Guadana
Registered User
Sounds adultish and sad.Well if the issue is who does the board want to pick it’s less of a hypothetical about who the team will pick.
Sounds adultish and sad.Well if the issue is who does the board want to pick it’s less of a hypothetical about who the team will pick.
I’m sorry. Woukd it help if I said the team should pick the next Ben Lovejoy?Sounds adultish and sad.
It always help.I’m sorry. Woukd it help if I said the team should pick the next Ben Lovejoy?
I'm pro Nygard. Seems like the perfect piece with a floor of a 3rd line winger that brings a physical game.Ok so that’s three votes for Nygard with Helenius As the alternate.
I'm in the Nygard camp too.Ty!
So if we did pick him He'd probably be a part of the development camp but probably not the prospect challenge or training camp due the SHL season starting october 10th.?
---
On another note the annual Team board mock draft is about to come to us now the it looks like Flames fan picked Catton.
Sharks- Celebrini
Hawks -Demidov
Ducks -Levshunov
Jackets - Lindstrom
Habs - Iginla
Utah- Buium
Sens - Silayev
Kraken - Dickinson
Flames - Catton
He's on the list for @evnted and myself, we just haven't gotten to him yet.I'm surprised there isn't a Letourneau profile just because of how big he is and how raw he is.
6'7
weight 206
Center
I'm guessing he won't be available to us since he's probably a late 1st early 2nd draft pick.
I’m sorry. Woukd it help if I said the team should pick the next Ben Lovejoy?
while i agree bobs list is a great measure of where teams stand, i have couple thoughts on this:I'm still of the opinion that if MBN is outside of the top 15 of Bobbie Mac's final rankings then I think there's a fairly small chance we'll take him at 10.
Bobbie Mac's rankings aren't the end all be all, but I still think they are the most telling info we have in how the draft may play out
Just last year Bob had Simashev 19th (went 6th), Willander 20th (went 11th) and But 22nd (went 12th). I feel confident having watched a ton of Nygard that he's a clear top 15 player in this class. Add to the fact that Fitzgerald has commented about how this team needs to improve when it comes to 200ft play and you'd have to think a player like Nygard that checks a lot of boxes that the team is lacking will be heavily discussed.I'm still of the opinion that if MBN is outside of the top 15 of Bobbie Mac's final rankings then I think there's a fairly small chance we'll take him at 10.
Bobbie Mac's rankings aren't the end all be all, but I still think they are the most telling info we have in how the draft may play out
Funny that two of those were taken by Arizona and another one of the more recent big shockers was hayton, also taken by the coyotesJust last year Bob had Simashev 19th (went 6th), Willander 20th (went 11th) and But 22nd (went 12th). I feel confident having watched a ton of Nygard that he's a clear top 15 player in this class. Add to the fact that Fitzgerald has commented about how this team needs to improve when it comes to 200ft play and you'd have to think a player like Nygard that checks a lot of boxes that the team is lacking will be heavily discussed.
Benson amd dropped dropped, Simashev, But, Willander were drafted higher. Perreault, Barlow, Crystall, Heidt dropped.Funny that two of those were taken by Arizona and another one of the more recent big shockers was hayton, also taken by the coyotes
At 10, I'm pretty content that we'll not do anything drastically crazy
I have Nygard ranked #7. Taking him at #10 is not *crazy*, it's "you're lucky he is still on the board".Funny that two of those were taken by Arizona and another one of the more recent big shockers was hayton, also taken by the coyotes
At 10, I'm pretty content that we'll not do anything drastically crazy
My next rock band's first album will now be entitled: "Adultish and Sad".Sounds adultish and sad.
That's realistic enough, but as everyone including myself keeps saying, this year's draft in particular will be hard to project. There are multiple guys like Eiserman and Sennecke and Connolly who can go top 5 or fall out of the top 20. I've seen Silayev ranked #2 overall and outside the top 15. It's bananas.I found this mock interesting as it provides a scenario in which Dickinson falls to us. I know it is highly unlikely but are the players going to teams 1-9 reasonable projections?
When I said "At 10, I'm pretty content that we'll not do anything drastically crazy" I wasn't suggesting he would be a crazy pick there, I was just saying that I feel good that Fitz won't do anything crazy there in general. So any pick fitz makes is more or less likely going to make sense. I feel good that it won't be a truly off the board randomI have Nygard ranked #7. Taking him at #10 is not *crazy*, it's "you're lucky he is still on the board".
At least, in my view.
We need to keep in mind that while *my view* is clearly not the be-all-end-all, I've been doing this a long time, I do a lot of research, I am mindful of context with prospects and I have strong convictions. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm probably right more than the average idiot.
In this sense, we compare me to an NHL scout or scouting director. While a head scout on one team might listen to me and think I'm an idiot for ranking Nygard at #7 because he doesn't have Nygard in his top 20, a head scout on another team might say "that's all?" because he's ranked Nygard #5.
Nygard has myriad qualities which make him a rare player of a model which NHL executives annually value more than draft-writers -- big & fast & physical & near-NHL-ready & huge shot & ridiculously smart & competitive & versatile & two-way player.
Numerical rankings are flawed by definition. What is the correct way to properly rank Catton and Silayev? One is a scoring forward, the other a defensive defenseman. One is smallish and not fast but preternaturally skilled with the puck, the other is 6'7 and fast but can struggle with the puck. I mean, you couldn't have two more different players. But when I'm ranking there is a point where I'm choosing for a slot and Catton is my top LW and Silayev my top LD and I have to choose one. Even as I do this, I know how inherently ridiculous I am for doing this. But people love rankings, and so I do them.
With Nygard and the Devils, certainly there is a chance they will take him. We can probably say the same for 5 or 6 players, but we must include Nygard in that conversation regardless of what one draft writer's list or another draft writer's list says. Because Fitzgerald has shown a willingness to go off the board even in the first round for "his guy" (see: Mukhamadullin) this is a GM who has repeatedly told the media he intends to get NJ bigger, more defensively sound and harder to play against.
My next rock band's first album will now be entitled: "Adultish and Sad".
My post was oddly worded, too. What I meant to say was: "I'm a crazy idiot, but there are even stupider and crazier people than me working in NHL front offices right now."When I said "At 10, I'm pretty content that we'll not do anything drastically crazy" I wasn't suggesting he would be a crazy pick there, I was just saying that I feel good that Fitz won't do anything crazy there in general. So any pick fitz makes is more or less likely going to make sense. I feel good that it won't be a truly off the board random
That post came off worded oddly with regards to meaning, I know
Just make sure you give @Guadana a shout out in the liner notes. Are those still a thing in the digital age?I have Nygard ranked #7. Taking him at #10 is not *crazy*, it's "you're lucky he is still on the board".
At least, in my view.
We need to keep in mind that while *my view* is clearly not the be-all-end-all, I've been doing this a long time, I do a lot of research, I am mindful of context with prospects and I have strong convictions. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm probably right more than the average idiot.
In this sense, we compare me to an NHL scout or scouting director. While a head scout on one team might listen to me and think I'm an idiot for ranking Nygard at #7 because he doesn't have Nygard in his top 20, a head scout on another team might say "that's all?" because he's ranked Nygard #5.
Nygard has myriad qualities which make him a rare player of a model which NHL executives annually value more than draft-writers -- big & fast & physical & near-NHL-ready & huge shot & ridiculously smart & competitive & versatile & two-way player.
Numerical rankings are flawed by definition. What is the correct way to properly rank Catton and Silayev? One is a scoring forward, the other a defensive defenseman. One is smallish and not fast but preternaturally skilled with the puck, the other is 6'7 and fast but can struggle with the puck. I mean, you couldn't have two more different players. But when I'm ranking there is a point where I'm choosing for a slot and Catton is my top LW and Silayev my top LD and I have to choose one. Even as I do this, I know how inherently ridiculous I am for doing this. But people love rankings, and so I do them.
With Nygard and the Devils, certainly there is a chance they will take him. We can probably say the same for 5 or 6 players, but we must include Nygard in that conversation regardless of what one draft writer's list or another draft writer's list says. Because Fitzgerald has shown a willingness to go off the board even in the first round for "his guy" (see: Mukhamadullin) this is a GM who has repeatedly told the media he intends to get NJ bigger, more defensively sound and harder to play against.
My next rock band's first album will now be entitled: "Adultish and Sad".
My next rock band's first album will now be entitled: "Gates of Nygarð". Scandinavic folk metal. May be with some more... modern lyrics.My next rock band's first album will now be entitled: "Adultish and Sad".
I've seen Austin Burnevik in a couple USHL games which I watched with other prospects in mind. He got my attention a bit because he's huge and has skill, but I didn't notice himself use his size as anything other than an asset to protect the puck from defenders and win corner battles. The skating is certainly the problem with him, and although I can see a team drafting him on the basis of size/scoring, I imagine it wouldn't be until very late in the draft, like Round 6/7.Does Burnevik play with any edge to his game? I haven't seen much of anything, just random clips and whatnot. Seems to have quick hands, good awareness on where space is, but the skating looks kind of clunky to me and I was curious if that was offset with a physical component at all
Great write-up, glad you did the analysis of Eriksson and you knocked it out of the park. Eriksson is precisely the type of 3rd/4th-round target Devils fans should be paying attention to.2024 Draft Profile:
C Linus Eriksson, Djurgardens HockeyAllsvenskan
In what is otherwise a disappointingly thin year for Swedish prospects, Eriksson offers a smart, speedy, and extremely mature game that seems likely to scale to the NHL. The young center started off his season in the J20 Nationell, and while he never put up eye-popping numbers, his steady play eventually earned him a promotion to the HockeyAllsvenskan, at which point he never looked back. Incomprehensibly, Eriksson's consolidated ranking has him as an early 3rd round target, yet I personally believe he should be discussed as a late 1st round option.
Eriksson is the type of player every coach would feel confident sending out for a shift. He's a quick, shifty skater who is great at varying his speed to add a layer of deception to his mobility. Eriksson pairs this skating with great spatial awareness and a near elite level motor to keep defenders at bay. On the puck, he's extremely poised in transition, responsible with the chances he takes, and great at finding linemates. He'll rarely ever wow you with a play, but his decision making is near flawless. Off puck, Eriksson might even be better. His cerebral forechecking game and adept defensive stick positioning can take away breakout lanes for the opposition before they even realize. In fact, it's quite common for a number of his best plays to originate from a shrewd intercept or seamless strip of the puck.
Without a doubt, Eriksson's lack of ++ offensive tools and relatively modest production have contributed to his unusually low rankings. His skating and smarts are great, and he plays about as low-maintenance of a game as you can find, but there's minimal else to bet on, particularly so for a player of extremely average size. For as much as he can dictate play while he's on the puck, it feels like his main focus is on getting it from point A to point B. His linemates are the ones who are crashing the net, finding the soft spots, getting the shot off, etc. It is not unfair to claim that Eriksson is more of a play supporter or facilitator than he is a true driver or catalyst.
At the end of the day, Djurgardens did not promote this kid (and continue to shift him into the playoffs) for no reason, they did it because they considered him one of their 12 best options up front. Even factoring in the hard skill limitations, Eriksson plays a high tempo, defensively responsible game that is easy to envision being worth NHL shifts. His positioning, anticipation, and controlled playmaking game inspires some confidence that a bit more offense could come in time. Eriksson is not a big swing or the type of player who significantly alters a team's outlook, but he is absolutely the type of middle 6 pivot that every contender wants to bring in as a depth option come trade deadline day. For this reason, I believe an average ranking in the 70s greatly undersells his potential utility.