2021 NHL Draft Rankings

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I'd be surprised if Kent Johnson became an NHL level C. 

Wing? Beniers/Johnson still gets us the sure, low floor C and the high-ceiling offensive player. Of course Beniers/Eklund works too, just don't see the chips falling that way. 

[LGR4GM]

I think Kent Johnson projects out more to a winger than William Eklund does. 

Also, I have watched so many William Eklund videos that in my mind I pronounce his name "Vill-yum Ek-lun"

[Thorny]

What I don't want is Power/Eklund with E/R/R out the door and no top flight C prospects back. 

That leaves us with a barren system with the outside shot Eklund ends up at C to help out. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Thorny said:

What I don't want is Power/Eklund with E/R/R out the door and no top flight C prospects back. 

That leaves us with a barren system with the outside shot Eklund ends up at C to help out. 

Depends on how you feel about Cozens and Mitts. Eklund can run a line from the wing so that's nice. I think Eklund with Cozens works really well as Eklund can feed pucks to Cozens and Cozens can dig pucks out for Eklund. 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Depends on how you feel about Cozens and Mitts. Eklund can run a line from the wing so that's nice. I think Eklund with Cozens works really well as Eklund can feed pucks to Cozens and Cozens can dig pucks out for Eklund. 

Seeing as how Eklund is only a "maybe" to end up at C, not very strongly considering the expectation: there'd be no one behind them in the system, literally no one, so they'd have to go 2 for 2 in filling a first line C role and a second line C role, a low odds bet to be sure, for the two most important positions in your F lineup, and neither has proven they are at that level yet. 

We simply need to add more prospective top 6 centres, we needed to *before* contemplating dealing Jack and Sam, considering the pipeline, and if we send those 2 out, merely adding Eklund does not constitute a viable plan for the most important position on your roster, imo. After how long we've been in C purgatory, no less. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Seeing as how Eklund is only a "maybe" to end up at C, not very strongly considering the expectation: there'd be no one behind them in the system, literally no one, so they'd have to go 2 for 2 in filling a first line C role and a second line C role, a low odds bet to be sure, for the two most important positions in your F lineup, and neither has proven they are at that level yet. 

We simply need to add more prospective top 6 centres, we needed to *before* contemplating dealing Jack and Sam, considering the pipeline, and if we send those 2 out, merely adding Eklund does not constitute a viable plan for the most important position on your roster, imo. After how long we've been in C purgatory, no less. 

Depends on what you get back for Sam and Jack really. If I get back Turcotte, 8, and Rossi for example, that's changes the conversation. 

[Thorny]

A guy who's shown almost nothing at the NHL level, who many had as a prospective 2C more so than a 1 in Cozens, a Mittelstadt who doesn't have a first line ceiling who, before a short stretch under Granato, may not have even looked like an NHL player, and Eklund, high talent but just as likely a winger? 

It'd be a big yikes at C with almost zero room for error. It would tell me Adams has his eye on Wright/Bedard. 

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Depends on what you get back for Sam and Jack really. If I get back Turcotte, 8, and Rossi for example, that's changes the conversation. 

Totally agree

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Thorny said:

A guy who's shown almost nothing at the NHL level, who many had as a prospective 2C more so than a 1 in Cozens, a Mittelstadt who doesn't have a first line ceiling who, before a short stretch under Granato, may not have even looked like an NHL player, and Eklund, high talent but just as likely a winger? 

It'd be a big yikes at C with almost zero room for error. It would tell me Adams has his eye on Wright/Bedard. 

Totally agree

You shouldn't be using the first round of the draft to fill needs. If Owen Power had more offense, I would probably have moved him up my rankings because him being a lefty at the end of the day does not matter. Eklund might or might not be a center in the NHL. Johnson I don't see that at all. Beniers will be but probably as a good 2c. It just isn't the draft to focus on centers. 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You shouldn't be using the first round of the draft to fill needs. If Owen Power had more offense, I would probably have moved him up my rankings because him being a lefty at the end of the day does not matter. Eklund might or might not be a center in the NHL. Johnson I don't see that at all. Beniers will be but probably as a good 2c. It just isn't the draft to focus on centers. 

You certainly can look at need at 1 overall, imo. If you can't in this draft, that's more so a comment on the particular draft, itself.

The idea that teams don't look at the draft to fill need is a misnomer: not that you look to fill NHL need with it necessarily, but you still look to maintain a balanced system. If does not due to fill your prospect pipeline with the most talent possible without regards to filling out that balance: without proper variety the odds begin to decrease your system will properly supplement your roster, over time. 

We need to add prospective Cs to the pipeline, simple as that. It doesn't need to be from 1 overall, it doesn't need to be in the draft, it doesn't need to come from the ERR trades, but it does need to happen, one way or another, this offseason. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

You certainly can look at need at 1 overall, imo. If you can't in this draft, that's more so a comment on the particular draft, itself.

The idea that teams don't look at the draft to fill need is a misnomer: not that you look to fill NHL need with it necessarily, but you still look to maintain a balanced system. If does not due to fill your prospect pipeline with the most talent possible without regards to filling out that balance: without proper variety the odds begin to decrease your system will properly supplement your roster, over time. 

We need to add prospective Cs to the pipeline, simple as that. It doesn't need to be from 1 overall, it doesn't need to be in the draft, it doesn't need to come from the ERR trades, but it does need to happen, one way or another, this offseason. 

No, you should not look to need in round 1. You want to draft needs in 2-7 go for it. In round 1 you need to get the most talented NHL player you can get. 

[Randall Flagg]

I thought Kent Johnson was a defenseman until just now lol

[fiftyone]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, you should not look to need in round 1. You want to draft needs in 2-7 go for it. In round 1 you need to get the most talented NHL player you can get. 

I think i generally agree with this especially at the top of the round. If you're drafting 1OA, you probably need so much that it's not worth passing on the "best" player to fill a positional need.

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, you should not look to need in round 1. You want to draft needs in 2-7 go for it. In round 1 you need to get the most talented NHL player you can get. 

I think where the disconnect arises for me is when it comes to small perceived talent gaps between players. Of course if there is a clear cut difference in talent, you go with the talent. But thinking, with the nature of the NHL draft and the amount of luck and randomness that goes into it, that a perceived small gap in talent should override a *known*variable like roster need, when considering a player who's expected to step right in, is hubris in my opinion. If it's a small talent gap, your projection amounts to a guess. I'd take the assurity of the positional benefit if picking at 1, between say, a Power, and a Beniers that had say 95% of the perceived "talent" of Power. 

The numbers I attributed there for "talent" are merely for the purposes of the hypothetical. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I thought Kent Johnson was a defenseman until just now lol

You are thinking of Ryan Johnson

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I think where the disconnect arises for me is when it comes to small perceived talent gaps between players. Of course if there is a clear cut difference in talent, you go with the talent. But thinking, with the nature of the NHL draft and the amount of luck and randomness that goes into it, that a perceived small gap in talent should override a *known*variable like roster need, when considering a player who's expected to step right in, is hubris in my opinion. If it's a small talent gap, your projection amounts to a guess. I'd take the assurity of the positional benefit if picking at 1, between say, a Power, and a Beniers that had say 95% of the perceived "talent" of Power. 

The numbers I attributed there for "talent" are merely for the purposes of the hypothetical. 

Sure, if you need a center and the defender is a hair better go for the center but that also goes to the fact that scoring is the priority in round 1 and almost always should be. So in this instance you have Owen Power who isn't going to be a Dahlin type with 40-50pt a year but more like 25-30 and you really need to think about that when taking him because you can get 30pt defenders with reach into the 2nd round every year. Can you find a 80 point forward in the 2nd round every year? Maybe if you are super good at drafting. 

I think we kinda agree here actually. 

[dudacek]

I’ve read both Eklund and Johnson think of themselves as centres.

It would be extraordinarily odd (and sad) for a team to have invested 2 2OA picks, an 8th OA and a 7OA in the past six years and enter next season without a top 6 centre, but it is entirely possible.

[Thorny]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Sure, if you need a center and the defender is a hair better go for the center but that also goes to the fact that scoring is the priority in round 1 and almost always should be. So in this instance you have Owen Power who isn't going to be a Dahlin type with 40-50pt a year but more like 25-30 and you really need to think about that when taking him because you can get 30pt defenders with reach into the 2nd round every year. Can you find a 80 point forward in the 2nd round every year? Maybe if you are super good at drafting. 

I think we kinda agree here actually. 

I think so too. 

It was a poorly chosen hypothetical by me anyways because Beniers/Power don't fit the "step right in" criteria I mentioned which is a key for me in allowing positional need to be a factor. With players a few years out...ya up top you gotta go pure BPA - organizational need can change so quick.

Just look at Botterill overloading the RHD, ruining assets in the process, and now we are weak at RHD lol.

Though, that may serve as an argument against the "acquire as much talent as possible for the current roster and sort out the positional need through trades later" line of thinking Botterill seemed to operate under, when it came to current team building. 

[Taro T]

13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You are thinking of Ryan Johnson

Ezra Johnson's right about Kent Johnson being right about Ryan Johnson being right about being a D-man.

[Thorny]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’ve read both Eklund and Johnson think of themselves as centres.

It would be extraordinarily odd (and sad) for a team to have invested 2 2OA picks, an 8th OA and a 7OA in the past six years and enter next season without a top 6 centre, but it is entirely possible.

It could be, since draft day 2014: 

2 first overall picks

2 second overall picks

1 seventh overall pick

3 eighth overall picks 

and ROR

 

...for a total of eight top 10 picks plus a top-10 league two-way C, and come away with *no* real top 6 C next year (with 2 prospective 2Cs representing the entire C haul from said 9 assets)

I don't think that can be allowed to happen. 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

 

[Hoss]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No, you should not look to need in round 1. You want to draft needs in 2-7 go for it. In round 1 you need to get the most talented NHL player you can get. 

A lot of the argument against Power (including yours) has included how many young LHD we have in the system. 🤔 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Hoss said:

A lot of the argument against Power (including yours) has included how many young LHD we have in the system. 🤔 

I don't give ***** anymore. 

2 minutes ago, Hoss said:

A lot of the argument against Power (including yours) has included how many young LHD we have in the system. 🤔 

I tried to tell you why Power shouldn't go first using his skillset and you ***** all over that while barely even being able to muster a concrete reason why he was good. 

Power tall he good. thanks Craig Rivet for that amazing insight. 

[pi2000]

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't give ***** anymore. 

I tried to tell you why Power shouldn't go first using his skillset and you ***** all over that while barely even being able to muster a concrete reason why he was good. 

Power tall he good. thanks Craig Rivet for that amazing insight. 

It's almost like you're penalizing him for being tall haha.

Elite hockey sense, skating, and composure.   First player in history to win the Worlds before being drafted.   

Sure, he's not perfect, not by a long shot, but when you look at the total package, as a defenseman, is rare.

[Hoss]

11 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't give ***** anymore. 

I tried to tell you why Power shouldn't go first using his skillset and you ***** all over that while barely even being able to muster a concrete reason why he was good. 

Power tall he good. thanks Craig Rivet for that amazing insight. 

Liger. I've presented NUMEROUS well-thought out posts about Power's abilities. You know this. His height is a bonus to the rest of his abilities as a player. You know this. You have presented your reasons for not loving Power and they are also very reasonable. But for some reason you constantly go back to the height well when anyone disagrees with you.

Also, my point about you specifically mentioned the team having too many LHD to take Power is accurate and contradicts your thoughts on the Sabres taking the best player available.

[gilbert11]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

It could be, since draft day 2014: 

2 first overall picks

2 second overall picks

1 seventh overall pick

3 eighth overall picks 

and ROR

 

...for a total of eight top 10 picks plus a top-10 league two-way C, and come away with *no* real top 6 C next year (with 2 prospective 2Cs representing the entire C haul from said 9 assets)

I don't think that can be allowed to happen. 

 

Until proven wrong, I somewhat expect a Johan Larsson-type acquisition and expectations of him as C2.