GDT: 2019 IIHF World Championship

[SteveCangialosi123]

You're leaving out the size factor...one of the reasons I don't like the Matthews/Laine comparisons is Matthews is a monster of a man who can use his strength in areas of the game as well as anyone...

But the thing that really gives me pause and makes me want to look deeper is Two things...his lackluster performance in up level competition and and lack of progression from last season.

Last year's Hughes was about the same as this year's Hughes...there is very little progression from his USHL or his NTDP numbers...now when you take that fact and look at the lackluster performance at the WJC and the almost no show so far in this tournament....I think you have to begin to question if the "consensus" opinion is just working as group think or not?

In retrospect I think Nolan Patrick flat lining from his D -1 to his draft year was a indication that a riser might be the better choice. Then we, myself included made excuses for Patrick injury plagued year ect...

When you have posters posting Hughes Corsi numbers while Kakko is dominating games and scoring goals in bunches it's like there is a cult here.

Did you actually watch the game against Slovakia though? He had a great game, you don’t even need stats to show that (though they support him controlling play). Kakko is “dominating games and scoring in bunches” while also putting it in an empty net twice. The narrative goes into overdrive when the counting stats look sexy. A little bit of puck luck either way and the conversation changes.

 

[devilsblood]

We might as well just throw some dice at the wall and pick Byram then.

If someone were to make a a strong argument for Byram, and then Byram turns into the best player from the draft, that guy would have a huge feather in his cap.

That's not what is happening here though.

 

[JimEIV]

I think those two issues you touched on run a little deeper than your analysis.

First, it may be true that Hughes didn't take a huge step he still put up way over 2 points per game. That's dominant plain and simple and I don't think he should be docked for being a dominant player as a 16 year old. He put up 112 points in 50 games. So would you like for him to take a step forward, sure, but how much better can you expect from that type of performance over a whole season? I think short of doing something similar to Kane or Matthews, there just wasn't a ton of room for growth where he was playing. Pronman said that Hughes (and the whole US team really) were not challenged enough and to me it seems pretty clear that Hughes was toying with his food. If he should be criticized for anything I think it's the fact that he stayed with the program when he could have gone to the CHL where it would be easier to measure him, but in terms of on-ice play, I don't think you can criticize him too much. I also don't think his situation is comparable to Patrick's at all. Patrick put up pretty good numbers over less than half a season, Hughes put up dominant numbers over a whole season.

Second, Hughes may not have had the best moment in the tournament like Kakko, but in reality he only put up one point less than him and had a higher ppg. If you ask me Kakko did upstage him, but I don't think his performance was lackluster. Plus you also have to factor in that both US teams (Junior and World Championships) were a little deeper than Finaland and Kakko played a bigger role.

I like this. It's the discussion I think we should be having leading up to the draft .

 

[Triumph]

I am just not sure how meaningful it is to dominate a competition of your peers for the 2nd year in a row. I think dominating there is more of an expectation than accomplishment.

Edit:. And walking with a Bronze is huge disappointment for such a stacked team

Short tournaments are almost all luck. It's one-game elimination.

This is how people talk themselves out of taking great players. Dominating your peers still isn't easy to do even if it's what's expected.

 

[JimEIV]

Did you actually watch the game against Slovakia though? He had a great game, you don’t even need stats to show that (though they support him controlling play). Kakko is “dominating games and scoring in bunches” while also putting it in an empty net twice. The narrative goes into overdrive when the counting stats look sexy. A little bit of puck luck either way and the conversation changes.

I did watch the game against Slovakia. I thought he had a few good moments and one in particular. I wouldn't remotely call a great game though.

 

[MauDevils]

Empty netters also mean you were trusted enough to be out there to close out the game. And that's exactly what he did.

 

[devilsblood]

I think short of doing something similar to Kane or Matthews, there just wasn't a ton of room for growth where he was playing. Pronman said that Hughes (and the whole US team really) were not challenged enough and to me it seems pretty clear that Hughes was toying with his food. If he should be criticized for anything I think it's the fact that he stayed with the program when he could have gone to the CHL where it would be easier to measure him, but in terms of on-ice play, I don't think you can criticize him too much. .

1)Should be noted Kane and Matthews graduated out of the program due to age. Not by choice.

2)But I do agree, that watching some Hughes shift by shift games, then early U-18 games, I also thought he was in cruise control. Racking up points with minimal effort. The quarter finals game he turned it up a notch and it was clear imo on the very first shift.

Also thought that may have played into why his goals were down, he was more in play maker role, though if he wanted to switch gears to goal scorer, he could have.

 

[JimEIV]

Short tournaments are almost all luck. It's one-game elimination.

This is how people talk themselves out of taking great players. Dominating your peers still isn't easy to do even if it's what's expected.

Everything they do is pretty much a short tournament...the USHL and NTDP is hardly a large sample....you have to take everything as a whole. A 17 year in a predominantly 19 year old tournament is a huge test so that has to be a factor.... especially when you compare others in the same situation.

 

[devilsblood]

I did watch the game against Slovakia. I thought he had a few good moments and one in particular. I wouldn't remotely call a great game though.

I thought it a good game, he was involved in numerous chances, I wouldn't say great though, I mean he had a pretty good chance that he missed on, also could have shot on a couple plays where he passed instead, certain points where the lack of physicality was pretty glaring.

 

[GeNeXt]

Empty netters also mean you were trusted enough to be out there to close out the game. And that's exactly what he did.

This. Usage speaks a lot about a coaching staffs thoughts of a player. I remember I was amazed watching the WC a few years back when the US had either Eichel or Matthews in their draft year (can’t remember who), going up against Malkin with a one goal lead in the defensive zone.

The simple fact that Finland trusts an 18 year old to close out a game is more impressive than his empty netters.

 

[JimEIV]

I thought it a good game, he was involved in numerous chances, I wouldn't say great though, I mean he had a pretty good chance that he missed on, also could have shot on a couple plays where he passed instead, certain points where the lack of physicality was pretty glaring.

I would agree with this.

 

[devilsblood]

Short tournaments are almost all luck. It's one-game elimination.

This is how people talk themselves out of taking great players. Dominating your peers still isn't easy to do even if it's what's expected.

Oi vey.

The whole luck thing aside however, I think the WJC played a big role in why we picked Nico over Patrick, so the short tourney's can play a role in making a good decision.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

if you pick one player over another based on a ~5 game sample size, you deserve to be fired.

 

[Nubmer6]

if you pick one player over another based on a ~5 game sample size, you deserve to be fired.

Even if they entered those 5 games in a virtual dead heat? Not that they did, but it was close.

 

[SML2]

Oi vey.

The whole luck thing aside however, I think the WJC played a big role in why we picked Nico over Patrick, so the short tourney's can play a role in making a good decision.

It can also lead to a bad one, like us taking Al Montoya at #6 OA. Scouting a guy long term is going to give you a clearer picture of what you're going to get night in night out, which is what you will need once he's yours.

 

[Blender]

if you pick one player over another based on a ~5 game sample size, you deserve to be fired.

Or in this case would just never have that job to begin with.

 

[devilsblood]

if you pick one player over another based on a ~5 game sample size, you deserve to be fired.

Completely off that? Sure.

If it plays a role in the decision? Why wouldn't you consider it. Especially in Nico's case where he looked great as a 17 year old, against the best U-20's that Canada and USA have to offer.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Even if they entered those 5 games in a virtual dead heat? Not that they did, but it was close.

A dead heat would imply someone with a reputation would have ranked him 1st overall by now. More then someone. Like half of the people.

 

[Nubmer6]

A dead heat would imply someone with a reputation would have ranked him 1st overall by now. More then someone. Like half of the people.

Yep
That's why I said that it was only very close. If pro scouts said it was 51-49 Hughes, which they did, I consider it very close.

 

[REM17]

I am happy with both of them regardless if we pick Hughes or Kakko. Both address needs we have in the lineup.
But what I really wish for next season is a real coaching team. They should name Hynes Exec. Vice President of Player Development and Management or something like this to keep this guy away from the bench and let a real coach do this job.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

I am happy with both of them regardless if we pick Hughes or Kakko. Both address needs we have in the lineup.
But what I really wish for next season is a real coaching team. They should name Hynes Exec. Vice President of Player Development and Management or something like this to keep this guy away from the bench and let a real coach do this job.

I don't really care about Hynes one way or the other but I would really love to know who this "slam dunk" coaching hire would be?

 

[iamitter]

Elias Pettersson played for a 2nd tier men's league in his draft year. His numbers there were not '1st overall pick' great, though obviously he was an impressive enough player to be drafted 5th overall. After his draft year he played in the SEL and blew everyone away. Sometimes guys get way better at hockey over a summer and there's not much scouts can do to predict that.

The Rangers apparently had him 1st. McKenzie said he was the first forward on their board and they were trying to move up to 3rd to pick him, before any dmen went, which would imply them having him 1st overall.

 

[OmNomNom]

Empty netters also mean you were trusted enough to be out there to close out the game. And that's exactly what he did.

But who is kakkos competition, line up wise? Hughes has so many more pros from the nhl ahead of him

Kakko is playing with harri pesonen. PESONEN. There are a ton of finnish depth missing from that team, so Kakko is being trusted a lot more.

Hughes def isn't trustworthy at this point defensively, so that's a plus on Kakko, but Hughes is also not gonna get as big of a role right now

 

[iamitter]

Yep
That's why I said that it was only very close. If pro scouts said it was 51-49 Hughes, which they did, I consider it very close.

I don't know if I buy this. At a certain point, you gotta give credit.

Is it impossible Kakko ends up the better player? No, but I'd say it's unlikely. Hughes is the better prospect and should go 1st. The Rangers are lucky that #2 is still an excellent player.

 

[Billdo]

Kakko is also benefitting from an absolutely ridiculous shooting percentage the last two games