2017 Draft Watch

[bustaheims]

I know all scouting reports are usually written pretty optimistically, but that sure does SOUND like everything you want from a top pairing defenceman. Size. Speed. Big shot. Generates shots. Rock defensively. That sounds like somebody you would see ranked top-10, especially with his size advantage. But Pronman has him ranked 35th! Most rankings have him in the 20s somewhere. I just don't really get what's holding him back in the rankings so much from what the services have all written about him. It's weird.

I mean Logan Stanley went 18th last year and Hague had 2.5x more points than he did in their respective draft years and Stanley seems to have a lot more red flags.

There's one phrase in that write-up that sticks out to me - his skill level isn't incredibly high. He clearly has very good physical tools and "hockey IQ," but it doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who can drive the play from the backend or QB the top powerplay unit. It's like he does every well, but nothing that will translate to being exceptional at the NHL level - which would make him a solid 2nd pairing guy, but also explain why he isn't a top 5-10 pick.

[herman]

There's one phrase in that write-up that sticks out to me - his skill level isn't incredibly high. He clearly has very good physical tools and "hockey IQ," but it doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who can drive the play from the backend or QB the top powerplay unit. It's like he does every well, but nothing that will translate to being exceptional at the NHL level - which would make him a solid 2nd pairing guy, but also explain why he isn't a top 5-10 pick.

That part stuck out to me as well.
This article posed the same question that Carlton did and tracked down some mid-term scouting reports and you can see the progress of expectations unrealized.

http://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2017/5/8/15570306/massive-defenseman-nicolas-hague-2017-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-mississagua

His transition game appears to be quite weak (part of that hockey-IQ thing). He can do well with time and space (PP) but under pressure, he's going to get a bit of tunnel vision and rely on his size more than his smarts. But once he's in the offensive zone, he's solid. Sounds like Polak with a bit more finesse in shot selection. His defensive game sounds great though (gap control, pivots, skating).

[CarltonTheBear]

There's one phrase in that write-up that sticks out to me - his skill level isn't incredibly high. He clearly has very good physical tools and "hockey IQ," but it doesn't seem like he's the type of guy who can drive the play from the backend or QB the top powerplay unit. It's like he does every well, but nothing that will translate to being exceptional at the NHL level - which would make him a solid 2nd pairing guy, but also explain why he isn't a top 5-10 pick.

Sure, but again that sounds like something that would hold a 6'1" defenceman with his skills back, not a 6'6" guy. Most guys Hague's size can get his kind of rankings without even coming close to his skating and shot talents.

Anyway, I think that this also shows just how deep this years 1st round is despite not having a big name at the top like McDavid or Matthews. I think in a lot of the past drafts he'd be a lock for a top-15 selection.

[herman]

The three names that get bandied about in our area of the first round are Hague, Foote, and Brannstrom.

They're all good in their own right: Hague's strengths and issues are noted above. Foote has pedigree and is big, dependable, capable, and unremarkable (like the Nolan Patrick of the blueline?). Brannstrom is way more exciting to me for the dynamism, skills, IQ, and speed. Unless Liljegren or Makar or Heiskanen drop significantly, I can't see Tampa Bay passing up on Brannstrom.

One or two of Lias Andersson, Kailer Yamamoto, Elias Petersson, Martin Necas is also likely drop to be around our spot just by virtue of being European or small, but highly skilled/speedy/smart. Juuso Valimaki would also be a fun pick (defensively responsible, but can really hold the puck).

[herman]

Invalid Tweet IDwww.twitter.com/nnstats/status/876623172023537665

If I had Twitter, I'd retweet this.
Who do you think will pull off the biggest oopsie: Sweeney or Benning?

[louisstamos]

Bobby Mac just released his final list.  Look who he has ranked at #16.

http://www.tsn.ca/hischier-rides-meteoric-rise-to-top-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.783025

If by some miracle, Liljegren is available when the Leafs pick at #17, I think you absolutely take him.  Otherwise, I would be okay with trading down and trying to grab Brannstrom/Timmins/Hague/Foote.  Las Vegas should have a surplus of 1st round picks - hopefully they'd be willing to spend a few to move up!

[CarltonTheBear]

Bobby Mac just released his final list.  Look who he has ranked at #16.

http://www.tsn.ca/hischier-rides-meteoric-rise-to-top-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.783025

If by some miracle, Liljegren is available when the Leafs pick at #17, I think you absolutely take him.  Otherwise, I would be okay with trading down and trying to grab Brannstrom/Timmins/Hague/Foote.  Las Vegas should have a surplus of 1st round picks - hopefully they'd be willing to spend a few to move up!

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Trade up for Liljegren or down if he's gone to get an extra 2nd rounder. I obviously like Brannstrom but it's starting to seem like his size will drop him into the 20s somewhere. And even if he's gone there should still be some interesting prospects there.

I think Carolina at 12 would make for a good trading partner if we go that route.

[herman]

Bobby Mac just released his final list.  Look who he has ranked at #16.

http://www.tsn.ca/hischier-rides-meteoric-rise-to-top-of-tsn-draft-ranking-1.783025

If by some miracle, Liljegren is available when the Leafs pick at #17, I think you absolutely take him.  Otherwise, I would be okay with trading down and trying to grab Brannstrom/Timmins/Hague/Foote.  Las Vegas should have a surplus of 1st round picks - hopefully they'd be willing to spend a few to move up!

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Trade up for Liljegren or down if he's gone to get an extra 2nd rounder. I obviously like Brannstrom but it's starting to seem like his size will drop him into the 20s somewhere. And even if he's gone there should still be some interesting prospects there.

I think Carolina at 12 would make for a good trading partner if we go that route.

Between Tampa and Nashville, neither Liljegren or Brannstrom will fall out of the 1st round. I would not be opposed to moving a forward contract to slide up the draft if the timing is right. I wonder if Cale Makar might drop as well, as he is pretty much the same build as Brannstrom, but without the European bias. Three "Erik Karlsson comparables" to work with.

[CarltonTheBear]

Between Tampa and Nashville, neither Liljegren or Brannstrom will fall out of the 1st round. I would not be opposed to moving a forward contract to slide up the draft if the timing is right. I wonder if Cale Makar might drop as well, as he is pretty much the same build as Brannstrom, but without the European bias. Three "Erik Karlsson comparables" to work with.

Cale Makar's draft stock seems to just be rising and rising if anything. I doubt he drops out of the top-10 even. He's also not really that small. Almost 6'0", 190 lbs.

[herman]

Between Tampa and Nashville, neither Liljegren or Brannstrom will fall out of the 1st round. I would not be opposed to moving a forward contract to slide up the draft if the timing is right. I wonder if Cale Makar might drop as well, as he is pretty much the same build as Brannstrom, but without the European bias. Three "Erik Karlsson comparables" to work with.

Cale Makar's draft stock seems to just be rising and rising if anything. I doubt he drops out of the top-10 even. He's also not really that small. Almost 6'0", 190 lbs.

Scouting outfits (and I) like him and his profile a lot. His size is listed a little bit all over the place. I think NHL scouts and GMs might still balk at him in the top 5 or even top 10.

Who was the last sub-6' defenseman taken in the top 10?
I've been sifting manually through the last handful of drafts, but I don't think hockeydb kept the at-draft size/weights. I found Matt Dumba at 6' 2012 #7 overall, and Ryan Ellis 5'10" in 2009 at #11 overall.

I know 5'11" is basically 6', but I'm not sure NHL front offices are, if history is an accurate measure. Coupled with playing in a baby league, I can see some teams being skeptical.

[CarltonTheBear]

Scouting outfits (and I) like him and his profile a lot. His size is listed a little bit all over the place. I think NHL scouts and GMs might still balk at him in the top 5 or even top 10.

Who was the last sub-6' defenseman taken in the top 10?
I've been sifting manually through the last handful of drafts, but I don't think hockeydb kept the at-draft size/weights.

His official combine measurement was 5-foot-11.25, 187.44 pounds. And that fact that it's been a little all over the place probably indicates that he's been growing a fair bit in the past year and there's still some room to go there. Guys like Juolevi and Provorov were a little bigger at the draft but not really by that much.

[herman]

Scouting outfits (and I) like him and his profile a lot. His size is listed a little bit all over the place. I think NHL scouts and GMs might still balk at him in the top 5 or even top 10.

Who was the last sub-6' defenseman taken in the top 10?
I've been sifting manually through the last handful of drafts, but I don't think hockeydb kept the at-draft size/weights.

His official combine measurement was 5-foot-11.25, 187.44 pounds. And that fact that it's been a little all over the place probably indicates that he's been growing a fair bit in the past year and there's still some room to go there. Guys like Juolevi and Provorov were a little bigger at the draft but not really by that much.

That growth curve does indeed look ramped up. Where can I find the combine measurements? My usual amount of lazy googling is proving insufficient.

Edit: Found it! http://thehockeywriters.com/2017-nhl-combine-heights-weights/

(I still think some GMs sort their spreadsheets to look for that 6; I really don't mind if other GMs are dumb like this.)

[CarltonTheBear]

I think NHL scouts and GMs might still balk at him in the top 5 or even top 10.

Also, from McKenzie's article:

Seven of the 10 scouts surveyed had Makar as a top 5 pick, including the one who had him first overall. Makar was no lower than No. 7 on any scout’s list.

[herman]

I think NHL scouts and GMs might still balk at him in the top 5 or even top 10.

Also, from McKenzie's article:

Seven of the 10 scouts surveyed had Makar as a top 5 pick, including the one who had him first overall. Makar was no lower than No. 7 on any scout’s list.

I did see that. I remain skeptical of the way most teams work the draft and scout. That Makar is even in these conversations is a testament to his ability.

Is his playing in a league he is clearly too good for a factor in that assessment?

[CarltonTheBear]

I did see that. I remain skeptical of the way most teams work the draft and scout. That Makar is even in these conversations is a testament to his ability.

Is his playing in a league he is clearly too good for a factor in that assessment?

Admittedly I too am surprised that he's ranked that high by those scouts, but here we are. Playing in the AJHL really makes him one of the toughest prospects to scout I'm sure. He actually probably makes for the best test to judge a scout's pure talents on. If I was a GM I'd make sure all my guys made a full report on him and I'd check back in on that in 3 years to see how they did.