C Jack Hughes - USNTDP (2019 Draft) Part III

[Pavel Buchnevich]

There is nothing high-risk about drafting Hughes.

Worst case scenario, he's a very skilled winger who puts up huge point totals because he's that much more skilled than everyone else, but can't play defense, plays a perimeter game, turns the puck over a lot in bad areas and has inconsistent effort outside of the offensive zone. Thats still an all-star, and likely a top 2-3 player on any team in the league.

What is the best case scenario? He improves his defensive effort levels, puts on some weight, starts playing a little smarter with the puck and goes more to the dirty areas. At that point, he could stick in the middle of the ice, but its always likely to be as a below-average defensive player whose value comes from the points he scores.

Hughes is about as safe of a prospect as there is in this draft. He has a high hockey IQ, he's incredibly skilled, very good playmaker, scores goals and an excellent skater. That's going to yield a lot of points in the NHL. The issue with projecting Hughes game is whether there's much of a chance he adds value outside of his offense. I don't see much of that in his game right now. I see him as a very high floor player with a little bit of a lower ceiling than some other of the top prospects in this draft due to having almost no variety in what he'll add to an NHL lineup. It'll be a lot of points, and very little else.

I think I have Hughes ranked right around where @Blade Paradigm does, but for different reasons. I don't see any reason to put down Hughes game. He's an excellent hockey player at how he plays the game. I think maybe some people who rank him 1OA are considering a little too much of how his game plays at the junior level, which is not the same style as the NHL, and aren't considering enough about the value he'll bring to the NHL when you also consider the value that others near the top of the draft will bring. The NHL is all about value. Who brings the most to your roster? I think that should be the consideration when picking 1OA.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Don't think I've ever seen an extensive hit piece comprise the OP on an official prospect thread before. This is starting to make the Matthews/Laine stuff look subdued.

 

[Daximus]

Don't think I've ever seen an extensive hit piece comprise the OP on an official prospect thread before. This is starting to make the Matthews/Laine stuff look subdued.

I think it's definitely a lot closer then Matthews/Laine was. But it is odd to see an entire very long first post dedicated to discrediting a player in their own thread.

 

[kroypuck]

Canucks reportedly had Pettersson at 1 or 2, so you're wrong.

As for B-P's so-called obsession with Kakko, it's no worse than those defending Hughes.

No one pays money to watch Kakko's games just so they can take clips from it and make posts degrading him on his own thread..

 

[Red Solo Cup]

we should change this thread to the “blade paradigm” thread. i’m just joking. look, i don’t think blade is off base in terms of what he is criticizing hughes for, but i also think that the way he has aggressively been going about it is the main problem. the fact of the matter is that our opinions here don’t matter, and most people generally don’t want to have their opinions change or be told that they are wrong. i think that a lot of people are just upset about how one sided blades criticisms are. imo @Blade Paradigm, people would be more accepting of your criticisms if you showed them what kakko does better than hughes as opposed to what hughes does worse than kakko. these two thing are not the same. you’re trying to convince people of your opinion, but they way that you come off is the biggest problem because it seems like you’re trying to tear a prospect down as opposed to bring one up. the problem is in the delivery of the critiques. i’m just saying what i think, i hope this thread can get back on track.

 

[kroypuck]

That is my point. "Professional scouts can be wrong, too". Did all those professional scouts lose all their credibility? No? Hence... Well, if you don't get it, I guess there's no point in explaining this further. You shouldn't think in terms of "going against the consensus" or not. You should just evaluate the prospects.

He's making some good points about Hughes, though 50-60 points would probably be too pessimistic - I certainly think he'll be superior to Keller.

You're missing my point. No scout was wrong to have him ranked beyond first because he wasn't dominating the way he did after he got drafted. There were question marks in his game similar to what people say about Hughes, but he worked through them. Not a single person could have predicted how much he would progress the year after his draft.

 

[Mickey Marner]

While I appreciate the time and effort put into the post, the OP is in really poor taste.

Reminds me of Ken Campbell using Teeder Kennedy's obituary to pump the tires of Habs greats.

 

[ookhaab]

No scout was wrong to have him ranked beyond first because he wasn't dominating the way he did after he got drafted.

This is just incorrect, it's not like he jusy came out of nowhere. Elias Pettersson has the all time highest point total by draft year player in allsvenskan, which is a league that just gets underrated year after year.

The reason he wasnt selected 1st overall is because he played in sweden's 2nd tier league and didnt perform well at the WJC. If he played in CHL, he would have been the clear 1st oa.

 

[kroypuck]

This is just incorrect, it's not like he jusy came out of nowhere. Elias Pettersson has the all time highest point total by draft year player in allsvenskan, which is a league that just gets underrated year after year.

The reason he wasnt selected 1st overall is because he played in sweden's 2nd tier league and didnt perform well at the WJC. If he played in CHL, he would have been the clear 1st oa.

Obviously he didn't come out of nowhere, he was picked 5th and everyone knew he was highly skilled.

But no one knew he would destroy the SHL and make advancements as a player the way he did the following year. No one.

 

[ookhaab]

Obviously he didn't come out of nowhere, he was picked 5th and everyone knew he was highly skilled.

But no one knew he would destroy the SHL and make advancements as a player the way he did the following year. No one.

My whole point is he should have been drafted 1st overall after his amazing allsvenskan season, but due to the league he played in, this was not the case.

 

[Ibumax]

Why? If he's wrong, he's just wrong.

At least he's [providing some video evidence to back his tsance up, unlike those Hughes-backers who just complain because he has a different opinion to them.

He has researched these players extensively and offered his personal views and opinions based on his hockey knowledge. Depending on how wrong he would be, i would not care what he has to say about another hockey player ever again.

 

[Panthaz89]

That is my point. "Professional scouts can be wrong, too". Did all those professional scouts lose all their credibility? No? Hence... Well, if you don't get it, I guess there's no point in explaining this further. You shouldn't think in terms of "going against the consensus" or not. You should just evaluate the prospects.

He's making some good points about Hughes, though 50-60 points would probably be too pessimistic - I certainly think he'll be superior to Keller.

I mean if Pettersson keeps getting injured because his frame is small which was his biggest concern then the scouts were right as the players above him outside of Patrick(also injury concerns and isn't that good) and Makar(hasn't played yet) are likely going to be more valuable considering they aren't injury prone because they have size to work with.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Its absolutely ridiculous that the first post in this thread is a novel from that troll. It's such an awful look on what should be a fun thread to continue reading and follow down the stretch.

 

[93LEAFS]

This is just incorrect, it's not like he jusy came out of nowhere. Elias Pettersson has the all time highest point total by draft year player in allsvenskan, which is a league that just gets underrated year after year.

The reason he wasnt selected 1st overall is because he played in sweden's 2nd tier league and didnt perform well at the WJC. If he played in CHL, he would have been the clear 1st oa.

His point total's for an 18-year-old were also below Patrick Berglund though (since Pettersson is a late birthday). Granted, by all accounts the Allsvenskan was much weaker at that point in time. William Karlsson also had a great 18-year-old year, and at that point, he was a player the Blue Jackets were willing to give up in an expansion. As for the CHL stuff, given what we've learned in the past 2 years, we should have expected him to kill the CHL, but that wasn't known knowledge at the time. But, it should be kept in mind, Pettersson only really exploded as a prospect as an 18-year-old, due to that, people will be skeptics due to him being among the older player in the draft, and his only prior claim to being an elite prospect was a strong U-18 tournament to end the 2015/16 season.

People are always going to mess up projecting 17 and 18-year-olds. In hindsight, most people look foolish on Pettersson. I mean, I had him at 5th overall (which was pretty high by these boards standards and most services), and even that looks bad 18 months later.

I will say though, beating up Hughes to this extent to prove that Kakko is better will definitely be remembered by other posters. I remember similar posters always clinging on the #2 guy is the best. Sometimes you are right with Hischier over Patrick, but you can also be wrong like Laine over Matthews or Eichel over McDavid (yes, there were people who thought this and defended it heavily). I think Kakko/Hughes is closer than Matthews/Laine and McDavid/Eichel, so I don't fault people preferring Kakko. Although, I do think it is unfair how Hughes play is getting completely torn down like this using a small example of plays rather than looking at the big picture.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

There is nothing high-risk about drafting Hughes.

Worst case scenario, he's a very skilled winger who puts up huge point totals because he's that much more skilled than everyone else, but can't play defense, plays a perimeter game, turns the puck over a lot in bad areas and has inconsistent effort outside of the offensive zone. Thats still an all-star, and likely a top 2-3 player on any team in the league.

What is the best case scenario? He improves his defensive effort levels, puts on some weight, starts playing a little smarter with the puck and goes more to the dirty areas. At that point, he could stick in the middle of the ice, but its always likely to be as a below-average defensive player whose value comes from the points he scores.

Hughes is about as safe of a prospect as there is in this draft. He has a high hockey IQ, he's incredibly skilled, very good playmaker, scores goals and an excellent skater. That's going to yield a lot of points in the NHL. The issue with projecting Hughes game is whether there's much of a chance he adds value outside of his offense. I don't see much of that in his game right now. I see him as a very high floor player with a little bit of a lower ceiling than some other of the top prospects in this draft due to having almost no variety in what he'll add to an NHL lineup. It'll be a lot of points, and very little else.

I think I have Hughes ranked right around where @Blade Paradigm does, but for different reasons. I don't see any reason to put down Hughes game. He's an excellent hockey player at how he plays the game. I think maybe some people who rank him 1OA are considering a little too much of how his game plays at the junior level, which is not the same style as the NHL, and aren't considering enough about the value he'll bring to the NHL when you also consider the value that others near the top of the draft will bring. The NHL is all about value. Who brings the most to your roster? I think that should be the consideration when picking 1OA.

You vastly overestimate Hughes' potential, with all due respect.

The worst-case scenario is a player who flounders in the NHL a la Nail Yakupov. The best-case scenario, I think, is an approximately 60-point stat line with a significantly greater emphasis on assists than goals -- a player in the Hischier, Ehlers, Keller tier in terms of offense.

Hockey IQ is about knowing what to do and recognizing it intuitively. A player who figures things out quickly, anticipates well, and reads plays well enough to control the pace at even strength is a high-end thinker.

Scouts sometimes are too lenient in their interpretation of hockey IQ, which can causes problems.

Nail Yakupov was described as a "high-IQ" player in his draft year scouting reports.

2012 Final TSN Draft Ranking: 1-10

1. Nail Yakupov

TSN Scout Craig Button: Nail is arguably the best skater in the 2012 draft. It's a blend of speed, power, quickness and agility that threatens and creates opportunities in the blink of an eye. He goes as fast as is necessary; seemingly just far enough ahead that creates desperation in opponents. His mind quickness and IQ is another weapon in his arsenal and he quickly sizes up opportunities for exploitation. He can play at high speed and his hands keep up and with an accurate shot which creates challenges for goaltenders. Excellent sense and can make plays that make him very challenging to keep in check. He competes and is not a one dimensional player and is not averse to initiating physical play. He found ways to be productive for his team despite being closely checked this past season and without his talented team mate Alex Galchenyuk. A blend of skill and desire with a star quality that should make him exciting to watch in the years ahead.

Hockey's Future - Nail Yakupov

Talent Analysis

Yakupov is a pure goal-scorer with great hands, quick feet, and great natural hockey sense. Prior to his NHL debut here was concern about Yakupov’s ability as a playmaker and being more of a pure finisher than someone who involves his linemates, but he proved to be a solid team player who adjusted well to the NHL atmosphere. Although not overly big at 5'11 and sometimes prone to injury, Yakupov showed no signs of struggle in his big league debut.

https://thehockeywriters.com/final-top-60-nhl-prospect-rankings-for-2012-draft/

1. Nail Yakupov – Forward – Sarnia Sting – OHL

Yakupov is (and has been) the clear cut number 1 all season for me. He has game-breaking potential, great puck skills, physicality, speed, vision, the list just goes on and on. The Sting fell early in the playoffs and Yakupov sustaining an injury before season’s end certainly didn’t help. But it is hard to argue that anyone is better than Nail in this draft.

Nail, too, was very gifted:

Five OHL Players to Watch: NHL Entry Draft – Ontario Hockey League

Nail Yakupov – Sarnia Sting – 5’10.5’’ 189 RW – Ranked 1st by NHL Central Scouting

Yakupov scored 31 goals and 38 assists for 69 points in just 42 games after claiming OHL and CHL Rookie of the Year honours with a 101-point season a year ago breaking Steven Stamkos’ rookie records with the Sting set back in 2006. The Russian native also competed in the World Junior Championship earning a silver medal for his country.

Sting Head GM and Head Coach Jacques Beaulieu says: “Nail is one of the most offensively skilled players I have ever coached. He is a game breaker who will bring the crowd out of their seat at any given time.”

Yakupov could follow in the footsteps of Stamkos who was selected first overall in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft and would become the sixth straight CHL player chosen first overall.

A summary of the reports by Copper and Blue:

NHL Draft 2012: Edmonton Oilers Select Nail Yakupov With No. 1 Pick

Yakupov is known as a great skater, and was noted by TSN's Craig Button as the best in the 2012 draft. He's also been noted to have a high hockey IQ and is a solid playmaker. Some wonder if he has a reckless style that could make him injury prone throughout his career, but there's no question that Yakupov has the potential -- as much as anyone in this year's draft class -- to become a star in the NHL.

These Kane comparisons for Hughes remind me of when Yakupov was being compared to Bure and Mogilny.

Top NHL draft prospect Nail Yakupov reminds legendary coach Scotty Bowman of Pavel Bure

Top NHL draft prospect Nail Yakupov reminds legendary coach Scotty Bowman of Pavel Bure
Jonathan Willis, Edmonton Journal
Updated: May 16, 2012

When a prominent NHL coach talks about a draft prospect, it pays to listen. Last year it was Ken Hitchcock saying that he thought Ryan Nugent-Hopkins looked a lot like Pavel Datsyuk. This year, it’s presumptive first overall pick Nail Yakupov getting high praise from legendary NHL coach Scotty Bowman.

Bowman made the comment to Penguins beat reporter Josh Yohe of the Tribune-Review back in January. Yohe brought it up this weekend in suggesting Yakupov as the potential centerpiece of a deal for Pens’ center Jordan Staal. Our own David Staples has previously commented on that possibility.

Bowman isn’t alone in thinking that Yakupov has similarities to Bure. Chris Edwards of NHL Central Scouting made the same comparison in an article on NHL.com:

His first step and ability to control bouncing pucks, knock them down and make a play are the best of any of the guys in the draft. He really gets up to top speed very quickly and his hands are outstanding. Like Pavel Bure, Yakupov is dangerous every shift. He may not have been dominant on every shift like Bure was, but he created something every shift . . . you have to be aware where he is on the ice all the time.

...​

Yakupov doesn't have high hockey IQ, and he doesn't play like Bure.

That was a great misreading of the dynamic forward's tendencies and intuition by the majority.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Seems pretty flimsy to use Craig Button commentary on Yakupov as the basis for your critique of Hughes, a completely different kind of player.

 

[93LEAFS]

Seems pretty flimsy to use Craig Button commentary on Yakupov as the basis for your critique of Hughes, a completely different kind of player.

This exact argument could be used to dismiss any player that these same sources said had High-IQ. So, I guess if Button says Kakko has high-IQ it is equally worthless.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Seems pretty flimsy to use Craig Button commentary on Yakupov as the basis for your critique of Hughes, a completely different kind of player.

Did you disregard all of the observational analysis on Page 1?

Post #40 is an analogous example of the overestimation of a skilled, dynamic player's hockey IQ, which I believe is what is happening with this prospect as well.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Did you disregard all of the observational analysis on Page 1?

Post #40 is an analogous example of the overestimation of a skilled, dynamic player's hockey IQ, which I believe is what is happening with this prospect as well.

I don’t know you or your credentials. I don’t buy your analogy and believe your analysis is flawed.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

This exact argument could be used to dismiss any player that these same sources said had High-IQ. So, I guess if Button says Kakko has high-IQ it is equally worthless.

I think Button's analysis of hockey IQ in that instance deserves to be questioned, with all due respect to his background and experience. Either he was looking at the wrong things and has changed his view, or he continues to look for the same unhelpful aspects.

I think some see a player who, at lower levels, can skate freely in open space and handle the puck well, and assume that he is intrinsically more advanced than his peers at reading plays. A high skill level can disguise hockey IQ issues at lower levels. I think his skill set bodes well for hockey at lower levels but becomes less of a distinguishing factor at higher levels.

His interpretation of Nolan Patrick's passive style of game as an effective "economy of effort" also makes me wonder about what he values in a player. Clearly, Patrick's lack of dominance with the puck on his stick was a concern, and he has not been able to break through offensively for the Philadelphia Flyers.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think Button's analysis of hockey IQ in that instance deserves to be questioned, with all due respect to his background and experience. Either he was looking at the wrong things and has changed his view, or he continues to look for the same unhelpful aspects.

His interpretation of Nolan Patrick's passive style of game as an effective "economy of effort" also makes me wonder about what he values in a player. Clearly, Patrick's lack of dominance with the puck on his stick was a concern, and he has not been able to break through offensively for the Philadelphia Flyers.

Then it needs to be questioned in all instances. If you want to discredit Button fine, but it also means you can't really use his analysis on anyone else because you've decided he isn't worth trusting.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

Then it needs to be questioned in all instances. If you want to discredit Button fine, but it also means you can't really use his analysis on anyone else because you've decided he isn't worth trusting.

I don't think I have.

From what I can recall, you aren't a fan of his rankings either.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I don't think I have.

From what I can recall, you aren't a fan of his rankings either.

So I guess you aren't a fan of any scouting service that has Hughes first-right? You still haven't addressed why you have such a loathing for Hughes as a prospect (ceiling is a flawed 50/60 point one dimensional scorer) and yet have him #2 in your ranking.

 

[93LEAFS]

I don't think I have.

From what I can recall, you aren't a fan of his rankings either.

I don't think he's perfect, but I think the form of argument you are using could be used to discredit anyone's scouting ability or prior history. No one is perfect projecting 17 and 18-year-olds. I could do this to any published source. I don't think because he made a mistake on Yakupov, he is making the same mistake with Hughes. 99% of the industry got it wrong on Yakupov. I mean, the only published source I pay attention to that didn't have him one was HockeyProspect.com, who still had him 2nd.

 

[Blade Paradigm]

So I guess you aren't a fan of any scouting service that has Hughes first-right? You still haven't addressed why you have such a loathing for Hughes as a prospect (ceiling is a flawed 50/60 point one dimensional scorer) and yet have him #2 in your ranking.

I currently have him in the second tier alongside Podkolzin and Turcotte. Neither of those two have played much at all this season in their respective leagues, so I can not place them above him yet. There are things I like about their games more than his -- their two-way games, for example. I think they have exhibited higher intelligence than Hughes and their puck skills are also very good.

The only thing going against Dylan Cozens is his clunkiness with the puck, or else he would be ahead of Hughes. He is a safer pick, and he is a far more certain centerman than Hughes.

I want to scrutinize more of their Turcotte's footage from this season to see if his game has made any significant progress. Podkolzin has the potential to usurp Hughes as well due to his two-way awareness and complete skill set, but I want to analyze a slightly larger body of work from him before making my assessment.

Jack Hughes is tentatively above a few others who I have yet to gauge relative to him. There are also a few recent risers who I want to study closely.

I don't "loathe" Hughes. I think he's a high-risk player and have assessed his play as such.