Well, I think size is a weakness for both Pettersson and Hughes, height for Hughes and weight for Pettersson. I really don't think it came down to defence (Dobson) vs offence (Hughes), I think people wanted the safe 6'2-6'3 defenders rather than the 5'10-5'11 one. Similarly, people wanted 180+ pound centers vs 160 pound Pettersson.
Post-Game Talk: 2018 NHL Draft
- Thread starter Chairman Maouth
- Start date
drax0s
Registered User
Very much this. I mean look over this "Winners and Losers" article from 2011.
Isles - Winners for Strome, Mayfield and Russo. (Heh)
Sens - Winners for Zibanejad, Noesen & Puempel (Ziba's fine)
Panthers - Winners for Huberdeau, Grimaldi & Bengtsson (Huberdeau turned out okay)
Hurricanes - Losers for drafting Victor Rask. (Yeah, no)
Sharks - Losers for "trading away half their roster for Brent Burns" (Yeah, no)
Last edited:
My problem with this comparison is that it's very possible for a lightweight forward to be highly effective in today's NHL if they have the skill, but the number of true top pairing defensemen 5'11" and shorter is severely limited. Yes, there are a handful of guys who put up a lot of points, but they mostly play sheltered minutes and aren't relied on to shut down the opposing team's top line. Height plays a bigger role for defensemen than weight does for forwards. However, with that said, Hughes might make up for his lack of height/reach with his skating and he's also surprisingly strong.
Sure, but weight is more about projection - i.e. how will he play when he puts on more weight, how much weight/strength can he put on, how long will it take - while height is static. Hughes isn't ever going to be 6'0, 6'1 etc so the issue is how he will play defense, period. Pettersson's issue was more patience vs immediacy.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,876
- 9,557
- Jun 25, 2007
- 2,367
- 2,483
In hindsight, are there any of these "winners and losers" articles that have proven to be reasonably accurate?
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,055
- 6,624
Honestly, who knows what they are prioritizing? They go from a high skill pick that has limitations physically, to a "throw back player" pick in Woo, to... whatever it was that they did beyond the 2nd round. If there is anything that I'm gleaning from this draft, it's that they let need cloud their judgement and they still think they're smarter than they actually are.
I was giving them major praise after the Hughes pick. I thought they had turned a corner with this pick and the 2017 draft. Then, day 2 happens, Botchford provides insight and Benning confirms the top7. So in 2 days, I've gone from liking what they've done to distrusting their draft process once again.
- I don't think drafting Hughes over Dobson/Bouchard was a mistake. Everything else, agreed.
Just take solace in the fact that we didn't see armageddon here after a Hayton pick. Small victories.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
I couldn't agree more. When I wake up every morning, I always ask myself if this is the day that the sky is going to fall.
BenningHurtsMySoul
Unfair Huggy Bear
My favorite is the 2009 Trade Deadline, where the Flames were considered landslide winners by trading for Olli Jokinen.
Agree with this and it's kinda dumb behavior. People outside (whether it's people here on HF or "journalists" or whatever) tend to just take the scouting community consensus, see which team was able to extract the most value out of it, and declare winners/losers. Reality is that nobody knows whether the scouting community consensus is right or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. There's always the argument of trading down, but it's a risky thing to do if you are very much set on certain player and are aware of the interest he has from other teams.
Remember when the Canucks picked Schroeder? It was considered even a "steal" because he was a faller, but when he busted people were still "well it wasn't a bad pick, just didn't work out". Now imagine if Karlsson had busted for Ottawa? Just imagine the vitriol. Schroeder was a steal and Canucks were a winner, Karlsson was a bad pick and Ottawas a loser. It's silly, but I guess it's the nature of it. When you go against the grain, you will be under A LOT of scrutiny. If you miss that pick, you're going to get shit on. If you pick a "community approved" player and miss, the reaction is unforgiving.
This is what I take issue with though. I think this is the biggest pitfall that professional scouts have and what NHL teams suffer from in regards to drafting. The comparison of player A vs player B. I don't think NHL teams' scouting staffs have validated opinions on this. Regional focused scouting does that for you. This is a big reason why a simple Potato can outperform dozens of people watching thousands of games every year.
Hansen
tyler motte simp
There seems to be this ideology with the team that mandates that if we take a high risk player in the first round, it must be after, or followed up with, a “safe” pick. When the Canucks went with Bo Horvat in 2013, the idea was that because we had our safe guy we could then take a risk player in Shinkaruk. With Hughes, the safe player was Woo.
As for Brackett’s influence, I think this is a draft where we’re seeing him really show through actually. We went with 3 players of 6 who are NCAA or commits. (The Weisbrod family tie was the only possible thing that could freak me out about Hughes, but he was a consensus top 5 prospect, so what)
Gradin got us a dman in round 5, and Manukyan was someone who they would have seen while keeping tabs on Zhukenov, whose rights we still own.
The only concern with Woo, scouting wise, is that he is in Ron Delorme’s territory. That does worry me, especially when we left value on the table with some high skill forwards. However, Woo was consistently ranked as a late-1st rounder and as such his exposure was well beyond your usual WHL fare.
Hansen
tyler motte simp
As for the winners and losers discussion, I think the real winners of the draft were the Rangers. The Islanders got an absolute haul with their two firsts, but the Rangers went with guys who some might have felt were taken high but who all have major upside and scouts who feel they could hit that upside.
Kravtsov could be one of the most talented forwards in the draft.
Miller has all the tools in the world, and has some stalwart supporters who believe he can put the tools together.
Lundkvist has similar upside to Boqvist but plays a safer style.
I dont know as much about their other picks to make definitive statements, but they had 6 picks in the top 90, the same amount that we had in our entire draft. The value is entirely different in scope.
I was very surprised to see Rangers fans complaining about their draft.
Kravtsov could be one of the most talented forwards in the draft.
Miller has all the tools in the world, and has some stalwart supporters who believe he can put the tools together.
Lundkvist has similar upside to Boqvist but plays a safer style.
I dont know as much about their other picks to make definitive statements, but they had 6 picks in the top 90, the same amount that we had in our entire draft. The value is entirely different in scope.
I was very surprised to see Rangers fans complaining about their draft.
Melvin
21/12/05
I don't think those two things are similar at all.
It has been well established that defenders drafted at 5'10" and below project worse than would be expected for a similar defender who is taller. It has not been remotely established that underweight centres suffer the same penalty.
Too, its easier for a player to put in weight than it is to grow a few inches.
The two situations are not remotely comparable. Make no mistake it, this is a risky pick by the canucks. There is a reason no nhl team has drafted a defender this short this high since we drafted jj Daigneault.
It might well be a risk that pays off but that doesn't mean it's not a risk.
In recent years, the game has grown and entered in an era in which speed, skill and youth are the most sought after assets.
10 years ago people were trying to emulate the Ducks. Boston and LA followed suit.
Historically, the game has always emphasized size and toughness for the ideal traits of a hockey player. I feel the reason such players weren't drafted as high is because they simply weren't suited for that era of hockey.
Hughes is still very young and could grow 1-2 inches to reach 5'11 - 6'0
Erik Karlsson was listed as 5'11 in his draft year and reached 6'0
2008 NHL Draft: Erik Karlsson
I feel that the NHL is heading in a direction emphasizing speed and skill leading to smaller players entering the league. Furthermore, Hughes's game doesn't rely on his physical stature (as it shouldn't he is a small guy), I don't know if him growing will make any actual difference for his game. However, this is definitely a risky selection. The canucksarmy article regarding Hughes is a great one and erased some of my concerns about his projections as a NHLer. I love these swing for the fences picks and that we should be going for them all the time.
My theory is that the emphasis of speed vs grit will swing back and forth as the NHL is a copycat league. This means that teams will overrate and overvalue speed or grit/size as a trait leading them to mistakenly take worse players on their rosters. This will then allow teams to create better teams with players left over leading to the prominence of a new "ideal" trait. Teams will then try to emulate this dominant team. Rinse and repeat.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,876
- 9,557
i think it's worth observing that the league will want the hughes brothers to succeed, especially if jack ends up in a us market. they are very marketable americans. it's good for business and skinny little superstars shuts down the concussion debate a little.
so we might be ahead of the next curve.
so we might be ahead of the next curve.
While it’s certainly “possible”, the chances of Hughes growing another inch is low and two inches is almost 0. He’s older for his draft (turns 19 in Oct) and his closest brother Jack is the same height as Quinn (and appears to be slightly shorter).
Ultimately I don’t think it matters much anyway. The difference between 5’10 and 5’11 is mainly optics and won’t have any material impact in how Hughes plays nor his chances of succeeding or failing.
Melvin
21/12/05
Don't disagree with any of this.
I feel that it may have swung too far in the other direction and what we are seeing now is an overemphasis on small players. The new efficiency may be on average sized players who are a bit older who fell a lot in this draft.
As you said it's a copycat league so things tend to swing from one extreme to the other.
Melvin
21/12/05
I have some evidence that players who are under 5'10 tend to be rounded up to that number more often than the other sizes, such that players who are listed at 5'10" are materially shorter than the one inch difference to 5'11" you would expect.
Maybe but that's a reporting/measurement issue, not a physical. If Hughes is a legit 5'10 (Black Book lists him as 5'9.8 which is apparently recent and accurate), then it doesn't matter if he grows to a legit 5'11. If he's actually 5'8 but reported as 5'10 then that's another matter. But either way, growing 1 inch (5'10 to 5'11 or 5'8 to 5'9) won't actually change much in terms of his game or his effectiveness.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,055
- 6,624
Do you have data on this? I've been reading stats work ups that favour weight over height (applicable to Pettersson), and the best evidence I could find about height success rates for defenders is to anecdotally compare them to short defenders in the past, of which there are very few.
Melvin
21/12/05
Of course but that's a distinction without a difference unless you are comparing like for like with precious draftees.
Melvin
21/12/05
I do. In terms of production a defender who is reported at 5'10" is about 80% as likely to turn out as a defender with the same numbers but an average height.
Sorry not sure I follow. I'm merely responding to the notion that Quinn may grow another inch or two. Regardless of what his actual height truly is, a) I don't think it's at all likely, and b) I don't think it really matters anyway.
Nothing more than that.
What is an average height? 6'0? 6'1?
Assuming Quinn is his reported height of 5'9.8, he almost certainly isn't going to grow to either of those heights. It's fine to wish it were so, but it is a fools hope to be thinking it is possible.
Melvin
21/12/05
I agree with that. For the purposes of this discussion he is being compared to other players who were reported at the same height and should be expected to grow about as much as the average that those players grew.
So it doesn't matter unless there is evidence to suggest he should grow more than the average of other players listed at his height because reasons.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: WCQF | G5 | “Check” | Oilers vs. Kings | 5.1.24 | 8:00PM | SN/CBC- Latest: Louis Cypher
-
-
