Prospect Info: 2018 NHL Entry Draft - Hawks picking 8 and 27

[BK]

I think I might be the only one that is not high on Hughes.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Little concerned that Q and Hughes don’t mesh. As mentioned earlier, Hughes is sort of a rover at Michigan? That doesn’t seem like a thing Q will allow. He’s gonna be neutered of all creativity.

 

[BK]

Little concerned that Q and Hughes don’t mesh. As mentioned earlier, Hughes is sort of a rover at Michigan? That doesn’t seem like a thing Q will allow. He’s gonna be neutered of all creativity.

I don't think that is just a Q thing. Personally I think if you are going to take a D like Boqvist or Hughes, you take Boqvist all day as his ceiling is higher and he is better defensively (not saying he is that good defensively).

 

[Kevin Musto]

Little concerned that Q and Hughes don’t mesh. As mentioned earlier, Hughes is sort of a rover at Michigan? That doesn’t seem like a thing Q will allow. He’s gonna be neutered of all creativity.

Who gives a f*** about Q? I love the man, but you don't pass on a player just because of a coach. Especially since Colliton will be the coach in the next couple years.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

I don't think that is just a Q thing. Personally I think if you are going to take a D like Boqvist or Hughes, you take Boqvist all day as his ceiling is higher and he is better defensively (not saying he is that good defensively).

You’re right, its an NHL thing. Q just seems like the wrong coach to play Hughes to his strengths regardless. And if he’s not good defensively then it seems like a recipe for disaster. If Colliton was going to develop Hughes then that would be more ideal. Just pick the forward and avoid the situation.

 

[Kevin Musto]

I don't think that is just a Q thing. Personally I think if you are going to take a D like Boqvist or Hughes, you take Boqvist all day as his ceiling is higher and he is better defensively (not saying he is that good defensively).

Where'd the narrative of Hughes being bad at defence come from? He's actually very responsible defensively.

 

[BK]

Where'd the narrative of Hughes being bad at defence come from? He's actually very responsible defensively.

Narrative? He plays like a rover. I watched him enough at the U of M to know he is not a good defensive player. He can get away with it in college and on bigger surfaces but not as a Pro. He is a really good prospect but I think Boqvist and others are better.

Button and Bobby M - "He plays a go-go-go offensive game, at times more like a rover than a defenceman. He’s fearless, not afraid to make high risk, high reward but also high danger plays."

Minus Dahlin in terms of ceiling this is how I rank the D.

Boqvist/Dobson
Bouchard
Hughes

I would not bitch if we drafted Hughes but I do have my doubts.

 

[u2wojo]

I think I might be the only one that is not high on Hughes.

Hughes is in my 2A/2B with Kotiniemi behind Dobson or Wahlstrom who I prefer by a little bit. I would be happy with Hughes as he gives us a LHD with top of the lineup potential. Not sure he can be a true top pairing guy, but with the right partner maybe. His floor should be a middle pairing guy that is good on the PP.

 

[migi]

I think I might be the only one that is not high on Hughes.

You are not alone. For me he is the 5th best Dman in this draft class.

 

[Kevin Musto]

Narrative? He plays like a rover. I watched him enough at the U of M to know he is not a good defensive player. He can get away with it in college and on bigger surfaces but not as a Pro. He is a really good prospect but I think Boqvist and others are better.

Button and Bobby M - "He plays a go-go-go offensive game, at times more like a rover than a defenceman. He’s fearless, not afraid to make high risk, high reward but also high danger plays."

Minus Dahlin in terms of ceiling this is how I rank the D.

Boqvist/Dobson
Bouchard
Hughes

I would not ***** if we drafted Hughes but I do have my doubts.

Hughes is good defensively. He's very good at stick checking and breaking up on coming rushes. I know he likes to make risky plays, but that's because he's aware he can away with it. If you watched him at Worlds, he played a much tighter game. He knows how to adapt to different situations.

 

[BK]

Hughes is good defensively. He's very good at stick checking and breaking up on coming rushes. I know he likes to make risky plays, but that's because he's aware he can away with it. If you watched him at Worlds, he played a much tighter game. He knows how to adapt to different situations.

He is not good defensively. Could he be someday? Yes but saying he good defensively is just not true. He is a high risk player who is more of a rover right now.

 

[AmericanDream]

I don't think that is just a Q thing. Personally I think if you are going to take a D like Boqvist or Hughes, you take Boqvist all day as his ceiling is higher and he is better defensively (not saying he is that good defensively).

Boqvist is horrible defensively...

Not drafting either kid on their defensive play to be honest...

 

[Kevin Musto]

He is not good defensively. Could he be someday? Yes but saying he good defensively is just not true. He is a high risk player who is more of a rover right now.

We're just gonna have to disagree here. I like what I've seen from him defensively. He can certainly improve, but that goes for every other prospect in the draft.

 

[AmericanDream]

He is not good defensively. Could he be someday? Yes but saying he good defensively is just not true. He is a high risk player who is more of a rover right now.

Hughes is pretty competent in his own end, I wouldn't call him great, but not seeing what you are seeing with Hughes. I don't even think it is close between Hughes and Boqvist away from the puck, Boqvist has a long way to go before his in zone fears fade.

 

[AmericanDream]

Hughes vs Boqvist will be an interesting discussion in 4-5 years to see who pans out better, but us discussing these two kids is pretty funny since I don't think we get either lol.. (Hughes gone before our pick, and Bowman passing on Boqvist with concussion concerns).

 

[Robsker]

Little concerned that Q and Hughes don’t mesh. As mentioned earlier, Hughes is sort of a rover at Michigan? That doesn’t seem like a thing Q will allow. He’s gonna be neutered of all creativity.

 

[Robsker]

Hughes is 2 seasons away from the NHL (that is 2 seasons in prep before at earliest, three years from now when he is there) and Q is not going to be the coach 3 years from now. So no need to worry of the mesh.

 

[BK]

We're just gonna have to disagree here. I like what I've seen from him defensively. He can certainly improve, but that goes for every other prospect in the draft.

Fair enough.

 

[Taze em]

My ranking for the Hawks
Zadina
Wahlstrom
Tkachuk
Hughes
Kotkaniemi

Just not that interested in waiting on these D from the CHL that'll take 2-3 years. I ranked Hughes though because I think he is closer than that with a year in college and the Worlds under his belt.

I'm getting really excited about having Wahlstrom on our team. Talk about young Wing talent with him, Debrincat, and Sikura.

 

[jls24]

Wahlstrom (having 2-3 potential 40 goal scorers with Cat and Kane)
Kotkaniemi (I come away more impressed every time I watch him)
Dobson (probably the safest pick of the after Dahlin dmen)
Boqvist (ceiling is so high I'd take the risk)
Hughes (below Boqvist in terms of ceiling but also less risk. I was really impressed at his World's performance)
Bouchard (still would be really happy with him. It's more me liking what I see from other guys than not liking what I see from him)
Tkachuk (will be a great complimentary piece. Won't drive a line but can probably slot in seamlessly anywhere. High floor, little to no risk)

This is how I have it now. The defense have shuffled around a few times haha. I think if Wahlstrom is there you have to take him. It would cause absolute nightmares for other teams having both him and Dcat in our lineup.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Boqvist is horrible defensively...

Not drafting either kid on their defensive play to be honest...

Exactly. I'll be honest, I haven't watched these prospects play other than a couple tournaments so everything I write is based on what on what I have read. The idea that Boqvist is a better defensive player is not supported at all by the scouts and draft analysts. Actually, everything I read is that the reason Boqvist is furthest from the NHL is because his defensive game needs so much work.

Let's not forget that Hughes played in the Big 10 and then against men in the Worlds while Boqvist played in junior hockey in Sweden. Hughes is exactly what the Hawks need. And Q will be gone sooner than later. I am not worried about Q coaching Hughes.

 

[LordKOTL]

I remember most on this board wanted Beach.

Hell, I loved watching him in Everett...and not just because every Movember he looked looked like Borat. I think we all looked at him as what he *could* become and neglected the attitude problem.

I think it also helped that the 'hawks were on the rise at that point, so there was less urgency to hit home runs with picks (We already got Toews and Kane). Right now we're on the fall so it makes the need to *not* get another Barker/Beach that much more important.

 

[hawksfan50]

Actually Hawks pipeline has Jokiharju and Mitchell as Rt. Shot RD but Chad Krys and Lucas Carlsson are LEFT shots..though Carlsson played RD when at World Juniors a few years back as I recall ...

So if we picked Bouchard or Dobson at #8 then it would give us 3 right shot potential top d prospects from our pipeline and Carlsson who could play either side ...so it would kd no time be that unreasonable to pick Bouchard or Dobson ...but if Carlson and Kry s had been Right shots too then having 4 top pipeline Rt. Shot Dmen already would make taking another Rt. Shot dman overkill for the pipeline. ..but that is not the case..

Having said that ...UF Montreal does not take Kotkaniemi at #3 or trades down to before #8 and takes him in that spot such that Kotkaniemi is not available to us at #8 then probably it means we will be choosing between Whalston or Tkachuk at winger or between 1 or 2 of 4 Dmen (Bouchard,Dobson,Hughes,Boqvist)...

Of course Stan could try Moving up to #3 or #4 ...Perhaps Montreal us smokescreen in Kotkaniemi at #3 to exact a move down price....But if they think they can move down to 5-7 and still get Kotkaniemi then they would not trade down to #8 because we would take Kotkaniemi at #3 instead if we could (at least U would because good centre prosprctsxarecsonhard to draft ...But of Montreal us Bluffing and takes Tkachuk or a Dman instead at #3 ,then we have a good chance Kotkaniemi is the at #8 for us..But I think it probably 70% likely Montreal does take Kotkaniemi at 3 or maybe #5 or #6 if they trade down at bit.

But what if we traded up to #4 .. since Ottawa has no 2nd or 3rd rounders ..We have 2 third rounders and could give them 1 of the if they move down to #8 .. then at #4 we could draft Zadina or Tkachuk for sure or get the dman we want most on our list after Dahlin goes at #1...If Ottawa thought Whalstron at #8 plus our earliest 3rd rounder was worth moving down instead or taking Tkachuk or Zadina alone them maybe this deaL is possible. ..So I would not rule out some kind of deal with Ottawa..

If we stay at #8 we are at the mercy of the picks of the 7 clubs draft bg before us ..if Stan is OK with this then we just stay at #8 ...but if Montreal gets cute and still tries to get Kotkaniemi plus extras by moving down to 5 or 6 thinking Arizona or Detroit is not targeting a Centre ;then we explore a deal with Ottawa to grab Kotkaniemi at #4 or even if Montreal dies take him at #3 we could try moving up to get our top target remaining Bob the board instead of waiting for what remains at #8.

Now any deal with Ottawa could involve a bigger deal than just for them moving down.. Maybe Anisimov and Zack Smith involved ...maybe 1 of our pipeline prospects on D ...maybe the Hossa Co ntract ..lots of people ossible combinations. .

 

[BK]

Exactly. I'll be honest, I haven't watched these prospects play other than a couple tournaments so everything I write is based on what on what I have read. The idea that Boqvist is a better defensive player is not supported at all by the scouts and draft analysts. Actually, everything I read is that the reason Boqvist is furthest from the NHL is because his defensive game needs so much work.

Let's not forget that Hughes played in the Big 10 and then against men in the Worlds while Boqvist played in junior hockey in Sweden. Hughes is exactly what the Hawks need. And Q will be gone sooner than later. I am not worried about Q coaching Hughes.

Big 10 is garbage but he was solid in the Worlds.

Boqvist is far less of a rover (rovers work in college but not the NHL) and played in the SHL for half the season. Rovers scare me and always have (even though I love when teams play as 5 man units opposed to 3 F 2 D). To be clear, neither are good defensively.

If you are talking Hughes or Boqvist you should look for the one with the highest ceiling, that is Boqvist.

 

[Kaners PPGs]

Big 10 is garbage but he was solid in the Worlds.

Boqvist is far less of a rover (rovers work in college but not the NHL) and played in the SHL for half the season. Rovers scare me and always have. To be clear, neither are good defensively.

If you are talking Hughes or Boqvist you should look for the one with the highest ceiling, that is Boqvist.

The Big 10 is not garbage. I have no problem saying Boqvist has a higher ceiling but he also has a higher bust factor. Both players are similar in a lot ways but Hughes is more proven and is a safer pick. Hughes still has a tremendous amount of upside as well.