C Oliver Moore - University of Minnesota , NCAA (2023, 19th, CHI)

[SimpleJack]

Hawks fan here. Im pretty new to looking at these prospects and judging development, but wasn't Moore considered one of the best steals of last years very deep draft at #19?

Its confusing that there is so much hype around him then if he is only going to pan out to be a 3/4c, Blackhawks have tons of them already. Like our entire roster is bottom 6 players. I think that would be a huge let down?

Does he not have the proper tool set to be a top 6 guy? The impression is thats what we're hoping from him.

Just cuz some random people on HFboards say they think he’s only gonna pan out to be a 3C/4C doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a fantastic pick and a player to be excited about.

 

[DeletedUser539]

Just cuz some random people on HFboards say they think he’s only gonna pan out to be a 3C/4C doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a fantastic pick and a player to be excited about.

He really reminds me of Larkin and he doesn't have the pressure to become 1c Bedard already has that but a couple years in the NCAA and a year or two in the AHL should do him well hopefully by that time Hawks have some quality players and not prospect hopefuls to help insulate him in 50-60 point blazing fast twoway 2c isn't out of the question still

 

[Cubs2024wildcard]

The new Viktor Stalberg.

 

[TLEH]

IQ is alot of things and no one other than hockey people in direct contact with the player can make a credible assessment of this.

I can tell a difference between how Bedard sees the ice and the game and Andreas Athanasiou sees the game without talking to Luke Richardson.

 

[Obvious Fabertism]

IQ is alot of things and no one other than hockey people in direct contact with the player can make a credible assessment of this.

For all intents and purposes you may as well consider that poster to actually be Brian Bonin when it comes to Gophers hockey knowledge and connections.

 

[SirSamofHouseBennett]

I can tell a difference between how Bedard sees the ice and the game and Andreas Athanasiou sees the game without talking to Luke Richardson.

If you say so but even nhl scouts rely on talking to players coaches, teammates and other on ice adjacent people to determine such things.

So forgive me if I don’t accept fan boi hockey speak as legitimate but hey it’s a message board so I will stand down on this matter and let the conversation continue more productively.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Do the Hawks need Perreault? They have Nazar in the same mold. How many small top 6 forwards can you have? Moore isn't the biggest, but brings an element that will be a big asset in speed. He can play 3rd/4th lines, if needed. Perreault is top 9 or bust, as is Nazar (as was Bedard, although obviously that wasn't gonna happen).

I would think that the Hawks need to worry about drafting some taller, stronger, more physical players. Your whole top 9 can't be below 6'0.

It comes down to drafting the BPA which I felt it was Perreault over Moore at the time and moreso now. You're right about need IF Reichel and Moore both hit their ceiling which I doubt both will. And Nazar seems a little more in the Moore mold with the high-end skating than Perreault.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Man are "advanced analytics" worse than the simple eye test a lot of the time. Ask the Gophers fans that have watched him all year, and very few will say he's been a top 2 or 3 forward on the team, let alone one of the best in the "league", which I assume is the Big Ten.

Sure he carries the puck a lot, but often tries to do way too much and loses it. He plays at one speed and defenders have figured that out. He needs to learn to change his speed, so that he can then take advantage of his world class acceleration.

Where is turnovers on that fancy Microsoft Excel doc?

Not to disagree with the overall point, but it's well understood that all high turnovers just correlate with high possesion, and not any real measure of ability. The NHL's turnover leader last year was David Pastrnak.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

"Hockey IQ" does seem to be a catch-all for somebody that skates good, puck handles good and shoots good, but isn't really a good player.

 

[TLEH]

"Hockey IQ" does seem to be a catch-all for somebody that skates good, puck handles good and shoots good, but isn't really a good player.

Well if you skate fast, have good hands, and a good shot, and aren't 5'5 then it would seem that your brain processing the speed of the game would be what is holding you back, if not, then what else would you say.

 

[DeletedUser539]

Well if you skate fast, have good hands, and a good shot, and aren't 5'5 then it would seem that your brain processing the speed of the game would be what is holding you back, if not, then what else would you say.

Another year in the ncaa than two years in the ahl would probably be good for that

 

[TLEH]

Another year in the ncaa than two years in the ahl would probably be good for that

No doubt. Maybe not AHL. One more NCAA year and then re-evaluate.

 

[majormajor]

"Hockey IQ" does seem to be a catch-all for somebody that skates good, puck handles good and shoots good, but isn't really a good player.

I know some folks have a more refined idea of what they think it is, but yes usually here when someone talks about hockey IQ it is just filler to explain what they don't understand about a player. We should really try and explain the players better and stop using IQ, which gives weird phrenology vibes anyways. And I think a lot of folks have explained Moore's issues well. He has an incredible engine, but needs to play slower at times, taking advantage of deception and change of speed more than full speed. FWIW I like his off puck reads sometimes, I think he's a smart player.

 

[TLEH]

I know some folks have a more refined idea of what they think it is, but yes usually here when someone talks about hockey IQ it is just filler to explain what they don't understand about a player. We should really try and explain the players better and stop using IQ, which gives weird phrenology vibes anyways. And I think a lot of folks have explained Moore's issues well. He has an incredible engine, but needs to play slower at times, taking advantage of deception and change of speed more than full speed. FWIW I like his off puck reads sometimes, I think he's a smart player.

Playing fast, playing slow, using change of pace. Aren't all of those things based on understanding the game and thinking the game? I'm not purposely being obtuse. Hockey IQ is sort of a catch all in a sense that you don't explain further. But you could say the same about like skating for example.

Skating sucks;

Okay does that mean they have good burst and bad top speed?, they have bad agility/edges, bad change of direction for defenseman? Bad at skating backwards? Most people just say he's a bad skater but then they go further when asked to expand. To me that is the same as hockey sense/IQ.

 

[majormajor]

Playing fast, playing slow, using change of pace. Aren't all of those things based on understanding the game and thinking the game? I'm not purposely being obtuse. Hockey IQ is sort of a catch all in a sense that you don't explain further. But you could say the same about like skating for example.

Skating sucks;

Okay does that mean they have good burst and bad top speed?, they have bad agility/edges, bad change of direction for defenseman? Bad at skating backwards? Most people just say he's a bad skater but then they go further when asked to expand. To me that is the same as hockey sense/IQ.

Moore is an adept thinker in many parts of the game, his issues are more just with the puck on his stick in certain situations. That's different than like Jake Virtanen for example who makes poor decisions in all aspects of the game. This is what I'm getting at with this IQ discussion, it almost always leads to misleading conversations unless you're talking about a Virtanen type of guy.

I also much prefer if people be more specific when they're talking about good or bad skating - it doesn't take long to say a player lacks speed or agility or some other specific ability. Unless of course they're an elite skater in every aspect (like Oliver Moore).

 

[JaegerDice]

The new Viktor Stalberg.

Hawks fan here. Im pretty new to looking at these prospects and judging development, but wasn't Moore considered one of the best steals of last years very deep draft at #19?

Its confusing that there is so much hype around him then if he is only going to pan out to be a 3/4c, Blackhawks have tons of them already. Like our entire roster is bottom 6 players. I think that would be a huge let down?

Does he not have the proper tool set to be a top 6 guy? The impression is thats what we're hoping from him.

He was pegged as a middle 6 center matchup center due to his speed and the fact that he was used extensively in that role (and on the PK) in the American program.

Basically they were/are hoping for a less douchey Ryan Kesler, and he has plenty of time to develop into that.

You don't pass on a guy with the speed and motor of Moore in today's NHL.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I know some folks have a more refined idea of what they think it is, but yes usually here when someone talks about hockey IQ it is just filler to explain what they don't understand about a player. We should really try and explain the players better and stop using IQ

I've usually found that to be "consistency" (or "solid", solid is for people that really don't know).

But to your point, hockey sense or hockey IQ - like anything else - can and should be broken down by a good scout.

If someone said, "[Player] is skilled." - ok, skilled how?

"Great hands."

Ok, great hands where? In space? In traffic? On the outside? Outside-in upside? Inside-out? Great hands at speed? Or fat kid hands, where they only show standing still or not in stride? What's the puck control look like? What's the skill chaining look like? What's the puck control window? Then you leak into deception setup and maneuvers, etc. and the scalability of those things...

Hockey IQ/sense is relatively easy for me because...I can't really describe this without sounding like a weirdo, but I can sort of put myself in the play and look at the game through that player's eyes and figure it out. That's why in my reports you'll see it broken out...talking about spatial awareness, risk assessment/mitigation, etc.

Overall, I agree with your point - describe characteristics better and why they will or won't translate. It's all there for folks that can figure it out...but it's not easy. Find me a perfect scout haha

 

[TLEH]

I've usually found that to be "consistency" (or "solid", solid is for people that really don't know).

But to your point, hockey sense or hockey IQ - like anything else - can and should be broken down by a good scout.

If someone said, "[Player] is skilled." - ok, skilled how?

"Great hands."

Ok, great hands where? In space? In traffic? On the outside? Outside-in upside? Inside-out? Great hands at speed? Or fat kid hands, where they only show standing still or not in stride? What's the puck control look like? What's the skill chaining look like? What's the puck control window? Then you leak into deception setup and maneuvers, etc. and the scalability of those things...

Hockey IQ/sense is relatively easy for me because...I can't really describe this without sounding like a weirdo, but I can sort of put myself in the play and look at the game through that player's eyes and figure it out. That's why in my reports you'll see it broken out...talking about spatial awareness, risk assessment/mitigation, etc.

Overall, I agree with your point - describe characteristics better and why they will or won't translate. It's all there for folks that can figure it out...but it's not easy. Find me a perfect scout haha

I guess my point is acting like hockey sense/hockey iq is some mystical thing that you can't tell if a player has a good understanding of the game or not without talking to their coach to me is wrong. You can see it. Its a catch all in the same way that skating, hands, shot are catch alls.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess my point is acting like hockey sense/hockey iq is some mystical thing that you can't tell if a player has a good understanding of the game or not without talking to their coach to me is wrong. You can see it. Its a catch all in the same way that skating, hands, shot are catch alls.

Absolutely no question. Trouble is, you have to have great hockey sense to see it. Yeah, someone was saying before, "well, you need to talk to his coach to see if he understands drills..." that was wild to read. I didn't even care about drills when I was a coach haha. I cared about game simulation and skill development. I like to talk to coaches about players, don't get me wrong, but it has zero to do with their hockey sense...I don't need them for that, and they know that.

Like anything else, scouting is a skill that exists on a spectrum.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

His play has picked up lately

Overall on year now

24 GP
3 G
18 A
21 pts
+4

From what little I have seen of him it will be important for Hawks when he turns pro to put him with someone who can keep up with his pace and gleefully would love to fire the puck on net. Some of his struggles offensively is simple fact when he races up ice and looks to dish no one is around

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I can tell a difference between how Bedard sees the ice and the game and Andreas Athanasiou sees the game without talking to Luke Richardson.

AA has the "OH NO NOT THE BEES!!!!" Nail Yakupov gene in spades

 

[EbonyRaptor]

His play has picked up lately

Overall on year now

24 GP
3 G
18 A
21 pts
+4

From what little I have seen of him it will be important for Hawks when he turns pro to put him with someone who can keep up with his pace and gleefully would love to fire the puck on net. Some of his struggles offensively is simple fact when he races up ice and looks to dish no one is around

I've watched a lot of UMinn games this season (thank you onhockey.tv) and his effectiveness has picked up quite a bit since the beginning of the season. His speed is always there but he looks more comfortable in the flow of the game with his linemates. It's like he's playing as a threesome lately whereas before he was more or less playing solo while the other two guys on his line did their own thing. That aspect of his game has improved.

Regarding future position and complementary linemates when he gets to the Hawks in a couple years - I think he will play 3C where his speed will be a weapon on the forecheck and his overall 200' game will work very well as a defender against the opponents top line. My vision is he will center a line with Lardis (also extremely quick and fast) on his right and Misiak (very good speed and 200' game) on his left. All three of those guys can score - especially Lardis who has a great fast and accurate shot.

Obviously the Hawks future top-6 would have to be very good to keep those guys on the 3rd line - but that would be one helluva 3rd line.

 

[Szechwan]

He kind of sounds like Antoine Vermette

 

[LesCanadiens]

I've watched a lot of UMinn games this season (thank you onhockey.tv) and his effectiveness has picked up quite a bit since the beginning of the season. His speed is always there but he looks more comfortable in the flow of the game with his linemates. It's like he's playing as a threesome lately whereas before he was more or less playing solo while the other two guys on his line did their own thing. That aspect of his game has improved.

Regarding future position and complementary linemates when he gets to the Hawks in a couple years - I think he will play 3C where his speed will be a weapon on the forecheck and his overall 200' game will work very well as a defender against the opponents top line. My vision is he will center a line with Lardis (also extremely quick and fast) on his right and Misiak (very good speed and 200' game) on his left. All three of those guys can score - especially Lardis who has a great fast and accurate shot.

Obviously the Hawks future top-6 would have to be very good to keep those guys on the 3rd line - but that would be one helluva 3rd line.

He's one I got it all wrong on. Really shows how much of a crapshoot it is to assess prospects. I watched a ton of him last year as I saw him as a potential steal relative to his perceived draft position. I felt that with better linemates and better finish, he could turn out to be Paul Kariya-lite. Instead it appears he may just be Paul Byron. Which still is OK for a 19th overall. But I thought he had more in him.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The biggest thing for Moore is I think he needs to learn to be more effective as a complimentary player. He has that McDavid skating, but he doesn't have that McDavid puck game. If he can learn to use his teammates well, his speed can make him a 50-60 point player. If he doesn't and he's a tunnel-vision speed guy that thinks he can do more than he can and doesn't read well off his teammates, then the Paul Byron comparison is probably what he is and he only ends up a good bottom six guy.