NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

[Alf Silfversson]

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.

​

​

Athleticism is a good point for sure. Norris is probably our best athlete and he looks like a beauty.

But I think the key, no matter the player, is smarts and skill. Guys like Batherson and Stone are not pure athletes. But they are as smart as they come. We've picked athletic guys like Lazar, Bowers and Englund without much success because they simply can't think the game at NHL speed.

You look at star NHLers who are picked outside the first round and the vast majority have gotten where they are due to hockey IQ. It doesn't matter if they are big (Stone, Benn, Batherson) or small (Point, Kucherov, DeBrincat, Gaudreau, Pavelski), they are all crafty as hell.

Those are the kind of players we should be scouting.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

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

Not really. There are a lot of names from that list that can be eliminated because they had zero or minimal contributions to their team winning the cup. Hockey Reference listed players on the roster over the course of the season, it didn't specify about the players who actually played in the playoffs. As a consequence my list is broader than it should be.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

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 think we need to add some qualifiers to undersized players to know which ones are worth targeting though. Off the top of my head, from what I remember, both Brad Marchand and Claude Grioux started out on the 3rd line when they cracked into the NHL and were actually pretty effective players in those roles. I think with undersized players there is a certain level of grit, defensive ability and versatility needed in order for them to be ideal candidates to draft. The same thing could probably be said about players of all sizes as there does seem to be a real benefit to having players that are capable of taking on different roles and earning their way up the lineup.

Of the players you listed here, it seems like a decent chunk of them have those attributes. I have at least seen some of them play effective roles on multiple lines and are not really considered top six or bust types. I am not as familiar with the names as you are but I would think that the majority of them could play a smaller role on deeper organizations and not look out of place. A lot of them also have fairly stocky builds (i.e. Kaprizov at 5'10 202 lbs) so it could be argued that a certain level of stockiness or physical strength is a more important factor than height.

I think we also need to consider the complication that players exaggerate heights. There are players around the league that are listed at 6' but are really closer to 5'9-5'10. I think we can conclude that 5'9-5'10 is an acceptable height and that there are plenty of examples of capable players listed at that height but that it is important that that height is accurate. I don't know how many players exaggerate their heights but there are certainly some (and maybe more at the junior level) who are shorter than 5'9 but list themselves at that. I think it that case the risk is a lot higher that the player won't pan out.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Athleticism is a good point for sure. Norris is probably our best athlete and he looks like a beauty.

But I think the key, no matter the player, is smarts and skill. Guys like Batherson and Stone are not pure athletes. But they are as smart as they come. We've picked athletic guys like Lazar, Bowers and Englund without much success because they simply can't think the game at NHL speed.

You look at star NHLers who are picked outside the first round and the vast majority have gotten where they are due to hockey IQ. It doesn't matter if they are big (Stone, Benn, Batherson) or small (Point, Kucherov, DeBrincat, Gaudreau, Pavelski), they are all crafty as hell.

Those are the kind of players we should be scouting.

Lazar, Bowers and Englund might be athletic but I wouldn't classify them as top tier athletes. I think if you go the route of drafting players with an emphasis on athletic potential then they should be the type of athletes that likely would be track stars, NFL players or competitive weight lifters/power lifters if they had chosen another sport. Particularly if you are making a trade off between other attributes, the athletic potential should be phenomenal.

Case in point would be a prospect like Shane Pinto. He was a multi sport athlete and apparently may have had the skill and athletic ability to for far in baseball. He only started to get serious about hockey much later than the average prospect. A player like that can be intriguing if they have other positive attributes as their pure athletic potential could be well beyond that of a lot of NHL players.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

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.

Just take Juraj Slafkovsky 1st overall then.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

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.

Who is worth considering this year? The main ones I can think of are Brady Stonehouse, Matthew Ward and Liam Anrsby and I have advocated for giving serious consideration to all three of them. Who else should I be looking at?

 

[ijif]

Who is worth considering this year? The main ones I can think of are Brady Stonehouse, Matthew Ward and Liam Anrsby and I have advocated for giving serious consideration to all three of them. Who else should I be looking at?

If we are going to bat for any small player in this draft, it should be the one that is on pace for 90+ points in the CHL.

 

[aragorn]

1st rd: David Jirieck RD or Juraj Slafkovsky LW
2nd rd: Nathan Guacher C (shoots right)
2nd rd: Noah Warren RD
3rd rd: Devin Kaplan RW
3rd rd: Jorian Donovan LD

 

[RAFI BOMB]

If we are going to bat for any small player in this draft, it should be the one that is on pace for 90+ points in the CHL.

Which sub 5'11 players available in the 3rd to 7th rounds are on pace for 90+ points in the CHL?

Hale suggested targeting more undersized players in those rounds, so which players come to your mind that also fit your point production criteria?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Which sub 5'11 players available in the 3rd to 7th rounds are on pace for 90+ points in the CHL?

Hale suggested targeting more undersized players in those rounds, so which players come to your mind that also fit your point production criteria?

Jordan Dumais off the top of my head . On pace for 91. We don't know he will be available but there is a reasonable chance

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I think we need to add some qualifiers to undersized players to know which ones are worth targeting though. Off the top of my head, from what I remember, both Brad Marchand and Claude Grioux started out on the 3rd line when they cracked into the NHL and were actually pretty effective players in those roles. I think with undersized players there is a certain level of grit, defensive ability and versatility needed in order for them to be ideal candidates to draft. The same thing could probably be said about players of all sizes as there does seem to be a real benefit to having players that are capable of taking on different roles and earning their way up the lineup.

Of the players you listed here, it seems like a decent chunk of them have those attributes. I have at least seen some of them play effective roles on multiple lines and are not really considered top six or bust types. I am not as familiar with the names as you are but I would think that the majority of them could play a smaller role on deeper organizations and not look out of place. A lot of them also have fairly stocky builds (i.e. Kaprizov at 5'10 202 lbs) so it could be argued that a certain level of stockiness or physical strength is a more important factor than height.

I think we also need to consider the complication that players exaggerate heights. There are players around the league that are listed at 6' but are really closer to 5'9-5'10. I think we can conclude that 5'9-5'10 is an acceptable height and that there are plenty of examples of capable players listed at that height but that it is important that that height is accurate. I don't know how many players exaggerate their heights but there are certainly some (and maybe more at the junior level) who are shorter than 5'9 but list themselves at that. I think it that case the risk is a lot higher that the player won't pan out.

You need qualifiers on every player to see if they are worth targeting. The size of a player on its own does not make them worth targeting.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

 

[ijif]

Which sub 5'11 players available in the 3rd to 7th rounds are on pace for 90+ points in the CHL?

Hale suggested targeting more undersized players in those rounds, so which players come to your mind that also fit your point production criteria?

@Sens of Anarchy beat me to it, but I was talking about Jordan Dumais.

My point production criteria is pretty simple. I'd generally like the Sens to draft forwards that can score 1.00+ PPG in junior or defenders that can score 0.50+ PPG in junior hockey. I'm okay if a player doesn't hit these marks if they had a solid DY-1 year (0.50+ PPG) or if the player played in a non-major league in his DY-1.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

@Sens of Anarchy beat me to it, but I was talking about Jordan Dumais.

My point production criteria is pretty simple. I'd generally like the Sens to draft forwards that can score 1.00+ PPG in junior or defenders that can score 0.50+ PPG in junior hockey. I'm okay if a player doesn't hit these marks if they had a solid DY-1 year (0.50+ PPG) or if the player played in a non-major league in his DY-1.

For the record it looks like you would have passed on Brad Marchand then. This was his production:
D-1 2004-05 QMJHL 61 GP 9 G 20 A 29 PTS
D 2005-06 QMJHL 68 GP 29 G 37 A 66 PTS

Maybe his D year playoff production would have changed your perspective where his stats were 20 GP 5 G 14 A 19 PTS

That kind of model can be helpful in a general sense but it may lead you to overlook certain high quality prospects if followed too rigidly. For example your model might have favored Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson in the 2012 draft but looking how their careers have turned out I think most people, maybe even yourself as well, would prefer Wilson over Ceci.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Anyone see Rieger Lorenz play this year in the AJHL?

2021-22

Okotoks Oilers

AJHL

60

38

47

85

54

|

6'2 185 . Denver U commit.
Button has him at 30; McKenzie had him 52
5th in League scoring .. 1-4 are 2 and 3years older

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Anyone see Rieger Lorenz play this year in the AJHL?
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]2021-22[/TD]
[TD]

Okotoks Oilers[/TD]
[TD]AJHL[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]85[/TD]
[TD]54[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD]|[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
6'2 185 . Denver U commit.
Button has him at 30; McKenzie had him 52
5th in League scoring .. 1-4 are 2 and 3years older

He looks good.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

You need qualifiers on every player to see if they are worth targeting. The size of a player on its own does not make them worth targeting.

It does for some.

 

[MatchesMalone]

Who is worth considering this year? The main ones I can think of are Brady Stonehouse, Matthew Ward and Liam Anrsby and I have advocated for giving serious consideration to all three of them. Who else should I be looking at?

I like that Arnsby a lot. Not sure where he gets drafted but he could be a player. Little bit of Crookshank in him. The numbers are tough to read on these late birthdays 'cus they are 18, but only in 2nd year. How much development went on in their 17 year old year? Not a small player but I really liked Zhilkin earlier on too. 13th forward but flashed some real skill at last U18s.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Lazar, Bowers and Englund might be athletic but I wouldn't classify them as top tier athletes. I think if you go the route of drafting players with an emphasis on athletic potential then they should be the type of athletes that likely would be track stars, NFL players or competitive weight lifters/power lifters if they had chosen another sport. Particularly if you are making a trade off between other attributes, the athletic potential should be phenomenal.

Case in point would be a prospect like Shane Pinto. He was a multi sport athlete and apparently may have had the skill and athletic ability to for far in baseball. He only started to get serious about hockey much later than the average prospect. A player like that can be intriguing if they have other positive attributes as their pure athletic potential could be well beyond that of a lot of NHL players.

But Boucher, Kleven, Kastelic, etc. are definitely not top tier athletes either. So why were they drafted?

I'd say that it's an ideology from a misguided management group that values so-called toughness over skill. A group that put a premium (albeit at a reduced price) on players like Gudbranson, J. Brown and Watson. Ideological decision making, or in this case "team identity" rigidness, is very rarely productive.

I hope some of our identity picks work out but it's not a team philosophy that has worked any time in the last 40 years.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

But Boucher, Kleven, Kastelic, etc. are definitely not top tier athletes either. So why were they drafted?

I'd say that it's an ideology from a misguided management group that values so-called toughness over skill. A group that put a premium (albeit at a reduced price) on players like Gudbranson, J. Brown and Watson. Ideological decision making, or in this case "team identity" rigidness, is very rarely productive.

I hope some of our identity picks work out but it's not a team philosophy that has worked any time in the last 40 years.

Boucher and Kleven are top tier athletes and Kastelic might be one as well. Boucher and Kleven in particular have very impressive athletic potential and it far exceeds that of Lazar, Bowers or Englund. If they grew up playing football instead of hockey, from an athletic potential standpoint, they could quite easily have become NCAA division 1 players and possibly even NFL players. Kleven probably would have ended up being a linebacker and Boucher would have either been a linebacker or a free safety. Those two have some serious athletic potential.

 

[NHL Dude 120]

I think we can get a solid prospect at the 7 spot. What do you folks think the gap between Nemec and Jiricek is like?

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Boucher and Kleven are top tier athletes and Kastelic might be one as well. Boucher and Kleven in particular have very impressive athletic potential and it far exceeds that of Lazar, Bowers or Englund. If they grew up playing football instead of hockey, from an athletic potential standpoint, they could quite easily have become NCAA division 1 players and possibly even NFL players. Kleven probably would have ended up being a linebacker and Boucher would have either been a linebacker or a free safety. Those two have some serious athletic potential.

Kleven is 205 pounds. Show me division 1 linebackers that size. Especially 6'4 ones. He is, like all hockey players at his level, an exceptional athlete. But among his peers he is far from elite.

Doesn't mean he won't be a player but he's not significantly more athletic than Lazar or Englund were at the same age.

Kastelic lacks explosiveness and is below average in many athletic categories especially given he's not really a kid anymore. Again it doesn't mean he won't pan out.

None of these players are going to be among the top 25% in athleticism among NHL players. That's not why they were picked. They were picked for their style of play.

Hopefully they work out but favoring one characteristic in players is a recipe for bias. Bias rarely works out.

 

[Alex1234]

Want him soo bad...

My number 1 too
Skilled and fast

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Kleven is 205 pounds. Show me division 1 linebackers that size. Especially 6'4 ones. He is, like all hockey players at his level, an exceptional athlete. But among his peers he is far from elite.

Doesn't mean he won't be a player but he's not significantly more athletic than Lazar or Englund were at the same age.

Kastelic lacks explosiveness and is below average in many athletic categories especially given he's not really a kid anymore. Again it doesn't mean he won't pan out.

None of these players are going to be among the top 25% in athleticism among NHL players. That's not why they were picked. They were picked for their style of play.

Hopefully they work out but favoring one characteristic in players is a recipe for bias. Bias rarely works out.

The bolded part is nonsense. If Boucher and Kleven pan out, they damn sure will be in the top 25% in athleticism among NHL players.

 

[Golden_Jet]

1st rd: David Jirieck RD or Juraj Slafkovsky LW
2nd rd: Nathan Guacher C (shoots right)
2nd rd: Noah Warren RD
3rd rd: Devin Kaplan RW
3rd rd: Jorian Donovan LD

Warren was a beast in the prospect game.