Hi! Thank you for clicking. If you’re a subscriber that is reading this in your email inbox, I would definitely recommend opening it in your browser. There are a lot of words and a lot of GIFs.
It’s not easy to evaluate a draft class when half the players haven’t suited up for an actual game since March. And for many of those players, there’s no start date in sight. But the draft will still happen— the NHL recently announced July 23 and 24, 2021— and so the evaluation must continue. However, the weirdness of this draft requires a couple disclaimers:
My midseason rankings are already rough in a normal year. This year, it’s even more so. You really shouldn’t put any weight at all into the actual ranks here— this is just how I think I see things at this point and I’m sure all of it will change in like a week or two. Instead, focus on the player profiles and information. That’s the fun stuff.
Just a top ten for now. We’ll have a full top 31 by the draft, don’t you worry. Taking it slow in a stupid year.
I haven’t watched any NHL hockey since the Oilers got knocked out back in August, so the NHL comparisons here are even worse than they usually would be. Some of them are probably okay, some of them probably suck. I tried my best.
Don’t really read into the stats in the top right, some players have draft years stats, some haven’t played yet so it’s draft-minus-one still. Not a fair comparison.
The 2021 class doesn’t have any clear favourite or star player at the top, but it’s a super fun class. There’s an insane amount of blueline talent. Like, it’s unreal. I’m a defenceman myself and evaluating defencemen will always be my favourite and I feel just incredibly spoiled with this group. Spoiler: there are a ton of defenders in this top ten.
As for my “philosophy”, it’s a whole bunch of “who the fuck knows” right now. Real names on a dartboard type thing (it’s a little more precise than that, I promise). Usually I’m big on statistics and player impact, but it’s unfair and extremely difficult to really lean on that as a primary tool when some players have played games in the last few months and some haven’t. So this list is more eye-testy than usual for me. As a kind of overarching theme, I’m looking for players that are comfortable with the puck on their stick for extended stretches. For defencemen, that means players that can make plays under pressure on the breakout and flash some actual offensive talent in the attacking zone. For forwards, I like the guys that want to have the puck on their stick as much as possible and those that can make plays in traffic.
For anyone looking to familiarize themselves with some of the top names to track for the next draft, I think there’s plenty of good information on playstyles and just kind of the general archetypes that these players fit into. Again, don’t pay too much attention to the actual ranks here.
And finally— I put a lot of work into these rankings every time. It’s not a fast process to watch all these guys play, grab clips, and try to distill what they’re good and bad at as best as I can. I’m writing this at 1 a.m right now because I want to finish this up and get it out tomorrow. So I really appreciate anybody that supports my work by sharing this— retweets are amazing, send it to your mom if you want, anything is just terrific and I appreciate greatly. And I encourage everyone to drop their thoughts too— could be on Twitter or in the comments, email me if you want (samhappi77@gmail.com). Would love to talk draft with all of you as I watch obscene amounts of hockey and basketball tomorrow/today.
Enjoy!
Tier One: This is a very unique class with three defencemen leading the charge for first overall. None of these players project as realistic stars, but all three should be dependable anchors in a top four and important cogs of good hockey teams. Owen Power currently sits first on Bob McKenzie’s list; he appears to be the industry favourite in a really tight class.
Luke Hughes, LHD, USNDTP U18 (USHL)
One Thing I Love: Hughes is an incredibly elusive skater and the best defenceman in this draft at evading forechecking pressure. He’s extremely comfortable with an opposing forward bearing down on him and comes out with the puck still on his stick more often than not.
Swing Skill: Hughes’ offensive game is a little weird. He’s excellent at starting the breakout, loves to join the rush, and can lead it himself too. In fact, Hughes’ aggressiveness joining the rush and involving himself offensively was one of the traits that really stood out to me as I went through his video— in a positive way. But when we sort USNTDP defenders in their draft-minus-one seasons going back to 2008 by primary points per game, Hughes slots in somewhere between Jake Sanderson and Tyler Kleven from last year’s draft class (his brother Quinn tops that list). Those are two defenders not exactly known for their offensive skills (though Sanderson is a lot better than Kleven in that regard). Total points per game is more favourable: fourth on the list and only 0.05 points per game behind Quinn. But a lot of those were secondary assists— Luke’s 0.3 all-situations primary points per game don’t look so good in comparison to Quinn’s 0.52.
This a player that’s capable of doing this:
But it’s also a player with 28 points in 48 games last year and 6 in 11 to date this season. That’s a good offensive player, yes, but it’s not an elite one like his brother. If he can get involved more frequently and make more high-level offensive plays like that one, Hughes could match Quinn’s upside. I’d start by challenging Luke to get up to 2 shots on goal and one scoring chance per game— he was at one SOG and 0.57 scoring chances last year, according to InStat. That should put his focus on jumping up into the offence and getting to dangerous areas; the playmaking should follow.
Projection:
Top-end: #1 defenceman with elite ability in transition, offensive chops, and a solid all-around game. His space creation on the breakout and aggressive offensive play will be key. Like his brother.
Realistic: Fringe top-pair defenceman with excellent transition results. Could look the part of a #1 guy on a not so good team, but not a clear-cut elite player.
Low-end: Useful top-four defenceman with a strong all-around skillset.
Methodology:
I ranked Quinn Hughes third overall back in 2018 because of his incredible ability to escape forechecking pressure and move the puck forwards in transition. I’m ranking Luke first overall in this class for the same reason. Will Luke Hughes be as good as Quinn is? No. But this draft class doesn’t have nearly as much firepower at the top as the 2018 draft did and Quinn has already surpassed even my draft day expectations for him (how the fuck did he last all the way to 7?). This first group of defencemen doesn’t have much separation at all, but I believe Hughes is the most talented of the three in the transition game and that’s what I value most highly.
Hughes is also the one of the three that caused me the most trouble determining his swing skill. Obviously, the ease of writing up the profile for this isn’t something that impacts where I rank a player (and it shouldn’t be any surprise considering that I’ve written ultra-detailed breakdown articles for both Clarke and Power but not Hughes yet), but it does speak to the well-roundedness of Hughes’ game. He’s more multi-dimensional and versatile in transition than Clarke and Power, he shows a lot of offensive skill and instincts, and his two-way game is solid for his age. If anybody in this class is going to be a dependable, minute-munching defender, I think it’ll be Luke. I do think a lot of people will look at Owen Power’s size and all-around game and choose him as that guy; I’d urge them to consider the value of Hughes’ escape ability against a tough forechecking team in the playoffs. Hughes doesn’t have the raw offensive skill of Brandt Clarke, but I think he’s a more versatile player on the breakout that offers plenty of upside in the o-zone as well, especially if cultivated properly.
Brandt Clarke, RHD, Barrie Colts (Ontario Hockey League)
One Thing I Love: Clarke excels at accelerating the pace in transition and playing a consistently fast game. His long passes into the neutral zone generate a high rate of rush opportunities for his team, making it difficult for the opposition to get set up defensively. A good way to determine how well a player suits the modern, ever-changing game is to imagine them within the Leafs’ system (and I’m not even a Leafs fan)— Clarke would be a perfect fit.
Swing Skill: Versatility in the transition game. Clarke is very good at playing a fast pace, generating rush opportunities, and catching forecheckers in overcommitted spots. But against a well set up neutral zone system like the OHL-best Ottawa 67’s last season, Clarke’s up-tempo pace can be somewhat counterproductive; Ottawa succeeded in angling Clarke up the boards and encouraging him to play the puck exactly where they wanted it, with further pressure waiting to pounce.
I want to see Clarke add a slower, more composed element to his transitional game so he can be better set up to counter NHL-style forechecks like Ottawa’s. Against a system focused on channeling the puck up the strong side wall like the 67’s, you usually want to play the puck cross-ice to the weakside— that’s the play the forecheck is trying to discourage. If Clarke can develop the poise and presence of mind to identify and expose the weak points of a forecheck, he’ll be far better suited against faster, stronger, and better prepared NHL systems.
Projection:
Top-end: A true #1 defenceman and one of the best transitional blueliners in the game. Dependent on the development of that slower, responsive element on the breakout. Think Morgan Rielly.
Realistic: A fringe top-pair defenceman. Not dependable enough to play consistent big minutes against elite competition, but an ultra-skilled player that can contribute offensively and spring forwards for rush chances.
Low-end: Above-average #5 dman that can step into a top-four. Struggles a bit against strong forechecks, a little turnover-prone, and not steadfast in his own zone. A combination of factors limiting his reliability against the opponent’s best lines.
Methodology: This is a class with no clear number one and I expect that I’ll waffle on my top guy throughout the year. Down the road, Clarke’s all-around offensive skillset and modern transitional style could make him the best player out of this draft. Should you expect him to be a star? Probably not— quite a few things would have to break right for that to happen: improved multidimensionality on the breakout, fewer turnovers on zone entries, and probably a slightly faster first step too. But Clarke does offer that upside under ideal development, and his mid-level projection is a pretty damn valuable player as well.
This draft is loaded with quality blueline prospects— you’ll see a bunch of them just in this short ranking. I’ve found with my video work that most of those players are really comfortable with the puck in transition, but don’t look as good as soon as they enter the offensive zone— most of them either defer to a teammate as soon as possible or are easily contained to the outside of the ice. Of the defencemen in this draft, I think Clarke exhibits the most upside as an offensive creator off of the zone entry. His puck skills are excellent, he attacks the slot, and he’s shown some promising flashes as a perimeter playmaker in those situations. He still has room for improvement— Clarke can be turnover-prone and is still nailing in his awareness of space and backchecking pressure— but no other defenceman can match his sheer offensive skill and upside. Acting as a full participant in the ensuing rush after a carry through the neutral zone or long pass to start the play only makes a player’s breakout impact so much more valuable to his team, and Clarke is best positioned to do so consistently at the NHL level. That’s what sets him apart from Owen Power and the other defencemen on this list.
Owen Power, LHD, University of Michigan (Big Ten)
One Thing I Love: Power’s aggressiveness and comfort level with the puck in transition is exceptional. Large, highly mobile, aggressive defenceman belong to one of the scarcest archetypes of NHL players— guys like Victor Hedman and Dougie Hamilton are pretty close to unicorns. Could Power be the next player to join that group? I’m not sure— the big differentiator for Hedman and Hamilton is that both of them skate like much smaller players with flawless body control and some of the quickest feet in the league. Power can come off as a little bit uncoordinated and sluggish as he moves, relying on his lengthy and powerful stride.
Another Thing I Love: Power spent two seasons with the Chicago Steel and their modern, extremely fluid offensive system. He laid claim to the entire right flank of the offensive zone with the Steel, sneaking down the wing for slot opportunities.
Chicago would sometimes slide into a powerplay-style 1-3-1 setup even at even-strength, with Power sliding down that wing to hunt one-timers and other chances.
Swing Skill: Power is an excellent skater, especially so in context of his 6’5” frame. But to be elite-level in transition, you pretty much need to be an elite skater in today’s game. Look at Hedman and Hamilton— two of the NHL’s best defencemen. Both players skate like they’re 6’1”, with really quick feet and no hints of awkwardness or lank.
Power doesn’t have that kind of foot speed or body control— watch how he swings his upper body back and forth here as he skates. You need an extremely efficient stride to harness a 6’5” frame into elite quickness; you can’t get that with that kind of wasted horizontal movement. Look at how stable Hedman and Hamilton’s upper bodies are as they skate.
Projection:
Top-end: A minute-munching, all-situations #1 defenceman like Victor Hedman. Will need to find similar levels of foot speed and continue to build on his puck skills.
Realistic: Top-four defenceman that can play on a top-pair if need be. His intelligence, mobility, and size should make him a very capable transitional player, his willingness to involve himself offensively will always be a source of value, and his reach and frame should make him a solid defensive player. That all-around skillset will always have a place in an NHL team’s defensive corps.
Low-end: Bottom-pair blueliner with a strong all-around game and occasional flashes of high-level offensive tools. I don’t expect the NHL pace to overwhelm him this much at all— his intelligence should mitigate any potential foot speed issues— but I suppose it’s possible.
Methodology: Power vs Clarke, for me, are the two guys competing for first overall at this point. Will that change? Probably. But I see two players with chances at becoming the top defenceman on their respective teams with ideal development and two players that could be key cogs in the top-four of a successful team in a realistic setting. They are the two best defenceman in a draft without any forward that looks like a clear-cut driver in a team’s top-six.
Clarke’s edge is in his puck skills. He’s craftier, more maneuverable, and simply a more skillful offensive player. Play Clarke at the wing and he’d probably look right at home. Remember, the guy had 113 points in 73 points back in bantam— he’s overflowing with offensive talent. Would Power be an effective player on the wing? He’s big and he can shoot, but he’s not super comfortable with the puck on his stick for prolonged offensive stretches and he can’t attack defences nearly to the extent Clarke can. As a defenceman, I’d be a lot more concerned about Clarke carrying the puck down the wing than Power; that entry creation is the differentiator for me. Clarke and Power are both very effective in a variety of areas. They both excel on the breakout, but in different ways— Clarke is very good at accelerating the pace, while Power uses his intelligence and size to milk time and slow the pace down for himself. They both present a lot of upside as defensive players— Clarke for his four-way mobility and potential as a smothering neutral zone defender, Power for his size, reach, and skating. They both involve themselves frequently in the offence— Clarke is more of an on-puck creator, but Power loves to sneak down to dangerous areas without the puck and embraces the position-fluid hockey that is the future of the NHL.
They’re similar in their all-around upside and effectiveness but also very different in how they do it. It’s difficult to say whose game will translate better. Some might prefer Power’s size and archetype scarcity; I’d argue that Clarke’s offensive tools and on-puck creation abilities are more similar to the young, elite defenders of today’s NHL— players like Quinn Hughes, Cale Makar, Rasmus Dahlin— whereas Power’s best-case scenario is a Victor Hedman type but only if he can start to skate like a smaller player, which is a lot to count on. Remember, all three of these guys are in the same tier.
Tier Two — Big chunk of six players that are really difficult to separate at this point. Some big time upside, but also a bunch of guys that look like they’ll be super dependable in big roles.
Kent Johnson, LHC, University of Michigan (Big Ten)
One Thing I Love: Johnson’s craftiness and creativity is absolutely off the charts. The BCHL isn’t exactly high level competition, sure, but the frequency that Johnson successfully pulled off advanced moves last season was probably the best I’ve ever seen from a prospect. He did the Michigan three times!
And he’s lethal dancing into the slot from left-to-right:
Swing Skill: Johnson destroyed the BCHL last season because of how easy he found it to walk into the slot. Just look at those two clips above— Johnson could go right to the net with ease. He scored 41 goals in 52 games in that league, with his scoring making up 40% of his production. Johnson is off to a good start in the NCAA with 9 points in 8 games, but only one is a goal— 11%. And that’s on only 12 shots too; Johnson hasn’t gotten to the slot nearly as frequently or easily as last year.
This is a good example— Johnson can’t create any kind of separation coming down the wing and the defender finds it quite easy to confine him to the outside lane. He doesn’t have high-level quickness. His offensive game is about deception and puck skills, not pure speed. It was clear that Johnson would become more reliant on his perimeter playmaking as NCAA defenders did a better job keeping him outside, but he can’t be an elite player without a scoring element. To do that, Johnson needs to get back to getting to dangerous areas. A few hours after I wrote this profile, Johnson did this, so it looks like things might already be turning around quite nicely.
Projection:
Top-end: Mid-level #1 centre with 60-70 point upside, elite transitional value, top powerplay responsibilities, and solid defensive play. It’s a bet on his craftiness and deceptive ability, but Johnson will need another gear of speed to reach this level.
Realistic: Versatile top-six forward that can play both centre or wing. Playing the outside could help Johnson offset his lack of a threatening top gear, but I can see Johnson acting as a serviceable second-line centre even without improved skating. His craftiness, playmaking, and well-rounded game should make him an offensive threat and valuable player, even in more of an off-puck, complimentary role.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger with flashes of high-level offensive skill, but someone who just can’t consistently play at a fast enough pace for a larger role.
Methodology: One important principle of my evaluation process is “bet on skill”. Johnson has tons of it. The big question with him is his mobility: will Johnson be able to attack with enough pace to create separation and really stress defences with speed on the rush? It’s a fair question— Johnson doesn’t have the elite skating that often accompanies hands as fast as his. But Johnson’s creativity and puck skills are extraordinary. He might not be a threat to blow by a defender with speed off the rush, but he can beat a player to the left and right with his hands, creativity, and deception. Johnson is an ultra-adaptable player that can operate in limited pockets of space and respond to what the defender gives him— a player overcommits to the middle and Johnson can go outside for a shot; he sets up too far outside and Kent can toedrag his way to the crease. He just presents so many other threats that Johnson doesn’t need to rely on speed in many situations.
It’ll be important to track Johnson’s ability to get to dangerous areas over the NCAA season. That’s what I believe will be the x-factor for Johnson as he develops— if he can do it as an NHLer, he’ll be a key contributor for his team. If it’s inconsistent, he could still be valuable in a more complementary role. If it doesn’t happen much at all, Johnson will underwhelm in a Casey Mittelstadt kind of way. A lot of his points thus far seem to be “empty”— Johnson is benefitting from secondary assists without getting to the slot himself. He has ten points in ten games, but only seventeen shots on goal. Compare that to Sharks second rounder Thomas Bordeleau, sitting at 10 points in 8 games with 26 shots on goal— Bordeleau is doing better controlling play and getting to the net. If Johnson improves in that area, he could join the first tier on the list. If not, I’d expect others to move above him. This ranking is a hedging of that bet.
William Eklund, C/LW, Djurgardens (Swedish Hockey League)
One Thing I Love: Eklund is getting lots of playing time in the professional SHL and he is scoring goals. Good ones too— he’s getting to high-percentage areas and making things happen. Always a terrific sign for a young player at a professional level.
Swing Skill: What can he do with the puck on his stick? I think a big reason why Eklund has long succeeded above his age group is because he is a terrific off-puck player— the Swede is really good at working off teammates, finding space, and getting to the slot without the puck. Like this— attracts pressure, distributes, goes to the net. That’s his game.
But he isn’t particularly explosive or dynamic with the puck on his stick. Eklund skates well, but he doesn’t have the speed mixing or agility or creativity to really attack defenders with the puck on his stick. Look at the skating here— it looks pretty good— but Eklund is a predictable attacker. The defender is able to angle him outside and step up to make the play on him.
Even when he tries to mix things up and be more creative, Eklund isn’t able to make a whole lot happen. The between-the-legs move might look fancy, but all it’s doing is taking him further outside.
This is a player that’s used to attacking junior defenders, not professional ones, so it isn’t particularly surprising that it’s been a struggle for him so far. But what you can do with the puck is what defines your role and value. An on-puck creator is more valuable than a complimentary player. A Connor McDavid is more valuable than a Patty Maroon.
Projection:
Top-end: Play-driving top-six winger with an effective all-around offensive game. Works off his teammates really well, could see him being a key cog of one of the most effective lines in the league one day with a couple other skilled players that he can play off of. Needs to work on his on-puck creation to hit this level as a driver.
Realistic: High-level ‘complementary’ player that can play alongside pretty much anyone on his team. Important top-six winger that stresses defences and creates space for others with his off-puck game.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger that never really figures out any type of on-puck creation. Still offers some value with his instincts and movement away from the puck, could perhaps move up into the top-six alongside an elite playmaker.
Methodology: Eklund has long been a playmaker at lower levels, tallying 12 goals and 24 assists in Swedish U20 last year. He’s adapted more of a scoring focus at the professional level so far with 7 goals and 7 assists in the SHL thus far. Usually we see players go from high-level scorers in junior to more balanced, playmaking-centric attackers at higher levels— Kent Johnson is one example, Tim Stutzle in the jump from German junior to German pro is another. Eklund has gone the other way, and it doesn’t look like luck— he’s averaging close to 2 shots per game; noted elite scorer Alexander Holtz, playing for the 2019-20 version of the same club, averaged 1.57 in his draft season. Scoring consistently requires getting into the slot, something that gets harder and harder at higher levels. It’s extremely promising that Eklund is doing that in a top-5 league in the world at 18.
In a normal year, Eklund would probably be getting more attention on Twitter for what he’s been able to do so far in the SHL. Daniel Sedin holds the best point per game scoring rate of SHL first-time draft eligible forwards since 1996 at 0.84. With his current rate, Eklund would slot in second with 0.74. Kevin Fiala is the nearest recent player with 0.65. Will he keep it up? Probably not— his shot rate is impressive, but Eklund’s 19% shooting percentage (one of his goals was an empty netter, another was a deflected pass) is far too high to be a strong bet to stay flat. But he compares very well historically to past top ten picks like Alex Holtz. We unfortunately won’t get to see him at the WJC due to COVID, but those of you that watched last year’s Hlinka-Gretzky might remember him as a player that really stood out for Sweden as a 16 year old with 5 points in 5 games.
Realistically, Eklund’s off-puck contributions will probably be the big driver of his NHL value. I think we should expect the same skills that a player leans on as he transitions from junior to Swedish pro to be the same ones that he goes to when he eventually jumps from Swedish pro to the NHL. And that’s okay! Eklund a lot more skilled than your typical “complimentary player” (often a bottom-sixer that gets pulled up to play alongside a high-level creator by a team lacking legitimate offensive options; as an Oilers fan, I know it quite well), and I think every team would relish the opportunity to add a skilled compliment that can function much better with the puck on his stick than most players in that role. I think that archetype— a skilled offensive player that probably can’t drive a scoring line all by himself, but should function very well with other skilled players— is still worthy of a top ten and even a top five pick. And if Eklund learns to make things happen with the puck on his stick more consistently, watch out.
Carson Lambos, LHD, Winnipeg Ice (WHL) / JYP U20 (Finland)
One Thing I Love: Lambos shows a lot of promise in the transition game, checking off a lot of boxes. He’s poised and can escape pressure:
Deceptive and mobile enough to beat players through the neutral zone:
And he can operate in traffic and under pressure:
Swing Skill: Like Owen Power and, frankly, most defencemen, Lambos can be inconsistent with his aggressiveness and comfort on offensive zone entries. InStat allows me to just watch an entire season (or more, if I want) worth of zone entries one-after-another and the big thing that’s jumped out to me from doing that for a bunch of defenders is that most blueliners really just aren’t comfortable in those situations— even some with tons of offensive skill. I’m not sure if it’s a coaching thing or if it’s just that these players don’t want to turn the puck over on their infrequent opportunities to attack off the rush, but it seems that they’re just very hesitant to actually attack defenders and look to make things happen themselves. There’s just no aggressiveness or willingness to make plays in traffic here— it’s all about staying out in space and trying to make plays from low-percentage areas.
Projection:
Top-end: Top-pair defenceman with a steady all-around game and elite transition value. Probably not the biggest offensive contributor, but his value is in other areas.
Realistic: Dependable blueliner that can play throughout a top-four. Breakout value is the moneymaker; probably not a ton of offensive chops.
Low-end: Bottom-pair defenceman with strong results in sheltered minutes.
Methodology: The knock on Lambos seems to be that he doesn’t have a standout skill— he’s a “good at everything, but not great at anything” type of player in the eyes of some. I would disagree with that assertion— Lambos might not have a standout tool (skating, puck skills, etc.), but he has exceptional upside in transition and has an ability to escape forecheckers that really isn’t common at all. He might not have the potentially dazzling upside of our first three defencemen here, but Lambos is a strong bet to be a really effective top-four defender that can drive play forwards and play more offence than defence.
I think another thing that people who think Lambos lacks a separation skill are missing is the growth potential that he offers. He swings his arms side-to-side sometimes while he skates— that’s a waste of energy that could turn into additional speed and explosiveness if coached out. He’s very comfortable playing under pressure on the breakout, so there’s promise that he’ll learn to play more aggressive and attack defenders on entries. And Lambos just stands out as a really intelligent, modern player— he has the possession mentality that you want. He’s not going to be throwing away possessions by going glass-and-out on the breakout.
There’s just so much that suggests Lambos will be an effective top-four defenceman. Any player that can consistently find space to make a good outlet on the breakout at NHL pace should have a job. A defenceman that is average in every area but high-level on the breakout is a super valuable hockey player. Lambos is high-level on the breakout— you can’t teach the kind of poise and comfort he has going against a forecheck— and above-average in those other areas too; that’s an even superer (sp?) valuable hockey player.
Fabian Lysell, RW, Lulea (SHL)
One Thing I Love: The descriptor I hear all the time for Lysell is “offensive dynamo.” I first heard that kind of praise and immediately pulled up his EliteProspects page, and my reaction was pretty much “okay, so he’s supposedly this incredible offensive player, but he only had 6 points in just 11 U20 games last year and 13 in 11 this season, not sure I see the connection there.” Those are good numbers, for sure, but the group of Swedes in the 2020 draft put up Lysell’s DY numbers so far in their DY-1 seasons. Offensive dynamo? But when I pulled him up on Instat it all made sense— Lysell’s ratio of highlight points to total points is incredibly high, and he just has that rare combination of confidence, comfort under pressure, and actual skill to pull off high-end plays with success and frequency.
Players that can make these type of side-to-side plays with the puck are just good at hockey, plain and simple.
Swing Skill: It’s funny how for all these ultra-skilled offensive talents it’s often the off-puck side of the game that everyone ends up focusing on. But that’s what people do, and Lysell’s two-way game will probably end up determining where he gets drafted and how eager his NHL team is to give him real opportunity to earn a skill role. We saw it for Noel Gunler last year— there was a lot of talk about his effort level and focus away from the puck and he dropped all the way out of the first round despite having clear 30 goal upside.
The good news for Lysell is that this really doesn’t seem like it should be a concern for him, like at all. His on-ice shot-attempt percentage through 3 SHL games for Lulea is 6th best on the team at over 55%. He’s backchecking, applying puck pressure, doing everything you want from him.
Keep this up and he should be one of the top forwards off the board.
Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger with on-puck creation ability, top-unit powerplay upside, and a strong two-way game. Requires greater consistency with his offensive production and continuing his promising two-way play.
Realistic: Top-six winger that might not be as much of an on-puck driver just because it becomes harder and harder to create with your puck skills as you move up levels, but still an ultra-skilled offensive player that can make positive plays with the puck.
Low-end: SHL lifer.
Methodology:
One important principle of my evaluation process is “bet on skill.” Remember that from the start of my Kent Johnson explanation? I couldn’t possibly say that for Johnson and not think highly of Lysell. The Swede just has so much skill with the puck. I’ll be the first to question whether his offensive production thus far is what you’d typically consider to be top-seven level, but his skill-level definitely seems to be so and I’m willing to bet on the equivalent production coming along later on. It’s not like he’s putting up no points anyway, it’s just not elite production. On-puck creators aren’t particularly common. When you come along a player with Lysell’s puck skills, they should be high on the target list— especially when they also have a promising all-around game like Lysell.
I’ve already seen a couple people speculate about “attitude” concerns. Lysell transferred to Lulea from Frolunda (the program that players like Rasmus Dahlin and Lucas Raymond were drafted from) partway through this season. Why? Playing time, probably— Lulea has immediately given him SHL opportunity whereas Lysell probably wouldn’t have had much of a shot at a role for Frolunda, but it’s interesting that he chose Lulea because Noel Gunler struggled to find consistent minutes last year despite putting up strong on-ice metrics and playing quite well in a limited role. It’s not often that a kid leaves a program like Frolunda; I expect to see some hearty speculation about exactly why Lysell did. The golden rule of this stuff: if there’s nothing substantial, there’s nothing to worry about.
Matthew Beniers, LHC, University of Michigan (NCAA)
One Thing I Love: Beniers is really good at playing off-puck— he’s one of those players that will arrive just at the right time to collect a rebound or receive a pass in the slot.
Swing Skill: How good will the on-puck creation be? This is the big one for all centres. Beniers is a centre, so you want him to be a guy that can drive play through transition and play in traffic if he’s going to play in a top-six as a pivot. You want him to be a guy that can consistently make plays like this, essentially:
Beniers shows some real nice upside in this area. He’s really good at getting an outside step on the rush defender.
And he knows when to play the puck to space instead. Love this first one, even if the pass doesn’t connect.
It’s not all positive— Beniers will occasionally get a little too fancy and turn the puck over, but the upside is clear.
It’s way more difficult to make those north-south plays trying to beat a defender outside in the NHL, but Benier’s demonstrated ability to step around pressure and make things happen on entries is promising. That’s the #1 thing for a forward looking to stick at centre in a skill role and Beniers future will hinge on it.
Projection:
Top-end: High-level #2 centre with an excellent all-around game and playdriving ability.
Realistic: #2 centre that isn’t as much of a driver, but a dependable player with a solid mix of on-puck and off-puck abilities that can play off his teammates well.
Low-end: Bottom-six centre with a well-rounded and reliable game. Probably enough skill to slide up into the top-six on occasion, you’d think as a winger.
Methodology: I don’t know much (read: anything) about historical college hockey classes, but I’m just gonna throw this out completely blindly: this University of Michigan draft eligible class has a strong shot at being the best ever (another disclaimer: I have absolutely zero clue who the current best DY class of all time is). Owen Power could go first overall. Kent Johnson has the incredible puck skills and creativity to dazzle in the NHL. And Beniers is just the solid, all-around guy that’s good at a bunch of things and makes a ton of positive plays. All of those players should be good, maybe great, NHLers.
The big attractive quality for Beniers, I think, is the combination of promising on-puck creation and the off-puck instincts. That’s why it’s so easy to brand him as a well-rounded player— it’s not even that he’s good at both offence and defence (which he is, by the way) but that he can produce offence in a bunch of different ways. That transitional element is really, really encouraging. In particular, the way he’s able to step around pressure in the neutral zone and keep the puck moving forwards is a really handy tool. A player that can drive play through transition, make things happen on entries, and seek out space without the puck is a really valuable player. A player that can do all of those as a centre is just tremendously useful. Players like Dylan Guenther, Simon Robertsson, Chaz Lucius might be better at scoring goals and making flashy plays, but none of those guys are centres with this kind of play-driving upside.
Zachary L’Heureux, LHC/LW, Halifax Mooseheads (QMJHL)
One Thing I Love: L’Heureux is an excellent playmaker. He can create on the puck, feed pucks into the slot, and has eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head type vision. Gotta love players that can make passes like this:
And get into the slot and distribute like this:
That presence of mind to keep his head up in traffic and make plays is a terrific quality to have.
Swing Skill: L’Heureux has the offensive tools and mindfulness in traffic to make plays around the slot and create opportunities with the puck on his stick, but his stickhandling and puck control can let him down in some situations.
If he can get the hands going effectively at top speed, L’Heureux will be able to create more off zone entries and get to dangerous areas. It would boost his ceiling as an on-puck creator greatly.
Projection:
Top-end: #2 centre that can drive play through transition, create with his playmaking, and finish plays around the crease and from the slot with his heavy shot. A certainly high-end offensive creator.
Realistic: Top-six winger with a well-rounded offensive game and a physical element in the corners and around the crease.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger that can make plays when he gets to dangerous areas and use his strength to contribute in a physical fashion.
Methodology:
Like Beniers, I think L’Heureux has a wide array of tools as an offensive player. He’s great in the slot, can make plays in traffic, has excellent vision as a playmaker, and will gladly go to the crease looking to score goals. He has a big shot too, able to score from the high slot. This is a player who, as long as he’s able to get into the slot, is going to be a major offensive creator for his team. That’s why his upside hinges on that puck control and ability to make plays at speed. That’s a pretty important tool to have in today’s NHL, but I also think it’s an improvable skill. L’Heureux’s brain isn’t what’s limiting him from consistently making positive plays at speed— he makes good decisions in traffic— it’s just an instance of him needing to get his hands moving quick enough to match his feet. That’s something that can be improved with skill work.
L’Heureux will probably be a winger, but he played centre at lower levels and has the ability in traffic to play that role if asked. The wing seems like a better fit though— he can get out in transition, he has more opportunity to slash off of the wings and look to create in the slot, and he can unlock his off-puck play with more chances to find space around the net and look to score goals from the crease. L’Heureux versus Dylan Guenther (spoiler: he’s ranked next on this list) is the interesting question here. I think L’Heureux shows more promise as a creator with the puck on his stick, but Guenther is an ultra-talented off-puck contributor with a healthy dose of talent with the puck as well. My philosophy here is valuing players that can make things happen with the puck and in traffic, and I really like what L’Heureux could offer in that area with the right development.
Dylan Guenther, LW, Edmonton Oil Kings (WHL) / Sherwood Park Crusaders (AJHL)
One Thing I Love: Guenther scores goals— lots of ‘em. This is a 26 goal scorer as a WHL rookie that could’ve challenged 40 as a sophomore in a regular year. This is a guy with a lot of comfort around the net and in traffic.
But Guenther’s off-puck play is easily his best quality. He drives the net, grabs rebounds, gets to open space, does all the things you need to put yourself in scoring locations frequently. You compare his scoring game to Kent Johnson in the BCHL and the difficulty of Johnson’s plays was definitely higher, but it takes an otherworldly talent to do that kind of stuff consistently in the NHL. Guenther’s ceiling and potential impact isn’t as high, but this type of scoring game is more “translatable”.
Swing Skill: Will the shot be enough of a weapon to score from areas where most players can’t? Guenther doesn’t have a booming shot from the wing, and that could limit his powerplay role. Going to the net will always be the facet of scoring goals, but elite scorers like Auston Matthews and Alexander Ovechkin are dangerous because they are legitimate threats to score from above the circles.
Adding power would be step one— Guenther is listed at 170 lbs and some extra weight to play with should translate into a more powerful shot. One alternative way to make up for a lack of overwhelming power is deception— Guenther communicates pass here before shooting and you can see that the goalie is a little late to react. I’d encourage him to continue developing that part of his scoring game.
Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger with 30-40 (goals, assists) upside. Not a big driver of play because where he really thrives is off the puck, but a player that seems to always be in position to make a good play.
Realistic: Top-six winger capable of challenging 25, maybe even 30, goals each year. Not much of a creator on his own and in need of playmaking talent on his line, but a reliable finisher with plenty of skill.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger that never really figures out how to get to high-percentage areas in the NHL on a frequent enough basis to score many goals.
Methodology:
Guenther’s scoring game is a nice break from your typical pure sniper that just blasts shots from the hash. He can play in traffic, he gets to the net, his instincts are terrific— there’s just a lot more dimensions to his scoring game than a lot of snipers. And this profile thus far has only really concentrated on his scoring, but Guenther is known for his dual-threat ability. Here’s a particularly excellent assist from one of the AJHL games he played earlier this year.
Side note: The AJHL has been on pause for about a month now. I think it could technically start up again mid-to-late January in an absolute best case scenario, but I wouldn’t count on that. I would expect the AJHL to play again at some point in this year; I can’t say the same about the WHL.
The big thing with Guenther is that he’s not a big on-puck creator. A 100 point player that scores most of his points through on-puck creation (playmaking, entry offence, etc) is more valuable to a team than a 100 point player that plays far more off the puck (finishing around the net, one-timers from the wing, all that jazz). A team full of on-puck creators should be a pretty good team. A team full of off-puck forwards probably wouldn’t be. And of course, a team that’s a healthy mix of both could be a great team. Guenther is very much an off-puck guy. And that’s fine! That’s his playstyle and he’s pretty damn good at it. But an off-puck offensive player isn’t going to one of the real drivers of a team. He’s the player you play alongside one of those drivers to maximize their talents and make sure their efforts lead to the puck ending up in the back of the net. One of those is more valuable than the other. Guenther was 3rd on Bob McKenzie’s recent list; I don’t think I’d use a third overall pick on an off-puck forward. 10th overall though? Absolutely.
Thanks for reading! If you made it this far, you get some lightning-quick bonus content. Structure is boring.
Where is he?
Aatu Räty: Man, I just have no idea what to think of this dude. He skates really well, he has some shiftiness to his game, and his two-way game is excellent. But this is a guy that really hasn’t excelled at a level for a few years now and there way too many question marks in his game for a guy that was once seen as the favourite for first overall. The biggest one is just an incredible lack of ability to create off zone entries— it is extremely rare for Raty to get anything going off the rush. I tend to value guys that can play fast with the puck on their stick, Räty is extremely inconsistent in that area.
Simon Edvinsson: Edvinsson has tons of raw upside and some very real offensive skill. However, his transition game— the number one thing I look for in a defender— is very inconsistent. This is a player that doesn’t seem to process the game well and can struggle to make a basic outlet at times. He needs to nail in the breakout skills if he’s gonna rise.
And I have one bonus player card for ya. I love Anton Olsson, I think he has a lot of upside and a lot of skill in transition and in the offensive zone. He didn’t miss this top ten by much, don’t sleep on him.