Even the back 15 don't look to bad. There is some talent all the way to the back of the 2nd round and early 3rd even. Lot's of potential for hidden gems in the 2nd/3rd rounds.
2016 NHL Entry Draft Discussion
- Thread starter mcpw
- Start date
- Status
Even the back 15 don't look to bad. There is some talent all the way to the back of the 2nd round and early 3rd even. Lot's of potential for hidden gems in the 2nd/3rd rounds.
This is my Mid-January Mid-Season Top 30 so far.
The top end of the draft is actually easier to rank but the back end is crazy. The talent level drops but there are so many possible middling players in this draft it actually doesn't look to bad. Potential for a lot of hidden gems in there too.
I have a feeling this one will go down as a pretty deep draft considering the one it is following up but the difference in talent level is noticeable.
I'll compare it to my end of the season rankings to see who rises and falls in the back half of the season.
1. Auston Matthews - C - 6'2 - 198 - NLA
2. Jakob Chychrun - LHD - 6'2 - 194 - OHL
3. Jesse Puljujarvi - RW - 6'3 - 201 - Liiga
4. Patrick Laine - RW - 6'4 - 209 - Liiga
5. Matthew Tkachuk - LW - 6'1 - 194 - OHL
6. Olli Juolevi - LHD - 6'2 - 183 - OHL
7. Alex Nylander - RW - 6'0 - 176 - OHL
8. Mikhail Sergachyov - LHD - 6'2 - 205 - OHL
9. Pierre-Luc Dubois - C - 6'3 - 201 - QMJHL
10. Mike McLeod - C - 6'2 - 187 - OHL
11. Tyson Jost - C - 6'0 - 194 - BCHL
12. German Rubstov - C - 6'1 - 174 - MHL
13. Keiffer Bellows - C - 6'1 - 194 - USNTDP
14. Dante Fabbro - RHD - 6'1 - 185 - BCHL
15. Logan Brown - C - 6'6 - 218 - OHL
16. Clayton Keller - C - 5'10 - 170 - USNTDP
17. Julien Gauthier - RW - 6'4 - 225 - QMJHL
18. Max Jones - LW - 6'2 - 201 - OHL
19. Tyler Benson - LW - 6'0 - 201 - WHL
20. Charlie McAvoy- LHD - 6'0 - 205 - NCAA
21. Markus Niemelainen - LHD - 6'5 - 190 - OHL
22. Jake Bean - LHD - 6'1 - 172 - WHL
23. Sam Steel - C - 5'11 - 176 - WHL
24. Alex DeBrincat - C - 5'7 - 151- OHL
25. Riley Tuft - LW - 6'5 - 190 - USHL
26. Vitali Abramov - LW - 5'9 - 170 - QMJHL
27. Luke Kunin - C - 6'0 - 196 - NCAA
28. Dillon Dube - C - 5'11 - 181 - WHL
29. Carl Grundstrom - LW - 6'0 - 194 - SHL
30. Samuel Girard - LHD - 5'9 - 165 - QMJHL
The top end of the draft is actually easier to rank but the back end is crazy. The talent level drops but there are so many possible middling players in this draft it actually doesn't look to bad. Potential for a lot of hidden gems in there too.
I have a feeling this one will go down as a pretty deep draft considering the one it is following up but the difference in talent level is noticeable.
I'll compare it to my end of the season rankings to see who rises and falls in the back half of the season.
1. Auston Matthews - C - 6'2 - 198 - NLA
2. Jakob Chychrun - LHD - 6'2 - 194 - OHL
3. Jesse Puljujarvi - RW - 6'3 - 201 - Liiga
4. Patrick Laine - RW - 6'4 - 209 - Liiga
5. Matthew Tkachuk - LW - 6'1 - 194 - OHL
6. Olli Juolevi - LHD - 6'2 - 183 - OHL
7. Alex Nylander - RW - 6'0 - 176 - OHL
8. Mikhail Sergachyov - LHD - 6'2 - 205 - OHL
9. Pierre-Luc Dubois - C - 6'3 - 201 - QMJHL
10. Mike McLeod - C - 6'2 - 187 - OHL
11. Tyson Jost - C - 6'0 - 194 - BCHL
12. German Rubstov - C - 6'1 - 174 - MHL
13. Keiffer Bellows - C - 6'1 - 194 - USNTDP
14. Dante Fabbro - RHD - 6'1 - 185 - BCHL
15. Logan Brown - C - 6'6 - 218 - OHL
16. Clayton Keller - C - 5'10 - 170 - USNTDP
17. Julien Gauthier - RW - 6'4 - 225 - QMJHL
18. Max Jones - LW - 6'2 - 201 - OHL
19. Tyler Benson - LW - 6'0 - 201 - WHL
20. Charlie McAvoy- LHD - 6'0 - 205 - NCAA
21. Markus Niemelainen - LHD - 6'5 - 190 - OHL
22. Jake Bean - LHD - 6'1 - 172 - WHL
23. Sam Steel - C - 5'11 - 176 - WHL
24. Alex DeBrincat - C - 5'7 - 151- OHL
25. Riley Tuft - LW - 6'5 - 190 - USHL
26. Vitali Abramov - LW - 5'9 - 170 - QMJHL
27. Luke Kunin - C - 6'0 - 196 - NCAA
28. Dillon Dube - C - 5'11 - 181 - WHL
29. Carl Grundstrom - LW - 6'0 - 194 - SHL
30. Samuel Girard - LHD - 5'9 - 165 - QMJHL
Board Bard
Dane-O-Mite
- Jun 7, 2014
- 7,920
- 5,137
Empirically there will be a better choice between players, but I don't think anything exists yet that can identify that choice to the point where it should rule all of a GM's choices, or hold ultimate sway among closely ranked players. Draft models like PCS help because they give you more information for your draft guesses. The variables used in PCS -- how many are used? 9 or 10? -- might be more than the tip of the iceberg, they might even be most of the iceberg, but they aren't all of the iceberg. You can probably go back a few hundred years and find scientists, kings and popes who could give you 9 or 10 reasons why they knew definitively -- not guessing, but knew definitively -- that the earth was flat. Apart from obvious choices like McEichel and Matthews there's still going to be an amount of guesswork for GMs using PCS and whatever in-house methods they use. In many cases even you can't say that according to PCS, player X is better than player Y; you are limited to saying player X gives a higher probability of being better than player Y -- and that's only according to the criteria PCS has deemed worthy of consideration, and in proportions PCS has deemed appropriate. So passing up an organizational need among a group of closely ranked players because one of them is ranked marginally higher, in a system you admit yourself is imperfect, is too slavish an adherence to rote.
Saw Dillon Dube tonight, and Benson a few weeks ago.
I gotta say, Barzal went mid-round last year, he is two levels better than Benson and at least one better than Dube.
Not meant to knock your list, but the depth is not in the same place as last year.
Otherwise, nice work.
While it's true that Barzal went mid round, at this time last year he was projected to go top 5 in some rankings and definitely top 10 in others. His rankings dropped because he was injured for a large portion of the season. He also likely would have went higher if Boston didn't go off the board with 3 straight picks.
The Depth is not in the same place in terms of the middle of the draft but there are undoubtably some interesting picks up to the 3rd round, which would make this a deep draft compared to most years outside of 2015.
A large number of scouts think this draft could turn out to be very deep. We'll see in about 4-5 years how many of them become NHlers. I'm actually pretty excited about getting some extra 2nd rounders even if possible.
PhilJets
Winnipeg is Good
Nice thanks!
Lots of LHD, I will check this guy out now, see where the Jets fall comes season end. If Jets are not getting the top 4 forwards, the top 3 LHD looks mighty fine!
Constable
corona fiend
- Mar 17, 2014
- 3,390
- 115
Here's a interesting name; Yegor Babenko.
Has 2 years of full time juniors under his belt, came close to ppg in the MHL (4 points off) and is going PPG on Lethbridge. The catch is he's 5'8 and was draft eligible for a year now but im surprised no one took him.
I think he'd be a good pickup for the 7th round.
Has 2 years of full time juniors under his belt, came close to ppg in the MHL (4 points off) and is going PPG on Lethbridge. The catch is he's 5'8 and was draft eligible for a year now but im surprised no one took him.
I think he'd be a good pickup for the 7th round.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 58,421
- 30,449
I noticed him in the WHL stats leaders but haven't had the opportunity to see Lethbridge yet this season.
He is undoubtedly getting over looked a little, even though Lethbridge is one of the best teams in the Dub right now. Haven't seen a single list with him on it. His size shouldn't matter as much given the height of many of the other higher ranked forwards. Seems the Johnson-Gaudreau effect is helping scouts and teams over come height differences a little but still some guys get over looked.
I think the first reach we see could be a team reaching for one of Jost/Fabbro. Kids have a ton of talent.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
The argument was: does organizational depth/need ever supersede BPA.
Theoretically you use need for tie breakers, but really I have never had, nor have seen anyone else have, two players considered identically equal.
You want to draft the best player available. Period.
You want this because draft picks are weighted lottery tickets. Not only is the best player likely garner you more value, but they are also more likely to actually give any value, since ceiling and safe is a related factor (exception: KHL factor).
In addition, so much can change in organizational needs 4-6 years down the road, when the average prospect enters the NHL as a regular. Look at the "your team in 5 years" thread in the main boards, no one is even close.
The perfection (or really lack thereof) of any model or even scouting is another discussion altogether really.
Once you combine all your information (qualitative factors from scouts and quantitative factors from models like PCS) you try to determine who are the best players. When you do that you are trying to maximize the chance that you are right. You are assuming player A is BPA and not player B. That's what you have decided. You do not go for B saying "hey all this energy and resources I put that assumes A>B may be wrong and B plays D and I need more D".
Yes, your assumption may be wrong, because there are factors not accounted for yet and ones that would be impossible to know yet (freak accidents, etc.). Going for B is considering yourself wrong.
Knowing that you COULD be wrong is different than assuming you ARE wrong.
Going for the need over what you believe to be BPA is doing the latter, you don't want to undermine your scouts and your analysts.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 58,421
- 30,449
You appear to be ignoring the uncertainty in rating 17-18 year old kids. If one kid is rated 92 out of 100 and another is rated 91 you obviously take 92 as the BPA. Thing is those ratings are +- 10. Completely made up numbers of course. But 92-91 is probably a reasonable representation of the gap from one draft position to the next and +- 10% is probably conservative. That makes them tied for all practical purposes. When there is a more clear distinction between the player at the top of your list then you take BPA. That certainly does happen. Islanders could have tossed a coin to choose between Barzal and Connor. Maybe they did. Connor was clearly the best player left after they took Barzal. Had they played different positions Islanders could have chosen by need.
drumzan
#NHLJets
- Jul 9, 2011
- 3,470
- 1,539
YES!!!!!!
(Chipman answering Q & A)
Whether they would pursue an All-Star game. He said the NHL Draft and World Jr. rank ahead of an All-Star game are what he would prefer to seek for the city.
http://illegalcurve.com/2016/01/23/q-a-with-jets-co-owner-mark-chipman-at-60th-anniversary-of-mssa/
(Chipman answering Q & A)
Whether they would pursue an All-Star game. He said the NHL Draft and World Jr. rank ahead of an All-Star game are what he would prefer to seek for the city.
http://illegalcurve.com/2016/01/23/q-a-with-jets-co-owner-mark-chipman-at-60th-anniversary-of-mssa/
We're almost getting to a point where a top 5 looks very likely.
One of Matthews, Pulijujarvi, Laine, Tkachuk or Chyckrun. Nice.
Laine or Tkachuk would replace Ladd in far less years than his ask for contract term, I'm guessing. Connor would pick up some slack there as well on left side.
Matthews would give a #1 franchise Center with size and skill.
Pulijujarvi is more like Wheels. Likely Stafford's replacement and upgrade in a few year.
Chyckrun adds LH d depth and possible top pairing. Would replace a departed Buff in terms of minutes and use, in a couple of years, though likely not nearly as offensive.
One of Matthews, Pulijujarvi, Laine, Tkachuk or Chyckrun. Nice.
Laine or Tkachuk would replace Ladd in far less years than his ask for contract term, I'm guessing. Connor would pick up some slack there as well on left side.
Matthews would give a #1 franchise Center with size and skill.
Pulijujarvi is more like Wheels. Likely Stafford's replacement and upgrade in a few year.
Chyckrun adds LH d depth and possible top pairing. Would replace a departed Buff in terms of minutes and use, in a couple of years, though likely not nearly as offensive.
Chippy's been rolling out that "fan at the gas station" story for years now.
Next time I see David Thomson at Esso I'm going to give him an earful!
BrianFromAIH
Long Time Lurker
I don't know why, but Tkachuk doesn't interest me. He'd be a nice pick, but I think at the (hypothetical) 5th I take Nylander or Juolevi.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 35,377
- 33,081
Thank you.
Walt is an intriguing prospect but I feel like he is a complimentary asset and on the other side of a big line in the sand.
We are so landing him aren't we?
BrianFromAIH
Long Time Lurker
Thank you.
Walt is an intriguing prospect but I feel like he is a complimentary asset and on the other side of a big line in the sand.
We are so landing him aren't we?
Oh absolutely.
BrianFromAIH
Long Time Lurker
- Status
