I think the terms "elite potential" and "BPA" are very subjective and we probably don't give enough credit to the differences in how we perceive those terms, even subconsciously. When people describe elite, I find they are often talking about a skill set. Particularly skills that look flashier when they work --- stick-handling, shooting, skating, etc. But I don't know if there's quite as much thought given to transferable skills and how said player can apply them against the best competition in the world. It's one thing to dangle around a teenage defenseman who will be wearing a suit and tie to work in a half dozen years. It's another to do it against the best hockey players in the world. We also tend to ignore percentages and odds when we talk about "homerun" swings. Yes, a homerun brings everyone to their feet. But how does the batting average look? Is hitting .240 with 40 homeruns worth more than hitting .260 with 35? How about .275 with 30? That's what scouts ask themselves. They're looking at things on a sliding scale. But homerun picks are also like those guys who are late bloomers and put things together after one or two teams move on. Everyone wants to find those guys --- and fans are particularly drawn to them because of the unique feeling of "discovering" someone before anyone else. It's the same with bands, or hobbies, or other aspects of our lives. We all want to be one of the ones who was ahead of the curve. But the reality is that for every guy you find like that, you probably also liked 10 guys who didn't make it. But no one comes on here touting their greatest misses --- why would we? Right now, I think people are "hearing" things from people who like particular prospects and depending on their moods, that might sound more appealing at a given time. The interest in prospects on here fluctuates more than any other domain --- online or in the hockey world. But I don't know if we fully understand that. I'm not sure there is a clear "elite" talent out there beyond the top two or three. There are guys who have the potential to reach those levels, but I'm not sure the gaps are as wide as some think. I think each guy has his own strengths and weaknesses. Some guys might have more goal scoring upside, but does that make them better prospects? How do we value ceiling versus floor? How we value upside versus risk? These are the many details that lead to variations in what we can perceive to be the BPA, or the prospect with the highest upside. But I think those details are important when looking at a player. For example, Kotkaniemi and Tkachuk have a relatively high floors --- maybe two of the highest in the draft outside of Dahlin. But what if one isn't quite as sold on the ceiling? How does one weigh floor and ceiling against each other? How does one weigh that against guys like Boqvist or Wahlstrom? For each of us, it's likely to be different. I say that mainly because we use terms like "reach" or "safe" and I don't think those are completely accurate in most cases. It's very rare for teams not to take the best player available, even when the pick fits a need. However, we have to consider that the formula they used to determine BPA is different from ours. Just because a team selects a player that others didn't think was the BPA, doesn't mean the team feels the same way. Additionally, you'd be surprised how many times a team has several guys scored the same. It's not uncommon for a team to have 3 guys who score the same for them. Obviously you can't go up there and select all 3 with a single pick, so you have to put them into some order. That's where a team might look at depth, they might look at position value, they might opt for a different attributes depending on the year, they might look at handedness, they might look to trade down feeling that there is no discernible difference for them and pick up an additional asset. In many ways, the entire process isn't all that different than what takes place (or used to) in politics or on a popular TV show --- the people on the outside take it way more personal than the people on the inside.