Bob McKenzie Pre Season 2025 Draft Rankings

[coooldude]

5’11 176 before even turning 18 isn’t really an issue for a guy who is like the most skilled player in the draft. Hughes and Bedard both measured in as smaller than that.

By the way, I lost brain cells reading this line.


Example #100 that NHL scouts are not overly impressive people. No smarter than the average poster here.

I also think that Ryabkin stylistically is not at all "cut from the same cloth" as Demidov, so that quote was surprising. He plays a much different game, from my early viewings.

I do think that Hagens' size will continue to be a talking point, unless/until his BC season shows he's strong on his skates and/or tough to knock off the puck and/or so skilled (at/above Celebrini/Smith NCAA offensive caliber) that it doesn't matter.

Mrtka being that high is eyebrow raising a little but also not too surprising... we'll see how the year continues. I would be surprised to see Eklund stay that high. He's a clone of his brother, but not sure given the other draft profiles that he'll follow his brother in top 10 or even 10-20.

I'm no expert but I have a hunch Martone will be in the 1OA convo alongside Schaefer.

 

[Czechboy]

I also think that Ryabkin stylistically is not at all "cut from the same cloth" as Demidov, so that quote was surprising. He plays a much different game, from my early viewings.

I do think that Hagens' size will continue to be a talking point, unless/until his BC season shows he's strong on his skates and/or tough to knock off the puck and/or so skilled (at/above Celebrini/Smith NCAA offensive caliber) that it doesn't matter.

Mrtka being that high is eyebrow raising a little but also not too surprising... we'll see how the year continues. I would be surprised to see Eklund stay that high. He's a clone of his brother, but not sure given the other draft profiles that he'll follow his brother in top 10 or even 10-20.

I'm no expert but I have a hunch Martone will be in the 1OA convo alongside Schaefer.

I thought Mrtka wouldn't get mentioned and would be in the late 20's.

However, you can't teach size. He was also exceptional in the finals loss to Canada at the Hlinka. He was carrying that puck and running Canadian players over. It was very impressive for a man his size. And the writeup does say that Hlinka had a factor here. It also said this is the least accurate list.

Czechs tend to rise slowly and usually aren't on the lists to start... So I thought 20 to 30 and then he'd land between 10 to 20 when all said and done. RHD that is 6'6 checks many boxes. I'm curious how he progresses. Dream is he is the Czech Chara.lol

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

Martone at 4 is bold

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Frondell was second in J20 per-game scoring in division play as a draft-1 with a 1.48 average.
Outproduced Raymond, Mika, Elias Pettersson, Bratt, Pastrnak, Filip Forsberg, etc in their respective draft-1's. Leo Carlsson was much higher but he played in less games.

Bob was not quoting a scout when he said Frondell's "offensive productivity is not necessarily elite". He's either purposely misleading the public or incredibly ignorant toward the J20.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

As for the Hagens size critique, it's completely baseless. Hagens destroyed NCAA competition last year as a draft-1, often matching up against 6'1+ centers and even bigger defenders. Additionally, Hagens was one of the top players at the WJSS despite being one of the youngest players there. He matched up against Berglund, Nordh, Kumpulainen, Beaudoin, among others. Never once in six days worth of coverage did I feel like Hagens' size was remotely limiting his ability to create at will. It wasn't a completely dominant performance, but again, any issues were not related to size, strength on the puck, etc.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I also think that Ryabkin stylistically is not at all "cut from the same cloth" as Demidov, so that quote was surprising. He plays a much different game, from my early viewings.

I do think that Hagens' size will continue to be a talking point, unless/until his BC season shows he's strong on his skates and/or tough to knock off the puck and/or so skilled (at/above Celebrini/Smith NCAA offensive caliber) that it doesn't matter.

Mrtka being that high is eyebrow raising a little but also not too surprising... we'll see how the year continues. I would be surprised to see Eklund stay that high. He's a clone of his brother, but not sure given the other draft profiles that he'll follow his brother in top 10 or even 10-20.

I'm no expert but I have a hunch Martone will be in the 1OA convo alongside Schaefer.

Have you seen Hagens play at all?

 

[BKarchitect]

Martone at 4 is bold

How so? He’s pretty much universally top 5 at this point. Most OHL watchers tend to think he’s a cut above Sennecke who just went 3rd. He’s got hugely projectable skills, a great frame, great production and he’s gonna get tons of exposure this season.

As things stand now, I think he’s got the best shot at challenging Hagens for #1.

- Would’ve said Frondell but he’s on the shelf for a while and there’s no guarantee of how he is going to look when gets back.

- Ryabkin has the Russian factor.

- McQueen has great projectables but has a bigger gap to make-up in terms of production and “show me” than Martone.

- Misa is excellent but I’m not sure he’s got the right combination of either pure dynamic traits or elite physical traits to challenge when it comes to picking who you think will be a superstar at the next level.

- Schaefer just might be the second best player/prospect in the class but he’s unlikely to put up other worldly point totals that get minds racing as his game is more about sublime control.

I’m not saying Martone should go #2 but if he builds on last season, he’s going to have a compelling case.

 

[SannywithoutCompy]

How so? He’s pretty much universally top 5 at this point. Most OHL watchers tend to think he’s a cut above Sennecke who just went 3rd. He’s got hugely projectable skills, a great frame, great production and he’s gonna get tons of exposure this season.

As things stand now, I think he’s got the best shot at challenging Hagens for #1.

- Would’ve said Frondell but he’s on the shelf for a while and there’s no guarantee of how he is going to look when gets back.

- Ryabkin has the Russian factor.

- McQueen has great projectables but has a bigger gap to make-up in terms of production and “show me” than Martone.

- Misa is excellent but I’m not sure he’s got the right combination of either pure dynamic traits or elite physical traits to challenge when it comes to picking who you think will be a superstar at the next level.

- Schaefer just might be the second best player/prospect in the class but he’s unlikely to put up other worldly point totals that get minds racing as his game is more about sublime control.

I’m not saying Martone should go #2 but if he builds on last season, he’s going to have a compelling case.

That's exactly what I'm saying. He should be number 2, at worst number 3 behind Schaefer.

 

[coooldude]

Have you seen Hagens play at all?

Yes. Why are you being aggressive? Had a bad morning?

He's clearly in pole position for 1OA, but size will still be a talking point, even at 1OA, until/unless he is the best player in college hockey. Which is very possible.

As for the Hagens size critique, it's completely baseless.

For sure, I'm not saying I PERSONALLY think he's too small to be a franchise 1C, but I am definitely saying that people are going to talk about it until/unless he crushes NCAA once more.

 

[BKarchitect]

That's exactly what I'm saying. He should be number 2, at worst number 3 behind Schaefer.

lol, gotcha. I think Martone, Schaefer, Frondell and Ryabkin are right now 2-5 in some order.

I’d think there’s a tier drop (again - at the moment) after Hagens and those four but obviously that could change drastically over the course of the season.

 

[Sacha BOXviert]

Frondell looks bigger. 6'0" is strange

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Yes. Why are you being aggressive? Had a bad morning?

He's clearly in pole position for 1OA, but size will still be a talking point, even at 1OA, until/unless he is the best player in college hockey. Which is very possible.


For sure, I'm not saying I PERSONALLY think he's too small to be a franchise 1C, but I am definitely saying that people are going to talk about it until/unless he crushes NCAA once more.

He'll be centering Perreault and Leonard. I think any concerns over his size are silenced by mid-December, if not sooner.

Also,

Crosby 5’10, 175 (post)
Stamkos 5’11, 176 (post)
Bedard 5’10, 183 (pre)
Hughes 5'10, 170 (post)

The scout Bob quoted should have been reminded of this and then allowed to offer a follow-up response clarifying what he said why he said it.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

He'll be centering Perreault and Leonard. I think any concerns over his size are silenced by mid-December, if not sooner.

Also,

Crosby 5’10, 175 (post)
Stamkos 5’11, 176 (post)
Bedard 5’10, 183 (pre)
Hughes 5'10, 170 (post)

The scout Bob quoted should have been reminded of this and then allowed to offer a follow-up response clarifying what he said why he said it.

It was also strange where they list an "upgraded" height and weight for Hagens in that sentence, made the case for why his size won't matter (his offense) in that sentence, and then defaulted to "well, some might see him as a 2C" anyway.

It was just an illogical throwaway sentence meant to cause unnecessary controversy.

 

[Briser la glace]

I'm really surprised to see that McQueen had a vote for 1st. I expected more hype for Martone.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

It was also strange where they list an "upgraded" height and weight for Hagens in that sentence, made the case for why his size won't matter (his offense) in that sentence, and then defaulted to "well, some might see him as a 2C" anyway.

It was just an illogical throwaway sentence meant to cause unnecessary controversy.

I just wanted the assessments to be fair across the board. Schaefer's draft-1 production was not even close to elite, but one Hlinka and they're saying he's a lock top-pairing kid, while Frondell produced at an elite level for a draft-1, and he tries to marginalize his upside and knock him down to a 2C.

Additionally, no mention of Martone's spotty performance at the WJSS. I remember Bob wouldn't shut up about Chychrun's TPG --- one game -- while Martone's WJSS -- a tougher tournament -- is never mentioned. It was only one game against the U.S., but Martone looked out of his league outside of physicality while Spence was 10 times more effective and smart.

Ryabkin is an elite playmaker with exceptional vision and creativity, I would say better than Catton was at this stage. No mention of that. Just "high-end skills".

 

[WarriorofTime]

Nice to see a couple French kids get in there

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

looking like such a great run of 1OAs right now. Bedard, Celebrini, Hagens… maybe too early but McKenna and DuPont?

Hopefully they all pan out and it’s a similar run to Ovi, Crosby, Eric Johnson (lol), Kane, Stammer, Tavares.

 

[Briser la glace]

Nice to see a couple French kids get in there

Yup! Should be a very interesting year for the Q!

 

[Gazewithin]

Frondell was second in J20 per-game scoring in division play as a draft-1 with a 1.48 average.
Outproduced Raymond, Mika, Elias Pettersson, Bratt, Pastrnak, Filip Forsberg, etc in their respective draft-1's. Leo Carlsson was much higher but he played in less games.

Bob was not quoting a scout when he said Frondell's "offensive productivity is not necessarily elite". He's either purposely misleading the public or incredibly ignorant toward the J20.

Not to mention that both Pettersson and Carlsson(the most recent top swedish centers) both are late birthdays from the year before. Also, Frondells game is both high level in skill and vision, so I don't even see the argument in terms of projectability. It would be fine if they worried about his skating not being as good as other top talents, or even his recent injury streak. But his offense is both impressive statistically and by the eyetest.

But not surprising. Pettersson was dominant in Allsvenskan as a junior and the best the scouts had to say back then was "wah wah his weight is too low". Meanwhile every other year we have a mid to large-sized defenceman with low ceiling vision and that either skates well or handles the puck decently, and scouts go "Oh man, I can really see the firstpar D-man in this one. "

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Not to mention that both Pettersson and Carlsson(the most recent top swedish centers) both are late birthdays from the year before. Also, Frondells game is both high level in skill and vision, so I don't even see the argument in terms of projectability. It would be fine if they worried about his skating not being as good as other top talents, or even his recent injury streak. But his offense is both impressive statistically and by the eyetest.

But not surprising. Pettersson was dominant in Allsvenskan as a junior and the best the scouts had to say back then was "wah wah his weight is too low". Meanwhile every other year we have a mid to large-sized defenceman with low ceiling vision and that either skates well or handles the puck decently, and scouts go "Oh man, I can really see the firstpar D-man in this one. "

Don't get me started on the Pettersson thing lol. I fought so hard to convince people that his weight should not be a concern, even if it was painfully obvious he was rail thin.

I think part of the problem is that McKenzie doesn't scout the players himself. All he had to do was watch Frondell's first game at the U20 5 Nations from three weeks ago and he'd see that Frondell was in fact a special talent with elite skill and the highest of upsides.

 

[Mathieukferland]

Schaefer's draft-1 production was not even close to elite, but one Hlinka and they're saying he's a lock top-pairing kid

To be fair he was also the best defender on his team if not top 3 in the entire u18 tournament as an underage, it would be disingenuous to say he’s only at 2 because of one Hlinka. I did not watch the u17WHC but he was apparently excellent there as well

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

It was also strange where they list an "upgraded" height and weight for Hagens in that sentence, made the case for why his size won't matter (his offense) in that sentence, and then defaulted to "well, some might see him as a 2C" anyway.

It was just an illogical throwaway sentence meant to cause unnecessary controversy.

I thought he said something about he might just be an elite 2c. If tht were true then he shouldn't be anywhere near 1st overall ranking. As you say it made absolutely no sense. Maybe it was the scout who had McQueen first overall that said that.

 

[Mathieukferland]

If tht were true then he shouldn't be anywhere near 1st overall ranking

It’s a weak year for forwards and a weaker draft in general than the past few years, so he’s there by default because there is really no serious challenger in my opinion (at least for forwards). I think you’re still looking at a really good NHL player like in the Hischier/Larkin mould, but compared to other elite 1st overall challenging NTDP kids and their production at the programme (Matthews, Eichel, Hughes, etc) he is step behind them I would say

 

[Bubbles]

size queens aplenty in NHL front offices apparently, have seen him at Hlinka and briefly at the u18 and he is nowhere close to Hagens (even better comparison because they’re both 06s). It’s more likely he falls out of the top 10 than goes 1

Agreed. You can tell the scouts that Bobby Mac asked only watched the two tournaments.

Having watched him for two seasons, the potential is there but let's see what he does this coming season. It will also be his first full season at centre, even though they seem to be hyping him at centre. He only started at centre in the back half of last season.

 

[tmg]

Martone at 4 is bold

As always, McKenzie’s list isn’t a single opinion piece, it’s a formulaic composite from 10 nhl scouts.

Which is to say anything here can only be so ‘bold’ when to get on this list at all takes at least three of ten nhl scouts in agreement and to get that high takes a lot more than that.

His format doesn’t really allow for a single outlier to skew the results. If someone’s that high it’s largely out of a consensus, not someone making an outlier bold pick.

That said, this same format landed Silayev at #4 on his list and he went #10 in reality so maybe this really is a collection of outlier scouts.