2021 NHL Entry Draft

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

At that point in the draft, most scouts agreed, that from 5 through to 15, it was so close, take a player who best suits your needs. Even Calgary had Tkachuk and Juolevi ranked as equal prospects. They weren't sitting hoping that we'd leave Tkachuk on the table, they would have been just as happy on draft day with Juolevi.

 

"BPA" is a bit of a myth outside of the very obvious top talent in a draft. Its a consensus ranking, which means "BPA +/-" not 'BPA". If we went BPA, we wouldn't have picked Petey. 

 

Not saying we should go off the board too far, but in a draft like this with so much unknown, going a pick or two off the board to pick for need makes sense if you see two players as essentially equivalent in their chance to make the team. 

[HighOnHockey]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

"BPA" is a bit of a myth outside of the very obvious top talent in a draft. Its a consensus ranking, which means "BPA +/-" not 'BPA". If we went BPA, we wouldn't have picked Petey. 

 

Ok, this is actually a good point. Yes, every team's list is a consensus between their various scouts. But it is not just a democratically voted list. The DAS will have the final say, and it is his job to know his scouts and know who to trust. Nobody is saying it is easy to figure out who the BPA is, but it needs to be attempted. Much of the argument against BPa seems to be something like "it is too hard to figure out, and nobody really knows for sure, so why bother?".

 

... Not sure what this has to do with Pettersson though?

[smithers joe]

have you an updated list, hoh? i thought i read that sillinger was now 6th on your list. confused.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

31 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

"BPA" is a bit of a myth outside of the very obvious top talent in a draft. Its a consensus ranking, which means "BPA +/-" not 'BPA". If we went BPA, we wouldn't have picked Petey. 

 

Not saying we should go off the board too far, but in a draft like this with so much unknown, going a pick or two off the board to pick for need makes sense if you see two players as essentially equivalent in their chance to make the team. 

BPA definitely varies team to team but Vancouver definitely had Petey as the BPA at the time. Glass was perceived as BPA to a lot of people because we didn’t get to see Petey play as much as the scouts did and they were extremely high on him, there was talk the Canucks would trade down to get the guy they wanted but the belief is that the Rangers would have taken Petey had we traded down so we weren’t the only team hip to him. If he played in North America we wouldn’t have had a shot at drafting him. He fell due to where he played and the competition being tougher to evaluate but he was higher on some draft boards then would have been perceived by the general public. Most picks made are what the team would deem the BPA, but the odd pick is definitely made for positional need

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

 

Well, I'm glad I could be the common enemy you two could rally around. But I just completely disagree. I love a good compromise on many things, but not this. Gimme that hard line BPA. Draft the best players, have the most valuable assets, and you can can build your team the right way through trade and free agency. Again, look at St. Louis adding O'Reilly and Schenn through trade late in their rebuild. Tampa adding "the missing piece" Patrick Maroon, reminiscent of Detroit adding Shanahan after being a dominant regular season team for years and choking in playoffs - what Dubas hopes Nick Foligno will be for the Leafs. Pittsburgh needed wingers to play with Crosby and Malkin, and for years I was like you guys, waiting for them to draft their future star winger - at one point I thought Beau Bennett would be that guy. Ultimately, they traded for Chris Kunitz, who would be Crosby's winger for the first Cup, and later for Phil Kessel for the next two Cups.

I think you are missing our point HOH

I agree in part on BPA

 

But who is that exactly? Each GM and scouting staff will put different weights to different skills and talents

 

I am reminded of a friend of mine that played WHL, and he pointed out that the leading scorer years ago, did not even get an invite to a NHL camp. 

 

I think it is very easy to use BPA when there is a standout like Crosby or McDavid at the top, but looking at this year for example, there is not one particular standout, but up to 9 players who all could for oe reason or another, be BPA

 

Look at our own Brock Boeser who was draft 23rd OA, yet was runner up in the Calder.........and if he would not have been injured, could have maybe even won the darn thing.

 

The point is..........BPA, is subjective. Even to the point of how do you compare a forward, a Dman and a goalie that are close. Any why do goalies get left until later?

 

Yes, I agree, there is a system to separate those players and make a ranking, but many times a player who becomes the BPA, is passed over..........

 

So, yes BPA, but.....and its a big but...........when you have tiers within a group of prospects, what and how you weigh as important, affects how your individual ranking is.

 

I like your comments, I agree with your comments, and I think they are to the point and knowledgeable and I seldom, if ever disagree with them, but I think you are miss understanding what is being said here. (I will go back and review)

 

 

[Kenny Blankenship]

The NHL website has Clarke sitting at number 8. Trying not to get my hopes up but man we could use that pick. 

[BCNate]

12 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Dont get me wrong about Powers.  He has all the tools.

 

Big, decent skater, decent shot seems intelligent.

 

But he's also a literal giant among boys.  Remember Chychrun?  Myers? 

 

He's soft as hell and still gets beat too frequently from skilled players.

 

For that size and potential he should be lights out but isn't

 

I mean attractive and all but I'd rather have Brandt myself

You have to keep in mind he is 18, and has had an irregular development time over the past 2 seasons, although this year was more normal for him than most other prospects.  

 

There is no perfect prospects in this draft.  If you have the 1OA pick and end end up with Chychrun, I think you'd be pretty happy.  There are bound to be big misses in the top 10 this year, even if you end up with worst case a 2nd pair D at #1, I think you are pretty happy.

[Bertuzzipunch]

Check out the new NHL final central scouting report thread i made. My mind is blown. Johnson and mctavish moving way up whew

[J.I.A.H.N]

After reading HOH's comments...the question comes up, what is the BPA?

 

1. speed.........................well Mason Raymond had speed.....Ricky Middleton did not

2. quickness...................Patrick Kane has speed, but he has quickness too...very hard to stay in front of him as a Dman

3. offensive IQ................Henrik Sedin, Quinn Hughes

4. defensive IQ...............Datsyuk, Toews

5. size.............................Buff, Weber, Myers

6. tenacity.......................Marchand, Tkachuk

7. drive...........................

8. shot.............................Bob Dailey, Bobby Hull

9. hitting.........................

10. personality................Anthony Deangelo vs Matthew Tkachuk......what separates them?

 

I am sure I am missing some, but the point of listing these guys, is only one was the #1 OA, yet most would be considered top 10 in their draft, but somewhere scouts and the GM's missed something that made these guys special.

 

Deangelo is a special case, because he has almost every thing listed up there, but his personality is really questionable., which is why he was moved down the draft board on most teams, because he was near the top in almost everything else, excluding size.

 

So, to @hammertime point, "IF" all things are equal, them positional need factors into it, as does personal bias of the Scout's and Gm's, which is why there are so many different draft boards.

 

OHO says.....pick BPA and trade one, if you need something else, but what if a team repeatedly runs into the BPA being a Center and you have McDavid, Draisaitl, RNH, Yamamoto, and Turris, and your up at the draft and you needed Dmen? and Broberg was just underneath Spencer Knight?

 

Then I flip that same idea over to the Canucks.......would we be able to flip Hughes for equal value today?. No, because all the other GM's know we want to reconfigure......and get a RHD, but we "think" his value is more...........to frigging bad! Says the other GM's

 

Maybe these are poor examples, but the point is, where values are close, which is what Hammertime was saying, Team need can factor into it, and no one would ever know at the time, only in hindsight.

 

Virtanen would be a great example.......some said a great pick, some said what the hell?.............but in hind sight it was a terrible pick, yet I would bet some other GM had him in exactly the same place as Benning did.

 

Take a look at the publicized draft boards from BOB Mckenzie, the NHL, ISS, the Draft analysis, the Hockey News, etc.............all different

[stawns]

1 hour ago, HighOnHockey said:

Ok, this is actually a good point. Yes, every team's list is a consensus between their various scouts. But it is not just a democratically voted list. The DAS will have the final say, and it is his job to know his scouts and know who to trust. Nobody is saying it is easy to figure out who the BPA is, but it needs to be attempted. Much of the argument against BPa seems to be something like "it is too hard to figure out, and nobody really knows for sure, so why bother?".

 

... Not sure what this has to do with Pettersson though?

because Petey was slightly off board I think

[Fanuck]

1 hour ago, HighOnHockey said:

Yes, every team's list is a consensus between their various scouts. But it is not just a democratically voted list.

I don't think a team ever has total 'consensus' amongst their scouts when it comes to any draft that doesn't include a 'franchise' or 'genrational' talent, let alone a draft such as this year where there was limited opportunities to see players and there aren't real 'head-and-shoulder' standouts (like a McDavid, MacKinnon, Kane, Crosby, etc....).  I know a WHL scout who did work for the Red Wings as part of their 'western' team of amateur scouts, and he told me that there wasn't a single scout in the Detroit organization who saw all the top prospects play live let alone the later ranked guys (just talking NA, not international), so when they did their meetings they all put in their two cents on various players and the GM/AGM/Head of Amateur Scouting would ask this/that about guys and maybe ask the scouts to go have another look if they could, but there would be virtually no 'consensus' as not every scout could see every guy.

[smithers joe]

another thing is if a team has 30 scouts and you have half of them say one guy is the bpa and the other half saying, billy jo jim bob is the bpa, you could have several choices as BPO.

[smithers joe]

many teams missed on pasternac. that will probably be even more evident this draft.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

Ok, this is actually a good point. Yes, every team's list is a consensus between their various scouts. But it is not just a democratically voted list. The DAS will have the final say, and it is his job to know his scouts and know who to trust. Nobody is saying it is easy to figure out who the BPA is, but it needs to be attempted. Much of the argument against BPa seems to be something like "it is too hard to figure out, and nobody really knows for sure, so why bother?".

 

... Not sure what this has to do with Pettersson though?

Re:petey - hes an example of taking a player at 5 that most rankings had lower. Hes a good example of tbe BPA variability problem. Turns out he should have gone higher.

 

I do think good scouts can get close tho. Bob Mackenzie e.g. had Petey at 7. 

 

So when i look at Clarke Ive seen him between 2 and 8. If we win 2nd oa i would be happy to pick him because he fills a need that is so hard to get outside of a draft, even though maybe there's a winger who might be ranked one or two spots above him assuming our scouting group really likes Clark. 

 

http://www.mynhldraft.com/added.php?url=http://www.horseraceinsider.com/nhl/NHL-Draft-New/2017-nhl-draft-rankings

[Warhippy]

13 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Chychrun is the Yotes #1 Dman and had a pretty great breakout year. He’s surpassed OEL. He was 2nd in points for them only 2 points behind Kessel for team lead. Lead the Yotes in ice time. 2nd in goals for the Yotes and he was on pace for over 25 goals.  Lead all NHL defenseman in goals and was tied for 10th with our own Quinn Hughes for points among all defenseman.   
 

He brings a lot more than just offensive play too. He just turned 23 in March.
 

If Power’s game matures properly like Chychrun’s did he will probably end up better than Chychrun. IMO Chychrun is almost pretty much at a Chabot level with the year he had. 

if we took a 1st overall that was taking 5+ years to develop in to a 1b defender there would be blood in the streets.

 

I was on board with wanting Chyrchrun for the entire year he was drafted, but was wildly underwhelmed by him after his draft.

 

He's slowly coming about but it's very slowly.

 

We need, should we net that 1st overall to hit it out of the park and I don't see Powers doing it for us over Brandt

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

BPA definitely varies team to team but Vancouver definitely had Petey as the BPA at the time. Glass was perceived as BPA to a lot of people because we didn’t get to see Petey play as much as the scouts did and they were extremely high on him, there was talk the Canucks would trade down to get the guy they wanted but the belief is that the Rangers would have taken Petey had we traded down so we weren’t the only team hip to him. If he played in North America we wouldn’t have had a shot at drafting him. He fell due to where he played and the competition being tougher to evaluate but he was higher on some draft boards then would have been perceived by the general public. Most picks made are what the team would deem the BPA, but the odd pick is definitely made for positional need

Thats a good point too - as fans we dont get to see the Canucks internal process, so what we see as a draft day miss or reach might be Jim's BPA.

 

I dont envy scouts one bit, it has to be brutal pressure to get high picks right.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

if we took a 1st overall that was taking 5+ years to develop in to a 1b defender there would be blood in the streets.

 

I was on board with wanting Chyrchrun for the entire year he was drafted, but was wildly underwhelmed by him after his draft.

 

He's slowly coming about but it's very slowly.

 

We need, should we net that 1st overall to hit it out of the park and I don't see Powers doing it for us over Brandt

Chychrun has been effective his whole career since being drafted, this was just his breakout campaign. He’s played in the league his entire career since being drafted, didn’t go back to junior and never played in the AHL. He’s been hard to play against since coming into the league and had one season where he was under 20 points, at 16. He’s played over 20 minutes a games in every year outside of his rookie year where he almost averaged 17 a game. He’s a strong guy that hits, blocks shots and now puts up points as a 23 year old defender. If you were underwhelmed with him, given everything he brings to the table, then you are very hard to impress haha. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

another thing is if a team has 30 scouts and you have half of them say one guy is the bpa and the other half saying, billy jo jim bob is the bpa, you could have several choices as BPO.

That’s where Jim Benning comes in.  All this talk of attributing picks to Judd Brackett etc is kind of funny. 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:

That’s where Jim Benning comes in.  All this talk of attributing picks to Judd Brackett etc is kind of funny. 

GM has final say on picks and generally had a lot of input on 1st rounders, picks outside of the 1st generally (and did for the Canucks) fall on the head of the scouting department. Most goalie picks come down to who your goalie coach likes. Which is why the Jackets have so many young, talented goalies in that system blossoming now, because Ian Clarke had a large say in who they were taking and who he could develop. Let’s hope Clarke re signs this off season 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, hammertime said:

A1

1 Eklund probably a winger in the NHL

2 Lysell

3 Johnson 

 

A2

Sergi Chibisov I think??

I think they also consult with Larionov still.

Thanks for the answer... 

 

I have to say that I’ve been very happy with both Podkolzin and Zlodeyev so far, so whoever is responsible for them should be given even more attention in our organization.