2021 NHL Entry Draft

[Dixon Ward]

2 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

there are rumors that Buffalo Sabres might get another top 10 pick - most likely in a Jack Eichel trade or Sam Reinhart trade-.

 

- Sam Reinhart to Columbus for their 5oa is in the rumor mill.

- Jack Eichel  to Anaheim for their 3oa ?

- Sam Reinhart to LA for their 8 oa?

 

I expect movement in the draft order within the top 10 in this years draft either ahead of the draft or at draft day.

I would expect Eichel to get a lot more than a high 1st round pick.  Anaheim would have to add.

[HighOnHockey]

7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In discussion with @HighOnHockey, he stated that in the first couple of rounds it is always BPA, which I agree with, in my own warped way.

 

But I see draft rankings as fluid, not so rigid lists. For example, I see the top 32 players, as a list like this

 

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

5. Sillinger, Lucius, Lysell

6. Chibrikov, Ceulemans, Lambos, Cossa

7. Othmann, Bourgault, Coronato, Ollasson, Pastujov, Svechov, Bolduc, Pinelli, L'Heureux

8. Rosen, Chayka, Robertson, Tuomaala, Raty, Morrow

 

Now, I see this as, you can draft from above your ranking, if someone is left, or from your position in the draft, if nothing else is available, but all the names in one group are ranked very close, so it is not wrong to take someone else in your grouping, because of course, you believe they are in the appropriate line.

 

Of course, each NHL team will have different groupings, but will probably be closer in large groupings like this than individual rankings. So, yes, if you are on line 4 and everyone above you is taken and you need a goalie, you take Wallstedt.....if you need a center, you take McTavish, you may even take someone from the group directly below you if you really like a guy, but usually, they will be in a appropriate grouping.

 

It should be noted, that you can have a grouping of 1, at anytime within your rankings...aka If a McDavid type player is in it, or group 4 only has one name in that line. But the point is,  it is somewhat broad.

 

PS....you may disagree with my rankings or my lines, but I am only 1 GM, of 32, so each list is individual, of course!

 

 

 

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

[hammertime]

14 hours ago, Alflives said:

Maybe it’s a compete thing?  

I think Lysell maybe has the highest compete of any player in the top 20. 

 

I think deployment has far more to do with it. 

[hammertime]

26 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

I think you are right when it comes to high picks you want it nailed down. I do expect there to be discussions among scouts in later rounds as each scout likely has their guy they are pushing for.

[HighOnHockey]

7 hours ago, Sp3nny said:

I guess what I said was very basic, but at the heart of it, I meant what you said in your second paragraph. Yes they are the same size, but if Eklund is doing extremely well at that size, you aren't going to list his size as a problem, as he demonstrates that it doesn't hold him back. If Lysell is struggling at his size, and you can't pin it on his skills or his motor/compete, what are you left with to explain his struggle? The glaringly obvious and easy thing to pin it on is his size, which I personally don't agree with, as he doesn't exactly play small. Yes, he has his struggles getting muscled off the puck, but its not like he can't win a puck battle to save his life.

 

As far as why he is being underanked by CS, that's a mystery to me. I'm by no means a scout, and I will fully admit to few showings on Lysell past YouTube packages, shift-by-shift, and the U18's, but the two obvious things that can kill your ranking are less than stellar stats, and less than desirable stature. But maybe (and likely) they know something we don't.

 

PS. I still adore Eklund. Such a talented kid. He was my early standout, and everytime I watch him I come away impressed.

Well, I would agree with you about size just being the easy thing to pin it on. I do think Central goes way overboard (unless the rumors of off-ice/attitude issues are for real), but I do totally understand why some people are hesitant. I don't mean to criticize his hockey IQ per se, but he's not what you call a pro-style player. It's been a very tough transition to the pro game for him, and as I've said the issues are compounded by his size because he is a guy who based so much of his game in junior on attacking the inside and challenging defenders.

 

If you've ever quit a bad habit, you'll get why I put so much emphasis on pro-translatability - it is easy to say "well just stop making those immature plays", but when the player is used to being the most skilled player on the ice his whole life and has had success deking everything in sight, you're telling him to stop doing the things that have made him successful and got him where he is. The player needs new strategies, needs help to figure out what they should be doing instead. If the player has the desire and the hockey IQ, then yeah he''ll figure it out, but it is going to take some time. But yeah, when there's multiple issues (size and pro-translatability) compounded like this, it's gonna give a lot of teams pause, even despite a lot of glaring positives. And I want to emphasize again that I don't use the word "compounded" here randomly - these two issues are directly related: if he's just not able to do the things that made him successful in junior and he can't figure out how to adapt right away, it could start to plant the seed of doubt in his head.

 

But I agree on Eklund, can we just stop and admire for a moment? When I was doing player comparisons, almost every comparison I used was a current active player. With Eklund, I had to go all the way back to Paul Kariya. And I still think that's the only possible comparison. The expression "skates circles around the competition" takes on whole new meaning with Eklund. And just watch him go 4th overall like Kariya too.

[Alflives]

17 minutes ago, hammertime said:

I think Lysell maybe has the highest compete of any player in the top 20. 

 

I think deployment has far more to do with it. 

I checked rankings, and he seems to be a guy right about where we pick.  If it’s between him and Gunther which his the higher upside to be a play driving winger?  

[Sp3nny]

7 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

couple of things to explain why Lysell's output / play is behind Eklund's:

 

1. Eklund has one of the highest Hockey IQ in this year's draft class, a much higher Hockey IQ than Lysell

2. Have read some scouting reports and multiple times the issue inconsistency was mentioned in connection with Lysell

3. Heard about off-ice issues Lysell has had

4. Comparison Lysell / Eklund is partly unfair because Eklund played 40 SHL games vs. Lysell 26 games, of course Eklund has put more points in 40 games than Lysell in 26

 

 

For sure Eklund is the better player, no question. The original question was about why Lysell gets questioned for size and Eklund doesn't, when they are the same size. I wasn't trying to target who is better, just a more "on the surface" look into why size is mentioned with Lysell, but not much for Eklund. Your points are all very valid though.

 

I think another thing is their playstyle. Lysell is a buzz-saw type, attacking anything in sight, and taking defenders on directly. As the competition gets tougher and bigger, that is going to work less and less. And his size doesn't necessarily help that play style going forward.

 

Eklund is much better in the way he uses his size to his advantage, which could be chalked up to an IQ thing for me. And the results (basically all statistics) speak for themselves when you compare them.

[JM_]

8 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

In discussion with @HighOnHockey, he stated that in the first couple of rounds it is always BPA, which I agree with, in my own warped way.

 

But I see draft rankings as fluid, not so rigid lists. For example, I see the top 32 players, as a list like this

 

1. Power and Benier

2. Hughes, Guenther, Clarke

3. Edvinsson, Eklund, Johnson

4. McTavish, Wallstedt

5. Sillinger, Lucius, Lysell

6. Chibrikov, Ceulemans, Lambos, Cossa

7. Othmann, Bourgault, Coronato, Ollasson, Pastujov, Svechov, Bolduc, Pinelli, L'Heureux

8. Rosen, Chayka, Robertson, Tuomaala, Raty, Morrow

 

Now, I see this as, you can draft from above your ranking, if someone is left, or from your position in the draft, if nothing else is available, but all the names in one group are ranked very close, so it is not wrong to take someone else in your grouping, because of course, you believe they are in the appropriate line.

 

Of course, each NHL team will have different groupings, but will probably be closer in large groupings like this than individual rankings. So, yes, if you are on line 4 and everyone above you is taken and you need a goalie, you take Wallstedt.....if you need a center, you take McTavish, you may even take someone from the group directly below you if you really like a guy, but usually, they will be in a appropriate grouping.

 

It should be noted, that you can have a grouping of 1, at anytime within your rankings...aka If a McDavid type player is in it, or group 4 only has one name in that line. But the point is,  it is somewhat broad.

 

PS....you may disagree with my rankings or my lines, but I am only 1 GM, of 32, so each list is individual, of course!

 

 

 

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

You’re raising the right question Jimmy.  We don’t know our team’s list, so the BPA could be anyone in what the public rankings see as the top 15.  Lambos or Cuelemans could certainly be in Benning’s top ten.  

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You’re raising the right question Jimmy.  We don’t know our team’s list, so the BPA could be anyone in what the public rankings see as the top 15.  Lambos or Cuelemans could certainly be in Benning’s top ten.  

Ceulemans might be the most interesting situation, apparently very raw but IF he works out he's what we need. But its a gamble compared to what we know about others. And we won't see him for at least 2 years. 

[AC Readership]

I don't get the talk of trading of the 2022 1st and/or 2023 1st cause I don't think the Canucks will be a playoff team next season and the year after, if anything you want more tickets for the talents coming out the next 2 years.

 

Miller definitely can get a 1st plus.

[flickyoursedin]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I checked rankings, and he seems to be a guy right about where we pick.  If it’s between him and Gunther which his the higher upside to be a play driving winger?  

Guenther has the higher offensive potential. But any one of these kids could develop a cut ahead of the rest. I like Guenther a tad bit more especially for our Canucks. He’s a bit bigger and has a better shot.

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

Well, it's a neat idea, but makes me think of a kid in school doing a multiple choice exam, and for each question they write "well, I've narrowed it down to three options, either a, c, or d. And this next one is either b or c."

 

If you're a GM and your head scout brings you that, you're going to say "OK, nice start, but let me know when it's finished and every pick is in order."

 

Imagine being at the draft table and you're busy trying to field calls and make trades, and you still have to worry about consulting with your scouting director at every pick because he and his staff (but ultimately the blame has to fall on the head guy) were indecisive and gave you a half-finished list? And the list you posted is not even close to half-finished.

Well, ultimately, draft choices come down to a personal decision of who you think is better, but every year, most experts are wrong at the draft table, and the best of the class is not picked first. So, really, the ranking system used today, is very imperfect anyways. 

 

Numbers and rankings are subjective at best, so I don't see your point. I see you trying to justify an imperfect system.

 

The point I am making is that the players being ranked are for the most part, being ranked into a list of players where this guy is better than that guy, but the fact is, how do you really separate 2 players that are extremely close in actual talent, but play different positions in different leagues. What I suggest is that those that are grouped close together have no difference in value, so in fact you could choose any of the group and not be wrong, as in most cases, the list is ultimately wrong anyways. (Which is just about always proven in redrafts...aka hind sight.) 

 

The problem is not, whether you like one kid over another in a grouping, but whether your rankings or grouping are correct, and whether you reach outside your rankings.......think Virtanen, or even Juolevi.

 

It is all subjective, and in most drafts, you could look back and say that you could have taken any of these guys and had a better result that what you had.

 

It is not to say, you do not scout and breakdown the list, but rather afterwards, where you have the info, and you are sitting in the middle of a draft, needing to pick a kid, needing a defenseman, but the defenseman is one number below this other kid. or there are 2 defenseman, who do you pick, well again Benning went off his list and they took Juolevi, and have been proven wrong......so I don't get your objection. or you do it on a forward and then you find out Virtanen was 32nd on every body else's list. 

Edited June 21, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So if I'm reading this ^ right, and I may not be, you'd be happy with Ceulemans if e.g, McTavish is gone by 9? would you be OK with Jim reaching down a bit if the scouting group is really convinced he's the BPA?

 

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

[Gawdzukes]

14 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

Well said. At some points the players are so close it's nearly impossible to rank them one over another so tiers are very useful. Similar in a way to fantasy football drafting. When this close sometimes you have visualize who out of several players can you picture making an impact, or even simply being a fit on your team.

[Alflives]

30 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

I like this idea of groups or tiers of drafting.  I’m thinking, with this draft class, a lot of teams’ tiers (or groups) will be different.  Is Beniers in the top tier, or is Clark?  I’m thinking Power might be the only guy in all teams’ top group.  Then it’s going to be all over the place.  Lambos and Ceulemans and Svechkov will be in some teams’ top ten.  I fudged your groups a bit.

1. Power 

2. Clark, Beniers, Eklund, McTavish

3. Edvinsson, Hughes, Wallstadt

4. Geunther, Svechkov, Johnson, Ceulemans, Lambos

Edited June 21, 2021 by Alflives

[flickyoursedin]

I can really see a good player falling to us! I see McTavish being a Center and playing the way he does I can see him going 5th or 6th to Columbus or Detroit. If he goes 5th I can see Detroit taking Wellstedt. One more of these skilled guys we didn’t think will make it to us should be there. Hopefully it’s whom Benning wants (likely one of the top 4 dmen) otherwise I feel like he flips our pick for Reinhart. It’s not what I want I can just see Benning doing it lol.

[JM_]

38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, if McTavish is gone, it means one of Groups 1, 2, 3 are still on the table, so basically, you are sitting in that spot, so say Edvinsson is still above you.................

 

So you have to pass on a group above you and the one your in, to then reach below you for a player you want........basically, I would not, because you are passing players above you.

 

Ultimately, it is not much different than single rankings, Jimmy, but it does allow you the freedom to pick any one of a group of players, if they are in your grouping.

 

Truthfully, it does not change a thing, and only is a different way of splitting them up to look at them and help you decide. 

 

I mean, drafting is really subjective anyways. I mean how do you really prove who is the best anyways............Orr, Gretzky or Roy....just saying, you really can't.

 

I mean no body can ever convince me that Gretzky is better than Orr, but there are 5,000,000 people who live in Edmonton that will tell you different....are they really wrong?

 

I am just saying there is a different way to separate them. Scouts are actually doing this today, as they are saying its a flat draft after the first 2, where you could take any of the next 9 and not be wrong.....I am sure you have heard/read  that. And in some years they say, well the draft really separates after the mid-2nd round, etc.

 

All I am saying is if you have Guenther, Hughes and Wallstedt and they are all in the same grouping with Wallstedt being the highest ranking, you are not wrong if you need a LHD and you choose Hughes. I think it is done all the time.

Yeah you have a pretty healthy take on this Jan, its hard for Jim to get this "wrong" but my guess is the usual suspects will find fault with the pick 

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

I think this draft will be all over the place

[J.I.A.H.N]

@HighOnHockey

 

I am serious here, because I want to know

 

But with so many players, in lower rounds

 

It must be very hard to rank them

 

Are you able to explain this to me, I am sure it is the same process

 

But for us novice's, we have to trust pro scouting services, because we don't get the exposure to these guys, and for me, they tend to blend in too much.