2021 NHL Entry Draft

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

3 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

What's the deal with that Finland line? I haven't had a chance to watch them yet. But I've learned over the years that that kind of production has to be taken seriously at a major international tournament. 1.5 p/g doesn't always mean anything, but history has shown us that if an entire line keeps up at upwards of 2 p/g for the whole tournament, at least one of them has to be legit, probably two. With Yakupov-Grigorenko-Kucherov, everyone thought Kucherov was the tag-along - wow did that ever make people look stupid. At U20s with Puljujarvi-Aho-Laine, everyone figured Aho was along for the ride. Tkachuk-Matthews-Bracco. Keller-Brown-Yamamoto. Stuetzle-Elias-Peterka.

Would be fun to see if someone takes a flyer on Elias. He has to be one of the younger players eligible for this draft too.

[Bure_Pavel]

On 5/1/2021 at 11:39 AM, hammertime said:

So if you exclude the big 4 D and Beniers. Who's your guy? 

1. Kent Johnson

2. William Eklund

3. Dylan Guenther

[hammertime]

36 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

1. Kent Johnson

2. William Eklund

3. Dylan Guenther

Thanks for your reply. This is where we run into trouble. IMO I see Johnson as a Tyson Jost comparable. Now I'm a big fan of Jost. However if we look at our team needs as you said we need a C or a RHD.   If we peg Johnson at a potential offensive sheltered 2/3C  VS Guenther Eklund as potential 1/2 wingers we may be better off drafting the wingers and flipping them or one of our other wingers they out perform later for a defensive 3c ++

[Bure_Pavel]

17 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Thanks for your reply. This is where we run into trouble. IMO I see Johnson as a Tyson Jost comparable. Now I'm a big fan of Jost. However if we look at our team needs as you said we need a C or a RHD.   If we peg Johnson at a potential offensive sheltered 2/3C  VS Guenther Eklund as potential 1/2 wingers we may be better off drafting the wingers and flipping them or one of our other wingers they out perform later for a defensive 3c ++

I personally see Kent Johnson as a clear step above Tyson Jost. Jost is likely a 2/3C but I see Johnson as a 2C/1LW similar to Eklund. 

 

Production wise the players who have been able to put up 1pt/game in their draft year at the NCAA level are scarce. He is in good company.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Bure_Pavel

[HighOnHockey]

1 hour ago, hammertime said:

Thanks for your reply. This is where we run into trouble. IMO I see Johnson as a Tyson Jost comparable. Now I'm a big fan of Jost. However if we look at our team needs as you said we need a C or a RHD.   If we peg Johnson at a potential offensive sheltered 2/3C  VS Guenther Eklund as potential 1/2 wingers we may be better off drafting the wingers and flipping them or one of our other wingers they out perform later for a defensive 3c ++

I have to disagree with some of your assessment on Johnson. For starters, Jost was a highly skilled junior player, sure, but what made him a top prospect was all of the intangibles. To give an accurate scouting report on Jost you would talk about his skating, hands, passing, shooting, but you also had to talk about his work ethic, 200 foot hockey sense, tenacity on the forecheck and backcheck, faceoff ability, penalty killing. What made him such a great prospect was that if all the skills panned out you would have an elite two-way center, but if not you'd still have a solid depth center.

 

Johnson is a more purely skilled offensive center. Nothing against his work ethic or defensive ability - I actually really like his effort level with and around the puck. But he's not exactly what you would call a two-way forward. Not so much due to a weakness in his defensive play as to questionable decision-making with the puck. His creativity with the puck is easily the best in the draft in my opinion, and his skillset is in the top three of four in the class. So for one thing, no team is going to draft him in the top ten if they think his upside is a sheltered 2/3 offensive center. The team that drafts him will be a team that thinks he has a legit chance to be an offensive superstar. I have said myself that I see some Kyle Turris in him, but teams who think that is all he is will wait until outside the top ten. Most likely there is some team in the top ten somewhere that thinks he is a legit offensive dynamo. So basically where we disagree is that you seem to be just looking at their upside and saying that Eklund, Guenther have better upside. This is a weak way of thinking about things. Johnson has better upside than Guenther, but Guenther is a safer pick. But of course even that is an over-simplistic way of looking at it.

 

One thing I like to do for fun is break prospects into three or more categories of potential. So lets say Kent Johnson has a 25% chance to be a top line superstar, a 50% chance to be a 2/3 offensive center, and a 25% to bust outright. Guenther might have a 15% to be a top line winger, a 75% chance to be a 2/3 winger, and a 10% chance to bust.

[HighOnHockey]

Just watched the Russia-Belarus game. Chibrikov was a little disappointing in this one. He obviously has a ton of upside, but something always seems just a little bit off. In this one his line was stuck in the defensive zone an awful lot, which maybe shouldn't be too surprising. I've always thought Ilya Kvochko was a pretty good two-way center, but he is underage. And the other player on that line is Michkov, who is practically double-underage. I really like Michkov's hustle on the backcheck, but he is still a little lost in his own zone at this level. And I'd really like to see a little more hustle from Chibrikov away from the puck.

 

I'm calling that one the top offensive line, but Russia's actual top line, and the one that commanded the offensive zone possession was, of course, Miroshnichenko-Svechkov-Yurov. I currently have Miroshnichenko ranked number two for 2022 behind only Shane Wright, and Yurov is a 2003 late birthday, currently number six on my 2022 list. The only 2021 draft-eligible on that line is Svechkov, who showed exactly what I've come to expect from him - phenomenal 200 foot hockey sense, excellent playmaking abiity and when he has the puck with time and space he is brilliant at using deception to draw defenders out of positions to open passing plays, but he still lacks high-end stickhandling ability with limited time and space.

 

I like Katelevsky quite a bit too. Great on faceoffs, excellent skater, good hands, good defensively, fairly pro-style game. He'd be a good second round pick. One more player I quite like is Vsevolod Gaidamak. Good size and strength, and he's not the most highly skilled forward, but he always finds ways to create scoring chances due to elite hockey sense.

[Sean Monahan]

Why don’t I see much talk about Beniers? The regulars in this thread watch way more junior and euro hockey than I do so I’m just looking for opinions. Beniers looked awesome for a draft eligible at the WJC and everything I read about him sounds great. 
 

I know a centre isn’t our top need but you can never have too many quality pivots. 

[HighOnHockey]

9 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

Why don’t I see much talk about Beniers? The regulars in this thread watch way more junior and euro hockey than I do so I’m just looking for opinions. Beniers looked awesome for a draft eligible at the WJC and everything I read about him sounds great. 
 

I know a centre isn’t our top need but you can never have too many quality pivots. 

He's number two on my list, but it's so close right from one through six or seven that I wouldn't be surprised or upset if my teams (Vancouver and Ottawa) get any one of them. Beniers is an elite two-way center first and foremost. Arguably the best defensive forward in the draft. Great hockey sense, hustle, tenacity. Forechecks and backchecks hard and smart. Good in the corners and around the net. He's always above the puck. Offensively, his skating and hockey sense are his best assets. He's not what I would call creative, but he sees the ice well and his mind is quick enough to keep up with his hands and feet, which are impressive. His skating is great in that he's not just fast, but shifty and deceptive. Pretty smooth, but I've seen him blow a tire trying to spin off a check in the corner on a couple occasions. Hands are quick and pretty good in tight spaces, but he's not much of a deker - more likely to try to beat defenders with his speed, or he also likes to do this move where he'll slow up and do a pivot side to side while he waits for reinforcements, and then he'll either pass it off or cut laterally.

 

I've seen comparisons to Jonathan Toews and I don't mind that one, but he doesn't have Toews' hands. The best comparison I've been able to think of is Dylan Larkin. Some will say that the upside isn't high enough to warrant a top three pick, but the way I see it, he's pretty much a lock to be a second line center a la Ryan Kesler or Mike Fisher, and there's enough offensive upside that he could develop into a two-way franchise center a la Toews/Bergeron. I look at other players in the top ten like Guenther, Sillinger, and I see similarly safe top six forward picks, but not the same possible upside, and then I look at guys like Luke Hughes, Eklund, Johnson, Lucius, Lysell with similar or better upside, but more risk factors. Beniers is a nice combination of safety first plus upside. There's almost certainly going to be better players picked in the top ten, but you can't go wrong with Beniers with any pick, including first overall.

[Sean Monahan]

30 minutes ago, HighOnHockey said:

He's number two on my list, but it's so close right from one through six or seven that I wouldn't be surprised or upset if my teams (Vancouver and Ottawa) get any one of them. Beniers is an elite two-way center first and foremost. Arguably the best defensive forward in the draft. Great hockey sense, hustle, tenacity. Forechecks and backchecks hard and smart. Good in the corners and around the net. He's always above the puck. Offensively, his skating and hockey sense are his best assets. He's not what I would call creative, but he sees the ice well and his mind is quick enough to keep up with his hands and feet, which are impressive. His skating is great in that he's not just fast, but shifty and deceptive. Pretty smooth, but I've seen him blow a tire trying to spin off a check in the corner on a couple occasions. Hands are quick and pretty good in tight spaces, but he's not much of a deker - more likely to try to beat defenders with his speed, or he also likes to do this move where he'll slow up and do a pivot side to side while he waits for reinforcements, and then he'll either pass it off or cut laterally.

 

I've seen comparisons to Jonathan Toews and I don't mind that one, but he doesn't have Toews' hands. The best comparison I've been able to think of is Dylan Larkin. Some will say that the upside isn't high enough to warrant a top three pick, but the way I see it, he's pretty much a lock to be a second line center a la Ryan Kesler or Mike Fisher, and there's enough offensive upside that he could develop into a two-way franchise center a la Toews/Bergeron. I look at other players in the top ten like Guenther, Sillinger, and I see similarly safe top six forward picks, but not the same possible upside, and then I look at guys like Luke Hughes, Eklund, Johnson, Lucius, Lysell with similar or better upside, but more risk factors. Beniers is a nice combination of safety first plus upside. There's almost certainly going to be better players picked in the top ten, but you can't go wrong with Beniers with any pick, including first overall.

I can’t think of many cup-winning teams that didn’t have one of these horses in their top 6. Bergeron, Toews, ROR, Kopitar, and Crosby in recent years. Washington and Tampa are the exceptions but Tampa was loaded all over and Washington wasn’t much different. 

[Nicklas Bo Hunter]

If there were hockey gods then the canucks would really win 1st overall this years... screwed in previous years and this covid thing... 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

If there were hockey gods then the canucks would really win 1st overall this years... screwed in previous years and this covid thing... 

I'll take 3rd overall and be happy with it.  

 

@HighOnHockey it sounds like you're describing a Philip Danault then when talking about Beniers?  Canucks right now have a bunch of converted centers in Lind and Jasek, some mediocre ones in Graovac and Michaelis, and a couple of veterans that may or may not be back in Sutter and Beagle.  Besides Carson Focht, we're pretty thin in the middle (Zlodeyev and Costmar and long long shots to ever make it). 

[hammertime]

5 hours ago, HighOnHockey said:

I have to disagree with some of your assessment on Johnson. For starters, Jost was a highly skilled junior player, sure, but what made him a top prospect was all of the intangibles. To give an accurate scouting report on Jost you would talk about his skating, hands, passing, shooting, but you also had to talk about his work ethic, 200 foot hockey sense, tenacity on the forecheck and backcheck, faceoff ability, penalty killing. What made him such a great prospect was that if all the skills panned out you would have an elite two-way center, but if not you'd still have a solid depth center.

 

Johnson is a more purely skilled offensive center. Nothing against his work ethic or defensive ability - I actually really like his effort level with and around the puck. But he's not exactly what you would call a two-way forward. Not so much due to a weakness in his defensive play as to questionable decision-making with the puck. His creativity with the puck is easily the best in the draft in my opinion, and his skillset is in the top three of four in the class. So for one thing, no team is going to draft him in the top ten if they think his upside is a sheltered 2/3 offensive center. The team that drafts him will be a team that thinks he has a legit chance to be an offensive superstar. I have said myself that I see some Kyle Turris in him, but teams who think that is all he is will wait until outside the top ten. Most likely there is some team in the top ten somewhere that thinks he is a legit offensive dynamo. So basically where we disagree is that you seem to be just looking at their upside and saying that Eklund, Guenther have better upside. This is a weak way of thinking about things. Johnson has better upside than Guenther, but Guenther is a safer pick. But of course even that is an over-simplistic way of looking at it.

 

One thing I like to do for fun is break prospects into three or more categories of potential. So lets say Kent Johnson has a 25% chance to be a top line superstar, a 50% chance to be a 2/3 offensive center, and a 25% to bust outright. Guenther might have a 15% to be a top line winger, a 75% chance to be a 2/3 winger, and a 10% chance to bust.

I think we agree?? 

 

I have both Eklund and Guenther ahead of Johnson because if we draft Johnson the guy he is going to have to compete with for ice time is Cap Bo Horvat or play 3rd line and I don't think that will suit him very well. Where I think both Elkund and Guenther have a better opportunity to thrive on the Canucks.  Or crazy thought we could actually draft the 3C we really need in Fyodor who's game couldn't possibly mesh better with Podkolzin. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by hammertime

[HighOnHockey]

58 minutes ago, hammertime said:

I think we agree?? 

 

I have both Eklund and Guenther ahead of Johnson because if we draft Johnson the guy he is going to have to compete with for ice time is Cap Bo Horvat or play 3rd line and I don't think that will suit him very well. Where I think both Elkund and Guenther have a better opportunity to thrive on the Canucks.  Or crazy thought we could actually draft the 3C we really need in Fyodor who's game couldn't possibly mesh better with Podkolzin. 

Oh, yeah I think I misunderstood you just a little bit. We come to the same conclusions, but our reasoning to get there is different. You're thinking more specifically to Canucks, I'm just thinking about my list in general. For now that's all I'm focused on.

 

A little closer to the draft, once the order is set, I'll do my mock draft, which is based not on team needs but GM and scouts' tendencies. It's usually the most accurate mock draft I see online anywhere. Two years ago I had my personal best 8 picks dead on. Last year wasn't quite as good, it was either 5 or 6. Doubt I can beat 8 this year with all the mystery surrounding this draft, but I'll give it my best shot.

 

Honestly, I'm about as hardline BPA as you can get. For starters, it takes four or five years for prospects to start reaching their potential, and team needs right now might not be the same as team needs in five years. And perhaps more importantly, value is everything - if you pick the best, most valuable player, then you can trade him for team needs later one.

[HighOnHockey]

2 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I'll take 3rd overall and be happy with it.  

 

@HighOnHockey it sounds like you're describing a Philip Danault then when talking about Beniers?  Canucks right now have a bunch of converted centers in Lind and Jasek, some mediocre ones in Graovac and Michaelis, and a couple of veterans that may or may not be back in Sutter and Beagle.  Besides Carson Focht, we're pretty thin in the middle (Zlodeyev and Costmar and long long shots to ever make it). 

Well, I already mentioned Fisher and Kesler, but if Danault resonates more with you, then sure, same idea. But I want to emphasize that I believe that is more of a "floor". I hate that term because the imagery implies a worst case scenario. Of course there is a chance, however minuscule, that any prospect can flop. But my point is there is a very high chance that Beniers reaches at least Danault level. But he also has a dynamic element that Danault never had (I don't remember much about Kes or Fish as prospects, but I don't believe they did either). That element came in flashes with the NTDP program, and came out in spades at the U20s, but he tends to play a safer game against older players in NCAA. So we know he has it in him, the question is just whether his skillset can continue to keep up as he moves up levels. Another way to put it is, based on watching him at NCAA, essentially everything he does will translate to the NHL level, but that's more of a safe, dependable two-way center a la Danault; but based on watching him at U20s, he was doing things that he was able to do at that level, that he may or may not be able to do at higher levels, depending on whether his technical skills can keep up.

[Canucks Curse]

we need good C and good D

 

? MacTavish? will be in our range - I bet we pick 10th

 

a few problems

- we never really did a proper re-build where we scorched the earth like Toronto did for 2 years and traded all vets for picks, look at Ottawa, multiple years with multiple 1st rounders and 2nds, many picks etc...

- we actually traded away picks

- OJ instead of MT, Mcann instead of Pastranak, Virtanen instead of Ehlers or Nylander

 

only now are we seeing our second wave of prospects start to play their very first NHL games- Lind, maybe gadjo, dipietro, rathbone

[komodo0921]

19 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

we need good C and good D

 

? MacTavish? will be in our range - I bet we pick 10th

 

a few problems

- we never really did a proper re-build where we scorched the earth like Toronto did for 2 years and traded all vets for picks, look at Ottawa, multiple years with multiple 1st rounders and 2nds, many picks etc...

- we actually traded away picks

- OJ instead of MT, Mcann instead of Pastranak, Virtanen instead of Ehlers or Nylander

 

only now are we seeing our second wave of prospects start to play their very first NHL games- Lind, maybe gadjo, dipietro, rathbone

Judging by their play, it is very possible that we lose out and go 0-11 in these last games.

Anaheim is poised to lose their last games and New Jersey may win one more against Philly.

If this did happen, we'd be the fourth seed in the draft lottery with the odds having us picking 5th.

[Junkyard Dog]

32 minutes ago, Canucks Curse said:

we need good C and good D

 

? MacTavish? will be in our range - I bet we pick 10th

 

a few problems

- we never really did a proper re-build where we scorched the earth like Toronto did for 2 years and traded all vets for picks, look at Ottawa, multiple years with multiple 1st rounders and 2nds, many picks etc...

- we actually traded away picks

- OJ instead of MT, Mcann instead of Pastranak, Virtanen instead of Ehlers or Nylander

 

only now are we seeing our second wave of prospects start to play their very first NHL games- Lind, maybe gadjo, dipietro, rathbone

I don't think we need a C. We can use another offensive right-handed winger over a C or a Dman.  We have Petey/Miller/Horvat as it stands. We need a 3rd line C but I wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on that.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

4 minutes ago, komodo0921 said:

Judging by their play, it is very possible that we lose out and go 0-11 in these last games.

Anaheim is poised to lose their last games and New Jersey may win one more against Philly.

If this did happen, we'd be the fourth seed in the draft lottery with the odds having us picking 5th.

10 games left. 8 of those games are back to backs. I don't see us winning many.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Just now, Junkyard Dog said:

10 games left. 8 of those games are back to backs. I don't see us winning many.

Out goaltending isn't remotely that weak for us to lose another 10 games in a row.  Unless Demko doesn't start in any of them.

[Junkyard Dog]

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Out goaltending isn't remotely that weak for us to lose another 10 games in a row.  Unless Demko doesn't start in any of them.

It has been average lately and we need stellar goaltending if we are to win games. John/John were right about that. Both Holtby and Demko have been pretty average as of late.