I get the feeling that if Drysdale is there they take him, if he isn't the decision is between Quinn or Sanderson. My personal preference is different from what I think the sens do, but I just think its going to be one of those 3 guys that they go with.
Prospect Info: 5th Overall Pick 2020: Who Do The Sens Draft
- Thread starter JungleBeat
- Start date
- Status
I get the feeling that if Drysdale is there they take him, if he isn't the decision is between Quinn or Sanderson. My personal preference is different from what I think the sens do, but I just think its going to be one of those 3 guys that they go with.
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,279
- 9,984
I like Lundell C at #5, especially if Ottawa loses out on Byfield at #3. Most likely Ottawa will end up with Stutzle who IMO will be a LWer in the NHL & acquiring another very good centre (an important position) to someday play with Stutzle would improve the team as a whole.
IMO Lundell is the whole package similar to Byfield although I clearly prefer Byfield, but Lundell is a close second & could be the 2nd best centre in this draft. While others ahead of him all have weaknesses & negatives to their games, IMO Lundell is the most complete player after the top 3 playing the most important forward position.
Both Stutzle & Lundell have already played with men & because they are European could play in the AHL as soon as next season if Ottawa wants. They would be a phone call away from being brought up & right now would improve Belleville's team dramatically learning the system & learning the ropes.
I think it should come down to either Sanderson LD or Lundell C a #5 & with Ottawa also having the NYI pick could pick up a very good defenceman in Guhle as the next best defenceman after Sanderson. I also think that Ottawa will most likely be a lottery team next season & could have another shot at one of the top 5 in next yr's draft.
IMO Lundell is the whole package similar to Byfield although I clearly prefer Byfield, but Lundell is a close second & could be the 2nd best centre in this draft. While others ahead of him all have weaknesses & negatives to their games, IMO Lundell is the most complete player after the top 3 playing the most important forward position.
Both Stutzle & Lundell have already played with men & because they are European could play in the AHL as soon as next season if Ottawa wants. They would be a phone call away from being brought up & right now would improve Belleville's team dramatically learning the system & learning the ropes.
I think it should come down to either Sanderson LD or Lundell C a #5 & with Ottawa also having the NYI pick could pick up a very good defenceman in Guhle as the next best defenceman after Sanderson. I also think that Ottawa will most likely be a lottery team next season & could have another shot at one of the top 5 in next yr's draft.
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 6,057
- 5,210
I like Lundell too but I think he might be available around 10-15. I'd try to move up to get him with the Isles pick. If we get Byfield and Lundell it would set up our top 2 Cs for the foreseeable future.
Having said that there a few guys I'd like to draft who should be in the 10-15 range, so if the Isles pick lands there I might just sit tight.
I'm a Flyers fan. but can't help but say wow when looking how stock piled they are for this upcoming draft.
I was thinking with Anderson hurt, i'm suprised you guys are not talking about Yaroslav Askarov.
Having a great goalie makes a huge difference. Look at Carter Hart for the Flyers.
If not at #5? Would look at him with your other picks?
Rossi is my other choice if i was you.
I was thinking with Anderson hurt, i'm suprised you guys are not talking about Yaroslav Askarov.
Having a great goalie makes a huge difference. Look at Carter Hart for the Flyers.
If not at #5? Would look at him with your other picks?
Rossi is my other choice if i was you.
aragorn
Do The Right Thing
- Aug 8, 2004
- 29,279
- 9,984
For me, it's Byfield #3 & Sanderson #5 or Stutzle #3 & Lundell at #5. I think Ottawa only needs one good centre from this draft since I think one of L. Brown or Norris could also become a top six centre. If we don't get Byfield than I don't think they should take the chance of losing the next best centre (Lundell) in this draft.
There are plenty of good choices of complimentary players with the NYI pick, if they take Sanderson LD than they can go with a forward or move up to acquire Askarov G. If they take Lundell C than they should be in a good spot to acquire Guhle LD as the next best defenceman on the board. I think Lundell is too good & plays an important position to not get picked in the top 10.
BondraTime
Registered User
You kind of said it yourself in your example with Hart. He was picked 48th overall, not 5th. Goalies are just such a wildcard in the draft.
Adele Dazeem
Registered User
Rossi/Raymond/Holtz are better wingers than Drysdale/Sanderson are Dmen
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
Rossi doesn't even play wing. Rossi as a winger is definitely worse than Drsydale as a dman. I would take Drysdale over Rossi at any position.
TheDebater
Peace be upon you
It gets said alot, but it needs to be said again apparently:
Do not draft a player based on organizational needs at that position. Always always, always, draft the best player available at your time of picking.
Picking based on "need" is how teams end up missing out on players who end up being NHL stars later on in their careers.
At worst, you pick the best player available regardless of their position and then trade them down the road for another equal player to fill the position of "need.
Hall for Larsson
Drouin for Sergachev
Rundblad for Turris
Just some examples of trades that can be made as long as you have a player that is valuable to another team.
If Drysdale is the best player available at #5, then you take him regardless and then trade him down the road if it gets crowded on the blue line for a top forward.
Same goes if Raymond or Rossi are available at #5 instead, you take the highest ranked player every single time.
Do not draft a player based on organizational needs at that position. Always always, always, draft the best player available at your time of picking.
Picking based on "need" is how teams end up missing out on players who end up being NHL stars later on in their careers.
At worst, you pick the best player available regardless of their position and then trade them down the road for another equal player to fill the position of "need.
Hall for Larsson
Drouin for Sergachev
Rundblad for Turris
Just some examples of trades that can be made as long as you have a player that is valuable to another team.
If Drysdale is the best player available at #5, then you take him regardless and then trade him down the road if it gets crowded on the blue line for a top forward.
Same goes if Raymond or Rossi are available at #5 instead, you take the highest ranked player every single time.
TheDebater
Peace be upon you
See my post above, but doing something like this is akin to the Habs a few years back selecting Kotkaniemi over Tkachuk because they needed a center and probably thought Kotkaniemi was the best available centre at the time.
Had they selected Tkachuk, at worst they would have had a massive trade peice to use to acquire a legit #1 center instead of being stuck with a center who right now needs way more time to develop.
Take the BPA, the GM can do his job to build a proper team later.
BoardsofCanada
Registered User
People questioning Rossi, just look at what Konecny is becoming for the Flyers. This is how Konecny was described before the draft in 2015:
hard-nosed determination, proactiveness in all three zones, and a physical willingness to grind and persevere, you get a game-changer who can be extremely difficult to play against.
I've heard Rossi described the same way.
hard-nosed determination, proactiveness in all three zones, and a physical willingness to grind and persevere, you get a game-changer who can be extremely difficult to play against.
I've heard Rossi described the same way.
BondraTime
Registered User
No they aren’t, Raymond maybe.
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
Rossi is better than Konecny as a prospect, but he’s smaller. If Rossi became what Konecny is today, that would be a very disappointing top 5 pick .
Billy Bridges
Registered User
- Sep 20, 2011
- 419
- 633
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 67,136
- 52,853
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 67,136
- 52,853
Not many will disagree with that. Who is the BPA at 5? Not sure who Detroit takes at 4. but there are a group of players, each of which could be viewed as BPA depending on the org and BPA when? is a question as well. Its not necessarily about right now.
McKenzie's scouts is as close as we have to what NHL teams think.
10 scouts
4. Drysdale although 2 / 10 had Sanderson at 3 8/10 had Drysdale at 4 but there will be some that have someone else
5. Perfetti High 4 Low 12 BPA varies by the team
6. Raymond High 5 Low 11
7. Rossi 9/10 scouts had a high of 5 low of 10; 1 outlier had him 18 so no where close to BPA at 7 for that one.
8. Sanderson High 3 Low 11
...
So from 3 to 8 who exactly is the universal BPA?... So it is a concept that exists but the result changes between teams just like it changes between people on here..
Last edited:
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 35,400
- 9,819
Hell no. Kid is a good player, but he is a tier below what a contending team will have as a core player. He's like Monahan in that respect...lots of skill, and passes the eye test....but there's something lacking between the ears. Not hockey IQ...but the confidence and attitude to be a winner. The mental game is what we lacked in our Pizza line days...let's not make the same mistake this time around.
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
100x more confident in Rossi physically surviving in the NHL than Konecny going into the draft. Rossi is probably heavier than Konecny is today and like an inch shorter.
As an aside D-men hate playing against short players with a low centre of gravity who are built like a fire hydrant. Much easier to play against a 6'1 skinny guy.
- Status
