C Michael McLeod - Mississauga Steelheads, OHL (2016, 12th, NJD)

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Obviously a different era, but Russ Courtnall was a guy that was the same way McLeod is being described. Did everything at top speed but his brain could not always keep up with his feet.

I find Curtis Lazar to have that issue as well. He's a much better shooter but far worse puck carrier than McLeod, but I think they are pretty comparable given they are in the same era.

 

[ponder]

I find Curtis Lazar to have that issue as well. He's a much better shooter but far worse puck carrier than McLeod, but I think they are pretty comparable given they are in the same era.

I do think the speed thing is a bit overrated. There are plenty of guys who play at a high pace consistently, but are very successful doing so - guys like McDavid, Crosby and Hall spring to mind.

Whether you play consistently fast, consistently slow, or change up the pace a lot, I think the most important thing is hockey IQ. Can you find your teammates well with passes? Can you find the soft spots in the d without the puck? With the puck, can you see the seams in the d for yourself, or see how to draw opposition to you to open teammates up? Even in one-on-one scenarios, can you subtly pick up on when the defender is off balance, so you can beat them with simple but perfectly timed/thought out moves?

Guys can get by with all sorts of combinations of most - big or small, fast or slow, strong or slim, shot oriented or pass oriented, etc. Whether you play the game at Connor McDavid's lightning pace, Joe Thornton's slow pace, or are constantly mixing it up like Kane, there is one common trait shared by essentially all stars, though - they're constantly outthinking the opposition in the ways I described above. Basically all stars are WAY smarter than the average player in terms of how they see the game. If you don't have that high hockey IQ, you're basically going to max out as a decent player, but not a star, even with outstanding tools. I'd describe both McLeod and Lazar as mediocre thinkers with strong tools, I see them both being decent NHLers, but not stars. Neither are dumb players, and they both certainly outsmart(ed) their competition in juniors, but I think they'll both shake out pretty average in the hockey IQ department at the NHL level.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I do think the speed thing is a bit overrated. There are plenty of guys who play at a high pace consistently, but are very successful doing so - guys like McDavid, Crosby and Hall spring to mind.

Whether you play consistently fast, consistently slow, or change up the pace a lot, I think the most important thing is hockey IQ. Can you find your teammates well with passes? Can you find the soft spots in the d without the puck? With the puck, can you see the seams in the d for yourself, or see how to draw opposition to you to open teammates up? Even in one-on-one scenarios, can you subtly pick up on when the defender is off balance, so you can beat them with simple but perfectly timed/thought out moves?

Guys can get by with all sorts of combinations of most - big or small, fast or slow, strong or slim, shot oriented or pass oriented, etc. Whether you play the game at Connor McDavid's lightning pace, Joe Thornton's slow pace, or are constantly mixing it up like Kane, there is one common trait shared by essentially all stars, though - they're constantly outthinking the opposition in the ways I described above. Basically all stars are WAY smarter than the average player in terms of how they see the game. If you don't have that high hockey IQ, you're basically going to max out as a decent player, but not a star, even with outstanding tools. I'd describe both McLeod and Lazar as mediocre thinkers with strong tools, I see them both being decent NHLers, but not stars. Neither are dumb players, and they both certainly outsmart(ed) their competition in juniors, but I think they'll both shake out pretty average in the hockey IQ department at the NHL level.

Well said.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Obviously a different era, but Russ Courtnall was a guy that was the same way McLeod is being described. Did everything at top speed but his brain could not always keep up with his feet.

Russ Courtnall could shoot the puck!

Fast , good/not great hands and could shoot the puck. Still love the trade for John Kordic. That was a very entertaining era for the Leafs.

 

[Zippy316]

dont try and teach me the english language. McLeod is creative and talking about how he sometimes skates faster than his brain doesn't mean he lacks creativity. if you had watched him at the prospect camp youd know he is plenty creative.

and try this one on for size. go watch any of the highlight videos of the Nylander-Mcleod-Bastian line and tell me that line isnt creative and Mcleod isnt 'seeing the ice well'. oh but lemme guess, THEY had the creativity not Mcleod.

im glad i have people telling me how a players ive watched plenty of footage on doesnt have creativity based on a block of text they read from one website.

There's no need to get so hostile.

I did watch the entire prospect camp. I saw a lot of creativity one-on-one but that means nothing in an NHL game when it's much harder to pull those moves off. He does have nice hands and an ability to break away from defenders, not a single person is doubting that.

We're doubting more or less his hockey IQ or his creativity to make plays with the puck. In the NHL, that is what is going to make the difference from him being a reliable two-way 40 point player and him being a first line player. We're not saying he's going to bust, but that is an obvious deficit in his game and the major one holding him back from being an elite player.

If he had that to his skill set, he would likely be a top five pick rather than a pick at #12. If I recall correctly, Larkin had a lot of the same comments made about him and look how that turned out.

EDIT: Looks like someone already covered this.

 

[Group Chat Legend*]

There's no need to get so hostile.

I did watch the entire prospect camp. I saw a lot of creativity one-on-one but that means nothing in an NHL game when it's much harder to pull those moves off. He does have nice hands and an ability to break away from defenders, not a single person is doubting that.

We're doubting more or less his hockey IQ or his creativity to make plays with the puck. In the NHL, that is what is going to make the difference from him being a reliable two-way 40 point player and him being a first line player. We're not saying he's going to bust, but that is an obvious deficit in his game and the major one holding him back from being an elite player.

If he had that to his skill set, he would likely be a top five pick rather than a pick at #12. If I recall correctly, Larkin had a lot of the same comments made about him and look how that turned out.

EDIT: Looks like someone already covered this.

Well to be fair McLeod was projected by some to be a top 5 pick. He fell due to a 'lackluster' season and injury IIRC. That is why I think he is a steal in this draft and why Ottawa taking Brown before him is questionable (not to mention how many guys of Brown's size do as well as he is expected to?)

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

You just revealed to everyone that you've never seen McLeod play.

There's absolutely no way he falls out of the the top 10. The tools he brings to the table are so valuable, especially at the centre position. NHL teams are going to love his combination of speed, size, and IQ.

Looks like this post from earlier in the thread was all sorts of wrong. Crazy how over hyped he was at points. McCagg thought he could be the best forward from the draft by the time the draft rolled around lol.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Well to be fair McLeod was projected by some to be a top 5 pick. He fell due to a 'lackluster' season and injury IIRC. That is why I think he is a steal in this draft and why Ottawa taking Brown before him is questionable (not to mention how many guys of Brown's size do as well as he is expected to?)

So you think early season rankings are a better predictor of success than final season rankings?

 

[Group Chat Legend*]

So you think early season rankings are a better predictor of success than final season rankings?

It very well could be. Plenty of prospects have fallen or risen slightly or dramatically for good or bad reasons. No one knows until some years away when we see how they do.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Looks like this post from earlier in the thread was all sorts of wrong. Crazy how over hyped he was at points. McCagg thought he could be the best forward from the draft by the time the draft rolled around lol.

It sounds funny now but Datsyuk was once a 5th rounder when Lecavalier was said to be the next Lemieux. Do I need to remind you which player was better over their career? Instead of sounding pompous right now how about we leave this situations till the kid plays at least 20 more games...then you can beat your chest proclaiming your prospect knowledge.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

It very well could be. Plenty of prospects have fallen or risen slightly or dramatically for good or bad reasons. No one knows until some years away when we see how they do.

There are always exceptions. But I'm asking if you in the general case, do you think early season rankings are better predictors of success than final rankings?

Also, I don't recall McLeod falling due to injury. It had more to do with his poor play when Nylander was in Helsinki.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

There are always exceptions. But I'm asking if you in the general case, do you think early season rankings are better predictors of success than final rankings?

Also, I don't recall McLeod falling due to injury. It had more to do with his poor play when Nylander was in Helsinki.

I think it's that McLeod had come off injury not long before the IIHF U18, where he had a mediocre showing (started badly although picked up a bit towards the end). However, I'm not sure how much that specific tournament contributed to his draft rankings.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

It sounds funny now but Datsyuk was once a 5th rounder when Lecavalier was said to be the next Lemieux. Do I need to remind you which player was better over their career? Instead of sounding pompous right now how about we leave this situations till the kid plays at least 20 more games...then you can beat your chest proclaiming your prospect knowledge.

I'm not chest pounding lol. I'm just pointing out how certain some people were that he'd be a top 5-10 pick. They might end up being right in that he should have gone there, but this was a deep draft through the first 10 or so forwards. Like you said we won't know for some time.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

I think it's that McLeod had come off injury not long before the IIHF U18, where he had a mediocre showing (started badly although picked up a bit towards the end). However, I'm not sure how much that specific tournament contributed to his draft rankings.

Yea he wasn't great in that tournament, I think he got hurt in mid February. But talk of him slipping outside the top 10-15 or further seemed to take off in January before his injury when he performed poorly without Nylander.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Yea he wasn't great in that tournament, I think he got hurt in mid February. But talk of him slipping outside the top 10-15 or further seemed to take off in January before his injury when he performed poorly without Nylander.

Yeah, IDK whether his injury affected his play at the tournament or whether that tournament impacted his ranking - I just meant that if there are people referring to his injury causing him to drop, that's probably the time period they're talking about.

As far as the WJC window - I'm not sure if that was it either (although, you'd really hope for him to have shone then). To me personally, it was probably more of an overall season thing - just expecting more production out of him overall...waiting for him to 'break out' in a way he never really did. I was much more patient at the beginning of the season but as the season went on he left me wanting. So, it wasn't WJC that did it for me as much as everything.

Having said that, I'm still high on him...probably because I've liked him for a long time. I'm hoping he'll have a big season next year. It sounds like Nylander isn't going to be back to Mississauga, so if this is the case, McLeod will get to/have to step up.

 

[Group Chat Legend*]

Yea he wasn't great in that tournament, I think he got hurt in mid February. But talk of him slipping outside the top 10-15 or further seemed to take off in January before his injury when he performed poorly without Nylander.

My point is deaft positionings are volatile. One minute youre ranked top 3 next youre taken 28th.

But the fact that Mcleod was thought of as a top 5 and was picked 12 after it all... That says some good things about his skillset and future.

I think he will prove to be a #4-8 pick. 12 is a bit low for him IMO.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I do think the speed thing is a bit overrated. There are plenty of guys who play at a high pace consistently, but are very successful doing so - guys like McDavid, Crosby and Hall spring to mind.

Whether you play consistently fast, consistently slow, or change up the pace a lot, I think the most important thing is hockey IQ. Can you find your teammates well with passes? Can you find the soft spots in the d without the puck? With the puck, can you see the seams in the d for yourself, or see how to draw opposition to you to open teammates up? Even in one-on-one scenarios, can you subtly pick up on when the defender is off balance, so you can beat them with simple but perfectly timed/thought out moves?

Guys can get by with all sorts of combinations of most - big or small, fast or slow, strong or slim, shot oriented or pass oriented, etc. Whether you play the game at Connor McDavid's lightning pace, Joe Thornton's slow pace, or are constantly mixing it up like Kane, there is one common trait shared by essentially all stars, though - they're constantly outthinking the opposition in the ways I described above. Basically all stars are WAY smarter than the average player in terms of how they see the game. If you don't have that high hockey IQ, you're basically going to max out as a decent player, but not a star, even with outstanding tools. I'd describe both McLeod and Lazar as mediocre thinkers with strong tools, I see them both being decent NHLers, but not stars. Neither are dumb players, and they both certainly outsmart(ed) their competition in juniors, but I think they'll both shake out pretty average in the hockey IQ department at the NHL level.

This is a fantastic post. Well said.

Also having watched Curtis Lazar and some Mcleod I can say that they have similar problems. Both just cannot think plays ahead of time and instead play a reactionary game based around their speed/physical tools. I think Mcleod has a better NHL impact, but they are very similiar.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

My point is deaft positionings are volatile. One minute youre ranked top 3 next youre taken 28th.

But the fact that Mcleod was thought of as a top 5 and was picked 12 after it all... That says some good things about his skillset and future.

I think he will prove to be a #4-8 pick. 12 is a bit low for him IMO.

I am someone who rated McLeod slightly higher than where he was selected. At the same time, bear in mind that there were a big chunk of players who, as a tier, were held in similar regard.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

My point is deaft positionings are volatile. One minute youre ranked top 3 next youre taken 28th.

But the fact that Mcleod was thought of as a top 5 and was picked 12 after it all... That says some good things about his skillset and future.

I think he will prove to be a #4-8 pick. 12 is a bit low for him IMO.

Of course rankings are volatile. But again you haven't answered my question. Typically, final rankings are a better predictor of success than early ratings, yes? For every Saad there are dozens of Esposito's.

 

[93LEAFS]

My point is deaft positionings are volatile. One minute youre ranked top 3 next youre taken 28th.

But the fact that Mcleod was thought of as a top 5 and was picked 12 after it all... That says some good things about his skillset and future.

I think he will prove to be a #4-8 pick. 12 is a bit low for him IMO.

Isn't the only person to have him top 5 most of the year was McCagg? Most other rankings he was in the 6-12 range most of the year.

Central Scouting Mid-term: NA 6
Central Scouting final: NA 13

McKenzie pre-season: 7
McKenzie mid-season: 9
McKenzie draft lottery: 15
McKenzie final: 15

Button September: 22
Button November: 15
Button January: 17
Button March: 15
Button Final: 19

Pronman June 2015: Unranked (only listed 10)
Pronman mid-season: 11
Pronman final: 20

Hockey Prospect September: 18
Hockey Prospect October: 8
Hockey Prospect November: 14
Hockey Prospect January: 12
Hockey Prospect February: 11
Hockey Prospect Final: 19

Looking at that, it seems he was rarely if ever viewed as a top 5 prospect, and to the best of my knowledge the only source that had him there at any point was McKeen's. The highest any of these sources had him was 7, which was McKenzie's September rankings, which also had Sokolov at 12. Not saying McCleod can beat his draft position, but almost no one viewed him as a top 5 pick at any point.

Edit: Just went through ISS, they had him at 5 for one month in February, but the rest of the year outside the top 5, and appear to be 2nd highest on him outside of McKeens.

 

[93LEAFS]

Yeah, IDK whether his injury affected his play at the tournament or whether that tournament impacted his ranking - I just meant that if there are people referring to his injury causing him to drop, that's probably the time period they're talking about.

As far as the WJC window - I'm not sure if that was it either (although, you'd really hope for him to have shone then). To me personally, it was probably more of an overall season thing - just expecting more production out of him overall...waiting for him to 'break out' in a way he never really did. I was much more patient at the beginning of the season but as the season went on he left me wanting. So, it wasn't WJC that did it for me as much as everything.

Having said that, I'm still high on him...probably because I've liked him for a long time. I'm hoping he'll have a big season next year. It sounds like Nylander isn't going to be back to Mississauga, so if this is the case, McLeod will get to/have to step up.

I think he had a fair amount of hype building around him after a strong Hnlinka, and then the strong start between him and Nylander started fueling a rise. Then once Nylander went to WJC more of his prior year problems started creeping back into his game more and more, then the injury, and finally the weak U-18's after he had previously shown strong in that age group.

 

[Rhodes 81]

Isn't it possible that McLeod went exactly where he should have? That he is a prospect with some great strengths and also some serious weaknesses, has a relatively high floor but there are serious questions as to how far above it he'll get. I think these are statements most would agree on. That sounds like a 10-15 pick to me.

 

[GTA]

Isn't it possible that McLeod went exactly where he should have? That he is a prospect with some great strengths and also some serious weaknesses, has a relatively high floor but there are serious questions as to how far above it he'll get. I think these are statements most would agree on. That sounds like a 10-15 pick to me.

Get out of here with your fair and balanced assessment!

Watching people duke it out with AINECs and hyperbole is much more entertaining.

 

[Captain Timo]

Isn't it possible that McLeod went exactly where he should have? That he is a prospect with some great strengths and also some serious weaknesses, has a relatively high floor but there are serious questions as to how far above it he'll get. I think these are statements most would agree on. That sounds like a 10-15 pick to me.

This is exactly the case, but a lot of people want to hang onto the fact that scouts viewed him as a top 10 pick earlier in the year. The reality is he is a project but pretty much a guaranteed NHLer, and he's worthy of a pick in the range of 11-15, where he was selected.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Isn't it possible that McLeod went exactly where he should have? That he is a prospect with some great strengths and also some serious weaknesses, has a relatively high floor but there are serious questions as to how far above it he'll get. I think these are statements most would agree on. That sounds like a 10-15 pick to me.

Its also possible that he went ahead of where he should have according to the rankings. I do think 12-15 is closer. I personally had him at 15. That said I think he becomes a good tweener that can play responsibly, so that is a valuable player. I think he is a safe pick to not bust.