Pre-Game Talk: 2019 NHL Draft, Pt. V: Got your ticket? (Mod note in pinned post)

[rypper]

Someone on one of the local sports radio stations described Caufield as a slower smaller Boeser. Is that way off? I'd hope if a guy was as small as Caufield is he would be quick or at least shifty enough to get around the ice.

 

[CanaFan]

Someone on one of the local sports radio stations described Caufield as a slower smaller Boeser. Is that way off? I'd hope if a guy was as small as Caufield is he would be quick or at least shifty enough to get around the ice.

In no world is Caufield slower than Boeser. I’m fact i’d argue he’s a better skater than Boeser, as he’s quicker off the mark and shiftier laterally than Boeser. People are being ridiculous with Caufield’s skating. He’s a good skater, just not Johnny Gaudreau good.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Because I think that the things Newhook does well - skating, hands, goal scoring - are more valuable or at least more what I value in an NHL scorer. I just *like* Newhook’s particular combination of plus skills a bit more than Krebs, but I don’t think they are really at different skill levels. I think if both hit their upsides, Newhook will out-goal Krebs quite easily while Krebs will probably create more / set up his teammates more. Which in a vacuum probably makes Newhook a bit more valuable as a stand alone asset, even if Krebs might actually be the more valuable player to a team. Sort of a Matt Duchene (Newhook) vs Mike Richards (Krebs) dynamic.

Edit: I should add that when Krebs and Newhook played together at the U18’s along with Cozens, I didn’t think Newhook looked any more skilled or dangerous than Krebs. TBH I found Krebs was more noticeable with the puck and the significantly better (albeit a bit sloppy) passer. Given that’s the only time I’ve ever seen them on the same ice at the same time, that is forming pretty much the entirety of my opinion here. If the Canucks have a higher / lower opinion of these players from the BCHL / WHL seasons then that’s fair, I am only explaining why I see it differently and am surprised they don’t have more stated interest in Krebs. I’m certainly not purporting to have the same eye for talent as NHL scouts. However the guys at HP gave Newhook (who they ranked 17) a 6 / 9 for “skill” and Krebs (ranked 6) a 7 /9.

Newhook being better at key areas like stickhandling, scoring, creativity _is_ what separates him as the more skilled player. You can argue that they are equally as effective, but to state that they are of the same skill level seems to obfuscate the meaning of the term "skill". For example, Ryan O'Reilly may be one of the best thinkers on the ice, but he's not as purely skilled as Matthews. The skill difference between the two is apparent.

Matt Duchene and Mike Richards is a great example. No one would confuse Richards as being the more skilled player. It's the same here.

HP ranking Newhook below Krebs for skill should be an indictment of HP. That just doesn't make sense. Will have to look into it.

 

[docbenton]

In no world is Caufield slower than Boeser. I’m fact i’d argue he’s a better skater than Boeser, as he’s quicker off the mark and shiftier laterally than Boeser. People are being ridiculous with Caufield’s skating. He’s a good skater, just not Johnny Gaudreau good.

Would agree with that, except Gaudreau's not that fast either, just shifty. Caufield is definitely plenty quick. I also like his skill and polish compared to some other players. I just wonder if he'll be able to score from distance in the NHL, very important for a smaller player. Brock definitely shot it harder at the same age. I think he can, but if I were 100% certain I'd have him higher.

 

[CanaFan]

Newhook being better at key areas like stickhandling, scoring, creativity _is_ what separates him as the more skilled player. You can argue that they are equally as effective, but to state that they are of the same skill level seems to obfuscate the meaning of the term "skill". For example, Ryan O'Reilly may be one of the best thinkers on the ice, but he's not as purely skilled as Matthews. The skill difference between the two is apparent.

Matt Duchene and Mike Richards is a great example. No one would confuse Richards as being the more skilled player. It's the same here.

HP ranking Newhook below Krebs for skill should be an indictment of HP. That just doesn't make sense. Will have to look into it.

Oh I’m not saying Newhook isn’t *more* skilled - I agree he is - but I see it as a matter of small degrees rather than an entire tier different. Krebs is still very skilled himself, enough to be in the conversation for our 10th pick, esp when you factor in his own plus traits over Newhook.

And you can take issue with my take or HP’s, it’s all fair game for debate, but I think it confirms that we are talking shades of grey here, not stark differences.

 

[CanaFan]

Would agree with that, except Gaudreau's not that fast either, just shifty. Caufield is definitely plenty quick. I also like his skill and polish compared to some other players. I just wonder if he'll be able to score from distance in the NHL, very important for a smaller player. Brock definitely shot it harder at the same age. I think he can, but if I were 100% certain I'd have him higher.

Gotcha. It’s a legit concern I suppose because until you see a guy do it against NHL level goaltending, you never know for sure. But Caufield just has an uncanny knack for goals. It’s partly his placement, partly the speed with which he gets his shot off, but goalies just can’t read his shot or get set in time. Velocity can come in time with added strength and training. His technique is so good already I can’t imagine he’ll have any troubling with that aspect. If anything concerns me it’s probably nothing to do with his scoring - I think he’s a near sure-bet to be at least a 30 goal PP specialist - but more how much he contributes off the puck both offensively and defensively, as that hasn’t been a big expectation with the NTDP.

 

[Canadian Canuck]

If Turcotte falls to us...HOLY.

 

[biturbo19]

Well put and tbh I don’t really disagree with any of this. Personally I’m not sure Cozens quite has potential to become a Kesler, as I don’t think he has the nasty, do-absolutely-anything it takes to win persona. He seems to give an honest effort on both and I believe he’ll be an NHLer even if his scoring doesn’t translate, but I while I think his flaws read like Kesler I don’t think he has enough of the other attributes to give you a Kesler-like package in the end.

Dach definitely has that “mystery box” upside and perhaps that gives him a boost that he doesn’t really deserve, but at the same time that’s a big part of what the draft is about; namely projecting players trajectory in 3-5 years. I think with Dach, it appears that there is nothing *functionally* stopping him from achieving a high ceiling - size, hands, skating mechanics, vision, creativity, shot are all high/very high level - whereas with Cozens I think people view him with more permanent limitations. I can’t say it will definitely play out that way but that’s how I read it.

Your take on Zegras sounds about right to me, which is why I put him at the top of my list. I do expect Dach to go before him though because you should never underestimate NHL GM’s fixation on 6’4 Centres.

I think the bolded is ultimately what it comes down to. If you view Dach's advantage in vision and creativity as big enough to overcome the rest of the package compared to Cozens. It's a bit of a "devil you know" thing for me, in that i know Cozens doesn't have quite the vision and creativity of Dach, but i know that he has the other tools to be really successful in the NHL with that limitation as an overall package. With Dach, i'm just not sold on the vision and creativity being that elite...because as an overall package, i think elite vision is the thing that he's going to have to lean on.

I can see both sides of it though. I can absolutely understand why a lot of people like Dach a ton, and more than Cozens. I'm just a little more wary.

Interesting you mention Draisatl, because I remember knocking him for the lack of pace, something Dach can also be accused of. I think one mistake when comparing Dach this year vs Draisatl is that this is Dach's 17 year old season and Draisatl was drafted in his 18 year old season. Not a massive issue, but when Draisatl was 17 he was below PPG.

The skill set is tantalizing with Dach though. He's exceptional from the top of the circles down, akin to a non-agitator Matthew Tkachuk, and you just imagine him with 10-20 lbs and some man strength at 25 and it's really hard to knock him down.

I can't say I see the standing around like you're mentioning here either or the lack of vision. He's very much like Getzlaf with his vision and ability to allow the play to run through him. I would sprint to the stage if Dach is there at 10th.

I was a huge Draisaitl booster at that draft. I thought he was the best player in the draft and desperately hoped he'd somehow fall to the Canucks. But i thought that because despite "lacking pace", he seemed to have an ability to bring the entire game down to his pace. That's just not something i consistently see with Dach.

It is fair to mention the age thing, to an extent...but i think the other circumstances there probably outweigh it. In that Draisaitl's first year in the Dub was his first real exposure to North American hockey which can be an adjustment. And probably more importantly...his team was absolute trash both years, but especially his draft year where he completely carried them on his shoulders. He had darn near twice the points of the next highest scorer on that Raiders team that year. He was that team, and it was blatantly obvious watching him. Not that Saskatoon are great right now, but Dach...isn't even the top scorer on his own team.

Dach is undeniably big, and has lots of room to get even stronger and harder to take the puck off of...but i don't see the same consistent purposefulness in the way he uses that size to draw in defenders to open up the lanes he wants like the "elite" big playmakers. More often, it feels like using size to buy time to figure out what he wants to do with the puck. His vision obviously isn't "poor" by any stretch, but like i said above, with his overall package...it seems like it's going to have to be "elite" to really be that Getzlaf type...and i'm not totally sure it is.

I don't know what to say, if you haven't seen the "standing around" with Dach though. It's a pretty noticeable feature of his game a lot of nights for me.

 

[biturbo19]

Oh I’m not saying Newhook isn’t *more* skilled - I agree he is - but I see it as a matter of small degrees rather than an entire tier different. Krebs is still very skilled himself, enough to be in the conversation for our 10th pick, esp when you factor in his own plus traits over Newhook.

And you can take issue with my take or HP’s, it’s all fair game for debate, but I think it confirms that we are talking shades of grey here, not stark differences.

I feel like we're dangerously close to just defining "skill" as pure stick skills in this discussion. Which are important obviously, but there's a lot more to skill than that. Ask Rob Schremp how important stick skills are in the grand scheme of things.

Newhook is definitely the better stickhandler and shooter/finisher/scorer. But i don't see a wide gulf there, and when it comes to the vision, anticipation, positioning to totally take advantage of those skills...i think Krebs really closes that gap. To where it's enough of a wash on "skill" that Krebs other traits put him ahead of Newhook for me.

I really like both of them though, and would 100% understand going either way with it, if that's what it comes down to. Like you said...it's very much "shades of grey" between the two.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Oh I’m not saying Newhook isn’t *more* skilled - I agree he is - but I see it as a matter of small degrees rather than an entire tier different. Krebs is still very skilled himself, enough to be in the conversation for our 10th pick, esp when you factor in his own plus traits over Newhook.

And you can take issue with my take or HP’s, it’s all fair game for debate, but I think it confirms that we are talking shades of grey here, not stark differences.

I'm not sure how this is relegated to shades of grey when we both acknowledge that Newhook is the more skilled player? That's the crux of the conversation. I do not think they are equal in terms of skill. Newhook is the more skilled player.

The degree doesn't matter if we are sorting based upon pure skill. If Krebs falls behind, by however slight a margin, he still falls behind.

So to me, this isn't about Newhook vs. Krebs, it's about Krebs vs. the 3rd option in that order. Demoting that 3rd option, which looks to be Broberg, pushes Krebs into the conversation. Arguing who has the greater skill level vs. Newhook does not.

 

[biturbo19]

I'm not sure how this is relegated to shades of grey when we both acknowledge that Newhook is the more skilled player? That's the crux of the conversation. I do not think they are equal in terms of skill. Newhook is the more skilled player.

The degree doesn't matter if we are sorting based upon pure skill. If Krebs falls behind, by however slight a margin, he still falls behind.

So to me, this isn't about Newhook vs. Krebs, it's about Krebs vs. the 3rd option in that order. Demoting that 3rd option, which looks to be Broberg, pushes Krebs into the conversation. Arguing who has the greater skill level vs. Newhook does not.

If we're sorting strictly on "pure skill" and absolutely nothing else, i don't understand how Broberg would even be anywhere near this "conversation". That's not his game at all. The "skill" factor is really the biggest questionmark on him. He's basically the poster boy for "tools" and overall impact over pure skill.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm not sure how this is relegated to shades of grey when we both acknowledge that Newhook is the more skilled player? That's the crux of the conversation. I do not think they are equal in terms of skill. Newhook is the more skilled player.

The degree doesn't matter if we are sorting based upon pure skill. If Krebs falls behind, by however slight a margin, he still falls behind.

But it does matter if we are talking about whether a player is deserving of a team’s interest or not, which is sort of where this all started. Like while the statement “Newhook is more skilled” is likely (not definitively) correct, it cannot be the only thing the Canucks are looking at. Yes, skill is prioritized but if one guy is an 8.0 and the other is a 7.5, you can’t simply dismiss the 7.5 because he’s technically the #2 on that particular trait. Krebs has enough important traits that surpass Newhook - he has superior size, playmaking, and work rate - that (IMO) *should* maintain him in the conversation. And that’s based on the assumption that Newhook actually *is* more skilled, which while you and I are conceding he is, is certainly not a universally shared opinion. Heck, even most rankings would tend to put Krebs ahead of Newhook, including Button, ISS, HP, Hockey News, Cosentino, and Robinson. It simply doesn’t make sense to assign a single trait - “skill” - and declare a first-past-the-post winner, rather than consider it as one of several facets of a player’s total value and projection. And that’s why the fact that it is degrees matters. If we were talking stark tiers like Hughes or Kakko, or even Zegras, then i’d agree it’s a sufficient gap to override any other consideration. But it’s not that large and it definitely shouldn’t override all other things.

Edit:

To take this is a different direction, if we are to believe the Canucks are truly prioritizing a single attribute - “skill” - to a massive degree, then their list should realistically look more like this IMO:

Zegras
Boldy
Caufield
Newhook
Kaliyev

 

[CanaFan]

I think it’s also fair to cite the HP take on Newhook, as it certainly fits the definition of “fair use” that i’ve read on here, which is to use a part of a copyright or paywalled article to further a legitimate discussion.

This is their assessment of Newhook’s game, which really casts some doubt on whether he is truly *that* skilled or if he he is more “very fast and pretty skilled”:

Although Alex is a versatile and quick-striking player, he does have some issues when projecting his ceiling. The majority of Newhook’s production is a by-product of his vision, skating, and motor, it’s not primarily because of his puck-skills. When comparing him to the rest of the high-end forwards, Alex’s puck skills are good but not in anyway dynamic. Few high-end players in this class ended up losing the puck off their stick when attempting to challenge one-on-one as much as Alex did in our viewings.”

source: HP 2019 Blackbook

 

[Bleach Clean]

If we're sorting strictly on "pure skill" and absolutely nothing else, i don't understand how Broberg would even be anywhere near this "conversation". That's not his game at all. The "skill" factor is really the biggest questionmark on him. He's basically the poster boy for "tools" and overall impact over pure skill.

I agree, which is why he sticks out on a list that includes Zegras and Newhook. I can't figure out what he's doing there?

The rationale may be that the Canucks prioritize different traits for Dmen. Tenuous, but it's all I have at the moment.

But it does matter if we are talking about whether a player is deserving of a team’s interest or not, which is sort of where this all started. Like while the statement “Newhook is more skilled” is likely (not definitively) correct, it cannot be the only thing the Canucks are looking at. Yes, skill is prioritized but if one guy is an 8.0 and the other is a 7.5, you can’t simply dismiss the 7.5 because he’s technically the #2 on that particular trait. Krebs has enough important traits that surpass Newhook - he has superior size, playmaking, and work rate - that (IMO) *should* maintain him in the conversation. And that’s based on the assumption that Newhook actually *is* more skilled, which while you and I are conceding he is, is certainly not a universally shared opinion. Heck, even most rankings would tend to put Krebs ahead of Newhook, including Button, ISS, HP, Hockey News, Cosentino, and Robinson. It simply doesn’t make sense to assign a single trait - “skill” - and declare a first-past-the-post winner, rather than consider it as one of several facets of a player’s total value and projection. And that’s why the fact that it is degrees matters. If we were talking stark tiers like Hughes or Kakko, or even Zegras, then i’d agree it’s a sufficient gap to override any other consideration. But it’s not that large and it definitely shouldn’t override all other things.

If my read on the Canucks is correct, then skill is of the highest consideration, but not the only consideration. The secondary considerations, however, do not affect the primary consideration unless the secondary considerations are weak enough to cast doubt on the overall placement of the player.

For example, if Newhook's passing, vision, 200 ft game etc... is far weaker than Krebs' own, then he drops out of the race entirely. He's not even in the conversation at 10. It wouldn't matter if he is more skilled because he's not a top10 player. However, if he is close enough in secondary considerations, and his primary consideration is greater (more skilled), then that combination places him above Krebs. Newhook's attributes and the Canucks' preference intersect here. Whereas the opposite is not true. Greater secondary considerations and a weaker primary consideration does not push Krebs ahead.

A team that is looking for the stronger overall player probably have Krebs ahead of Newhook, but I don't think that this is the Canucks. Again, this is my read on it. I think they are getting more myopic in what they want with their 1st rounders. They are looking for certain attributes (IMO, a good thing). They want the attribute focus in a player rather than attribute disbursement. Focus over versatility.

 

[polarbearcub]

Zegras gives me a petterson vibe

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Zegras gives me a petterson vibe

Zegras and Newhook are the guys I want

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Trade down.

Get more draft picks and assets.

Draft a Mark Stone clone ..

One of the youngest players in the draft. Right shot. Speed -IQ - 2way beast.


Philip Tomasino

Thank me later

 

[Love]

Apparently Peyton Krebs tore his achilles during offseason training. How much does it change his draft stock?

 

[DFAC]

Apparently Peyton Krebs tore his achilles during offseason training. How much does it change his draft stock?

Probably wont affect his draft stock, he should be back in a few months?

 

[Bitz and Bites]

Apparently Peyton Krebs tore his achilles during offseason training. How much does it change his draft stock?

That pretty much makes him a lock to go at #10.He’ll look like a true Canuck if he comes up to the stage on crutches.

 

[Love]

That pretty much makes him a lock to go at #10.He’ll look like a true Canuck if he comes up to the stage on crutches.

Lol well played

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Someone on one of the local sports radio stations described Caufield as a slower smaller Boeser. Is that way off? I'd hope if a guy was as small as Caufield is he would be quick or at least shifty enough to get around the ice.

Caufield is not quick at all. His skating Is average and he is not shifty. What he is, is smart. He finds holes and soft spots when he doesnt have the puck and he has an elite release.

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Probably wont affect his draft stock, he should be back in a few months?

Yikes !

That's huge. It's all whole summer missed from training and developing.


Virtanen did the same thing with his shoulder on his draft year

 

[Josepho]

Yeah, not saying the Canucks wouldn't pick Krebs, but so far there hasn't been a single report or mention with his name and the Canucks in the same breath. Like zero smoke there.

 

[BlueGreen]

In no world is Caufield slower than Boeser. I’m fact i’d argue he’s a better skater than Boeser, as he’s quicker off the mark and shiftier laterally than Boeser. People are being ridiculous with Caufield’s skating. He’s a good skater, just not Johnny Gaudreau good.

Hey Canafan welcome back. I missed your perspective and argumentation on this site.