While one could gamble on the smaller, weaker, rush-centric, one-dimensional, pure playmaker in Jack Hughes, the option is available to select the more complete, versatile, powerful, relentless and creative cycle and boardwork player in Kaapo Kakko. There is less risk in Kaapo Kakko and yet a very high-level player. Hughes is much more of a boom-bust, one-dimensional pick with red flags that should warrant caution. Kaapo Kakko’s game is much more likely to translate to the NHL than Jack Hughes’. I believe that hockey IQ and awareness are the most important trait for prospects to have. Players drafted on the basis of skill above other deficiencies are riskier. When skill is prioritized above hockey IQ, and when the player’s hockey IQ is average, players like Jesse Puljujarvi and Nail Yakupov become early picks – those are extreme examples of highly-skilled forwards with average hockey IQ, but nevertheless the illustrate the potential floor that a skill-over-IQ player possesses. Sometimes, NHL teams gamble on these players with high picks. These are players who, in spite of their skill, struggle to process the game well enough to control the game. The potential for that player to become a project becomes that much greater. On that note, I believe that the puck-handling skills of Kakko and Hughes are similar. Kakko is the more complete thinker with greater creativity and intuition. There is some risk to Hughes, as he is a skill-above-IQ type of player, and a rush-centric player at that. Hughes’ hockey IQ is not his strongest attribute, and his success at lower levels comes primarily from his speed. When there are two options available as we have here, the high-IQ, high-floor player should be preferable.