A lot of the projections is based on what they've accomplished thus far. There's a lot of deep scouting on many of the top-10 prospects with the exception of McTavish. The scouts who tracked him closely, think he's a top-3 choice.
Here's a fair assessment on
McTavish by Scouching: (McTavish is a tier-3 guy for Scouching)
- McTavish will likely be getting a report, but I don't think there's a player that has surprised me relative to last year, and improved as much as he has while in Switzerland this year. Last year, he was largely a shoot-first player, finding open space and ripping pucks into nets without tremendous pace or skating skill, but this year, he's mobile, rambunctious, effective at both ends, and is trying to make plays as much as he's trying to score pucks in a men's pro league. I think the hype train is a little out of control after an impressive U18, but if he's a guy your team reaches a little on in the back half of the Top 10, it might not be the call I make, but it isn't a bad call whatsoever. He can play down the middle, he can play the wing, he can score, he can make a play off the boards, and he's more than capable of getting the puck back if your team doesn't have it. Can't ask for much more in a player, even if there isn't a ton that's necessarily "elite".
Scouching has yet to do a report (deep dive) on McTavish, but recognizes the huge improvement in McTavish's game. Without doing his deep reporting, he's okay with a 6-10 selection. Scouching denotes the significant improvements, says there isn't enough necessary "elite", and cannot project McTavish will continue to develop? There isn't an elite group here.
Scouching blurb on Eklund
- William Eklund is just sick. Buzzsaw player who can cover a ton of ice without the puck, control transitions extremely well with it, drive offense through his playmaking and the odd dangerous attack here and there, and while his second half trailed his first, he could be an excellent scoring piece to add to a team's top six assuming he isn't relied upon to carry a line. Tons of fun to watch, and tons of potential once he gets stronger.
Scouching blurb on Beniers
- Yep, Matthew Beniers is locked in at #1 to me. I adore watching him play. He's exactly the kind of centre I'd build a line around. Mobile, skilled, high work rate at both ends, selfless with the puck, uses wingers to his advantage, supports his defenders, and while he underperforms at getting shot attempts from inside the dangerous areas (just 30%), he has the potential to be significantly better here, and that was an issue that plagued Michigan almost ubiquitously. He's a glue player, and any NHL team is greatly benefitted from strong glue players. The Buffalo Sabres have a goal scoring weapon in Jeff Skinner for example, and Matty Beniers could be a great piece to at least try to get pucks onto his stick so he can explode them into a net somewhere. Prefer Victor Olofsson? Same goes for him too. Need a guy to support that defense group? Beniers can do that. Is he NHL-ready? I'd certainly consider it, but won't guarantee it. Is he the most likely to be the highest overall impact player in the draft? I believe so.
According to Scouching, Eklund isn't a line carrier and Beniers is a mobile glue guy. Both players have potential for growth. Now re-read his blurb on McTavish and it makes you scratch your head as McTavish showed growth, but he isn't afforded the possibility of continued growth. It's as if Scouching doesn't believe in his assessment and simply intimates he's just a glue guy that's average as well as doesn't believe his WJC-18 work can translate beyond the WJC-18s. Is Scouching truly tracking McTavish well enough?
I can show Scouching's bias with Lysell's blurb, who he ranks as a top tiered player
- Fabian Lysell at 4? Heck yeah. Yes, his consistent creation ability at 5v5 in the U18 tournament can be questioned, sure. That team wasn't great on the whole and I felt Lysell was one of a small number that legitimately showed up ready to play every game. Teams and scouts might be unsettled with his orchestrated departure from Frolunda. Whatever. The point is, I've seen Lysell play in the J20, SHL, and international level, and if we're in the game of projecting great talent into the future, Lysell is one of the most high octane, high intensity, eff you kind of hockey players you're going to find. His pace and speed are almost too high for his brain to keep up. His quick strike offense in the SHL was there. He was trying to make plays, he was attacking the net, he has skill, he has quickness, he works his rear end off without the puck. I could go on. There's tremendous potential and I can't shake it. He could be as good as he wants to be if he puts in the work, and the right coaches and team systems can help him along. I think he's misunderstood and rightfully deserves a spot in the top group in this year's draft.
Scouching followed Lysell more closely than others and gives Lysell the benefit of the doubt based upon his talent along with projected talent into the future despite his lack of work effort and team system. Dobber has Lysell ranked #3 (the highest
on his EP page) and a low of 27th by TSN/Button. It all boils down to who's doing the scouting.
Like you said, it's more difficult to draft #3 in this draft than #10 because you're left with whatever top talent drops. Our scouts will have to earn their money to figure out which prospect is best for the Ducks going into the near future. I just hope it's a forward. Beniers, Eklund, and McTavish got flaws. Guenther is a high-end passenger. Lysell can succeed if he puts in work and in the right system?
