|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 10, 2019 19:06:40 GMT -5
JT Miller and Dylan Larkin may get bolded in the future , but right now I have them as maybes … 36 drafts 7 Players - 2 of those players averaged under 0.5 points per game 2 maybes If you go from 1981 to 2015 , 17 players played less than 100 games, 21 played less than 200 games, and 25 played less than 300 games. Pulock is a very good player. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 10, 2019 19:11:02 GMT -5
Too many similar acronyms. The US national development U18 teams plays in the USHL, which is the top junior league in the US. Junior A level. Teams USA has all those 17-18 year olds that are draft eligible. Then players after being drafted play on a regular USHL team or a few go directly to college or turn pro for guys like Hughes. Agreed. It's easy to worry about so many differing draft boards, but there seems to be buzz about a lot of kids in that second ten. It will be interesting to see down the road if this draft is as deep as 2003. That second tier of ten or more guys is really interesting. If teams get the player projections right, there will be some good value in that batch. I expect lots of variation on draft boards, so I think someone will drop that TT has valued higher on his board. I am guessing that a lot of teams might feel the same way too right after the draft. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 10, 2019 19:48:12 GMT -5
Agreed. It's easy to worry about so many differing draft boards, but there seems to be buzz about a lot of kids in that second ten. It will be interesting to see down the road if this draft is as deep as 2003. That second tier of ten or more guys is really interesting. If teams get the player projections right, there will be some good value in that batch. I expect lots of variation on draft boards, so I think someone will drop that TT has valued higher on his board. I am guessing that a lot of teams might feel the same way too right after the draft. That actually worries me. I don't like the idea that someone they didn't have on their radar drops when they didn't do their homework on him, and maybe he had some red flags that weren't immediately apparent. I'm scarred by Jason Ward and Matt Higgins, both of whom were expected to be gone before we picked, and who were disappointments as pros. I know both had injury issues, but neither ever showed any promise of being worth being picked in the 1st round. I'd really rather they reach for a guy (Kotkaniemi, Romanov) who isn't expected to go there, if they really like him. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 11, 2019 9:36:09 GMT -5
That second tier of ten or more guys is really interesting. If teams get the player projections right, there will be some good value in that batch. I expect lots of variation on draft boards, so I think someone will drop that TT has valued higher on his board. I am guessing that a lot of teams might feel the same way too right after the draft. That actually worries me. I don't like the idea that someone they didn't have on their radar drops when they didn't do their homework on him, and maybe he had some red flags that weren't immediately apparent. I'm scarred by Jason Ward and Matt Higgins, both of whom were expected to be gone before we picked, and who were disappointments as pros. I know both had injury issues, but neither ever showed any promise of being worth being picked in the 1st round. I'd really rather they reach for a guy (Kotkaniemi, Romanov) who isn't expected to go there, if they really like him. Your point in bang on. I don't want us trying to catch a falling knife either. There are often kids that rise and fall in draft rankings for very good reasons. I guess I should explain a little better, my use of the word "drop" above. I will take the 2018 first round as an example. On most conventional draft guides and the major sports network draft lists, a lot saw Noah Dobson as a very legitimate pick around the #5-6 spot and potentially the second or third best defender in the draft after Dahlin (and perhaps Hughes). When the Habs and Arizona opted for centres (KK and Hayton) a bit ahead of where most lists had them, and then CHI went with Boqvist at #8 and the Oilers with Bouchard at #10, then the Isles had a great value gift of Dobson at #12 (after a decent value gift of Wahlstrom at #11). I still think Dobson is more well rounded than the three other D who went between him and Dahlin, so there is nothing wrong with his play per se, just that teams valued something about another player a bit more, so Dobson "dropped" or "fell" a bit. The same is likely to happen in the middle bunch of 10 or so picks this first round. A lot of players in a very, very tight tier. It will be one team's preference that will determine which of likely many choices they will make with their picks from about pick #10 onwards. The U18s start in a week. A lot of players in this tight bunch will all be playing in the same best-on-best event. This may actually separate the herd a bit by having a few guys show something that either sets them apart or a bit behind their peers. Draft rankings should not change drastically from one event, but it can make the little difference between several players that a team values as pretty similar worth come drafting time. In the end, good amateur scouts are projecting what a player can become, based on a bunch of on-ice and off-ice attributes. But scouts also like to see players stepping their game up in big events too, even if it is just one of the rating criteria. Sorry if I rambled a bit on this. Always find drafting a fun topic to discuss and share views. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 11, 2019 9:45:59 GMT -5
That actually worries me. I don't like the idea that someone they didn't have on their radar drops when they didn't do their homework on him, and maybe he had some red flags that weren't immediately apparent. I'm scarred by Jason Ward and Matt Higgins, both of whom were expected to be gone before we picked, and who were disappointments as pros. I know both had injury issues, but neither ever showed any promise of being worth being picked in the 1st round. I'd really rather they reach for a guy (Kotkaniemi, Romanov) who isn't expected to go there, if they really like him. Your point in bang on. I don't want us trying to catch a falling knife either. There are often kids that rise and fall in draft rankings for very good reasons. I guess I should explain a little better, my use of the word "drop" above. I will take the 2018 first round as an example. On most conventional draft guides and the major sports network draft lists, a lot saw Noah Dobson as a very legitimate pick around the #5-6 spot and potentially the second or third best defender in the draft after Dahlin (and perhaps Hughes). When the Habs and Arizona opted for centres (KK and Hayton) a bit ahead of where most lists had them, and then CHI went with Boqvist at #8 and the Oilers with Bouchard at #10, then the Isles had a great value gift of Dobson at #12 (after a decent value gift of Wahlstrom at #11). I still think Dobson is more well rounded than the three other D who went between him and Dahlin, so there is nothing wrong with his play per se, just that teams valued something about another player a bit more, so Dobson "dropped" or "fell" a bit. The same is likely to happen in the middle bunch of 10 or so picks this first round. A lot of players in a very, very tight tier. It will be one team's preference that will determine which of likely many choices they will make with their picks from about pick #10 onwards. The U18s start in a week. A lot of players in this tight bunch will all be playing in the same best-on-best event. This may actually separate the herd a bit by having a few guys show something that either sets them apart or a bit behind their peers. Draft rankings should not change drastically from one event, but it can make the little difference between several players that a team values as pretty similar worth come drafting time. In the end, good amateur scouts are projecting what a player can become, based on a bunch of on-ice and off-ice attributes. But scouts also like to see players stepping their game up in big events too, even if it is just one of the rating criteria. Sorry if I rambled a bit on this. Always find drafting a fun topic to discuss and share views. No rambling here. Been thinking about Ryan Suzuki. He's currently slotted in the low 20s, but everything you read raves about his skill. He had 75 points on a bad Barrie team. He was on the Hlinka team that won gold, and is slated to be part of the U18 roster. If he has a strong tournament, he could slide up into the conversation of our pick. Faster than Nick, and more of a play maker. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 11, 2019 10:05:46 GMT -5
Your point in bang on. I don't want us trying to catch a falling knife either. There are often kids that rise and fall in draft rankings for very good reasons. I guess I should explain a little better, my use of the word "drop" above. I will take the 2018 first round as an example. On most conventional draft guides and the major sports network draft lists, a lot saw Noah Dobson as a very legitimate pick around the #5-6 spot and potentially the second or third best defender in the draft after Dahlin (and perhaps Hughes). When the Habs and Arizona opted for centres (KK and Hayton) a bit ahead of where most lists had them, and then CHI went with Boqvist at #8 and the Oilers with Bouchard at #10, then the Isles had a great value gift of Dobson at #12 (after a decent value gift of Wahlstrom at #11). I still think Dobson is more well rounded than the three other D who went between him and Dahlin, so there is nothing wrong with his play per se, just that teams valued something about another player a bit more, so Dobson "dropped" or "fell" a bit. The same is likely to happen in the middle bunch of 10 or so picks this first round. A lot of players in a very, very tight tier. It will be one team's preference that will determine which of likely many choices they will make with their picks from about pick #10 onwards. The U18s start in a week. A lot of players in this tight bunch will all be playing in the same best-on-best event. This may actually separate the herd a bit by having a few guys show something that either sets them apart or a bit behind their peers. Draft rankings should not change drastically from one event, but it can make the little difference between several players that a team values as pretty similar worth come drafting time. In the end, good amateur scouts are projecting what a player can become, based on a bunch of on-ice and off-ice attributes. But scouts also like to see players stepping their game up in big events too, even if it is just one of the rating criteria. Sorry if I rambled a bit on this. Always find drafting a fun topic to discuss and share views. No rambling here. Been thinking about Ryan Suzuki. He's currently slotted in the low 20s, but everything you read raves about his skill. He had 75 points on a bad Barrie team. He was on the Hlinka team that won gold, and is slated to be part of the U18 roster. If he has a strong tournament, he could slide up into the conversation of our pick. Faster than Nick, and more of a play maker. I saw him at the Hlinka (I watched three games live, and one more on TV). He has size that his brother does not and skill, but he is still considered too much of a perimeter player to be in the discussions above where folks are slotting him right now. A solid U18s could change that for sure. If scouts see a willingness to engage a bit more, he could move up by June. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 11, 2019 11:55:31 GMT -5
No rambling here. Been thinking about Ryan Suzuki. He's currently slotted in the low 20s, but everything you read raves about his skill. He had 75 points on a bad Barrie team. He was on the Hlinka team that won gold, and is slated to be part of the U18 roster. If he has a strong tournament, he could slide up into the conversation of our pick. Faster than Nick, and more of a play maker. I saw him at the Hlinka (I watched three games live, and one more on TV). He has size that his brother does not and skill, but he is still considered too much of a perimeter player to be in the discussions above where folks are slotting him right now. A solid U18s could change that for sure. If scouts see a willingness to engage a bit more, he could move up by June.  Thanks for the insight. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Apr 11, 2019 14:12:19 GMT -5
JT Miller and Dylan Larkin may get bolded in the future , but right now I have them as maybes … 36 drafts 7 Players - 2 of those players averaged under 0.5 points per game 2 maybes If you go from 1981 to 2015 , 17 players played less than 100 games, 21 played less than 200 games, and 25 played less than 300 games. You could expand that analysis to look at players that were picked in picks subsequent to #15, as the team picking at #15 could have elected to choose any of those players instead. I'd imagine there were quite a few great options over the years in picks 16-30 (e.g. Barzal, Connor, Chabot in 2015 come to mind). |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 11, 2019 15:31:53 GMT -5
That actually worries me. I don't like the idea that someone they didn't have on their radar drops when they didn't do their homework on him, and maybe he had some red flags that weren't immediately apparent. I'm scarred by Jason Ward and Matt Higgins, both of whom were expected to be gone before we picked, and who were disappointments as pros. I know both had injury issues, but neither ever showed any promise of being worth being picked in the 1st round. I'd really rather they reach for a guy (Kotkaniemi, Romanov) who isn't expected to go there, if they really like him. Your point in bang on. I don't want us trying to catch a falling knife either. There are often kids that rise and fall in draft rankings for very good reasons. I guess I should explain a little better, my use of the word "drop" above. I will take the 2018 first round as an example. On most conventional draft guides and the major sports network draft lists, a lot saw Noah Dobson as a very legitimate pick around the #5-6 spot and potentially the second or third best defender in the draft after Dahlin (and perhaps Hughes). When the Habs and Arizona opted for centres (KK and Hayton) a bit ahead of where most lists had them, and then CHI went with Boqvist at #8 and the Oilers with Bouchard at #10, then the Isles had a great value gift of Dobson at #12 (after a decent value gift of Wahlstrom at #11). I still think Dobson is more well rounded than the three other D who went between him and Dahlin, so there is nothing wrong with his play per se, just that teams valued something about another player a bit more, so Dobson "dropped" or "fell" a bit. The same is likely to happen in the middle bunch of 10 or so picks this first round. A lot of players in a very, very tight tier. It will be one team's preference that will determine which of likely many choices they will make with their picks from about pick #10 onwards. The U18s start in a week. A lot of players in this tight bunch will all be playing in the same best-on-best event. This may actually separate the herd a bit by having a few guys show something that either sets them apart or a bit behind their peers. Draft rankings should not change drastically from one event, but it can make the little difference between several players that a team values as pretty similar worth come drafting time. In the end, good amateur scouts are projecting what a player can become, based on a bunch of on-ice and off-ice attributes. But scouts also like to see players stepping their game up in big events too, even if it is just one of the rating criteria. Sorry if I rambled a bit on this. Always find drafting a fun topic to discuss and share views. Great stuff NWT. This is like sitting around a table, drinking beer (or scotch) and debating various aspects of hockey. Love it. One thing about the U18's. I'm not sure if that was a key point, but Kotkaniemi's stock rose quite a bit in that tournament and deservedly so. Not only did his team win, but he played a substantial role in that victory. His PP goal and great assist on tne winning goal in the final showed that he not only was an adequate skater, but that his smarts and skills were top shelf against the best of his peers. We have no way of knowing how high he rose because of that showing, but some services had him around #10 and then he rose to 3. He would not have lasted beyond 5 for sure with Arizona picking there. I wondered about Detroit picking at the 6 spot and taking Zadina. Not because he was a bad pick there, but I thought for sure they'd snap up Quinn Hughes. Obviously I had a higher opinion of him than the Wing scouts. Pretty good debut by Hughes with the Nucks in the last few games of the season. He's going to quarterback their PP for years to come. He certainly looked more prominent than Zadina has in his few games. I think Dobson has some game, but can't get excited about Wahlstrom. I suspect some of his success was due to the Hughes factor, being paired with Jack for enough games. He had 19 points in 36 games with Boston College, so not terribly good, but BC wasn't that good this year. He may still work out, but just wasn't a guy I was that crazy about. Missed too many goals at key moments. But yes, players fall for different reasons, which in hindsight often appear silly (because most of the time they were). Kucherov going in the 2nd round because of the Russian factor. Kuznetsov falling to 26th for the same reason. Some GM's take risks and it works out. Sometimes it doesn't (Kostitsyn). I'm really curious to see how Ryan Merkley works out. Some of the same 'character' issues that surrounded PK, had him being picked far later than his skill level dictated. Will he overcome them as Subban did? Or was there anything there to really overcome? The NHL is a conservative group in general so small things set them off. I didn't like Anthony Mantha because he was a very late birthday, but the guy's a scorer and he continues to score. Good pick by Detroit. Sheesh, it seems for every case where you can point to something turning out one way, you can find another where it went totally opposite. Sounds like life. |
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Apr 11, 2019 17:24:16 GMT -5
JT Miller and Dylan Larkin may get bolded in the future , but right now I have them as maybes … 36 drafts 7 Players - 2 of those players averaged under 0.5 points per game 2 maybes If you go from 1981 to 2015 , 17 players played less than 100 games, 21 played less than 200 games, and 25 played less than 300 games. You could expand that analysis to look at players that were picked in picks subsequent to #15, as the team picking at #15 could have elected to choose any of those players instead. I'd imagine there were quite a few great options over the years in picks 16-30 (e.g. Barzal, Connor, Chabot in 2015 come to mind). Thanks, Andrew! I wanted to say the exact same thing. The question for this draft is whether there will be desirable options at 15. Early signs point to yes. But selections of past drafts have no bearing on future probability. Mathematically speaking, if the 20th overall pick has a statistically better track record for producing NHLers then the 15th overall pick, is it better to pick 20th than it is to pick 15th? Of course not. And that's because historical data has no bearing on future probability. I would even go as far as saying that if past drafting performance at 15th is worse than 16-30th, then it's a good thing that we have the 15th pick. Because as years continue to go by, things tend to balance out as the stats swing more towards reflecting the predictions of probability. I understand it's easy to blur the lines between statistics and probability but there's a very profound difference between the two. Stats are for past data, probability is for predicting future events. Andrew nailed a very important point here that so often gets overlooked. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2019 14:53:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Apr 14, 2019 10:36:08 GMT -5
Kakko was the player that I hoped that the Habs would pick this year, but alas, the team didn't #PlayLikeKakka4Kakko enough to get a realistic shot at getting him. The worst thing is that the Habs will have to face him, and Hughes, for that matter, 3-4 times a season. That is why they will need to start finding elite talent, or risk being a middling team for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Apr 15, 2019 8:49:44 GMT -5
No rambling here. Been thinking about Ryan Suzuki. He's currently slotted in the low 20s, but everything you read raves about his skill. He had 75 points on a bad Barrie team. He was on the Hlinka team that won gold, and is slated to be part of the U18 roster. If he has a strong tournament, he could slide up into the conversation of our pick. Faster than Nick, and more of a play maker. I saw him at the Hlinka (I watched three games live, and one more on TV). He has size that his brother does not and skill, but he is still considered too much of a perimeter player to be in the discussions above where folks are slotting him right now. A solid U18s could change that for sure. If scouts see a willingness to engage a bit more, he could move up by June. I don't really want Suzuki, not impressed with what I saw. What do you think of Poulin? He is having a great playoff. Maybe we could trade down and pick up an extra 2nd and still get him. Cam York I like at 15. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 15, 2019 9:05:14 GMT -5
I'm in your camp, G'nick, regarding Ryan Suzuki. Not impressed with him enough to draft him that high. At that spot, two guys I wouldn't mind are Bobby Brink and Cole Caufield.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 15, 2019 9:45:50 GMT -5
I don't really want Suzuki, not impressed with what I saw. What do you think of Poulin? He is having a great playoff. Maybe we could trade down and pick up an extra 2nd and still get him. Cam York I like at 15. I think Poulin plays with the kind of intensity that scouts should really like. He has size and plays a hard game. He should give Lavoie a run for the money as the top QC born kid to go in this draft. I think Pelletier is likely the third guy in that trio. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 15, 2019 16:24:10 GMT -5
I don't really want Suzuki, not impressed with what I saw. What do you think of Poulin? He is having a great playoff. Maybe we could trade down and pick up an extra 2nd and still get him. Cam York I like at 15. Looks like Poulin will be joining the U18 team. Good exposure for him. He was 22nd NA skater in the final central scouting rankings, and Lavoie was 20th. Lavoie cannot join the U18s for a couple of reasons: he is too old (he is one of the oldest in the draft) and he plays for the Memorial Cup host! |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 18, 2019 5:14:09 GMT -5
Two great matchups on Thursday to start the U18s.
CAN-FIN and USA-SWE
TSN is showing all of the Canada and USA games as well as the playoffs across their various networks (TSN 2, 3 and 5). Check your tv listings! Games are in Sweden, so they start early in the day. TSN will show a few replays later in the day depending on their other programming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 19, 2019 1:22:37 GMT -5
He's played himself out of where the odds say we're destined to pick. If we end up at 15th, and he's still around at 10, I'd be more than willing to fork over a couple of seconds to move up and get him. Not me. Too many red flags about the rest of his game and intensity. He has an amazing shot, but I would move up for other guys over him. Man, will we have quite a few options at fifteen. The U18s are coming up later this month. Team USA should be a pure treat to watch from a draft watchers perspective. The national development team is likely to have six guys in the top 20 of this draft, and if they add Kaliev, Brink, etc that team is a huge favourite for gold. This will be a massive first round for US born players. An amazing shot could help the PP, one of our NEEDS. Cournoyer spent the first years with only pp duties. |
|
|
|
Draft '19
Apr 21, 2019 11:36:14 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by blny on Apr 21, 2019 11:36:14 GMT -5
Lavoie could be playing his way into a top ten selection. He currently leads the Q in playoff scoring with 16 goals and 24 points in 13 games.
He had a 2nd period hat trick last night in a game 2 win over Drummondville. That league semi final series is knotted at 1s going back to Halifax.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 21, 2019 13:59:46 GMT -5
I've watched Canada's first 2 games (missed bits and pieces) and I've developed a few first impressions.
First, I think Krebs is raising his draft rating. He's been involved, he's producing, and he's leading. His style reminds me of Jonathan Toews. Not a great deal of flair, but does a ton of things very well. His passing is really good. I doubt he falls anywhere near 15, though.
Brayden Tracey - Great skater and I loved the way he cut to the net on a goal against Finland. Quick hands and his stats indicate he's a scorer.
Jamieson Rees - Lots of heart to this kid, and speed. His shorthanded goal vs Finland got the Canadians started. Reminds me of Gallagher in some respects. A sparkplug
Jakob Pelletier - late rounds maybe? Always seems to be in the middle of things. Not a disturber, and nothing I can specifically point at. Does of lot of things well, if not spectacularly well.
Kaydan Korczak - Another RHD. Really like his strength, defensive play, combined with some vision on offence. More like a Weber type without the big shot (yet). A Kelowna Rocket and they seem to know how to pick and develop defensemen there. I'd guess he'll go in the lat first or the second round somewhere. Haven't seen his name a lot.
Can't leave without mentioning a 'disappointment'. That would be Dylan Cozens. He just hasn't shown much. The pace of the games seems almost too fast for him. I've always liked Kirby Dach more when comparing the two similar guys and the first two games have done nothing to change my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 23, 2019 19:09:38 GMT -5
Tracey, Rees and Korczak all likely entered the U18s ranked on many lists as mid second round picks. I think both Tracey and Rees move up with their showing so far. Scouts will say that rankings are based on multiple viewings over a period of time and other off-ice assessment, but you cannot ignore guys who at the end of the season can step it up in a best on best tourney with big stakes on the line.
Too bad, as I liked Tracey from watching Moose Jaw and had him on my early lists for a possibility with our second round picks. I expect he will be taken in between our first two picks now.
The two forwards that I thought we would get a sniff at 15 are also making pretty good cases for themselves this tourney too: Caufield and Newhook. Someone could very well pounce ahead of us.
I have also been watching the four interesting options at LHD at 15 as well: Broberg (SWE), Harley (CAN), York (USA), and Heinola (FIN).
Quarter finals set for Thursday.
CAN LAT 1a vs 4b
USA FIN 1b vs 4a
BLR RUS 2a vs 3b
SWE CZE 2b vs 3a
Finland were a big shocker. They avoided relegation by winning their last game, whipping the Swiss 12-0. Their only win so far. That is the only time they have looked like defending champs, other than when they had an early 3-0 lead against Canada. They now get unbeaten USA in their Quarter.
SWE beat RUS 3-0 to take second in their pool. Podkolzin has been silent so far. Quite strange since he had very good showings at the Hlinka and WJAC. He and Bobby Brink tied for the tourney scoring lead at the WJAC. Wonder how far Podkolzin drops in the first round, if any?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 24, 2019 20:24:03 GMT -5
JT Miller and Dylan Larkin may get bolded in the future , but right now I have them as maybes … 36 drafts 7 Players - 2 of those players averaged under 0.5 points per game 2 maybes If you go from 1981 to 2015 , 17 players played less than 100 games, 21 played less than 200 games, and 25 played less than 300 games. You could expand that analysis to look at players that were picked in picks subsequent to #15, as the team picking at #15 could have elected to choose any of those players instead. I'd imagine there were quite a few great options over the years in picks 16-30 (e.g. Barzal, Connor, Chabot in 2015 come to mind). I'm really not sure what you are saying here. I did a historical analysis of the #15 selection because Engels used a 1981 example as the why the Habs could nab a great player at #15. You seem to infer that when the Habs picked Louis Leblanc, that was ok, because we could have selected Kreider, Johansson, or Palmieri. Sure there were great examples in 16-30, there was also great examples in Round 3. But you have to select them. Success is based on what you picked at that point, not who you could have gotten. Value of pick and success are two different beasts. Look at Montreal's picks over the years in the 15-20 range. Sure there was great value, but the success rate was brutal. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 24, 2019 23:38:09 GMT -5
Tracey, Rees and Korczak all likely entered the U18s ranked on many lists as mid second round picks. I think both Tracey and Rees move up with their showing so far. Scouts will say that rankings are based on multiple viewings over a period of time and other off-ice assessment, but you cannot ignore guys who at the end of the season can step it up in a best on best tourney with big stakes on the line. Too bad, as I liked Tracey from watching Moose Jaw and had him on my early lists for a possibility with our second round picks. I expect he will be taken in between our first two picks now. The two forwards that I thought we would get a sniff at 15 are also making pretty good cases for themselves this tourney too: Caufield and Newhook. Someone could very well pounce ahead of us. I have also been watching the four interesting options at LHD at 15 as well: Broberg (SWE), Harley (CAN), York (USA), and Heinola (FIN). Quarter finals set for Thursday. CAN LAT 1a vs 4b USA FIN 1b vs 4a BLR RUS 2a vs 3b SWE CZE 2b vs 3a Finland were a big shocker. They avoided relegation by winning their last game, whipping the Swiss 12-0. Their only win so far. That is the only time they have looked like defending champs, other than when they had an early 3-0 lead against Canada. They now get unbeaten USA in their Quarter. SWE beat RUS 3-0 to take second in their pool. Podkolzin has been silent so far. Quite strange since he had very good showings at the Hlinka and WJAC. He and Bobby Brink tied for the tourney scoring lead at the WJAC. Wonder how far Podkolzin drops in the first round, if any? I doubt he moves much at all. I was reading a review by someone at The Athletic about their draft rankings from 2017 when Pettersson went 5th. He said he hadn't ranked Pettersson that high, though he would put him at #1 now. He felt he failed to put enough emphasis on EP's regular season work as compared to tournaments, where he wasn't that good. That may resonate with scouts as they consider Podkolzin. One so-so tournament may not change a lot of minds. It wouldn't affect mine. I think he'll go 3. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 25, 2019 5:45:08 GMT -5
Raphael Lavoie continues to have a remarkable playoff for Halifax. He's scored 17 goals - a new record for goals in a single playoff year for Halifax. His play likely puts him into to the top 10 and out of our reach without a trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 25, 2019 8:45:23 GMT -5
I'm in your camp, G'nick, regarding Ryan Suzuki. Not impressed with him enough to draft him that high. At that spot, two guys I wouldn't mind are Bobby Brink and Cole Caufield. Going to be pretty hard to pass on Caufield, should he make it to us. All he does is score. Sure, he can fit into most carry-on luggage bags, and he's probably not the fastest skater in the world (and certainly not for somebody his size), and maybe he's not great defensively and never will be, but... goals. He scores em', and how. If I'm reading his Elite Prospects profile right he's scored 109 goals this year, over 93 games split between the USHL, USDP, and WJC-18? That's unreal. Last year he scored 89 in 104 games? 54 in 36 the year before? Over the last three years, he's scored 252 goals in 238 games? |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 25, 2019 11:40:24 GMT -5
I'm in your camp, G'nick, regarding Ryan Suzuki. Not impressed with him enough to draft him that high. At that spot, two guys I wouldn't mind are Bobby Brink and Cole Caufield. Going to be pretty hard to pass on Caufield, should he make it to us. All he does is score. Sure, he can fit into most carry-on luggage bags, and he's probably not the fastest skater in the world (and certainly not for somebody his size), and maybe he's not great defensively and never will be, but... goals. He scores em', and how. If I'm reading his Elite Prospects profile right he's scored 109 goals this year, over 93 games split between the USHL, USDP, and WJC-18? That's unreal. Last year he scored 89 in 104 games? 54 in 36 the year before? Over the last three years, he's scored 252 goals in 238 games? He is shattering all sorts of all time scoring records for the US NTDP team, and will do so for the U18s for the USA as well. And the US U18 and NTDP teams have had some real scoring studs over the years. The kid scores, a lot, and in a lot of different ways. He is a real treat to watch. I saw him as an under-ager at last year's U18s and he was dynamic already, but this year he is over the top. I am not sure he will still be around at 15 anymore, but if he does... |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Apr 25, 2019 11:44:31 GMT -5
RUS and USA advance, as expected, to the U18s semis on Saturday. CAN and SWE have games coming up shortly, and they are the favourites to be the remaining two teams to advance to the semi finals. Based on my skill in predicting Round 1 of the Stanley Cup playoffs, please take this prediction with a grain of salt!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Apr 25, 2019 11:49:00 GMT -5
You could expand that analysis to look at players that were picked in picks subsequent to #15, as the team picking at #15 could have elected to choose any of those players instead. I'd imagine there were quite a few great options over the years in picks 16-30 (e.g. Barzal, Connor, Chabot in 2015 come to mind). I'm really not sure what you are saying here. I did a historical analysis of the #15 selection because Engels used a 1981 example as the why the Habs could nab a great player at #15. You seem to infer that when the Habs picked Louis Leblanc, that was ok, because we could have selected Kreider, Johansson, or Palmieri. Sure there were great examples in 16-30, there was also great examples in Round 3. But you have to select them. Success is based on what you picked at that point, not who you could have gotten. Value of pick and success are two different beasts. Look at Montreal's picks over the years in the 15-20 range. Sure there was great value, but the success rate was brutal. My point is that to truly assess the strength of drafting in the #15 spot, from a historical perspective, it's worth looking at the picks subsequent to #15 (within reason - you wouldn't look at guys expected to go outside of the first round). I.E. Looking at only who was picked, you might conclude that 2015 was a bad year to be drafting at #15 because the Bruins picked Zachary Senyshyn. In reality, it was a great year to be drafting at #15, cause you could have picked Barzal, Connor or Chabot who went in the 16-18 spots. It was only a bad year if you're the Bruins and your scouts really like Senyshyn. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 25, 2019 22:43:26 GMT -5
I'm really not sure what you are saying here. I did a historical analysis of the #15 selection because Engels used a 1981 example as the why the Habs could nab a great player at #15. You seem to infer that when the Habs picked Louis Leblanc, that was ok, because we could have selected Kreider, Johansson, or Palmieri. Sure there were great examples in 16-30, there was also great examples in Round 3. But you have to select them. Success is based on what you picked at that point, not who you could have gotten. Value of pick and success are two different beasts. Look at Montreal's picks over the years in the 15-20 range. Sure there was great value, but the success rate was brutal. My point is that to truly assess the strength of drafting in the #15 spot, from a historical perspective, it's worth looking at the picks subsequent to #15 (within reason - you wouldn't look at guys expected to go outside of the first round). I.E. Looking at only who was picked, you might conclude that 2015 was a bad year to be drafting at #15 because the Bruins picked Zachary Senyshyn. In reality, it was a great year to be drafting at #15, cause you could have picked Barzal, Connor or Chabot who went in the 16-18 spots. It was only a bad year if you're the Bruins and your scouts really like Senyshyn. At our house I get the leftovers after the wife and kids eat. I guess its like picking 15th. After all these years I’m getting used to leftovers but Therrien, Julien, Therrien, Julien is a bit much. Eight years of Bergevin is like two terrible terms of Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 30, 2019 17:44:50 GMT -5
Going to be pretty hard to pass on Caufield, should he make it to us. All he does is score. Sure, he can fit into most carry-on luggage bags, and he's probably not the fastest skater in the world (and certainly not for somebody his size), and maybe he's not great defensively and never will be, but... goals. He scores em', and how. If I'm reading his Elite Prospects profile right he's scored 109 goals this year, over 93 games split between the USHL, USDP, and WJC-18? That's unreal. Last year he scored 89 in 104 games? 54 in 36 the year before? Over the last three years, he's scored 252 goals in 238 games? He is shattering all sorts of all time scoring records for the US NTDP team, and will do so for the U18s for the USA as well. And the US U18 and NTDP teams have had some real scoring studs over the years. The kid scores, a lot, and in a lot of different ways. He is a real treat to watch. I saw him as an under-ager at last year's U18s and he was dynamic already, but this year he is over the top. I am not sure he will still be around at 15 anymore, but if he does... It’s likewatching Bergevin at the alter during his wedding after 14 girls turned him down. With the 15th pick I select.........? |
|
Thanks for the insight.
