F James Hagens - Boston College, NCAA (2025 Draft)

[Juxtaposer]

You're getting really defensive.

I didn't say one bad thing about Celebrini. It's just a fact of the matter that unless you're like the best hockey player ever that certain stats and areas are going to be in your favor and others aren't.

Unfortunately for Celebrini, he simply hasn't fared as well as Hagens in international tournaments over the years. Worse WHC17, Worse WJC18, Worse WJC20. Again, that's not to say he's done bad or that's a criticism. Maybe there's a good explanation. Maybe it doesn't mean much. At the same time, he's also fared better than Hagens in certain situations.

When talking about players who are picked in the same range, it's virtually always a mystery who will end up better down the road. I'm more than willing to let the players prove it. I see no reason to die on a hill comparing the eventual careers of an NHL rookie (non-generational) 1OA to the career of an eventual 1OA or 2OA DY player. That's a situation that realistically could go either way down the road.

I literally showed that Celebrini has performed better at every tournament at the same age as Hagens. You're comparing Hagens at 18 to Celebrini at 17.

What? Since when does birth year matter for ncaa? It makes sense why players would want to play ncaa in their draft year regardless of whether they’re early middle or late born within the year.

Birth year is not relevant for anything other than how long you can play junior tournaments. Serious players will structure around their draft year which they all know in advance. The whole “age 17 vs. age 18” thing is a big distraction every draft and it never matters.

Since literally always. Celebrini had to accelerate his schooling to be in the NCAA last year. Hagens did not. Noah Hanifin and Zach Werenski did. Luke Kunin did not. Birth year has always determined eligibility for certain levels of hockey. The USNTDP is based on birth year, not draft eligibility.

Eligibility for international tournaments is literally the point.

Celebrini wasn’t really considered a strong 1OA at the draft last year. He has had an exceptional rookie season, so in hindsight its easier to say. But there wasnt a soul on here who was saying he would be an almost PPG player as an 18 year old.

Hagens is the easy #1 for me. Not particularly close either

Celebrini was considered to be an above average 1st overall pick leading up to the draft. He was only considered a below average 1st overall pick before he won the Hobey Baker as a 17 year old. Even then, he was under hyped because of the fatigue from the Bedard hype.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Since literally always.

Nope, year of birth has zero bearing on NCAA Eligibility.

Celebrini had to accelerate his schooling to be in the NCAA last year. Hagens did not.

Actually most kids in the U.S. follow a school year cutoff calendar. Most kids born in the month Hagens were born in would be high school seniors in the U.S..... H

Noah Hanifin and Zach Werenski did. Luke Kunin did not. Birth year has always determined eligibility for certain levels of hockey.

Not for NCAA. Players enter the NCAA at all different ages. Your year of birth does not matter for NCAA purposes. Just that you are academically eligible and a team wants to have you. Hagens and Celebrini both began the school year as 17 year olds. Hagens just turned 18 during the first term whereas Celebrini turned it after second semester finals.

The USNTDP is based on birth year, not draft eligibility.

Yes, because it's a Junior team. Not a college team. Year of birth matters for Minor/Junior Hockey. Not for NCAA/NHL purposes (NCAA uses academic eligibility, NHL uses a September 15th cutoff).

Eligibility for international tournaments is literally the point.

No, NHL prospects are. An NHL prospect is going to care a lot more about their draft year and the NHL eligiblity cutoffs, not the last year they can play in the world juniors. The NHL is a player of that caliber's ultimate goal. A good portion of the very most elite players didn't even play in the world juniors in their "age 19" season, especially if that's their D+2. Players aren't suddenly caught off guard at the end of a season that they turned out to be eligible for the drafts.

Every year this discussion happens with negging the "late birthday" types. It never matters. A first time draft eligible player is a first time draft eligible player. They are all born within a calendar year of each other. At this point in their life, the "relative age effect" is negligible in all but most extreme cases (i.e., Schaefer is 315 days younger than Porter Martone, make of it as you will I suppose) but people will act like a player born December 30, 2006 is a whole year older than a player born January 3, 2007 because one was the very youngest of the '06s in Atom and the other was the very oldest of the '07s in Atom.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Nope, year of birth has zero bearing on NCAA Eligibility.

Actually most kids in the U.S. follow a school year cutoff calendar. Most kids born in the month Hagens were born in would be high school seniors in the U.S..... H

Not for NCAA. Players enter the NCAA at all different ages. Your year of birth does not matter for NCAA purposes. Just that you are academically eligible and a team wants to have you. Hagens and Celebrini both began the school year as 17 year olds. Hagens just turned 18 during the first term whereas Celebrini turned it after second semester finals.

Yes, because it's a Junior team. Not a college team.

No, NHL prospects are. An NHL prospect is going to care a lot more about their draft year and the NHL eligiblity cutoffs, not the last year they can play in the world juniors. The NHL is a player of that caliber's ultimate goal.

Literally articles were written about Celebrini, Werenski, and Hanifin doing extra classes and summer school so they could play NCAA at 17. James Hagens and other late birthdays do not have to accelerate their schooling to enter the NCAA. You're going to have to take the L on this one.

You have to have a high school degree or GED to go to an NCAA school. That is the "eligibility".

 

[bigdog16]

Celebrini was considered to be an above average 1st overall pick leading up to the draft. He was only considered a below average 1st overall pick before he won the Hobey Baker as a 17 year old. Even then, he was under hyped because of the fatigue from the Bedard hype.

Yes I guess the better word would be underhyped. You are right in that it was largely due to the overwhelming Bedard hype a year earlier.

 

[montreal]

Literally articles were written about Celebrini, Werenski, and Hanifin doing extra classes and summer school so they could play NCAA at 17. James Hagens and other late birthdays do not have to accelerate their schooling to enter the NCAA. You're going to have to take the L on this one.

You have to have a high school degree or GED to go to an NCAA school. That is the "eligibility".

Ryan Poehling did it as well so he could be a Freshman with his twin brothers as he was a grade behind them but accelerated.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Literally articles were written about Celebrini, Werenski, and Hanifin doing extra classes and summer school so they could play NCAA at 17. James Hagens and other late birthdays do not have to accelerate their schooling to enter the NCAA. You're going to have to take the L on this one.

You have to have a high school degree or GED to go to an NCAA school. That is the "eligibility".

"Accelerating schooling" has nothing to do with anything though. Anyone can "accelerate schooling" unrelated to hockey. They didn't need a special waiver or anything to play NCAA Hockey in their 17 going on 18 season, just like Hagens didn't because there is no base level requirement related to restricting an age 17 player from NCAA hockey eligibility. Just like this kid who will likely be the first NFL WR drafted in two years. Ryan Williams (wide receiver) - Wikipedia

You gotta take the L here. Both Celebrini and Hagens were playing NCAA Hockey in their draft year. Hagens was relatively 7 months, 11 days older in his draft year than Celebrini was in his. Not a full year. Make of it as you will.

 

[Mathieukferland]

Without commenting on either player mentioned above, I will just mention that birth year is more important than draft year when trying to compare players born before and after September 21, because the entirety of minor and junior hockey in North America revolves around birth year eligibility. It’s the reason why I don’t view lates without great D-1 production too kindly, and the reason I’ve been lower on players like McKenna, McQueen, or martone than most

 

[MNRube]

I liked his game at WJC. Thought he should’ve been dropped to 2nd line to run his own offense. Awkward fit with two other guys who like to hang on to the puck, but they won Gold so hard to protest too much. Easy to see why he’s a blue-chip. Smart, mobile, skilled.

Feel pretty confident he will be a 70+ point C in the NHL eventually. Not the best #1 overall pick, but likely a foundational player and a very safe selection.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Lol, olol. You're calling others defensive in a debate about Hagens?
I assume, at this point, that you're his dad or uncle or something.
2cnd cousin, at least, for sure. Carry on.....

The discussion was about Celebrini.

And I wasn’t the one that inserted Celebrini into the Hagens thread.

It’s the Canadians that refuse to accept they don’t have the best player in the draft this year, something you may know about.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

It would probably depend.. I can't see San Jose passing on Schaefer if they got the 1st OA pick with Smith and Celebrini in house and only Dickinson of major note on the back end.

May be the case- but man imagine Celebrini and Hagens down the middle. Smith out on the wing.

As someone who absolutely loves Schaefer I don’t think I pass on the chance at having that level of a 2 headed monster down the middle.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

The discussion was about Celebrini.

And I wasn’t the one that inserted Celebrini into the Hagens thread.

It’s the Canadians that refuse to accept they don’t have the best player in the draft this year, something you may know about.

Do you not think Hagens’ NCAA production is a concern at all at 1 OA? You said that you felt 1 ppg in the NCAA would be required for Ivar Stenberg to be a top-10 pick next year, Hagens is barely over that mark with 20 in 18.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

You do know it is ok to like both players? You really seem to want to argue with anyone who thinks Celebrini is a potential star player. I recall you spending most of last year telling me Berkly Catton was the superior player despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Excuse me, I never said anything bad about Celebrini here.

I remember that you have constantly unnecessarily defended Celebrini against imagined criticisms over the years. I guess like what we’re dealing with here.

Do I think Berkly Catton has more potential than Celebrini? I do, but ultimately Celebrini earned the first spot and I said as much. Your claim about what I said in reference to Catton and Celebrini is heavily misleading, and you’d find that if you actually researched it instead of posting on emotion. Don’t think I’ve criticized Celebrini anywhere in this discussion, nor that discussion. Not sure where you’ve gotten that I dislike him.

What is with some of you inserting him into this thread and then defending him to the moon against these faux-criticisms? Sorry, it’s not a criticism to bring up facts that his numbers have not been as good as another player in a certain setting.

I’m not going to try to argue with you about why it does or doesn’t matter. As I said, it may be explainable or not matter or maybe it does.

To me, all of that is irrelevant and who is the best player will be proven in the NHL, but let’s not distort reality. It’s not criticizing Celebrini to bring up undisputed truths.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I literally showed that Celebrini has performed better at every tournament at the same age as Hagens. You're comparing Hagens at 18 to Celebrini at 17.

Celebrini



Hagens



Hagens has the better WJC17, WJC18, and WJC20.

As I said, I’m not going to argue the semantical points. Some will be in favor of one player and others another. I’m not looking to get in the weeds to prop up one or another. I have no strong opinion and this will be proven out over time. It’s pretty much undisputed that Hagens has performed better in international settings over the years. Doesn’t mean Celebrini hasn’t performed well. Don’t know how this undisputed truth (or so I’d think) is criticizing Celebrini.

 

[Kingpin794]

Celebrini

View attachment 960746

Hagens

View attachment 960749

Hagens has the better WJC17, WJC18, and WJC20.

As I said, I’m not going to argue the semantical points. Some will be in favor of one player and others another. I’m not looking to get in the weeds to prop up one or another. I have no strong opinion and this will be proven out over time. It’s pretty much undisputed that Hagens has performed better in international settings over the years. Doesn’t mean Celebrini hasn’t performed well. Don’t know how this undisputed truth (or so I’d think) is criticizing Celebrini.

22-23 U17's: 21 is indeed more than 2. 22-23 U18's: 5 is not more than 15. These are the only things we can compare. There is no WJC to compare because they were never there at the same time.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Do you not think Hagens’ NCAA production is a concern at all at 1 OA? You said that you felt 1 ppg in the NCAA would be required for Ivar Stenberg to be a top-10 pick next year, Hagens is barely over that mark with 20 in 18.

Since you seem to be researching my prior comments on this website, why leave out what I literally posted a page ago? I guess that wasn’t convenient for your narrative. Have posted that for pages and pages. Would be pretty hard to miss, unless you had an agenda.

He has the same number of points this year as a year and a half year older Leonard, who won the MVP at the World Juniors. BC is nowhere near as high scoring of a team this year as people think and not as much scoring as last year either. They’ve played one of the hardest first half of the season schedules ever in NCAA history.

BC, Hagens school, has the 15th best scoring offense in the country right now. They have the 7th best scoring defense. They are more of a defensive team.

Meanwhile, BU, the team that Stenberg might sign for, is 2nd in the country in scoring offense and not even top 50 in scoring defense.

Hagens team keeps it relatively tight. The school Stenberg would play for is run and gun. Cole Eiserman has one less point than Hagens and Ryan Leonard. Do you think it’s because he’s as good as them or maybe because his team plays a higher scoring style and their’s doesn’t?

To more directly answer your point, I think there is a minimum PPG you need for a range, especially given certain types of play styles. Stenberg is a scoring winger, so of course the scoring requirements will be relatively higher than if he was a two way center.

Schaefer, the guy many of you are pushing for 1OA, is barely ahead in PPG of a 2026 draft eligible defensemen who is barely even talked about by anyone except me as a top 10 pick for next year. Is he underachieving? Maybe context matters and you gotta watch games?

No, I don’t think Hagens and Leonard are going to finish barely above 1PPG. Hagens shooting percentage is low and the team has played a very difficult schedule. His numbers will only rise. And regardless, I don’t know what more he has to prove. He’s a top scorer literally everywhere he plays. Schaefer pops up with two good months and he’s all of a sudden the 1OA favorite to some but if Hagens has very good PPG instead of historically great, including the context explained about his team this year, that means he’s not succeeding? That’s a distorted reality.

Dude was literally just a top player for the winning team at the World Juniors in his draft year. People here said he had a lot to prove. Okay well, where’s the acknowledgement that he proved what he needed to?

Oh no, we’re forced to say he got his points against the wrong teams and imagining that Schaefer would’ve performed better because Schaefer had the lowest threshold I’ve ever seen since following a draft of what he needs to prove to qualify for 1OA. As long as you can imagine it, that’s all that matters.

Funny how we went from Misa being comparable to Hagens two years ago, but then Hagens obliterated him head to head at the WHC17 and then the following year Misa was weak and nowhere comparable to Hagens. Then Martone picked up the mantle to challenge Hagens. Of course, he didn’t perform anywhere near as well at the WJC18 and WJC20. He fell flat comparing him to Hagens. Personally I thought he wasn’t that bad (I prefer him to Schaefer because he’s more proven, but he doesn’t fare well if you want to compare him to Hagens). Now we’re at Schaefer. May be an easier argument to make. Since we can’t defeat Hagens throw out a player who never has to prove anything because it’s all about theoretical potential. Goalposts have been moved since beating Hagens on the ice has proven difficult. It’s all in a quest for Canada to have the top pick yet again. Can’t for once let another country have it.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Okay, Habs fan.

Obviously you haven't seen either or reports on them. I haven't seen Demidov and Hage maybe a couple of times but reports from experts confirm this. Demidov plays and sees the game like Hutson. Hage is similar.

 

[Zarzh]

No, I don’t think Hagens and Leonard are going to finish barely above 1PPG. Hagens shooting percentage is low and the team has played a very difficult schedule. His numbers will only rise. And regardless, I don’t know what more he has to prove. He’s a top scorer literally everywhere he plays. Schaefer pops up with two good months and he’s all of a sudden the 1OA favorite to some but if Hagens has very good PPG instead of historically great, including the context explained about his team this year, that means he’s not succeeding? That’s a distorted reality.

Hagens does not have a good PPG, especially for the NCAA where linemates tend to drive scoring up more substantially and centers tend to set the high-water mark for offense more often, and his lack of goal scoring is concerning. He's scoring at a pace much closer to Matty Beniers than anyone people would be happy with picking.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Obviously you haven't seen either or reports on them. I haven't seen Demidov and Hage maybe a couple of times but reports from experts confirm this. Demidov plays and sees the game like Hutson. Hage is similar.

Show me one "report" from an "expert" saying Hage may be better than Hagens. You yourself admit you haven't seen them play, so I guarantee I've seen more of both players than you.

Celebrini

View attachment 960746

Hagens

View attachment 960749

Hagens has the better WJC17, WJC18, and WJC20.

As I said, I’m not going to argue the semantical points. Some will be in favor of one player and others another. I’m not looking to get in the weeds to prop up one or another. I have no strong opinion and this will be proven out over time. It’s pretty much undisputed that Hagens has performed better in international settings over the years. Doesn’t mean Celebrini hasn’t performed well. Don’t know how this undisputed truth (or so I’d think) is criticizing Celebrini.

For the last time. You are comparing 16 year old Celebrini to 17 year old Hagens and 17 year old Celebrini to 18 year old Hagens. That is not an equivalent comparison. The single tournament that they both played, as underaged 2006's, was the 2023 U18, where Celebrini outscored Hagens three times over.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Celebrini wasn’t really considered a strong 1OA at the draft last year. He has had an exceptional rookie season, so in hindsight its easier to say. But there wasnt a soul on here who was saying he would be an almost PPG player as an 18 year old.

Hagens is the easy #1 for me. Not particularly close either

Celebrini was considered #1. Everyone had him #1. Hagens isn't at the moment. Schaefer, Misa and Martone are in the running.

 

[ConnorMcMullet]

Since you seem to be researching my prior comments on this website, why leave out what I literally posted a page ago? I guess that wasn’t convenient for your narrative. Have posted that for pages and pages. Would be pretty hard to miss, unless you had an agenda.


BC, Hagens school, has the 15th best scoring offense in the country right now. They have the 7th best scoring defense. They are more of a defensive team.

Meanwhile, BU, the team that Stenberg might sign for, is 2nd in the country in scoring offense and not even top 50 in scoring defense.

Hagens team keeps it relatively tight. The school Stenberg would play for is run and gun. Cole Eiserman has one less point than Hagens and Ryan Leonard. Do you think it’s because he’s as good as them or maybe because his team plays a higher scoring style and their’s doesn’t?

To more directly answer your point, I think there is a minimum PPG you need for a range, especially given certain types of play styles. Stenberg is a scoring winger, so of course the scoring requirements will be relatively higher than if he was a two way center.

Schaefer, the guy many of you are pushing for 1OA, is barely ahead in PPG of a 2026 draft eligible defensemen who is barely even talked about by anyone except me as a top 10 pick for next year. Is he underachieving? Maybe context matters and you gotta watch games?

No, I don’t think Hagens and Leonard are going to finish barely above 1PPG. Hagens shooting percentage is low and the team has played a very difficult schedule. His numbers will only rise. And regardless, I don’t know what more he has to prove. He’s a top scorer literally everywhere he plays. Schaefer pops up with two good months and he’s all of a sudden the 1OA favorite to some but if Hagens has very good PPG instead of historically great, including the context explained about his team this year, that means he’s not succeeding? That’s a distorted reality.

Dude was literally just a top player for the winning team at the World Juniors in his draft year. People here said he had a lot to prove. Okay well, where’s the acknowledgement that he proved what he needed to?

Oh no, we’re forced to say he got his points against the wrong teams and imagining that Schaefer would’ve performed better because Schaefer had the lowest threshold I’ve ever seen since following a draft of what he needs to prove to qualify for 1OA. As long as you can imagine it, that’s all that matters.

Funny how we went from Misa being comparable to Hagens two years ago, but then Hagens obliterated him head to head at the WHC17 and then the following year Misa was weak and nowhere comparable to Hagens. Then Martone picked up the mantle to challenge Hagens. Of course, he didn’t perform anywhere near as well at the WJC18 and WJC20. He fell flat comparing him to Hagens. Personally I thought he wasn’t that bad (I prefer him to Schaefer because he’s more proven, but he doesn’t fare well if you want to compare him to Hagens). Now we’re at Schaefer. May be an easier argument to make. Since we can’t defeat Hagens throw out a player who never has to prove anything because it’s all about theoretical potential. Goalposts have been moved since beating Hagens on the ice has proven difficult. It’s all in a quest for Canada to have the top pick yet again. Can’t for once let another country have it.

No research done and I have no narrative, I've been interested in Stenberg for a while and posts on his 2 page thread are more memorable than those on Hagens' 45 page thread.

The differences you mentioned between BC and BU are fair, and would have been a sufficient answer without rushing to accuse me of having an agenda. Regardless, I don't think you can argue that his production hasn't been at least slightly underwhelming this year. Fantilli is probably the best recent comparison in terms of being a late birthday in the NCAA and a likely top-3 pick, and while team situations weren't identical, Fantilli's production was significantly higher.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on what these players have proven in past years. Watching the two this season, it's not hard to see why scouts prefer Schaefer in terms of what he brings to the game today and how he projects in the future. They're not thinking about how Schaefer performed the season prior. Not everything is an agenda to push for a Canadian at 1st overall — Shane Wright dropped to 4 (below an American center in Cooley) because of an underwhelming draft year and projection/upside concerns, despite being the most proven of all draft eligibles.

 

[Boss Man Hughes]

Show me one "report" from an "expert" saying Hage may be better than Hagens. You yourself admit you haven't seen them play, so I guarantee I've seen more of both players than you.


For the last time. You are comparing 16 year old Celebrini to 17 year old Hagens and 17 year old Celebrini to 18 year old Hagens. That is not an equivalent comparison. The single tournament that they both played, as underaged 2006's, was the 2023 U18, where Celebrini outscored Hagens three times over.

Experts rate Demidov and Hage highly. I was saying Demidov is close to Celbrini level. Hage has more points than Hagens on a weaker team but I am not saying Hage is better than Hagens.

Since you seem to be researching my prior comments on this website, why leave out what I literally posted a page ago? I guess that wasn’t convenient for your narrative. Have posted that for pages and pages. Would be pretty hard to miss, unless you had an agenda.


BC, Hagens school, has the 15th best scoring offense in the country right now. They have the 7th best scoring defense. They are more of a defensive team.

Meanwhile, BU, the team that Stenberg might sign for, is 2nd in the country in scoring offense and not even top 50 in scoring defense.

Hagens team keeps it relatively tight. The school Stenberg would play for is run and gun. Cole Eiserman has one less point than Hagens and Ryan Leonard. Do you think it’s because he’s as good as them or maybe because his team plays a higher scoring style and their’s doesn’t?

To more directly answer your point, I think there is a minimum PPG you need for a range, especially given certain types of play styles. Stenberg is a scoring winger, so of course the scoring requirements will be relatively higher than if he was a two way center.

Schaefer, the guy many of you are pushing for 1OA, is barely ahead in PPG of a 2026 draft eligible defensemen who is barely even talked about by anyone except me as a top 10 pick for next year. Is he underachieving? Maybe context matters and you gotta watch games?

No, I don’t think Hagens and Leonard are going to finish barely above 1PPG. Hagens shooting percentage is low and the team has played a very difficult schedule. His numbers will only rise. And regardless, I don’t know what more he has to prove. He’s a top scorer literally everywhere he plays. Schaefer pops up with two good months and he’s all of a sudden the 1OA favorite to some but if Hagens has very good PPG instead of historically great, including the context explained about his team this year, that means he’s not succeeding? That’s a distorted reality.

Dude was literally just a top player for the winning team at the World Juniors in his draft year. People here said he had a lot to prove. Okay well, where’s the acknowledgement that he proved what he needed to?

Oh no, we’re forced to say he got his points against the wrong teams and imagining that Schaefer would’ve performed better because Schaefer had the lowest threshold I’ve ever seen since following a draft of what he needs to prove to qualify for 1OA. As long as you can imagine it, that’s all that matters.

Funny how we went from Misa being comparable to Hagens two years ago, but then Hagens obliterated him head to head at the WHC17 and then the following year Misa was weak and nowhere comparable to Hagens. Then Martone picked up the mantle to challenge Hagens. Of course, he didn’t perform anywhere near as well at the WJC18 and WJC20. He fell flat comparing him to Hagens. Personally I thought he wasn’t that bad (I prefer him to Schaefer because he’s more proven, but he doesn’t fare well if you want to compare him to Hagens). Now we’re at Schaefer. May be an easier argument to make. Since we can’t defeat Hagens throw out a player who never has to prove anything because it’s all about theoretical potential. Goalposts have been moved since beating Hagens on the ice has proven difficult. It’s all in a quest for Canada to have the top pick yet again. Can’t for once let another country have it.

The WJC means very little. He is playing with guys he has played with all year. The others aren't.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Experts rate Demidov and Hage highly. I was saying Demidov is close to Celbrini level. Hage has more points than Hagens on a weaker team but I am not saying Hage is better than Hagens.


The WJC means very little. He is playing with guys he has played with all year. The others aren't.

Yeah, the WJC means very little...unless it suits your narrative.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Experts rate Demidov and Hage highly. I was saying Demidov is close to Celbrini level. Hage has more points than Hagens on a weaker team but I am not saying Hage is better than Hagens.

You literally said that Hage might be better than Hagens, following it up with "I don't watch the players, but experts say!!!"

 

[bigdog16]

Celebrini was considered #1. Everyone had him #1. Hagens isn't at the moment. Schaefer, Misa and Martone are in the running.

This doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying. Celebrini, in relation to previous years #1 picks, wasn't considered as strong. He wasn't in the same conversation as Bedard, Lafreniere, Hughes, Dahlin etc. He was moreso in the Owen Powers-Nico Hischier tier. In hindsight we can all say that he was underrated.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

No research done and I have no narrative, I've been interested in Stenberg for a while and posts on his 2 page thread are more memorable than those on Hagens' 45 page thread.

The differences you mentioned between BC and BU are fair, and would have been a sufficient answer without rushing to accuse me of having an agenda. Regardless, I don't think you can argue that his production hasn't been at least slightly underwhelming this year. Fantilli is probably the best recent comparison in terms of being a late birthday in the NCAA and a likely top-3 pick, and while team situations weren't identical, Fantilli's production was significantly higher.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on what these players have proven in past years. Watching the two this season, it's not hard to see why scouts prefer Schaefer in terms of what he brings to the game today and how he projects in the future. They're not thinking about how Schaefer performed the season prior. Not everything is an agenda to push for a Canadian at 1st overall — Shane Wright dropped to 4 (below an American center in Cooley) because of an underwhelming draft year and projection/upside concerns, despite being the most proven of all draft eligibles.

Fantilli scored a little above Eichel, right? That’s all I remember hearing. He was Jack Eichel or a little better. That’s what people said. People forget that Fantilli played for a juggernaut Michigan team with what seemed like 10 first round picks. Their early season schedule I notably remember included like two games against newly D1 teams where they must’ve scored like 15-20 total goals. Meanwhile, Eichel played on a somewhat mediocre BU team and carried them to the National Title game.

Flash-forward to the NHL, Fantilli is struggling to hit .5PPG for a pretty decent CBJ team this year (all I heard last year were complaints about the team). Eichel has had a career that I think maybe isn’t impossible for Fantilli to replicate, but it’ll be hard and I personally have never seen that level of upside in his game. The PPG differences didn’t matter that much to me. It was clear to me using my eyes that Fantilli was not Eichel level, if you used the context of their scoring.

There’s a fallacy to making too much of one sample of points. PPG isn’t literally all that matters. Hagens has more than satisfied his end with scoring (WHC17 record, WJC18 record, one of the highest draft year WJC20 scoring totals, DY-1 the PPG leader in the USHL). I truly could not care less if he’s a little ahead or below certain players in PPG. I’ve seen what I need to know about him. It’s becoming over scouting at this point to complain that his PPG might actually only be very good for his age and not great.