2007 Born for the 2023 Draft

[Kingpin794]

I think that would be a cop out by the League if that is true to be honest. The whole reason for it is to encourage teams to pick players that won’t report.

No. The rule is not there so teams can pick whoever they want. It’s there in case you don’t get a commitment every once in a while. The league would much prefer teams take someone that reports rather than teams consistently missing. It’s a last resort back stop not a strategy.

 

[Hockeyfan1980]

Part of the whole drafting process is projection. We are all going to be shocked come draft day when names that have rarely been spoke of on here show up in the first three rounds. To many, the odds are that the smaller player with skill and speed has peaked, while the bigger player has more upside. In the past this was true, that thought has been changing among teams, but the smaller players have to show the ability to dominate at U16 to be at least in consideration for a top round spot. At the next level, players are only much bigger and stronger and if you're constantly getting knocked around at U16, the OHL isn't going to be any easier.

 

[DeletedAccountt]

No. The rule is not there so teams can pick whoever they want. It’s there in case you don’t get a commitment every once in a while. The league would much prefer teams take someone that reports rather than teams consistently missing. It’s a last resort back stop not a strategy.

The league may not have intended it as a strategic situation but the GMs are using it as a strategy for sure...

 

[Torts]

Didn't Niagara declare Sam Dickinson defective last year to initiate the trade to London. I thought you're not able to get compensation picks due to defected players two seasons in a row. I could be wrong though.

 

[Kingpin794]

The league may not have intended it as a strategic situation but the GMs are using it as a strategy for sure...

You’re still not going to build up a team by consistently purposefully taking players that won’t report. That’s what OMG was talking about.

Now if GM’s are taking BPA because they fully believe they can recruit a player and the compensation is there if they can’t, then yeah. That’s a valid strategy to use every once in a while.

 

[DeletedAccountt]

You’re still not going to build up a team by consistently purposefully taking players that won’t report. That’s what OMG was talking about.

Well no you can't do this, because the rules don't allow it. As @Torts said

I do get what you're saying though. I think the comp pick is dumb in general, I don't think anyone should be rewarded and I think it just enables kids to not report more and more in the future and dictate where they want to go.


although, I can't find the rule in writing anywhere, typical OHL.

 

[Bra Wavers]

Didn't Niagara declare Sam Dickinson defective last year to initiate the trade to London. I thought you're not able to get compensation picks due to defected players two seasons in a row. I could be wrong though.

I was thinking the same........I believe you are right about this........so, if Niagara drafts a kid who doesn't want to report does it turn into a game of chicken?
The kid could go play in the OJHL or USHL instead but what if his goal is to to play in the OHL and he's just concerned about the climate with the IceDogs.
Could Niagara, in order to prove themselves, say to a kid : "we are going to draft you and offer you this deal".

Commit yourself to being an IceDog and we will work hard to develop you; if we reach the trade deadline and you are not happy we will trade you.

This gives Niagara time to work with the kid - he should get lots of ice-time, including special teams.

Probably easier to reach and draft a kid that will report but drawing a line in the sand may be accomplished by doing what I've stated above.
I hope for the sake of the fans of the Ice Dogs that Schaefer doesn't get drafted by Erie and agrees to come to Niagara.

 

[DeletedAccountt]

I was thinking the same........I believe you are right about this........so, if Niagara drafts a kid who doesn't want to report does it turn into a game of chicken?
The kid could go play in the OJHL or USHL instead but what if his goal is to to play in the OHL and he's just concerned about the climate with the IceDogs.
Could Niagara, in order to prove themselves, say to a kid : "we are going to draft you and offer you this deal".

Commit yourself to being an IceDog and we will work hard to develop you; if we reach the trade deadline and you are not happy we will trade you.

This gives Niagara time to work with the kid - he should get lots of ice-time, including special teams.

Probably easier to reach and draft a kid that will report but drawing a line in the sand may be accomplished by doing what I've stated above.
I hope for the sake of the fans of the Ice Dogs that Schaefer doesn't get drafted by Erie and agrees to come to Niagara.

I can see Niagara having to take someone like Griffin at 2.. similar to what @GermanSpitfire said in his mock, they may have to go down and grab someone and entice them with going 2nd overall to get them to report. Can you see this happening? I do agree I hope Erie doesn't take Schaefer (or Martin, lol )

 

[OHL4Life]

I guess the challenge is the game is changing. It seems like the better bet for more certain production are the smaller skilled players. They tend to work out at the high level than the big players with less skill and holes in their skating. The problem is when the big kid with less skill and holes in skating actually work out, they are far superior to the small skilled players.

Roobroeck clearly has a hole in his game right now and the risk is whether he can fill in those gaps. IF he does, he’s a monster. If he doesn’t, he’s not impactful. He’s Charlie Stephens. The smaller kid with crazy skill will typically translate that skill in the OHL by 17 years old. But that player has a lower impact ceiling. If you want to win a Championship, you gotta have the bigger bodies in the playoffs or at least it helps tremendously.

We see someone like Stan Butler drafting big and rarely competing at a high level Because those big guys don’t have the same development curve. Too many of them don’t develop as hoped.

The key, to me, is to pick and choose your spots. But, I’m not getting paid to make decisions so what the hell would I know? I can only speculate with the rest of us.

i think the premium on higher end big guys makes them more valuable higher in the draft, its just logical. these guys are hard to find, so if you think that you can get one, do it. there are tons of smaller skilled guys taken after the 5th that end up being very good players, so why would you take one in the 1st?

look at the past 4/5 champions, hamilton x2, guelph, erie and london, there are maybe 2 guys under 5.9. im all for smaller skill but im also a bit of a believer in learning from the past, and i think those numbers are very very telling.

I was thinking the same........I believe you are right about this........so, if Niagara drafts a kid who doesn't want to report does it turn into a game of chicken?
The kid could go play in the OJHL or USHL instead but what if his goal is to to play in the OHL and he's just concerned about the climate with the IceDogs.
Could Niagara, in order to prove themselves, say to a kid : "we are going to draft you and offer you this deal".

Commit yourself to being an IceDog and we will work hard to develop you; if we reach the trade deadline and you are not happy we will trade you.

This gives Niagara time to work with the kid - he should get lots of ice-time, including special teams.

Probably easier to reach and draft a kid that will report but drawing a line in the sand may be accomplished by doing what I've stated above.
I hope for the sake of the fans of the Ice Dogs that Schaefer doesn't get drafted by Erie and agrees to come to Niagara.

you can still trade him outright for draft picks, just not get the extra 1st the next year.

 

[Tornado675]

Has anyone heard anything in the OHL Combine?

 

[GermanSpitfire]

having been in the league and drafting for a team, you need to be careful, the soo drafted the most small kids in history and they didnt win. they traded for bigger guys like ritchie when it was go time. look at the trades at the deadline, teams are loading up on playoff types. do you want to ignore them at draft day and then trade 6 picks for them a year later, or do you draft them and have them and not give up the picks.

It’s an interesting discussion for sure.

Even that Hamilton team that you mentioned later on in this thread had smaller kids like Staios, Diaco and Hayes, then come the deadline the reinforced them with McTavish and Xhekaj.

I think if you were to look back using hindsight for most drafts, the kids that rise more often than not are the kids that were smaller on draft day.

Size is a limiting factor in the NHL, OHL? Not so much in my opinion.

 

[OHL4Life]

It’s an interesting discussion for sure.

Even that Hamilton team that you mentioned later on in this thread had smaller kids like Staios, Diaco and Hayes, then come the deadline the reinforced them with McTavish and Xhekaj.

I think if you were to look back using hindsight for most drafts, the kids that rise more often than not are the kids that were smaller on draft day.

Size is a limiting factor in the NHL, OHL? Not so much in my opinion.

your not really arguing what im saying, your agreeing with it, just drawing different conclusions. i said those championship teams had 2/3 guys under 5/9, and you seem to agree by listing 2/3 guys. but even they are not 5'6 or 5'7. 5'9 is not that big of a deal for a 16 year old ,but 5'6, i dont see many 5'6 or 5'7 guys that end up being the lead players on championship teams that were drafted in the top 40 of the draft. hayes is great, but he was 5'9 in his draft year out of honeybaked, diaco is a great player, but he was drafted in the 6th, not the 1st.

we seemingly are talking about 2 different things. im not saying small guys are bad, im saying that you need to target them in the right spot, hayes and diaco are great examples of guys taken after the top 80 who became great players. thats where you target those players, finding guys that play with skill and are over 6ft is so hard that you need to put a premium on them right away, because you wont find them later on. you will find the smaller guys later on, there are tons of guys taken in the mid to late round that are successful under 5'8, not so much forwards over 6ft after the 6th. teams like hamilton where great with those guys as secondary players riding the other players with some size that where taken higher. smart and effective drafting by hamilton.

you also need to be aware of team dynamic, team play, defensive positioning and such with your coaches when drafting, you may think that a 5'7 d is outstanding, but if your team structure relies on d with long reaches and taking away time and space with active sticks and gaps, the 5'7 d doesnt fit the team make up.

 

[Logosarejusttargets]

Has anyone heard anything in the OHL Combine?

The Ontario Hockey League today announced that the 2023 OHL Development Combine presented by Dairy Farmers of Ontario will be held Saturday, April 15 and Sunday, April 16 at the Tribute Communities Centre in Oshawa.

 

[OMG67]

your not really arguing what im saying, your agreeing with it, just drawing different conclusions. i said those championship teams had 2/3 guys under 5/9, and you seem to agree by listing 2/3 guys. but even they are not 5'6 or 5'7. 5'9 is not that big of a deal for a 16 year old ,but 5'6, i dont see many 5'6 or 5'7 guys that end up being the lead players on championship teams that were drafted in the top 40 of the draft. hayes is great, but he was 5'9 in his draft year out of honeybaked, diaco is a great player, but he was drafted in the 6th, not the 1st.

we seemingly are talking about 2 different things. im not saying small guys are bad, im saying that you need to target them in the right spot, hayes and diaco are great examples of guys taken after the top 80 who became great players. thats where you target those players, finding guys that play with skill and are over 6ft is so hard that you need to put a premium on them right away, because you wont find them later on. you will find the smaller guys later on, there are tons of guys taken in the mid to late round that are successful under 5'8, not so much forwards over 6ft after the 6th. teams like hamilton where great with those guys as secondary players riding the other players with some size that where taken higher. smart and effective drafting by hamilton.

you also need to be aware of team dynamic, team play, defensive positioning and such with your coaches when drafting, you may think that a 5'7 d is outstanding, but if your team structure relies on d with long reaches and taking away time and space with active sticks and gaps, the 5'7 d doesnt fit the team make up.

It is definitely interesting. To me, you have to draft based on high ceiling in rounds 1 and 2. The kids after round two progressively have lower ceilings. But, you are correct that you simply don’t find bigger impact players even in the middle rounds 4-6. IF you do, it is plain luck.

You are also correct that the players traded to contenders at the deadline tend to be the bigger players the team is devoid of. How often on this forum do we see the fans say they need to add a player with size that can play top 6 or top 4? Very often.

The one advantage to taking the smaller player is they tend to play the full 4 years. A kid like Byfield is gone at 18.

Teams that play with pace and rely on skating have less patience for developing bigger players that can’t skate at the level their system requires. IT may be better for those teams to acquire a finished product, even if the cost to do so is somewhat prohibitive. As you mentioned, team makeup is important. Butler is going to draft big from round 1 through round 15. Ottawa is going to draft skill and add the big when they need it. Different philosophies.

I have to admit that this thread has become a hell of a lot more interesting with this turn in focus. Much more to think about!

 

[OHL4Life]

It is definitely interesting. To me, you have to draft based on high ceiling in rounds 1 and 2. The kids after round two progressively have lower ceilings. But, you are correct that you simply don’t find bigger impact players even in the middle rounds 4-6. IF you do, it is plain luck.

You are also correct that the players traded to contenders at the deadline tend to be the bigger players the team is devoid of. How often on this forum do we see the fans say they need to add a player with size that can play top 6 or top 4? Very often.

The one advantage to taking the smaller player is they tend to play the full 4 years. A kid like Byfield is gone at 18.

Teams that play with pace and rely on skating have less patience for developing bigger players that can’t skate at the level their system requires. IT may be better for those teams to acquire a finished product, even if the cost to do so is somewhat prohibitive. As you mentioned, team makeup is important. Butler is going to draft big from round 1 through round 15. Ottawa is going to draft skill and add the big when they need it. Different philosophies.

I have to admit that this thread has become a hell of a lot more interesting with this turn in focus. Much more to think about!

its much more complex then most know, when you are with a team its not so easy to just make a list of the 'best players', its the best players that your team wants. most scouts, me included, have alot of biases, we love a local kid or a big kid but that does the team no benefit if they dont fit into the team structure.

if i was still scouting or looking to get into it, id read the room and look at the trades that happen and look hard at the compete/skilled type of players who are 5'9 or above. they are the hardest to find and if you find one, they become more and more valuable. compete has become some sort of bad word among alot of online scouts as if a player with compete cant have skill, but look at someone like stonehouse. hes a perfect compliment to a bigger skill guy like morrison, hes average size but plays 6'2 and has great skill. the pure skill guys without that same level of compete are not as valuable imo. imagine if ottawa wanted to trade him and what the return would be?

 

[OMG67]

its much more complex then most know, when you are with a team its not so easy to just make a list of the 'best players', its the best players that your team wants. most scouts, me included, have alot of biases, we love a local kid or a big kid but that does the team no benefit if they dont fit into the team structure.

if i was still scouting or looking to get into it, id read the room and look at the trades that happen and look hard at the compete/skilled type of players who are 5'9 or above. they are the hardest to find and if you find one, they become more and more valuable. compete has become some sort of bad word among alot of online scouts as if a player with compete cant have skill, but look at someone like stonehouse. hes a perfect compliment to a bigger skill guy like morrison, hes average size but plays 6'2 and has great skill. the pure skill guys without that same level of compete are not as valuable imo. imagine if ottawa wanted to trade him and what the return would be?

Understood. I wasn’t aware the term “compete” was no longer a primary asset. To me, that has always been a key asset. Guys with motors that are fearless without being reckless are tremendously important.

Stonehouse is a good example.

I know Kilrea put his emphasis first on skating and second on compete level. Size was further down the list. If you can’t skate, you can’t play was always his philosophy. He could teach a kid to play hockey provided he could skate. The other thing he said he couldn’t teach is how to score. You either have a sense for it or you don’t. You can’t teach it.

Instincts are also valuable. Some call it seeing the ice but really it is instinct. Having a strong sense of how plays will unfold and where vulnerabilities exist to be taken advantage of.

Then there are the players with all the tools and no toolbox. Guys gifted with exceptional skill but just no sense on how to use it.

Then you have the bigger players but no courage. They play 5’8”.

The scouts have a tough job interpreting what they see and many times only have a handful of views to see it!

 

[OHL4Life]

Understood. I wasn’t aware the term “compete” was no longer a primary asset. To me, that has always been a key asset. Guys with motors that are fearless without being reckless are tremendously important.

Stonehouse is a good example.

I know Kilrea put his emphasis first on skating and second on compete level. Size was further down the list. If you can’t skate, you can’t play was always his philosophy. He could teach a kid to play hockey provided he could skate. The other thing he said he couldn’t teach is how to score. You either have a sense for it or you don’t. You can’t teach it.

Instincts are also valuable. Some call it seeing the ice but really it is instinct. Having a strong sense of how plays will unfold and where vulnerabilities exist to be taken advantage of.

Then there are the players with all the tools and no toolbox. Guys gifted with exceptional skill but just no sense on how to use it.

Then you have the bigger players but no courage. They play 5’8”.

The scouts have a tough job interpreting what they see and many times only have a handful of views to see it!

i only read what i see on twitter and here, maybe thats my issue, but compete level is something that is lemented by alot of online scouts because its suggested you cant measure it and that skill is more important. i would argue that compete can be measured by in person scouting and when partnered with skill, makes a player way more valuable.

 

[OMG67]

i only read what i see on twitter and here, maybe thats my issue, but compete level is something that is lemented by alot of online scouts because its suggested you cant measure it and that skill is more important. i would argue that compete can be measured by in person scouting and when partnered with skill, makes a player way more valuable.

100%. Compete level can be measured. The difficulty, I would imagine, is having enough viewings to ensure there is consistency of that compete level. I could see why, from that perspective, it would be difficult to measure and apply a score. Skill is on display every second they are on the ice. But, to me, compete is whether smaller kids have a willingness to go up against bigger kids physically and whether bigger kids can dominate the smaller kids and punish them. IT is about going into tough areas and fighting for position. Are they pressing the play defensively and hunting for turnover opportunities? Are they playing the body or the puck? Is the effort int he defensive zone consistent with the effort int he offensive zone? Is there a significant difference in effort throughout the game, consistency of shifts? Is the player more aggressive when behind on the scoreboard?

Skill with a lack of compete leads to an inconsistent perimeter player no matter how big or small a player is. The higher the level of compete, the more impactful a player will be and the more value you get from the level of skill. Skill and compete would need to be measured together. Compete is meaningless if there is no skill and skill is meaningless if there is no compete.

 

[OHL4Life]

100%. Compete level can be measured. The difficulty, I would imagine, is having enough viewings to ensure there is consistency of that compete level. I could see why, from that perspective, it would be difficult to measure and apply a score. Skill is on display every second they are on the ice. But, to me, compete is whether smaller kids have a willingness to go up against bigger kids physically and whether bigger kids can dominate the smaller kids and punish them. IT is about going into tough areas and fighting for position. Are they pressing the play defensively and hunting for turnover opportunities? Are they playing the body or the puck? Is the effort int he defensive zone consistent with the effort int he offensive zone? Is there a significant difference in effort throughout the game, consistency of shifts? Is the player more aggressive when behind on the scoreboard?

Skill with a lack of compete leads to an inconsistent perimeter player no matter how big or small a player is. The higher the level of compete, the more impactful a player will be and the more value you get from the level of skill. Skill and compete would need to be measured together. Compete is meaningless if there is no skill and skill is meaningless if there is no compete.

and with a 5'7 player, no matter the skill, if the compete level isnt high enough to overcome the 6'2 defender, it doesnt matter how skilled he is, its why plenty of higher end skill guys never make it or are drafted well below what their individual skills would suggest. i can get a good feel in person over a year, during covid when it went all video i struggled alot with judging it.

 

[OMG67]

and with a 5'7 player, no matter the skill, if the compete level isnt high enough to overcome the 6'2 defender, it doesnt matter how skilled he is, its why plenty of higher end skill guys never make it or are drafted well below what their individual skills would suggest. i can get a good feel in person over a year, during covid when it went all video i struggled alot with judging it.

I guess the advantage at the OHL Level is good franchises have area scouts and unless there is a major tourney, you don’t leave your area. IT allows you to see many of the top players a lot but mostly just in your area.

 

[OHL4Life]

I guess the advantage at the OHL Level is good franchises have area scouts and unless there is a major tourney, you don’t leave your area. IT allows you to see many of the top players a lot but mostly just in your area.

tournaments are vital, the only way you can realistically see players out of your area, its a long drive from windsor to whitby but its worth it if you see 30 of the best teams in ontario in one spot.

 

[dirty12]

I guess the challenge is the game is changing. It seems like the better bet for more certain production are the smaller skilled players. They tend to work out at the high level than the big players with less skill and holes in their skating. The problem is when the big kid with less skill and holes in skating actually work out, they are far superior to the small skilled players.

Roobroeck clearly has a hole in his game right now and the risk is whether he can fill in those gaps. IF he does, he’s a monster. If he doesn’t, he’s not impactful. He’s Charlie Stephens. The smaller kid with crazy skill will typically translate that skill in the OHL by 17 years old. But that player has a lower impact ceiling. If you want to win a Championship, you gotta have the bigger bodies in the playoffs or at least it helps tremendously.

We see someone like Stan Butler drafting big and rarely competing at a high level Because those big guys don’t have the same development curve. Too many of them don’t develop as hoped.

The key, to me, is to pick and choose your spots. But, I’m not getting paid to make decisions so what the hell would I know? I can only speculate with the rest of us.

The big players genarally

No. The rule is not there so teams can pick whoever they want. It’s there in case you don’t get a commitment every once in a while. The league would much prefer teams take someone that reports rather than teams consistently missing. It’s a last resort back stop not a strategy.

oh, it's a strategy. It takes an extra year to re-tool, but almost certainly worth going the defect route.

 

[dirty12]

It’s an interesting discussion for sure.

Even that Hamilton team that you mentioned later on in this thread had smaller kids like Staios, Diaco and Hayes, then come the deadline the reinforced them with McTavish and Xhekaj.

I think if you were to look back using hindsight for most drafts, the kids that rise more often than not are the kids that were smaller on draft day.

Size is a limiting factor in the NHL, OHL? Not so much in my opinion.

The current mostly agreed upon ideal size for a hockey player is 6’1”, 195lbs. Surround those players with massive D/big checking line or speedy forwards/smaller skilled D to suit your style.

 

[OMG67]

The current mostly agreed upon ideal size for a hockey player is 6’1”, 195lbs. Surround those players with massive D/big checking line or speedy forwards/smaller skilled D to suit your style.

I think if you can throw 3 guys that ideal size down the middle and have two skilled D-Men at that size, you have a quality foundation. Oh! And don’t forget about the 6’2”+ Goalie.

 

[dirty12]

I think if you can throw 3 guys that ideal size down the middle and have two skilled D-Men at that size, you have a quality foundation. Oh! And don’t forget about the 6’2”+ Goalie.

Minimum!
Equipment restrictions were the demise of the smaller goalie