NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

[RAFI BOMB]

I think it's just a matter of what they think wins hockey games.

Sens management, and the Sens scouting staff by extension, clearly values physicality, size, speed, defensive play and character more-so than puck skill, IQ and offensive ability.

Every pick in the 1st or 2nd round since Mann took over has above-average physicality, size or speed, or a combination of the 3, and none of their picks in any round have been under 5'11.

5'11 seems like a pretty reasonable cut off. Looking at the past 12 Stanley Cup winners there really haven't been many players under 5'11 on those teams.
According to hockey refence:
2010 Chicago Blackhawks: 2 (Patrick Kane 5'10 and Brian Campbell 5'10)
2011 Boston Bruins: 3 (Brad Marchand 5'9, Mark Recchi 5'10 and Mark Savard 5'10)
2012 Los Angeles Kings: 0
2013 Chicago Blackhawks: 1 (Patrick Kane 5'10)
2014 Los Angeles Kings: 0
2015 Chicago Blackhawks: 2 (Patrick Kane 5'10 and Kimmo Timmonen 5'10)
2016 Pittsburgh Penguins: 4 (Josh Archibald 5'10, Bobby Farnham 5'10, Conor Shear 5'9 and David Warsofsky 5'9)
2017 Pittsburgh Penguins: 3 (Josh Archibald 5'10, Conor Sheary 5'9 and David Warsofsky 5'9)
2018 Washington Capitals: 1 (Aaron Ness 5'10)
2019 St Louis Blues: 2 (Robby Fabbri 5'10 and Jaden Schwartz 5'10)
2020 Tampa Bay Lightning: 4 (Yanni Gourde 5'9, Tyler Johnson 5'8, Cory Conacher 5'8 and Gemel Smith 5'10)
2021 Tampa Bay Lightning: 4 (Alex Barre-Boulet 5'10, Yanni Gourde 5'9, Tyler Johnson 5'8 and Gemel Smith 5'10)

At least a handful of the names from that list were inconsequential players that probably didn't even play in the playoffs. Certainly there are some excellent players from this lest as well that played a pivotal role in their teams success but it is very notable how few players under 5'11 there have been on all these cup champions. If we go back further the lists probably look the same with only a handful of players at most for each cup winner.

Maybe if we looked up some of the heights when players were drafted we could expand this list which could possibly make a stronger argument for considering drafting shorter players, but at least based on this list it seems like it is a pretty reasonable strategy to not target players under 5'11. The odds just don't seem to be very favorable.

 

[Micklebot]

5'11 seems like a pretty reasonable cut off. Looking at the past 12 Stanley Cup winners there really haven't been many players under 5'11 on those teams.
According to hockey refence:
2010 Chicago Blackhawks: 2 (Patrick Kane 5'10 and Brian Campbell 5'10)
2011 Boston Bruins: 3 (Brad Marchand 5'9, Mark Recchi 5'10 and Mark Savard 5'10)
2012 Los Angeles Kings: 0
2013 Chicago Blackhawks: 1 (Patrick Kane 5'10)
2014 Los Angeles Kings: 0
2015 Chicago Blackhawks: 2 (Patrick Kane 5'10 and Kimmo Timmonen 5'10)
2016 Pittsburgh Penguins: 4 (Josh Archibald 5'10, Bobby Farnham 5'10, Conor Shear 5'9 and David Warsofsky 5'9)
2017 Pittsburgh Penguins: 3 (Josh Archibald 5'10, Conor Sheary 5'9 and David Warsofsky 5'9)
2018 Washington Capitals: 1 (Aaron Ness 5'10)
2019 St Louis Blues: 2 (Robby Fabbri 5'10 and Jaden Schwartz 5'10)
2020 Tampa Bay Lightning: 4 (Yanni Gourde 5'9, Tyler Johnson 5'8, Cory Conacher 5'8 and Gemel Smith 5'10)
2021 Tampa Bay Lightning: 4 (Alex Barre-Boulet 5'10, Yanni Gourde 5'9, Tyler Johnson 5'8 and Gemel Smith 5'10)

At least a handful of the names from that list were inconsequential players that probably didn't even play in the playoffs. Certainly there are some excellent players from this lest as well that played a pivotal role in their teams success but it is very notable how few players under 5'11 there have been on all these cup champions. If we go back further the lists probably look the same with only a handful of players at most for each cup winner.

Maybe if we looked up some of the heights when players were drafted we could expand this list which could possibly make a stronger argument for considering drafting shorter players, but at least based on this list it seems like it is a pretty reasonable strategy to not target players under 5'11. The odds just don't seem to be very favorable.

Using this logic we could eliminate players over 6'4,

Tbay only had Hedman and Coburn
Wsh had no body,
STL. had Parayko and Thomson
Pens has Sesito
Chicago had their backup goalie Darling one year, Hanzus and Hayes the other
LA had Shultz one year nobody the other
Bos had Chara and Wheeler (who was traded to Atlanta before the playoffs)
Chi, again, had Byfuglien.

Anytime you focus on players at the tales of a distribution, your going to get small lists.

 

[BondraTime]

Kucherov was listed 5’10 at the draft as well

Don’t draft D that are very small. Forwards can be impact guys at 5’9. There are small forwards plying in the playoffs every year, there are rarely small D.

If you think the best player is 5’9-5’10 and a forward, sweep him up.

6’1-6’3 is obviously the ideal range you want your players to be, but every year we see forwards in the 5’9-5’10 range become players we wish we took.

 

[bert]

Would never call Luneau a physical D with size, he’s a cerebral guy with extremely high IQ.

Both Gatineau D are guys the Sens liked before the season started, I’d only imagine they have grown to like them more.

Yeah him and Warren are very different. See alot of Redden in Luneau's game from a style stand point. He isn't as good a prospect just how he plays.

High praise here for Savoie

If he was that good he would be considered generational. Easy on the overhype.

To me Slafkovsky is easily number 1. Such a rare talent. To be that big, fast and skilled at 17 is nuts. Plus he is willing to be physical. Almost Eric Lindros level freakish physical abilities.

 

[DJB]

Geekie is terrible. By far the most overrated prospect that was getting top 10 hype

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Yeah him and Warren are very different. See alot of Redden in Luneau's game from a style stand point. He isn't as good a prospect just how he plays.


If he was that good he would be considered generational. Easy on the overhype.

To me Slafkovsky is easily number 1. Such a rare talent. To be that big, fast and skilled at 17 is nuts. Plus he is willing to be physical. Almost Eric Lindros level freakish physical abilities.

Yes sure Slafkovsky would be fanstastic to get. 1 or 2 whatever. Wright or Slafkovsky ... some scouts will still go with Wright and some would go Slafkovsky.
Overhype happens all over on prospects. Savoie is not in the conversation for 1 or 2. Not sure where that came in.. I never read the article btw. This was posted to illustrate how high some people are on Savoie .. not that I am that high on him although IMO he is worthy of a top 10. Its pretty funny actually.. this guy takes the NHL star comparison to another level.

 

[BondraTime]

I'd think Jiricek is the highest on favorite for our pick. Anywhere from 3-8 I'd have him as the odds on favorite.

Him back for the Worlds will be big as well should he make the team

 

[bashbros32]

I would just like to win 1 lottery and snag the number 2 pick, we've been a bottom 5 team long enough, give us Slafkovsky and watch us start to build a contender with a core of:

Batherson, Stutzle, Chabot, Sanderson, Tkachuk, Norris, Slafkovsky. Give us some key vets like Connor Brown and Claude Giroux to insulate the young talent, give us a RD to insulate Sanderson who is better than Hamonic and watch this team fly.

Tkachuk - Norris - Batherson
Slafkovsky - Stutzle - Giroux
Formenton - Pinto - Brown
Joseph - White - Watson

Chabot - Zub
Sanderson - XX
Brannstrom - Hamonic/Holden

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Using this logic we could eliminate players over 6'4,

Tbay only had Hedman and Coburn
Wsh had no body,
STL. had Parayko and Thomson
Pens has Sesito
Chicago had their backup goalie Darling one year, Hanzus and Hayes the other
LA had Shultz one year nobody the other
Bos had Chara and Wheeler (who was traded to Atlanta before the playoffs)
Chi, again, had Byfuglien.

Anytime you focus on players at the tales of a distribution, your going to get small lists.

It isn't about absolutely eliminating all players outside the ranges of 5'11 to 6'4, it is about being cautious about drafting such players. Given the odds, it is at least worth considering that historically speaking there hasn't been a high success rate. Therefore if a team is regularly drafting players outside those ranges and they have an abundance of them each draft then there is a good chance that they wouldn't be very succesful.

As a general rule the vast majority of prospects drafted should be in the 5'11 to 6'4 range. Teams can, and possibly, should, consider players outside those ranges but they should be very scrutinizing. There is a different kind of evaluating needed for them.

 

[lancepitlick]

Kucherov was listed 5’10 at the draft as well

Don’t draft D that are very small. Forwards can be impact guys at 5’9. There are small forwards plying in the playoffs every year, there are rarely small D.

If you think the best player is 5’9-5’10 and a forward, sweep him up.

6’1-6’3 is obviously the ideal range you want your players to be, but every year we see forwards in the 5’9-5’10 range become players we wish we took.

I don't think hard and fast rules make sense and you need to judge every player on their own merits. Obviously if you are super small or super big, you are going to have to be elite in other areas to compensate. All else being equal take the taller guy, but if an Erik Karlsson, Marty St.Louis, Theo Fleury, Brian Rafalski, Chara comes along you should be flexible enough to identify that they have the skills to succeed.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I'd think Jiricek is the highest on favorite for our pick. Anywhere from 3-8 I'd have him as the odds on favorite.

Him back for the Worlds will be big as well should he make the team

I'd be on board with this. Checks a lot of boxes. Too bad he was injured cutting his year short. The worlds would be big for him if they take him.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Kucherov was listed 5’10 at the draft as well

Don’t draft D that are very small. Forwards can be impact guys at 5’9. There are small forwards plying in the playoffs every year, there are rarely small D.

If you think the best player is 5’9-5’10 and a forward, sweep him up.

6’1-6’3 is obviously the ideal range you want your players to be, but every year we see forwards in the 5’9-5’10 range become players we wish we took.

I think there is a pretty big difference between being willing to draft some players in the 5'9-5'10 range and making it a regular occurrence where a team drafts an abundance of players in that range. There were certainly be some cases where the best player available is that height and it would be unwise to pass up on them but generally speaking it isn't a great strategy to draft an abundance of players that height. Particularly if those players don't have above average grit as a lot of highly successful players shorter players are actually pretty gritty.

For example I think Kyle Dubas's drafting strategy is a poor one. He likes to draft a lot of shorter players, he takes them regularly in multiple rounds and the majority of them aren't particularly gritty. To add to it, the Leafs already have their core skilled players locked up so there really isn't a lot of top six spots available. Instead of drafting to complement his core, he drafts a lot of players that are unlikely to take any of the top six spots and are unlikely to be successful in bottom six roles. The prospects don't really complement his core or add elements to the roster that the team is lacking. The fact that the prospects aren't particularly gritty or overly versatile to be able to play depth roles limits their trade value as teams would prefer players that they think will help them win in the playoffs.

 

[Micklebot]

It isn't about absolutely eliminating all players outside the ranges of 5'11 to 6'4, it is about being cautious about drafting such players. Given the odds, it is at least worth considering that historically speaking there hasn't been a high success rate. Therefore if a team is regularly drafting players outside those ranges and they have an abundance of them each draft then there is a good chance that they wouldn't be very succesful.

As a general rule the vast majority of prospects drafted should be in the 5'11 to 6'4 range. Teams can, and possibly, should, consider players outside those ranges but they should be very scrutinizing. There is a different kind of evaluating needed for them.

To show a success rate, you need to include the denominator, how many sub 5'11 guys and >6'4 guys are drafted each year. It's complicated by the fact that prospects grow and don't typically get shorter after being drafted too.

yes you need to consider size into your projections, no debate there. To me though, it's just one tool of many in a tool box, and its the way they come together that really is important. I won't shy away from someone who's 5'10 anymore than I would someone with below average speed.

I'd think Jiricek is the highest on favorite for our pick. Anywhere from 3-8 I'd have him as the odds on favorite.

Him back for the Worlds will be big as well should he make the team

I'd be down with that if we don't win the lottery, would set us up on D for a long time.

I think there is a pretty big difference between being willing to draft some players in the 5'9-5'10 range and making it a regular occurrence where a team drafts an abundance of players in that range. There were certainly be some cases where the best player available is that height and it would be unwise to pass up on them but generally speaking it isn't a great strategy to draft an abundance of players that height. Particularly if those players don't have above average grit as a lot of highly successful players shorter players are actually pretty gritty.

For example I think Kyle Dubas's drafting strategy is a poor one. He likes to draft a lot of shorter players, he takes them regularly in multiple rounds and the majority of them aren't particularly gritty. To add to it, the Leafs already have their core skilled players locked up so there really isn't a lot of top six spots available. Instead of drafting to complement his core, he drafts a lot of players that are unlikely to take any of the top six spots and are unlikely to be successful in bottom six roles. The prospects don't really complement his core or add elements to the roster that the team is lacking. The fact that the prospects aren't particularly gritty or overly versatile to be able to play depth roles limits their trade value as teams would prefer players that they think will help them win in the playoffs.

I get what you're saying, it's a bit of a draft for need argument, mixed in with a relative value, f other GMs undervalue small players, it may not matter that they are technically the best player available if they can't break into your roster because you've already filed all the roles they could be used for so you won't actually get value trading off the better player.

In the end though, I think we're in a position where we don't have to worry about that, we have some gritty guys, and we have openinings in the top 6.

All that said, we should just draft Slafkovsky and call it a day.

 

[tstracuzza]

Brayden Point is also less than 5'11

 

[Masked]

So if the Sens were to win a lottery spot to take Wright, who would be the top 2 centers going forward out of him, Norris and Jimmy?

Assen na yo!

 

[Wallet Inspector]

So if the Sens were to win a lottery spot to take Wright, who would be the top 2 centers going forward out of him, Norris and Jimmy?

Assen na yo!

I say we move Norris to wing.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Probably everyone has seen this but I hadn't so posting it in case. This is a March updated Craig's List.

Observations .
Interesting he has Cutter Gauthier at 6 and Jimmy Snuggerud at 9; Geekie is all they way down at 26; Lambert 27; Kasper 29; Howard 41
Write Cooley Slafkovsky top 3 .. sounds about right to me .. you can pick your order of those 3
He still has Kemell top 5 at 5. I thought he would be dropping.
Pretty good players 11-15 Yurov, Savoie, Mirishnichenko, Nazar, Firkus

2nd rounders of interest to me
Trikozov at 33
Noah Warren at 40
Nathan Gaucher at 47
Tucker Robertson at 61

Sens have 1st, 2 2nds (tampa's), 2 3rds (boston's)
Based on Ottawa picking at 5
Guessing they get something like 5, 37, 61, 69, 88 (within a pick or 2)

 

[Hale The Villain]

I'm fine with passing on short players in the top 2 rounds, but history shows that most draft steals in the later rounds (3rd-7th) since the lockout are players overlooked because of their size.

Here's a list of top 6 forwards with above-average size (6'2 or taller) that were drafted in the 3rd-7th rounds since the lockout:

Benn
Lee
Stone
Anderson
Batherson

Getting a big top 6 forward out of the later rounds is extremely rare.

Compare that to the list of top 6 forwards with below-average size (under 6'0):

Hornqvist
Marchand
Dadonov
Nyquist
Atkinson
Hoffman
Rust
Gallagher
Trocheck
Gaudreau
Palat
Brown
Guentzel
Duclair
Bjorkstrand
Point
Arvidsson
Olofsson
Garland
Kaprizov
Mangiapane
Bratt

Pretty obvious based on this that the Sens should be taking more swings in the later rounds on small players with IQ and skill.

 

[DDT]

I'm fine with passing on short players in the top 2 rounds, but history shows that most draft steals in the later rounds (3rd-7th) since the lockout are players overlooked because of their size.

Here's a list of top 6 forwards with above-average size (6'2 or taller) that were drafted in the 3rd-7th rounds since the lockout:

Benn
Lee
Stone
Anderson
Batherson

Getting a big top 6 forward out of the later rounds is extremely rare.

Compare that to the list of top 6 forwards with below-average size (under 6'0):

Hornqvist
Marchand
Dadonov
Nyquist
Atkinson
Hoffman
Rust
Gallagher
Trocheck
Gaudreau
Palat
Brown
Guentzel
Duclair
Bjorkstrand
Point
Arvidsson
Olofsson
Garland
Kaprizov
Mangiapane
Bratt

Pretty obvious based on this that the Sens should be taking more swings in the later rounds on small players with IQ and skill.

I somewhat agree, but they did hit homeruns with Stone and Batherson...

 

[Hale The Villain]

I somewhat agree, but they did hit homeruns with Stone and Batherson...

We have drafted 2 of the 5 big top 6 forwards found in rounds 3-7 in the last 17 years, but it's still extremely rare.

Big forwards with even a semblance of skill and IQ tend to go in the top 2 rounds. The ones left over are usually longshots that don't tend to payoff.

 

[DDT]

We have drafted 2 of the 5 big top 6 forwards found in rounds 3-7 in the last 17 years, but it's still extremely rare.

Big forwards with even a semblance of skill and IQ tend to go in the top 2 rounds. The ones left over are usually longshots that don't tend to payoff.

But it does show that we have had success with scouting those types of players. On the other hand, you're right that they need to deviate from their current fixation on drafting almost exclusively big players; just don't swing too far the other way.

 

[SensontheRush]

It isn't about absolutely eliminating all players outside the ranges of 5'11 to 6'4, it is about being cautious about drafting such players. Given the odds, it is at least worth considering that historically speaking there hasn't been a high success rate. Therefore if a team is regularly drafting players outside those ranges and they have an abundance of them each draft then there is a good chance that they wouldn't be very succesful.

As a general rule the vast majority of prospects drafted should be in the 5'11 to 6'4 range. Teams can, and possibly, should, consider players outside those ranges but they should be very scrutinizing. There is a different kind of evaluating needed for them.

Your sample suggests to me that we are seeing an increasing trend of <5ft11 players on Stanley Cup winners IMO.

 

[Sens in Process]

Mann publicly singled out 5′9 Seth Jarvis as potential target at 5 just days before the 2020 draft. We took Sanderson instead, but we ended up with a rail thin 5'11 Ridly Greig at 28. The team is committed to size, but will pull trigger on guys under 6' who have skill and high compete in their game.

I often think the skill vs. size dichotomy is not always the best lens to interpret the Sens draft picks. Just looking at some some of their 1st round picks, like Stutzle, Chabot, White, Sanderson, Tkachuk and even Boucher, it seems they value athleticism as a key component of their evaluation. Yes, hockey players are athletes.

Tkachuk is a much better athlete than Zadina, who tested near the bottom at 2018 Prospect Game. Or consider the Pinto pick over Kaliyev, they both have size and hockey sense, but Pinto is an absolute stud who competes.

In the most recent draft, Boucher may end up being a bad pick relative to Sillinger, who is having a solid D1 season in the NHL. I just think the Sens probably thought Sillinger lacked the explosiveness and agility to become a real impactful player in the NHL. And contrary to popular view, Sillinger has really struggled as of late. He has 3 goals(scored in one game), 0 assists and is a -7 in his last ten games. This is just to say, I would hold of crowning Sillinger as the homerun pick until a couple years from now, keeping in mind that Boucher has played regularly in two years due to injuries and other factors.

​

​

 

[Adele Dazeem]

If we have 1st; I'd honestly consider moving down. I'm not convinced Wright has the potential of being a 1C in the big leagues.

 

[Hale The Villain]

But it does show that we have had success with scouting those types of players. On the other hand, you're right that they need to deviate from their current fixation on drafting almost exclusively big players; just don't swing too far the other way.

Agreed.

I don't want us to become a team like the Leafs, who have gone way too far in the other direction with drafting a bunch of undersized guys in the top 2 rounds in the last 5 years on top of swinging for them in the later rounds, but there's definitely room to throw a couple more late picks each draft at smaller forwards with above-average skill and IQ.