C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part II

[Panthaz89]

don't even bother..it isn't happening...

I wish he did these for Patrick Laine in his draft year...

Finnish and making mistakes aren't allowed in the same sentence

 

[AmericanDream]

I will pray for the team that selects Jack Hughes #1 overall

 

[kabidjan18]

Wow this thread is so petty. This is the game of hockey. If each possession in hockey is roughly 10 seconds over a 60 minute game, then how many possessions are there per game? A lot. And how many result in goals? Maybe 5, maybe 6, in a super exciting game maybe 7-8. That means hundreds of possessions end up what, end up failing. A great player is probably one who can score one in every 50 times he touches the puck.

But yes, here we have videos. Individual instances where Hughes fails to score. I'm so impressed I think we should reevaluate whether Hughes should be drafted at all

 

[kroypuck]

Wow this thread is so petty. This is the game of hockey. If each possession in hockey is roughly 10 seconds over a 60 minute game, then how many possessions are there per game? A lot. And how many result in goals? Maybe 5, maybe 6, in a super exciting game maybe 7-8. That means hundreds of possessions end up what, end up failing. A great player is probably one who can score one in every 50 times he touches the puck.

But yes, here we have videos. Individual instances where Hughes fails to score. I'm so impressed I think we should reevaluate whether Hughes should be drafted at all

I'm convinced he is doing it for attention at this point. No one ever agrees with him yet he continues to post his 'opinion.' Either that or he's doing it so he can say so if Kakko ends up being superior.

And if you think this is bad you should see his reddit. Literally just anti-Hughes propaganda and he gets lit up for every post lol.

You see some pretty delirious posters on this site but I think Blade takes the cake.

 

[CLW]

I see valid criticism based on analysis of some parts of Hughes game. For some reason some posters can't deal with it and consistently resort to Ad Hominems, Appeal to Authority, Red Herrings and other devices as their "response".

 

[Deen]

I wouldn't want to be the team that had 1st overall and passed on him if he is who "they" say he is.

 

[TimeZone]

Everyone is too argumental here. Just because he's not Matthews doesn't mean he's not a solid prospect. His acceleration/straight line speed was definitely a tad underwhelming though from everything I read (McDavid, Bure level). He's an elite skater, but things definitely not to the extent some people in this thread would make it out to believe.

 

[Kevin Musto]

Looking at 1st overall picks since 2010, Hughes is at least better than Nuge, Yakupov, Ekblad, and Hischier. He doesn't need to be McDavid to be a solid 1st overall pick.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Wow this thread is so petty. This is the game of hockey. If each possession in hockey is roughly 10 seconds over a 60 minute game, then how many possessions are there per game? A lot. And how many result in goals? Maybe 5, maybe 6, in a super exciting game maybe 7-8. That means hundreds of possessions end up what, end up failing. A great player is probably one who can score one in every 50 times he touches the puck.

But yes, here we have videos. Individual instances where Hughes fails to score. I'm so impressed I think we should reevaluate whether Hughes should be drafted at all

I'm convinced he is doing it for attention at this point. No one ever agrees with him yet he continues to post his 'opinion.' Either that or he's doing it so he can say so if Kakko ends up being superior.

And if you think this is bad you should see his reddit. Literally just anti-Hughes propaganda and he gets lit up for every post lol.

You see some pretty delirious posters on this site but I think Blade takes the cake.

You've both completely misread the entire critique, or you've both chosen simply to be ignorant of the points I have presented.

This is not a matter of Jack Hughes not scoring at even strength -- this is a matter of Jack Hughes not creating any offensive pressure or being dangerous at all at even strength. This is only the U20 level, where he should be providing some offensive pressure at even strength. If he is already only a powerplay specialist at this level, there is a problem. In addition that, there are examples where he has time to make a smart decision with the puck and instead he chooses to make a less intelligent, dangerous play.

These are various examples of mediocre to poor decisions made by Jack Hughes over the course of just three games with the puck on his stick. There are many other shifts where he does not touch the puck or has minimal contact, but they do not illustrate these particular issues.

This is not nitpicking. These are prime examples that speak to Jack's level of intuition on the ice. He does not have high-level intuition, or else he would be recognizing the smarter plays available to him. He makes many errors with the puck with the choices that he makes. That is hockey IQ. He doesn't out-think his opponent; at lower levels, he simply out-skills them.

At the NHL level, hockey IQ is what separates the special talents from the mediocre players. Hockey IQ determines a player's ceiling.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Everyone is too argumental here. Just because he's not Matthews doesn't mean he's not a solid prospect. His acceleration/straight line speed was definitely a tad underwhelming though from everything I read (McDavid, Bure level). He's an elite skater, but things definitely not to the extent some people in this thread would make it out to believe.

From a skating perspective, he's not too different from Nikolaj Ehlers, in my opinion.







Similarly, Ehlers was compared to Patrick Kane by some scouting services prior to the 2014 NHL Draft.

I actually think there's more in common between Ehlers and Hughes than either of them and Kane.

 

[FinPanda]

Why does Blake have such a big problem with Hughes? You take those videos and do them about most 1st round prospects and you have a lot more material. Everyone makes mistakes. Hughes is still the best prospect for this draft.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Hughes is still the best prospect for this draft.

I don't think he is at all.

 

[FinPanda]

I don't think he is at all.

Yes, we all know that you think he is not.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Yes, we all know that you think he is not.

I am merely offering insight into this player's tendencies and decision-making abilities on the ice. There are many aspects of his game that warrant criticism and that factor heavily into the degree of success that he may achieve at the NHL level.

He is a player to be very cautious about, yet some choose to overlook many critical issues with his game.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I am merely offering insight into this player's tendencies and decision-making abilities on the ice. There are many aspects of his game that warrant criticism and that factor heavily into the degree of success that he may achieve at the NHL level.

He is a player to be very cautious about, yet some choose to overlook many critical issues with his game.

You say all of this and yet he's still #2 on your draft board? Something doesn't add up.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

You say all of this and yet he's still #2 on your draft board? Something doesn't add up.

He's tentatively at #2 right now, as I feel that others, beginning with Dylan Cozens, do not possess the same stick handling skill of the top group of players.

HF member @Pavel Buchnevich has Alex Turcotte ranked ahead of Hughes on his list -- very bold, but understandable. I think, if Turcotte hadn't missed time, it would be easier to assess where he stands relative to Hughes. His two-way game and forechecking abilities are much greater than those of Jack. He is in my tier of top-level puck handlers.

Vasili Podkolzin is another two-way player with top-level puck-handling abilities. However, while I feel that he has the potential to be a great goal scorer, he hasn't produced in the first half. He did not produced in the VHL, the MHL, or at the U20 World Juniors. We only saw glimpses of his goal-scoring capabilities early in the season and at the Hlinka-Gretzky Cup.

Those two players have obvious potential to become better players than Hughes at the NHL level, but as of now I would select Hughes ahead of them. I put asterisks next to their names right now because they are still too unproven.

I still think Jack Hughes can be a 50-to-60 point player at his best, although he is a very risky, one-dimensional player.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

For those who might find it difficult to check every single streamable on the last page, I've compiled all of the examples into a concise 7-minute video:

 

[ijuka]

You say all of this and yet he's still #2 on your draft board? Something doesn't add up.

He's arguing for Hughes to be #2 not #1. Are you even reading his posts?

Everyone is too argumental here. Just because he's not Matthews doesn't mean he's not a solid prospect. His acceleration/straight line speed was definitely a tad underwhelming though from everything I read (McDavid, Bure level). He's an elite skater, but things definitely not to the extent some people in this thread would make it out to believe.

I agree with this also. He's not a McDavid in terms of skating, that's for sure. I'm not sure if he's even a faster skater than Aaltonen.

 

[kabidjan18]

You've both completely misread the entire critique, or you've both chosen simply to be ignorant of the points I have presented.

This is not a matter of Jack Hughes not scoring at even strength -- this is a matter of Jack Hughes not creating any offensive pressure or being dangerous at all at even strength. This is only the U20 level, where he should be providing some offensive pressure at even strength. If he is already only a powerplay specialist at this level, there is a problem. In addition that, there are examples where he has time to make a smart decision with the puck and instead he chooses to make a less intelligent, dangerous play.

These are various examples of mediocre to poor decisions made by Jack Hughes over the course of just three games with the puck on his stick. There are many other shifts where he does not touch the puck or has minimal contact, but they do not illustrate these particular issues.

This is not nitpicking. These are prime examples that speak to Jack's level of intuition on the ice. He does not have high-level intuition, or else he would be recognizing the smarter plays available to him. He makes many errors with the puck with the choices that he makes. That is hockey IQ. He doesn't out-think his opponent; at lower levels, he simply out-skills them.

At the NHL level, hockey IQ is what separates the special talents from the mediocre players. Hockey IQ determines a player's ceiling.

No. You don't recognize my argument.

Which player makes the smartest move available to them every single time they touch the puck? Which player even makes the smartest possible move even most of the times they touch the puck? There is always a better outlet, a better pass, a better angle to take. There's a better play, a better shot location.

I feel like Jack Hughes is like the first prospect you've ever studied, and you have no idea of what expectations to have. Elite players aren't the ones who always make the smartest move because no one does that. Quite often there isn't a best productive move, given whatever circumstances the puck carrier is in and the defensive coverage. The elite player has the skills to access an effective move maybe 30% of the time, can recognize the smartest move maybe 10% of the time out of the set of quality touches, and has the ability to execute from there maybe 33% of the time. Again, most elite players probably score once in every 50 touches, and that's good because players who aren't elite can get 150, 200 touches and never score. Elite players also generate touches, etc.

Your argument is absolutely pointless because it is equivalent to me scouting baseball, showing an MLB GM, "look here! He strikes out in this video! He grounds out in this video! He flies out in this video! Clearly the kid doesn't have the vision and elite timing to hit a baseball." Despite the fact that the kid is batting .400 and has 30+ homers. The GM will look at me like I'm wasting his time because I am. Every player strikes out, grounds out, and flies out. It's ridiculous to even discuss having such a high batting average to where someone wouldn't be able to compile a long highlight reel of you striking out.

And hockey is even worse. Because of the reasons I've mentioned in both my posts. I like your enthusiasm, but you need to recalibrate your expectations and learn more about the sport.

I know you've heard a lot about the importance of hockey IQ, it's a hot topic in hockey scouting recently, and I think it's th most important aspect of a player's game. When scouts talk about a player with low hockey IQ, this is not what they're referring to.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

He's arguing for Hughes to be #2 not #1. Are you even reading his posts?

I agree with this also. He's not a McDavid in terms of skating, that's for sure. I'm not sure if he's even a faster skater than Aaltonen.

The point is (Mod) he is putting a tremendous amount of energy discrediting Hughes as a prospect.... only to have him #2 on his draft board.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

No. You don't recognize my argument.

Which player makes the smartest move available to them every single time they touch the puck? Which player even makes the smartest possible move even most of the times they touch the puck? There is always a better outlet, a better pass, a better angle to take. There's a better play, a better shot location.

I feel like Jack Hughes is like the first prospect you've ever studied, and you have no idea of what expectations to have. Elite players aren't the ones who always make the smartest move because no one does that. Quite often there isn't a best productive move, given whatever circumstances the puck carrier is in and the defensive coverage. The elite player has the skills to access an effective move maybe 30% of the time, can recognize the smartest move maybe 10% of the time out of the set of quality touches, and has the ability to execute from there maybe 33% of the time. Again, most elite players probably score once in every 50 touches, and that's good because players who aren't elite can get 150, 200 touches and never score. Elite players also generate touches, etc.

Your argument is absolutely pointless because it is equivalent to me scouting baseball, showing an MLB GM, "look here! He strikes out in this video! He grounds out in this video! He flies out in this video! Clearly the kid doesn't have the vision and elite timing to hit a baseball." Despite the fact that the kid is batting .400 and has 30+ homers. The GM will look at me like I'm wasting his time because I am. Every player strikes out, grounds out, and flies out. It's ridiculous to even discuss having such a high batting average to where someone wouldn't be able to compile a long highlight reel of you striking out.

And hockey is even worse. Because of the reasons I've mentioned in both my posts. I like your enthusiasm, but you need to recalibrate your expectations and learn more about the sport.

I know you've heard a lot about the importance of hockey IQ, it's a hot topic in hockey scouting recently, and I think it's th most important aspect of a player's game. When scouts talk about a player with low hockey IQ, this is not what they're referring to.

I've studied players for several years now, so I have a very strong frame of reference with regards to what high-end prospects should look like and what their decision-making skills should be in order to be considered among different categories.

Hughes' ineffectiveness on the forecheck and lack of awareness on the defensive side of the puck are major factors that will affect his ability to succeed in the NHL.

Nico Hischier, the top pick in 2017, had far better anticipation skills and could read plays quickly. Owen Tippett was on the other extreme of that draft class -- a shooter and puck rusher with absolutely no awareness of what to do other than to shoot the puck on net from everywhere and attempt ill-advised passes.

Based on their hockey IQ alone, Hischier was an obvious NHL-ready player, while Tippett would be considered a long-term project with a wonderful shot and speed but a poor grasp on how to be effective on the ice.

Nolan Patrick, in spite of his defensive acumen, was a passive player who deferred too much responsibility to his teammates; he was a player I did not like when I watched him in 2016-2017.

I've studied many junior-aged prospects over the years.

I don't like Jack Hughes' game all that much. Filip Zadina made a lot of the same risky maneuvers last year in Halifax, but he was a better forechecker.

If we were to place Jack in last year's draft class, I think he would be a Top 5 pick, but not a Top 2 pick.

 

[CLW]

The point is (Mod) he is putting a tremendous amount of energy discrediting Hughes as a prospect.... only to have him #2 on his draft board.

Lol. Analysis does not equal discrediting. How is that hard to understand? He is saying that because of certain weaknesses in Hughes' game he does not rank him first overall in this year's draft. You act emotionally as if that is some sort of crime. It's fine to disagree, but it's not ok to attack him personally for his opinion.

 

[MarkovsKnee]

We're close to 1,000. Someone can open a part III.