C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

[AmericanDream]

I hope they are both there, I would be kind of surprised if Kane went in back to back years. It would be wonderful though if we started to get more guys coming when available, I am hopeful Larkin will be there though I am not sure how banged up he is at this point. I am not sure how far the JJ stuff goes, I hope it is a lasting impact and I think he deserves that as a part of his legacy, but I am also cautious that it will actually happen.

It would be pretty fascinating if they pulled him up to the big squad. He has already dominated a U-18...

Larkin has answered the call a lot, seems like he has a back injury so not good if it something more serious and he misses some time. I hope Larkin comes again for selfish reasons, but can certainly understand if he passes this year.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

At the time of the draft Patrick and Hischier were better players than Pettersson, there wasn't too much debate there. The debate was how high Pettersson's ceiling really was and if he could hit it. He obviously ended up hitting it. But its tough for lottery teams to take a shot on a kid that has a high ceiling over someone who is a sure thing, something Pettersson wasn't at the time. But this draft isn't comparable to that. Hughes is not only the better player, he has the higher ceiling too

Some people did have Pettersson ranked #1, and I don’t think everyone believes that Hughes has the highest ceiling in the 2019 draft.

The scouts could think otherwise, but they have been wrong many times before. Being a professional doesn’t mean they have a 100% success rate. What they say shouldn’t be something that we accept as fact because professionals think it’s the case.

 

[bigdog16]

Some people did have Pettersson ranked #1, and I don’t think everyone believes that Hughes has the highest ceiling in the 2019 draft.

The scouts could think otherwise, but they have been wrong many times before. Being a professional doesn’t mean they have a 100% success rate. What they say shouldn’t be something that we accept as fact because professionals think it’s the case.

You are free to think what you want. They are professionals because they are good at what they do. Everyone makes mistakes, but they make less mistakes than you when it comes to scouting. Otherwise, why don't you have a job?

 

[Perratrooper]

I have watched very little J. Hughes, what is his shot like? Is he a Johnny Hockey or a Kucherov in terms of smaller players shooting ability?

 

[ijuka]

I have watched very little J. Hughes, what is his shot like? Is he a Johnny Hockey or a Kucherov in terms of smaller players shooting ability?

A complete muffin.

That's the main reason I don't think Kane's an accurate comparable.

 

[Perratrooper]

A complete muffin.

That's the main reason I don't think Kane's an accurate comparable.

That's kinda what I was afraid of in terms of play next year. IMO a shot is one of the easier things to bring up to NHL caliber, but that doesn't mean it won't hold him back.

 

[Whalers Fan]

I don't know.

This was a legitimate question and everyone seems to have taken it as an attack.

Jack Hughes played 5 games versus NCAA opponents last season, starting with North Dakota on 12/30/17. Other opponents were Ferris State, Utica College, St. John's University and Minnesota State. He had 0 goals and 5 assists in those games.

 

[Kakko the bust]

I mean, the odds of the 1st overall pick being the best player in a single draft class is less than 50/50. In pretty much any scenario I'd take the field. Just looking at recent drafts where the guys have played more than a season. Even top 2 vs the field would be close.

2017: Pettersson is in the lead
2016: Matthews has held firm
2015: McDavid has held firm
2014: Pastrnak or Draisaitl
2013: MacKinnon, but it is not like he kept pole position the entire time
2012: Definitely not Yakupov. Pretty debatable for next with guys like Rielly, Lindholm, etc
2011: Definitely not RNH. It's Kucherov, but Scheifele and Gaudreau have been huge
2010: It's between Hall and Seguin.
2009: Between JT and Hedman
2008: Probably Karlsson, but the top 2 are in the discussion
2007: Kane held
2006: Between Toews and Giroux
2005: Crosby

Outside of a McDavid/Crosby type prospect, it's probably best to take the field against the top 2. It's close. Obviously, with the more recent picks, it is expected the high picks will make the earliest impact, for example, Matthews holds the lead (and I hope he maintains it), but RNH held a similar lead in his first 3 years only to get passed.

Not a Washington fan but you seriously don’t think Backstrom is as good as those two?

 

[ijuka]

That's kinda what I was afraid of in terms of play next year. IMO a shot is one of the easier things to bring up to NHL caliber, but that doesn't mean it won't hold him back.

I'm sure he'll end up getting his shot to a functionable level, but I still doubt he'll ever be able to be a scoring threat from everywhere in the way Kane cane.

Not a Washington fan but you seriously don’t think Backstrom is as good as those two?

If anything, Toews is the one who doesn't belong in the conversation. It's between Backstrom and Giroux.

 

[Love]

It’s funny how both Quinn and Jack are tremendous skaters and passers but really need to work on their shot. It’s like they’re the same player but at totally different positions.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You are free to think what you want. They are professionals because they are good at what they do. Everyone makes mistakes, but they make less mistakes than you when it comes to scouting. Otherwise, why don't you have a job?

You were the one who initially put up a straw man. No one here said they know better than professional scouts. The point is that Hughes isn't automatically the best because the professionals say so. They are often wrong, as scouting is a business where the success rate for the best and the worst isn't particularly high.

I never claimed I knew more than professional scouts, but it is possible that a fan who could be better at scouting than a professional. Not everyone who has the talent to be a high-level professional for a specific area is a professional in that area. There are many reasons why that might be the case.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think Hughes shot is a lot better than it gets credit for being.

 

[hawksfan50]

Just comparing Hughes to Alex Turcotte this season. ..Hughes has played more games because Turcotte missed several games due to injury...but in any case here are the stats comaparisons:

USNTDP juniors USHL

H: 16GP 6g 20a 26 pts +8 7.5 shtg%
T: 11GP 8g 15a 23pts +16 23.5 shtg%

H: 1.63 ppg
T: 2.09 ppg

Clearly Hughes against USHL competing is way below average on his shot..Turcotte on blistering good on his shot..

Also we find that Hughes gets 50% of his points on the pp (1g 12a)...Turcotte (1g 6 a) gets only 33.6% of his points on the pp..

Note that in 5 less games Turcotte has doubled the positives over Hughes in the +/- (+16 to +8)...he also has 2 GWG to Zero for Hughes ..They both have the same power play goals (1 each)..
Turcotte also has 1 shorty goal to zero for Hughes.

Off these stats you wonder how Hughes could possibly be ranked ahead of Turcotte.

On pure goal scoring Turcotte is .727 g/game to just .375 g/game for Hughes.

Clearly this shows Hughes has an inferior shot and is not as good an all round player. .


Now a second set of stats USA u-18s
USDP * :

*Not sure if these stats include the USHL stats but add in other games played vs. Prep schools and some NCAA exhibition contests OR exclude the USHL portion of the schedule and are only these other games? Do they include or exclude international tournaments of tgevu-18s?


In the stats of USA u-18s we find that Hughes has played 8 more games than did Turcotte:

H: 33 GP 17g 47 a 64 pts
T: 25 GP 19g 23 a 42 pts

This means Hughes is at 1.94 ppg and Turcotte at 1.68 ppg

But looking at only goals per game in these stats:

Hughes is at .515 g/game and Turcotte at .760 goals /game ..

Could not find shooting % and +/- or pp and shorty stats in this set of data that U got off the elite prospects.Com site.

In any case again we see Turcotte with the far better goal scoring have ability.


Hughes may be the superior playmaker with his assists But we saw with the USHL data set that he gets 50% of his points (mostly assists ) from the man advantage on the pp .

So red flags to Hughes being so "generational"...issues on goal scoring and at evens.

Maybe a huge help to a power play ..but other aspects of his game are not as good as Turcotte in the Center position ..Defending not as good..Goal scoring and shot could be big concerns.

Also his size..Turcotte is an inch talker and 26 lbs heavier!

Hughes 5'10 168 = surf. .

Turcotte 5'11 194 lbs.

So again..why us Turcotte ranked below Hughes?

Skating is almost as god. .If Hughes is a "generational skater" like McDavid ,maybe that. But Turcotte us very very good skating too..
If you score Hughes 6/6 as a skater..Turcotte is close at 5.5/6..

But he is bugger ...more competitive and grittier. ..better 209 ft player .
Better goal scorer ..better at even strength.

Also we do not know if Turcotte gets to play same featured minutes as Hughes on the #1 pp unit...if not;then who can say he would not equal or better Hughes in pp points production too?

I nshort there are certainly many questions such that some may want to challenge the notions that Hughes should be the slam dunk #1 or the BPC (Best Center)n the draft..

I do not have face off Stat data to compare the 2 of them. .but I know Turcotte is good on draws too.Do not know what Hughes is in the dot.

Now it is possible that certain bottom feeder teams lokingvdorxa 1C or 2C who also is a pp featured focus will prefer Hughes despite his goal scoring and defensive potential problem areas ..but he if just sets up guys and likes cup pp points ..that is the role they want him for.

But what if you already have 2 of your staring centers featured on the pp and already have 2 starting WI hers also featured tgere=NO pp role for Hughes on that team for possiblibly 3-5 more years beforectgevolder Center hots mid-30s and starts to take less featured roles?

In such a team scenario ,is Hughes even if your scouts agreed he was the BPA ,the right Center to take?Of course not! You would want a 3 C who can be a catalyst of production for you 3td libevplus be good in the 200ft game and on draws. Maybe kill penalties. YOU would want such a talent to play as 3C for those years ahead till you #1C and current 1st unit pp guy is ready to take a lesser role as he goes into the stage of mid to late 30s...

Such SHOULD be the case if Chicago say we're to won the lotto and get the #1 overall in that draw.

It make more sense that Turcotte fills the 3C role for several years till Toews is ready to go down line to 3C in 3-5 years ...You would not put Hughes into a 3C role with no pp time.

No room at the pp inn...now let us say Colorado got the #1 via their Ottawa puck emerging 1st from then litho draws.Maybe they seeHughes at 2C or at least being the 4th forward on their pp (their top 3 forwards from their top line already there on the pp but maybe room for Hughes with a 4 F+1D pp top unit.

Maybe the could play him at 3C but shifted vs. Lesser lines of the opposition with more sheltered minutes. I doubt they would want him as a pk guy.

So we have different teams with dufferent wants and needs and different incumbent sutuations..and so Hughes could be a god fit for some. .not so for cotter teams.

There may be teams strong at C who need wingers. Maybe Kako fits their needs best ?
Or as I said. ..there may be teams with no opportunity to use Hughes in his best roles . And other r centers may present a better option for the roles they feel they need driving a great 3rd line.

SO scouts may be in consensus about Hughes being the best player in the draft..but when the do called "BPA" by consensus is not really the best guy to fill a need ..you either should trade the pick slot down or select the better guy for. the role you really want filled.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Also we do not know if Turcotte gets to play same featured minutes as Hughes on the #1 pp unit...if not;then who can say he would not equal or better Hughes in pp points production too?

I nshort there are certainly many questions such that some may want to challenge the notions that Hughes should be the slam dunk #1 or the BPC (Best Center)n the draft..

I do not have face off Stat data to compare the 2 of them. .but I know Turcotte is good on draws too.Do not know what Hughes is in the dot.

Hughes has been on PP1 all season, Turcotte hasn't. At times, he's on unit 1. Other times, he leads the second unit with the grinders, while most of the other high picks like Hughes, Zegras, Caufield, York play on unit 1. Boldy is in a similar camp as Turcotte with the PP. He hasn't played all season on unit 1.

I completely agree with your post though. I think Hughes is a slightly better playmaker and dangler. He'll likely score 5-10 points more per season than Turcotte. Hughes might be a better junior hockey player because junior hockey is pond hockey, but I think once they get to the NHL, Turcotte will be the better hockey player. Hughes game is all about points and possession. Turcotte does nearly everything well, except shooting the puck. And he mitigates having a 45 shot by being a tremendous net-front player.

 

[bigdog16]

You were the one who initially put up a straw man. No one here said they know better than professional scouts. The point is that Hughes isn't automatically the best because the professionals say so. They are often wrong, as scouting is a business where the success rate for the best and the worst isn't particularly high.

I never claimed I knew more than professional scouts, but it is possible that a fan who could be better at scouting than a professional. Not everyone who has the talent to be a high-level professional for a specific area is a professional in that area. There are many reasons why that might be the case.

Fair enough, and I agree with everything you said, except they are right more often than they are wrong.

Im one of the few who doesn't disagree with MOST of your standpoints on things around here

 

[ijuka]

You are free to think what you want. They are professionals because they are good at what they do. Everyone makes mistakes, but they make less mistakes than you when it comes to scouting. Otherwise, why don't you have a job?

This is a ridiculously naive outlook.

If something has a 10% success rate and another thing has a 90% success rate, the 10% can still hit and the 90% can still miss.

Indeed, pro scouts can be wrong and have been wrong many times in the past.

 

[Kakko the bust]

I'm sure he'll end up getting his shot to a functionable level, but I still doubt he'll ever be able to be a scoring threat from everywhere in the way Kane cane.
If anything, Toews is the one who doesn't belong in the conversation. It's between Backstrom and Giroux.

To be honest, I prefer backstrom. I never thought Toews was as good as people made it seem.

 

[bigdog16]

This is a ridiculously naive outlook.

If something has a 10% success rate and another thing has a 90% success rate, the 10% can still hit and the 90% can still miss.

Indeed, pro scouts can be wrong and have been wrong many times in the past.

So hypothetically speaking, if I just say this random 7th round pick is going to be better than this projected 1st round pick, and I turn out to be right, I am automatically a better scout than every professional? And you are calling me naïve...

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I mean, the odds of the 1st overall pick being the best player in a single draft class is less than 50/50. In pretty much any scenario I'd take the field. Just looking at recent drafts where the guys have played more than a season. Even top 2 vs the field would be close.

2017: Pettersson is in the lead
2016: Matthews has held firm
2015: McDavid has held firm
2014: Pastrnak or Draisaitl
2013: MacKinnon, but it is not like he kept pole position the entire time
2012: Definitely not Yakupov. Pretty debatable for next with guys like Rielly, Lindholm, etc
2011: Definitely not RNH. It's Kucherov, but Scheifele and Gaudreau have been huge
2010: It's between Hall and Seguin.
2009: Between JT and Hedman
2008: Probably Karlsson, but the top 2 are in the discussion
2007: Kane held
2006: Between Toews and Giroux
2005: Crosby

Outside of a McDavid/Crosby type prospect, it's probably best to take the field against the top 2. It's close. Obviously, with the more recent picks, it is expected the high picks will make the earliest impact, for example, Matthews holds the lead (and I hope he maintains it), but RNH held a similar lead in his first 3 years only to get passed.

But the guys that held have more in common with Hughes. Who has been a slam dunk #1 pick since he was 14 years old. The guys that have held that status wire to wire are the ones on this list that you say held firm on by in large...

I agree with the argument, just saying if you ask me which tier of #1 prospects he fits with it isn't RNH despite some of those pushing that narrative at times in this thread. It is the higher end guys in terms of where he fits on accomplishment and living up to the mantle of #1 in his class for a long period of time entering his draft.

 

[93LEAFS]

But the guys that held have more in common with Hughes. Who has been a slam dunk #1 pick since he was 14 years old. The guys that have held that status wire to wire are the ones on this list that you say held firm on by in large...

I agree with the argument, just saying if you ask me which tier of #1 prospects he fits with it isn't RNH despite some of those pushing that narrative at times in this thread. It is the higher end guys in terms of where he fits on accomplishment and living up to the mantle of #1 in his class for a long period of time entering his draft.

I don't think he's been held in the same regard as Stamkos, JT, and McDavid from his time in the GTHL or was a slam dunk 1OA from 14 (not that anything before 16 really matters). Obviously, the more hyped guys have maintained better, but Yakupov pretty much held the 1OA spot for 2 years, and Stamkos did too. Obviously, Yakupov busted outright, and Stamkos is still a very elite player.

 

[rt]

I’m still surprised Yakupov busted. He played with such pace and gusto. It’s not like he floated. He was a very competitive junior player with a ton of skill. He’s an interesting case. I’d love to read some intelligent analaysis concerning his development. Unfortunately he’s Russian and he was drafted by the Oilers, so it’s impossible to get a good discussion going that doesn’t immediately deteriorate into dog piles.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I don't think he's been held in the same regard as Stamkos, JT, and McDavid from his time in the GTHL or was a slam dunk 1OA from 14 (not that anything before 16 really matters). Obviously, the more hyped guys have maintained better, but Yakupov pretty much held the 1OA spot for 2 years, and Stamkos did too. Obviously, Yakupov busted outright, and Stamkos is still a very elite player.

Yakupov had Galchenyuk expected to challenge him before injury. Hughes was the first mentioned as a 14 year old he carried it all the way through. Was he McDavid not so much, but to me at least he was closer to MacKinnon in terms of hype with substantial numbers backing it up the whole way.

It doesn't always hold, but Hughes has been the big name in his year from the word go, it isn't all that unusual and it does put him in a different comparison, you still names players that were the best in their year under your own system. Players that were ten out of ten in a Bobby Mac poll or have this kind of substantial lead this deep into their draft year? Sorry he doesn't fit with the lesser group there either in my opinion. So when we track in his level of hype, there isn't as big of a chance actually by your own system. His level of hype places him right in line with being the best from his draft at more than a coin flip rate. Now you can choose to remember that how you want. For instance while Dahlin went wire to wire in his draft year Veleno, Svechnikov and Wise were a few of the names originally favored. But yes Jack Hughes not in a small part also because of Quinn was #1 from the second we started looking at this draft. Now some can say that was the ultimate mistake, but the guys that also had that and have kept it through the process are actually the highest names on your list is all. Hard not to acknowledge that when you lay it out in your own post.

We shall see. Stamkos is still easily the best forward from his draft class by the way in my opinion. What changes his year was it was a great defensive draft, I think we can agree that isn't the case this year...

 

[ChicagoHockeyFan]

Saw USNTDP play last night, Jack with 2 goals and an assist. He was pretty good, I love when he possesses the puck in the O-zone and goes for a skate it’s real fun to watch. The second goal he scored was pretty nasty too, I was pretty impressed by him. Turcotte on the other hand seems like a useful but not too dominant player, he does a lot of things pretty well but doesn’t seem to have the factor to just take over and dominate like Hughes does

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Saw USNTDP play last night, Jack with 2 goals and an assist. He was pretty good, I love when he possesses the puck in the O-zone and goes for a skate it’s real fun to watch. The second goal he scored was pretty nasty too, I was pretty impressed by him. Turcotte on the other hand seems like a useful but not too dominant player, he does a lot of things pretty well but doesn’t seem to have the factor to just take over and dominate like Hughes does

The NHL is not pond hockey, nor is one game a great barometer for large conclusions.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The NHL is not pond hockey, nor is one game a great barometer for large conclusions.

That's true, but I think this effort to label Hughes' game as "pond hockey" isn't really fair. He's got a flair to his game-sure. Will he be able to dipsy-doodle at will at the NHL level? No. No one can really do that. He is though the most skilled player in this draft and that is why he has retained his status as the top prospect even if he has some warts (like size and strength.). I do agree with your assertion that his shot is better than advertised. Hes not going to blow people away ala Laine, Matthews, or Eichel but does have a very quick release and is accurate.