HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > NHL Draft - Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL Draft - Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

The Draft Analyst: 2017 NHL Draft Report Cards

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2017, 12:52 PM
  #1
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,773
vCash: 500
The Draft Analyst: 2017 NHL Draft Report Cards

Took me a while because I wanted to do a podcast wrap-up and it was taking too long.

It's easy to say "it's too early". I get it. But some of the bad grades were from strategy, not necessarily the picks themselves. For example, the Bruins loading up on defensemen hurt their grade. The Jets and Wings loading up on size hurt their grade.

Conversely, some teams got good grades even if the prospects weren't all high-ranked kids but attacked a major weakness within the organization.


Steve Kournianos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 05:01 PM
  #2
IronMarshal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Langhorne, PA
Posts: 2,694
vCash: 500
I know you expect us to reply with Homerisms, and I am sure I won't disappoint in that regard.How does Philly not get an A. They got Nolan Patrick, arguably the best player in the draft, and one of 2 head and shoulders above the rest. They also picked Morgan Frost and Isaac Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe was rated first round by a lot of services, and Frost who was surely going to go in the top few of the second. 3 players who could easily be argued as top 35, and Strome in the 4th? I am not a big Strome fan, but if he improves his skating even a little, he has to make it with his intelligence, shot and vision. A decent goalie prospect, and a couple of guys with real upside possibility late. Surely that is as good as or better than Chicago or Colorado or Edmonton or Montreal?
I didn't see any real low marks, surely some teams did poorly, Caps probably deserve an F, but maybe a D given they had little to work with.
That said, I do enjoy you site and appreciate the effort you put into it. Thank you for making it available to us.

IronMarshal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 07:04 PM
  #3
tigervixxxen
Moderator
Optimism=Delusional
 
tigervixxxen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 47,870
vCash: 166
Good read, always nice to see commentary on some of those later round picks. It's nice the Avs targeted some skill and you certainly were the only outlet that had anything on Shvryov.

tigervixxxen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 08:02 PM
  #4
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMarshal View Post
I know you expect us to reply with Homerisms, and I am sure I won't disappoint in that regard.How does Philly not get an A. They got Nolan Patrick, arguably the best player in the draft, and one of 2 head and shoulders above the rest. They also picked Morgan Frost and Isaac Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe was rated first round by a lot of services, and Frost who was surely going to go in the top few of the second. 3 players who could easily be argued as top 35, and Strome in the 4th? I am not a big Strome fan, but if he improves his skating even a little, he has to make it with his intelligence, shot and vision. A decent goalie prospect, and a couple of guys with real upside possibility late. Surely that is as good as or better than Chicago or Colorado or Edmonton or Montreal?
I didn't see any real low marks, surely some teams did poorly, Caps probably deserve an F, but maybe a D given they had little to work with.
That said, I do enjoy you site and appreciate the effort you put into it. Thank you for making it available to us.

I can't fail a team that added 4-12 prospects to their pool, regardless of how marginal they are. The truth is these kids deserve a chance for the next year or two.

The Flyers took a lot of risks because they could. They already had a deep pool. The two biggest reasons why I gave them an A- was going off my board for Frost. I get why they likes Frost, but there were better prospects that didn't have the benefit of playing on a stacked team.

I'm not that big a Frost guy. Never quite saw the hype.

Steve Kournianos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 08:58 PM
  #5
displacedsabre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Good read. I was pleased with the picks as a Sabres fan. Still think Mittelstadt turns into one of the best in the draft, most people seem to be down on him. Hopefully these last few drafts start leading to wins, we need to feel a playoff series soon. It's been too long. Lord knows we won't get any help from our NFL squad who are pushing almost 2 decades without a playoff game, Buffalo fans need some light, been in the shade far too long.

displacedsabre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 10:04 PM
  #6
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
 
Vatican Roulette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Gorillaz-EPWRID
Country: United States
Posts: 13,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kournianos View Post
Took me a while because I wanted to do a podcast wrap-up and it was taking too long.

It's easy to say "it's too early". I get it. But some of the bad grades were from strategy, not necessarily the picks themselves. For example, the Bruins loading up on defensemen hurt their grade. The Jets and Wings loading up on size hurt their grade.

Conversely, some teams got good grades even if the prospects weren't all high-ranked kids but attacked a major weakness within the organization.

Personally I think Detroit's grade was too high.

__________________
I move with elegance of an African elephant
Vatican Roulette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 10:21 PM
  #7
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,272
vCash: 500
I think A- is right for the Flyers.

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 11:01 PM
  #8
Gnashville
One and Done
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Crossville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 9,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMarshal View Post
I know you expect us to reply with Homerisms, and I am sure I won't disappoint in that regard.How does Philly not get an A. They got Nolan Patrick, arguably the best player in the draft, and one of 2 head and shoulders above the rest. They also picked Morgan Frost and Isaac Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe was rated first round by a lot of services, and Frost who was surely going to go in the top few of the second. 3 players who could easily be argued as top 35, and Strome in the 4th? I am not a big Strome fan, but if he improves his skating even a little, he has to make it with his intelligence, shot and vision. A decent goalie prospect, and a couple of guys with real upside possibility late. Surely that is as good as or better than Chicago or Colorado or Edmonton or Montreal?
I didn't see any real low marks, surely some teams did poorly, Caps probably deserve an F, but maybe a D given they had little to work with.
That said, I do enjoy you site and appreciate the effort you put into it. Thank you for making it available to us.
He put a lot of work into this and not every team deserves an "A". His grades were very fair and informative. Yes, Philadelphia got potentially the best player but the overall grade is not based on one player. FYI: I say this as someone that thinks he rated my team too high.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 07:06 AM
  #9
Pavels Dog
Registered User
 
Pavels Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 8,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kournianos View Post
Took me a while because I wanted to do a podcast wrap-up and it was taking too long.

It's easy to say "it's too early". I get it. But some of the bad grades were from strategy, not necessarily the picks themselves. For example, the Bruins loading up on defensemen hurt their grade. The Jets and Wings loading up on size hurt their grade.

Conversely, some teams got good grades even if the prospects weren't all high-ranked kids but attacked a major weakness within the organization.

I don't know how the Wings targeted size more than an organizational weakness. Their top D prospects are Cholowski/Hronek/Saarijarvi/Hicketts, all smaller, skilled D-men. Now they drafted some bigger guys (not the main reason they drafted them though).

Pavels Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 07:18 AM
  #10
TheKingSlayer
He was in the way!
 
TheKingSlayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,659
vCash: 500
I don't understand the overall rankings displayed for many of the players. Like for Colorado's picks in Igor (3OV) and Smirnov (6OV)... what does that mean exactly?

TheKingSlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 07:26 AM
  #11
ChadS
Registered User
 
ChadS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingSlayer View Post
I don't understand the overall rankings displayed for many of the players. Like for Colorado's picks in Igor (3OV) and Smirnov (6OV)... what does that mean exactly?
I believe he had a separate ranking for overagers and OV refers to that list.

ChadS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 07:52 AM
  #12
Frk It
Crap Space
 
Frk It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 22,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavels Dog View Post
I don't know how the Wings targeted size more than an organizational weakness. Their top D prospects are Cholowski/Hronek/Saarijarvi/Hicketts, all smaller, skilled D-men. Now they drafted some bigger guys (not the main reason they drafted them though).
He said he thought we needed swift skating playmakers... and we literally drafted 0 of those.

Frk It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 08:58 AM
  #13
Pavels Dog
Registered User
 
Pavels Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 8,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frk It View Post
He said he thought we needed swift skating playmakers... and we literally drafted 0 of those.
Seems like an awfully narrow definition of an organization's needs, especially the Wings.

Pavels Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 02:32 PM
  #14
IronMarshal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Langhorne, PA
Posts: 2,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kournianos View Post
I can't fail a team that added 4-12 prospects to their pool, regardless of how marginal they are. The truth is these kids deserve a chance for the next year or two.

The Flyers took a lot of risks because they could. They already had a deep pool. The two biggest reasons why I gave them an A- was going off my board for Frost. I get why they likes Frost, but there were better prospects that didn't have the benefit of playing on a stacked team.

I'm not that big a Frost guy. Never quite saw the hype.
I understand that you have to use your own rankings, and everyone is going to have different rankings, and that you were not high on Frost and Ratcliffe, but if you look at Chicago for instance, they picked Jokiharju (24), and Mitchell (31). The Flyers picked Patrick (1). Who would you rather have? Patrick or Jokiharju AND Mitchell? I think everyone would take Patrick. This is how I would view the draft anyway.

Further, You have Frost (55), Ratcliffe (58), and Strome (71), all ranked higher than any other Blackhawk pick. I am assuming you have them higher than the overager Altybarmakyan, as there seems no way to compare OAs and Gs to the draft ranks of first year Fs and Ds. Based on your rankings, I have to assume that you would rather have Patrick, Frost, Ratcliffe and Strome over Jokiharju, Mitchell and pretty much anyone else in the Blackhawks draft list, even if you like Altybarmakyan (who I admit knowing nothing about as he was not in the guides I subscribe to that I remember) better than Frost and Ratcliffe, which I would I would have a hard time buying, you have to say the Flyers did a better job than Chicago. I am not picking on Chicago, they were just the first team I compared the Flyers draft to. If the Flyers are an A- because you thought Frost and Ratcliffe should have been late seconds, sure the Blackhawks are no better than an A- either. I could probably do that with a few other Aís as well.

You are correct, the Flyers could take a lot of risks because their prospect pool is so good and deep. I would respectfully point out that this is because their scouting staff is excellent and has done an excellent job the last few years. The same scouting staff that thought so highly of Frost and Ratcliffe to have had Hextall move up to get them.

Anyway, while I am playing devilís advocate to your analysis, I want to say again, keep up the good work! Even though I may disagree with some of it, it is still very informative and enjoyable. Thank you.

IronMarshal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 02:58 PM
  #15
BruinLVGA
Registered User
 
BruinLVGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 5,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMarshal View Post
I know you expect us to reply with Homerisms, and I am sure I won't disappoint in that regard.How does Philly not get an A. They got Nolan Patrick, arguably the best player in the draft, and one of 2 head and shoulders above the rest. They also picked Morgan Frost and Isaac Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe was rated first round by a lot of services, and Frost who was surely going to go in the top few of the second. 3 players who could easily be argued as top 35, and Strome in the 4th? I am not a big Strome fan, but if he improves his skating even a little, he has to make it with his intelligence, shot and vision. A decent goalie prospect, and a couple of guys with real upside possibility late. Surely that is as good as or better than Chicago or Colorado or Edmonton or Montreal?
I didn't see any real low marks, surely some teams did poorly, Caps probably deserve an F, but maybe a D given they had little to work with.
That said, I do enjoy you site and appreciate the effort you put into it. Thank you for making it available to us.
You are a man of his word, I will give you that.

BruinLVGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 02:46 PM
  #16
IronMarshal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Langhorne, PA
Posts: 2,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinLVGA View Post
You are a man of his word, I will give you that.
Yup, but I understand Steve's point I think. In his opinion the Flyers reached more because they could and the A rated teams got value where they drafted, therefore had a better draft then the Flyers. That makes sense.
I approach it differently. My approach is who got the better players (which should mean improved more), and my second post explains my thinking on that. It is just two different evaluation approaches.
It is kind of like Scouts looking at a player's production during their draft year verses their future projection. Two different approaches.
Steve made me think about how we both approach this, and anything that makes you think is a good thing.

IronMarshal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 03:00 PM
  #17
TheRightWay
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,667
vCash: 500
It is logistically impossible that zero of the 31 teams had a below average draft. These rankings don't make sense.

TheRightWay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 03:03 PM
  #18
Kid Dynamite
5 14 6 1
 
Kid Dynamite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Downtown
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,003
vCash: 1576
Good read, thanks.

Kid Dynamite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 03:15 PM
  #19
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 5,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Kournianos View Post
I can't fail a team that added 4-12 prospects to their pool, regardless of how marginal they are. The truth is these kids deserve a chance for the next year or two.

The Flyers took a lot of risks because they could. They already had a deep pool. The two biggest reasons why I gave them an A- was going off my board for Frost. I get why they likes Frost, but there were better prospects that didn't have the benefit of playing on a stacked team.

I'm not that big a Frost guy. Never quite saw the hype.
First I must admit I am a big Brayden Schenn fan and was upset he was traded but two number one picks for him was a good deal. However I was upset that they selected Frost at 27 when to me there were many players I had rated way higher at that point in the draft. I am a fan of Hextall's drafts so I hope the kid pans out. That, and I hope they strike gold with the second #1 they received.
PS: they still should have been given an A and as usual Thanks for the good read!

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 04:10 PM
  #20
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRightWay View Post
It is logistically impossible that zero of the 31 teams had a below average draft. These rankings don't make sense.
How so?

Both parts of your post.

Steve Kournianos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 04:21 PM
  #21
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeypete49 View Post
First I must admit I am a big Brayden Schenn fan and was upset he was traded but two number one picks for him was a good deal. However I was upset that they selected Frost at 27 when to me there were many players I had rated way higher at that point in the draft. I am a fan of Hextall's drafts so I hope the kid pans out. That, and I hope they strike gold with the second #1 they received.
PS: they still should have been given an A and as usual Thanks for the good read!
Maybe it's just me, but I thought after Patrick the Flyers could have done better, as in gone bonkers with potential stars in the earlier rounds

Like,

Patrick
Kostin/Tolvanen over Frost
Mismash/Comtois over Ratcliffe
Tarasov/Petruzzelli over Ustimenko
Toropchenko over Sushko

On paper, this blows me away and gives the Flyers an A+++++

Patrick
Kostin
Mismash
Petruzzelli
Toropchenko
Strome

Dont get me wrong. I like Ratcliffe's ceiling. Still, an A- is a heck of a draft.

Steve Kournianos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 05:10 PM
  #22
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,983
vCash: 500
I enjoy your write ups Steve. I personally did not have Frost and others going when they did. But I also trust the Flyers scouts since they have the best 1st rd record of drafting the last 20 years.

Personally, I was hoping we didn't draft any goalies this year but with losing Madsen, I understand it.

Fwiw, The Hockey News had the Flyers as one of the top winners at the draft.

Tripod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 05:52 PM
  #23
Kingsfan1
Registered User
 
Kingsfan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Staples Center
Country: Armenia
Posts: 2,697
vCash: 500
I stopped reading after some teams got an A when they shouldn't and Kings got a B lol

Kingsfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2017, 09:42 PM
  #24
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
 
Steve Kournianos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 18,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingsfan1 View Post
I stopped reading after some teams got an A when they shouldn't and Kings got a B lol
Kings got a B+, not a B, mainly for falling in love with Villalta over prospects I deemed to be better. Plus Anderson-Dolan being taken ahead of Morand, Ikonen, Studnicka and Lipanov -- four centers who drove their line and have more creativity. JAD was a passenger on Yamamoto's line, albeit still a decent center.

Every team received a lengthy explanation as to why they received the grade they did.


Last edited by Steve Kournianos: 07-06-2017 at 09:48 PM.
Steve Kournianos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2017, 01:19 AM
  #25
Sidney the Kidney
Unsustainable
 
Sidney the Kidney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,238
vCash: 50
Steve, I'm a little confused about your write-up for the Pens. Particularly these two quotes:

Quote:
The Penguins are drafting like theyíre in no rush to develop and eventually replace the stars creeping closer to 30 on the big roster.
Quote:
I can only guess the Pens like Lauzonís mobility and poise, but Crosby and Malkin will be well into their 30s by the time heís ready for the NHL.
Quote:
It seems like the Pens were drafting for kids that will compliment their current roster ó a roster thatís getting older while the pipeline lacks forwards with top-end skill.
Are you basing your score/ranking of their draft on the players they chose, or on the philosophy they used to select players?

This is where I'd like clarification, if you will. It seems like you think the Pens should have used the 2017 to draft future replacements for guys like Crosby, Malkin, and Kessel, but instead they went the puck moving defenseman route along with a couple of long shot but high reward type forwards, and so you scored them low for it.

My question/comment is, if the score is for the actual players, so be it. I wasn't too high on the guys they ended up choosing, either. But if the score is because you think they failed to find replacements for their core stars, I think that's a bit unfair because you're not going to find a replacement for Crosby or Malkin when you're drafting 31st or later. Drafting players who fit the mold of the team you're trying to build (ie. mobile, skating defense to help with the transition game) is a perfectly fine philosophy.

Sidney the Kidney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.