Prospect Info: 2023 NHL Draft - Potential Selection Discussion

[Martin Skoula]

It's a little unclear whether they are asking them to physically react or just comment after the fact. There's a big difference there. In personal experience, the younger me's ability to recall and map out some high alert situation was pretty good so I'd give good answers I'd imagine but in the moment of competition my decisions and reactions would be less than ideal. Also I'd like to see what perspective they're giving them to test their abilities. First person perspective on the ice is nothing like an isolation tracking shot from the stands. It's almost like tunnel vision. You have to have a sense of individuals who are out of your field of vision. Surely many have experienced this even just through video games.

This approach gets interesting once the tech progresses a bit and you can get them to do it in VR. If you could pop a little head mounted 3D sensor on a vet’s helmet and put them in a recreation of different scenarios at NHL speed, you could compare what they were focusing on and how they reacted vs how you’re “supposed to”. The tech already tracks your pupils for a very precise reading of how your automatic monkey brain reacts before your conscious hockey student brain kicks in.

I could see a (6+ year more advanced) version of this becoming commonplace in sports training within the next few years to train instinctual reactions and fix guys like Holl and Gardiner’s panic mistakes:

 

[Leaf Rocket]

This approach gets interesting once the tech progresses a bit and you can get them to do it in VR. If you could pop a little head mounted 3D sensor on a vet’s helmet and put them in a recreation of different scenarios at NHL speed, you could compare what they were focusing on and how they reacted vs how you’re “supposed to”. The tech already tracks your pupils for a very precise reading of how your automatic monkey brain reacts before your conscious hockey student brain kicks in.

I could see a (6+ year more advanced) version of this becoming commonplace in sports training within the next few years to train instinctual reactions and fix guys like Holl and Gardiner’s panic mistakes:

It's a wonderful thing in medical science as well from Nintendo DS to Kinect or Wii, it's pretty cool. People were actually pissed when some of these things were going out of commission as it was so ingrained and integral in training students for the simulated process.

 

[Isaac Nootin]

BPA please for the love of god no more Biggs or Freddy the Goat (great guy I still maintain)

Those picks were made 12 and 10 years ago respectively. I'd say it's safe to assume the Leafs have moved on from that approach.

 

[Leaf Rocket]

Those picks were made 12 and 10 years ago respectively. I'd say it's safe to assume the Leafs have moved on from that approach.

I know. I know... but Shea Theodore

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Those picks were made 12 and 10 years ago respectively. I'd say it's safe to assume the Leafs have moved on from that approach.

Fine: No Hunter Smith picks

It is kind of funny: Most of Treliving's size picks have failed miserably... Like couldn't even crack the AHL miserably. Adam Ruzicka is pretty much it (and maybe Rasmus Andersson since he was built like a tank even though he was only 6'0") unless you want to include Matthew Tkachuk. Even Sam Bennett was 6'0", 180lbs when he was drafted.

Meanwhile, Dube, Mangiapane, Fox, Kylington, Bennett, etc... All fairly small guys. And same with most of their top prospects: Pelletier, Coronato, Zary, Wolf (in net) are either undersized or barely average in the case of Zary while Kuznetsov/Solovyov and maybe Ciona/Bell are the only promising big guys they have in the system, and Kuznetsov and Solovyov are not the most physical defensemen in the world.

Not saying he should only draft smaller guys, but we can't have that track record from Calgary continue either.

 

[LaPlante94]

Fine: No Hunter Smith picks

It is kind of funny: Most of Treliving's size picks have failed miserably... Like couldn't even crack the AHL miserably. Adam Ruzicka is pretty much it (and maybe Rasmus Andersson since he was built like a tank even though he was only 6'0") unless you want to include Matthew Tkachuk. Even Sam Bennett was 6'0", 180lbs when he was drafted.

Meanwhile, Dube, Mangiapane, Fox, Kylington, Bennett, etc... All fairly small guys. And same with most of their top prospects: Pelletier, Coronato, Zary, Wolf (in net) are either undersized or barely average in the case of Zary while Kuznetsov/Solovyov and maybe Ciona/Bell are the only promising big guys they have in the system, and Kuznetsov and Solovyov are not the most physical defensemen in the world.

Not saying he should only draft smaller guys, but we can't have that track record from Calgary continue either.

To be fair Calgary doesn't really have a developmental program which is one of the main issues Treveling had there

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Fine: No Hunter Smith picks

It is kind of funny: Most of Treliving's size picks have failed miserably... Like couldn't even crack the AHL miserably. Adam Ruzicka is pretty much it (and maybe Rasmus Andersson since he was built like a tank even though he was only 6'0") unless you want to include Matthew Tkachuk. Even Sam Bennett was 6'0", 180lbs when he was drafted.

Meanwhile, Dube, Mangiapane, Fox, Kylington, Bennett, etc... All fairly small guys. And same with most of their top prospects: Pelletier, Coronato, Zary, Wolf (in net) are either undersized or barely average in the case of Zary while Kuznetsov/Solovyov and maybe Ciona/Bell are the only promising big guys they have in the system, and Kuznetsov and Solovyov are not the most physical defensemen in the world.

Not saying he should only draft smaller guys, but we can't have that track record from Calgary continue either.

It's too bad we can't find a 6'6 guy who can skate and hit like a truck, I'm pretty sure they don't make that model.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

It's too bad we can't find a 6'6 guy who can skate and hit like a truck, I'm pretty sure they don't make that model.

Mostly because those guys rarely exist, and the ones that do understandably go ridiculously high in the draft. And those ones would make every model (at least every good model).

The rest of the time you are throwing a Hail Mary and forcing something that is just not there, and just end up disappointed.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Mostly because those guys rarely exist, and the ones that do understandably go ridiculously high in the draft. And those ones would make every model (at least every good model).

The rest of the time you are throwing a Hail Mary and forcing something that is just not there, and just end up disappointed.

Imagine if a guy like Curtis Douglas owned a mirror and could see the fact that he's 6'8?? Just imagine...

 

[weems]

Here's the combine results for anyone who likes looking at that stuff.

NHL Link • Loading...

link.nhl.com

VO2max

Bench Press

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Here's the combine results for anyone who likes looking at that stuff.

NHL Link • Loading...

link.nhl.com

VO2max

View attachment 717011

Bench Press

View attachment 717012

Everyone knows pull-ups is the only stat that matters

 

[Stephen]

Mostly because those guys rarely exist, and the ones that do understandably go ridiculously high in the draft. And those ones would make every model (at least every good model).

The rest of the time you are throwing a Hail Mary and forcing something that is just not there, and just end up disappointed.

I'm not seeing a lot of sure things in shorter, lighter players either.

 

[uncleben]

I'm not seeing a lot of sure things in shorter, lighter players either.

Almost like physical frame is not a be-all determinant of player development and success...

 

[Stephen]

Almost like physical frame is not a be-all determinant of player development and success...

I always advocate for a mix of positions and body types that have different pathways to fill different roster openings.

But I also think depending on where your team is at in its cycle of contention you might actually want more emphasis on size so they can fill your bottom six. A guy like Nick Abruzzese for example can have everything develop properly and he'll still struggle to fill a role.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I'm not seeing a lot of sure things in shorter, lighter players either.

It's almost as though you shouldn't draft someone based on their height and weight. Or it should be one of the last things you consider.

And considering that every one of Calgary's successes under Treliving (so far) were 5'10" - 6'0" and 180 lbs or less outside of Andersson (who was 200+ lbs at 6'0") and Tkachuk (a top 10 pick)... I would say it has been much more of a sure thing that drafting large guys; which is pretty much only Ruzicka and he is less physical/gritty than some of those smaller guys who have worked out for them.

You are not seeing anyone advocating drafting a 5'9" guy because he is 5'9". You will see a lot of people advocating drafting a 5'9" player because he is a damn good player who would likely be drafted a lot higher if he was not 5'9".

However, you do see a lot of people who will want to draft a 6'6" player because he is 6'6" even though he absolutely sucks as a player and would not even be on anyone's radars if he wasn't 6'6".

 

[SeaOfBlue]

I always advocate for a mix of positions and body types that have different pathways to fill different roster openings.

But I also think depending on where your team is at in its cycle of contention you might actually want more emphasis on size so they can fill your bottom six. A guy like Nick Abruzzese for example can have everything develop properly and he'll still struggle to fill a role.

Abruzzese is 5'11", 183 according to EP; he was drafted at 5'9", 160.

Holmberg is 6'0", 203 according to EP (almost the exact same size as ZAR); he was drafted at 5'11", 174.

Mangiapane is 5'10", 183 right now. Nobody thinks he is soft.

Dube is 5'11", 187. He was 3rd on Calgary in hits last year and played on their 3rd line.

Hell Brad Marchand is 5'9", 181.

Their size is not what will keep them from making the NHL in a bottom 6 role (or higher), and smaller guys do often grow a few more inches. Abruzzese plays a lot like Kerfoot; and Kerfoot had no trouble finding ways to be effective throughout our lineup and in the playoffs.

I agree that you can't only draft one type of player, but that type is not necessarily determined by their size. Holmberg and Abruzzese are very different players who would likely fill different roles, despite their similar body types. And both are drastically different than the smaller Robertson. In fact, Holmberg is more likely to fill the same role as the 6'1" Minten and 6'2" Kampf (if he becomes more of a center) or the 6'5" Engvall (if he does not) in the long term. Not really sure what role a Tverberg would fill just yet, but it could range from being similar to the Holmberg role on the lower end to the Hyman/Bunting role on the higher end.

So the Leafs are not drafting one type of player when they are drafting 5'10" guys. If you look beyond their height and weight, you would realize that.

 

[Leafed]

Size is the first thing you notice about a player whether you see him on the ice or a spreadsheet but it says nothing about a player's will to battle. A 6'5 Pierre Engvall will lose every battle to a 5'11 gamer. Still, I think size (height, we mean height. Few players drafted now will play at the same weight three years from now) can be very important depending on your position.

I think you would absolutely prefer to have tall defenders, both on defence and at centre because of their wingspan and stick length and how they can use them to limit an opposition's space. I was okay with them moving on from Sandin because of it. We already have Rielly and I wouldn't want too many of these types defencemen. From Colombus through Montreal through Tampa we've learned this lesson everytime we've been "goalied" while taking shots from the perimeter around their giants.

Still, I wouldn't care about how tall a winger is. The most important physical asset for a winger is speed. You want your wingers to be fast enough to get in on the forecheck, limit ice and lanes, and increase pressure. I'm hopeful Treliving thinks similarly and I was encouraged when I coupled his comments at his pressers with reviews of his drafts.

 

[Stephen]

Abruzzese is 5'11", 183 according to EP; he was drafted at 5'9", 160.

Holmberg is 6'0", 203 according to EP (almost the exact same size as ZAR); he was drafted at 5'11", 174.

Mangiapane is 5'10", 183 right now. Nobody thinks he is soft.

Dube is 5'11", 187. He was 3rd on Calgary in hits last year and played on their 3rd line.

Hell Brad Marchand is 5'9", 181.

Their size is not what will keep them from making the NHL in a bottom 6 role (or higher), and smaller guys do often grow a few more inches. Abruzzese plays a lot like Kerfoot; and Kerfoot had no trouble finding ways to be effective throughout our lineup and in the playoffs.

I agree that you can't only draft one type of player, but that type is not necessarily determined by their size. Holmberg and Abruzzese are very different players who would likely fill different roles, despite their similar body types. And both are drastically different than the smaller Robertson. In fact, Holmberg is more likely to fill the same role as the 6'1" Minten and 6'2" Kampf (if he becomes more of a center) or the 6'5" Engvall (if he does not) in the long term. Not really sure what role a Tverberg would fill just yet, but it could range from being similar to the Holmberg role on the lower end to the Hyman/Bunting role on the higher end.

So the Leafs are not drafting one type of player when they are drafting 5'10" guys. If you look beyond their height and weight, you would realize that.

Well, the issue is when you draft small AND not special players who aren't good enough to play top 6 skill roles or bottom 6 support roles.

There's nothing inherently better than whiffing on a Jeremy Bracco, Dmytro Timashov or a Semyon Der-Arguchitsev vs an Egor Korshkov just because you thought there was more skill in the first round.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Size is the first thing you notice about a player whether you see him on the ice or a spreadsheet but it says nothing about a player's will to battle. A 6'5 Pierre Engvall will lose every battle to a 5'11 gamer. Still, I think size (height, we mean height. Few players drafted now will play at the same weight three years from now) can be very important depending on your position.

I think you would absolutely prefer to have tall defenders, both on defence and at centre because of their wingspan and stick length and how they can use them to limit an opposition's space. I was okay with them moving on from Sandin because of it. We already have Rielly and I wouldn't want too many of these types defencemen. From Colombus through Montreal through Tampa we've learned this lesson everytime we've been "goalied" while taking shots from the perimeter around their giants.

Still, I wouldn't care about how tall a winger is. The most important physical asset for a winger is speed. You want your wingers to be fast enough to get in on the forecheck, limit ice and lanes, and increase pressure. I'm hopeful Treliving thinks similarly and I was encouraged when I coupled his comments at his pressers with reviews of his drafts.

Ironically, the one series where the Leafs actually had fewer chances in the middle of the ice than the other team was the series that the Leafs won.

Leafs had their way in the middle of the ice against Columbus, Montreal, and Florida. Even last year against Tampa was easier than it was this year.

Whereas they lost to a fairly small defense in Florida, who let the Leafs have their way into the middle of the ice, but Bobrovsky was not giving up goals there. He was giving up goals from the perimeter.





There has been a lot of that against us, and not a ton of cases where our goalie could do the same. In fact, there was a lot more of this:



We even have a full package of garbage goals in game-deciding series alone:

And we were not getting nearly as many goals like that. Goaltending has been a huge part of it for us. Lack of finishing in those areas is as well. Which is ultimately the most frustrating part... All were more than winnable games with quality chances that we could not put in the net... And perceptions change (especially with management and coaching) if some of those things that should (or should not) have gone in went our way.

Back on track though: There is more of a case for bigger defense because of reach, and otherwise you need some really good skating ability or the ability to put up a ton of points. Same with goaltending and the ability to cut down angles. Although it still comes down to basic technique, skating ability, puck-moving ability, etc. You can win with an average-sized defense (and even some smaller guys) if they have good defensive IQ, strong skating ability (more in terms of agility and edges than raw speed), good puck-moving ability, and knowing how to leverage their bodies in-tight. Whereas if you are big and physical without a lot of those things, you are going to have a very bad defense regardless.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Ironically, the one series where the Leafs actually had fewer chances in the middle of the ice than the other team was the series that the Leafs won.

Leafs had their way in the middle of the ice against Columbus, Montreal, and Florida. Even last year against Tampa was easier than it was this year.

Whereas they lost to a fairly small defense in Florida, who let the Leafs have their way into the middle of the ice, but Bobrovsky was not giving up goals there. He was giving up goals from the perimeter.





There has been a lot of that against us, and not a ton of cases where our goalie could do the same. In fact, there was a lot more of this:



We even have a full package of garbage goals in game-deciding series alone:

And we were not getting nearly as many goals like that. Goaltending has been a huge part of it for us. Lack of finishing in those areas is as well. Which is ultimately the most frustrating part... All were more than winnable games with quality chances that we could not put in the net... And perceptions change (especially with management and coaching) if some of those things that should (or should not) have gone in went our way.

Back on track though: There is more of a case for bigger defense because of reach, and otherwise you need some really good skating ability or the ability to put up a ton of points. Same with goaltending and the ability to cut down angles. Although it still comes down to basic technique, skating ability, puck-moving ability, etc. You can win with an average-sized defense (and even some smaller guys) if they have good defensive IQ, strong skating ability (more in terms of agility and edges than raw speed), good puck-moving ability, and knowing how to leverage their bodies in-tight. Whereas if you are big and physical without a lot of those things, you are going to have a very bad defense regardless.

That’s what I don’t get, the only goals we score are greasy garbage goals that everyone’s begging for more of. I keep hearing about our soft perimeter players but for some reason I’m seeing a complete absence of soft perimeter goals. I wish they were the high skill prima donnas I keep hearing about, we might see a goal or two that doesn’t come from within 2 feet of the net. Acciari and co can score from there, we need our skill players to deliver from distance or tic tac toe dissections of the defense. We get the goalie moving side to side and the defense out of position but all of a sudden we forget how to hit the net.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Draft feels like anything could happen just because we have our scouting staff and Wes Clark and then Treliving is here. Is he going to say, "I like this" or is he gonna just let them do their thing and then chat about things he would consider important moving forward?

Also hope we draft some edgier players but that still have speed and ideally some skill etc.

 

[Menzinger]

Lol

 

[keonsbitterness]

He's a shrimp!

 

[SeaOfBlue]

That’s what I don’t get, the only goals we score are greasy garbage goals that everyone’s begging for more of. I keep hearing about our soft perimeter players but for some reason I’m seeing a complete absence of soft perimeter goals. I wish they were the high skill prima donnas I keep hearing about, we might see a goal or two that doesn’t come from within 2 feet of the net. Acciari and co can score from there, we need our skill players to deliver from distance or tic tac toe dissections of the defense. We get the goalie moving side to side and the defense out of position but all of a sudden we forget how to hit the net.

I wouldn't turn into Carolina 2.0 (they throw everything at the net), but some more perimeter shots may not be the worst thing in the world. We are not having trouble getting to the front of the net, so be fine with taking some of those shots or even some from the point. That worked more often than not in the Tampa series.

Either that or convert some of the Grade A chances that you are generating so you do not need to rely on garbage goals to win. We are not talking about needing a lot here... How many times did we lose in OT? Twice against Florida. Twice against Montreal. Once against CBJ (we also won once). And the series we won: How many times did we win in OT? 3 times. With Marner and Matthews' shooting percentage dropping a full 5 percentage points from their regular season numbers + Tavares dropping 3 full points, we are not asking a lot from them to convert a little bit more in the playoffs.

 

[Phion Keneuf]

Lol

He’s pretty sticky for his height.

Bet he can beat up Marner