Bob McKenzie's Top 75 rankings for 2010

[Reload]

That's just so incredibly stupid and unbelievably irrational.

"Can't afford to take the chance"? Hello guys, you spend most your picks on players who have, at most, a 10% probability of ever getting near the NHL. And you're so worried about a largely theoretical risk of a prospect not signing that you have a policy of not drafting any russian players no matter what? Okay, if you're picking 5th overall and have lots of good options, it's a factor. But it's a factor like lots of other things are factors, and to just blanket not draft russians?

I suppose this is the logic that made NHL teams feel they had better options than Pavel Bure with their 6th round picks. But fools never learn, and while the NHL is full of bright people, it is also strangely prone to these bouts of herd-like idiocy. Strong words, I know, but this is just too silly and I use them advisedly.

Not that I disagree with your post, but most teams didn't actually think they could draft Pavel Bure. There was a lot of controversy over whether or not he was eligible the year that the Canucks drafted him.

 

[nexttothemoon]

This kind of a composite draft analysis is brilliant and interesting in getting a feel for which prospects are the most highly coveted by a range of scouts/teams. I agree though that it's a bit deceptive in that it only takes one team to really like a certain prospect and he could go much higher than the composite score would indicate.

Imagine the 30 teams rankings on a certain player... let's use Kabanov just for fun:

Hypothetically let's say these are the 30 rankings that each team's scouting staff has for Kabanov...

49
43
36
- (wouldn't take the risk at all)
82
31
37
19
46
57
44
45
45
39
33
28
31
47
38
35
22
51
103
45
52
44
34
28
46
38

The hypothetical average of all these ranks works out to 43 (not including the team that wouldn't risk even a 7th round pick on him).

So does he go around 43rd right around his composite rank result... or does he possibly go as high as 19-28 where 4 other teams have him ranked. It all depends on whether those teams have higher ranked players still available when they draft (or even if those teams who rank him highly even have picks in the 1st round or early second round at all). He could jump higher or even slip a lot lower depending on how all the other picks in the draft play out.

Of course it would be really interesting to see the highest-lowest-median rank for each prospect as that would give a better idea of where they might fall... sort of a best case scenario that shows how wide the opinions are spread on each prospect.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

A reminder of hits (i.e. correct guesses) from last year's first round (and CSB rankings):

Drafted |Player |TSN |NAS |ES
1 | John Tavares |1 |1
2 | Victor Hedman |2 | |1
3 | Matt Duchene |3 |2
4 | Evander Kane |4 |3
5 | Brayden Schenn |5 |4
6 | Oliver Ekman-Larsson |6 | |4
7 |Nazem Kadri |8 |15
8 |Scott Glennie |11 |7
9 |Jared Cowen |7 |9
10 | Magnus Pääjärvi-Svensson |10 | |2
11 |Ryan Ellis |12 |16
12 |Calvin de Haan |23 |25
13 |Zack Kassian |14 |10
14 |Dmitri Kulikov |9 |11
15 |Peter Holland |24 |19
16 |Nick Leddy |29 |24
17 |David Rundblad |21 | |6
18 |Louis Leblanc |17 |13
19 | Chris Kreider |19 |14
20 |Jacob Josefson |16 | |3
21 |John Moore |13 |6
22 |Jordan Schroeder |15 |5
23 |Tim Erixon |28 | |5
25 |Jordan Caron |22 |21
26 |Kyle Palmieri |25 |20
29 |Carter Ashton |20 |12
30 |Simon Despres |18 |8

NAS = North American Skaters, ES = European Skaters.

If you're happy with a +/- 3 draft spots margin of error, that equals 16 of the players in the first round.

 

[Qvist]

Not that I disagree with your post, but most teams didn't actually think they could draft Pavel Bure. There was a lot of controversy over whether or not he was eligible the year that the Canucks drafted him.

Okay, fair point. But you could make the same point I made with a lot of different examples - Mogilny, Konstantinov.....

 

[Qvist]

I must admit I'm having a hard time squaring Gudbranson's rise to the top among the big three Ds (here and elsewhere) with the way he is being projected. If he's realistically projected as essentially a physical shutdown guy with no strong presence on the possession side of the game, how does that put him that high given the nature of today's game?

Maybe it primarily says something about concerns about Gormley's upside and Fowler's defensive and physical game?

 

[babybruin]

I think from all Ive read and seen I would personally choose Gormley above Gudbranson/Fowler. Wild to see how quick Johansen has jumped. I think this is the first time Ive seen him come in above Nino

 

[Samsquanch]

Give that man a cigar. Couldn't have said it any better myself. The numbers are the numbers. I try not to get very subjective at all, just let the numbers speak for themselves.

I've got nothing against Jared Knight but nine of 10 scouts I talked to didn't have him in their top 60. He's obviously a great story, what with the diabetes and the goal totals and the youtube workout video and he could easily go in the second round.

Historically, the first round of our rankings have been gold (27 of 30 ifirst rounders in each of the last two years have actually been first rounders on draft day. It was as low as 23 in 2005 and this year could be quite volatile because there seem to be a lot of variables this year.

But I would suggest all bets are off in the second round as far as a great batting average. I don't even know how many guys who have been unranked on the TSN list in the past who have been taken in the second round but I'll bet it's a considerable number.

I don't know Jared Knight at all but I would be thrilled for him, like I'd be thrilled for any kid, to get drafted. Don't know if that helps but the bottom line is that it's a numbers driven exercise and as Brodeur correctly pointed out, it only ever takes one team. Just one team. Thanks.

Bob McKenzie.

Wait, wait... is this guy the real Bob McKenzie? Pretty cool if it is, Bob is the man but not sure he would have the time to screw around here during work like the rest of us. After seeing Beau Bennet so high on his list, and knowing he was thoroughly interviewed by Ottawa I dont think its that big a stretch to see the sens take him.

 

[Levitate]

Yeah it actually is Bob McKenzie. He doesn't post a ton so it's not like he's screwing around here all the time

 

[Smarty]

Smarty,

I like Weal too, but either your his dad, his agent, or BFF because all you ever do is post about him.

Size is a factor, Eberle is a factor.....being ranked in the top 50 is nothing to shake a stick at, for his sake if he is picked late 2nd maybe he uses it as motivation.


There are only 30 first round spots????

Obviously if he is 6' he is top 20, but that isnt the case so the jury will be out on him.

Sorry, none of the above. Just a Pats fan and Weal fan. He is seriously being underrated, especially compare to other small guys. I could argue the point many ways that the Eberle factor is also over blown. Time will tell. And yes I get that there are only 30 spots in first round. If he is not in the first he should be close, 48 is to low.

 

[13 others]

Yeah it actually is Bob McKenzie. He doesn't post a ton so it's not like he's screwing around here all the time

And technically it could be considered part of his job

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I must admit I'm having a hard time squaring Gudbranson's rise to the top among the big three Ds (here and elsewhere) with the way he is being projected. If he's realistically projected as essentially a physical shutdown guy with no strong presence on the possession side of the game, how does that put him that high given the nature of today's game?

Maybe it primarily says something about concerns about Gormley's upside and Fowler's defensive and physical game?

I think this is where the misunderstanding or misinformation arises from. Scouts question Gudbranson's offensive upside, which fans then incorrectly assume means he has zero actual offensive ability. Which then leads to wondering why a purely shutdown guy is rated so high.

That's not the case. I think what scouts are talking about is that he has a lower offensive upside than your typical "PP QB" type guys, but he's also not a one dimensional stay at home D like a Regehr, Volchenkov or Komisarek.

Instead, scouts see Gudbranson more like a Phillips, Seabrook, or possibly a Brent Burns. Not exactly high end offensively, but also offensively capable enough to chip in with 30+ points in a given season.

The other thing is, Gudbranson's raw. Some scouts think he actually does have a higher offensive ceiling than what he's shown so far. Thus that, combined with his physical play and character, have some teams rating him high based on him potentially reaching that untapped ceiling. And in that case, you could be looking at a Weber-like player.

On draft day it'll all come down to whether a team believes he'll top out at Chris Phillips/Brent Seabrook, or whether they believe he's got a chance to become a Shea Weber, when it comes to where he'll be picked.

 

[JUICE9]

Where's Justin Shugg, scored 39 goals this season, i know it's because he was in the Spits, but he has speed, decent shot, i guess his downfall in his size, but he should be in the top 75.

 

[arsmaster*]

I must admit I'm having a hard time squaring Gudbranson's rise to the top among the big three Ds (here and elsewhere) with the way he is being projected. If he's realistically projected as essentially a physical shutdown guy with no strong presence on the possession side of the game, how does that put him that high given the nature of today's game?

Maybe it primarily says something about concerns about Gormley's upside and Fowler's defensive and physical game?

Sydney the Kydney explained it pretty well......Brent Seabrook. The resmblance is striking. For Florida or even Columbus you have to imagine their GM's are visualizing Gudbranson as the SEabrook to their potential Keith's (Kulikov and Kris Russell).

No folks Im not saying Kulikov and Russell are as good as Keith, but thats the idea of pairing a good, mobile, offensive defensman with a big, strong, decently mobile and offensive D-man like Seabrook or Gudbranson.

Sorry, none of the above. Just a Pats fan and Weal fan. He is seriously being underrated, especially compare to other small guys. I could argue the point many ways that the Eberle factor is also over blown. Time will tell. And yes I get that there are only 30 spots in first round. If he is not in the first he should be close, 48 is to low.

He is definately the smallest of the bunch though, what does it matter where you are picked.

We'll find out saturday where he goes, or maybe even Friday.

 

[Qvist]

I think this is where the misunderstanding or misinformation arises from. Scouts question Gudbranson's offensive upside, which fans then incorrectly assume means he has zero actual offensive ability. Which then leads to wondering why a purely shutdown guy is rated so high.

That's not the case. I think what scouts are talking about is that he has a lower offensive upside than your typical "PP QB" type guys, but he's also not a one dimensional stay at home D like a Regehr, Volchenkov or Komisarek.

Instead, scouts see Gudbranson more like a Phillips, Seabrook, or possibly a Brent Burns. Not exactly high end offensively, but also offensively capable enough to chip in with 30+ points in a given season.

The other thing is, Gudbranson's raw. Some scouts think he actually does have a higher offensive ceiling than what he's shown so far. Thus that, combined with his physical play and character, have some teams rating him high based on him potentially reaching that untapped ceiling. And in that case, you could be looking at a Weber-like player.

On draft day it'll all come down to whether a team believes he'll top out at Chris Phillips/Brent Seabrook, or whether they believe he's got a chance to become a Shea Weber, when it comes to where he'll be picked.

For my part I've certainly never had the impression that Gudbranson was seen as a zero offense player, rather as a primarily shutdown guy with limited impact offensively and puck-control wise. Chris Phillips (whose career high is 26 pts BTW ) is indeed pretty much what I was thinking.

Not that there's anything very wrong with coming away with the next Chris Phillips with a top 5 pick, but what's bugging me is more this:

A year ago, Gudbranson was being talked about as a prime shutdown guy with a potential in other areas that was still largely speculative. Generally he seemed to be rated somewhere in the 6-10th bracket.

A year later, after having had a season that was not as far as I understand particularly dominant either domestically or internationally (and which certainly can't have done much to indicate much offensive upside), he is still being talked about in pretty much exactly the same terms.

Only now he's the odds-on favorite for third overall. Of course, a good few players who were in the top 10 picture ahead of the season have fallen in estimation (Kabanov most obviously, but also Connolly, McFarland - and Fowler?). I'm just wondering though if this is a bad sign for the quality of this year's top ten.

 

[james30]

yes i agree with the point about this year's top 10. Other than Hall who is definitely ready to play in the NHL next year,(only because he has done everything else in the OHL), I don't think anybody else is ready to stay up the whole year.

 

[howley]

I think the hesitations at this point with Weal are based around the fact that he is a little different than other small players that have gone through the draft in the past especially out of the WHL. The Ennis', Boychuk's and Eberles are all pretty dynamic smaller players. Exciting, flashy, high end skill, top end speed, smart, high compete. The type of players that "if they were 2-3 inches taller, 20 lbs heavier they would push top 5." (or so they say) The thing with Weal is that if he was 2-3 inches taller and 20 lbs heaver I don't think he's pushing top five. He'd be a lock for the 1st round but I don't think it would make him an elite type prospect. No doubt he is very good but he is a "quieter" small player in that he may not pop out at you all the time. Ennis, Boychuk, Eberle are guys that you can't miss when they are on the ice. The question is how will teams project a smaller, quieter, less dynamic player who does not really have blazing speed. No doubt he is quick and shifty, but straight line he's just ok. Personally if I'm at the draft table and picking in the mid to late second round he'd be considered but not a player that I'd have to have. If my team had 3 picks in the top 2 rounds I'd push for him assuming my other two picks were not considered the "risky pick."

I'm not saying he's not a good player because I like the kids game and what he brings to the table but I also understand the hesitations. I also only saw him a few times this season so maybe I caught him on a few "off" games.

If were talking about under rated smaller players in the WHL we have to talk about Brendan Ranford.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think the hesitations at this point with Weal are based around the fact that he is a little different than other small players that have gone through the draft in the past especially out of the WHL. The Ennis', Boychuk's and Eberles are all pretty dynamic smaller players. Exciting, flashy, high end skill, top end speed, smart, high compete. The type of players that "if they were 2-3 inches taller, 20 lbs heavier they would push top 5." (or so they say) The thing with Weal is that if he was 2-3 inches taller and 20 lbs heaver I don't think he's pushing top five. He'd be a lock for the 1st round but I don't think it would make him an elite type prospect. No doubt he is very good but he is a "quieter" small player in that he may not pop out at you all the time. Ennis, Boychuk, Eberle are guys that you can't miss when they are on the ice. The question is how will teams project a smaller, quieter, less dynamic player who does not really have blazing speed. No doubt he is quick and shifty, but straight line he's just ok. Personally if I'm at the draft table and picking in the mid to late second round he'd be considered but not a player that I'd have to have. If my team had 3 picks in the top 2 rounds I'd push for him assuming my other two picks were not considered the "risky pick."

I'm not saying he's not a good player because I like the kids game and what he brings to the table but I also understand the hesitations. I also only saw him a few times this season so maybe I caught him on a few "off" games.

If were talking about under rated smaller players in the WHL we have to talk about Brendan Ranford.

Eberle is not a speedster at all.

His skating is probably worse than Weal's. Not that either of them are bad.

 

[Smarty]

Howley, you have some great points, but in my opinion the major difference between Weal and the others you mentioned is that they are all more "goal scorers" and Weal is more of a play maker. Typically goal scorers are rated higher. I do think if he was six feet he would be talked about in top ten. The one thing I think he does better than all of these players is make players around him better.

In the end, where any of these players go in the draft doesn't really matter. It will all come down to who get opportunity and what they do with it.

Also, in every draft there are overated kids, underrated kids and some kids are ranked right where they should be.