Toggle sidebar

NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sens of Anarchy said:
Click to expand...

- Mentions one of the top 2 NA/top 2 EU in contention for 1st
- Nemec/Jiricek is close, Nemec gets edge because of offense
- 12/13 EU skaters to be taken in the 1st in his estimation. That puts the cutoff of the NA list for 1st round at ~Lameroux at #20.
- Singles out McGroaty as a guy he hopes gets considerations to be a 1st round pick. His #22 ranking puts him as an early 2nd in their rankings
- Howard jumps into their top 10 NA, compared him to Keller.
- Lane Hutson and Seamus Casey were his picks of guys who could jump into 1st
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy
BondraTime said:
No team is just looking at stats for prospects, so much more goes into it. If that were the case Dumais would be the 1st overall pick.

NHL forward prospects are expected, at a bare minimum, to produce in junior leagues. These aren’t tough leagues to produce in, and with only 5-7% of the CHL being NHL drafted players, they’re expected to produce.
At 17 a lot of guys are buried. If you’re a top 6/top line guy at 17, you should be producing ~ppg as a top 50/100 pick. If you’re a guy like Formenton who is buried, there is a lot more projection in your rank, IE tools.

Size, skating, IQ all play a huge part in ranking a guy, If you’re sub 5’10, that is already a strike against you projection wise. 5’8 is very, very small. If you’re a guy that’s 5’8, you NEED to be an extremely strong skater. If not, you’re not going to be highly sought after, the league does not have much precedence for small, average skating players.

Lots of time scouts get caught up on size, truculence and tools. That’s also a terrible way to have bad drafts.

The Canucks board did a project where instead of the picks the Canucks selected from 2005-2012, I believe, they selected the highest scoring forwards and defence from the CHL in a consensus draft ranking, and when looking at both drafts, it was not even close. The highest scoring players ended up the better NHL players by a landslide. Of course that’s only one instance where a very bad drafting team was used.

Using a points only approach doesn’t work, the same way using an identity or traits of past players approach doesn’t work. Everything needs to be used together, and everything needs to be used in the present, not the past. If we’re going to be making draft decisions because a draft archetype worked for us a time or two before, we’re going to be in trouble. For every player of a type that works out there are 20 that don’t.

You need to find the right players, and that involves watching them and evaluating them for what they are now, and what you think they project against the other guys in this class.

If you think a guy has good skill, and has good size, but his skating is a problem, it’s likely going to be a problem moving forward. As much as people like to say skating can be fixed, it’s not something that can be fixed very easily, or to much effect.

If you think a guy is big and fast and mean, but doesn’t have much IQ, it’s likely going to be a problem moving forward. Not very often guys figure things like that out.

Find the guys you think projects the best into the NHL with all things taken into account, including shortcomings. If it’s a shortcoming prior to the draft, chances are it will be a shortcoming in the NHL.
Click to expand...
In my limited experience evaluating prospects, I think the tools are key. I think stats can be helpful to validate reads on a prospects tools or to trigger a further investigation into why there is a disparity between tools and production. I also think it can be helpful in identifying prospects that are worth investigating further,

I would seriously question any assumption that higher production at the junior level automatically implies higher upside at the NHL level. For example with Dumais with the arguments suggesting he has substantially higher upside than other prospects is solely based on his point totals, then I think that is a weak argument and a risky approach that likely leads to a poor drafting decision. I would think that his production warrants investigation into his play and only if his tools suggest high upside would I then think there is strong justification in believing that his upside is vastly superior to other prospects.

In a simplified sense I would prioritize tools over production. If there is a disparity between tools and production I would, generally speaking, favor lower production with tools that imply they should be higher than higher production with tools that imply they should be lower. That is unless the tools that were lacking in the higher producing prospect I felt could be developed, and that the higher production was a reflection of an exorbitantly high hockey IQ or if the prospect with the superior tools but inferior production had abnormally low hockey IQ.

In the research that I have done, I have just seen a seemingly large number of prospects who had excellent, if not phenomenal, production at the CHL level that never amounted to NHL players, let along good ones. I think at the very least that should cause anyone who is using a kind of "stats watching" approach to evaluating and ranking prospects to seriously question how useful it is.
 
BondraTime said:
- Mentions one of the top 2 NA/top 2 EU in contention for 1st
- Nemec/Jiricek is close, Nemec gets edge because of offense
- 12/13 EU skaters to be taken in the 1st in his estimation. That puts the cutoff of the NA list for 1st round at ~Lameroux at #20.
- Singles out McGroaty as a guy he hopes gets considerations to be a 1st round pick. His #22 ranking puts him as an early 2nd in their rankings
- Howard jumps into their top 10 NA, compared him to Keller.
- Lane Hutson and Seamus Casey were his picks of guys who could jump into 1st
Click to expand...
I would be ecstatic to get McGroarty with our 2nd round pick. I guess that would kind of be an ideal scenario for everyone around here. If he has the higher upside that I was suggesting then we end up with a steal, and he would get taken at a draft spot more aligned with the consensus around here.
 
Production at lower levels is an excellent indicator of hockey sense (IQ, vision) and skill (puck-handling, playmaking, shooting), but not necessarily physical tools like size and speed.

In the NHL this is still true but not nearly to the same degree.
 
RAFI BOMB said:
I would be ecstatic to get McGroarty with our 2nd round pick. I guess that would kind of be an ideal scenario for everyone around here. If he has the higher upside that I was suggesting then we end up with a steal, and he would get taken at a draft spot more aligned with the consensus around here.
Click to expand...
Would be great in the 2nd, was somewhat surprised he dropped 5 spots (~8 or so overall) in their rankings. Would have assumed he’d stayed pat as a 25-30 guy.

Would be a great guy to get as a late 1st, would be another misappropriation with the Sens 1st.

I’d imagine he’ll still be a 20-30 guy in Mckenzies rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy and RAFI BOMB
Since we’re talking about production vs NHL production.

Here is the list of active players that have scored over 90 points in their respective CHL league during their draft season from the:

OHL:



1651862857823.jpeg



QMJHL:



1651862590555.jpeg



WHL:




1651863011198.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy
Hale The Villain said:
Production at lower levels is an excellent indicator of hockey sense (IQ, vision) and skill (puck-handling, playmaking, shooting), but not necessarily physical tools like size and speed.

In the NHL this is still true but not nearly to the same degree.
Click to expand...
It could mean that but it could also mean a lot of negative things. It could be an indication that the prospect is a one zone player that constantly cheats offensively. It could mean that they are lazy and selective about how they expend their effort; that they rely on their teammates to do all the hard work while they float around and then use a burst of energy to score. It could mean that they are selfish, that they hold onto the puck way too long, that they don't use their teammates well or at all. It could mean that they always extend their shifts so they can be the last player to touch the puck before fresh legs get on the ice in an attempt to try to get more points for themselves. It could be an indication that they rely on tricks and tactics that work well at the CHL level that not only don't transfer to the AHL and NHL levels but actually lead to a high amount of turnovers at that level.

It might actually be beneficial to break down how points are scored in the NHL level versus that CHL level. Then to apply that to CHL production by cutting out all points that wouldn't be translatable. It would actually lead to an easer comparison between prospects as you wouldn't be comparing total point totals but instead NHL comparable point totals. It would be interesting to see if someone actually did that as some players would see a massive drop in point totals while others whose total points didn't look particularly good would look decent and potentially even better relatively speaking.
 
RAFI BOMB said:
It could mean that but it could also mean a lot of negative things. It could be an indication that the prospect is a one zone player that constantly cheats offensively. It could mean that they are lazy and selective about how they expend their effort; that they rely on their teammates to do all the hard work while they float around and then use a burst of energy to score. It could mean that they are selfish, that they hold onto the puck way too long, that they don't use their teammates well or at all. It could mean that they always extend their shifts so they can be the last player to touch the puck before fresh legs get on the ice in an attempt to try to get more points for themselves. It could be an indication that they rely on tricks and tactics that work well at the CHL level that not only don't transfer to the AHL and NHL levels but actually lead to a high amount of turnovers at that level.

It might actually be beneficial to break down how points are scored in the NHL level versus that CHL level. Then to apply that to CHL production by cutting out all points that wouldn't be translatable. It would actually lead to an easer comparison between prospects as you wouldn't be comparing total point totals but instead NHL comparable point totals. It would be interesting to see if someone actually did that as some players would see a massive drop in point totals while others whose total points didn't look particularly good would look decent and potentially even better relatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Most of those kind of behaviors are coached out of kids by the time they reach junior.

Obviously you don't rely strictly on points and utilize the eye test to sort out the players that cheat for offense or are scoring in ways that won't translate, but for the vast majority of players higher point totals are the result of being more effective offensively than their competition, usually by being more skilled, smarter, faster and/or stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cudi
BondraTime said:
No team is just looking at stats for prospects, so much more goes into it. If that were the case Dumais would be the 1st overall pick.

NHL forward prospects are expected, at a bare minimum, to produce in junior leagues. These aren’t tough leagues to produce in, and with only 5-7% of the CHL being NHL drafted players, they’re expected to produce.
At 17 a lot of guys are buried. If you’re a top 6/top line guy at 17, you should be producing ~ppg as a top 50/100 pick. If you’re a guy like Formenton who is buried, there is a lot more projection in your rank, IE tools.

Size, skating, IQ all play a huge part in ranking a guy, If you’re sub 5’10, that is already a strike against you projection wise. 5’8 is very, very small. If you’re a guy that’s 5’8, you NEED to be an extremely strong skater. If not, you’re not going to be highly sought after, the league does not have much precedence for small, average skating players.

Lots of time scouts get caught up on size, truculence and tools. That’s also a terrible way to have bad drafts.

The Canucks board did a project where instead of the picks the Canucks selected from 2005-2012, I believe, they selected the highest scoring forwards and defence from the CHL in a consensus draft ranking, and when looking at both drafts, it was not even close. The highest scoring players ended up the better NHL players by a landslide. Of course that’s only one instance where a very bad drafting team was used.

Using a points only approach doesn’t work, the same way using an identity or traits of past players approach doesn’t work. Everything needs to be used together, and everything needs to be used in the present, not the past. If we’re going to be making draft decisions because a draft archetype worked for us a time or two before, we’re going to be in trouble. For every player of a type that works out there are 20 that don’t.

You need to find the right players, and that involves watching them and evaluating them for what they are now, and what you think they project against the other guys in this class.

If you think a guy has good skill, and has good size, but his skating is a problem, it’s likely going to be a problem moving forward. As much as people like to say skating can be fixed, it’s not something that can be fixed very easily, or to much effect.

If you think a guy is big and fast and mean, but doesn’t have much IQ, it’s likely going to be a problem moving forward. Not very often guys figure things like that out.

Find the guys you think projects the best into the NHL with all things taken into account, including shortcomings. If it’s a shortcoming prior to the draft, chances are it will be a shortcoming in the NHL.
Click to expand...
Dumais picks up all his points because of the time he has in the Q. Virtually all of his points he can be seen transitioning into a mohawk/c-cut style and has quite a bit of time to dish the puck. His passing skills are good but he will never ever get that kind of time in any kind of professional league.
 
Who are the busts of this draft? The prospects that are getting hype in the rankings but that from your viewings you either don't think will be NHL players or you don't think will ever live up to where they will get taken in the draft?
 
Agent Zub said:
Do you guys think if Kemell was available last year they take him over Boucher?
Click to expand...
Hard to tell. Kemell has had some hype for a few years but the U20 SM Liiga seemed like it was under scouted last season. For example look at Niko Huuhtanen, he was taken with the last pick in the draft by Tampa Bay. His stats were decent in the U20 SM Liiga, this season he played in the WHL and had 37 goals and 70+ points. He is also a mean and nasty power forward and had a ton of fights this season. He is also having a strong playoffs.

He seems like he would be a pretty solid fit with the Sens identity so that is a pretty massive miss by our European scouts. They should have been all over that and demanded we drafted him.

From what I can tell prospects that only played in U20 SM Liiga went low in the draft. The Finnish players that went high played in Liiga. Both Huuhtanen and Kemell took part in the U18 tournament and Huuhtanen had better stats. Given the fact that he was clearly undervalued around the league it seems like Kemell would have also been undervalued. That is of course if we are basing this hypothetical on his production from last season and how that league was likely under scouted.
 
RAFI BOMB said:
Who are the busts of this draft? The prospects that are getting hype in the rankings but that from your viewings you either don't think will be NHL players or you don't think will ever live up to where they will get taken in the draft?
Click to expand...
Connor Geekie

I get the allure around this kid, he is basically Logan Brown2.0, and maybe this time he pans out but I don’t think he will. I wouldn’t take him in the top-20.

Owen Pickering

This is a guy many are enamoured with - they see a whole lot of tools and a rawness to his game that suggests there is more than meets the eye but I don’t buy it. I don’t know if the ever reaches the heights many are suggesting he can get to. I don’t know if he has the hockey IQ to he sucessful at the next level. I wouldn’t draft him in the first round.

Elias Salomonsson

Another guy where I question his skating and hockey IQ, I also feel like he needs to work quite a bit on his defensive game, he is one of the younger players eligible for the 2022 draft so thay may play a part- either way, I wouldn’t pick him inside the top 70.

Christan Kyrou

I think if he were available in rounds 4-7 I would take a flyer on him however I don’t think his game
is going to translate well to pro’s.

Isiah George

I think he takes too many risks and the production isn’t there. Wouldn’t take him inside the top 90.

Luca Del Bel Belluz

If he doesn’t make it as a top-6 player in the pros, I don’t think he’ll be able to play a bottom 6 role. I like the player, just not in the first round.

I also want to throw it out there that I don’t like Juraj Slafkovsky as a top-5 pick. I question how he’ll be able to think the game with the speed in the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aragorn
GermanSpitfire said:
Connor Geekie

I get the allure around this kid, he is basically Logan Brown2.0, and maybe this time he pans out but I don’t think he will. I wouldn’t take him in the top-20.

Owen Pickering

This is a guy many are enamoured with - they see a whole lot of tools and a rawness to his game that suggests there is more than meets the eye but I don’t buy it. I don’t know if the ever reaches the heights many are suggesting he can get to. I don’t know if he has the hockey IQ to he sucessful at the next level. I wouldn’t draft him in the first round.

Elias Salomonsson

Another guy where I question his skating and hockey IQ, I also feel like he needs to work quite a bit on his defensive game, he is one of the younger players eligible for the 2022 draft so thay may play a part- either way, I wouldn’t pick him inside the top 70.

Christan Kyrou

I think if he were available in rounds 4-7 I would take a flyer on him however I don’t think his game
is going to translate well to pro’s.

Isiah George

I think he takes too many risks and the production isn’t there. Wouldn’t take him inside the top 90.

Luca Del Bel Belluz

If he doesn’t make it as a top-6 player in the pros, I don’t think he’ll be able to play a bottom 6 role. I like the player, just not in the first round.

I also want to throw it out there that I don’t like Juraj Slafkovsky as a top-5 pick. I question how he’ll be able to think the game with the speed in the NHL.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I will have to give some thought to this. Thanks for offering your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GermanSpitfire
RAFI BOMB said:
In my limited experience evaluating prospects, I think the tools are key. I think stats can be helpful to validate reads on a prospects tools or to trigger a further investigation into why there is a disparity between tools and production. I also think it can be helpful in identifying prospects that are worth investigating further,

I would seriously question any assumption that higher production at the junior level automatically implies higher upside at the NHL level. For example with Dumais with the arguments suggesting he has substantially higher upside than other prospects is solely based on his point totals, then I think that is a weak argument and a risky approach that likely leads to a poor drafting decision. I would think that his production warrants investigation into his play and only if his tools suggest high upside would I then think there is strong justification in believing that his upside is vastly superior to other prospects.

In a simplified sense I would prioritize tools over production. If there is a disparity between tools and production I would, generally speaking, favor lower production with tools that imply they should be higher than higher production with tools that imply they should be lower. That is unless the tools that were lacking in the higher producing prospect I felt could be developed, and that the higher production was a reflection of an exorbitantly high hockey IQ or if the prospect with the superior tools but inferior production had abnormally low hockey IQ.

In the research that I have done, I have just seen a seemingly large number of prospects who had excellent, if not phenomenal, production at the CHL level that never amounted to NHL players, let along good ones. I think at the very least that should cause anyone who is using a kind of "stats watching" approach to evaluating and ranking prospects to seriously question how useful it is.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone believes higher junior production automatically implies higher upside at the NHL level. People know that eye-test matters; however, when we isolate stats, we can see that the more a prospect scores in junior, the more likely it is that a prospect will become an impact player, so it's not right to frame it as the prospects ranked around Dumais have lower upside. It's more accurate to say Dumais is more likely to be an impact player than prospects ranked at a similar level. Of course, that is based solely on stats. If your eye-test disagrees, fair enough. I don't mind if Ottawa does not take the outright strongest statistical player, but I do not like when Ottawa takes outright poor statistical players.

As for your last paragraph, you see a lot of players with good junior numbers bust because most prospects bust.
 
RAFI BOMB said:
I don't think pre-draft/junior point production has the kind of predictive force that some seem to think it does. I haven't seen any breakdown or research on this but just thinking about is conceptually I would question such a reliance on it. Every year there are prospects in the junior leagues that are over a point per game, and sometimes near the top of the league in scoring, that don't get drafted. Sometimes they are 2nd and 3rd year draft eligible prospects but every year there is always a handful of them. That in itself is noteworthy as it reveals that scouts don't believe that there is some kind of perfect correlation between junior point production and NHL upside; that a prospect can have excellent, if not phenomenal, junior point production and not be viewed as a viable NHL prospect worthy of being drafted.

But the more important thing is that if you tried to plot out junior production versus the eventual professional outcome of all prospects, it would likely look statistically random. There would be outcomes where those players never played any professional games, where they became ECHLers, AHLers, European pro's and then a smaller percentage would become NHL players. Even among those that became NHL players there would likely be a pretty wide range of outcomes of all kinds of point production ranges at the NHL level. If you review that data it would likely be hard to make any meaningful inferences from. You wouldn't be able to say that X production at the junior level = Y production at the NHL level. That would be inaccurate as it wouldn't include all the incidences where X production at the junior level did not equal Y production at the NHL level. The most you could say is that Z% of players who produced X at the junior level, produced Y at the NHL level.

You could attempt the reverse where you take Y production at the NHL level and then plot out the junior production of all players who produced Y production at the NHL level. Even then you are likely to run into two challenges. The first is that the junior production is likely more varied than some might anticipate so it would be difficult to draw a clear causal connection between X junior production and Y NHL production. The second issue is based on what is stated in the paragraph above. If you only look at the NHL outcome and try to draw the connection to junior production then you are overlooking all the incidents where that junior production lead to an entirely different outcome.

The best you could likely hope for is some clustering of outcomes. This isn't to say that junior production should be disregarded or dismissed entirely, it is to say that it probably shouldn't be relied on too heavily when making predictions.
Click to expand...

The correlation between CHL and NHL production is far from an r=1.00. But it is not random at all. People with low production in the CHL basically never produce at the NHL level.

As you pointed out plenty of D+1-3 players tear up the CHL leagues and never get drafted. There are very few CHL scoring leaders in their draft year who don't get picked though.
 


Not hyping Geekie just passing it along. Could go top 10 likely goes top 15. Not a bad overall package. Upside is in his skills and above average size combination. Also plays C which is more highly valued. Skating (more quickness and acceleration) and Physicality mentioned as areas to improve. Projectable NHL C that needs to continue develop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom