NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if the Sens go back to Mestis this year for another Finnish winger in the 2nd round

Jani Nyman 6'3 207 lb left shot LW ; won't turn 18 until July 30; 18g 17a 35 pts in 34 games in Mestis. Plays in the Ilves system like Jarventie.. Very similar age, size and stats.
McKenzie had him 49 at mid season so he is not completely under the radar.
Some comments from 3 different sources
Jani Nyman is a 6’3” Finnish winger, who has played all over the place in Finland’s three levels: U20 junior, Mestis semi-pro, and Liiga pro. In 3 junior games, he had four points. In 4 Liiga games, he had one point. In 20 Mestis games, he has 10 goals and 9 assists. For Finland’s U18 international games, he has 12 points in 9 games. He has a heavy wrister and a good one-timer, which is something the Leafs don’t have a lot of outside of Matthews. He’s also a bit like Matthew Knies, another big forward prospect of the Leafs, in that he is a good skater and aggressive on the forecheck to use his size and speed in a very intimidating way. But he’s not just all brawn, he’s pretty adept at just stealing the puck with cleverly timed stick lifts and constant pressure. His playmaking with the puck could use work, but he has a lot of tools that already look effective in a pro league.
Nyman is a big, strong winger with goal-scoring potential. He shoots with a purpose and his release is both quick and heavy. He is strong along the boards and he can use his reach as leverage to protect the puck. He shows good edge work and has a clean stride
Jani Nyman is a very intriguing player. His combination of hustle and physicality is amplified to great effect by having a good sense for incoming pressure. I wouldn’t describe him as a speedster, but he moves around open-ice surprisingly well for a player with a 6’3, 210lbs frame. He lacks explosiveness from a lull, and his 360-degree mobility can stand to be improved, but Nyman overcomes this problem by understanding the fundamentals of how to protect the puck from incoming pressure, fully utilizing his elongated wingspan in the process. More than his ability to handle pressure, what’s earned Nyman his spot on this list is his identification of short-distance passing lanes, his deception when passing through these lanes and that the accuracy of these passes does not decrease when he and/or his target are in-motion. Combine all of this with a motor that doesn’t quit, and you have the foundation of a player that really excites us.
 
I'm not sure there are answers to these questions to provide a definitive statement.

I can say that Brady was wrecking shop from the time I stayed seeing him and has carried that over. Haven't seen a player with his combination since (or prior really). He is a very unique player.

Last year was weird due to Covid but the standard tests usually separate players. Need some speed and a good IQ then if you have a plus shot/agility/physical play/passing you start to move up the rankings.

How you adjust as you move up levels also has an impact.

Feels like you may be tormenting yourself in searching for the unattainable.
There should be answers to those questions, or at least NHL GMs, Chief Amateur Scouts and a lot of the people in key roles in the hockey operations of NHL teams should be able to answer those questions. We may not be able to come up with sufficient answers to those questions, but they should be able to. Their roles are about making predictions so they will need certain methodologies to parse apart key variables and properly classify players. They may not be able to articulate it in a highly analytical and theoretical way but that may also suggest that their approach lacks scientific rigor.

I don't believe that I am "tormenting myself in searching for the unattainable", I believe I am properly trying to calibrate how much weight to put into the different opinions on here. For example the general consensus on here in the 2018 draft was that Filip Zadina should be the pick. I openly advocated for Brady Tkachuk, there were a few others that were aligned with me and a few others that had a different player they thought was worth targeting. After Tkachuk was drafted, there was an abundance of pessimism that assumed a very limited upside and many on here claimed that it was a foolish pick and he was taken way too high. Since that time Tkachuk has demonstrated his abilities and proven that the assessments of those that were skeptical and pessimistic were wrong. Similarly, Zadina's performance since being drafted has been underwhelming and it is quite clear which was the superior option now that we have seen a few years of their subsequent development.

I have noticed on here that there is a pretty consistent devaluation of prospects that resemble the Tkachuk type and a seemingly overvaluation of prospects that resemble the Zadina type. I would like to have a better understanding of when this dynamic is reapplying itself. I would like to know when a Tkachuk type of prospect is being undervalued and alternatively, when the opinions of such a prospect are a more accurate assessment of their real abilities and actual upside. That is part of why I pose the question. In my opinion, people who made a poor read of Tkachuk's upside should have reflected and learned something about their flawed assessment and adjusted their subsequent assessments in order to not make the same poor read. I believe that if they have done that, that they should be able to articulate how to separate out a Tkachuk type of prospect from one that has similar upside to Tkachuk, from those that don't.

Without having that clarity, I can't easily tell whether the opinion I am getting on any given prospect is actually a reasonable assessment of their abilities or a devaluation. I am also not able to tell whether the prospects they claim as being superior, are actually better prospects or whether this is another Zadina type of situation. People on here might believe they are making accurate reads but if they don't reflect on when they make a poor read and make some adjustments based on what they learn then they will make the same poor read again.

Maybe what I am asking for is unreasonable but I do get the impression that a least a chunk of people on here are genuinely interested in developing the skill set of accurately reading the abilities of prospects and projected their upside. I am pointing this out to shed some light on what I am seeing and to possibly challenge some people to question whether they are making an accurate read or at risk of repeating the pattern of a poor read. I am trying to make better reads myself and I have made plenty of poor reads in the past so trying to create more of a discussion can help me to figure out whether my reads are off or not. I believe that at least some other people on here have the same interest.
 
Im not sure if anyones looked at tankathons big board rankings but id love to know how it stacks up vs the consensus they have:

Tier 1

Wright

Tier 2

Slaf
Nemec
Cooley

Tier 3
Savoie
Kemell
Jiricek

Tier 4
Yurov
Nazar
Lambert
Lekk
Gauthier
 


Nazar (21) and McGroarty (22) notably down the list. Not to worry Boucher was 25 on their NA list last year.
NA Central Scouting doesn't reflect how NHL scouts and teams will rank their players.
 
Last edited:
There should be answers to those questions, or at least NHL GMs, Chief Amateur Scouts and a lot of the people in key roles in the hockey operations of NHL teams should be able to answer those questions. We may not be able to come up with sufficient answers to those questions, but they should be able to. Their roles are about making predictions so they will need certain methodologies to parse apart key variables and properly classify players. They may not be able to articulate it in a highly analytical and theoretical way but that may also suggest that their approach lacks scientific rigor.

I don't believe that I am "tormenting myself in searching for the unattainable", I believe I am properly trying to calibrate how much weight to put into the different opinions on here. For example the general consensus on here in the 2018 draft was that Filip Zadina should be the pick. I openly advocated for Brady Tkachuk, there were a few others that were aligned with me and a few others that had a different player they thought was worth targeting. After Tkachuk was drafted, there was an abundance of pessimism that assumed a very limited upside and many on here claimed that it was a foolish pick and he was taken way too high. Since that time Tkachuk has demonstrated his abilities and proven that the assessments of those that were skeptical and pessimistic were wrong. Similarly, Zadina's performance since being drafted has been underwhelming and it is quite clear which was the superior option now that we have seen a few years of their subsequent development.

I have noticed on here that there is a pretty consistent devaluation of prospects that resemble the Tkachuk type and a seemingly overvaluation of prospects that resemble the Zadina type. I would like to have a better understanding of when this dynamic is reapplying itself. I would like to know when a Tkachuk type of prospect is being undervalued and alternatively, when the opinions of such a prospect are a more accurate assessment of their real abilities and actual upside. That is part of why I pose the question. In my opinion, people who made a poor read of Tkachuk's upside should have reflected and learned something about their flawed assessment and adjusted their subsequent assessments in order to not make the same poor read. I believe that if they have done that, that they should be able to articulate how to separate out a Tkachuk type of prospect from one that has similar upside to Tkachuk, from those that don't.

Without having that clarity, I can't easily tell whether the opinion I am getting on any given prospect is actually a reasonable assessment of their abilities or a devaluation. I am also not able to tell whether the prospects they claim as being superior, are actually better prospects or whether this is another Zadina type of situation. People on here might believe they are making accurate reads but if they don't reflect on when they make a poor read and make some adjustments based on what they learn then they will make the same poor read again.

Maybe what I am asking for is unreasonable but I do get the impression that a least a chunk of people on here are genuinely interested in developing the skill set of accurately reading the abilities of prospects and projected their upside. I am pointing this out to shed some light on what I am seeing and to possibly challenge some people to question whether they are making an accurate read or at risk of repeating the pattern of a poor read. I am trying to make better reads myself and I have made plenty of poor reads in the past so trying to create more of a discussion can help me to figure out whether my reads are off or not. I believe that at least some other people on here have the same interest.

There is no 100% formula used by scouts.
This is a learned skill. You will never be perfect at it.
You can research a scouting system.. elements of a players game you wish to grade . Grading systems can vary pick one that you like and modify it as you need to with experience.
You need to start by doing and doing often. You need to pay your dues. You have to understand the game. Just like everything else some people are better at it than others for a variety or reasons.
You grade your players and make your list and then you keep your lists and evaluate them over time.
Every scout will value certain traits above others . There is no real right or wrong and the proof is in the pudding and that takes time.
It is not a skill that you can hone and really learn from your work and get better at by doing it here and there. The goal is to be more right than wrong on your evaluations and being honest with your success rate.


my 2 cents.
 
Dumais is still in the 70’s. I know he has question marks but you can’t ignore that productionz
 
ya its almost like PD already has a deal in place for a player the way he talks

Maybe its Fiala for the 7th
 
I REALLY hope we win the lottery so Dorion can't trade the pick away. I do not trust him at all to effectively evaluate NHL talent and even if the trade looks good at the time I fully believe it will blow up in his face because that is how the Dorion trades do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy and Cosmix
Dumais is still in the 70’s. I know he has question marks but you can’t ignore that productionz

Laughable. Only a "professional" scouting service could rank a player with his talent and IQ so low.

Yeah he's small and isn't a great skater but he still outscored every CHLer his age despite his faults.

37 points in his last 12 games and he actually drops a spot in their rankings (was 72 on the mid-term list) :laugh:
 
ya its almost like PD already has a deal in place for a player the way he talks

Maybe its Fiala for the 7th
Minnesota has a good team and won't want to lose Fiala without getting a player back too.

My guess is 1st + Formenton + prospect for a signed Fiala
 
  • Like
Reactions: HSF
Minnesota has a good team and won't want to lose Fiala without getting a player back too.

My guess is 1st + Formenton + prospect for a signed Fiala
ya I can see that

I would look elsewhere though. I think Fiala would be too expensive now
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duncstar
Minnesota has a good team and won't want to lose Fiala without getting a player back too.

My guess is 1st + Formenton + prospect for a signed Fiala
Yikes, that is steep. I'd want Formenton out of that if we give up our 1st, or expect a swap of 1rd picks with MIN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad

Please disable your adblocker on HFBoards.com

It looks like your adblocker is attempting to interfere with the intended operation of this site. Support us by allowing our site to function as we intended. Please disable your adblocker and add us to your allowlist.

Frequently Asked Questions
I'm not using a blocker. Why am I seeing this message?
You're likely seeing this message because an app or extension on your computer is blocking ads. The app or extension may be a "privacy" or "malware" blocker, or a VPN.

I disabled my blocker. Why am I still seeing this message?
It's common to have two or more adblocking extensions running at the same time. See the question above.