HighOnHockey
-
Posts
1,874 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by HighOnHockey
-
-
1 hour ago, hammertime said:
I dont think they are. He will be drafted top 12 Many rankings are out to lunch but people who are actually paying attention will have taken notice.
I was thinking the same thing, but without the same confidence. The truth is we have no idea what NHL teams think. McKenzie's list is the only indicator, and he still had Svechkov 30 at mid-season, but a few of his European rankings seem wonky this year, so I'm wondering if he has a bit of an over-representation of N.A. scouts. Who knows? Point is, you're probably right that NHL teams have him much higher, but we don't know. But I think you're right that most of the media rankings are just plain sleeping on him. No doubt he'll be a lot higher on most final lists, after his U18s.
-
5 hours ago, Sp3nny said:
Haha I swear the intent of my post wasn't to be right. I genuinely wanted to hear your thoughts in the way you analyze these kids as your insights seem very good and close to the way I think as well.
The skill levels of these kids these days is seriously incredible. You're so right on the evolving aspect, which is why I brought up the point of not necessarily following others path to success. Of course, you would be stupid not to try and use others success as a model, but there is so many ways to win a cup that I think sometimes it gets a bit abused in its interpretation.
Where I personally struggle with looking at prospects, or even current players, is I love the little things on the ice, but in an IQ sense. You brought up Colorado as an example, so I'll use Girard. When I watch Girard, he is so smart with his body positioning and skating, and it makes him an excellent rushing and possession defensemen in the model that you put a premium on in your list (and rightly so). He sees the ice extremely well, and 9 times of 10 he makes the smartest play, which is something that doesn't always get noticed. However, the rest of his game from a skills standpoint can leave something to be desired. Hit shot is pretty weak, his size obviously isn't a strength, and he uses an extremely short stick on top of it, which affects his ability to block passing lanes.
So many times, we want these kids to be good at everything. How many times do we see an excellent prospect get knocked because they aren't a defensive beast or a two way player? Or because they are small (this is starting to matter less as the game adapts, but some still put a premium on size). Of course it's important, but I always appreciate the teams that put players in a spot to succeed, and I always go back and forth on certain prospects for this reason. On one hand, I want to envision certain guys in the perfect role, but you also have to consider what they would be like outside of that role. And it makes it hard for me to rate Sillinger vs Johnson for example. Do you take the swiss army knife that can play anywhere, or the guy who if put in the right role could really excel?
This is where I can really appreciate your list in putting Heimosalmi ahead of Edvinsson for example. I really struggle with properly rating guys who have clear flaws, but are amazing in other areas ie. Raty. You seem to have found a really nice balance with that though, so good for you! At the end of the day, it's a guessing game, but boy is it fun to play! Appreciate your thoughts as always my friend.
I couldn't help but notice that a month after St. Louis won their Cup, Cole Caufield absolutely inexplicably fell to 15th overall, when he obviously should have been a top ten pick. How much of a coincidence was that? Or was it the copycat principle? Like you say, there's tons of different ways to have success, but only one per year that wins a Cup. I just had to wonder if teams saw St. Louis' big, heavy team winning the Cup and just reflexively got spooked about 5'7 Caufield.
I know what you mean about probelm-players and list-making. Braden Schneider last year is a great example. I thought he was arguably the best defensive defenseman of the draft, but had major concerns about his ability to make plays under pressure. My favorite poster over on HF agreed with my concerns, and said he would have Schneider on his do-not-draft list. I just don't have the balls for that. I think I still ended up ranking him mid-30s. And then Edvinsson and Raty this year. There's part of me that wants my teams to just stay the hell away from these players. But then I have to ask myself, :honestly, if he's there in the 2nd round, you wouldn't want to pick him?" Of course I would! But then you ask the question again, what if Edvinsson was there at 20 and Canucks had the pick (for some reason)? And more specifically, what if Canucks have the pick, and players X, Y, Z are still on the board?
Completely agree that hockey IQ is the number one most important factor. It can make up for a lot, or it can waste a lot of talent. But it can also be really tough to gauge. Wait til you see this kid for next year's draft, Gleb Trikozov. I've watched him a few times now while scouting Miroshnichenko since they play for the same team. Take everything about Perfetti and Johnson but magnify it, both good and bad. He's maybe not as purely skilled or creative as those guys, but still extremely skilled, plus he's 6'2, 185 lbs with a power element, and shows flashes of elite defensive play. Reminds me so much of Marian Hossa when he's Jeckyl. But he just constantly makes such incredibly stupid plays with the puck, turning it over trying to deke forecheckers behind or in front of his own net, it's wild. Part of me wants to think it's largely just over-confidence, but then you have to wonder, and this applies to Johnson and Lysell for this draft: you can't just get rid of bad habits; I mean, of course you can, but you can't just get rid of bad habits. You have to replace them with better habits. Unfortunately at 18 it can be really difficult to tell the difference between a high-IQ player with bad habits and a low IQ player. But like you say, it's all part of the fun, and man I love this $&!#.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:
Hmmmmmmm!~
This gives me a head ache. Far too simplified. (This is not for you @HighOnHockey) but more to clarify.
Just for the record, Power skating at the elite level was being taught to Rep kids back 25 years ago, and I suspect longer than that. But that isn't my point........
Skating is a huge part of any evaluation, edges (turns), acceleration, starts, stops, forward and reverse. And elite players most have that to some extent, but some are at the lower end of that and some at the higher end of that.
But! and it is a big BUT ! Elite skating without elite IQ, is absolutely nothing. One you can teach, and one is god given, so as much as I know and agree with you on the players you named, there are others.....Quinn Hughes, Mason Raymond, etc that have this elite skating, without the elite IQ. And we should explain that every player in the NHL has elite hockey IQ, but when compared to their piers, some have more, some less. Quinn Hughes is an extremely unusual case, because he has elite++++ offensive IQ, and minus elite defensive IQ. But never the less, in all cases it illustrates the point.
Also, something that gets misunderstood, and is part of a player profile is physicality, and IQ. A player who tries to get physical, but is not in proper position, will be made a fool of, on a regular basis. IQ goes into knowing instinctually when you are in position, to make your move and close gap or not. Nothin makes me laugh more when watching hockey games and seeing players completely miss a hit, only to find air, or the boards. (A lot of injuries happen this way....more in decades gone past)
BUT, and again a big BUT ! The playoffs and the intensity remains a very different beast, where, skating is used more for protection then fluffy stuff. Fluffy stuff is skating in the regular season, where players are trying to grind out their 82 game season without major injury. In the playoff, for the most part there are the lions and the lambs, which a much different beast.
The mental part of the game, becomes a much more important part, when dealing with Playoffs......
So for those that cared to read this dribble, what @HighOnHockey said is true and 1 part of it, as is my point, only one part of it. It is a much more complicated thing that these 2 posts try to explain.
A buddy of mine explained that each junior club does a profile on their players and provides it to scouts that ask for them, then reads them, and writes all over them with their notes. The one I have seen, looked like a 2 years olds coloring book at the end, but it had skating underlined...5 or 5 times. amongst other things. I found it very interesting. My buddy also said that some do not even ask for them.
These draft profiles we read take huge amounts of work, and they should be respected, but interpretation is what is the most important thing when reading one of those.
I digress....
This is funny, shortly after I made that post I thought of one clarification I wanted to add, but haven't had a chance until now. And this actually goes back to what @Sp3nny and I were discussing: the evaluation and BPA principle have to come first, other considerations are secondary. Yes, I am putting a premium on defensemen with elite evasive skating - edges, agility, deceptiveness, but it's not like I'm saying that it is because of those skills that Makar and Heiskanen were able to have the impact they have in the NHL. Rather, elite young defensemen with with an elite understanding of the game, and with high level coaching, had some kind of understanding of what I'm talking about (it doesn't take an in-depth philosophical approach like mine, just watch prime Karlsson and be like "oh, I wanna do that"), and so they made those skating attributes part of their focus from fairly early on. And of course not every defenseman with elite evasive skating is going to be the next Makar, but the elite defensemen who do have those capabilities are going to be at a premium in the coming years.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Double post
-
Triple post!
-
2 hours ago, Sp3nny said:
Nice list! Good man sticking to your guns as well, I appreciate people who are able to form their own opinions, backed up by valid research of course, which you have.
Question for you regarding point C. At what point do you draw the line in picking "where the NHL is headed", and how does it play into BPA? I feel like I've been harping on BPA lately lol, and I'm not trying to keep that discussion going really. And I'm also not targeting you with these posts, I just find you bring up good discussion points, and I appreciate your thoughts!
To further explain my question, earlier in the thread, you explained how the NHL almost goes through rotations ie. Dead puck Era, Boston and LA's size, corsi Era etc. These cycles seem to last a few years or so and then change. Overall, the NHL has been moving to a more speed and skill based game, but within that there are niches of a size, skill, defensive, and now speed, teams that win. Your point on Colorado is excellent, but if you base your pick on it, and it takes the player 2-3 years to enter the league in a substantial way, what if that trend has changed? What if the size trend comes back ALA Boston and LA from 2010-2015? Would that not make that player not the BPA anymore? I guess there will always be teams who need such a player, and they are not only becoming more and more prominent, but also more valuable, so its not like they lose all value or anything. But they aren't the "flavor of the week" so to say.
For me, I think it's a bit of a mistake to look at how other teams are made to think about where to take your team. It's so difficult to win the Stanley Cup, and I think so many factors go into it, that basing your team off anothers success can lead to some pitfalls. For example, 2011 Canucks are the best team I can remember seeing through a whole season. If I remember right, they had the #1 PP, #2 PK, #1 goal differential. The team had it all. After losing to Boston, the talk was all about being soft and needing size. However, Boston was taken to game 7 by the Canadiens and Lightning, which either easily could have been in the cup finals instead of them, and maybe the Canucks win against those teams. Soon after, we draft Virtanen for that speed and size that we were so called missing. This is not to drag Virtanen at all, but if the logic behind it was potentially based on another teams success, it potentially affected our draft pick. How do you balance the idea of another teams success dictating your viewpoint when looking at player types?
Hopefully that makes sense. I ended up writing a lot more than I intended lol.
Oh man, you're gonna make me get into this aren't you? I can't just make grand theoretical claims in passing and leave it at that?
I'll try not to go too long. To start, of course you're right and I'm wrong. BPA über alles.
But the game doesn't just change. It evolves. Once you let a particular genie out of the bottle, you can't get it back in. I suck at skating and I know $&!# about skating mechanics so I try not to get into too much details on this stuff, but I will say, I made drastic improvements as a scout after discovering and spending a lot of time reading Daryl Belfry a few years ago. Belfry was the skills coach who worked independently with Crosby, Kane, and many other elite players, and later was hired by the Leafs. The point is not just working on skills, but he would analyze video and they would work on ways to better integrate skills into their individual games. It was only then that I fully realized that there's a science behind skill, and its just fun for us to talk about, but there are people with both with pro teams and national programs spending a lot of time and money taking this $&!# dead seriously. From what I understand, power skating was introduced into hockey a long time ago, only rudimentarily initially. About a decade ago you had Skinner come into the league with his figure skating background and largely because of his skating he was able to have some major success despite some glaring flaws in his game. Now you have guys like Antonio Stranges working with Bauer Hockey since he was 13 to develop this thing he does. Point here is, kids like Makar, Hughes, Drysdale, etc. are the next evolution. Of course I'm not claiming that they're reinventing the wheel, as I pointed out with Belfry, it's not their skating is so much different than elite skaters before them, but it's about integrating their elite skating into the game in new ways.
So that's one aspect of it - once these players are here, even if the game continues to evolve in different directions, this current evolution doesn't go away, it is part of the system that new developments have to evolve on top of, not in place of.
In addition, currently this new development isn't about money. I mean, Erik Karlsson makes 11.5 million dollars, but he was a signpost, a herald of what was coming, not a part of the development itself - he showed how the corsi era style could be subverted with elite skating agility and evasiveness and how one such one-man breakout machine could practically single-handenly carry the Senators to within one goal of the Cup Finals. Although 2017 was the highlight and beacon, Karlsson had been doing it for years, and largely because of him, suddenly the analytics community was obsessed with zone exits, and concurrently, skill coaches were interested in developing Makar, Drysdale, Hughes, Heiskanen. Similarly with the Sedins - leading up to 2011 analytics people had told GMs that corsi is the way of the future, but the question was, how to make best use of it? The Sedins' skilled cycle was one strategy, the Kings were the other. L.A. ended up winning out at that time, but not much later things shifted towards skill.
Anyway, kids like Drysdale and Makar are still very much at a premium, and still a few years from earning a king's ransom at UFA. Right now it isn't about who can afford them, but who can acquire them, and the best way to do that is at the draft. Colorado still has Bowen Byram coming up; God help us all. By the time the next shift happens, whatever that may be, there will be more of a saturation of these types of defensemen throughout the league. We have no way of knowing what the next evolution will be or when it will happen, but look at how quickly these kids were able to step in and be impact players. The best we can do is understand where the game is at right now and in the immediate future. But of course you're right, the game is gonna change and we can't predict it, so these factors can't be your primary consideration, you've gotta focus on getting the best players by any measure.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:
I love your list. It is not the same as mine, but that is ok! Here are my thoughts on it. I know you did not ask. LOL
1. I think Clarke at 1 is risky. I think he is more of a 5 to 8 guy. But I am being picky.
2. Sillinger is high on everything except skating......that makes me pause on his ranking...maybe 8 to 12ish?
3. I love your Svechkov ranking, it's the highest I have seen it, but you could be totally right!
4. I am thinking Wallstedt goes to one of Detroit, Columbus, San Jose or LA, mostly out of need, and bake time.
5. I hope you are right about McTavish, but I think he goes earlier
6. Love your Ceulemans projection. IMO, it's Clarkes IQ vs Ceulemans Tools, and IMO, they are closer than most have them.
7.I agree with you on Heimosalmi, he seems to be a MR. everything. Too bad he wasn't 6'2", because he would be in the top 10 otherwise.
8. Edvinsson is too low, IMO, but if he falls that much, someone will be getting a great Dman...the will get one anyways!
9. Lambos has great reports, yet low! Hmmm? I agree with where he is, but he is going to be a solid defender.
10. Raty is going to make someone happy
11. IMO Cossa could move up
12. I think Morrow will break into the late 1st round.
A lot of comments from me, but who knows really? Like I say, I love your list and it could easily be the most correct one. I do not see it as a weak draft, but rather a flat draft at the top. I am more interested in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, as I think those are the guys who don't necessarily get into international tournaments. And because I am so extremely interested in RHD this year, I like the RHD that are there....guys like Heimosalmo, that we both think will go higher, Morrow who is hovering in the late 1st round/early second, and then Schmidt, Mailloux and Bar(later 2nd round/early 3rd).
Thanks for the response. I won't respond point by point, but to a few. The teams that need goalies are irrelevant. This is not my prediction for where the players get picked, but where I would pick them. Same goes for McTavish, Very likely he'll end up going earlier, but I would be hesitant to pick him too soon. Personally, I'm just a little worried that he is ahead of the curve right now due to his physical maturity. I have little doubt he'll be a good NHL player, I'm just not sure how good.
For all of Clarke, Ceulemans, Heimosalmi and Svozil, I love their ability to escape danger in their own zones, in their own various ways. The biggest criticism I see about Heimosalmi is skating power, but his technique is fine, so I suspect as he gains strength that could improve.
On Edvinsson, I just think he's the biggest chance of anyone in the top 15 or so to bust outright and have trouble sticking in the NHL. As I've been saying, he usually looks fine in junior, or even Allsvenskan. It's just when he's up against high IQ, elite offensive players that he tends to bite on everything and get burned every time. Problem is that is most top nine forwards in the NHL, to some degree.
I'm gonna feel really stupid if Lambos ends up developing into a good player. I was so high on him early on, but I also had major question marks that he was never really able to address. Huge upside, but I get bad Cody Ceci vibes from him.
-
1 hour ago, smithers joe said:
sillinger and schechkov have really moved up your list. why on each one?
Not so much moved up, as I just decided to trust my gut. Sillinger has been between 4 and 7 on every list I've done since my first one in early 2020. I'll just repeat or reiterate on Sillinger what I said not too long ago: he's a swiss army knife and a coach's dream. Competes hard every night, all over the ice. He's the first forward out for the PK, and he's effective in various postions of the PP - netfront, bumper, halfwall. He likely won't be best utilized on the point at higher levels, but he was often needed there this year for the 2nd worst team in the USHL. He was nearly a goal a game player through the first 15-20 games, despite a painful lack of offensive support. He is, in my opinion, the best netfront presence in the draft - creating havoc in the crease, shoveling garbage, and he's an elite shot-tipper. He's also strong on the boards, is committed on the forecheck and backcheck, and disrupts the flow of his opponents' game all over the ice. There are legitimate concerns about his skating, but I think his hockey IQ is high enough to overcome those. I see a ton of Joe Pavelski in him.
Svechkov, similarly, I had ranked in the early teens since my first list after the 2019 fall U17s. After 5NU17s in the spring, I suggested to a friend that I thought he might even be a top five pick. But then the media rankings started coming out and he was nowhere in the first round, so I started to question myself, but he was always somewhere between 10-15 for me. He was impressive enough at U18s to move up. I've always been impressed primarily with his playmaking ability - his hockey IQ is very high. He's not primarily a one-on-one threat, but he tends to pull up, slow things down, and draw defenders in to open up lanes. He does have some dekes in his arsenal, but his success rate one on one isn't particularly high. But his shot is good, and he's exceptional defensively, good on the boards, committed to checking. What changed for me at the U18s was his willingness to drive the puck into high-scoring areas more often than I'd seen from him before. Most of the games I'd watched from him this season were at the VHL level, where he played a quiet, responsible, two-way game, but when I went back and watched a shift-by-shift from late in the season when he was sent back to junior, he again looked a lot more confident challenging defenders and attacking the inside. I'm still not convinced he quite has the hands to be a top line offensive driver, but he should be a very good two-way second liner who can play center or wing, a la Logan Couture. Also like Couture, this kid is clutch. Scored the opening goal in the gold medal game at U17s and added two assists. In the championship clinching game at 5NU17s, he set Yurov up for the opening goal and soon after scored the insurance goal himself. He didn't have any points in the gold medal game at U18s, but I thought it was his best game of the tournament and one of the best games I've seen him play.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Here's my top 32. Could call it my final rankings, but I'll probably continue to make tweaks. Before I get raked over the coals, a few words on my thought process. a. I decided that if I'm going to worry about aligning with the majority view of what the various experts and media scouts are saying, then what's the point? I've gotta go with my gut so I can take ownership, right or wrong. b. I'm just a fan. My career isn't on the line, so of course I'm not gonna be as risk averse as NHL scouts, meaning more emphasis on skill and potential upside (I had Raymond 2nd overall last year). c. I always put emphasis on two-way centers with skill, and with the way the game is going, extra emphasis is placed on skilled, shifty, evasive defensemen - Colorado is heralding the end of the #Corsi Era. Nobody can pin them in their zone when Makar and Girard are one-man breakout machines (Toews isn't bad either), and with their speed up front they just need to throw it into an opening and they're gone. Looks to me like we're moving toward a new era of more back-and-forth hockey (my friend uses the term "high-event") where the statistical focus is shifting from corsi to zone-entries/exits.
1. Brandt Clarke
2. William Eklund
3. Owen Power
4. Matthew Beniers
5. Luke Hughes
6. Cole Sillinger
7. Kent Johnson
8. Fyodor Svechkov
9. Dylan Guenther
10. Jesper Wallstedt
11. Mason McTavish
12. Corson Ceulemans
13. Fabian Lysell
14. Aleksi Heimosalmi
15. Chaz Lucius
16. Simon Edvinsson
17. Carson Lambos
18. Nikita Chibrikov
19. Stanislav Svozil
20. Brennan Othmann
21. Oskar Olausson
22. Aatu Raty
23. Zach Bolduc
24. Xavier Bourgault
25. Matthew Coronato
26. Sebastian Cossa
27. Ville Koivunen
28. Sasha Pastujov
29. Daniil Chayka
30. Francesco Pinelli
31. Isak Rosen
32. Simon Robertsson
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
7 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:
We’re laughing if he’s there when we pick, he has incredible goal scoring instincts and vision out there. We desperately need that in our lineup.
I am not a fan of this player personally. I have to admit, I didn't pay much attention to him last year - I'm always behind the times when it comes to late birthday players, because I'll see the D-1 kids at the U17 tournaments, but while I do see the late birthdays at U18s before their draft year, I'm never paying much attention because my focus is on the draft age players.
That said, I understand that those who support him will say it's been an issue of confidence this season, but my goodness he just doesn't look like an impact player at the pro level. I mean, he can shoot, that much is for certain, and maybe he'll find his mojo and make a lot of people look stupid, but he looks way in over his head. He makes good possession plays, but I rarely see him creating offense, and often he simply wastes a possession and turns it over with a shot from above the faceoff circles. I've heard he's a good two-way center, but in his own zone he looks confused as to whether he's a center or a winger. One scouting report mentions that he's much better suited as a winger at the pro level, and from the little I've seen, that sounds right. But yeah, zero confidence to challenge defenders or create plays toward the net in the couple games I saw this year. I'll be perfectly willing to eat my crow if I'm wrong, but he's not in my top 15, maybe not even top 20.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, hammertime said:
Daniil Lazutin is a guy I have heard absolutely no buzz about this year after having what I thought was an exceptional U17 tournament. Not sure why he dropped off the map because I remember being very impressed with his game. He ticked alot of boxes for me 2way center with decent size, speed, skill, quick hands, compete. I had expected him to be a lock 1st rounder this year and he just seems to have been completely ignored. He's still only 17 too with a July birthday maybe I'm off base or maybe he's a diamond in the rough. I felt he was overshadowed by flashier kids at the u18 but quietly had a good tourney. Here's a lil hype vid. Seems to be ranked as a late rounder. Not sure why he fell though to be fair I haven't really watched him this year.
Absolutely. I'm a big fan of Lazutin. I had him as one of the two or three best Russian forwards at U17s. Not elite skill, but high enough skill level that combined with the size and power element, I thought he looked like a legit prospect. I watched a few SKA1946 games this year, but there was so much young talent on that team it was hard to focus much on anyone (Michkov, Chibrikov, Koromyslov, etc.), but I didn't come away terribly impressed with Lazutin. But then at U18s, I though he was one of Russia's better players. So yeah, it is kinda confusing. Media scouting reports seem to indicate problems with consistency, which sounds about right. But I thought I heard one of the commentators during the U18s somewhere mention that he had a bad case of covid this year and the effects lingered for a while. Can't find anything about it online, so maybe I just imagined it. Whatever the case, when he's on his game he looks like a first round pick or close to it.
-
Trying to nail down my top 32 so I've been watching shift-by-shifts on anyone I thought might be a fringe first round option. Some thoughts:
Dmitry Katelevsky - Pro-style player with some skill. On closer inspection, I don't think his hockey sense is quite what I though it was. Could develop into a solid two-way center, but I just don't see much to get excited about. Likely a third round pick or later.
Matvei Petrov - I really liked him at 5NU17s on a line with Chibrikov. Add "makes players around him better" to Chibrikov's scouting report. The offensive skill is abundant, but hockey sense, compete and intensity are major question marks. He'll make some "do not draft" lists. Likely 4th or 5th round pick or later.
Ville Koivunen - He was impressive at U18s, but his offense was somewhat stifled by Suomi's tight structure. Seeing him with his club team was an eye-opener. Very high skill level and not afraid to use it. Good hockey IQ and responsible in his own zone. He looks like a first rounder.
William Stromgren - Very interesting prospect. Good size at 6'3, very high skill level and loves to challenge defenders one on one. Only major question mark is his playmaking. He is a dark horse to be a first round pick.
Victor Stjernborg - Already played ten plus minutes most nights with the best team in SHL, including in the playoffs. Only 5'11 but he's a stocky kid, already 200 lbs and holds in own in board battles at the pro level. Tons to like there: compete level, aggression, hockey sense, defensively aware. Skating looks solid, both powerful and smooth. Question marks are with stick skills and playmaking ability, but looks like a fairly safe bet to be a versatile bottom six forward. Probably a second rounder.
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, Nave said:
Damn, I'm a Devils' fan, and you know more about their scouting department than I do.
I think it will go down to whether they want to have two Hughes brothers, or pair Eklund with Lucas Raymond.
Lol, thanks, I guess. I make it a point to know a little bit about every team's scouting departments. Realistically, in a team's scouting meetings, things like chemistry and brother relations are almost a zero factor. It's fun for fans to discuss, and would be nice to consider in theory, but chemistry is meaningless if one of the players flops. Most fans and media do mock drafts based on things like that, and team needs, but teams and scouts don't care about any of that; they just want to get the best players. The Sens are the team and staff I know best, so to take an example from them of how scouting happens:
They hired a few new scouts in the past couple years. I will focus on two. One called Bobby Strumm, and one called Anders Ostberg. Currently their most trusted scouts are Mikko Ruutu, Bob Janecyk, Don Boyd and Trent Mann, so those guys get the most say with the most important picks, in the first couple rounds. In 2019 they gave Anders Ostberg what you might call an "area pick", where none of the rest of the scouting staff was very familiar with the player, but the area scout really liked him. That was Viktor Lodin in the 4th round. We know this is the case because the pick was way off the board and Ostberg was formerly a scout for Lodin's team Orebro. So this is also what you might call a tryout pick. You put some trust in your new scout and give him an opportunity to prove himself. Unfortunately, Lodin turned out to be a total bust, so they won't be trusting Ostberg with any higher picks any time soon; they will continue to give him a say on later round picks until he either proves he can hit on some, or he's eventually let go.
Strumm, on the other hand, came to the organization very highly regarded. He is the son of former GM Bryan Murray's close friend and former head scout Bob Strumm Sr. His first area pick was Angus Crookshank in the 5th round in 2018. Maybe not exactly a home run, but for a 5th round pick it is looking really good, as Crookshank has established himself as a completely legitimate NHL prospect, at the very least. As a reward, Strumm was given a little more say in the earlier rounds, as he would have been involved to some extent on 2019 first rounder Lassi Thomson and probably moreso on second rounder Mads Soogard. Soogard has been coming along nicely, and I believe Strumm is making an impression on Dorion and Mann (GM and head scout) and so was probably the main voice behind Ridly Greig with the 28th overall pick last year.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Nave said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they took Eklund over Hughes.
Very tough to say where New Jersey might go. In the years Paul Castron was DAS, they drafted out of the CHL with every single first round pick, until Jack Hughes first overall; they didn't have much of a choice there. He's since been bumped to "VP of amateur scouting" and after former video scout Scott Harris took over as DAS last year they drafted out of SHL, QMJHL, and KHL with their three first round picks. Considering most of the scouting will have been done by video this year, this will play right into Harris' strengths, but also makes things almost impossible to predict.
Harris' top two guys will be Paul Castron and director of European scouting Greg Royce. As I mentioned, Castron heavily favored the CHL, so CHL or Europe seem the most likely destinations for the Devil's pick. This means the closest thing to a safe guess we can make is that they probably won't pick from NTDP or NCAA; none last year in 8 picks in Harris' first draft at the helm, but we really don't have much to go on from him yet.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:
I think he’s a better play driver than the other guys.
Hopefully he slides under the radar, he looks very self assured with his playing style, arguably has better overall tool box to become a consistent contribuer than the other guys. Johnson looks good too though.
who is in your top 4 ?
Completely agree. Those other three have massive upside, but lots of risk factors. No real risk with Eklund except for size.
Top four is the only thing I really have set in stone at this point:
1. Brandt Clarke
2. Owen Power
3. William Eklund
4. Matthew Beniers
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:
Based off what I’ve seen I would agree he looks like a Benning pick, great engine and highly skilled. I just don’t have a great depth of knowledge on this years draft compared to past years. I’m fairly confident the nucks will end up with a difference maker.
I keep going back and forth on Lysell. He's one of those kids that was just so talented that he knew he could do whatever he wanted at the junior level and get away with it. The jump to SHL was a huge reality check for him. You can tell how committed he is though by how hard he's working to be responsible and learn the pro game, but it's been a struggle for sure. Even in the SHL he has moments where he can take over a shift with his skill, but other times he just looks so unsure of himself with the puck, it's a totally different player than watching him at U17s or U18s. He was only playing about 7 mins a game when he was in SHL though, so not a lot of opportunity for development there; we'll have a much better idea of what kind of pro he'll be next year, but unfortunately teams need to make a decision by July. NHL teams tend to be risk-averse, so my guess is some teams will shy away and he'll drop a little further than some people expect.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Hogs & Podz said:
He looks very good, didn't know anything about him before your mention... He only weighs 155 lbs right now ... Maybe that's why he's not getting the love? Do you see him slipping into the second round?
Look at him shatter this guy's ankle and you tell me.
Seriously though, tough to say. but I highly doubt it. He's still pretty low on most lists, but you know he'll be skyrocketing up the charts after he was named top defenseman at the U18s. The game seems to be moving towards smaller, skilled defenseman, and this guy fits the bill. He walks the offensive blueline better than anybody in the draft except maybe Luke Hughes. He defends incredibly well too.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said:
William Eklund is my guy.
Pure first impression post here but this player is freaking amazing at creating offence from what I’ve seen in the highlight packages on YT.
shifty, smart, good skater, seems to be a great playmaker and plays with a very high gear. He seems like a ball of energy like Hoglander and Podz so fits the bill of what attributes a Canucks player should have.
I'll be shocked if he makes it past the top 4. Goran Stubb and Central Scouting are notorious for shying away from smaller players (they had Lundell and Holtz over Raymond last year), and even they have Eklund ranked first in Europe. Power is the safest bet to go first overall for sure, but if a team with a heavy European scouting presence wins the lottery (Columbus, New Jersey, Detroit), I could honestly see Eklund going first overall. Especially if it's Kekalainen - that guy could not give a &^@# what traditional hockey logic thinks; and their director of amateur scouting is based out of Europe (not sure there are any other teams that is true of) and their director of European scouting is based out of Sweden.
I've said all year that Chibrikov, Johnson and Lysell are the most purely skilled players in the draft. Eklund is a bit of a step down from them in pure skill, but his hockey IQ is through the roof, and as you mentioned, intensity and compete look very high too.
-
1
-
-
I've been watching some shift-by-shifts. Goddamn, Heimosalmi is something else. Does anybody remember where that list came from that was posted a couple months back that had Heimosalmi ranked 14th? That guy deserves some respect. I keep trying to look for reasons why Heimosalmi wouldn't be a top 15 or 20 pick and I just can't find any.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Isam said:
Oh i know. My strategy is draft bpa in the first and try to find need and or undervalued prospects in later rounds, but draft players that fit the culture that you are trying to establish with your team. I tend to simplify my draft process more so then you or other posters on here to key elements and mark it on a 20 to 80 scale. And have to do alot of viewing before i arrive at a conclusion. Sometimes i match you. Sometimes i dont. All good. Just wish that the stat watchers on here would watch more junior hockey then youtube hilite vids. Not mentioning names, but some of them are scott morrow fans lol. All good. Love the draft.
Lol, I noticed you seem to really not like that guy. Can't really say I blame you, seems like kind of a troll, but I can't imagine anybody actually takes him seriously?
But it is pretty transparent what he's doing with that, and also the thing about not picking out of the CHL. The idea is to take the focus as much as possible off of the assessment of the prospects (which I would imagine he is completely incompetent) and on to other factors that are easy for anyone to comment on.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 5/27/2021 at 7:36 PM, Isam said:$&!#, i must be one those who disregard all assesment of prospects lol. But good post
16 hours ago, Isam said:Doubt buffalo goes the way of clarke. They are pretty strong on the right side. It would have to be power to help steady dahlin or beniers if they trade eichel
Can't say I'd ever noticed before, but I see what you mean. I can't be too critical though - I am assuming you're a young man. I was the same way for a long time. Longer than I'd care to admit. It is one of those things that you just figure out after a long time of following the NHL closely: you eventually come to realize repeatedly that the player you thought a team drafted to fill a need doesn't pan out, or by the time they are ready to make an impact, the need has already long been filled by other means, and you see teams like Pittsburgh, L.A. and St. Louis draft BPA and you're yelling at the TV, "what are you doing Shero! You need a winger for Crosby!" and then all the wing prospects they do draft flop (at different times I thought maybe Caputi, Tangradi, Bennet), and then they trade for Kessel and win back to back Cups. Same with St. Louis or L.A. filling their center holes, as I've mentioned a couple times. But I can argue and cite you facts all day long, you won't believe it until you see it for yourself in real time.
It's the exact same for the whole "we need to tank" thing. Young/newer NHL fans think tanking for the superstar players is the way to go. I don't even know if this applies to you Isam, but it's a rant I need to do, and this is as good a place for it as any. I remember having this argument with my older brother many years ago, going "Nashville is going to suck forever. They keep trying to win but they aren't good enough, so they're going to be stuck in the middle of the pack picking middle-of-the-pack prospects. They need to tank and get some top picks." But over time I saw them just constantly be a competitive team and eventually even make it to the Cup finals, and I learned that the right mindset is to be impressed with their ability to find players with later picks and commit to professionalism and winning culture. Over time you also see things like Boston or Philadelphia's quick retools around 2006-'07 (Winnipeg or Dallas more recently), where suddenly a year or two later they were competitive again, but not primarily due to players they drafted during the tank; rather by keen trades/signings and prospects from the cupboard they'd built up while they were competitive and left to simmer.
But perhaps most importantly, you see teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, and now Sabres completely dismantling their rosters and finishing in the basement for years, and for the first couple you're going "yes, good, look at them doing things the right way, tanking for high picks." Until a certain point you're like "well, it is only because they suck at drafting." Until you see it happen again and again, and eventually you realize that for every Pittsburgh, L.A. or Chicago full rebuild into dynasty, there is a franchise that goes the other way, and their fans suffer for it. There is a shift in your mindset to realize that there is a ton of luck involved, both with the lottery and the quality of the top picks in years you draft at the top, even provided you have an excellent scouting staff. You also realize that essentially every Cup winner goes through some kind of rebuild, but that's just the cyclical nature of the NHL's reverse-standings draft order, that every team goes through it to some extent, so Cup winners are no exception, and they're just the ones who had both the success at drafting and developing, but also the luck. And then teams like Nashville, Anaheim, San Jose, Philly and Boston, who are able to stay competitive for decades without full-scale rebuilds, are so much more impressive.
Again, I know I'm not going to convince anyone with one post, but hopefully some people will read this and think back on it in a couple years as they see these things happening for themselves and come to their own realizations.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Nave said:
The Central Scouting lists have me giddy. If other scouts agree--and this is a sort of consensus--Clarke or Beniers might be ripe for the picking at our pick.
If we draft first or second overall, however, I think we should take William Eklund. Would be hard to pass on Power though.
NHL Central Scouting isn't the highest quality scouting, but they work for the NHL, so it is a pretty good reflection of what NHL teams are looking for: more emphasis on size, work-ethic, responsible two-way players, vs. media and fan lists which tend to focus more on skill and upside. Not sure what you mean by consensus, but real NHL team scouts aren't involved in compiling this list, although some are former or in-betwee-jobs NHL scouts (can't find a list of their scouting staff anywhere). But it is kinda like the minor leagues - aspiring NHL scouts or those who aren't quite good enough to stick with NHL teams will work for Central. Their scouting director was head scout for the Atlanta Thrashers for most of the entire franchise history. Patrik Stefan first overall, anyone?
-
1
-
-
Every year there are certain prospects that are good indicators of who is really paying attention. Jake Sanderson would be the prime example from last year. Anyone who was watching closely, or who had their ear to the ground, knew that Sanderson was a top ten (or close) prospect by fairly early in the season. But by around February, there was still a lot of rankings had him in the 20s.
This year Fyodor Svechkov is the best example of this: it is understandable that most people have been sleeping on him - he turned pro at 17 and whereas many centers start their pro careers on the wing, Svechkov was thrown to the wolves and relied on to be a 200 foot center. U18s will have opened people's eyes.
Mason McTavish is another one. I have to admit, I got it wrong when I saw him at U17s, and didn't really get to see him play all year until U18s. So I was late to the race on this one.
The other one is Cole Sillinger. Again, very good reasons for people to sleep on him: played in USHL instead of WHL, played for the second worst team in the league, and then he didn't get to play in U18s. He was already 13th on Bob's last list, so not too much more room to move up, but I just don't see him talked about much on here, and I suspect many here will be surprised how early he goes.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, hammertime said:
Enemy? Rallying?
Kind of a weird narcissistic comment bud. Just because I don't agree 100% with you on everything doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. It's not like I got it out for ya just because I give a slight up tick to guys who play a role we NEED that traditionally you have to over pay for. Look at Sieder he was ranked mid 20s Det reached deep for the guy they needed they did their homework and got their man. FWD I bet half the league would pay 1st OA for Sieder right now.
I have Mctavish ahead of Johnson seems like alot of scouts agree with me now where 2 weeks ago they didn't. whos right? When? All I know is we need a guy like Mctavish where a guy like Johnson would be pretty neat he scores goals does fancy stuff great player but I put him in the nice to have column and Mctavish in the need column.
Well... I'm nothing if not narcissistic. I also try to make jokes sometimes, for levity's sake. They don't always come across properly in a digital context.
-
2
-
1
-
This gives me a head ache. Far too simplified. (This is not for you 
2021 NHL Entry Draft
in Prospects / Farm Team
Posted
I hadn't seen him before. Just checked out the shift-by-shift on DITD. Was also a good opportunity to get a bit of another look at Coronato, who I haven't seen much. Coronato might be the worst in the class when it comes to those junior hockey habits. Samoskevich looks like a far more pro-style player. One plus for Coronato is he does seem pretty committed to defending, at least until his team get the puck, then he's streaking for the redline while Samoskevich is back supporting. Samoskevich flashes some skill at times, but picks his spots well. Mostly he just keeps things simple. Like the one play where he carries the puck through the neutral zone - he never actually challenges any defenders head on, but shows good awareness to find the holes and tight stickhandling and smooth skating to move through them. Good call man, looks like a great pick for the early second if he's there.