2025 NHL Draft: Lose a ton for Porter Martone

[weastern bias]

I feel like you really underrate Dickinson.

I like the idea of drafting Schaefer too(i was on Logan Hensler last year but his stock has fallen hard), but Dickinson still has #1D written all over him. Is Schaefer better? Probably, but Dickinson wasn't used on London's top PP last year so his numbers weren't as pretty, yet he was still the best two way D of the draft next to Levshunov, who is considered weaker offensively. Buium was considered quite a bit weaker defensively, but more dynamic offensively and smaller.

As it turns out, London gave Dickinson PP1 this year and he's having a historically good two way season in the OHL, Vastly outscoring offense only Dynamo zayne Parekh while being 10x better defensively

Dickinson is a very frustrating decision maker, he often makes very poor reads that lead to devastating high-danger turnovers when under heavy pressure and that is at the OHL level as an overager, that problem will be magnified against NHL competition

Dickinson has elite physical tools, is an effortless skater, has great offensive instincts and he had the potential to be an all situations player if everything pans out, but it is every bit as likely that he tops out as a #3 as it is that he is a true top-pair difference maker, he's an excellent prospect but he isn't the slamdunk #1D you're painting him out to be

 

[timorous me]

I feel like you really underrate Dickinson.

I like the idea of drafting Schaefer too(i was on Logan Hensler last year but his stock has fallen hard), but Dickinson still has #1D written all over him. Is Schaefer better? Probably, but Dickinson wasn't used on London's top PP last year so his numbers weren't as pretty, yet he was still the best two way D of the draft next to Levshunov, who is considered weaker offensively. Buium was considered quite a bit weaker defensively, but more dynamic offensively and smaller.

As it turns out, London gave Dickinson PP1 this year and he's having a historically good two way season in the OHL, Vastly outscoring offense only Dynamo zayne Parekh while being 10x better defensively

It's also worth remembering that different people have different definitions of #1 defensemen. We had this conversation a little while back and I was surprised how generous some people are with the label (I don't think Jux is one of those people).

I'm a little tougher in my vision of what makes a #1 d-man, so I think seeing Dickinson as hopefully a top pairing guy isn't a slight. That would be an awesome outcome for the #11 pick! I just think we're all so desperate for impactful defensive help--especially after a game like yesterday's--that I don't want too high of expectations put on Dickinson. Even if he's not our defensive savior doesn't mean he can't be a big part of the fix.

 

[Wheatens]

Misa can play wing or C. Hagens is the pure C

But I'll be doing full on jar jar binks wording if we get Misa. "Misa think we should have drafted Schaefer"

If you enjoy watching Macklin at C, then you should want Misa to be a C in the NHL if he is drafted by the Sharks. I remember lots of the descriptions of Macklin last year, were that he was not really elite in any one area of the game and just very well rounded. That is essentially the same with Misa - a very high motor, committed 200ft game, intelligent and detail orientated playstyle. They both play a game from the C position that elevates their line mates. That is why I view Misa as a winger being a waste, since using Macklin as a winger would also be a waste.

 

[67 others]

Listen, I want Dickinson to be the solution as much as anyone. But I have watched like 75% of his games this season and he simply doesn't have the processing speed that all true #1D have. Watch Schaefer and then watch Dickinson. You won't come away thinking Schaefer is merely "probably" better than Dickinson.

It may come down to what each of us thinks a #1 D means.

I see Brent Burns in Dickinson lol
big smooth skater, prone to errors, likes to shoot more than pass

Burns was never a two way force and was more of a triggerman than a quarterback and made some duh blunders on both ends, but i still considered him worthy of being called a #1D

If you enjoy watching Macklin at C, then you should want Misa to be a C in the NHL if he is drafted by the Sharks. I remember lots of the descriptions of Macklin last year, were that he was not really elite in any one area of the game and just very well rounded. That is essentially the same with Misa - a very high motor, committed 200ft game, intelligent and detail orientated playstyle. They both play a game from the C position that elevates their line mates. That is why I view Misa as a winger being a waste, since using Macklin as a winger would also be a waste.

The scouting reports of Macklin were pretty deceptive. He is way more dynamic than he was advertised,

 

[Juxtaposer]

What kind of player do you think Dickinson realistically might end up as?

I think good #3, as in a guy who can chew up second pairing minutes, play special teams, and carry a lesser partner in that role would be a great outcome for Dickinson and has a decent chance of happening.

Dickinson is a very frustrating decision maker, he often makes very poor reads that lead to devastating high-danger turnovers when under heavy pressure and that is at the OHL level as an overager, that problem will be magnified against NHL competition

Dickinson has elite physical tools, is an effortless skater, has great offensive instincts and he had the potential to be an all situations player if everything pans out, but it is every bit as likely that he tops out as a #3 as it is that he is a true top-pair difference maker, he's an excellent prospect but he isn't the slamdunk #1D you're painting him out to be

Not to disagree with anything else on your post, but Dickinson is 18. Calling him an OHL overager is wildly inaccurate. Dickinson could play two whole more years in the OHL after this one.

It may come down to what each of us thinks a #1 D means.

I see Brent Burns in Dickinson lol
big smooth skater, prone to errors, likes to shoot more than pass

Burns was never a two way force and was more of a triggerman than a quarterback and made some duh blunders on both ends, but i still considered him worthy of being called a #1D

Burns had elite hands, elite feet, and much more offensive creativity than Dickinson. Nowhere near comparable, despite the fact that some of their highlights look the same.

 

[anthonyyy]

I think Desnoyers is 5th pick atm. Mcqueen is a DND with his back injury. Eklund is 6th

Personally I'd like someone with more offensive upside than Desnoyers. I do like how mean he is though.

 

[Alaskanice]

I’m willing to see what Dickinson becomes. I’m thrilled he’s going so well.

 

[67 others]

I think good #3, as in a guy who can chew up second pairing minutes, play special teams, and carry a lesser partner in that role would be a great outcome for Dickinson and has a decent chance of happening.

Not to disagree with anything else on your post, but Dickinson is 18. Calling him an OHL overager is wildly inaccurate. Dickinson could play two whole more years in the OHL after this one.


Burns had elite hands, elite feet, and much more offensive creativity than Dickinson. Nowhere near comparable, despite the fact that some of their highlights look the same.

I remember when Burns was a RW prospect. He had all the same flags for processing and IQ and grew into what he became later. He was pure physical tools at the time. Not sure what Lemaire saw that enticed him to move him to D, but clearly he was right

I thought he could be a good project power forward for the Bruins and that MOC wanted him to play on Jumbo's wing if they missed on Getzlaf as 2C since Murray was getting old and Guerin bailed for a big contract, but minny picked him 1 pick ahead of them. The bruins then grabbed Stuart but lucked out 2nd round with Bergeron as their 2C and eventual selke #1 C.

But yeah, Burns has literally all the same flags regarding processing. He was considered tools with no toolbox and was not yet elite. As prospects, they are ridiculously similar. You can teach and learn processing through repetition and trial and error, but you can't teach size, skill and elite skating as easily.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I remember when Burns was a RW prospect. He had all the same flags for processing and IQ and grew into what he became later. He was pure physical tools at the time. Not sure what Lemaire saw that enticed him to move him to D, but clearly he was right

I thought he could be a good project power forward for the Bruins and that MOC wanted him to play on Jumbo's wing if they missed on Getzlaf as 2C since Murray was getting old and Guerin bailed for a big contract, but minny picked him 1 pick ahead of them. The bruins then grabbed Stuart but lucked out 2nd round with Bergeron as their 2C and eventual selke #1 C.

But yeah, Burns has literally all the same flags regarding processing. He was considered tools with no toolbox and was not yet elite. As prospects, they are ridiculously similar. You can teach and learn processing through repetition and trial and error, but you can't teach size, skill and elite skating as easily.

Burns was two-three inches taller and an even better skater than Dickinson. His physical traits were in the 99% percentile, especially for his era. Dickinson is merely above average. Burns could fly by guys. Dickinson cannot. Dickinson is fundamentally a great skater but he does not have elite speed or elite agility. Burns' physical tools were elite. Dickinson's are very good. Plus, Burns had elite puck-handling skills (Dickinson is average at best) and elite vision (Dickinson is average at best). Burns was a playmaker that everything ran through when he was on the ice. Dickinson isn't that, even in the OHL. Burns' issue wasn't that he processed hockey slowly, it's that he literally had no fundamental clue how defense worked and relied on his physical tools to be decent at it. He was always an excellent offensive player. Dickinson, for all his OHL points, is not that.

Moreover, you're missing the most salient point: that until he was literally 30 years old, Burns was a good #3D or mediocre #2D. It took him 10 years to get to true #1D status. So even your best case scenario, Dickinson doesn't "learn" processing until we're basically past Celebrini's prime.

Look at every #1D in today's NHL, and find what they have in common. It's not size and it's not skating. It's hockey IQ.

You're basically making the argument for Dickinson becoming Burns that every dumbass on this forum makes about any 6'7" defenseman with mediocre skating. If Chara can do it, my guy can too!

 

[weastern bias]

Not to disagree with anything else on your post, but Dickinson is 18. Calling him an OHL overager is wildly inaccurate. Dickinson could play two whole more years in the OHL after this one.

I only meant that he is beyond his first year of draft eligibility

 

[67 others]

Burns was two-three inches taller and an even better skater than Dickinson. His physical traits were in the 99% percentile, especially for his era. Dickinson is merely above average. Burns could fly by guys. Dickinson cannot. Dickinson is fundamentally a great skater but he does not have elite speed or elite agility. Burns' physical tools were elite. Dickinson's are very good. Plus, Burns had elite puck-handling skills (Dickinson is average at best) and elite vision (Dickinson is average at best). Burns was a playmaker that everything ran through when he was on the ice. Dickinson isn't that, even in the OHL. Burns' issue wasn't that he processed hockey slowly, it's that he literally had no fundamental clue how defense worked and relied on his physical tools to be decent at it. He was always an excellent offensive player. Dickinson, for all his OHL points, is not that.

Moreover, you're missing the most salient point: that until he was literally 30 years old, Burns was a good #3D or mediocre #2D. It took him 10 years to get to true #1D status. So even your best case scenario, Dickinson doesn't "learn" processing until we're basically past Celebrini's prime.

Look at every #1D in today's NHL, and find what they have in common. It's not size and it's not skating. It's hockey IQ.

You're basically making the argument for Dickinson becoming Burns that every dumbass on this forum makes about any 6'7" defenseman with mediocre skating. If Chara can do it, my guy can too!

Whatever jux.
Burns was not that elite in his draft year and was considered a mid- late first rounder not even best on his team. He was a late riser who had a good playoff and his stock rose last minute. I also disagree with your assessment of Dickinson's skating and think raw draft year Burns and Dickinson were very comparable.

I've been working around junior hockey for a very long time and I am still wrong a lot and right sometimes. And I know you have been an avid watcher of junior hockey and have been right a lot and wrong sometimes.

Im not going to write paragraphs every time you rebut. I wanted Buium or Dickinson and felt both were the best D of this draft class.

I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Whatever jux.
Burns was not that elite in his draft year and was considered a mid- late first rounder not even best on his team. He was a late riser who had a good playoff and his stock rose last minute. I also disagree with your assessment of Dickinson's skating and think raw draft year Burns and Dickinson were very comparable.

I've been working around junior hockey for a very long time and I am still wrong a lot and right sometimes. And I know you have been an avid watcher of junior hockey and have been right a lot and wrong sometimes.

Im not going to write paragraphs every time you rebut. I wanted Buium or Dickinson and felt both were the best D of this draft class.

I'll just agree to disagree.

Certainly, we can agree to disagree, and I hope on this account you are correct.

I'll confess that some of my motivation here is to attempt to save Dickinson some of the crappy treatment next year that Smith is getting this year when he isn't a top-4 defenseman immediately.

 

[weastern bias]

Certainly, we can agree to disagree, and I hope on this account you are correct.

I'll confess that some of my motivation here is to attempt to save Dickinson some of the crappy treatment next year that Smith is getting this year when he isn't a top-4 defenseman immediately.

Are we sure he's coming up next year? Based on what I've seen it might be better for him to marinate for one extra season, but I felt the same way about Smith

It's a bummer he won't be AHL eligible for an entire extra year, that transfer agreement is really disadvantageous for talented prospects that are young for their draft year

 

[Star Platinum]

Certainly, we can agree to disagree, and I hope on this account you are correct.

I'll confess that some of my motivation here is to attempt to save Dickinson some of the crappy treatment next year that Smith is getting this year when he isn't a top-4 defenseman immediately.

Are we sure he's coming up next year? Based on what I've seen it might be better for him to marinate for one extra season, but I felt the same way about Smith

It's a bummer he won't be AHL eligible for an entire extra year, that transfer agreement is really disadvantageous for talented prospects that are young for their draft year

In an imperfect situation, I'd rather he come up to be a third pairing defenseman at the NHL level to get him to work on being a better defender. He's not going to get challenged enough on that end in juniors.

 

[67 others]

Are we sure he's coming up next year? Based on what I've seen it might be better for him to marinate for one extra season, but I felt the same way about Smith

It's a bummer he won't be AHL eligible for an entire extra year, that transfer agreement is really disadvantageous for talented prospects that are young for their draft year

He's having a historic season this year absolutely killing his draft +1 year compared to every other Dman in his draft class and he was already elite last year with no pp time.

I agree the transfer agreement sucks. He doesn't have a whole lot more to learn at OHL level. He is dominating

 

[jMoneyBrah]

He's having a historic season this year absolutely killing his draft +1 year compared to every other Dman in his draft class and he was already elite last year with no pp time.

I agree the transfer agreement sucks. He doesn't have a whole lot more to learn at OHL level. He is dominating

Okay, I just did a quick glance at his stats… holy crap. He’s on pace for 120 points. Obviously, that’s far from the only metric for a dman, but dayyyymmmn that’s a lot of points.