NHL Entry Draft 2022 NHL Draft Thread - Part 2

[BondraTime]

And yet he may end up being the better NHL player.

It’s crazy how a person can have all the skills in the world….


Only 7?

Absolutely. Which brings the question of what type of player you want at the top of the draft.

Do you want the sure thing with limited ceiling, or the higher bust probability on a gamebreaking talent. If it’s not a sure thing, you usually have to pick between potential ceiling vs. guaranteed floor, guys with both don’t make it far out of the top 3-5, and the. You get to guys who have questions surrounding them. At the top of the draft, personally I’m not even looking at a players floor as an evaluating point. If you miss on the pick, so be it, but I wouldn’t be giving guys extra value because they will still be a serviceable 3rd/4th liner in the league.

After the top 15/20 of the draft, I’d absolutely begin to value guys who are able to make it as NHLers in any capacity. Before that, I want star potential. Can get it anywhere in the draft with luck, but the top of the 1st has an incredibly higher chance of finding impact players on both sides of the puck.

I have no issue with the Brown pick whatsoever, and that pick didn’t work out in any remote way. I’d still much, much, much rather have taken the chance on Brown rather than taking the everyday player with the much lower ceiling taken right after him Michael McLeod.

Will Boucher be a McLeod type guy? Everyday in the NHL, won’t be as fast or as good defensively or in the PK as McLeod is but he’ll be more physical without a doubt. Should at least equal McLeod’s 0.25ppg.

Personally, I’d rather take a swing and miss rather than get a high floor guy you know will be in the NHL even without offensive development because of their skating, defensive play or physicality.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Absolutely. Which brings the question of what type of player you want at the top of the draft.

Do you want the sure thing with limited ceiling, or the higher bust probability on a gamebreaking talent. If it’s not a sure thing, you usually have to pick between potential ceiling vs. guaranteed floor, guys with both don’t make it far out of the top 3-5, and the. You get to guys who have questions surrounding them. At the top of the draft, personally I’m not even looking at a players floor as an evaluating point. If you miss on the pick, so be it, but I wouldn’t be giving guys extra value because they will still be a serviceable 3rd/4th liner in the league.

After the top 15/20 of the draft, I’d absolutely begin to value guys who are able to make it as NHLers in any capacity. Before that, I want star potential. Can get it anywhere in the draft with luck, but the top of the 1st has an incredibly higher chance of finding impact players on both sides of the puck.

I have no issue with the Brown pick whatsoever, and that pick didn’t work out in any remote way. I’d still much, much, much rather have taken the chance on Brown rather than taking the everyday player with the much lower ceiling taken right after him Michael McLeod.

Will Boucher be a McLeod type guy? Everyday in the NHL, won’t be as fast or as good defensively or in the PK as McLeod is but he’ll be more physical without a doubt. Should at least equal McLeod’s 0.25ppg.

Personally, I’d rather take a swing and miss rather than get a high floor guy you know will be in the NHL even without offensive development because of their skating, defensive play or physicality.

Yeah I hear that, makes a lot of sense, though you certainly have to make sure you’re adding some NHL talent in there regardless obviously.

For me I don’t think 10oa is a sure bet either, so maybe they were still a bit stung by how Brown turned out. The thing with Boucher is that I think they identified an elite skill set that they really want on the team, so that even if his offence is bottom six level, he will still bring a singular talent to the team.

They did talk about his skating and offence so it sounds like they think he can be a player beyond just crushing people, but we’ll see.

I like the gambles as well, and I think virtually everyone they took last year was a gamble in some way. Guys who were late risers, or guys with a hint of breaking out, coupled with the ever so Sens strong character to put it all together.

At least they have seemingly expanded the baseline to include skating to go with size, an edge, and strong character!

 

[SENATOR]

"Wright's girlfriend is a 6, at best."

Sucks for her. Alexei Yashin brother Dmitry dated better.

 

[R2010]

Boucher has the intagibles that coaches love while Brown has the offensive skillset that fans love. Unfortunately whether it's injuries, out of shape or lack of drive Brown has yet to show he belongs in the NHL. Boucher on the other hand will be able to play at some compacity based on his intangibles & hopefully add some scoring to that skillset as well.

Yeah. And i'd probably pick Boucher above Brown. But Boucher above Sillinger will never cease to surprise me. I will be at least somewhat pleased with Boucher as a pick if at the peak of his career he can even match Sillinger's 18 year old season in the NHL.

He hopefully can. That's around where his ceiling is.

 

[R2010]

Absolutely. Which brings the question of what type of player you want at the top of the draft.

Do you want the sure thing with limited ceiling, or the higher bust probability on a gamebreaking talent. If it’s not a sure thing, you usually have to pick between potential ceiling vs. guaranteed floor, guys with both don’t make it far out of the top 3-5, and the. You get to guys who have questions surrounding them. At the top of the draft, personally I’m not even looking at a players floor as an evaluating point. If you miss on the pick, so be it, but I wouldn’t be giving guys extra value because they will still be a serviceable 3rd/4th liner in the league.

After the top 15/20 of the draft, I’d absolutely begin to value guys who are able to make it as NHLers in any capacity. Before that, I want star potential. Can get it anywhere in the draft with luck, but the top of the 1st has an incredibly higher chance of finding impact players on both sides of the puck.

I have no issue with the Brown pick whatsoever, and that pick didn’t work out in any remote way. I’d still much, much, much rather have taken the chance on Brown rather than taking the everyday player with the much lower ceiling taken right after him Michael McLeod.

Will Boucher be a McLeod type guy? Everyday in the NHL, won’t be as fast or as good defensively or in the PK as McLeod is but he’ll be more physical without a doubt. Should at least equal McLeod’s 0.25ppg.

Personally, I’d rather take a swing and miss rather than get a high floor guy you know will be in the NHL even without offensive development because of their skating, defensive play or physicality.

hmm

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Absolutely. Which brings the question of what type of player you want at the top of the draft.

Do you want the sure thing with limited ceiling, or the higher bust probability on a gamebreaking talent. If it’s not a sure thing, you usually have to pick between potential ceiling vs. guaranteed floor, guys with both don’t make it far out of the top 3-5, and the. You get to guys who have questions surrounding them. At the top of the draft, personally I’m not even looking at a players floor as an evaluating point. If you miss on the pick, so be it, but I wouldn’t be giving guys extra value because they will still be a serviceable 3rd/4th liner in the league.

After the top 15/20 of the draft, I’d absolutely begin to value guys who are able to make it as NHLers in any capacity. Before that, I want star potential. Can get it anywhere in the draft with luck, but the top of the 1st has an incredibly higher chance of finding impact players on both sides of the puck.

I have no issue with the Brown pick whatsoever, and that pick didn’t work out in any remote way. I’d still much, much, much rather have taken the chance on Brown rather than taking the everyday player with the much lower ceiling taken right after him Michael McLeod.

Will Boucher be a McLeod type guy? Everyday in the NHL, won’t be as fast or as good defensively or in the PK as McLeod is but he’ll be more physical without a doubt. Should at least equal McLeod’s 0.25ppg.

Personally, I’d rather take a swing and miss rather than get a high floor guy you know will be in the NHL even without offensive development because of their skating, defensive play or physicality.

This seems like a risky approach to me. It reminds me of the rhetoric around the 2018 draft. A large number of people on here were convinced that Filip Zadina was the superior pick and that it was a massive mistake to draft Brady Tkachuk. The same kind of rationale was applied suggesting Tkachuk was taken for his high floor but that he had a low ceiling and that while Zadina had a much lower floor he had a substantially higher ceiling. The claims at the time were that Tkachuk was taken way too high and that targeting players like him so high is a poor drafting strategy.

We have seen what both players have become and clearly Tkachuk is the superior player, was the superior draft choice and almost certainly has the higher upside. The approach you presented here seems to be exposed to the risk of choosing the Zadina type prospects over the Tkachuk types, which we have seen can lead to poor choices.

A similar example could be the 2012 draft where the Sens drafted Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson. There are certainly plenty of examples where picking the "intangibles" prospect so high has lead to a poor outcome, but the arguments critical of such an approach don't tend to also consider the incidents where the "intangibles" prospect was the superior option and passing on them for the "high ceiling-low floor" prospect would have lead to a poor outcome. I think each incident of either outcome warrants further investigation in order to learn from and make the best drafting decisions in the future.

 

[benjiv1]

Here is the thing with the Sens.
They value will over skill, which ultimately results in more overall hits in the draft, but less talent overall.

It’s the reason we end up with these late round picks that end up being NHLers, but rarely end up with a high-end skilled player.

I’m with Bondra, in that through the first 20 or so picks in the draft, the Sens should be swinging for the fences. We know they will find depth players with the later picks, so what they really need is an injection of talent.

 

[R2010]

This seems like a risky approach to me. It reminds me of the rhetoric around the 2018 draft. A large number of people on here were convinced that Filip Zadina was the superior pick and that it was a massive mistake to draft Brady Tkachuk. The same kind of rationale was applied suggesting Tkachuk was taken for his high floor but that he had a low ceiling and that while Zadina had a much lower floor he had a substantially higher ceiling. The claims at the time were that Tkachuk was taken way too high and that targeting players like him so high is a poor drafting strategy.

We have seen what both players have become and clearly Tkachuk is the superior player, was the superior draft choice and almost certainly has the higher upside. The approach you presented here seems to be exposed to the risk of choosing the Zadina type prospects over the Tkachuk types, which we have seen can lead to poor choices.

A similar example could be the 2012 draft where the Sens drafted Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson. There are certainly plenty of examples where picking the "intangibles" prospect so high has lead to a poor outcome, but the arguments critical of such an approach don't tend to also consider the incidents where the "intangibles" prospect was the superior option and passing on them for the "high ceiling-low floor" prospect would have lead to a poor outcome. I think each incident of either outcome warrants further investigation in order to learn from and make the best drafting decisions in the future.

I mean in terms of peoples preferences - Brady was higher on Bob's list than Zadina for a reason.

If you pick within the top 5 picks remaining on Bob's board you're probably going to do okay in the 1st round. Picking the 25th highest remaining player is where we get ourselves in trouble like with Boucher. Thinking we are smarter than every other team.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I feel like we have been picking skilled players in the first for a while now, maybe just not the one dimensional, or perimeter player variety.

Boucher was a different pick in a different draft. We shouldn’t really be pretending that the last draft is the norm, and ignore the several drafts before that.

Stu, Sanderson, Grieg, Tompson, Jarventie, Pinto, etc.. are all players with skill. Even guys like JBD and Kleven are players that have more skill than people gave them credit for at the time.

The Sens just make sure that they like the character of every player they pick. If they get a bad vibe from a guy, they may go a different way at the draft, but they don’t choose brawn over skill as a draft strategy.

From where I’m sitting they choose guys with the character and determination to meet their player projections, and they want guys who are willing to engage in the play. They will take the highest skill player that has those character traits. They would never pick Brown these days for example.

I feel like I never want them to swing for the fences in the first round if they can help it. I want them to apply the drafting skills that have been successful for us, and I want the scouting talent to be used to its fullest to pick the best NHL player we can find. If we’re swinging for the fences with our most important picks, we might as well not even have scouts.

Swinging for the fences is for later rounds when misses don’t have such dire consequences; find a trait you like, and hope the rest comes with development.

 

[Big Muddy]

Dorion should offer Boucher instead of 7th overall as the smart GMs will want the heavy, playoff warrior type player versus the skilled guy.

 

[BondraTime]

This seems like a risky approach to me. It reminds me of the rhetoric around the 2018 draft. A large number of people on here were convinced that Filip Zadina was the superior pick and that it was a massive mistake to draft Brady Tkachuk. The same kind of rationale was applied suggesting Tkachuk was taken for his high floor but that he had a low ceiling and that while Zadina had a much lower floor he had a substantially higher ceiling. The claims at the time were that Tkachuk was taken way too high and that targeting players like him so high is a poor drafting strategy.

We have seen what both players have become and clearly Tkachuk is the superior player, was the superior draft choice and almost certainly has the higher upside. The approach you presented here seems to be exposed to the risk of choosing the Zadina type prospects over the Tkachuk types, which we have seen can lead to poor choices.

A similar example could be the 2012 draft where the Sens drafted Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson. There are certainly plenty of examples where picking the "intangibles" prospect so high has lead to a poor outcome, but the arguments critical of such an approach don't tend to also consider the incidents where the "intangibles" prospect was the superior option and passing on them for the "high ceiling-low floor" prospect would have lead to a poor outcome. I think each incident of either outcome warrants further investigation in order to learn from and make the best drafting decisions in the future.

Well no, as I said in the post, the guys with high ceilings and high floors are taken in the first 3-5 picks. Tkachuk, who was ranked higher than Zadina, had a floor that was a top 6 player, and a ceiling of premier power forward. The other guy with an extremely high floor and ceiling in Dobson somehow fell to 12th, and is already a 50pt D.

Could use any of Wilson/Hertl/TT as guys taken directly after Ceci. All are much better and more valuable players. Wilson was loved by scouts throughout the year, he jumped from the 50’s to 15th on NHL central scouting, and from 30th to 18th on McKenzies. He also had a huge jump in his offence after the draft, and still took another 7 years post draft to become a top 6 power forward. And a top 3 feared player in the league.

See the same thing with Crouse/Zboril/Senyshen in 2015, all toolsy guys, all look absolutely horrendous over the extremely skilled players taken immediately after in Connor, Barzel and Chabot.

Skill will win out as a high draft pick more than intangibles and physicality, 9/10 times. Makes little sense to draft it from 5-15 when more skilled options are available.

Later in the draft, fill your boots with guys that will play with edge and make it to the NHL on will and play style alone, use your high draft picks on highly skilled players.

 

[Micklebot]

This seems like a risky approach to me. It reminds me of the rhetoric around the 2018 draft. A large number of people on here were convinced that Filip Zadina was the superior pick and that it was a massive mistake to draft Brady Tkachuk. The same kind of rationale was applied suggesting Tkachuk was taken for his high floor but that he had a low ceiling and that while Zadina had a much lower floor he had a substantially higher ceiling. The claims at the time were that Tkachuk was taken way too high and that targeting players like him so high is a poor drafting strategy.

We have seen what both players have become and clearly Tkachuk is the superior player, was the superior draft choice and almost certainly has the higher upside. The approach you presented here seems to be exposed to the risk of choosing the Zadina type prospects over the Tkachuk types, which we have seen can lead to poor choices.

A similar example could be the 2012 draft where the Sens drafted Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson. There are certainly plenty of examples where picking the "intangibles" prospect so high has lead to a poor outcome, but the arguments critical of such an approach don't tend to also consider the incidents where the "intangibles" prospect was the superior option and passing on them for the "high ceiling-low floor" prospect would have lead to a poor outcome. I think each incident of either outcome warrants further investigation in order to learn from and make the best drafting decisions in the future.

Tkachuck was divisive because some vocal people didnt see his potential, I don't think he was ever really a low ceiling high floor player though. He was 3rd on Bob's list, you don't end top three on Bob's list with a low ceiling.

I'm also not sure that Ceci was actually viewed as a significantly higher ceiling prospect than Wilson at the draft. If you want to make the floor vs ceiling debate there, Hertl or maybe Teravainen is the ceiling choice, not Ceci. Wilson was getting the Lucic comparisons at a time where Lucic was putting up 30 goals and 60 pts, that's not exactly a low ceiling.

 

[BondraTime]

Korchinski may be the best D from this draft when all is said and done, guy is so good.

Someone is either going to grab him early and he will be called a reach when he isn't like Seider, or someone will be getting a stud later than they should like MacAvoy

If he weren't a left side D, he'd probably be atop my list for the Sens at 7.

 

[BondraTime]

Stars first 2 picks in 2021 at 23rd and 47th have produced more points by themselves than over 75% of the rest of the NHL teams entire drafts combined )obviously position and league plays a huge factor).

283 points in 150 games combined, just nuts.

 

[scallionjj11]

Korchinski may be the best D from this draft when all is said and done, guy is so good.

Someone is either going to grab him early and he will be called a reach when he isn't like Seider, or someone will be getting a stud later than they should like MacAvoy

If he weren't a left side D, he'd probably be atop my list for the Sens at 7.

Please go on if you can, I haven't even heard of this kid before.

 

[BondraTime]

Please go on if you can, I haven't even heard of this kid before.

Think of a further along Chabot in their draft years. Chabot obviously had incredible draft + 1 and + 2’s.

- Skating is incredible
- Probably one of the best breakout D in the entire CHL already
- Basically the same size as Chabot pre draft (6’1.5 180 for Chabot, 6’2 185 for Korchinski). Korchinski still has tons of room to add to his frame.
- Sees the ice extremely well
- Very good puck skills
- Very good shot
- Moving up draft lists all season long, from a 2nd round guy to a top 10 guy.
- Question's about defensive game. A guy that has great I.Q, size and skating I’m not worried about being a detriment defensively. Same as Chabot at the draft. Makes questionable decisions trying to force things, that isn't a big concern, that can be taught and eased out by a player who understands the game. It's not reactionary mistakes, it's low probability mistakes. They can be coached out. Reactionary are another animal entirely.

He’s the better prospect pre-draft than Chabot, but Chabot really turned into a blue chip guy in his draft + 1. He’s as close to a comparable as you can get for a prospect for Chabot. Skating, size, style of play. Eerily similar.

Again, with him being a left side D, he’s very likely not an option for the Sens. But some team is going to get a very good D.

I'd be very surprised if he made it out of the top 10 with the forwards available in the 5-10 range not exactly being world-beaters,

 

[aragorn]

This seems like a risky approach to me. It reminds me of the rhetoric around the 2018 draft. A large number of people on here were convinced that Filip Zadina was the superior pick and that it was a massive mistake to draft Brady Tkachuk. The same kind of rationale was applied suggesting Tkachuk was taken for his high floor but that he had a low ceiling and that while Zadina had a much lower floor he had a substantially higher ceiling. The claims at the time were that Tkachuk was taken way too high and that targeting players like him so high is a poor drafting strategy.

We have seen what both players have become and clearly Tkachuk is the superior player, was the superior draft choice and almost certainly has the higher upside. The approach you presented here seems to be exposed to the risk of choosing the Zadina type prospects over the Tkachuk types, which we have seen can lead to poor choices.

A similar example could be the 2012 draft where the Sens drafted Cody Ceci over Tom Wilson. There are certainly plenty of examples where picking the "intangibles" prospect so high has lead to a poor outcome, but the arguments critical of such an approach don't tend to also consider the incidents where the "intangibles" prospect was the superior option and passing on them for the "high ceiling-low floor" prospect would have lead to a poor outcome. I think each incident of either outcome warrants further investigation in order to learn from and make the best drafting decisions in the future.

Drafting is not a perfect science & clearly fans & scouts all value certain players differently. I don't like swinging for the fences because it becomes a lost pick if you strike out. It's also rare for a swing for the fences to work out, it's much more common that they flame out. The GM takes so much crap for his draft record although it's not terrible, now imagine if he swung for the fences more often how the fan base would treat him if & when they strike out more often. Every draft I have plenty of arguments with people regarding who I prefer over usually a little skilled player.

You only get so many shots at top 5 to top 10 players when your team is terrible & at some point it's expected that the team has to improve & when they do where they draft changes & the prospects available later become more suspect. Sometimes a team gets lucky with other draft picks moreso than the higher draft pick, but finding which prospect has that potential is usually just a lucky pick. Last yr drafting Boucher instead of Sillinger seems to be the only pick the skill people bring up, we don't hear of many other drafts where this scouting team has struck out although we know there are some. Just as there are plenty of examples where they picked a good player & got lucky with picks later on like Stone, Hoffman & Batherson. It's not a perfect science & they have good drafts & bad drafts, we just hope he has more good ones than bad ones, no GM is perfect, especially not this one.

 

[HSF]

funny how some in here keep telling us that we players like Tkachuk is what you need in the playoffs but he has been very quiet against the speed and skill of EDM.

You need a balance of skill and grit. I think ottawa has the grit part but we really need an injection of just talent and scoring

 

[Xspyrit]

Stars first 2 picks in 2021 at 23rd and 47th have produced more points by themselves than over 75% of the rest of the NHL teams entire drafts combined )obviously position and league plays a huge factor).

283 points in 150 games combined, just nuts.

Stankoven was ranked #27 by TSN/McKenzie

He was available at 39th...

Why didn't we pick Stankoven at 39th then Ostapchuk at 49th? (Zack was ranked #95 by TSN/McKenzie)

Oh yeah, Ben Rogers, pretty good musician at least.


Wyatt Johnston was ranked #40 by TSN/McKenzie. Dallas took him early though (23rd)


Regarding Korchinski, I see him around 10th OA in mock drafts now

 

[scallionjj11]

Think of a further along Chabot in their draft years. Chabot obviously had incredible draft + 1 and + 2’s.

- Skating is incredible
- Probably one of the best breakout D in the entire CHL already
- Basically the same size as Chabot pre draft (6’1.5 180 for Chabot, 6’2 185 for Korchinski). Korchinski still has tons of room to add to his frame.
- Sees the ice extremely well
- Very good puck skills
- Very good shot
- Moving up draft lists all season long, from a 2nd round guy to a top 10 guy.
- Question's about defensive game. A guy that has great I.Q, size and skating I’m not worried about being a detriment defensively. Same as Chabot at the draft. Makes questionable decisions trying to force things, that isn't a big concern, that can be taught and eased out by a player who understands the game. It's not reactionary mistakes, it's low probability mistakes. They can be coached out. Reactionary are another animal entirely.

He’s the better prospect pre-draft than Chabot, but Chabot really turned into a blue chip guy in his draft + 1. He’s as close to a comparable as you can get for a prospect for Chabot. Skating, size, style of play. Eerily similar.

Again, with him being a left side D, he’s very likely not an option for the Sens. But some team is going to get a very good D.

I'd be very surprised if he made it out of the top 10 with the forwards available in the 5-10 range not exactly being world-beaters,

I know it's another LD, but I wouldn't hate this pick maybe even at 7th. Depending on who is left of course.

 

[SAK11]

Stankoven was ranked #27 by TSN/McKenzie

He was available at 39th...

Why didn't we pick Stankoven at 39th then Ostapchuk at 49th? (Zack was ranked #95 by TSN/McKenzie)

Oh yeah, Ben Rogers, pretty good musician at least.


Wyatt Johnston was ranked #40 by TSN/McKenzie. Dallas took him early though (23rd)


Regarding Korchinski, I see him around 10th OA in mock drafts now

Stankoven is very small, not a Mann/Dorion type of pick. Unless they change their draft strategy, it's why I'd be surprised to see them consider Savoie this year. It's rare that they draft guys under 6 feet tall. It's unheard of for them to pick guys under 5'10".

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Tkachuck was divisive because some vocal people didnt see his potential, I don't think he was ever really a low ceiling high floor player though. He was 3rd on Bob's list, you don't end top three on Bob's list with a low ceiling.

I'm also not sure that Ceci was actually viewed as a significantly higher ceiling prospect than Wilson at the draft. If you want to make the floor vs ceiling debate there, Hertl or maybe Teravainen is the ceiling choice, not Ceci. Wilson was getting the Lucic comparisons at a time where Lucic was putting up 30 goals and 60 pts, that's not exactly a low ceiling.

Agreed. Tkachuk was always a highly rated prospect. He was not some one dimensional tough, physical player. He was a skilled player who came with the added benefit of being physical and had a huge frame. He was a surefire top 5-6 pick. He's worked out great for us so far but it's hardly some reach that is proving our draft team to be a group of clairvoyants. He was supposed to be this good.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Agreed. Tkachuk was always a highly rated prospect. He was not some one dimensional tough, physical player. He was a skilled player who came with the added benefit of being physical and had a huge frame. He was a surefire top 5-6 pick. He's worked out great for us so far but it's hardly some reach that is proving our draft team to be a group of clairvoyants. He was supposed to be this good.

I totally agree with you, but a walk down his draft thread, and his player thread from even early this year has plenty of expert fans claiming otherwise.

Many folks on this board would have chosen differently, and felt he was exactly as you first described him in your post. The of course are wrong, but still, the sentiment was reasonably popular in here.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Please go on if you can, I haven't even heard of this kid before.

Eliteprospects just released a YouTube video with a pretty good summary of his game:

 

[scallionjj11]

Eliteprospects just released a YouTube video with a pretty good summary of his game:

thank you