2023 NHL Entry Draft

[Jabba11]

I'm officially on the Sale bandwagon boys.

Explain yourself!

 

[MarkovsKnee]

Do we absolutely need a C with Suzuki and with Dach who has improved on the faceoff, we also have Beck who could become our 3rd C. If we draft 7-8 i’m pretty sure Mtl goes for a winger unless Smith fall.

Personally at 7 anyone between them and im okay since we will have different option with our player

Michtkov
Benson
Smith (could end up on the wing ?)
Yager

In order

And if we add Dubois with the Florida pick…

Not really. There will be centers available at the Florida pick too. We could also take Reinbacher there or ASP.

Things will change by draft. Bedard is definitely going first overall, but no one had Slafkovsky or Powers going first overall until much later in their draft year. Powers at one time was ranked 7th. Ditto Slaf. Wright fell to 4th. Players fall & move up all the time.

We'll know more where we pick & who will be available after the lottery.

 

[RationalExpectations]

Do we absolutely need a C with Suzuki and with Dach who has improved on the faceoff, we also have Beck who could become our 3rd C. If we draft 7-8 i’m pretty sure Mtl goes for a winger unless Smith fall.

Personally at 7 anyone between them and im okay since we will have different option with our player

Michtkov
Benson
Smith (could end up on the wing ?)
Yager

In order

And if we add Dubois with the Florida pick…

Suzuki has never scored at PPG rate, let alone scored 70, and Dach has had a few good games before getting injured again…

How does MTL not need a top C ?

 

[G0bias]

Would love 5 post lottery, gives us a sliver of hope at Michkov and if he's off the board - certainty of Smith

 

[HuGort]

Colby Barlow with 44 goals on pace to score more goals this year than he did points last season

 

[WeThreeKings]

Suzuki has never scored at PPG rate, let alone scored 70, and Dach has had a few good games before getting injured again…

How does MTL not need a top C ?

They still could but Dvorsky is less likely to be one than Dach or Suzuki.

 

[Habs Icing]

Don’t sleep on a 18 years old kid, bigger than most with no apparent elite skills. He’ll get the job done no doubt in my mind.

You're obviously out of touch. He's 35 years old. Haven't you been reading this thread?

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

We could end up seeing Barlow in a similar light once the chips are down, but I do not view him and Tkachuk as comparable.

I think the error in most of our Tkachuk evaluations was bias: we viewed him as an old school big boy that teams generally overdrafted over flashy skill and production, and that got in the way of actually evaluating the player properly. This was also during a time where the size narrative for the Habs lingered somewhat, and many of us were tired of "reaching" for the big boy.

The production this year has taken a step up due to playing with excellent forwards, surely, but nothing about his player profile today wasn't projectable as a draft eligible player.

Barlow is somewhat of the opposite, where his production looks good, especially his goal scoring totals (something Tkachuk was criticized over), but once I get past the numbers I do not see anything else that stands out besides his shot. Tkachuk created alot of space for his linemates, Barlow does not. I think he actually has more in common with Zadina than Tkachuk, even if that is not a perfect comparison either (prefer Barlow in a straight line).

 

[le_sean]

We could end up seeing Barlow in a similar light once the chips are down, but I do not view him and Tkachuk as comparable.

I think the error in most of our Tkachuk evaluations was bias: we viewed him as an old school big boy that teams generally overdrafted over flashy skill and production, and that got in the way of actually evaluating the player properly. This was also during a time where the size narrative for the Habs lingered somewhat, and many of us were tired of "reaching" for the big boy.

The production this year has taken a step up due to playing with excellent forwards, surely, but nothing about his player profile today wasn't projectable as a draft eligible player.

Barlow is somewhat of the opposite, where his production looks good, especially his goal scoring totals (something Tkachuk was criticized over), but once I get past the numbers I do not see anything else that stands out besides his shot. Tkachuk created alot of space for his linemates, Barlow does not. I think he actually has more in common with Zarina than Tkachuk, even if that is not a perfect comparison either.

Both remain complimentary players. Obviously Brady is an elite one. Maybe Barlow can be as well, but like you said, he isn’t really anything like Tkachuk.

However, if we are creating future duos/lines, I do think Barlow fits more with Suzuki and Cole, and Slafkovsky fits more with Dach. Though I think it’s an error to go that route and the focus should be on BPA rather than fit. But in this tier of the draft (after the top 4-5), I believe GMs will put a higher emphasis on fit.

 

[Colezuki]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

 

[Frozenice]

What does this guy know about Montreal's prospect preferences?

Absolutely no one had Montreal picking Slafkovsky until minutes before the draft. It seems to me they keep a pretty tight lid, as they should.

Bob had Slaf 1st OA, so why the surprise. I was fairly certain we weren’t taking Wright, for instance I wouldn’t bet real money on us taking Wright.

 

[atrud66]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

Could be Reinbacher

 

[Mrb1p]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

Its Barlow.

This scouting staff sucks man...

 

[SOLR]

We could end up seeing Barlow in a similar light once the chips are down, but I do not view him and Tkachuk as comparable.

I think the error in most of our Tkachuk evaluations was bias: we viewed him as an old school big boy that teams generally overdrafted over flashy skill and production, and that got in the way of actually evaluating the player properly. This was also during a time where the size narrative for the Habs lingered somewhat, and many of us were tired of "reaching" for the big boy.

The production this year has taken a step up due to playing with excellent forwards, surely, but nothing about his player profile today wasn't projectable as a draft eligible player.

Barlow is somewhat of the opposite, where his production looks good, especially his goal scoring totals (something Tkachuk was criticized over), but once I get past the numbers I do not see anything else that stands out besides his shot. Tkachuk created alot of space for his linemates, Barlow does not. I think he actually has more in common with Zadina than Tkachuk, even if that is not a perfect comparison either (prefer Barlow in a straight line).

Barlow's comparable is Anderson...a shooting forward with size and some speed. Where I think he's better than Anderson is that he plays dirtier hockey, he goes in traffic more.

 

[BergevinBurner]

That info makes me lean toward thinking that they really like Sale or Wood. I think using our pick on either would be a big mistake though when there's a decent chance they'll be around at Florida's pick.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

Brian Wildes source within the organization told him they were taking Wright.

 

[morhilane]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

Barlow, Dvorsky, Sale are the big guy in the 7-10 range on most rankings. Ritchie/Honzek/Wood would be reach in the top 10, although it might be different with the final pre-draft rankings.

That small (Benson) and low-motor (Smith) players are falling isn't surprising to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Benson is still there for the Florida pick actually.

Big guy will go high this draft, it's smaller on average than last year where the trend was very visible.

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

Suzuki has never scored at PPG rate, let alone scored 70, and Dach has had a few good games before getting injured again…

How does MTL not need a top C ?

Caufield got injured i think we should draft a winger, what about Ghule, if they think like that it will never end, and after the top 3 snd Smith, who could be available that will be better than Suz or Dach ?

 

[Jaynki]

I would have no problem with Barlow at 5th overall. If we acquire Dubois.

Slaf, Dach, Dubois, Barlow along with Suzuki and Caufield would make an awesome and sizey top six.

 

[le_sean]

Shared this in the tank thread. This is random, I’m listening to 690, and Brian wildes on and he’s heard that they like someone with size that they’d go off the board for at 5. At 4 no issues but at 5 they’d go off the board and even went so far as to suggest that they wouldn’t even take smith.

Looking at the list, of top 15, dvorsky, sale, Ritchie, wood and honzek are the only ones who sort of fit that list. Kind of scary to hear that aloud

I wonder what constitutes “size” in this discussion. Because Sale, Dvorsky and Barlow are all the same height, but we wouldn’t exactly lump Sale with Barlow in the same “size” category.

Either way, if they go off the board at 5 for size, then the only acceptable player is Reinbacher. I would understand “reaching” for the player you seem to be the best defenceman in the draft. But if it’s Sale, Barlow or Dvorsky, that isn’t good.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Barlow's comparable is Anderson...a shooting forward with size and some speed. Where I think he's better than Anderson is that he plays dirtier hockey, he goes in traffic more.

Not a bad comparison, and I do think that willingness to get dirty means Barlow has a high probability of being more consistent than Anderson (who I maintain is a far better player on paper than in practice). Do I take him top 10 for that reason? Not leaning that way.

 

[FrankMTL]

If we don't win the lottery, I REALLY want one of these 5 players.

Fantilli
Carlsson
Michkov
Benson
Smith

We really need to finish in the bottom 5 to have a decent chance.

 

[ginomini]

Crazy that we are naming players who are 6-6’1 as “players with size” in this draft. And one of them is 170 lbs.

There are no big forwards in this year’s top 10. Would be extremely stupid to reach on a guy that has size compared to the others in the top 10 when this advantage is nullified by them being barely over-average when they enter the NHL…

 

[FrankMTL]

Crazy that we are naming players who are 6-6’1 as “players with size” in this draft. And one of them is 170 lbs.

There are no big forwards in this year’s top 10. Would be extremely stupid to reach on a guy that has size compared to the others in the top 10 when this advantage is nullified by them being barely over-average when they enter the NHL…

Isn't Carlsson 6 foot 3 and 194 pounds?

 

[ginomini]

Isn't Carlsson 6 foot 3 and 194 pounds?

Yes, I should have been clearer, the conversation was about reaching at 5 for a player with size. So it obviously excluded Carlsson and Fantilli.