2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

that's only because if we talk about anything other than last decade, the response is "way too soon to make a call"

 

that's all fine but I remember your reaction to Honzek quite clearly.

 

Clearly, I don't recall my reaction when we drafted him.  It's not important what my initial reaction was, since I am not an expert when it comes to player drafts.  Would I have preferred a center?  No doubt.  Only 2 players taken after him have played single NHL games each.  In 2021 we got Coronato, while Wyatt Johnson was ranked below him.  I think we would have been happy with him. 

 

It's way to early to do a redraft of 2023.  

2020 draft?  Nobody after Zary is really blowing the doors off.  

 

I'm not seeing the big reaches or poor drafting in the 1st round.

 

[jjgallow]

33 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

Clearly, I don't recall my reaction when we drafted him.  It's not important what my initial reaction was, since I am not an expert when it comes to player drafts.  Would I have preferred a center?  No doubt.  Only 2 players taken after him have played single NHL games each.  In 2021 we got Coronato, while Wyatt Johnson was ranked below him.  I think we would have been happy with him. 

 

It's way to early to do a redraft of 2023.  

2020 draft?  Nobody after Zary is really blowing the doors off.  

 

I'm not seeing the big reaches or poor drafting in the 1st round.

 

 

you guys are so mush lol.  it's cute.

 

When they draft Tij, I'm gonna make a Huge thread about how horrible of a pick it was and force you all to defend him lol

[conundrumed]

3 hours ago, cross16 said:

I think the Flames are one of the better drafting teams in the NHL.

Thank you. I agree. We have a solid scouting team that actually scouts in real life, not by internet opinions from god knows who. The internet is a great place to find precisely the slanted echo chamber that fits your preconceived notion.

I'll add Conroy's also done a swell job of shoring up the NHL scouting dept.

And as you alluded to, we just haven't had enough picks in the past. That's in the past.

The staff aren't a bunch of slack-jawed yokels. Some folks should try harder to not embarrass themselves.

Re Honzek and the, "shoulda taken Sandin-Pellikka" crowd. I very highly doubt the Wings org will remove him from the SHL next year. He still has a ways to go. When he does come over, he'll be in the A for at least a season. There are no shortcuts. 2 years out at very best. I'm sure that we can afford Honzek that kind of leeway also.

[conundrumed]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

you guys are so mush lol.  it's cute.

 

When they draft Tij, I'm gonna make a Huge thread about how horrible of a pick it was and force you all to defend him lol

Alternatively, perhaps we just won't care.

[jjgallow]

46 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Alternatively, perhaps we just won't care.

 

there's a first for everything

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Re Honzek and the, "shoulda taken Sandin-Pellikka" crowd. I very highly doubt the Wings org will remove him from the SHL next year. He still has a ways to go. When he does come over, he'll be in the A for at least a season. There are no shortcuts. 2 years out at very best. I'm sure that we can afford Honzek that kind of leeway also.

I hope we go that route with all the prospects. 

[jjgallow]

21 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Thank you. I agree. We have a solid scouting team that actually scouts in real life, not by internet opinions from god knows who. The internet is a great place to find precisely the slanted echo chamber that fits your preconceived notion.

 

I would hope they are doing both scouting and analysis.  My guess is they are.  

 

21 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I'll add Conroy's also done a swell job of shoring up the NHL scouting dept.

And as you alluded to, we just haven't had enough picks in the past. That's in the past.

 

Lots of reasons to be optimistic right now.  I prefer to be optimistic because of reasons, not for the sake of being optimistic.  Right now, I am.   In general, optimistic.    And a tentative fan of Conroy  (check back after the draft).

 

Shoring up the scouting dept is big.   The addition and serious scouting of Russians, as one example, is big.

 

Not everything is perfect.  our draft selection, and failure to trade Markstrom stand out as the big two there.   Doesn't mean Conroy is a slouch because I have seen lots of positives that outweigh this.  But there's also no reason to turn a blind eye to it.  Pointing it out doesn't mean we hate Markstrom, or Honzek.  Just means we are being honest and transparent.   Because everyone sees it including you.  And nobody's giving up on Honzek, nor should anyone here need constant reassurance of that.

 

21 hours ago, conundrumed said:

The staff aren't a bunch of slack-jawed yokels. Some folks should try harder to not embarrass themselves.

 

I think some people here just get low on sleep is all.

 

21 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Re Honzek and the, "shoulda taken Sandin-Pellikka" crowd. I very highly doubt the Wings org will remove him from the SHL next year. He still has a ways to go. When he does come over, he'll be in the A for at least a season. There are no shortcuts. 2 years out at very best. I'm sure that we can afford Honzek that kind of leeway also.

 

This is as it should be and hopefully not a revelation for anyone here.  Nor is it in any way relevant to who we should have drafted.   Not even part of that conversation.   Anyone we draft should be afforded time.  Pretty straightforward.   Let's keep that in mind when we take our top 10 pick this summer.

[conundrumed]

Put your hats on, she's U18 time starting tomorrow.

Sorry most of you lot have terrible start times, but so do our overseas Flames friends throughout the NHL season.

There are a lot of players to track. I'm intrigued to see guys like Beaudoin, Elick, Pettersson, Ritchie, Brunicke, of course Tij and many others (hi Norway).

It's just one, quick tourney, so I don't really get my panties in a bunch one way or the other. Just a nice opportunity to see them all in one place.

I've managed, "work from home" mode for mornings. Cool beans.

[jjgallow]

 

Often we see and hear about players who have great "vision".

 

It's not well defined.  But....I think it should be a major factor in rankings.  Maybe higher than skating and shot.  After all, best player to ever play the game relied almost entirely on this.

 

I feel like some players have it and others don't.    That it's not very teachable. 

 

Or probably more accurately,  we don't yet know how to teach it effectively.    If there are coaches who are exceptions to this rule, we should definitely hire them lol

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Often we see and hear about players who have great "vision".

 

It's not well defined.  But....I think it should be a major factor in rankings.  Maybe higher than skating and shot.  After all, best player to ever play the game relied almost entirely on this.

 

I feel like some players have it and others don't.    That it's not very teachable. 

 

Or probably more accurately,  we don't yet know how to teach it effectively.    If there are coaches who are exceptions to this rule, we should definitely hire them lol

 

"Good players go to where the puck is.

Great players go to where the puck is going to be." - Great One

 

There is no standard measure but you just have to watch the kids play.  Making fakes and smart hesitations is all part of having vision... Because you see one second into the future, you want to fake a pass/shot and hang onto the puck one second longer for that play to develop.  Buying time, etc.

 

Vision without the puck as well.  Understanding who is about to receive a pass or how a puck is about to bounce off the glass.  Make adjustments to positioning in anticipation.

 

I agree it's arguably the most important attribute to have but it's hard to measure properly.  The obvious ones are ranked top 5 prospects.  Some mid-rounders do have vision but maybe too skinny or too short at 17 to attract the eyes of scouts and coaches.

[conundrumed]

4 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Often we see and hear about players who have great "vision".

 

It's not well defined.  But....I think it should be a major factor in rankings.  Maybe higher than skating and shot.  After all, best player to ever play the game relied almost entirely on this.

 

I feel like some players have it and others don't.    That it's not very teachable. 

 

Or probably more accurately,  we don't yet know how to teach it effectively.    If there are coaches who are exceptions to this rule, we should definitely hire them lol

I remember looking into this with others quite some time ago. I was quite shocked to see studies.

Imo, it can be improved by optometrists focusing on what you want to accomplish, how to train your eyes type-thing. But it still comes down to how quickly you can process, or more generally, hockey IQ. Then your teammates kinda feed off of what you're doing.

I was quite taken aback at how no stone gets left unturned in studies, though.

https://www.ovpjournal.org/uploads/2/3/8/9/23898265/3-2-5.pdf

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

"Good players go to where the puck is.

Great players go to where the puck is going to be." - Great One

 

There is no standard measure but you just have to watch the kids play.  Making fakes and smart hesitations is all part of having vision... Because you see one second into the future, you want to fake a pass/shot and hang onto the puck one second longer for that play to develop.  Buying time, etc.

 

Vision without the puck as well.  Understanding who is about to receive a pass or how a puck is about to bounce off the glass.  Make adjustments to positioning in anticipation.

 

I agree it's arguably the most important attribute to have but it's hard to measure properly.  The obvious ones are ranked top 5 prospects.  Some mid-rounders do have vision but maybe too skinny or too short at 17 to attract the eyes of scouts and coaches.

 

This is why the best Oilers players always skate towards their own net

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, conundrumed said:

I remember looking into this with others quite some time ago. I was quite shocked to see studies.

Imo, it can be improved by optometrists focusing on what you want to accomplish, how to train your eyes type-thing. But it still comes down to how quickly you can process, or more generally, hockey IQ. Then your teammates kinda feed off of what you're doing.

I was quite taken aback at how no stone gets left unturned in studies, though.

https://www.ovpjournal.org/uploads/2/3/8/9/23898265/3-2-5.pdf

 

"45% of players had never had an eye exam"

wow 

 

lol.   That is a cool study, thanks for sharing.  

 

Would not be surprised if 20 years from now vision is actually taught from a young age.   Probably by another name.

[conundrumed]

Brunicke might want to forget this game and move along...

McQueen likely staring down a kneeing suspension. Too bad, he's looked good. The '25 draft eligible guys look great for Canada. Wallenius, Petterson and Zetterberg have been solid for Sweden.

Tight game, currently 5-3 Canada, end of the 2nd.

 

Eiserman now 6 goals from tying Caulfield's goal-scoring record after his hatty. I think he had 74 shot attempts. lol

[sak22]

19 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

Brunicke might want to forget this game and move along...

McQueen likely staring down a kneeing suspension. Too bad, he's looked good. The '25 draft eligible guys look great for Canada. Wallenius, Petterson and Zetterberg have been solid for Sweden.

Tight game, currently 5-3 Canada, end of the 2nd.

 

Eiserman now 6 goals from tying Caulfield's goal-scoring record after his hatty. I think he had 74 shot attempts. lol

Any relation?

[conundrumed]

9 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Any relation?

No. Somewhat unbelievably. Not exactly a common name.

edit...

I asked google. Allegedly they're "distant relatives", but no one knows how. lol

Both from Sundsvall. Population about 60,000.

How could they not be?

[conundrumed]

Canada's lines:

Martone-McQueen-McKenna

Elick-Schaeffer

 

Ritchie-Luchanko-Iginla

Mews-Marrelli

 

Masse-Josephson-Greentree

Brunicke-Aitcheson

 

Wetsch-Beaudoin-Spence

Gill

 

G - Carter George

 

I believe Vanacker took Greentree's spot, not sure though.

That 1st line are the '25 draft stars.

Cayden Lindstrom was supposed to be on the team, but injured.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Canada's lines:

Martone-McQueen-McKenna

Elick-Schaeffer

 

Ritchie-Luchanko-Iginla

Mews-Marrelli

 

Masse-Josephson-Greentree

Brunicke-Aitcheson

 

Wetsch-Beaudoin-Spence

Gill

 

G - Carter George

 

I believe Vanacker took Greentree's spot, not sure though.

That 1st line are the '25 draft stars.

Cayden Lindstrom was supposed to be on the team, but injured.

 

Is it Henry Mews?  Can/should we draft him with our Canucks pick?

[cberg]

Been going through some detailed video reviews of 1st round prospects.  Couple of current thoughts are:  Levshonov has not impressed, his D seems suspect.  Buium is quite the puck handler and seems quite impressive overall, but doubt he’ll be able to make those plays in the NHL.  You seems pretty good overall, while Catton impressive in most aspects, needs strength and growth.  Of course these are kids and we don’t know how they will develop, but if potential is reached, perhaps a hypothetical might come down to this,  should the Flames be drafting a new Jarome iginla or a new Joe Sakic?

[Thebrewcrew]

Just now, cberg said:

Should the Flames be drafting a new Jarome iginla or a new Joe Sakic?

Both are hall of famers. The Flames would be incredibly fortunate to get a player similar to either. 

 

Stylistically, it's almost impossible to get a Jarome Iginla type these days. They are so hard to find, which is why Tkachuk was so coveted. Cayden Lindstrom is the closest thing to a power forward at the top of this class. I don't think the Flames will have an opportunity to pick him though.

 

 

Right now, I think Catton will be the pick.

[cberg]

59 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

Both are hall of famers. The Flames would be incredibly fortunate to get a player similar to either. 

 

Stylistically, it's almost impossible to get a Jarome Iginla type these days. They are so hard to find, which is why Tkachuk was so coveted. Cayden Lindstrom is the closest thing to a power forward at the top of this class. I don't think the Flames will have an opportunity to pick him though.

 

 

Right now, I think Catton will be the pick.

The reviews I saw stylistically compared Catton to Sakic and Tij to Jarome(not as physical.  I guess the point is that ranking players may not be so much, who is the BPA?  …but rather there are multiple players of equal ranking on the same tier, and it is going to come down to what do you need, what style do you prefer?  Between Catton, Iginla, Eiserman, Buium, Lindstrom, Silyav and others that may be what the Flames face.  Of course, picking 9th it is likely they’ll have to pick between the remaining 3-4 on that ledge.

[cberg]

6 minutes ago, cberg said:

The reviews I saw stylistically compared Catton to Sakic and Tij to Jarome(not as physical.  I guess the point is that ranking players may not be so much, who is the BPA?  …but rather there are multiple players of equal ranking on the same tier, and it is going to come down to what do you need, what style do you prefer?  Between Catton, Iginla, Eiserman, Buium, Lindstrom, Silyav and others that may be what the Flames face.  Of course, picking 9th it is likely they’ll have to pick between the remaining 3-4 on that ledge.

I guess my question is moot, in that if you end up with either it’s a win.  It comes down to not who is best now, but who is most likely to develop to their full potential and what is that?  I’d think those more mature might be preferred, and growing up in the NHL likely helps a lot too.  

[The_People1]

34 minutes ago, cberg said:

Of course, picking 9th it is likely they’ll have to pick between the remaining 3-4 on that ledge.

 

Ya pretty much.  Flames have to see who falls.  

 

Maybe Dickinson, Catton, Buium, Silayev... One or more of these 4 has a chance to fall to the Flames at 9.  Eiserman,... I think the Flames should not pick a winger.  Tij is the only exception.  I feel Buium has the best chance because he has the highest IQ.

 

I also don't get the Levshunov rankings based on his highlight reels.  He's supposedly too good already but Buium out scored him.  But, that's based on the highlight reels alone.  He probably has great game from shift to shift and just not very flashy.

[cberg]

12 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Ya pretty much.  Flames have to see who falls.  

 

Maybe Dickinson, Catton, Buium, Silayev... One or more of these 4 has a chance to fall to the Flames at 9.  Eiserman,... I think the Flames should not pick a winger.  Tij is the only exception.  I feel Buium has the best chance because he has the highest IQ.

 

I also don't get the Levshunov rankings based on his highlight reels.  He's supposedly too good already but Buium out scored him.  But, that's based on the highlight reels alone.  He probably has great game from shift to shift and just not very flashy.

Agree, out of those 5 it would be a very tough pick.  Add in Tij, wow, difficult.  I’d agree Catton and Buium seem to have the best IQ, but Tij has an upbringing likely to increase his potential to reach his peak ceiling…

[conundrumed]

12 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Is it Henry Mews?  Can/should we draft him with our Canucks pick?

Yes, and probably. Ideally, with our 2nd, 41st oa.

I really like Cole Beaudoin's rugged game and wonder if him or Sam O'Reilly can survive until our Dallas pick or 3rd rd. Both sizeable Cs that run on hard work.