Pre-Game Talk: 2014 NHL Entry Draft (for non-6th overall pick discussion) - Part IX

[thefeebster]

Disagree. His entire offensive arsenal is up there with the best in this draft. He plays quite similar to Nylander in that he can at times overhandle the puck.

I think his playmaking is excellent.

I'd probably think long and hard about taking Ho-Sang 12-15th.

Great minds think alike . I have Ho-Sang as the 12th forward on my list.

I feel Ho-Sang made concerted effort and showed enough progression to the point where I don't think you can call him purely individualistic, sometimes he reverts back to that tendency, but for the most part, he can distribute the puck well. I like his hunger for the puck in the offensive zone, his pace is extremely high, which is a good and bad thing. Sometimes he will force plays that are not there, but the majority of the time, he shows great vision. So many offensive tools in his arsenal, unreal skating ability and edgework.

Very similar player to Nylander/Milano, same knocks/same risk, IMO. I think Ho-Sang is one of the most skilled players in this draft, so to pick him with the 36th pick, its an easy decision for me.

What are people's opinions on Hunter Smith from Oshawa?

I don't know if i see much pro potential here. Clunky skater with decent hockey IQ. I simply don't see a guy worth a 2nd/3rd round pick, where he is continually ranked. Might have 4th liner potential, but is that the kind of player you really want to expend a high pick on? I would liken him to Archibald, in terms of value. I'd consider him in the 5th round onwards.

 

[biturbo19]

Disagree. His entire offensive arsenal is up there with the best in this draft. He plays quite similar to Nylander in that he can at times overhandle the puck.

I think his playmaking is excellent.

I'd probably think long and hard about taking Ho-Sang 12-15th.

I don't see what you're seeing at all. Not even a little bit. I see a guy who willfully ignores other oustanding offensive plays in favour of trying to do it 1-on-1 himself far too often. It works out pretty well for him at the Junior hockey level...but as an NHL Pro...i doubt most of that stuff flies.

I also see far to many really dumb plays in his own end to truly believe he has this tremendous untapped "vision" on the ice as a passer. Most often his "good passes" are just pucks directed to a spot. I just think a "Claude Giroux" comparison is way off.

If Ho-Sang has real success in the NHL, i see it more as a 2nd line winger who frustrates the heck out of fans by showing tantalizing puck skills followed up by something incredibly stupid half the time. He looks super good on a highlight reel, but as an actual player...he doesn't make his teammates better, he doesn't do anything positive outside of his little dangling excursions.

I know hfboards is partial to "high upside" prospects and i get that. But i still don't know if Ho-Sang is even that. Unless he really radically changes his approach to the game.

That's why I'm hoping Shea Theodore is a part of a Kesler deal.

I'd be pretty happy with adding Theodore to the mix. But even with that, i'd still want at least one more high-end defensive prospect. And the top of the 2nd round looks like it might be a really great spot to add that guy.

 

[biturbo19]

Great minds think alike . I have Ho-Sang as the 12th forward on my list.

I feel Ho-Sang made concerted effort and showed enough progression to the point where I don't think you can call him purely individualistic, sometimes he reverts back to that tendency, but for the most part, he can distribute the puck well. I like his hunger for the puck in the offensive zone, his pace is extremely high, which is a good and bad thing. Sometimes he will force plays that are not there, but the majority of the time, he shows great vision. So many offensive tools in his arsenal, unreal skating ability and edgework.

Very similar player to Nylander/Milano, same knocks/same risk, IMO. I think Ho-Sang is one of the most skilled players in this draft, so to pick him with the 36th pick, its an easy decision for me.

I still feel like far too often, "skill" is equated with "ability to dangle". That is ONE skillset. There are so many other "skills" that good NHL players have.

 

[thefeebster]

I don't see what you're seeing at all. Not even a little bit. I see a guy who willfully ignores other oustanding offensive plays in favour of trying to do it 1-on-1 himself far too often. It works out pretty well for him at the Junior hockey level...but as an NHL Pro...i doubt most of that stuff flies.

I also see far to many really dumb plays in his own end to truly believe he has this tremendous untapped "vision" on the ice as a passer. Most often his "good passes" are just pucks directed to a spot. I just think a "Claude Giroux" comparison is way off.

If Ho-Sang has real success in the NHL, i see it more as a 2nd line winger who frustrates the heck out of fans by showing tantalizing puck skills followed up by something incredibly stupid half the time. He looks super good on a highlight reel, but as an actual player...he doesn't make his teammates better, he doesn't do anything positive outside of his little dangling excursions.

I know hfboards is partial to "high upside" prospects and i get that. But i still don't know if Ho-Sang is even that. Unless he really radically changes his approach to the game.

I almost feel like we are watching different players, like you are watching Ho-Sang circa 2012-2013 rather than Ho-Sang circa 2013-2014. He has made very good progression from the individualistic player you are describing. He distributes the puck very well and makes use of his teammates. That's how he helped carry them after the Rychel trade. He made his teammates better.

I see excellent playmaking ability. He can tread and saucer passes with the top players in this draft. I don't see where you are getting the statement where his good passes are just pucks directed at a spot. His 53 assists were not simply him directing the puck to a spot. He can make quick short passes, or tread the puck across the ice.

I think it's a bit laughable to say he doesn't do anything positive outside of his dangling excursions. Yes, he dangles, but that isn't the only offensive tool in his arsenal. He's got a great shot as well, nice one timer. His ability to lift the puck in tight is superb. Again, his offensive arsenal is vast; he's not the one trick pony you are describing.

I see a David Perron type of player.

I still feel like far too often, "skill" is equated with "ability to dangle". That is ONE skillset. There are so many other "skills" that good NHL players have.

Again, Ho-Sang's skills include much more than dangles. I think even the biggest Ho-Sang detractors can agree there is more skill to Ho-Sang than just dangling.

 

[biturbo19]

I almost feel like we are watching different players, like you are watching Ho-Sang circa 2012-2013 rather than Ho-Sang circa 2013-2014. He has made very good progression from the individualistic player you are describing. He distributes the puck very well and makes use of his teammates. That's how he helped carry them after the Rychel trade. He made his teammates better.

I see excellent playmaking ability. He can tread and saucer passes with the top players in this draft. I don't see where you are getting the statement where his good passes are just pucks directed at a spot. His 53 assists were not simply him directing the puck to a spot. He can make quick short passes, or tread the puck across the ice.

I think it's a bit laughable to say he doesn't do anything positive outside of his dangling excursions. Yes, he dangles, but that isn't the only offensive tool in his arsenal. He's got a great shot as well, nice one timer. His ability to lift the puck in tight is superb. Again, his offensive arsenal is vast; he's not the one trick pony you are describing.

I see a David Perron type of player.

Again, Ho-Sang's skills include much more than dangles. I think even the biggest Ho-Sang detractors can agree there is more skill to Ho-Sang than just dangling.

I think some of that is fair. Perron is actually a guy i'd liken Ho-Sang's "upside" to if he continues to grow his game. But to me that's still a really talented but undersized and frustrating 2nd line winger on a good team. And i'm not fully sold on this idea of Ho-Sang as a puck-distributor...he makes passes. But he makes a lot of short give and go passes and just generally short area passes. It's a valid skill, but when you see him trying to really thread passes through traffic he far too often feeds it straight into the opposition hands with a turnover, even when it's incredibly obvious that there's nothing there. He simply is NOT a playmaker, set up man extraordinaire a la Claude Giroux as the post i was responding to suggested. Unless he complete changes his DNA as a player.

For me it comes down to the fact that if you get a David Perron as an absolute "upside" with Ho-Sang...and the significant bust factor and downside of being an AHL all star who doesn't mean **** for your NHL team...i'd honestly be hesitant to draft him at the top of the 2nd round where we sit. As tantalizing as the dangle skillz are.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Great minds think alike . I have Ho-Sang as the 12th forward on my list.

I have him a bit later, but still firmly in the 1st round. I'd like to see your list Feebs. And others, if anyone has one finalized.

Didn't like his game early, but he impressed me as the year went on. Better commitment every where on the ice. Created numerous chances for his teammates.

In the 2nd round, that's a great value pick. 1st line talent level with question marks. Luckily, Palango will be here with his insight.

 

[dave babych returns]

bitturbo are you disappointed with David Perron's development since being drafted?

Most seem pretty pleased with it (seven years on he's the "if only" player for Canucks fans who wanted him at 25) so I should think that getting a player with a similar ceiling ten spots later would be more than acceptable.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

David Perron is an outstanding talent. You should be ecstatic to get a player like him late in the 1st or early in the 2nd round.

Ho-Sang would be a complete no-brainer at 36, though I don't expect him to be available.

 

[Bubbles]

Ho-Sang would be a complete no-brainer at 36, though I don't expect him to be available.

I expect Detroit to draft a player like him, they are not afraid to draft guys that have skill.

 

[biturbo19]

bitturbo are you disappointed with David Perron's development since being drafted?

Most seem pretty pleased with it (seven years on he's the "if only" player for Canucks fans who wanted him at 25) so I should think that getting a player with a similar ceiling ten spots later would be more than acceptable.

Not at all. I'd be really happy to get a player like that, especially if it were a 2nd round pick like we're talking about with Ho-Sang potentially. That's what a "successful" prospect looks like.

It's just that to me, i see that as something like Ho-Sang's absolute ceiling if he can really evolve his game and make use of his skills and teammates better, and manage to start caring an awful lot more about both ends of the ice. And those are some really big "ifs". Realistically, i have some real concerns when you start talking about "if" a guy fundamentally changes his approach to the game.

And my main point is that i don't view Ho-Sang as necessarily having the "superstar" sort of "talent on par with anyone else in the draft" type potential that others seem to see in him.

There are other players with similar ceilings to me and a lot less concerning "issues" to overcome, likely even at the top of the 2nd round.

 

[shortshorts]

Fabbri, Milano, Scherbak, Vrana are the players I want most in the 10-20 range.

High amount of hockey IQ and skill in all those players.

 

[thefeebster]

I think some of that is fair. Perron is actually a guy i'd liken Ho-Sang's "upside" to if he continues to grow his game. But to me that's still a really talented but undersized and frustrating 2nd line winger on a good team. And i'm not fully sold on this idea of Ho-Sang as a puck-distributor...he makes passes. But he makes a lot of short give and go passes and just generally short area passes. It's a valid skill, but when you see him trying to really thread passes through traffic he far too often feeds it straight into the opposition hands with a turnover, even when it's incredibly obvious that there's nothing there. He simply is NOT a playmaker, set up man extraordinaire a la Claude Giroux as the post i was responding to suggested. Unless he complete changes his DNA as a player.

For me it comes down to the fact that if you get a David Perron as an absolute "upside" with Ho-Sang...and the significant bust factor and downside of being an AHL all star who doesn't mean **** for your NHL team...i'd honestly be hesitant to draft him at the top of the 2nd round where we sit. As tantalizing as the dangle skillz are.

I simply don't see us agreeing on the passing issue. Fabbri is king of short give and go passes, doesn't seem to be point of criticism for him. Smaller players need the give and go in their arsenal to get to the open areas of the ice. I simply don't see this as a fault.

I see his bust factor as similar to Nylander and Milano, they all have the potential to become AHL/SHL superstars. What separates them? To be quite honest, they are all very similar in their strengths and their flaws.

And my main point is that i don't view Ho-Sang as necessarily having the "superstar" sort of "talent on par with anyone else in the draft" type potential that others seem to see in him.

There are other players with similar ceilings to me and a lot less concerning "issues" to overcome, likely even at the top of the 2nd round.

Again, dangling is simply not the only thing Ho-Sang does and it's not his only skill either. Almost every scouting report will say he is amongst the top skilled player in this draft. Even in HP's Blackbook, where Ho-Sang has the lowest ranking of all the publications, they say "his level of talent is unquestionable". I think there's a lot of things you can criticize Ho-Sang for, but talent is not one of them.

Which players have similar ceilings and less risk rated in the 2nd round?

 

[thefeebster]

I have him a bit later, but still firmly in the 1st round. I'd like to see your list Feebs. And others, if anyone has one finalized.

Soon!

-----------

@Tiranis, what are your thoughts on Ondrej Kase? I have been rewatching the WJC and his game stood out to me. I see more pro-potential in him than Pastrnak. I see a smart player, with a good engine, high energy level, awareness in all zones. Crafty plays off the faceoff. Good shot, even better playmaker. Very good chemistry with Vrana.

Also liked his younger brother, David, at the U18s. Such hard workers with skill, would love to get them both.

 

[racerjoe]

I just wanted to say Thanks to some of you posters who get to see more and put a lot more effort into looking at these propects, and then letting us know what you think. As someone who hasn't seen much of most of the guys outside the guys around our first, its great be able to hear your insight.

PS: didn't want to name posters in fear I would miss one.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

Would Ho-Sang really be worth the headache though? Does Vancouver really need another frustrating prospect like that?

Dilemmas.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Would Ho-Sang really be worth the headache though? Does Vancouver really need another frustrating prospect like that?

Dilemmas.

Meh. Tough to say that his game would translate to the NHL. At this point unless we had multiple picks in the 20-30 range I'd probably rather go elsewhere. Someone like Lemieux or Sanheim.

 

[Derp Kassian]

Would Ho-Sang really be worth the headache though? Does Vancouver really need another frustrating prospect like that?

Dilemmas.

we need skill any kind of skill

 

[Tiranis]

@Tiranis, what are your thoughts on Ondrej Kase? I have been rewatching the WJC and his game stood out to me. I see more pro-potential in him than Pastrnak. I see a smart player, with a good engine, high energy level, awareness in all zones. Crafty plays off the faceoff. Good shot, even better playmaker. Very good chemistry with Vrana.

Also liked his younger brother, David, at the U18s. Such hard workers with skill, would love to get them both.

I liked him in the Czech league but I don't think he's on Pastrnak's level, both because I don't see nearly the same upside but also because I see a lot of flashes of dubious hockey IQ. Might just be me, of course. Seems to suffer from the same problem as Karabacek — high opinion of his own skillset. Gets them both into trouble and makes them worse players.

Might have to rewatch the WJC as I didn't really pay enough attention to him at the tourney. Most of my viewings are from the Czech league.

---

On the other hand, I like David a lot.

 

[thefeebster]

Would Ho-Sang really be worth the headache though? Does Vancouver really need another frustrating prospect like that?

Dilemmas.

What headaches would he be causing that another prospect like Nylander/Milano wouldn't?

I liked him in the Czech league but I don't think he's on Pastrnak's level, both because I don't see nearly the same upside but also because I see a lot of flashes of dubious hockey IQ. Might just be me, of course. Seems to suffer from the same problem as Karabacek — high opinion of his own skillset. Gets them both into trouble and makes them worse players.

Might have to rewatch the WJC as I didn't really pay enough attention to him at the tourney. Most of my viewings are from the Czech league.

---

On the other hand, I like David a lot.

Ahhh i see. I can't say I saw issues with hockey IQ in the small sample of the WJC. Thought he played a smart game, set up a few great chances. His line with Vrana and Kampf seemed to play the best consistently. Hopefully he can be there at 66.

Yeah, I think I am lower on Pastrnak than most. I thought he was more physically engaged at the WJC, but i guess the injury really did a number on him and affected him in the U18s. I thought he really shied away from physical play, reminded me of the way Rodin would avoid contact. Yet, he would put himself in some situations to get stood up often, ending up on his knees. But still i think the prevailing issue that i saw was a lack of vision and carelessness with the puck, very erratic decisions with the puck. Continually forced passes, only to have them intercepted or easily turned over. But it seemed one out of those ten chances, he'd make a slick play that would work and look really pretty. Flashes skill and creativity, but i found the majority of the time, it didn't amount to much. Seems to cheat a bit in the defensive zone, by blowing by pucks and puck battles seemingly already in the "offense" mode. I see just okay understanding in the defensive zone, but did show some backchecking effort. As an aside, he has a very narrow frame, not sure if there is a ton of room there for growth.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I wonder how far deAngelo falls, I'm guessing out of round 1.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I wonder how far deAngelo falls, I'm guessing out of round 1.

Wow, yeah. I'd be surprised if DeAngelo made it to round 2, let alone round 1.

 

[fancouver]

Don't forget guys. Benning explicitly said in his introduction conference that one of the mandates is to get more rugged and bigger since they have to go through the Pacific. Now I know we shouldn't be obsessed with the Boston model, and we're not. But with the circumstances of the teams we face frequently, it only makes sense to get a bit more size on the ice.

The Canucks are a small team aside from Kassian, Kesler in the top 6. And Kesler is almost gone. I think you'll have to sacrifice some skill to get the bigger guy if it's between Virtanen and Nylander-for example.

 

[Wilch]

Don't forget guys. Benning explicitly said in his introduction conference that one of the mandates is to get more rugged and bigger since they have to go through the Pacific. Now I know we shouldn't be obsessed with the Boston model, and we're not. But with the circumstances of the teams we face frequently, it only makes sense to get a bit more size on the ice.

The Canucks are a small team aside from Kassian, Kesler in the top 6. And Kesler is almost gone. I think you'll have to sacrifice some skill to get the bigger guy if it's between Virtanen and Nylander-for example.

The Canucks aren't a small team.

Virtanen is only average in terms of height.

Nylander is about an inch or two below average.

With Horton gone, the Bruins aren't a big rugged team outside of Lucic and Chara either.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

What headaches would he be causing that another prospect like Nylander/Milano wouldn't?

That's a fair question and definitely worth consideration. I guess ultimate upside is a large factor, in the case of Nylander at least.

Not writing the guy off, just spurring some discussion.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Don't forget guys. Benning explicitly said in his introduction conference that one of the mandates is to get more rugged and bigger since they have to go through the Pacific. Now I know we shouldn't be obsessed with the Boston model, and we're not. But with the circumstances of the teams we face frequently, it only makes sense to get a bit more size on the ice.

The Canucks are a small team aside from Kassian, Kesler in the top 6. And Kesler is almost gone. I think you'll have to sacrifice some skill to get the bigger guy if it's between Virtanen and Nylander-for example.

Rugged and bigger in the bottom 6; not necessarily in the Top 6.

He wants the bottom 6 to be more physical so it eases things for the Top 6.