Prospect Info: 2024 NHL Draft Thread

[evnted]

Question for our draft prospect gurus here...

When you're evaluating a prospect, what flaws do you think are most or least correctable? I mean, obviously lanky players will likely add size and strength but are unlikely to add height (unless you're a giraffe), but what about other aspects? Skating, top speed, first step, shot, vision, shot, hockey IQ, defensive positioning, defensive awareness, high motor, compete level, etc.

Also, how do you account for how size and strength will translate in a men's league, like if you think the a large prospect is using his size to dominate his peers, but won't be able to do so against NHL sized players?

its hard to say, i dont think i really have a consistent template for how i evaluate players, its just a feel i get as i watch them. but i can definitely go into more detail than that

compete is a big one. i dont like players with glaring compete issues. thats not to say i completely avoid them, but these types of prospects are the ones that burn you because you fanatasize about their skillset and their highs and lose track of the fact that the lows will prevent them from becoming everyday players on an nhl roster. imo theres some nuance to compete when it comes to players picking spots, for example, the ones who look like they arent super engaged but they still make correct plays and never quite check out. this is difficult to evaluate (whether its an issue or not) and ties into iq, which ill get to

overall, if theres one framework i adhere to, i try to scout based on intent rather than results as much as possible. stats help me decipher who i should and shouldnt pay attention to, but outside of listing accomplishments for the sake of doing so, i rarely ever focus on them. a player with huge numbers wont impress me if they arent making primary plays on the goals, and likewise a player with crap numbers will pique my interest if im seeing a lot of smart decisions with the puck, translatable/pro level habits, and a skillset that they are trying to apply productivey. for example, this is why i liked sennecke early season when it was common to see him ranked as a late 1st rounder. i saw a lot of good ideas with the puck, good ideas with how he attacked space, and just a lot of near misses or overplays or incomplete sequences that felt more readily correctable

hand-in-hand with this is scouting with context in mind. environments matter and can greatly alter our perception of a player. someone being spoonfed top line/top pp minutes on a loaded junior team will, predictably, put up numbers and attract attention. on the flip side, a hard worker who has minimal support or a young kid in a pro league will understandably struggle to show off their skill to the same degree. this is why i liked ritchie around lotto range last year and thought the avs got a huge steal in him. oshawa was bad and offered him little actual talent to play with, and add on top of that ritchie was a heart and soul player who would never cheat for offense or give up his center responsibilities to pad his totals. thus, on a better team this year, he predictably took off

now, another big one: hockey iq. i could write a dissertation on hockey iq. this has to be the most complex concept when it comes to scouting (and at times grossly underestimated) firstly, because its a handwavy all inclusive term no one can properly define/bound, and secondly, because, without being able to talk to these kids, we're basically making educated guesses that we can understand their vision, awareness, intent, etc. from tape. with enough experience, i do trust its possible to be sufficiently good at reading play to this degree, but it can still be a challenge. that said, its hugely important in terms of projecting players and can matter both in terms of finding better-bet gambles late in the draft or helping decide between two franchise level prospects (ie why i ultimately preferred carlsson to fantilli last year)

so hockey iq is an umbrella term that requires being significantly broken down to properly understand. how a player challenges defenders is as much hockey iq as their ability to know where their linemates are off the rush, or even their decision making with the puck in the first place. good hockey iq doesnt mean a player does all three of those things well, and bad hockey iq doesnt mean a player fails at all three things either. im sure you can see this going down the route of another book report but to pull it back, every time i see a prospect botch a play, i try to ask myself what he was going for, whether or not that was a good choice, and what other options he couldve taken. when i see good plays, i ask myself whether theyre tools driven or processor driven. these types of questions help me come to a verdict on how much i trust their iq

compete cant be taught outside of exceedingly rare instances, you either have it or you dont. hockey iq has teachable traits (pattern recognition, zone positioning, etc.) but when its used to describe vision or awareness or split second decision making, it also cannot be taught. these are the things you bet on because theyre very nearly intrinsic to the player. shot? meh, we see players bolster their shots all the time. im more concerned with how the player is driving scoring lanes and whether or not theyre putting themselves in places to succeed (ie nemo was excellent at activating and finding space in his DY, he just had a weaker shot at the time). skating? im not as much in the mechanical side of things but again this is still correctable to a degree. i care about how they vary their speed, whether they can make quick cuts along the boards, do they know how to attack space (as opposed to relying on elite level skating to force open lanes). and so on, i wont go down every single attribute lol

i think my big takeaway is this: prospects can develop facets to their game, but their baseline game rarely ever changes, even as you scale it. what youre seeing in other leagues/at other levels is very likely to carry over to the nhl to a significant degree. results can absolutely disappear along the way, but the intent of what theyre trying to accomplish on the ice never will. if that gives me optimism, i like the player. if it doesnt, its usually asking to be burned to project that everything will come together

 

[My3Sons]

If catton is there at 10 I take him every time and don't even question it. He'll be the BPA. Idc about player size in the draft that much unless it's a tiny defenseman or they're like 5'6.

And if he doesn't end up playing center it isn't that big of a deal either. I'd take a 1LW over a 3C in the draft any day. You can sign or trade for a 3C.

If it was so easy to sign or trade for a Hischier everyone would do it.

 

[Guttersniped]

It's fine to mention here, although you can always send me a direct message through the site. It's not like I'm patenting any of this stuff or getting paid for it. This is a forum where it's fun and educational to discuss the prospects, which is something we all appreciate your particular and notable talent for.

I think Shuravin finished the list of defensemen I felt I needed to get to, although if I have time before the draft maybe I'll try to dig up some deep sleepers like I used to when I had fewer personal responsibilities. To be honest, my rankings won't be as good as in the old days because I simply no longer have the hours to watch and write up 150 kids. I think you and @Guadana might be the only people who realize how many 100s of hours I spent writing up NHL draft prospects back in the day.

I have a list of 8 RWs and LWs and Cs I was fixing to write up in coming weeks. If you want to write up any of these guys, let me know because this is the group I'm currently studying up on:

RW: Greentree, Hemming, Jecho, Marques, Masse, O'Reilly, Pascarak, Ritchie.
LW: Artamonov, Basha, Connolly, Gridin, Howe, Kos, Surin, Vanacker
C: Beaudoin, Badnarik, Boisvert, Humphreys, Letourneau, Luchanko, Mustard, Pettersson

Also, if there are any standout D you think I missed, or any sleepers you think we should be talking about, that's always fun. If you want to write up goalies that's a plus because as we all should know by now I suck at goalies.

Miguel Marques’ milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, him for sure.

Curious about Frankenstein Letourneau.

Surin. Boisvert. Bednarik.

Bergen Catholic’s John Mustard

 

[Nubmer6]

im sure you can see this going down the route of another book report but to pull it back,

But I like the books you read!

 

[evnted]

its hard to say, i dont think i really have a consistent template for how i evaluate players, its just a feel i get as i watch them. but i can definitely go into more detail than that

compete is a big one. i dont like players with glaring compete issues. thats not to say i completely avoid them, but these types of prospects are the ones that burn you because you fanatasize about their skillset and their highs and lose track of the fact that the lows will prevent them from becoming everyday players on an nhl roster. imo theres some nuance to compete when it comes to players picking spots, for example, the ones who look like they arent super engaged but they still make correct plays and never quite check out. this is difficult to evaluate (whether its an issue or not) and ties into iq, which ill get to

overall, if theres one framework i adhere to, i try to scout based on intent rather than results as much as possible. stats help me decipher who i should and shouldnt pay attention to, but outside of listing accomplishments for the sake of doing so, i rarely ever focus on them. a player with huge numbers wont impress me if they arent making primary plays on the goals, and likewise a player with crap numbers will pique my interest if im seeing a lot of smart decisions with the puck, translatable/pro level habits, and a skillset that they are trying to apply productivey. for example, this is why i liked sennecke early season when it was common to see him ranked as a late 1st rounder. i saw a lot of good ideas with the puck, good ideas with how he attacked space, and just a lot of near misses or overplays or incomplete sequences that felt more readily correctable

hand-in-hand with this is scouting with context in mind. environments matter and can greatly alter our perception of a player. someone being spoonfed top line/top pp minutes on a loaded junior team will, predictably, put up numbers and attract attention. on the flip side, a hard worker who has minimal support or a young kid in a pro league will understandably struggle to show off their skill to the same degree. this is why i liked ritchie around lotto range last year and thought the avs got a huge steal in him. oshawa was bad and offered him little actual talent to play with, and add on top of that ritchie was a heart and soul player who would never cheat for offense or give up his center responsibilities to pad his totals. thus, on a better team this year, he predictably took off

now, another big one: hockey iq. i could write a dissertation on hockey iq. this has to be the most complex concept when it comes to scouting (and at times grossly underestimated) firstly, because its a handwavy all inclusive term no one can properly define/bound, and secondly, because, without being able to talk to these kids, we're basically making educated guesses that we can understand their vision, awareness, intent, etc. from tape. with enough experience, i do trust its possible to be sufficiently good at reading play to this degree, but it can still be a challenge. that said, its hugely important in terms of projecting players and can matter both in terms of finding better-bet gambles late in the draft or helping decide between two franchise level prospects (ie why i ultimately preferred carlsson to fantilli last year)

so hockey iq is an umbrella term that requires being significantly broken down to properly understand. how a player challenges defenders is as much hockey iq as their ability to know where their linemates are off the rush, or even their decision making with the puck in the first place. good hockey iq doesnt mean a player does all three of those things well, and bad hockey iq doesnt mean a player fails at all three things either. im sure you can see this going down the route of another book report but to pull it back, every time i see a prospect botch a play, i try to ask myself what he was going for, whether or not that was a good choice, and what other options he couldve taken. when i see good plays, i ask myself whether theyre tools driven or processor driven. these types of questions help me come to a verdict on how much i trust their iq

compete cant be taught outside of exceedingly rare instances, you either have it or you dont. hockey iq has teachable traits (pattern recognition, zone positioning, etc.) but when its used to describe vision or awareness or split second decision making, it also cannot be taught. these are the things you bet on because theyre very nearly intrinsic to the player. shot? meh, we see players bolster their shots all the time. im more concerned with how the player is driving scoring lanes and whether or not theyre putting themselves in places to succeed (ie nemo was excellent at activating and finding space in his DY, he just had a weaker shot at the time). skating? im not as much in the mechanical side of things but again this is still correctable to a degree. i care about how they vary their speed, whether they can make quick cuts along the boards, do they know how to attack space (as opposed to relying on elite level skating to force open lanes). and so on, i wont go down every single attribute lol

i think my big takeaway is this: prospects can develop facets to their game, but their baseline game rarely ever changes, even as you scale it. what youre seeing in other leagues/at other levels is very likely to carry over to the nhl to a significant degree. results can absolutely disappear along the way, but the intent of what theyre trying to accomplish on the ice never will. if that gives me optimism, i like the player. if it doesnt, its usually asking to be burned to project that everything will come together

one other point i must include: trajectories. player development curves are vitally important and the steeper they are, the more theyre worth betting on imo. this is the reason im probably a bit more bullish on iginla than others here. i dont need the best possible player today, i want the best possible player 5 years from now, and the growth ive seen in tij's game is remarkable and something i would deliberately seek out

coming into the season, tij wasnt on many peoples radars as an early pick because he didnt actually show that much on a loaded seattle roster last year, so i recognize some of this progression is opportunity based now being in kelowna. but even over the course of his DY ive been taken back at just how good hes gotten

the energy, the compete, the cuts, the plays along the boards, the heavy shot, the interior drive, the this and that, sure, that was all apparent from his early season tape with the rockets. that said, he seems to have improved basically monthly over the course of this season. early year i would complain about him brute forcing pucks on net too much resulting in low percentage chances, or overhandling to the point of leading to a lot of dead end plays, or looking off linemates in better scoring lanes for the sake of throwing the puck on net. every single thing ive mentioned has not only improved, but is now progressing toward a strength

tij now works defenders not just to pry open lanes to the net, but to buy space and time for his linemates to identify more dangerous lanes. his small area handling has taken huge steps, which only further amplifies his improved playmaking vision, particularly in the corners and along the boards where he legitimately needs it to succeed. i long felt tij was more of a volume shooter, and theres probably still truth to that, but i see way more puck movement in the offensive zone now. hes making significantly more "right" plays in the moment, and that doesnt take away from the fact that hes still likely a scoring-lean winger at the next level, more so that it proves hes developing into a diversified threat who teams wont be able to auto-default into thinking thats hes only ever gonna try to put a puck on net

i even think his off puck play and physicality, both of which still need work, are taking strides (granted, hes always been able to play through contact, im talking applying it proactively). and this is where the whole intent thing comes into play. he has always been a high intensity, annoying forechecker. i never got the vibe he checked out defensively so much as he just didnt have the positional reads to apply himself in the same way on the backcheck. but i think hes getting there, i see him hounding puck carriers, i see him dropping back and trying to find lanes, and overall i just think hes more of a threat than he had been

i recognize the tunnel vision complaints, too, but again, i think this is something i think im seeing improve in realtime. heres how hockey iq comes into play (and why its difficult to assess): i thought the low percentage shots and overplays on the puck were indicative of average iq (because, hey, he still knew how to work around defenders to find these lanes, he just wasnt doing more with it). now, i doubt my initial assessment. i dont think he has elite iq or anything, but i see him spot/connect with linemates in a way he didnt use to, i see him make better (and faster) assessments with the puck to identify the most dangerous scoring opportunity rather than just a dangerous chance, and so on

i dont think its unfair at all to claim that iginla today is further back than some of the others weve been discussing, but with how young he is, and how much hes improved, and how translatable his game is, and how (at least offensively) its hard to say he has any outright weaknesses, this is a player who i think is not just worthy of a high pick, but could even be discussed as having star potential. he just seems to have it. i still project him as a hagel type player because, first of all he looks exactly like him on ice, but mainly because i try to keep realistic with projections, but with this type of trajectory i will not be surprised at all if he overshoots it

 

[Guttersniped]

I'd rather take Iginla, Sennecke, or Catton over Eiserman but I'd say Eiserman's goal scoring potential is greater than Holtz's ever was. And I would not write of Holtz (not that you did), I still think he can be a 30 goal scorer in the NHL. He has not reached the bust category yet. I guess it's the unpopular opinion but I'd rather take a player like Eiserman who has an elite attribute which his shot, over Helenius and Nygard personally although I do like both of those players as they are way easier to project to the NHL. Nygard definitely does have an excellent shot.

Nygard isn’t a bottle of medicine and more complete player is someone who can make the NHL.

From Scouching’s blog:

#8

Brandsegg-Nygård comes in a bit later, but I could easily be swayed to look at him a bit earlier. A highly intelligent power forward that I believe is well tailored to the modern NHL, Brandsegg-Nygård is a careful and accurate passer, an annoying physical presence both on and off the puck, a tactical defender, and a very practical applicator of the skill level he possesses. He makes one move around a defender because that’s all that’s necessary to get a scoring chance. He pre-plans his puck protection down low and finds ways through pressure. He has some creative small area passing work at times. Since the World Juniors, he has scored 16 of the 22 points he’s scored all season in HockeyAllsvenskan, and has really found a level of confidence and resilience that I was hoping to see more of. There are a lot of positives to his game, and not a whole ton of negatives that really bother me. Is he a top line winger? Not unless he’s the complimentary physical piece, but a very useful forward up and down your lineup and on special teams is entirely possible.

vs
#12

Speaking of scrambled brains, Eiserman has done the same for me this year. I do believe he’s improved over the year with his shot selection and picking his spots to be physical and I am less concerned with his game than I was. Why is he lower than where I had him? I don’t really have a good answer for you! I do think there are still issues with shot selection and his ability to drive play at 5v5 is a bit mixed and often reliant on others. That said, I think Eiserman’s playmaking and creativity with his passing in the offensive zone is understated. He can make bewildering decisions, float around a bit too often waiting for breakouts, chase physical play when he has no business doing so, and is a somewhat leaky defensive rush player, but I’ll still have my eyes trained on him often down the stretch. He’s still in my 2nd tier and if you want a raw, but highly talented shooter with signs of something more there, I could be swayed to take him significantly higher than this spot.

 

[My3Sons]

Nygard isn’t a bottle of medicine and more complete player is someone who can make the NHL.

From Scouching’s blog:

#8


vs
#12



View attachment 871604View attachment 871605View attachment 871607View attachment 871606
View attachment 871608View attachment 871609

Bottle of medicine? Like Tylenol?

 

[Guadana]

There is more room for improvement

Yeah. I agree, because he isn't there as a player. It doesn't make a favor for him. He needs to turn a lot of corners.

Nygard already seems to have a mans body, and while he may be a better skater now, I think Sennecke may project to have better skating once his body matures more. Right now I think Nygard only has average to slightly above average NHL skating at best.

It doesn't work this way and its not true. Nygard is the best skater between all of them with the fastest start. And its obvious when and IF you are watching how Nygard looks against alsvenskan players and against NHL or adult players on WC. How he is using his skating and speed in different situation. I don't think you are trying to outlie him, i hope its because of lack of views.
Starting speed and technique is a part of coaching more in childhood, part of genetic, part of technique.
Sennecke has long legs and his technique isn't good at all. Its rare when player of his type is developing skating to the Nygard level, more over above Nygards level. Because of his genetics, his type. He needs years with focusing on this aspect and luck. Mostly players like him are trying to benefit from different aspects.

I don't think Esierman or Nygard are play drivers, they are more complementary players. Eiserman has an elite attribute and that's his shot which I think is better than Nygards, and that's saying a lot since Nygards shot is excellent. Eisermans hockey IQ scares me but his shot is already at an elite level even for even an NHL player. You give him PP time and play him with an elite play driver like Hughes and I think he may reach his potential as a 50 goal scorer if everything goes right. Worst case though is Eiserman completely busts while Nygard is likely to at least be a good 3rd liner.

It doesn't work this way. Eiserman is making different bad decisions all over the ice. Scoring doesn't burn from shots only. If we are picking for only one attribute e should pick different sport. Thats a reason why Holtz isn't great nhl producer, why Gunler, Kaliyev, Wahlstrom aren't great producers.

When you are trying to prefer Eiserman over Nygard, you are making the same mistake. Because hockey is the summ of different aspects, skills and decisions in absolutely different situations.
Reason why players with good all around game are ALWAYS find the job on nhl level, reason why players like NYGARD are successful in nhl. Because Nygard is making fast and right decisions every time. And he us making it with the best accuracy between all of this players. Players like Catton or Sennecke or Iginla are finding themselves in the corners under the pressure of two players without any real options to solve the situation.
Its a hockey iq. Eisermsn even will not find himself in this situation because he will make bad decision before or will take wrong position and his partners will not even give him a pass or opponent will take it away. Catton is making it much better than Sennecke, reason why he isn't late riser.
Helenius and Nygard knows how to find open space and create space for partners. And their compete level is coming from that because they are not players like Iginla who is trying to outlier his opponents, both know where they should be, where their partners are, where they should coming to and when they should make a pass, they are not playing with the puck fir a long time because they understand when they can make a pass.

Its a huge mark of faster brain of Nygard and Helenius. Catton is good in o zone and he still much better in d zone than Sennecke or Iginla even if not physical. Sennecke and Iginla are good with the puck, but still playing and playing with the puck for too long and outplay their opponents because its not a tough league.

I'm not saying that Iginla or Sennecke are potential busts. Iserman? May be They are not. But more realistically they will not be consistent twoway players, Sennecke can develop power game, but he needs to
A) learn a lot in skatinghow
B) gain muscle
C) Learn how to use it
Its not a problem of Hekenius and Nygard that they are smart enough and physical enough to combine different aspects of the game to use it for their success in different situations on a higher levels.

 

[Unknown Caller]

It doesn't work this way. Eiserman is making different bad decisions all over the ice. Scoring doesn't burn from shots only. If we are picking for only one attribute e should pick different sport. Thats a reason why Holtz isn't great nhl producer, why Gunler, Kaliyev, Wahlstrom aren't great producers.

The difference is that Holtz, Gunler, Kaliyev, and Wahlstrom never produced at the elite rate that Eiserman has. Eiserman has scored and produced at a level equivalent with great NHL players like Clayton Keller, Vinny Lecavalier, Cole Caufield, etc.

Is Eiserman a one dimensional player with flaws? Absolutely. But he also scores goals at a level that absolutely smokes the likes of Holtz, Kaliyev, Wahlstrom, etc.

You can ding some components of his game, which pretty much everyone has done at this point. But he also has an incredible ability to produce that is very rare.

Eiserman is who Devils fans wanted Holtz to be.

 

[Guadana]

Question for our draft prospect gurus here...

When you're evaluating a prospect, what flaws do you think are most or least correctable? I mean, obviously lanky players will likely add size and strength but are unlikely to add height (unless you're a giraffe), but what about other aspects? Skating, top speed, first step, shot, vision, shot, hockey IQ, defensive positioning, defensive awareness, high motor, compete level, etc.

Also, how do you account for how size and strength will translate in a men's league, like if you think the a large prospect is using his size to dominate his peers, but won't be able to do so against NHL sized players?ng

Starting speed and first step is all about kids coaching and genetics. Reason why Nygard and Chernyshov have huge advantage.
Overall skating fixable but its a path. Minority of nhl players are turning into good skaters from bad skaters.

IQ is a hard to understand. Because absolutely different players are turning into good defensive forwards, some never will. Some players are turning into good offensive producers, some never will. Big part of it is a feeling of moment and fast decision making. If player is processing the game on the lower speed he will never be productive in nhl. Reason why a lot of junior producers can't crack nhl or being top 6 solid players. Sometimes defensive game is fixable by actual coaches when they can to tell the player where he should be in different situations. But when the game is changing it will dissappear.
Fast decision making and positional vision is very hard to learn, mostly its a brain who can or cannot do it. Reason why most of smart players are very projectable and translate their game well on nhl level.

Physical game is the thing you can teach, sometimes its a character who doesn't want to balance/posiotion the body and for some players its legs. When player has tiny vss he will never be as good even if he will gain muscle against bigger vss player. Its fun but its true. This is how lever is working.

Shooting is teachable but as skating many players will not learn it on a higher level. Mostly its about technique, feel and focus for years.

How to use technique, see the partners, shoot and turn the position on the fly is all about IQ. Smart successful players are good all over the ice. Metthews is good all over the ice, Elias was good all over the ice. Both were and are great skaters with great mind. Players with some technical limitations like O Reilly are very god because they are smart. Working hard players like Haula are good because they have some speed and skating and compete level but don't process the game well enough, don't have enough creativity, don't have huge skill. Players like Tage Thompson or Robertson are great in o zone and see the partners because they are very good with the puck but have all around limitations because some of their skill are great, some are not. On the other hand smart players like Kopitar or Stone are great because they are nderstanding the game no matter what the situation is on the ice even with some lack of some high end skill.

So the most important thing is decision making and as fast it is - than better it is. With minimal level of other skills. Because you can have Gusev who is great mind with great hands, produced 44 points in 66 games but still can't be competent nhler because of his awful legs.

 

[Guadana]

Also, how do you account for how size and strength will translate in a men's league, like if you think the a large prospect is using his size to dominate his peers, but won't be able to do so against NHL sized players?

Again its all about iq and fast decision making.

Kakko can't do it in different aspects of the game, but still quite nice defensive forward, Slafkovsky is doing quite well.

Speed and skating helps a lot too. There were a lot of players in junior leagues who were better against kids, but it doesn't work against adults. Players who is competent enough against adult mostly still competent on nhl level. Again - Kakko. Lack of high end skill, shooting and good/fast decision making, but still good as defensive forward.

 

[Guadana]

The difference is that Holtz, Gunler, Kaliyev, and Wahlstrom never produced at the elite rate that Eiserman has. Eiserman has scored and produced at a level equivalent with great NHL players like Clayton Keller, Vinny Lecavalier, Cole Caufield, etc.

Is Eiserman a one dimensional player with flaws? Absolutely. But he also scores goals at a level that absolutely smokes the likes of Holtz, Kaliyev, Wahlstrom, etc.

You can ding some components of his game, which pretty much everyone has done at this point. But he also has an incredible ability to produce that is very rare.

Eiserman is who Devils fans wanted Holtz to be.

I already gave explanation how it works. If he is doing fine on junior level is a reason of he is having enough for junior level. Nhl level is asking a lot more to scoring a lot on nhl level. Not only great shooting. Its about positioning, creating space for himself and for partners. Numbers will never be a reason, its a consequence.

Eiserman is worser skater than all of Caufield, Vince, Keller, he is processing the game slower and eorser than them, he is eorser positionally.

I still think he has a chance to be nhler, but more realistically he will have a lot of limitations and not the type of players to help to win the game.

And btw Holtz has much better passing vision and passing skill.

 

[Guadana]

Just give me a tough SOB for Jack’s wing. Or somehow trade back and get a 2nd back and a tough 2-way bastard. That would make me and the duchess (@Guttersniped) happy.

The Norwegian Law Firm, Russian Cheryl Ladd or Kosta to Kosta as a consultation if possible. I know they need LD and Boom Boom Buium is a sexy player but I want a forward because that cupboard has cobwebs.

Golden post.

its hard to say, i dont think i really have a consistent template for how i evaluate players, its just a feel i get as i watch them. but i can definitely go into more detail than that

compete is a big one. i dont like players with glaring compete issues. thats not to say i completely avoid them, but these types of prospects are the ones that burn you because you fanatasize about their skillset and their highs and lose track of the fact that the lows will prevent them from becoming everyday players on an nhl roster. imo theres some nuance to compete when it comes to players picking spots, for example, the ones who look like they arent super engaged but they still make correct plays and never quite check out. this is difficult to evaluate (whether its an issue or not) and ties into iq, which ill get to

overall, if theres one framework i adhere to, i try to scout based on intent rather than results as much as possible. stats help me decipher who i should and shouldnt pay attention to, but outside of listing accomplishments for the sake of doing so, i rarely ever focus on them. a player with huge numbers wont impress me if they arent making primary plays on the goals, and likewise a player with crap numbers will pique my interest if im seeing a lot of smart decisions with the puck, translatable/pro level habits, and a skillset that they are trying to apply productivey. for example, this is why i liked sennecke early season when it was common to see him ranked as a late 1st rounder. i saw a lot of good ideas with the puck, good ideas with how he attacked space, and just a lot of near misses or overplays or incomplete sequences that felt more readily correctable

hand-in-hand with this is scouting with context in mind. environments matter and can greatly alter our perception of a player. someone being spoonfed top line/top pp minutes on a loaded junior team will, predictably, put up numbers and attract attention. on the flip side, a hard worker who has minimal support or a young kid in a pro league will understandably struggle to show off their skill to the same degree. this is why i liked ritchie around lotto range last year and thought the avs got a huge steal in him. oshawa was bad and offered him little actual talent to play with, and add on top of that ritchie was a heart and soul player who would never cheat for offense or give up his center responsibilities to pad his totals. thus, on a better team this year, he predictably took off

now, another big one: hockey iq. i could write a dissertation on hockey iq. this has to be the most complex concept when it comes to scouting (and at times grossly underestimated) firstly, because its a handwavy all inclusive term no one can properly define/bound, and secondly, because, without being able to talk to these kids, we're basically making educated guesses that we can understand their vision, awareness, intent, etc. from tape. with enough experience, i do trust its possible to be sufficiently good at reading play to this degree, but it can still be a challenge. that said, its hugely important in terms of projecting players and can matter both in terms of finding better-bet gambles late in the draft or helping decide between two franchise level prospects (ie why i ultimately preferred carlsson to fantilli last year)

so hockey iq is an umbrella term that requires being significantly broken down to properly understand. how a player challenges defenders is as much hockey iq as their ability to know where their linemates are off the rush, or even their decision making with the puck in the first place. good hockey iq doesnt mean a player does all three of those things well, and bad hockey iq doesnt mean a player fails at all three things either. im sure you can see this going down the route of another book report but to pull it back, every time i see a prospect botch a play, i try to ask myself what he was going for, whether or not that was a good choice, and what other options he couldve taken. when i see good plays, i ask myself whether theyre tools driven or processor driven. these types of questions help me come to a verdict on how much i trust their iq

compete cant be taught outside of exceedingly rare instances, you either have it or you dont. hockey iq has teachable traits (pattern recognition, zone positioning, etc.) but when its used to describe vision or awareness or split second decision making, it also cannot be taught. these are the things you bet on because theyre very nearly intrinsic to the player. shot? meh, we see players bolster their shots all the time. im more concerned with how the player is driving scoring lanes and whether or not theyre putting themselves in places to succeed (ie nemo was excellent at activating and finding space in his DY, he just had a weaker shot at the time). skating? im not as much in the mechanical side of things but again this is still correctable to a degree. i care about how they vary their speed, whether they can make quick cuts along the boards, do they know how to attack space (as opposed to relying on elite level skating to force open lanes). and so on, i wont go down every single attribute lol

i think my big takeaway is this: prospects can develop facets to their game, but their baseline game rarely ever changes, even as you scale it. what youre seeing in other leagues/at other levels is very likely to carry over to the nhl to a significant degree. results can absolutely disappear along the way, but the intent of what theyre trying to accomplish on the ice never will. if that gives me optimism, i like the player. if it doesnt, its usually asking to be burned to project that everything will come together

Golden post!!! I envy you for having better English and your better using.

2024 Draft Profile:

LD Matvei Shuravin, Krasnaya MHL
If it's true that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes, we can also be pretty sure that an MHL player or two will be severely underrated for the NHL draft. Matvei Shuravin is a player who is almost universally ranked in the 2nd round, and sometimes even the 3rd. But in my personal opinion, were he playing in Canada or Sweden, he'd almost universally be ranked in the first.

Shuravin is huge and still growing. He was listed at the the outset of the season at 6'2 and finished the year at 6'4. His father is 6'6 so he might not be done. The fact that he's on the younger side of the draft class as a late-March birthday gives further credence to this uncommon but still occasional possibility. This is also important to mention in the context that Shuravin is a high-level skater, with the agility and acceleration of a small, speedy skill forward. He might be one of the best backwards skaters in the 2024 class, invaluable for a defenseman. When we also add the context that kids who are still growing are also capable of huge strides athletically because they are still getting used to their own bodies, the potential is immense. Because Shuravin is already a pretty terrific athlete.

Defense is Shuravin's strong point. He is a high IQ player who reads the play at an advanced level and, due to his agility, acceleration and reach, reacts quickly. He excels at breaking up the rush and using shoulder checks and very good angles to separate puck-carriers from the play. He is virtually impossible to beat on the outside because his backwards skating is so good, and dekes and cuts don't work either because he is so agile on his skates. You can't go through him because of his strength and length. In an 8 game cup of coffee in the KHL, Shuravin held his own defensively, though he was pretty invisible offensively.

But there is a lot to like about Shuravin's offensive potential. He is a very smart and accurate passer, both on the outlet and inside the offensive zone. Though he normally prefers to use his frame for puck protection rather than dangle, Shuravin actually has a pretty nifty set of hands and can surprise with a nice deke here and there. This is not a big, lumbering oaf -- he has some sneaky skill, though I'd still like to see him assert himself a bit more offensively. Strangely, his one weakness is his shot -- Shuravin takes awhile to get it off, and it's not as strong or accurate as one would prefer. But again, if this is a player who is still growing, we can probably count on his upper body strength having a much higher curve than the average draft-eligible player. I don't think we'll ever see him manning an NHL power play, but he has the potential to be far superior with the puck and in his scoring totals than the prototypical NHL shut-down defender.

And a NHL shut-down defender is not out of the reach of this talented young player. He's big and fast and smart; he's not dazzling with the puck by any means, but he's very adept and reliable. He's not a kid to make many mistakes, even against the high-end competition of the KHL. I'm confident Matvei Shuravin is worth a pick in the 2024 draft as early as the late 1st round.

He was on my list for sleeping for for a long time. Saw quite a lot of his games. Sometimee Russian players are sleeping more than we thought. So let's hope Carolina will not draft him in the second round.

 

[Guttersniped]

The difference is that Holtz, Gunler, Kaliyev, and Wahlstrom never produced at the elite rate that Eiserman has. Eiserman has scored and produced at a level equivalent with great NHL players like Clayton Keller, Vinny Lecavalier, Cole Caufield, etc.

Is Eiserman a one dimensional player with flaws? Absolutely. But he also scores goals at a level that absolutely smokes the likes of Holtz, Kaliyev, Wahlstrom, etc.

You can ding some components of his game, which pretty much everyone has done at this point. But he also has an incredible ability to produce that is very rare.

Eiserman is who Devils fans wanted Holtz to be.

Eiserman was more impressive early on but Wahlstrom had a very productive draft year, I wouldn’t say he was smoked.



Historically, playmaking and passing translates to the NHL way more than shooting because playmaking means you have the puck and points to better awareness/hockey IQ. There’s a better chance of the shooting coming later than vice versa.

It’s not 1995, there are no power play specialist forwards because there’s way fewer PPs.

Maybe Eiserman makes it, I’m not pretending to be amateur scout or fortune teller here. The USNTDP is so stacked that Eiserman isn’t asked to do anything else but shoot, maybe he grows in college. Caufield did. (Cole isn’t scoring 50 goals in the NHL though.)

But shooters are a tough bet in the draft for me.

I’m actually resistant to Helenius, though I conceptually understand the appeal. He just doesn’t seem like a guy who will produce in the NHL to me, that and his size seems like a potentially bad combo.

 

[Goptor]

Don't know anything about Eiserman, but if he can't get himself in position to score goals, he'll never be a goal scorer in the NHL. It doesn't matter if he has the best shot in the league.

 

[TBF1972]

2024 Draft Profile:

LD Matvei Shuravin, Krasnaya MHL
If it's true that nothing is certain in life except death and taxes, we can also be pretty sure that an MHL player or two will be severely underrated for the NHL draft. Matvei Shuravin is a player who is almost universally ranked in the 2nd round, and sometimes even the 3rd. But in my personal opinion, were he playing in Canada or Sweden, he'd almost universally be ranked in the first.

Shuravin is huge and still growing. He was listed at the the outset of the season at 6'2 and finished the year at 6'4. His father is 6'6 so he might not be done. The fact that he's on the younger side of the draft class as a late-March birthday gives further credence to this uncommon but still occasional possibility. This is also important to mention in the context that Shuravin is a high-level skater, with the agility and acceleration of a small, speedy skill forward. He might be one of the best backwards skaters in the 2024 class, invaluable for a defenseman. When we also add the context that kids who are still growing are also capable of huge strides athletically because they are still getting used to their own bodies, the potential is immense. Because Shuravin is already a pretty terrific athlete.

Defense is Shuravin's strong point. He is a high IQ player who reads the play at an advanced level and, due to his agility, acceleration and reach, reacts quickly. He excels at breaking up the rush and using shoulder checks and very good angles to separate puck-carriers from the play. He is virtually impossible to beat on the outside because his backwards skating is so good, and dekes and cuts don't work either because he is so agile on his skates. You can't go through him because of his strength and length. In an 8 game cup of coffee in the KHL, Shuravin held his own defensively, though he was pretty invisible offensively.

But there is a lot to like about Shuravin's offensive potential. He is a very smart and accurate passer, both on the outlet and inside the offensive zone. Though he normally prefers to use his frame for puck protection rather than dangle, Shuravin actually has a pretty nifty set of hands and can surprise with a nice deke here and there. This is not a big, lumbering oaf -- he has some sneaky skill, though I'd still like to see him assert himself a bit more offensively. Strangely, his one weakness is his shot -- Shuravin takes awhile to get it off, and it's not as strong or accurate as one would prefer. But again, if this is a player who is still growing, we can probably count on his upper body strength having a much higher curve than the average draft-eligible player. I don't think we'll ever see him manning an NHL power play, but he has the potential to be far superior with the puck and in his scoring totals than the prototypical NHL shut-down defender.

And a NHL shut-down defender is not out of the reach of this talented young player. He's big and fast and smart; he's not dazzling with the puck by any means, but he's very adept and reliable. He's not a kid to make many mistakes, even against the high-end competition of the KHL. I'm confident Matvei Shuravin is worth a pick in the 2024 draft as early as the late 1st round.

a page from the lane hutson development book. i thought the habs have the copyright.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Question for our draft prospect gurus here...

When you're evaluating a prospect, what flaws do you think are most or least correctable? I mean, obviously lanky players will likely add size and strength but are unlikely to add height (unless you're a giraffe), but what about other aspects? Skating, top speed, first step, shot, vision, shot, hockey IQ, defensive positioning, defensive awareness, high motor, compete level, etc.

Also, how do you account for how size and strength will translate in a men's league, like if you think the a large prospect is using his size to dominate his peers, but won't be able to do so against NHL sized players?

This question was answered really well by @evnted so I can leave it at my typical diatribe, which is that hockey IQ and compete level are a combination which usually indicate a better development arc for all the physical tools, while hockey IQ and compete level are the elements which normally don't improve or decline in prospects. You rarely just see a switch flip and a smart, tenacious kid stops caring or a kid lacking in those abilities suddenly figures it out.

That being said, we don't go by "prospect gurus". However, I will answer to: "prospect writer with better hair than @Guadana " and @evnted could probably go by "prospect writer smart enough to stay out of it when STI and Guadana bicker about hockey". If Guadana decides to answer to "prospect writer with better sense of humor than Steve", I'll be slightly to very upset.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Golden post.



Golden post!!! I envy you for having better English and your better using.



He was on my list for sleeping for for a long time. Saw quite a lot of his games. Sometimee Russian players are sleeping more than we thought. So let's hope Carolina will not draft him in the second round.

I know complaining about traded 2nd round picks is mostly the job of @Guttersniped but this is a really great year for undervalued players at LD, and the Devils would be really lucky to get one of these guys.

I think Solberg and Freij will be gone by pick #42 where the Devils would have selected in Round Two, but there are several guys I'd really like at that spot like Shuravin, Ustinkov, Skahan and maybe even Kiviharju. Maybe one of them will fall to 3rd, and I like Vaisanen a lot for rounds 3/4.

 

[StevenToddIves]

a page from the lane hutson development book. i thought the habs have the copyright.

The Habs will also have Dawson Mercer and Simon Nemec after we package them and a 1st round pick in a trade to get Josh Anderson.

 

[Guadana]

I know complaining about traded 2nd round picks is mostly the job of @Guttersniped but this is a really great year for undervalued players at LD, and the Devils would be really lucky to get one of these guys.

I think Solberg and Freij will be gone by pick #42 where the Devils would have selected in Round Two, but there are several guys I'd really like at that spot like Shuravin, Ustinkov, Skahan and maybe even Kiviharju. Maybe one of them will fall to 3rd, and I like Vaisanen a lot for rounds 3/4.

Im higher on Frej. He is a player who is doing everything fine but needs to develop physicallity and overall aspects, but still on the right path. He doesnt need to take new huge steps, turn more corners etc. I think the team that will draft him in the late first round will celebrate it after. He is potential Marino type defenseman with better offensive insincts.

@Guttersniped unfairly monopolized criticism of second-round trades, beacuse Im a big Shero critic and that was one of my big issues with him when he did it with team without prospect pool and aged roster. And the huge issue for me is the fact that devils community has so much good prospect junkies and Devils time after time taking the stuff away from us. It's inhumane.

The Habs will also have Dawson Mercer and Simon Nemec after we package them and a 1st round pick in a trade to get Josh Anderson.

You are overvaluing Anderson. Nemec + 10OA.

 

[StevenToddIves]

2024 Draft Profile:

RW Emil Hemming, TPS FIN
There is no doubt in my mind Hemming will go in the 1st round, quite possibly even in the top 20, because he's a lot of things which NHL teams love. He's 6'2 195, solidly built, willing to go to the net and mix it up physically. His shot is an absolute rocket, capable of beating Finnish pro goalies clean from outside the dots. And most importantly, he's one of the fastest and hardest skaters in the entire 2024 draft class. This kid is absolutely an explosive skater.

Hemming has a lot of flaws in his game, but none of them are red flags. Consistency is an issue. When he's on, you can't take your eyes off him flying around the rink, bashing bodies and firing cannon-blasts at the net. When he's off, you can't even find him. This is also a player who will never be a creator or high-IQ player, he's more of a forechecker/finisher. He's got decent awareness in the offensive zone which really starts to lag off the puck. Hemming needs great improvements on the defensive side of the game.

But when he's on? Whoo boy. The speed, strength and shooting will make him a force at any level if he can even round out the rest of his skill set to an even average degree and even out the consistency with maturity. He's also a tremendous puck-handler, capable of highlight-reel dangles. But again, the awareness sometimes lags, as he can over-rely on his elite feet and hands and try to beat three defenders himself instead of simply finding space to feed a teammate.

I think Hemming is absolutely worth a late 1st round pick because none of his problems really alarm me and they all seem correctable enough, while he has a desirable upside as a heavy, speedy finisher for an NHL 2nd line. He put some solid numbers manning a 4th line in the Finnish pro league, but this is clearly a player who would have dominated statistically if he had played in Finnish juniors. There's a lot to work on with this player, but there is also a lot to like.

 

[StevenToddIves]

Im higher on Frej. He is a player who is doing everything fine but needs to develop physicallity and overall aspects, but still on the right path. He doesnt need to take new huge steps, turn more corners etc. I think the team that will draft him in the late first round will celebrate it after. He is potential Marino type defenseman with better offensive insincts.

@Guttersniped unfairly monopolized criticism of second-round trades, beacuse Im a big Shero critic and that was one of my big issues with him when he did it with team without prospect pool and aged roster. And the huge issue for me is the fact that devils community has so much good prospect junkies and Devils time after time taking the stuff away from us. It's inhumane.


You are overvaluing Anderson. Nemec + 10OA.

I like Freij a lot too but I'm higher on Solberg. If he falls into the 2nd round, it could wind up being a Brock Faber-esque steal. Unfortunately, these players are both unrealistic picks for NJ, because the Devils won't take them at #10 and you're not getting them unless you have a pick in the 16-32 range.

Skahan and Kiviharju are guys who will almost certainly be gone in the 2md round. Probably Sahlin-Wallenius, too, though I'm not as high on him as the rest of the players I'll mention in this post.

The LD I really, really love who could possibly fall to the Devils in Round 3 are Shuravin and Ustinkov.

Ustinkov is one of those guys who could fall because of, well... bulls**t. He's actually bigger than his size, for one. The 6'0 height is not attractive or detrimental to teams, it's actually quite "neutral", but he's actually a lot bigger than that because he's a solid and exceptionally strong 200 pounds and he uses his body extremely well. He also lacks any standout, elite tool except the least *sexy* ones, which are to say he's an outstanding defender with high-level awareness. He's an underrated puck mover who could potentially put up some points if he was coached into being a bit more offensively aggressive.

Shuravin has mostly played in the MHL which -- let's face it -- is only properly scouted by about half the teams in the NHL. He's got the size/speed combo which teams covet, but his numbers were pedestrian and I think this is the type of player who could slip through the cracks and fall to Round 3.

Vaisanen is another guy I've talked about to a decent degree who I really like for the 4th round and maybe even later. He's not flashy but he's very effective, skates well and plays a translatable game. He's very desirable as a mid-round pick.

 

[Nubmer6]

That being said, we don't go by "prospect gurus".

How about "prospect analysis slaves"?

 

[StevenToddIves]

How about "prospect analysis slaves"?

"Maestros of Jackassery"?

 

[Shakir ONeal]

Steve K’s top 16

1. Celebrini
2. Silayev
3. Demidov
4. Iginla
5. Helenius
6. Buium
7. Catton
8. Dickinson
9. Yakemchuk
10. Connelly
11. Eiserman
12. MBN
13. Lindstrom
14. Levshunov
15. Parekh
16. Chernyshov