C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

[AllAboutAvs]

On a normal night what are the lines for his team?

 

[kroypuck]

On a normal night what are the lines for his team?

Lines are always changing but they look something like this

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

On a normal night what are the lines for his team?

They get moved around so often.

What we know is that Hughes, Zegras, Turcotte, Boldy and Caufield will be in the top 6, and it'll probably include Hughes and Turcotte as centers with Zegras, Boldy and Caufield at winger.

I think the preferred lines for Wroblewski are Hughes with Zegras on one wing and either Caufield or Boldy on the other. The winger that doesn't play with the Hughes line plays on a line with Turcotte. I also think that the preferred third player on that line is Gildon, but it changes around a lot who is the sixth player in the top 6. Rolston and Farrell are better prospects than Gildon, but they seem to work well on the third line. You could also put Caulfield, Lindmark, Moynihan or Weight as the other winger on that line. There's also a chance that Boldy and Caufield play on Turcotte's line, and the sixth forward plays on Hughes line. It gets much easier for the WJC18, if Kaliyev is picked, and he takes up a top 6 wing spot, so that would be the top 6.

My preferred lines would be this among the current players.

Zegras-Hughes-Rolston
Boldy-Turcotte-Caufield
Farrell-Beecher-Caulfield
Gildon-Moynihan-Lindmark
Weight

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Lines are always changing but they look something like this

Thanks.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Gildon doesn't "normally" play that high in the lineup. Just to say the words...

 

[AlternateSideParking]

1. If we look at D-1 seasons, what comes to mind is Nail Yakupov's D-1 season in Sarnia where he broke Steven Stamkos' D-1 scoring record, both in goals and points. Yakupov was considered to be a special talent entering his draft season; just as you've compared Hughes to Crosby, McDavid, Matthews and Kane in your latest article, some were calling Yakupov "better than Bure" and "the hottest thing" from Russia since Ovechkin.

D-1 seasons mean less than D+0 seasons. Not every player in one's D-1 is as developed as they are in the D+0 year, and it becomes even clearer in the D+1 year who the best prospects are in a draft class

You missed the point entirely. The point was Hughes’s Draft-1 was the best draft-1 by a 16-year-old in NTDP history, something you refuse to acknowledge. He produced as much as 16-year-old in his draft-1 as Matthews did at 17 in his draft-1. Two best seasons in NTDP history.

Are you actually suggesting that, if Hughes was eight months older, he would have matched Matthews' point totals this year in the NLA?

Again, you missed the point. You are punishing Hughes for his birthday. Nobody knows what Hughes would do, so you can’t confirm or deny. I think he would, you think he wouldn’t.

2. If Hughes had only recorded Keller's D-1 numbers last year, he would be exactly where Keller was at this point in 2016. You ranked Keller 11tth on your January 2016 list, so a player with Keller's D-1 and D+0 seasons up to this point would have that much value on your draft list. This "explosion" in scoring was only good enough for Keller to be 11th on your list.

I don’t rank off stats. That’s clown stuff.

Anyway, “If” isn’t reality. Your “if” isn’t happening. Hughes is ranked 1st because he is the best player in his draft class. Keller was not the best in his draft class.

Where I ranked Keller is irrelevant. Two different draft classes.

If his D-1 season were the same as Keller's, logically, the increase in production would not be any more significant than that of Keller's points increase.

For the record, Keller was even younger at this point in 2016 than Hughes is now: Keller has a July birth date; Hughes has a May birth date.

Again, reality. Stick to what actually happened.

Two months. Literally two months. You like quoting sources. Find me a quote from an NHL GM, DoS or Scout who is on record saying a two month difference in age factored into anything pick related.

3. As stated above, Keller's first half of the 2015-16 season was only good enough for 11th on your 2016 list, the decrease in production resulted in a drop of two spots on your March 2016 list.

If he had continued to score at the same rate all season, would you really have vaulted him all the way to Matthews' tier on your final list?

Wrong.

Stats don’t factor into my rankings if the level of play is maintained. I can tell exactly why Keller fell — have it in my notes. Hint — it wasn’t stats related.

4. Not every player in the NHL improves in every aspect. If they did, there would be no need for scouting and no need to identify weaknesses. If deficiencies in a player were not a concern, there would never be any concerns about drafting any player.

FYI: You are betting against history — meaning a top-ranked prospect will fail to improve.

Top-2 picks since 2016:

Matthews-Laine
McDavid-Eichel
Ekblad-Reinhart
MacKinnon-Barkov
Yakupov-Murray
RNH-Landeskog
Hall-Seguin
Tavares-Hedman
Stamkos-Doughty
Kane-JVR
Johnson-Staal
Crosby-Ryan
Ovechkin-Malkin
Fleury-Staal
Nash-Bouwmeester
Kovalchuk-Spezza
DP-Heatley

Of those 26 forwards — only five can be classified as substandard for a 1st or 2nd OA pick (Ryan, Yakupov, RNH, Staal, JVR).

That means by draft position alone, Hughes has an 81% chance to live up to expectations ie. improve and continue to improve as a player.

You amusingly mention Henrik Sedin, who had a terrible shot by NHL standards. Canucks fans know this. We even have his hardest shot measurements from 2008: on two attempts, he measured 88.5 and 86.3 mph.

The Sedins were two of the most intelligent cycle players ever. Henrik only scored 20+ goals twice in his career, while Daniel scored most of his goals via puck movement and set plays with his brother.

You just invalidated your shot criticism. Cool.

Another pure playmaker with a sub-NHL shot was Scott Gomez.

This is the exact play that Hughes tried a couple of times at the WJC; it's a "highlight reel" play for him:

It's not a highlight in the NHL.

There are many NHL players right now whose shots are average at best, and even above-average shooters are not always elite scorers. There are a lot of NHL speedsters who aren't very good at shooting the puck. Some great skaters don't play in the NHL partly because they can't shoot the puck -- Alex Biega, for example. Biega has other deficiencies that hinder him too, but he is one of the better-skating Canucks of the last few years. He can get the puck past the offensive blue line, but is probably better served dumping it into the corner than laying one of his floaters into the goaltender's crest.

Irrelevant. Biega and Gomez weren’t consensus No. 1 picks.

Nigel Dawes undressed Chris Pronger. Brad May schooled Ray Bourque. There are two of thousands of examples where elite NHL defensemen get broken into pieces. The idea that Hughes won’t learn to use his stickhandling and explosiveness to exploit the weaknesses of NHL defensemen because Nail Yakupov became a bust is tough to sell.

I can't fathom someone shrugging off poor forechecking, defensive issues, a tendency to lose puck battles, and a rush-centric, individualistic game as not being of any consequence.

Other scouts were aware of some of these issues in Nail Yakupov in 2012; would you have been in the other camp shrugging it off and marketing him as the next Bure?

Ok cool so again you acknowledge his shot isn’t an issue. Progress! Nobody but you cares about his forechecking and defense.

And it’s tough to lose a puck battle when you have the puck all the time. I like smaller players who always have the puck. It means they are positioned well, anticipate puck travel and have a quick stick. Hughes excels in all three.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

You missed the point entirely. The point was Hughes’s Draft-1 was the best draft-1 by a 16-year-old in NTDP history, something you refuse to acknowledge. He produced as much as 16-year-old in his draft-1 as Matthews did at 17 in his draft-1. Two best seasons in NTDP history.

Again, you missed the point. You are punishing Hughes for his birthday. Nobody knows what Hughes would do, so you can’t confirm or deny. I think he would, you think he wouldn’t.

I don’t rank off stats. That’s clown stuff.

Anyway, “If” isn’t reality. Your “if” isn’t happening. Hughes is ranked 1st because he is the best player in his draft class. Keller was not the best in his draft class.

Where I ranked Keller is irrelevant. Two different draft classes.

Again, reality. Stick to what actually happened.

Two months. Literally two months. You like quoting sources. Find me a quote from an NHL GM, DoS or Scout who is on record saying a two month difference in age factored into anything pick related.

Wrong.

Stats don’t factor into my rankings if the level of play is maintained. I can tell exactly why Keller fell — have it in my notes. Hint — it wasn’t stats related.

You are comparing Hughes to Matthews based on their D-1 seasons, yet Matthews was in Keller's draft class. You can not just pick and choose who you want to compare him to and dismiss one comparison by saying that the two players are from different draft classes. We also have tangible information regarding where Keller stood relative to Matthews in January 2016: you ranked one #1, and the other #11. Keller was two months younger than Hughes at the same point; technically, what Hughes has done this season is on par with what Keller, two months younger at the time, did in late 2015.

The point is that you overvalue Hughes for having the same body of work in the first half of D+0 season so far that Keller had in the first half of his D+0 season. This is if you put any stock into statistics, which you seem to have done in order to present Hughes as a Matthews-level player -- the very fact that you even entertain the idea that Hughes could match Matthews' totals in the NLA at the same age makes clear you want them to be compared favorably to one another.

You seem very adamant about Hughes' career numbers in the USNTDP and cite them in your argument that Hughes is on the level of several other USNTDP graduates. Hence, "I don't rank off of stats" is a suspect statement by you.

"It goes beyond the stats" is what you said when you put Casey Mittelstadt in your first-overall conversation for 2017. At various points in 2016-17, you even ranked him -- an American -- #1 overall. Choosing when and when not to subscribe to point total analysis is the definition of cherry-picking.

The Draft Analyst | 2017 NHL Draft Rankings: February-500 Edition

Remember, it goes beyond stats. When the number are equal or close to it, relying on the intangibles and assessing how skills translate at higher levels of play is equally as important.

The ability to translate their abilities is key: what Mittelstadt lacked was an intensity and ability to process the game at a level that matched his skill. This was something that you did not take into account, nor did you take hockey IQ into account when ranking Owen Tippett #5 on your final 2017 list.

FYI: You are betting against history — meaning a top-ranked prospect will fail to improve.

Top-2 picks since 2016:

Matthews-Laine
McDavid-Eichel
Ekblad-Reinhart
MacKinnon-Barkov
Yakupov-Murray
RNH-Landeskog
Hall-Seguin
Tavares-Hedman
Stamkos-Doughty
Kane-JVR
Johnson-Staal
Crosby-Ryan
Ovechkin-Malkin
Fleury-Staal
Nash-Bouwmeester
Kovalchuk-Spezza
DP-Heatley

Of those 26 forwards — only five can be classified as substandard for a 1st or 2nd OA pick (Ryan, Yakupov, RNH, Staal, JVR).

That means by draft position alone, Hughes has an 81% chance to live up to expectations ie. improve and continue to improve as a player.

You rely very heavily on the argument that he has the prestige of being a high pick and that the success rate of previous top draft selections is high -- therefore, in your opinion, he will succeed. That is not an analysis of the player; that is an analysis of correlation, which means nothing because Hughes is not identical to any of those players. His chance of success in the NHL is entirely independent of where he is selected.

Your argument that "Hughes has an 81% chance to live up to expectations because 81% of previous first-overall picks are good players" is a fallacy. Would Hughes' chances of making the NHL be worse if there were two, or five, or ten better players than him in this draft class? What do the other players in his draft class have to do with his chance of success in the NHL? His ranking should be determined by his ability to succeed in the NHL, not the other way around.

You just invalidated your shot criticism. Cool.

Irrelevant. Biega and Gomez weren’t consensus No. 1 picks.

Nigel Dawes undressed Chris Pronger. Brad May schooled Ray Bourque. There are two of thousands of examples where elite NHL defensemen get broken into pieces. The idea that Hughes won’t learn to use his stickhandling and explosiveness to exploit the weaknesses of NHL defensemen because Nail Yakupov became a bust is tough to sell.

Ok cool so again you acknowledge his shot isn’t an issue. Progress! Nobody but you cares about his forechecking and defense.

And it’s tough to lose a puck battle when you have the puck all the time. I like smaller players who always have the puck. It means they are positioned well, anticipate puck travel and have a quick stick. Hughes excels in all three.

Neither Henrik Sedin nor Scott Gomez were goal scorers. You assume that Jack Hughes' shot will improve; my point in identifying players who don't shoot the puck well, regardless of their other skills, is to illustrate that not all skills develop to an NHL standard.

Hughes' shot is not just average -- it is below average. His shot is a floater.

I don not see how you have interpreted this as his shot not being an issue. It factors out consistent goal-scoring from his potential contributions at the NHL level.

It doesn't matter that neither Biega nor Gomez were high picks. To be a high pick does not mean that the player will improve his shot any more so than any other player. For instance, we've already talked about Henrik Sedin, third-overall pick.

The other deficiencies are their own concern, and he has a lot of them to worry about. If you are going to dismiss all of them as concerns but also acknowledge that they may not develop, you realize that you are vouching for a player who potentially may be significantly flawed by NHL standards?

 

[Gillings]

Hughes is going to chicago. Book it. With kakko possibly in colorado.

 

[kroypuck]

Gildon doesn't "normally" play that high in the lineup. Just to say the words...

The lines change every game. Gildon played with Hughes and Caufield for several weeks when Turcotte was out.

Still bizarre to me how much Wrobleski shuffles the lines.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I understand. I am required to watch a large amount of their games haha.

He shuffles lines because he has a lot of talent to manage. And he understands his role as a facilitator for development. This is best exhibited in special teams work...everybody plays with everybody for all intents and purposes...helpful to players and scouts alike...

 

[lancer247]

Damn this thread sucks. I am not even a huge Hughes fan but the way way this thread has been hi jacked with a personal agenda is ridiculous.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

You are comparing Hughes to Matthews based on their D-1 seasons, yet Matthews was in Keller's draft class. You can not just pick and choose who you want to compare him to and dismiss one comparison by saying that the two players are from different draft classes. We also have tangible information regarding where Keller stood relative to Matthews in January 2016: you ranked one #1, and the other #11. Keller was two months younger than Hughes at the same point; technically, what Hughes has done this season is on par with what Keller, two months younger at the time, did in late 2015.

The point is that you overvalue Hughes for having the same body of work in the first half of D+0 season so far that Keller had in the first half of his D+0 season. This is if you put any stock into statistics, which you seem to have done in order to present Hughes as a Matthews-level player -- the very fact that you even entertain the idea that Hughes could match Matthews' totals in the NLA at the same age makes clear you want them to be compared favorably to one another.

You seem very adamant about Hughes' career numbers in the USNTDP and cite them in your argument that Hughes is on the level of several other USNTDP graduates. Hence, "I don't rank off of stats" is a suspect statement by you.

"It goes beyond the stats" is what you said when you put Casey Mittelstadt in your first-overall conversation for 2017. At various points in 2016-17, you even ranked him -- an American -- #1 overall. Choosing when and when not to subscribe to point total analysis is the definition of cherry-picking.

The Draft Analyst | 2017 NHL Draft Rankings: February-500 Edition

The ability to translate their abilities is key: what Mittelstadt lacked was an intensity and ability to process the game at a level that matched his skill. This was something that you did not take into account, nor did you take hockey IQ into account when ranking Owen Tippett #5 on your final 2017 list.


You rely very heavily on the argument that he has the prestige of being a high pick and that the success rate of previous top draft selections is high -- therefore, in your opinion, he will succeed. That is not an analysis of the player; that is an analysis of correlation, which means nothing because Hughes is not identical to any of those players. His chance of success in the NHL is entirely independent of where he is selected.

Your argument that "Hughes has an 81% chance to live up to expectations because 81% of previous first-overall picks are good players" is a fallacy. Would Hughes' chances of making the NHL be worse if there were two, or five, or ten better players than him in this draft class? What do the other players in his draft class have to do with his chance of success in the NHL? His ranking should be determined by his ability to succeed in the NHL, not the other way around.

Neither Henrik Sedin nor Scott Gomez were goal scorers. You assume that Jack Hughes' shot will improve; my point in identifying players who don't shoot the puck well, regardless of their other skills, is to illustrate that not all skills develop to an NHL standard.

Hughes' shot is not just average -- it is below average. His shot is a floater.

I don not see how you have interpreted this as his shot not being an issue. It factors out consistent goal-scoring from his potential contributions at the NHL level.

It doesn't matter that neither Biega nor Gomez were high picks. To be a high pick does not mean that the player will improve his shot any more so than any other player. For instance, we've already talked about Henrik Sedin, third-overall pick.

The other deficiencies are their own concern, and he has a lot of them to worry about. If you are going to dismiss all of them as concerns but also acknowledge that they may not develop, you realize that you are vouching for a player who potentially may be significantly flawed by NHL standards?

Acknowledging statistical achievement does not mean it was used the primary reason (or any reason for that matter) for a placement in rankings, especially when you have seen a player live multiple times as I have with both Hughes and Keller.

You think acknowledging stats is a basis for where I ranked prospects. It's not. Production is part of a lengthy evaluation process that involves 12 months of work.

Thanks for visiting the blog. Always appreciate the support. Be sure to buy my draft guide!

 

[Whalers Fan]

@Blade Paradigm , you need to stop with this D-1 and D-2 comparisons between Matthews and Hughes. A much more valid comparison is their first NTDP season vs. first NTDP season and 2nd NTDP season vs. 2nd NTDP season. Matthews “benefitted” (or was punished, depending how you want to look at it) because he missed the cutoff for the NHL Draft by 1 or 2 days. Therefore, he got to develop for another year after completing his NTDP commitment before being drafted.

This is my fourth season watching both NTDP teams in person here in Plymouth, and one of the most important things I have learned is that players almost always take time adjusting to the NTDP in their U17 season as they get accustomed to constantly playing against older players for the first time in their lives. It’s a huge adjustment, and much more significant than this D-2 and D-1 crap.

Players will generally start to show a big jump in growth in the second half of their U17 season. The fact that Hughes did not look out of place and was a dominant player right from the start of his U17 season is highly significant.

BTW, the above observations have come from watching 35 or more NTDP games per season in person over the past several years, not from looking at stats.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I understand. I am required to watch a large amount of their games haha.

He shuffles lines because he has a lot of talent to manage. And he understands his role as a facilitator for development. This is best exhibited in special teams work...everybody plays with everybody for all intents and purposes...helpful to players and scouts alike...

I understand what you are saying, but I think he's hurt Rolston and Farrell's development. Their minutes have been too low.

I think if the talent is equal, it makes sense to use an approach where you shuffle the lines that often, but I don't think Gildon, Lindmark, Moynihan, Weight deserve a spot on a scoring line or PP over Rolston and Farrell at any point during the season.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Acknowledging statistical achievement does not mean it was used the primary reason (or any reason for that matter) for a placement in rankings, especially when you have seen a player live multiple times as I have with both Hughes and Keller.

You think acknowledging stats is a basis for where I ranked prospects. It's not. Production is part of a lengthy evaluation process that involves 12 months of work.

Thanks for visiting the blog. Always appreciate the support. Be sure to buy my draft guide!

Point totals seem to be one of the only things in favor of Hughes, though, don't you think? You have brushed off every single major deficiency of his game that has been outlined. His best attributes are his speed and his puck handling skills; his best contribution on the ice is his neutral zone rush ability.

I have discussed the many factors that hinder him.

Don't get me wrong, though: although we disagree on this topic and others, that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge the dedication and time of fellow draft enthusiasts. You have chosen to make it a profession, which I commend. Fellow independent scouts should be supported. I wish you all the best with your blog.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

@Blade Paradigm , you need to stop with this D-1 and D-2 comparisons between Matthews and Hughes. A much more valid comparison is their first NTDP season vs. first NTDP season and 2nd NTDP season vs. 2nd NTDP season. Matthews “benefitted” (or was punished, depending how you want to look at it) because he missed the cutoff for the NHL Draft by 1 or 2 days. Therefore, he got to develop for another year after completing his NTDP commitment before being drafted.

This is my fourth season watching both NTDP teams in person here in Plymouth, and one of the most important things I have learned is that players almost always take time adjusting to the NTDP in their U17 season as they get accustomed to constantly playing against older players for the first time in their lives. It’s a huge adjustment, and much more significant than this D-2 and D-1 crap.

Players will generally start to show a big jump in growth in the second half of their U17 season. The fact that Hughes did not look out of place and was a dominant player right from the start of his U17 season is highly significant.

BTW, the above observations have come from watching 35 or more NTDP games per season in person over the past several years, not from looking at stats.

Are you inferring that Hughes' D+0 season is the equivalent, development-wise, to Matthews' D-1 season?

Then would that not make Clayton Keller's D+0 season equally as comparable to Matthews' D-1 season? Keller has a July birth date and is 10 months younger than Matthews.

I do not think that anyone would compare Keller favorably to Matthews.

U17 production is less relevant than U18 production, no? Hughes is likely one of the fastest U17 graduates ever, and at that age, speed truly amplifies one's ability to score -- at higher levels, not so much. Against the 9 USHL opponents he played against with the U17 team, he scored 15 points. Most of his points were accumulated in international play against other U17 opponents. Defensive structures at that age are far less sound than at higher levels.

 

[Whalers Fan]

Keller has a July birth date and is 10 months younger than Matthews.
.

That means Keller was about two months older than Matthews during each of their NTDP seasons. That is insignificant.

Don’t get confused because the IIHF and NHL have different calendar years for eligibility. The IIHF uses the actual calendar year, and USA Hockey follows that calendar for their NTDP players. The NHL’s calendar for draft eligibility is based on the start of their season in the autumn.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Point totals seem to be one of the only things in favor of Hughes, though, don't you think? You have brushed off every single major deficiency of his game that has been outlined. His best attributes are his speed and his puck handling skills; his best contribution on the ice is his neutral zone rush ability.

I have discussed the many factors that hinder him.

Don't get me wrong, though: although we disagree on this topic and others, that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge the dedication and time of fellow draft enthusiasts. You have chosen to make it a profession, which I commend. Fellow independent scouts should be supported. I wish you all the best with your blog.

For someone who fancies himself an amateur scout you don’t seem to grasp what actual scouts look for in a high end offensive player.

 

[AmericanDream]

For someone who fancies himself an amateur scout you don’t seem to grasp what actual scouts look for in a high end offensive player.

incoming non back checking video in 3....2....1.... so sad this is allowed in this kids thread..

 

[AmericanDream]

@Blade Paradigm , you need to stop with this D-1 and D-2 comparisons between Matthews and Hughes. A much more valid comparison is their first NTDP season vs. first NTDP season and 2nd NTDP season vs. 2nd NTDP season. Matthews “benefitted” (or was punished, depending how you want to look at it) because he missed the cutoff for the NHL Draft by 1 or 2 days. Therefore, he got to develop for another year after completing his NTDP commitment before being drafted.

This is my fourth season watching both NTDP teams in person here in Plymouth, and one of the most important things I have learned is that players almost always take time adjusting to the NTDP in their U17 season as they get accustomed to constantly playing against older players for the first time in their lives. It’s a huge adjustment, and much more significant than this D-2 and D-1 crap.

Players will generally start to show a big jump in growth in the second half of their U17 season. The fact that Hughes did not look out of place and was a dominant player right from the start of his U17 season is highly significant.

BTW, the above observations have come from watching 35 or more NTDP games per season in person over the past several years, not from looking at stats.

great post as always Whalers!! you are our USNDP season ticket holder and have brought nothing but great insight and actual in game viewing when it comes to the entire USNDP team..

the actual NHL scouting community shares your thoughts - 100% positive of that. keep sharing your viewings whenever you can, much appreciated on here.,

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Point totals seem to be one of the only things in favor of Hughes, though, don't you think? You have brushed off every single major deficiency of his game that has been outlined. His best attributes are his speed and his puck handling skills; his best contribution on the ice is his neutral zone rush ability.

I have discussed the many factors that hinder him.

Don't get me wrong, though: although we disagree on this topic and others, that doesn't mean I won't acknowledge the dedication and time of fellow draft enthusiasts. You have chosen to make it a profession, which I commend. Fellow independent scouts should be supported. I wish you all the best with your blog.

Highly doubtful the defense of a playmaking center or the forechecking of a potential star at the top of a draft class are deemed by scouts or GMs as ”major deficiencies”. They want impact players at the top of a draft, even if the impact is only in one zone.

Major deficiencies are things like a lack of speed, lack of agility, lack of vision, lack of smarts, lack of compete level, lack of work ethic, lack of humility, stone hands... Those are red flags. A weak shot — your words — has not stopped HHOF careers of other high picks already mentioned, so scouts and GMs rarely consider it an issue.

Most objective evaluators to my knowledge have isolated Hughes’s slight frame as the only potential red flag. But even then, he’s proven to take hits and not be deterred.

Draper said he also saw Hughes and the talent-laden U18 team from the National Team Development Program again last week against Bowling Green. The 5-foot-11, 168-pound teenager and his peers faced many players on the Falcons' roster who were bigger and three-to-five years older – some even older than that.

“They came after him hard,” Draper said. “That is why I wanted to go watch the game, in that environment.

“He got hit, he got hit a lot and he kept coming. That’s a credit to the way he wants to play.”

'Brilliance' on ice: Local player Jack Hughes is consensus No. 1 pick in NHL draft

 

[Acallabeth]

I'll dilute this holy war with my humble contribution.

Major deficiencies are things like a lack of speed, lack of agility, lack of vision, lack of smarts, lack of compete level, lack of work ethic, lack of humility, stone hands... Those are red flags. A weak shot — your words — has not stopped HHOF careers of other high picks already mentioned, so scouts and GMs rarely consider it an issue. Most objective evaluators to my knowledge have isolated Hughes’s slight frame as the only potential red flag. But even then, he’s proven to take hits and not be deterred.

A red flag wouldn't even be size (it's the league whee Kane, Panarin and Gaudreau are superstars), but the inability to avoid getting hit as a small player hyped as very elusive. It doesn't matter how mentally tough you are, the NHL's 82+ game seasons will acummulate too much damage, unless you're Crosby strong.

I've only watched Hughes in the WJC, the U18s and some highlights, and I think he's simply very raw. The top pick talent is there, but he's pretty selfish on the ice, (obviously) not ready to a physical game even of that level (with many of his opponents having had professional experience), needs just a bit more time to make a decision, which can be interpreted as average hockey IQ. Hopefully the team that drafts him won't play him in the NHL straight ahead unless he's really ready.

 

[BKarchitect]

Somebody(s) going to be posting a major mea culpa in a few years. I feel like I know who it’ll be but regardless of what side it falls on, I’ll have the popcorn ready. I hope the post is a long and detailed as the majority in this thread.

The zeal of some of these posts, while certainly very, very well planned and not without some kernels of truth - do make me root even harder for Hughes to end up being as special as think he can be. It’s one thing to stake out a contradictory position but this feels a bit much.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

That means Keller was about two months older than Matthews during each of their NTDP seasons. That is insignificant.

Don’t get confused because the IIHF and NHL have different calendar years for eligibility. The IIHF uses the actual calendar year, and USA Hockey follows that calendar for their NTDP players. The NHL’s calendar for draft eligibility is based on the start of their season in the autumn.

That makes sense. Now that I look at their birth dates and the start of their U17 and U18 seasons, it becomes clear.

However, that also doesn't work in favor of Hughes, as it means that Jack is older than Keller and Matthews were in their corresponding U17 and U18 seasons. Jack has a May birth date; Keller has a July birth date; Matthews has a September birth date.

Hughes is the oldest of the three USNTDP prospects.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Highly doubtful the defense of a playmaking center or the forechecking of a potential star at the top of a draft class are deemed by scouts or GMs as ”major deficiencies”. They want impact players at the top of a draft, even if the impact is only in one zone.

Major deficiencies are things like a lack of speed, lack of agility, lack of vision, lack of smarts, lack of compete level, lack of work ethic, lack of humility, stone hands... Those are red flags. A weak shot — your words — has not stopped HHOF careers of other high picks already mentioned, so scouts and GMs rarely consider it an issue.

Most objective evaluators to my knowledge have isolated Hughes’s slight frame as the only potential red flag. But even then, he’s proven to take hits and not be deterred.



'Brilliance' on ice: Local player Jack Hughes is consensus No. 1 pick in NHL draft

Our interpretations of hockey IQ are very different, which is where I think our biggest disagreement stems from.

In my opinion, to gauge a player's hockey IQ requires one to assess how well the player recognizes and reacts to situations and circumstances relative to others. It has less to do with skill and more to do with positioning, anticipation, and an intuition about where the player should be in order to be effective. Those who can identify and understand where to be and what to do on a more advanced level than their peers have higher-than-average IQ.

Competent recognition of defensive positioning is key at this level, as well as a comprehension of what options they may have on the ice. Ideal plays are effective but low-risk. A quick mind and ease of decision-making against junior-level competition are essential for a junior-aged player to be deemed a high-IQ player. They need to, in order words, see plays before other players can -- intuition.

An adequate understanding of how to pressure opponents and forecheck effectively is also important. There is more time and space at this level than at higher professional levels to make decisions, and smart players on the ice should be able to make effective, low-risk plays as well as put themselves in smart positions to succeed.

Those players who do not excel at these aspects relative to their junior-level peers are not high-IQ players. Coaching can help to train such a player to recognize some situations, but their level of instinct and intuition does not set them apart from most others. This means that the player does not possess the hockey IQ at a level that will distinguish them from the average NHL player.

Indeed, if Hughes is not able to elude bodychecks, it means that he can not anticipate quickly enough to react against pressure at this level. As @Acallabeth has said, he needs time to make decisions and has trouble finding time even against junior-level competition. This is troublesome. He may be resilient, but he does not anticipate well enough as the puck carrier to avoid a check, and he does not process the game at a level where he can position himself more intelligently than his peers. When I refer to his lack of elusiveness, this is a factor. His exposure to big hits is a prime example of what I mean.

He skates well and can handle the puck but his hockey IQ is average and his shot is poor. Hockey IQ is the most crucial factor in determining a player's potential for success in the NHL -- it encompasses everything about his behavior and decision-making on the ice. His severe lack of size and strength are compounded as an issue by his lack of ability to elude his opponent and an average general sense of intuition on the ice.