Prospect Info: //#2// HFStars 2014 Top-20

[piqued]

I don't know about that. Lindback and Rynnas could both be quite good in their own right.

 

[Dundalis]

Oleksiak is a guy whose hockey sense and decision making skills have always been lacking, and he hasn't really shown any signs of improvement in that regard. I don't see him as a future core member of the team. He'll be a guy that will look useful as a veteran. I wouldn't even put him in my top 10, though I'm sure just about all of you will disagree. Still, 10th in this pool could be as good as 2 or 3 on some other teams so he could still easily exceed my expectations.

I'm not sure Oleksiak's hockey sense and decision making skills are completely lacking. If you just saw his NHL callups, you might say that. But at AHL level you see flashes of some outstanding defensive and offensive plays. Followed of course by some horrid mistake. That would tell me it's more of a consistency issue, developing his ability to stay mentally switched on throughout the 60 mins. Some of the posters who watch more AHL games could probably shed more light on this part of his game.

 

[BigG44]

I don't know about that. Lindback and Rynnas could both be quite good in their own right.

I agree with this, and I misunderstood your original point then about bringing them up. The fact they're potentially good is a huge positive though IMO. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to see that as a negative ... for Campbell ... not the team. I think it's great for Campbell.

I still disagree they have much of an impact on the discussion though. He's either going to develop or he's not. This idea of not coddling the guys and forcing them to fight every step of the way has really grown on me. Mainly because for once in a long time, winning at the NHL is the most important and actually obtainable goal of the organization. I enjoyed prospects in the 90's and 00's, but the only thing that I cared about at the end of the day was a win or loss in Dallas.

My interest in prospects grew the worse things got in Dallas, and I like that I get to follow them and get excited ... but it's nice to put that on the back burner just a bit to winning in the NHL. It's like me wanting to play Philip Larsen over some other mediocre vet. If we were going to suck at least suck developing a young guy. I don't want that to be an important motive really anymore.

I was the first to ***** about Nihlstorp and the 2013 playoffs, and it wasn't great seeing them split time this playoffs. At the end of the day when you look at what made Desjardins successful and what Detroit's done, it makes more sense. They could have given Glennie Top 6 time in the AHL or hell an NHL spot because of his draft position, but Glennie getting forced to work by Desjardins probably salvaged his career.

Giving Oleksiak a free pass early on because they needed him didn't really work. He's not anywhere close to a lock for a spot right now. His path is arguably as tough as Ritchie's right now. If we all go with the assumption Nemeth is a lock, just like Ritchie any other D has to push out a one - way contract to make the team.

 

[Hull Fan]

Klingberg. I think people here overrate Campbell, he has only had one really good season but he was injured therefore created a very small sample size. He is definitely not top 3 IMO.

Yep. Until Campbell actually plays like a dominate #1 in the AHL for at least 40 games I'm not sold on him.

hairylikebear, I am 100% with you on Oleksiak's hockey sense and lack of growth in his game. I've got several guys ahead of him because while tools are sexy, hockey IQ and decision making are what truly matter.

 

[Klockis]

So we can ignore Campbell's 18 year old season but Desrosier's 19 year old season is admissible to evidence? Check. Ignore year he lead US to Gold in the U20 and U18 same season. That must have been a mediocre season. No need to fact check or accurately state Desrosiers had a good 2nd half ... painfully mediocre start to the season. Ignoring outlandish claims like that and nickel and diming any prospect ...

Not at all what I was saying. The argument one could make (not that I agree with it) is that Desrosiers had a full season in CHL where he had a good statistical season. Campbell has didn't have it a good statistical season in junior by the numbers.

I agree he's no lock to be a stud starting goaltender, but I'd say outside of Ritchie at this point ... no one else really sticks out as a lock for NHL glory either. He's a guy that every year when you watch him he addresses his issues and corrects them. When he was win gold medals ... he scrambled like crazy and made fantastical saves and allowed awful goals. He's as come as Kari in net most nights now ... at a much lower level of competition.

Goalies are much more of a crap shoot, who knows what Campbell will be at the NHL level. I rather go with a potential 1C or 1D than a potential starting goalie. Also I rate the goalie position much lower than most, especially prospects. The times were he was great (WJC and this year) were very small sample sizes. Had one solid season in the AHL but he wasn't exactly lightning it up.

He was mentally weak in the OHL, and more often than not he's focuses and unfazed by the game. Goal is the most difficult position to play, and instead of crumbling when he's been insufficient in areas he's done everything possible to make himself better. As much as I appreciate that Glennie salvaged his career because of a hard ass coach, it's more impressive that a guy like Campbell is a driven individual who fights to be the best possible and to this point hasn't failed at advancing his game when needed.

Not at all arguing with this point, hopefully he has a great season in the AHL and that makes him worthy of the 2nd spot. Again 16 games is not enough.

His career trajectory and the talent he has for sure have him moving well towards a solid NHL career as a starter. Since none of the other forwards are clear cut first liners and none of the D are locks for top pair D ... he's easily in the conversation with those prospects. I don't think there's much of gap from this point to probably around 10 give or take a few.

I disagree, he has to prove himself more before I say that he is going on the trajectory of being an NHL starter. The problem with Campbell since he got drafted is that he has not had a season to prove that he is on level with other great goalie prospects. He might have done it this year but unfortunately injuries didn't make that possible.

I think we look at his situation very different. But you have watched him more, but as an outsider I can't say I'm sold yet.

 

[piqued]

To expand on Klockis' post, I've noticed some goalpost shifting as the years have gone on too. It used to be that Campbell's ceiling was expected to be an elite, All-Star level starter. Is that still the case? I see people talking about his potential as simply a starter being enough to justify this ranking. That's not good enough to me. Look at it this way: If Dickinson, for example, reaches his ceiling (as I see it) and turns out to be a 60-70 point center, are you gonna trade that player for a starting goalie? I don't think so. If everything goes right for Oleksiak and he turns into a dynamic #2 defender, are you going to trade him for a starting goalie? IMO you need to work your way down the list comparing ceilings until you get to someone that you'd say, "Yes, I would trade this theoretically developed player for a starting goalie".

For me that means he's behind Ritchie, Dickinson, Shore, Honka, Oleksiak and basically in a dead-heat with Klingberg.

 

[BigG44]

The only counter point I have is Desrosiers again. I'm not knocking him for this because goal is a ridiculously tough position.

He didn't play a full great season which IMO makes me like him more. He was mediocre to awful through December. Like Campbell he made adjustments to his game and then he had a ridiculously successful 2nd half.

Most goalies have this same long, up and down path to the NHL. I get not being big on goalies ... I actually agree that I don't particularly want a 60 game starter unless he's Roy or Brodeur. I think you can save money and get just as good goaltending from two guys close in talent fighting for starts.

I still think it's clear watching the guy though that he has starter upside, but I could see why someone else might not. The other thing that makes me like him is his attitude and confidence. That intangible seems to be lacking in a guy like Oleksiak or Faksa. Maybe it's just me, but when Campbell speaks he comes off as the type of guy I would bet on. He seems like he'd run through a brick wall to be the best he can be, and that's not a overly common personality type. Those people usually succeed.

 

[BigG44]

To expand on Klockis' post, I've noticed some goalpost shifting as the years have gone on too. It used to be that Campbell's ceiling was expected to be an elite, All-Star level starter. Is that still the case? I see people talking about his potential as simply a starter being enough to justify this ranking. That's not good enough to me. Look at it this way: If Dickinson, for example, reaches his ceiling (as I see it) and turns out to be a 60-70 point center, are you gonna trade that player for a starting goalie? I don't think so. If everything goes right for Oleksiak and he turns into a dynamic #2 defender, are you going to trade him for a starting goalie? IMO you need to work your way down the list comparing ceilings until you get to someone that you'd say, "Yes, I would trade this theoretically developed player for a starting goalie".

For me that means he's behind Ritchie, Dickinson, Shore, Honka, Oleksiak and basically in a dead-heat with Klingberg.

Ceiling isn't what matters. The likelihood of them reaching that ceiling is more important. Dickinson and Shore don't look like sure thing first line players and neither does Oleksiak or the other D.

I already said I don't think Campbell is a sure thing, but I trust him reaching his ceiling more than the other guys ... without a doubt Oleksiak.

Shore on the other hand is very similar to Campbell. He's taken a deficiency every year and made it to where it's not a weakness. The problem for me is sometimes ... it not often ... CHL and NCAA performance is extremely misleading. I don't know how you can say it's anything more than an indication they might be good.

Look at Ritchie .... we weren't calling him a sure thing until he did it in the AHL. Both Campbell and Ritchie had similar first years in the AHL. They were only average in the 1st half and great in the 2nd half. I don't like that Nihlstorp got the nod at the time because he was coming off a SHL championship but it happened. I'm not going to dock a guy because he had one season struggling with injuries but still managed to put up even better stats.

I don't see how it's even remotely possible to deny that he's improved every single year.

The point I'm making though at the end of the day is you two seem to be saying he doesn't even belong in the discussion where I actually just believe the difference in this area after Ritchie is pretty razor thin.

The tie breaker for Campbell for me is that with the exception of Shore no one has shown greater ability to adapt and transform his game, and no one seems to be able to match his work ethic ... something numerous coaches and teammates have mentioned about him.

It's subjective, but there's no way he doesn't belong on the conversation here.

You did help me decide on my next player .. Shore for sure.

 

[MetalGodAOD*]

To expand on Klockis' post, I've noticed some goalpost shifting as the years have gone on too. It used to be that Campbell's ceiling was expected to be an elite, All-Star level starter. Is that still the case? I see people talking about his potential as simply a starter being enough to justify this ranking. That's not good enough to me. Look at it this way: If Dickinson, for example, reaches his ceiling (as I see it) and turns out to be a 60-70 point center, are you gonna trade that player for a starting goalie? I don't think so. If everything goes right for Oleksiak and he turns into a dynamic #2 defender, are you going to trade him for a starting goalie? IMO you need to work your way down the list comparing ceilings until you get to someone that you'd say, "Yes, I would trade this theoretically developed player for a starting goalie".

For me that means he's behind Ritchie, Dickinson, Shore, Honka, Oleksiak and basically in a dead-heat with Klingberg.

You make some good points, but you're basing prospect value off trade value in the NHL. That's fine if your personal rankings swing to that metric, but I doubt everyone is seeing it the same way.

Personally I still feel a Jack has elite potential. But I wouldn't rank him over our other top prospects either, but for different reasons.

 

[BigG44]

Sort of exhausted the Campbell discussion and with the way the vote is going I'm most interested piqued in why you went with Dickinson over Shore. I'm actually waffling a bit even though I'm leaning towards Shore, and I wondered if you might sway me. I know you have been high on Shore for a while as well.

Where I'm at ....

CHL is the class of competition among U20 age group, but I'm also impressed by what Shore is doing against mostly grown young men 20 to 24 at a high level. It's really impossible to compare. One you're facing superior talent and the other you're mostly playing against guys who would physically dominate many teenagers. Sure the top prospects in the NCAA are often younger, underdeveloped guys but overall they make up a small percentage of the players. Most freshman are coming in at 19 or 20 years old meaning you have quite a few mid 20's, physically developed players ... and there's still plenty of talent in the NCAA.

Next ... while I love both ... I'm more impressed by Shore's development. I'm glad Dickinson was able to focus and treat this like a job rather than take games off and coast, but while maturing is important, it's not something that gets me overly excited. That's what you were supposed to do. I think Shore's done much more to grow and develop his game, and I think they were pretty even in terms of talent at the age of 18.

Ultimately, the final straw to this point is hockey sense. Shore thinks the game at such an impressive level. That's what translates best to the NHL. He can just carve up the ice and do things others can't. I love watching him play, but the obvious knock is he's doing it against an overall less talented group of competition. I've seen much less of Dickinson than Shore just because it's easier to get the NCAA, but when I have watched he seemed more of high intensity type which is good. I just think Shore plays with the same level of intensity on top of being an extremely high IQ player.

 

[glovesave_35]

I'm going with Klingberg next. I know Shore is a really good prospect, same goes for Dickinson. I just haven't had the luxury of watching any of them play much at all, and in such a case I go with the guy who played a ton and scored at a very respectable rate in one of the best men's leagues in the world.

 

[piqued]

Sort of exhausted the Campbell discussion and with the way the vote is going I'm most interested piqued in why you went with Dickinson over Shore. I'm actually waffling a bit even though I'm leaning towards Shore, and I wondered if you might sway me. I know you have been high on Shore for a while as well.

I'm probably not going to sway you because it's not something I feel strongly about, like I do about Campbell's placement. Dickinson and Shore are neck and neck as far as I'm concerned. I am very high on Shore as well, he's someone I wanted the Stars to draft and was thrilled when they did and his development since then has done nothing to dampen that enthusiasm. He's my #3 prospect. I give the nod to Dickinson due to slightly better pedigree and the fact that I'm naturally a little skeptical of NCAA prospects. Dickinson being on such a good OHL team in Guelph and thriving against the best the CHL has to offer throughout the playoffs is a plus in my book. Being a year younger doesn't hurt either.

 

[BigG44]

Other than his age which I don't see as part of the equation for me ... NCAA vs. CHL is the thing I'm struggling with the most.

It's obvious most talent and many top NHLers are ex-CHL, and many of your top NCAA players usually end up as 4th line or Top 9 guys in the long run.

I just hate to use the NCAA against him because he is so good, but it's a reasonable knock. Even I realize it's a stretch that the tougher physical competition of the NCAA is a bit of a stretch.

If anything, I do agree with Glove that what Klingberg and more specifically Bystrom have done in a pro league is more impressive. Bystrom at 19 being even more impressive than Klingberg who is 2 years older. I think Bystrom is proving to be further along in his development, and he could prove to have a greater ceiling.

Where do you slide in a guy like Oleksiak who is proving to be maybe more of a complimentary player like Bouwmeester over a Chara type?

It's a tough call IMO, but you did pull me back towards Dickinson a bit. Maybe you do have to discount the NCAA competition for now.

 

[OttMorrow]

Other than his age which I don't see as part of the equation for me ... NCAA vs. CHL is the thing I'm struggling with the most.

It's obvious most talent and many top NHLers are ex-CHL, and many of your top NCAA players usually end up as 4th line or Top 9 guys in the long run.

I just hate to use the NCAA against him because he is so good, but it's a reasonable knock. Even I realize it's a stretch that the tougher physical competition of the NCAA is a bit of a stretch.

If anything, I do agree with Glove that what Klingberg and more specifically Bystrom have done in a pro league is more impressive. Bystrom at 19 being even more impressive than Klingberg who is 2 years older. I think Bystrom is proving to be further along in his development, and he could prove to have a greater ceiling.

Where do you slide in a guy like Oleksiak who is proving to be maybe more of a complimentary player like Bouwmeester over a Chara type?

It's a tough call IMO, but you did pull me back towards Dickinson a bit. Maybe you do have to discount the NCAA competition for now.

Can you explain to me why you are more impressed with Bystrom than Klinger?

With regard to Shore vs. Dickinson, it's really close. I have been jaded by the NCAA Hobey Baker busts of season's past. So I am not 100% convinced that it's a good barometer to project NHL success. I'm thinking the CHL player of the year usually has more NHL success by comparison. Haven't fact checked that though. The edge goes to Shore for me based upon the eye test by those at the development camp who seemed to think that Shore was more talented. This too is a pretty crap litmus test too though as there are a lot of players that look good in practice, but that can't translate it to to NHL ice.

 

[Starry Knight]

I came into this year not knowing what to expect from Jason Dickinson. We drafted him with a high pick so surely the was some upside, but a lot of the scouting sites questioned his upside after a rough draft. It didn't take long for any doubt in my mind to be erased. Every time he was on the ice something happened for Guelph. He can play in so many styles because he has so many tools in a great toolbox. Carry the puck with blazing speed, shoot the puck with velocity, or make deft passes. He is the motor for his line and the Guelph offence (which was one of the strongest teams in OHL history).

And to give all this praise isn't covering the better half of his game. At this point he is the best defensive forward in the OHL. At the beginning of the season there was a discussion on the Knights board discussing the leagues best defensive players, and he was a consensus top 5. That was done before the leaps and bounds in his game that he made over the year.

If the 2013 draft was to happen again, I would choose him over Bo Horvat. He's better at every part of the game other than face offs.

 

[Klockis]

I came into this year not knowing what to expect from Jason Dickinson. We drafted him with a high pick so surely the was some upside, but a lot of the scouting sites questioned his upside after a rough draft. It didn't take long for any doubt in my mind to be erased. Every time he was on the ice something happened for Guelph. He can play in so many styles because he has so many tools in a great toolbox. Carry the puck with blazing speed, shoot the puck with velocity, or make deft passes. He is the motor for his line and the Guelph offence (which was one of the strongest teams in OHL history).

And to give all this praise isn't covering the better half of his game. At this point he is the best defensive forward in the OHL. At the beginning of the season there was a discussion on the Knights board discussing the leagues best defensive players, and he was a consensus top 5. That was done before the leaps and bounds in his game that he made over the year.

If the 2013 draft was to happen again, I would choose him over Bo Horvat. He's better at every part of the game other than face offs.

Wow. Didn't know he was THAT good. Can you expand on the Horvat comment? Would be interesting to hear why you are higher on Dickinson as a Knights fan. Just looking at stats Horvat seems like the superior player.

 

[OttMorrow]

I came into this year not knowing what to expect from Jason Dickinson. We drafted him with a high pick so surely the was some upside, but a lot of the scouting sites questioned his upside after a rough draft. It didn't take long for any doubt in my mind to be erased. Every time he was on the ice something happened for Guelph. He can play in so many styles because he has so many tools in a great toolbox. Carry the puck with blazing speed, shoot the puck with velocity, or make deft passes. He is the motor for his line and the Guelph offence (which was one of the strongest teams in OHL history).

And to give all this praise isn't covering the better half of his game. At this point he is the best defensive forward in the OHL. At the beginning of the season there was a discussion on the Knights board discussing the leagues best defensive players, and he was a consensus top 5. That was done before the leaps and bounds in his game that he made over the year.

If the 2013 draft was to happen again, I would choose him over Bo Horvat. He's better at every part of the game other than face offs.

Wow. I don't know if you were trying to sway some of us to give Dickinson the nod over Shore, but you just compelled me to give him the slight nod. 1 year younger with the addition of the 2-way defensive game....one that has been corroborated in the press. I just didn't realize his defensive game was that highly regarded.

 

[BigG44]

Can you explain to me why you are more impressed with Bystrom than Klinger?

Development curve. If you're comparing their seasons to one another last season you're not doing an apples to apples comparison.

Before he's even turned 20 years old, Bystrom has 102 games of SHL experience. At 19, Klingberg was failing in Finland, and he'd only played 42 SHL games (+20 in the Liiga).

6 defenders total appear on the Top 100 list for U20 players in the SHL. 4 of them played in the 70's or 80's. The other two are Victor Hedman with 21 points as an 18 year old, and Tim Erixon with 24 points as a 19 year old. The list ends at 100 and 17 points, but Larsson would be tied for 17 points as a 17 year old.

So that's 7 D with 17 or more points as a U20 in the history of the league. Bystrom had 11 this year. That's not elite or anything, but he's more than on track for where he should be. With Farjestad losing Nyberg and Belle, Bystrom has an even better chance to take another big step forward.

I'm very happy with Klingberg, but Bystrom's 17, 18, and 19 year old seasons have been significantly better.

If you're going to vote on NHL readiness, Klingberg is closer, but Bystrom's upside is just as exciting. He was a high 2nd round pick for good reason after all.

 

[BigG44]

He was rated the 4th best SHL prospect defender by HF recently behind only Klingberg, Haag (PHI - year younger), and Gustafsson (EDM - 2 years older than him like Klingberg).

4. Ludwig Bystrom – 6’0”, 194 lbs. – 2013-14 Season: Farjestad
Drafted in the second round (43rd overall) in 2012 by the Dallas Stars

Somewhat surprisingly left off this past winter’s WJC club, the bulky Dallas Stars' prospect is coming off a very productive year. After having finished his second season of pro action in 2012-13, where Bystrom collected three goals and six points in 30 games for hometown MODO, he signed a contract with Farjestad and saw his game and responsibility take flight. There, the smooth-skating puck-mover was slowly but surely worked into a role that saw him gain special teams play in addition to his full-strength duties. Obviously possessing some solid offensive instincts, he quietly put up three goals, 11 points, 24 penalty minutes and a +10 rating in 51 league games. Things tailed off in the playoffs, where he was held pointless and had a -3 rating in 10 games.

Solid in all three zones, but lacking the flash and dash that some other Swedish defensemen tend to be living off of nowadays, Bystrom’s SHL season was so solid that the Stars decided to bring him over to hang around with their AHL affiliate and get a feel for life in North America this spring. His in-game intelligence and the ability he’s shown to develop on-the-run could be his fast track to North America next season, although it would be hard to argue with the thought that another season of SHL play could see him in an increased offensive role for a Farjestad team that is used to contending.

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

To expand on Klockis' post, I've noticed some goalpost shifting as the years have gone on too. It used to be that Campbell's ceiling was expected to be an elite, All-Star level starter. Is that still the case? I see people talking about his potential as simply a starter being enough to justify this ranking.

I'm not moving the posts at all and thus am still on the franchise goalie bandwagon. One thing that hasn't bee mentioned yet is how at the time he was drafted there was talk that he wouldn't need as many years for development. I didn't really agree with that then, and here we are since goalies typically take longer to reach the NHL. And now we have a GM from Detroit, an organization that keeps prospects in the AHL for as long as possible.

 

[Starry Knight]

Wow. Didn't know he was THAT good. Can you expand on the Horvat comment? Would be interesting to hear why you are higher on Dickinson as a Knights fan. Just looking at stats Horvat seems like the superior player.

Dickinson's skating far exceeds Horvat's which allows him to have a higher ceiling for the pro level. A lot of Horvat's points come in ways that only can occur against junior defencemen; he's the master of the toedrag.

 

[piqued]

I came into this year not knowing what to expect from Jason Dickinson. We drafted him with a high pick so surely the was some upside, but a lot of the scouting sites questioned his upside after a rough draft. It didn't take long for any doubt in my mind to be erased. Every time he was on the ice something happened for Guelph. He can play in so many styles because he has so many tools in a great toolbox. Carry the puck with blazing speed, shoot the puck with velocity, or make deft passes. He is the motor for his line and the Guelph offence (which was one of the strongest teams in OHL history).

And to give all this praise isn't covering the better half of his game. At this point he is the best defensive forward in the OHL. At the beginning of the season there was a discussion on the Knights board discussing the leagues best defensive players, and he was a consensus top 5. That was done before the leaps and bounds in his game that he made over the year.

If the 2013 draft was to happen again, I would choose him over Bo Horvat. He's better at every part of the game other than face offs.

This is a pretty good encapsulation of why I'm so bullish on Dickinson. I probably spent too much time taking down Campbell rather than building up Jason. He's one of those prospects where you don't worry for a second whether he'll be a good NHLer, he just will be. He can start out anywhere and succeed and then climb the lineup. Size, skill, skating, hockey IQ, defense, offense, what else do you want?

 

[piqued]

Development curve. If you're comparing their seasons to one another last season you're not doing an apples to apples comparison.

Before he's even turned 20 years old, Bystrom has 102 games of SHL experience. At 19, Klingberg was failing in Finland, and he'd only played 42 SHL games (+20 in the Liiga).

6 defenders total appear on the Top 100 list for U20 players in the SHL. 4 of them played in the 70's or 80's. The other two are Victor Hedman with 21 points as an 18 year old, and Tim Erixon with 24 points as a 19 year old. The list ends at 100 and 17 points, but Larsson would be tied for 17 points as a 17 year old.

So that's 7 D with 17 or more points as a U20 in the history of the league. Bystrom had 11 this year. That's not elite or anything, but he's more than on track for where he should be. With Farjestad losing Nyberg and Belle, Bystrom has an even better chance to take another big step forward.

I'm very happy with Klingberg, but Bystrom's 17, 18, and 19 year old seasons have been significantly better.

If you're going to vote on NHL readiness, Klingberg is closer, but Bystrom's upside is just as exciting. He was a high 2nd round pick for good reason after all.

You can throw out Klingberg's past, it's irrelevant at this point. His difficulty bouncing around leagues is well documented but the guy who borderline dominated the SHL isn't the same as the guy who struggled with Finnish hockey. Klingberg's game has accelerated far past what most thought he was on track for. I don't see any justification for ranking Bystrom over him when you consider Klingberg's current status and proximity to the NHL. Development curves are fine, but not everyone moves at the same speed along the curve.

 

[Hull Fan]

You can throw out Klingberg's past, it's irrelevant at this point. His difficulty bouncing around leagues is well documented but the guy who borderline dominated the SHL isn't the same as the guy who struggled with Finnish hockey. Klingberg's game has accelerated far past what most thought he was on track for. I don't see any justification for ranking Bystrom over him when you consider Klingberg's current status and proximity to the NHL. Development curves are fine, but not everyone moves at the same speed along the curve.

This right here. I'm high on Bystrom but Klingberg is a game changer now, not 2+ years from now.

I'm also on the Shore bandwagon. It isn't that Dickinson is very far behind him it's that Shore does everything and his physical growth is going to allow him to jump feet first into the pros this spring. He's kinda the anti-Reilly Smith. He's not going to get bullied off the puck or lack the strength to do basically whatever he wants on the boards or anywhere in the zone.

Klingberg
Shore
Dickinson
Nemeth
Bystrom
Ully

 

[Rune Forumwalker]

Next is between Oleksiak, Shore, and Dickinson for me. Probably in that order, but it's close.