2021 NHL Entry Draft

[Putgolzin]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Your rankings look cherry-picked. Let's see you produce a list of prospects eligible for 2021 RIGHT NOW and explain why each prospect belong there.

 

Dobson hasn't done nearly as much as Hughes has, and I find it laughable that you still think your opinion on Dobson "could still change". Also, next to no one had Pettersson at 5 in 2017. That's another example why I think you are cherrypicking with the benefit of a 20/20 hindsight.

 

Caufield is/was good, but his small size should've been a "concern". I am all for small players succeeding, but there's a reason why he slipped, much like how Podkolzin did too. It doesn't mean they're BAD players. Certainly, Caufield has blossomed for MTL, and I am very happy for him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

I have this ridiculous arrogance that I could have done as well in the 1st round as Benning has.

Except for Pettersson - that was a golden pick.

I don’t remember one person ever talking about Pettersson as a legitimate consideration at #5. Not even in the classic lists of 7 or 8 possibilities that we could choose.

I do remember hundreds of armchair GMs like myself losing their absolute minds cause they thought they’d just witnessed Nonis-PatrickWhite-2.0

 

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

2 hours ago, TGokou said:

Yes you are correct. In that case I could make some relevance for him going slightly higher than where they were drafted. That's why I had him going from 7-12 range. Of course there will always be other factors which I have not considered and that's where scouting would come in. My line of thinking can only place their potential based on their statistics. Most players don't deviate very far from there. However its the intangibles such as heart, internal motivation and commitment to fitness etc. that will really set a player apart. Does Johnson have more of this than say Tyson Jost or an Alex Newhook? That is not my specialty.

Newhook has exceptional speed which will translate to the NHL level and I personally think he has the offensive awareness, ability and want to be a very good top 6 player in the future. Jost also has very good speed and doesn’t have the same offensive skill set outside of speed so he may not be a top 6 mainstay or game breaker but he should contribute in a bottom 6 role if even if he doesn’t progress and adapt from this point on. I personally think Johnson has a better offensive skill set then both players and loads of ability and potential, he doesn’t have the same wheels but he skates well enough and as he gets stronger over the next few years should improve in that area, he also seems to get labeled a bad defensive player but I don’t see that and I think if alot of people really watched him play they would also see that while there is room for improvement in the Dzone he actually understands defensive assignments and plays to them in the Dzone with effort, I think the biggest knock on Johnson is that he’s so good offensively that there are times he tries to do too much but with good coaching at the next level he can easily be taught to pick his spots as long as he is willing to learn and there’s nothing that says he isn’t. Commitment to fitness will

be massive for Johnson because if he gets stronger and is coach able he has the potential to be an absolute nightmare

 

 

Edit: With your criteria were you pretty stoked when the Canucks drafted Jackson Kunz last year? I think we took him in the 4th round and I believe he was the youngest player in the draft. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Marv-the-wet-bandit

[HighOnHockey]

2 hours ago, TGokou said:

I apply this theory to both forwards and defensemen. I have just noticed a more consistent trend within defensemen. I typically bias drafting a forward with the high 1st round pick because I find there is a higher bust/2nd pairing potential with defenseman. With a late round 1st or 2nd round pick I typically bias towards drafting defensemen as there are many top pairing defensemen drafted in that range based on history. This is where I find it benefits if you skew towards the late birthdays as you can find gems in this area that were bypassed in the 1st round because they haven't yet shown the ability to defend at a high level. In case you were wondering I have compared many players and based on the early - late birthday stats I find the general statline is most players tend to improve 20-30% on their stats in that time frame. In other words let's say a player born in July has 40 pts in any given league. I would multiply that by 1.25x to give a comparable to a player born in October-December.

 

Full disclosure, I have often missed some really good players in my draft ranking because I rank the early birthdays too low. This is why Adam Gaudette and Tyler Madden never would've shown up on my radar. Here are some examples of who I would have drafted based on my criteria.

 

2014 Nikolaj Ehlers

2015 I did not have a pick this year (don't remember why)

2016 Matthew Tkachuk

2017 Elias Pettersson (Note : Pettersson was an early birthday but his Allvenskan stats were too good to ignore) - Gabe Vilardi was also very high based on my criteria but the injuries scared me off

2018 - Noah Dobson - Dobson's birthday falls in January so I don't deduct him or give him an advantage. Right now Quinn Hughes looks like the better choice although that could still change as he's looked really good with the Islanders.

2019 - I believe I had forgotten that Podkolzin was available and really wanted Caufield. Podkolzin is a June birthday but his stats scared me off as I find it very difficult to run stats if there are no stats to work off of. This is where my analytics can easily fall short. I would also argue it doesn't really help for this year either as the sample size is too small in most cases.

2019 - 2nd round - Nicholas Robertson was my #1 choice here because he was literally 4 days away from being 2020 eligible. Early returns suggest Hoglander will be the better choice here.

2020 - No 1st or 2nd round pick so I had no interest in the draft

2021 - Like I said the stats are too small of a sample size to make a great selection here. Instead I will predict who might be the best player of the draft and I'm going to say Luke Hughes based on his production and birthday. I would also highly rate Pastujov based on the same criteria although I suspect he will be drafted in the teens.

 

Edit: I also have Corson Ceulemans rated highly because of this criteria.

You've still yet to acknowledge the Malcom Gladwell claim someone mentioned that seems to directly contradict your theory. Just from the Wikipedia synopsis:

 

"The book begins with the observation that a disproportionate number of elite Canadian hockey players are born in the earlier months of the calendar year. The reason behind this is that since youth hockey leagues determine eligibility by the calendar year, children born on January 1 play in the same league as those born on December 31 in the same year. Because children born earlier in the year are statistically larger and more physically mature than their younger competitors, and they are often identified as better athletes, this leads to extra coaching and a higher likelihood of being selected for elite hockey leagues."

 

The argument seems to make sense. Without looking into the actual data he will provide in the book, I'm fairly confident his research and sources will be much better than your "just look up a random selection of defensemen" or "it's pretty much just common knowledge among scouts [says me]."

[HighOnHockey]

3 hours ago, Beary Sweet said:

I'm curious if we go with a kid like Raty at our pick. He's had a slow start this season playing in the Finnish league he was projected to be a top 5 pick last season before the year he had. Sure, he hasn't been clicking but he's a center who I believe can play the wing as well if needed. But, he still has the potential to be the best player in the draft. There's risk involved but sometimes you have to take one in order to grab the best player in the draft. Look at Podz for instance with the last 1st rounder we had and used. Should've been a top 5 pick but because he still had a contract with his Russian team, teams were afraid to take him. Now, he's looking like a star the way he's been able to play when it matters most when he was with SKA. Anywho, this is a wide open draft and hopefully we grab another stud

Completely different situations. Podkolzin fell because of the Russian factor. Raty is falling because people realized he's just not as good as they thought. This is not a big sudden revelation either. It was just Craig Button and a few high-profile names that had him high, cus the media needs to figure out a name to hype. I remember reading from some very smart prospect people last summer saying that Raty would go nowhere close to first overall.

 

I always try to find a way to get excited about whoever my teams pick, but I would be pretty disappointed with Raty.

[flickyoursedin]

3 hours ago, shayster007 said:

I highly doubt Raty goes in the top 10. If we picked him at 9 I wouldn't be pleased. I think he is a talented player, but there are much better options at 9, at least in my opinion.

Raty is going to whichever pick the Hurricanes have. They love picking fins.

[HighOnHockey]

4 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

Raty is going to whichever pick the Hurricanes have. They love picking fins.

Well their director of European scouting behind those picks, Robert Kron, is now gone to Seattle. As is the director of amateur scouting, Tony MacDonald. As is their GM, Ron Francis.

[Bertuzzipunch]

This would be a interesting pick for us in the 3rd round. Why not draft a big guy like this?

 

Roman Schmidt

2020-21 Team: USNTDP Juniors (USHL) #60
Date of Birth: Feb 27, 2003
Place of Birth: Midland, MI, USA
Ht: 6-foot-6 Wt: 209 pounds
Shoots: Right
Position: Right Defenseman
NHL Draft Eligibility: 2021 first-year eligible

[Guest]

I somehow missed this little gem that's out there...  

 

 

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, nzan said:

Agreed.

I have this ridiculous arrogance that I could have done as well in the 1st round as Benning has.

Except for Pettersson - that was a golden pick.

I don’t remember one person ever talking about Pettersson as a legitimate consideration at #5. Not even in the classic lists of 7 or 8 possibilities that we could choose.

I do remember hundreds of armchair GMs like myself losing their absolute minds cause they thought they’d just witnessed Nonis-PatrickWhite-2.0

 

Oh gawd, yeah. Some people heard about Pettersson being good, but his size was definitely a concern. Others thought Pettersson was going to bust (HFBoards was pretty guilty of this). For those who knew about him, almost EVERY SINGLE LIST, minus one of them, did not have Pettersson at 5.

https://thehockeywriters.com/elias-pettersson-2017-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/

 

 

Another list here:

 

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2017-draft/2017-nhl-draft-rankings

 

Hockey Prospect nailed the 2017 draft for the first 5 picks.

 

So therefore, for TGokou to claim he had Pettersson at 5 is completely bollocks. Even if Pettersson was thought to be good, some posters thought he would mostly be available when traded down. In other words, Pettersson at 5 was considered a reach.

 

Obviously, the Canucks were more than comfortable with the guy, given how he had been scouted by Vancouver early on.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Dazzle

[JustABandwagoner]

 

[HighOnHockey]

52 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Oh gawd, yeah. Some people heard about Pettersson being good, but his size was definitely a concern. Others thought Pettersson was going to bust (HFBoards was pretty guilty of this). For those who knew about him, almost EVERY SINGLE LIST, minus one of them, did not have Pettersson at 5.

https://thehockeywriters.com/elias-pettersson-2017-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/

 

 

Another list here:

 

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2017-draft/2017-nhl-draft-rankings

 

Hockey Prospect nailed the 2017 draft for the first 5 picks.

 

So therefore, for TGokou to claim he had Pettersson at 5 is completely bollocks. Even if Pettersson was thought to be good, some posters thought he would mostly be available when traded down. In other words, Pettersson at 5 was considered a reach.

 

Obviously, the Canucks were more than comfortable with the guy, given how he had been scouted by Vancouver early on.

I wasn't following the draft super close that year, and don't seem to have even made a list, but I distinctly remember being confused when people were so appalled with the pick. I'd seen Pettersson at U18s and U20s and he very clearly stood out with his skill both times. Not saying I would have ranked or taken him at five, but I remember at the time of the pick it seemed pretty natural to me.

 

Man seeing all those lists one after another just conforming with Patrick and Hischier over Makar, Heiskanen, Pettersson. A great reminder that in a draft like this where there's no obvious superstars and lots of question marks, you're better off to just trust yourself than go along with the hive.

Edited June 28, 2021 by HighOnHockey

[R3aL]

10 hours ago, Alflives said:

A feared Gunther will be as good as our last top 10 pick from the WHL.  

One of Guenther best qualities is his hockey IQ. The same cannot be said for our last top 10 pick from the WHL. Quite the opposite actually.

[R3aL]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Oh gawd, yeah. Some people heard about Pettersson being good, but his size was definitely a concern. Others thought Pettersson was going to bust (HFBoards was pretty guilty of this). For those who knew about him, almost EVERY SINGLE LIST, minus one of them, did not have Pettersson at 5.

https://thehockeywriters.com/elias-pettersson-2017-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/

 

 

Another list here:

 

http://www.mynhldraft.com/2017-draft/2017-nhl-draft-rankings

 

Hockey Prospect nailed the 2017 draft for the first 5 picks.

 

So therefore, for TGokou to claim he had Pettersson at 5 is completely bollocks. Even if Pettersson was thought to be good, some posters thought he would mostly be available when traded down. In other words, Pettersson at 5 was considered a reach.

 

Obviously, the Canucks were more than comfortable with the guy, given how he had been scouted by Vancouver early on.

Honesty out of all the rankings for drafts I have liked hockey prospect for the most part the most. But this years I don’t agree with the most in my history. Clarke is so low, and edvinsson is second.. like what
 

2017 was interesting

 

predraft I was all over glass being the bpa I was under the understanding if Makar was there we were gonna take him tho.

 

vilardi or liljegren intrigued me too.

 

and when everyone was freaking out about Petey I’m pretty sure I trusted the team on it and got behind the pick 100%. I should go back and read my posts then tho one day just to remember.

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

I wasn't following the draft super close that year, and don't seem to have even made a list, but I distinctly remember being confused when people were so appalled with the pick. I'd seen Pettersson at U18s and U20s and he very clearly stood out with his skill both times. Not saying I would have ranked or taken him at five, but I remember at the time of the pick it seemed pretty natural to me.

 

Man seeing all those lists one after another just conforming with Patrick and Hischier over Makar, Heiskanen, Pettersson. A great reminder that in a draft like this where there's no obvious superstars and lots of question marks, you're better off to just trust yourself than go along with the hive.

I have always liked your takes on this upcoming draft prospects. It's awesome that you love watching young players and then explain in detail about why you like or don't like a player. I also like the fact that you aren't afraid to go against the grain because you've seen the player.

[Dazzle]

4 hours ago, R3aL said:

Honesty out of all the rankings for drafts I have liked hockey prospect for the most part the most. But this years I don’t agree with the most in my history. Clarke is so low, and edvinsson is second.. like what
 

2017 was interesting

 

predraft I was all over glass being the bpa I was under the understanding if Makar was there we were gonna take him tho.

 

vilardi or liljegren intrigued me too.

 

and when everyone was freaking out about Petey I’m pretty sure I trusted the team on it and got behind the pick 100%. I should go back and read my posts then tho one day just to remember.

You did support the Petey pick. I remember going through the thread several times and your name didn't stick out like some people's, like messier's elbow. LOL. Well, to his credit, he realized the error of his ways and recanted what he said after about an hour or so.

 

It's actually surprising that the most negative of the posters of the pick aren't usually found here - HFBoards is a cesspool.

[Gawdzukes]

6 hours ago, R3aL said:

One of Guenther best qualities is his hockey IQ. The same cannot be said for our last top 10 pick from the WHL. Quite the opposite actually.

I think Guenther is going to be an absolute stud. He would benefit this team immensely.

[Wolfgang Durst]

6 hours ago, R3aL said:

Honesty out of all the rankings for drafts I have liked hockey prospect for the most part the most. But this years I don’t agree with the most in my history. Clarke is so low, and edvinsson is second.. like what
 

2017 was interesting

 

predraft I was all over glass being the bpa I was under the understanding if Makar was there we were gonna take him tho.

 

vilardi or liljegren intrigued me too.

 

and when everyone was freaking out about Petey I’m pretty sure I trusted the team on it and got behind the pick 100%. I should go back and read my posts then tho one day just to remember.

interestingly Canucks invited Cody Glass after the Combine to Vancouver and they had additional interviews with him in VAN. Honestly I didn't like Glass that much and hoped for either Vilardi or Mittelstadt.

 

Just two days ago I came across the following quote that came out of Vegas:

 

The Golden Knights lacked depth down the middle. Cody Glass hasn’t developed like they had hoped.

 

Pettersson was the best pick for sure. I remember very well that Ben Kuzma asked Jim Benning after the first round if Benning would have choosen Makar if being available at 5.

[Alflives]

31 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

I think Guenther is going to be an absolute stud. He would benefit this team immensely.

Against his best peers (U18’s) Geunther was very average.  If he does fall to our spot I’m hoping JB either trades down to collect more picks, or reaches for a D like Lambos.  

[Gawdzukes]

19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Against his best peers (U18’s) Geunther was very average.  If he does fall to our spot I’m hoping JB either trades down to collect more picks, or reaches for a D like Lambos.  

True, one tournament doesn't define a player though. This guy seems to do everything goal scoring wise very well in addition to playing a complete game, with a wicked shot.

 

I would rather take Sillinger or Johnson than Lambos, or dropping down. My philosophy is one higher ranked player has a better chance of panning out than two lower ones. Although this draft I wouldn't be terribly upset with a Cueleman's and Svechkov / Raty / Sillinger type situation and then snagging another RD with our second like Morrow or Bar I guess.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Gawdzukes

[HighOnHockey]

10 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

True, one tournament doesn't define a player though. This guy seems to do everything goal scoring wise very well in addition to playing a complete game, with a wicked shot.

 

I would rather take Sillinger or Johnson than Lambos, or dropping down. My philosophy is one higher ranked player has a better chance of panning out than two lower ones. Although this draft I wouldn't be terribly upset with a Cueleman's and Svechkov / Raty / Sillinger type situation and then snagging another RD with our second like Morrow or Bar I guess.

I've said before,I thought Guenther's U18 was under-rated. He's not flashy, but does all the little things right. As I put it, where his teammates were getting credit for scoring goals off the high cycle, Guenther was the guy parked in front of the net. Where his linemates got the credit for getting in hard on the forecheck to casue a turnover, he was the man back in perfect position to eliminate passing lanes.

 

Guenther's season even on paper may look strange at first glance, but it made perfect sense to me. In the WHL amongst older, bigger, stronger, wiser players on average, his hockey IQ and mature style of play allowed him to thrive, but at the U18s where players are smaller and weaker and not as familiar with playing higher-level defensive systems, but on average more purely skilled, it makes sense that Guenther wouldn't stand out as much.