybe they switch out Beau for a different RW?
I'd be pretty stoked if the Canucks took Danielson. The first thing that stood out about him to me is just how heavy he plays. You've got guys like Musty and Noel Nordh who have the size but I'm not sure always take advantage of it. Dvorsky also plays a very heavy game, but Danielson's skating is going to be the extra element that sets him apart from other players in the draft (besides Fantilli and Carlsson). It's Miroshnichenko-esque, the way he leans into people at full speed and if they make one mistake he can either blow by them or drag them to the net. Smaller or slower defensemen are going to have a lot of trouble dandling him.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Anybody have Will Smith at 2nd overall?
-
It's plays like this that concern me about Sandin-Pellikka. As near-perfect as he was this tournament, this is such a crucial goal in the gold medal game, and that's 5'7, 160 lb Will Vote muscling him off the puck.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
47 minutes ago, TheQuietQuitter said:Bob McKenzie is arguably the most respected and knowledgeable analysts when it comes to what scouts and teams are actually planning to do at the draft. His lists are more accurate than most. He did predict Slaf going first ahead of Wright.
His rankings as of May 5th.
... Arguably? More accurate than most?
He straight up asks NHL scouts (I believe they're mostly head scouts and high ranking veteran scouts) for their lists and compiles them into an average ranking. You can basically take Bob McKenzie and his opinions out of the equation, except for the fact that he's the only one who has built up the trust of scouts over the years for them to confide their lists to him. There is no other publicly available ranking that is anything close to a representation of real NHL teams' lists. The only other thing is NHL Central Scouting, because those guys are mostly former fringe NHL scouts. But still that would be like comparing an AHL team to an NHL team. Most of the publicly available lists are made by journalists. Of course the more renowned publications like SportsNet, THN, and McKeens do have a lot more opportunity to interview and talk to NHL scouts, compared to the more blogger/online based outlets, but as far as I know none of them go so far as compiling consolidated lists from NHL scouts. I'm sure SportsNet would kill to get there some day, but for now it' the exclusive domain of "The Bobfather".
-
2
-
3
-
2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:
Everyone is guessing by the looks of how different everyone's list is. Maybe it's a good idea to draft by positional needs.
Take the best C or D available at #11
Or maybe it's a good idea to draft according to the list of the scouts you pay good money, instead of lists made by journalists for public consumption.........
-
1
-
1
-
-
A few players from the NTDP have said that Ryan Fine is the most under-rated player on the team, that he's the guy doing stuff in practice that has other players always on their toes. Not a player that's ranked by a lot of outlets, but if he's there in the 4th or 5th round I think he could be worth taking a swing on.
-
14 minutes ago, DeNiro said:
Podz hasn’t even shown he can be a regular in the lineup in the regular season let alone win battles in the playoffs.
Caufield put up 12 points in the playoffs in his first season on the way to the finals.
Comparing the two is silly. Caufield has way
more value than Podz and was a miss by management. That doesn’t mean Podz can’t be a good role player for us but there’s no debate on who the better player is.
- Thus spoke DeNiro about a player who is still 21...
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, R3aL said:
Ya its hard to be upset with Benson at 11. But like yourself I have seeds of doubt that he could be the BPA or best fit for us too.
I am impressed on your openness and that @hammertime influenced your view on Dvorsky.
My Top 20 Tiers right now are:
Bedard
-
Fantilli / Carlsson / Smith / Michkov
-
Leonard / Dvorsky / Willander / Danielson
-
Reinbacher / Wood / Simashev / Benson
-
Moore / ASP / Sale / Barlow
-
Stenberg / But / Yager
I've honestly drank the KOOLAID for Willander's play, interviews, path I just think he and Simashev are going to be the best dmen out the draft. Followed by Reinbacher and Bonk.
I cant wait to see what Willander does in the NCAA and hes going to get the opportunity to really develop his offensive game. I also love the green line rivalry he will get against the BIG US Program Line: Perreault-Smith-Leonard
And I am pretty happy comfortable taking any player from my tiers in our draft range:
Leonard / Dvorsky / Willander / Danielson
-
Reinbacher / Wood / Simashev / Benson
We are getting a great player.
I might tweak my tiers as I really like all of these 8 players and I have had a hard time ranking them. I want all of them..
The bolded is a really interesting point. Mark your calendars if he is in fact drafted by the Canucks. Only do me a favor and don't forget to mention Minnnetian is going to BC too. Not someone you want to fail to mark in your gameplan, one could almost argue it was a 4-man forward unit at times this season with Leonard-Smith-Perreault-Minnetian. I recently watched the THN Tony Ferrari game tape interview with Minnetian and Ferrari mentioned Minnetian was 1st among NTDP in zone exits, 1st among D in zone entries, and 3rd overall in entries, although he didn't mention which two forwards were ahead of him (I'm assuming Smith and Moore).
-
6 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:
After pick 8 for me it could have went a few different ways, St Louis is a hard team to predict what way they will go. I leaned towards them taking a speedy centerman. Still lots of really good talent that I couldnt fit in the first round like Strbak and Brindley as well.
For me the connection between St. Louis head scout amateur Tony Feltrin being an Isand native with Victoria and Nanaimo roots was too much to allow Wood to fall past the Blues.
Edit: But I guess you had him already gone by St. Louis. I'm not quite as bullish on Wood as you are.
-
2 minutes ago, hammertime said:
What gives me the willies pun intended. Is there is no body of work. He had a good U18 playing 2nd pair behind the ASP show. But beyond that. Really really meh. Up until this season he'd done pretty much nothing. Nil points in 12 J20 Nat games rocking a -10 and a further nil in 5 J18 Nat games prior to this season. This season sure a bit better 29pts in 45 with a +11 but J20 Nat is still a solid step down from say the OHL. I guess what I'm saying is man oh man I reaaaaaaly hope they've done their homework on him if they pick him because prior to this year I don't think anyone anywhere had him in their top 250 for this draft class.
Right but as I discussed with another poster earlier, he's played 25 games this season in international tournaments. According to the equivalnecy chart (https://towardsdatascience.com/nhl-equivalency-and-prospect-projection-models-building-the-nhl-equivalency-model-part-2-6f275a45e22) the quality of the U18 tournament is about on par with the CHL leagues. Granted it was a little lower than usual this year because of no Russia, but he also fared quite well at 4N, 5N and WJAC. 4N and 5N are on average pretty significantly higher QualComp than the IIHF U18s because you don't have the Latvias and Norways to rack up numbers against, and the WJAC is a U19 tournament. That was maybe the most interesting performance from him for me, with no ASP there as he was at World Juniors, Willander really carried the load for Sweden against a little bit older players.
I don't want to sound like I'm taking too much of a side in this debate. I don't have Willander ranked quite that high. I could see him going around 15. 11 would surprise me, but I wouldn't be particularly disappointed so much as intrigued. I remember an interview with Robert Kron where he mentioned he had 40(!)+ viewings on Sebastian Aho his draft year. Between International competition and league games I'd bet Gradin has at least 30+ viewings a piece on Willander, ASP and Lindstein. And you can bet Allvin, Harvey and Delorme were at an awful lot of those international tournaments with Gradin nudging them saying check out [insert whichever one Gradin likes best].
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:
My 1st Round Mock Draft
ROUND 1 TEAM ORIGINAL PLAYER DETAILS 1 
- Connor Bedard 2
- Adam Fantilli 3
- Leo Carlsson 4
- Will Smith 5
- David Reinbacher 6
- Matvei Michkov 7
- Ryan Leonard 8
- Dalibor Dvorsky 9
- Matthew Wood 10
- Oliver Moore 11
- Axel Sandin Pellikka 12
Zach Benson 13
- Eduard Sale 14
- Colby Barlow 15
- Nate Danielson 16
- Brayden Yager 17
Tom Willander 18
- Gabe Perreault 19
Samuel Honzek 20
- Calum Ritchie 21
- Dmitri Simashev 22
Andrew Cristall 23
- Mikhail Gulyayev 24
Otto Stenberg 25
Lukas Dragicevic 26
Riley Heidt 27
- Quentin Musty 28
Charlie Stramel 29
Daniil But 30
- Kasper Halttunen 31
David Edstrom 32
- Oliver Bonk Oh shit I almost missed this. Assumed from the look of it that it was just some media outlet mock and I skipped over it initially. Personally I'm much more interested to hear @Bure_Pavel's mock than I would someone like Wheeler or Pronman.
Looks very solid. Some similarities to my top 22 I posted so far. I agree Willander is probably going to go a little earlier than expected. At some point after McKenzie's final rankings come out I'm going to re-touch my top 22 and try to do a complete first round. So far my record is still 8 correct picks from the 2020 draft. 2nd best was 7 in the 2015 draft. Past couple I haven't fared so well, only hitting on 4 or 5.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Odd. said:
Yep imo
Willander, Simashev, Gulyayev, Reinbacher
Also, I agree Simashev is clearly a phenomenal skater for his size, but regarding David Reinbacher, I recall @Isam - who usually has some idea what he's talking about - was not a fan of Reinbacher's skating.
-
1 minute ago, Odd. said:
Yep imo
Willander, Simashev, Gulyayev, Reinbacher
Interesting, I don't exactly disagree. I'm a shitty skater myself and it's always the thing I find most difficult in evaluating prospects. I can see the straight line speed as well as the edges and evasiveness are all top notch with Willander. Reminds me a little bit of Jake Sanderson in his draft year come to think of it. But I'm just not sure Willander has the separation gear that Gulyayev has.
-
28 minutes ago, R3aL said:
Will be a better interview than Mark Masters god hes like a robot :
This one was better, but Sam makes me laugh when he said how sick was that or the mullet is looking pretty tight.. ahha:
I am disappointed hes an Oilers fan being a local boy but for him cant tell it doesn't matter where he gets drafted.
Was cool to see he actually compares himself to Point and Marner good awareness. And he does just want to get stronger and stronger. He isn't SLOW, and he is a good skater. Hes just not a burner. Perhaps if he adds power to his lower body the speed will improve?
Yeah I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with Benson at 11 - would prefer him to ASP and probably even Perreault, as far as smaller guys go. But there are other guys I'm hoping will be there. My current top 15: 1. Bedard 2. Carlsson 3. Fantilli 4. Michkov 5. Smith 6. Sale 7. Dvorsky 8. Leonard 9. Gulyayev 10. Reinbacher 11. But 12. Danielson 13. Simashev 14. Benson 15. Barlow
Can't exactly remember my last list I posted, but my only real changes lately are Michkov falls to 4 - I've always said I will do my list strictly based on hockey and upside, not geopolitics, but with listed weights ranging from 148-161, Michkov missing the combine now has significant hockey implications. And the other main change is Sale has jumped past Dvorsky, for basically the reasons @hammertime has levied against Dvorsky - while his shooting/goal-scoring and his passing/playmaking are upper echelon, his skating and puck skills are well below elite. Still love him for the combination of the super high floor and at least some chance at elite upside, but the more I watch of Sale the more I get strong Lucas Raymond vibes - a winger playing underweight for pro, with elite offensive skill and a highly mature, responsible two-way game. Sale is certainly a step down from Raymond in terms of both offensive skill and defensive acumen, but the difference between 5'10 and 6'2 frames goes a long way towards balancing them out.
But anyway, back to the point of this post, I've been putting a lot of time into my top 75 as I'm going to miss the CDCML draft and so will need to submit a list prior to the draft. And it occurred to me, if I remove But and Simashev from my list, Benson lands nicely at 11th overall, so while I can say I would prefer Sale or Danielson, I couldn't possibly be dissapointed with Benson going in the range I have him listed.
-
3
-
-
36 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:
Thanks for posting this - super helpful.
According to this, the average (recent) rankings of the players the Canucks spent extra time with at the combine were:Benson (6.6)
Barlow (15.83)
Danielson (18.83)
Wood (19.92)
Willander (26.42)
While each of these prospects have appeared in the top 10 of at least one ranking, the average ranking amongst this group is about 17.
Are we looking seriously at trading down? Or does this reflect who we expect to be there at 11?
For those that follow the draft more closely, does this tip their hand at where they are planning to pick?
While the dinners obviously do mean something, as others have said it's often also with players the team is on the fence about. And it would make sense not to do them with guys like Leonard, Dvorsky or Reinbacher, because if they're there you obviously pick them, no questions asked. But it makes sense to do the dinners with the players you think will probably be there but you're just not quite as sure about and want a more complete picture of as people. And you have to imagine that it's not only at the team's discretion. Players can only have these extended meetings with so many teams. They and their agents/camps will hope to arrange these dinners with teams in their expected range.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:
The thing with Willander that concerns me is that he's ranked pretty low (2nd round) by everyone, except Button. Looking at MyNHLDraft, which I believe combines all of the boards for their rankings, and Willander still doesn't make the 1st round on that list.
In fact, Gulyeyev, Simashev, Bonk and Molendyk are all ranked higher.
Canucks have one shot at #11 to select an elite player. If they go with Willander, I will be disappointed. Allvin trying to assemble Team Sweden over here.
This statement is a little misleading. If we just look at the more reliable sources, and not indiscriminately at every source available on the internet, Sportsnet has Willander 18, the Hockey News finals rankings just came out and they have him 20. Obviously by far the most important and definitive ranking is McKenzie's, and he's only released his top 12. So Willander could be up closer to 11, we just don't know yet. Those three rankings are the most important because they're actually in regular conversation with NHL scouts, not just giving their own opinions. 18-20 would be a bit of a reach from 11 sure, but to say he's ranked 2nd round is a bit of a weak claim.
2023 NHL Entry Draft
in Prospects / Farm Team
Posted
Somebody will take him.