C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

[Acallabeth]

Why not? Is he going to be made to work on the areas he struggles against players who can't check him?
It would be best for him to play in the NHL, and struggle with parts of the game that aren't putting up points. If thats at center, he'll struggle defensively. I doubt he'll be above 45% on face-offs, he'll be pushed around, he'll learn he can't double shift himself. These are important things he'll learn, and it might result in a very uneven season, despite the 50-60 points he'll score.
Its much better this than if he spends a season with the London Knights, and scores 150 points and skates circles around players who'll never play professional hockey.

Eh, I would still be very cautious with Hughes playing in the NHL next year. The league isn't as physical as it used to be, but he struggled with checking on the World Juniors level, and for sure the NHL teams will know that he has a weak shot and is hesitant to engage in a physical battle. 50+ points mostly on assists isn't impossible with the scoring going upwards, but I think it's the case when a year-long loan in one of the European professional leagues would be really beneficial.
Though, obviously, a lot can change about a 18 year old player in 9 months, and he'll have his coaches and management to decide whether he's ready for the NHL game.

 

[4Twenty]

Usually the knock on small players is they shy away from danger, but for some reason Jack not being shy about putting himself in harms way is a weakness?

He will be in the NHL next season and will be a good player in the NHL next season.

 

[AmericanDream]

The pro-Hughes side doesn’t try to marginalize Kakko’s skills and accomplishments with cherrypicked stats or knee-jerk critiques on hand-picked shifts, grossly misleading video or lazy takes using hindsight, then jumping to a new shortcoming after the older ones get debunked.

The OP is trying to twist the narrative by holding Hughes to a higher standard than say Kakko or Cozens. Where are his legthy critiques of Dahlin? Kakko? If there is a higher standard for a No. 1 pick, and Kakko is his No. 1 pick, then where is his “objective” Kakko critique? Are we to believe Kakko doesn’t turn pucks over? Lose puck battles? Fail to support in the defensive zone? The OP sure wants you to think that.

I don’t mind the contrarian view. It makes for good debate. And he makes a few valid points that the pro-Hughes side acknowledges (size, puck hogging).

But color me unimpressed with someone who quotes fan bloggers (including myself) while concurrently using hindsight examples like Yakupov and Lazar to discredit the collective opinions of the accredited hockey community.

He quotes Stubb who praises Kakko over Hughes, then discredits Marr — Stubb’s boss — by calling his Hughes praises “antiquated”.

I hope Jack goes to Vancouver to play for the OP’s Canucks.

Spot on as usual Steve.

It still amazes me that some keep coming in here (we know from where) and thinking what the OP is doing in here is okay and that the rest of us are bat shit crazy and the ones attacking him. For me it is pretty simple, I along with anyone else that sides with Hughes would far more respect the OP if he actually went out of his way and did the same thing for Kakko. Just even a post or two like he has done here would actually give him a shred of credibility instead of looking like an obsessed fanboy of Kakko. Kakko has flaws we saw some at the WJC as well - NEWS FLASH - ALL 17 YEAR OLDS DO LOL...

But when the OP continues to force a weak and tired narrative solely on one player and offers NOTHING to back up his claims by PROVING how much better Kakko is with his own videos and long winded responses just makes what he is attempting to do that much more obvious.

Many have challenged the OP to do this just like you have for Kakko, or Dahlin, or hell anyone else so that he can see that every prospect has flaws....but he hasn't yet nor does he respond to it which is further the proof you need of what is going on here.

I side with Hughes simply because what he has you cannot teach. It is God given and it is what is currently sought out in the NHL right now. I, like yourself also acknowledges his flaws, there are some there, but what the OP seems to not understand is those flaws are TEACHABLE...you can work on positioning, back checking, effort, etc...that will not hold a player back at the NHL level. Maybe he will never be a Toews or Bergeron, but I don't think that was ever in the cards anyway. Mike Modano is an example of a player so skilled that transformed in front of our eyes to one of the best 2-way centers in the league proving that can be taught to those wanting to listen.

I enjoy your posts in this thread because you offer an unbiased point of view here..you can see the narrative that is trying to be forced and you have called it out like most of us have as well. Until the OP decides to do this for Kakko or anyone else in this draft, he is only trying to diminish Hughes in his own thread.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Eh, I would still be very cautious with Hughes playing in the NHL next year. The league isn't as physical as it used to be, but he struggled with checking on the World Juniors level, and for sure the NHL teams will know that he has a weak shot and is hesitant to engage in a physical battle. 50+ points mostly on assists isn't impossible with the scoring going upwards, but I think it's the case when a year-long loan in one of the European professional leagues would be really beneficial.
Though, obviously, a lot can change about a 18 year old player in 9 months, and he'll have his coaches and management to decide whether he's ready for the NHL game.

I don't think he'd benefit from playing on the bigger ice. Its a less physical game. There's more time to make plays. I think if he's not going to play in the NHL next season, he should play in the AHL.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Spot on as usual Steve.

It still amazes me that some keep coming in here (we know from where) and thinking what the OP is doing in here is okay and that the rest of us are bat **** crazy and the ones attacking him. For me it is pretty simple, I along with anyone else that sides with Hughes would far more respect the OP if he actually went out of his way and did the same thing for Kakko. Just even a post or two like he has done here would actually give him a shred of credibility instead of looking like an obsessed fanboy of Kakko. Kakko has flaws we saw some at the WJC as well - NEWS FLASH - ALL 17 YEAR OLDS DO LOL...

But when the OP continues to force a weak and tired narrative solely on one player and offers NOTHING to back up his claims by PROVING how much better Kakko is with his own videos and long winded responses just makes what he is attempting to do that much more obvious.

Many have challenged the OP to do this just like you have for Kakko, or Dahlin, or hell anyone else so that he can see that every prospect has flaws....but he hasn't yet nor does he respond to it which is further the proof you need of what is going on here.

I side with Hughes simply because what he has you cannot teach. It is God given and it is what is currently sought out in the NHL right now. I, like yourself also acknowledges his flaws, there are some there, but what the OP seems to not understand is those flaws are TEACHABLE...you can work on positioning, back checking, effort, etc...that will not hold a player back at the NHL level. Maybe he will never be a Toews or Bergeron, but I don't think that was ever in the cards anyway. Mike Modano is an example of a player so skilled that transformed in front of our eyes to one of the best 2-way centers in the league proving that can be taught to those wanting to listen.

I enjoy your posts in this thread because you offer an unbiased point of view here..you can see the narrative that is trying to be forced and you have called it out like most of us have as well. Until the OP decides to do this for Kakko or anyone else in this draft, he is only trying to diminish Hughes in his own thread.

To be clear, I respect the effort and feel he makes points I can agree with. I spoke about Hughes and his puck hogging and lack of strength on several podcasts.

I also think he has an obvious dislike for Hughes that drives his desire to discredit his accomplishments and abilities, and that he’s so far over the berm that he can never turn back.

 

[SOLR]

Did you disregard all of the observational analysis on Page 1?

Post #40 is an analogous example of the overestimation of a skilled, dynamic player's hockey IQ, which I believe is what is happening with this prospect as well.

I've been saying all these arguments since last April, there is a bit of a religious thing going on with Jack.

Track record wise, I had Yakupov 10th in his draft year and ranked Gaudreau/Kane well. I know exactly what you are saying and I agree.

I do think however, the best case scenario is higher than you think it is. And that's because the NHL game is changing and he will arrive at a time where speed is adopted as more of a core attribute than in others eras of the game (I fault your projection of the final environment he will play in), thus there might be more space than in others eras for a guy like this. Seeing how Byron (MTL) performs in this play style and remembering guys like Gionta, I can see Hughes finding a 30g, 50p pace later in his career.

I'm not sure I would have him #2 this year, he's sliding to #3-#4 in my books for value.

Kakko #1 solid

In a race for #2 (it will depend on team needs)
Hughes
Byram
Cozens
Podkolzin

The top 10 will be surprising this year, the talent groups are quite unclear.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

"Your argument is not sound at all, and an alternative conclusion based on the quotations you have provided is that some interpretations of hockey IQ remain antiquated"

What you really mean is everyone's interpretation other than your own-right?

What an egomaniac. I find it hilarious you are digging to the bottom of the Mariana Trench to make inane player comparisons but choose to not only ignore but ridicule industry experts who speak positively about Hughes as a prospect. This might be the biggest joke thread I can remember and that's saying something on this site.

That is certainly not what I said. If that is what you have extrapolated from my post, then it must be that you are looking to distort the words of others.

I think, if someone were to suggest that scouting values have changed over the past twenty years, you would agree. Scouting evolves, and the fact that players such as Yakupov and Puljujarvi would now be scrutinized differently is a perfect example of that.

I find it hypocritical that you would sometimes question general managers, coaches and NHL executives; after all, they are "industry experts" and you have no industry credentials whatsoever despite posting here for sixteen years:

Yeah, NHL GMs are definitely big on nostalgia. Lol. Fleecing by the Rangers here.

This message board revolves around the sharing of opinions about the decisions of NHL executives. Expressions of scrutiny of GMs, coaches and players are an understandable reaction from knowledgeable viewers; those who are familiar with the game should be able to question the actions of an executive such as, for instance, Peter Chiarelli. I would assume that most viewers are decent at pro scouting -- if you've watched the players on your own team and have a nuanced opinion, that's an example of pro scouting. Likewise, one who has a thorough foundation for scouting amateur players should have an opinion as valid as any other amateur scout. I think some amateur scouts have origins on HF too.

Nobody can conclusively prove that a player will succeed or fail, but Steve has claimed to prove something by quoting a few opinions and I have simply shown him that this is a flawed means of justifying his beliefs.

Here’s to debunking the myth that Hughes has “average” hockey sense, via prominent people across hockey’s draft spectrum:

You said yourself that scouting has more misses than hits, yet to put so much faith into the words of a few would be to believe that there are no imperfections in the science of scouting.

It does happen to every team out there. Scouting isn't an exact science, with more misses than hits. Even teams with great reps in that area miss the mark a fair amount (David Conte and the Devils for instance). As for Jessiman, he was getting a fair amount of pub in his draft year. I think Red Line even game him the lofty "man child" tag. At the time, there was a lot to like. Physically imposing player who could skate with some skill. Unfortunately, he's never been able to put it all together.

You can not prove that a player has a trait by citing people's words. That is the weakest form of evidence. If you wish to support your argument, speak from your own observations, explain your rationale, and provide evidence. Anyone who offers a researched opinion deserves to be heard; if there is a disagreement, then the rebuttals should be well-researched and courteous.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

In your anti-Hughes video, you interpret mandated chip-and chases from the bench as low IQ plays — the complete opposite of the safest, surest play coaches expect. Losing a puck battle or 50/50 after anticipating puck direction is not a low IQ play. Ironically, several of the videos show Hughes supporting and covering up in the defensive zone and going defense to offense.

Hockey IQ IMO encompasses several things. Pivoting off pressure back or front, reads and step-ups, changing speeds on zone entries, vision, creativity, shots intended for rebounds, discipline, attacking openings.

Hughes checks all those blocks, and there are a heck of a lot more videos out there to prove it. If you think everyone’s view is ”antiquated” so be it.

The seven-minute reel in the OP is designed to show examples of some of the different deficiencies that Hughes possesses that are discussed in the written piece below it. Not all of his deficiencies are hockey-IQ related, and one of them is his lack of engagement along the boards.

Those chip-and-chase plays are not the issue; his reaction to having to engage with the opposition and fight for possession is. Instead of attacking and pressuring the opposition along the boards, he simply does a weak flyby or pokes nonchalantly at the puck while the opponent gains possession. He is a non-factor along the boards in situations that he should at least be making difficult for his opponent.

Additionally, to skate into one's defensive zone should not, by default, be considered "good defense." For example, he is in the defensive zone to transition the puck up the ice in the first clip against Dartmouth, but he brings the puck all the way back towards his goal line and cuts through his own goalie's crease. This is a play that serves no purpose when he had so much space to move into the neutral zone at the time he received the puck.

As I said, we are looking at different things, and I have explained to you my methodology. I have not heard about yours.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Plz don't compare Hughes to Henrik Sedin.

Hughes is the next Kane/Gaudreau/Marner type. Henrik is totally different than all of them. A generational playmaker who had 3 goals & 50 points in his final season. Hughes is much more dynamic. Stylistically not comparable at all.

Hughes is a smaller player & will likely have to start out as a winger, yes. But Gaudreau didn't even make the World Junior team in his D+1, now hes a top hart candidate. Hughes is a dynamic talent, will be a fine 1st OV pick.

I'm not sure if Steve compared Hughes to Henrik, but in my post I simply illustrate that Hughes' shot is comparable to Henrik's.

Hughes' closest comparable in the NHL is, in my opinion, Nikolaj Ehlers. However, Ehlers is a more-balanced scorer owing to his possession of a good shot. Coincidentally, Ehlers was compared to Patrick Kane in his scouting reports. Hughes will be a playmaker whose goal-to-assist ratio will heavily favor assists.

If you want a more relatable comparison, Hughes' shot is similar to Alex Biega's, or Troy Stecher's, or even his own brother's.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

The pro-Hughes side doesn’t try to marginalize Kakko’s skills and accomplishments with cherrypicked stats or knee-jerk critiques on hand-picked shifts, grossly misleading video or lazy takes using hindsight, then jumping to a new shortcoming after the older ones get debunked.

The OP is trying to twist the narrative by holding Hughes to a higher standard than say Kakko or Cozens. Where are his legthy critiques of Dahlin? Kakko? If there is a higher standard for a No. 1 pick, and Kakko is his No. 1 pick, then where is his “objective” Kakko critique? Are we to believe Kakko doesn’t turn pucks over? Lose puck battles? Fail to support in the defensive zone? The OP sure wants you to think that.

I don’t mind the contrarian view. It makes for good debate. And he makes a few valid points that the pro-Hughes side acknowledges (size, puck hogging).

But color me unimpressed with someone who quotes fan bloggers (including myself) while concurrently using hindsight examples like Yakupov and Lazar to discredit the collective opinions of the accredited hockey community.

He quotes Stubb who praises Kakko over Hughes, then discredits Marr — Stubb’s boss — by calling his Hughes praises “antiquated”.

I hope Jack goes to Vancouver to play for the OP’s Canucks.

To be clear, I respect the effort and feel he makes points I can agree with. I spoke about Hughes and his puck hogging and lack of strength on several podcasts.

I also think he has an obvious dislike for Hughes that drives his desire to discredit his accomplishments and abilities, and that he’s so far over the berm that he can never turn back.

I don't hold Hughes to a higher standard than Kakko or Cozens at all. Cozens is a lesser prospect on the basis of his lack of puck skills relative to the high-end puck handlers of the draft, which means that he has the likely ceiling of a middle-six player in the NHL. I think there is the potential for some players to usurp in him a redraft.

As for Kakko, when one compares his traits to Hughes', none of Hughes' faults are as prominent in Kakko. Additionally, Kakko has more strengths than Hughes. The only deficiencies that Kakko possesses relative to Hughes are in the comparison of speed and a propensity to opt for passing when a shot is available -- the playmaker's syndrome, a la Henrik Sedin and, recently, Thomas Vanek. Kakko shoots the puck much better than Hughes does. Kakko is the more complete player of the two.

I am disappointed to see that you would accuse me of sharing anything other than an honest opinion. Ironically, I could very easily point to the history that you, @Rabid Ranger, and @AmericanDream have with American prospects. You had Eichel ranked first overall and Mittelstadt ranked first overall. If we consider Auston Matthews and Jack Hughes, an American has been ranked first overall on your draft lists in four of the last five years. Sometimes, your rationale for ranking them first overall is contradictory to what you have argued about Hughes. I am going to look the other way, however, and assume that all is in good faith, so I think you would rather we not start accusing each other of disingenuity. We already have a warning about that on Page 3.





"Nobody is being honest about what separates McDavid from Eichel."

I mean, that's you accusing the whole scouting industry of dishonesty.

This discussion should not be about any nationalistic bias or non-hockey-related preferences, so I ask that none of you bring yours into this thread. This is about all of the red flags that exist in Hughes' game that make him a skilled but flawed project. If you want to address your view of this player and offer your counterpoints about specific elements of his game, I invite you to.

C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

 

[stampedingviking]

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

So you can only show the good but not the bad?

 

[stampedingviking]

Yeah and then he gets attacked by a horde of fanboys, typical HFBoards.

The Americans don't like when you talk down their prospect. Just as bad as the Finns they always go on about.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

So you can only show the good but not the bad?

This is the most recent thread in a series of threads that features one poster relentlessly criticizing the featured prospect. Its dominated the discussion and you can't get away from it. Where's the same effort for the other top prospects in the draft? There isn't so it comes across as a hit job.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

This is the most recent thread in a series of threads that features one poster relentlessly criticizing the featured prospect. Its dominated the discussion and you can't get away from it. Where's the same effort for the other top prospects in the draft? There isn't so it comes across as a hit job.

I have been very fair in my analysis of every player. I have written about other players in the past and will continue to do so.

In response to your point, not every analysis of mine needs to be of equal length for my arguments to be valid. If video analysis of another prospect is required for you to consider this player's deficiencies, then that may come at a later date.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

I don't hold Hughes to a higher standard than Kakko or Cozens at all. Cozens is a lesser prospect on the basis of his lack of puck skills relative to the high-end puck handlers of the draft, which means that he has the likely ceiling of a middle-six player in the NHL. I think there is the potential for some players to usurp in him a redraft.

As for Kakko, when one compares his traits to Hughes', none of Hughes' faults are as prominent in Kakko. Additionally, Kakko has more strengths than Hughes. The only deficiencies that Kakko possesses relative to Hughes are in the comparison of speed and a propensity to opt for passing when a shot is available -- the playmaker's syndrome, a la Henrik Sedin and, recently, Thomas Vanek. Kakko shoots the puck much better than Hughes does. Kakko is the more complete player of the two.

I am disappointed to see that you would accuse me of sharing anything other than an honest opinion. Ironically, I could very easily point to the history that you, @Rabid Ranger, and @AmericanDream have with American prospects. You had Eichel ranked first overall and Mittelstadt ranked first overall. If we consider Auston Matthews and Jack Hughes, an American has been ranked first overall on your draft lists in four of the last five years. Sometimes, your rationale for ranking them first overall is contradictory to what you have argued about Hughes. I am going to look the other way, however, and assume that all is in good faith, so I think you would rather we not start accusing each other of disingenuity. We already have a warning about that on Page 3.





"Nobody is being honest about what separates McDavid from Eichel."

I mean, that's you accusing the whole scouting industry of dishonesty.

This discussion should not be about any nationalistic bias or non-hockey-related preferences, so I ask that none of you bring yours into this thread. This is about all of the red flags that exist in Hughes' game that make him a skilled but flawed project. If you want to address your view of this player and offer your counterpoints about specific elements of his game, I invite you to.

C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

Yawn. You keep bringing up “Americans”, who seem to be living in your head rent free. I never brought up nationality. Makes total sense now — a hater who’s anti-American.

I started doing rankings in 2016.

2016 Matthews
2017 Patrick
2018 Svechnikov
2019 Hughes

Two Americans, one Canadian, one Russian.

Matthews is the best player from the 2016 draft. I’m sure you have video on his turnovers somewhere to refute that. Sorry he was born in Arizona and not British Columbia.

I never said scouts were perfect and I don’t hold their assessments as gospel. I’m just saying what others are — you are talking about the misses but ignoring the hits.

This is another year where I am in complete agreement with conventional wisdom.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Yawn. You keep bringing up “Americans”, who seem to be living in your head rent free. Makes total sense now — an anti-American hater.

I started doing rankings in 2016.

2016 Matthews
2017 Patrick
2018 Svechnikov
2019 Hughes

Two Americans, one Canadian, one Russian.

Matthews is the best player from the 2016 draft. I’m sure you have video on his turnovers somewhere to refute that. Sorry he was born in Arizona and not British Columbia.

I never said scouts were perfect and I don’t hold their assessments as gospel. I’m just saying what others are — you are talking about the misses but ignoring the hits.

This is another year where I am in complete agreement with conventional wisdom.

2016?

You ranked Eichel and McDavid pretty clearly in 2015, and you've been operating your website for just as long. I understand that you mean comprehensive rankings, but you clearly had your Top 2 outlined in 2015.





You also ranked Casey Mittelstadt #1 in your May 2017 rankings and talked about a Mittelstadt vs Patrick debate all season:

The Draft Analyst | 2017 NHL Draft Rankings: May Edition

From your September rankings:

The Draft Analyst | 2017 NHL Draft Rankings: The September 600

Patrick, like 2016 top pick Auston Mathews, will be one of his draft class’s elder statesmen, missing last year’s eligibility by only a few days. He will, however, be somewhat challenged by an equally dynamic power forward in Minnesota high schooler Casey Mittelstadt, an explosive scorer with a penchant for delivering when the spotlight shines the brightest.

This is where your "it goes beyond the stats" line came into play -- in a discussion about Mittelstadt vs Hischier; however, you seemed to ignore Hischier's two-way game, which was a huge intangible in his favor, whereas Mittelstadt was a very one-way player with some pace issues in his game.

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

Mittelstadt has not been given the widespread attention he deserves, so we’ll add to his case. He was the United States Hockey League’s leading scorer when he chose to return to Eden Prairie High School for his senior year, so we won’t punish him for possessing the burning desire to win the state championhip that narrowly escaped him a year ago. Make no mistake — Mittelstadt is a winner and a clutch player with leadership qualities to support a lethal skill set centered on creativity and timeliness.

So why rank Mittelstadt a head of Hischier rather than the other way around? For starters, he was just as good, if not better, than Hischier when they competed as 16-year-olds at the 2015 U18 Ivan Hlinka Tournament, where he finished tied for second in overall scoring. Additionally, it was Mittelstadt who had the stronger 2016 U18 world championship in Grand Forks, albeit on a better team. Hischier leading CHL rookies in scoring as a European import is not rare (Vitalii Abramov did it last year while playing for Gatineau), but Mittelstadt topping the USHL in points in a pre-draft season is in our minds the bigger accomplishment.

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. Mittelstadt’s advantages in versatility and size, plus a penchant for big game production are what solidifies him as the second best prospect for the 2017 draft.

Nobody else in the scouting community spoke anything of a Patrick vs Mittelstadt debate.

I do not mean to harp on this, and I realize that scouts do not have a 100% rate of accuracy, but I am surprised that you have forgotten about how highly you regarded Mittelstadt and Eichel.

Let this be the last time we talk about it, unless you have additional words to offer.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

2016?

You ranked Eichel and McDavid pretty clearly in 2015, and you've been operating your website for just as long.

I didn’t do anti-McDavid hit pieces to justify liking Eichel. That’s stuff guys like you are good for. Go read his scouting report I wrote.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

I didn’t do anti-McDavid hit pieces to justify liking Eichel. That’s stuff guys like you are good for. Go read his scouting report I wrote.

I would not consider an evaluation of a player's overall games to be a "hit piece." One would only take offense or try to frame it as such if they had a personal stake in the matter.

"Hit piece" is, in our context, a term you would use to undermine a valid argument when you have no counterpoints to offer. If you have any legitimate counterpoints, I encourage you to share them.

 

[rt]

I would not consider an evaluation of a player's overall games to be a "hit piece." One would only take offense or try to frame it as such if they had a personal stake in the matter.

"Hit piece" is, in our context, a term you would use to undermine a valid argument when you have no counterpoints to offer. If you have any legitimate counterpoints, I encourage you to share them.

Maybe this has already been covered and I missed it among all of the mosh pittery in this slam dance of a thread; which prospects eligible for this draft would you rank ahead of Jack Hughes?

 

[AlternateSideParking]

I would not consider an evaluation of a player's overall games to be a "hit piece." One would only take offense or try to frame it as such if they had a personal stake in the matter.

"Hit piece" is, in our context, a term you would use to undermine a valid argument when you have no counterpoints to offer. If you have any legitimate counterpoints, I encourage you to share them.

You aren’t evaluating his overall game. You are focusing on his defense and forechecking, and using hand-picked shifs as a way to assess and lower his hockey IQ.

So to you, Hughes doesn’t forecheck = Low IQ.

Keep doing you, bro. Never change.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Maybe this has already been covered and I missed it among all of the mosh pittery in this slam dance of a thread; which prospects eligible for this draft would you rank ahead of Jack Hughes?

He won't commit other than to vaguely allude to "tiers."

 

[rt]

He won't commit other than to vaguely allude to "tiers."

Honestly, if the message is “this kid really doesn’t feel like a 1st overall pick” I kinda tend to agree. That’s no different than Nico Hischier for me, though. Aaron Ekblad felt that way, too. Maybe it’s just being spoiled by McDavid and Eichel and Matthews and Laine, in recent years.

I think Hughes is a great prospect, but I see a kid that I’d want to give another season of development to outside of the NHL. That’s not normal for a 1st overall pick. And even though Kakko looks ready now, that doesn’t necessarily make me want to rank him higher than Hughes. It’s a strange draft. It feels like these two would make great 2nd overall picks in any normal year. Then there are a BUNCH of guys who feel like they’d be great 3rd overall picks in any given year (Cozens, Dach, Turcotte, etc).

It’s like it’s really weak at #1 but really strong at #2-#10.

 

[member 157595]

For the good of this thread and all future Hughes content, can we please just ignore the psycho-spam and move on? All these threads have become is responding to it and it's simply unbearable to read at this point.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Staying on topic, since some of you asked. Agree or disagree, here is my Hughes checklist (in no order):

Elite/Excellent:

1. Vision
2. Creativity/playmaking
3. Edges
4. Pass accuracy
5. Hands/Touch
6. Stickhandling/puck control
7. Work ethic
8. Straight-line speed
9. Decision making under pressure
10. First-step quickness
10. Elusiveness/agility
11. Acceleration
12. Consistency
13. Teammate
14. Compete level

Average

1. Shot power
2. Shot accuracy
3. Balance
4. Release
5. Faceoffs
6. Backchecking

Needs improvement:

1. Physical play
2. Defensive positioning
3. Shot selection
4. Puck distribution
5. Strength below circles

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Honestly, if the message is “this kid really doesn’t feel like a 1st overall pick” I kinda tend to agree. That’s no different than Nico Hischier for me, though. Aaron Ekblad felt that way, too. Maybe it’s just being spoiled by McDavid and Eichel and Matthews and Laine, in recent years.

I think Hughes is a great prospect, but I see a kid that I’d want to give another season of development to outside of the NHL. That’s not normal for a 1st overall pick. And even though Kakko looks ready now, that doesn’t necessarily make me want to rank him higher than Hughes. It’s a strange draft. It feels like these two would make great 2nd overall picks in any normal year. Then there are a BUNCH of guys who feel like they’d be great 3rd overall picks in any given year (Cozens, Dach, Turcotte, etc).

It’s like it’s really weak at #1 but really strong at #2-#10.

No, neither Hughes nor Kakko are in the McDavid, Matthews, Eichel, or Laine class of prospects. Those are fairly rare though.