Jump to content

NHL Entry Draft Thread - 2021


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I saw somewhere earlier today (I believe it may have been twitter) that if we don't win the lottery and with Seattle coming in, as it stands we are likely looking at a 6th or 7th overall.

Well right now we'd be picking 4th or 5th (depending on how vancouver does with their games in hand)

and we're only 2 pts ahead of Ottawa but we have 2 games in hand

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 294
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If @Triumphisn't around for the Race to the Bottom thread, this will have to do for now. Scheduled for July 23-24 Difficult year for evaluating prospects, but another year where the Devils c

Devils got Hughes only because devils won last game of the season. Zajac scores in OT against Florida(he likes it). LA were 2nd but they drafted 5th. This is how lottery works.  There no needs in lo

You’re trying to kill Dano. 

Posted Images

The Devils are now 4th-to-last in the league in points percentage at 0.405, with the Ducks just slightly behind them at 0.398. If the Ducks end up passing the Devils, the Devils will enter the draft lottery set to pick 4th overall (after Seattle at 3). In this situation, they could not pick any later than 6th.

That would mean one of Power, Beniers, Hughes, Clarke, Johnson, or Eklund (or Wallstedt) is guaranteed to be drafted by the Devils if they want one of them. At this point, I have a hard time deciding which of those players I would want to draft. Maybe the draft position makes that decision easier.

Next on the list is Ottawa. The Devils have 2 games at hand, and have 2 more points. They will be tough to catch, but certainly not impossible.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nessus said:

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

i wouldnt be oppose to draft him but i think i'd rather go with a D. I'm not sur Eklund brings something we can't find in our forward group already. I do think that the Dmen available in the draft are bringing things that we don't have or not enough of right now

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nessus said:

There's a lot of talk about Eklund in the Holtz ELC thread. I think it's worth mentioning that the Devils aren't really a small team anymore. It looked like it when Nico was a couple of years younger, when Jack was a rookie, Palmieri and Goose were around and looked to be long term top 6 players, and other players were slightly under the average NHLer's height (Vatanen, Butcher, etc.). There still are a few undersized players like Bratt. But I wouldn't say that Jack's size has been much of an issue for him this season. Zacha, Sharagovich, Kuokkanen, Bastian, McLeod, Hischier, and Wood all are not undersized. Most of the forward prospects that have a shot at being NHLers (Foote, Holtz, Mercer, Maltsev, Clarke) have okay size. Tyce Thompson and Boqvist need to fill out still, but they aren't limited by their height.

For the defense, it's really only Smith who is slightly undersized and is likely to remain a long term defenseman on the team. Almost all of the D prospects have some size (Mukha, Okhotiuk, Bahl, Vukojevic, Misyul). 

Years ago, we were frustrated with management for overvaluing size, and missing out on players like Brayden Point. We should really avoid falling into that trap again, especially when size isn't a major problem right now. Eklund looks like a solid pick in the top 6. I've yet to see an argument against it that isn't just "we don't want more small forwards!"

I want to agree with you, I see a lot of Eklund this season. He is explosion talent. But if we talk about our potential top-6 we have guys like Hughes, Bratt and Holtz. Even if only two will play top-6 role - three potential small players is a lot on my taste. Holtz isn`t small but for now he play pretty soft. Hughes play well, I think Sharkannes help him and make a lot of dirty work. If devils could draft Sanderson or Drysdale year ago and didnt draft Holtz - I would have been in Eklund`s camp. Or in Guenther`s camp (because he is a good shooter). Only Smith had some time in NHL, and no one knows who will and who will not translate their game on NHL level. That is allways a lottery for d-men, especcially for stay at home defensemen. There are never too many defensemen. Especially RD where we have a lack of depth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

i wouldnt be oppose to draft him but i think i'd rather go with a D. I'm not sur Eklund brings something we can't find in our forward group already. I do think that the Dmen available in the draft are bringing things that we don't have or not enough of right now

 

2 hours ago, Guadana said:

I want to agree with you, I see a lot of Eklund this season. He is explosion talent. But if we talk about our potential top-6 we have guys like Hughes, Bratt and Holtz. Even if only two will play top-6 role - three potential small players is a lot on my taste. Holtz isn`t small but for now he play pretty soft. Hughes play well, I think Sharkannes help him and make a lot of dirty work. If devils could draft Sanderson or Drysdale year ago and didnt draft Holtz - I would have been in Eklund`s camp. Or in Guenther`s camp (because he is a good shooter). Only Smith had some time in NHL, and no one knows who will and who will not translate their game on NHL level. That is allways a lottery for d-men, especcially for stay at home defensemen. There are never too many defensemen. Especially RD where we have a lack of depth.

Fair points here, and I will reiterate that Brandt Clarke still is my first choice at the moment (even if the Devils win the lottery). It is true that Eklund doesn't quite fit a Devils need right now. At the same time, I think the things that Eklund was able to overcome this season really speak volumes about what kind of player he can be. I think if the Devils end up picking at around 5, and Hughes and Clarke are off the board, you've got to give Eklund a good look. Admittedly, Power, Clarke, and Hughes being off the board by 5 isn't so likely though.

Interesting that you mention Guenther - he is another player I have yet to look into extensively, but he seems to be climbing up the draft rankings lately. With his strong positioning in before he gets the puck, he could potentially be a good winger for Hughes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nessus said:

 

Fair points here, and I will reiterate that Brandt Clarke still is my first choice at the moment (even if the Devils win the lottery). It is true that Eklund doesn't quite fit a Devils need right now. At the same time, I think the things that Eklund was able to overcome this season really speak volumes about what kind of player he can be. I think if the Devils end up picking at around 5, and Hughes and Clarke are off the board, you've got to give Eklund a good look. Admittedly, Power, Clarke, and Hughes being off the board by 5 isn't so likely though.

Interesting that you mention Guenther - he is another player I have yet to look into extensively, but he seems to be climbing up the draft rankings lately. With his strong positioning in before he gets the puck, he could potentially be a good winger for Hughes. 

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guadana said:

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

Seattle Kuokkanen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Guadana said:

Nope. Seatlle Johnssons. Or Seattle Butchers.

If they take Johnsson I will be thrilled. But aI think Butcher is more likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

If they take Johnsson I will be thrilled. But aI think Butcher is more likely. 

They are both like two beautiful diamonds, which I am ready to present by my generous hand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Guadana said:

They are both like two beautiful diamonds, which I am ready to present by my generous hand.

Well stated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guadana said:

I think devils will pick in top-3/4 where karakakens are one of them if they will. I think Ottawa will pick beniers, and this means one of the top three d-man will be available for choice. 

This is a D heavy draft with some good top prospects.  Hopefully the Devils pick in the 4-5 range, and can grab one of the top 3.  I don't know much about prospects other than what I read and see in some YouTube highlights, but my top choices are Hughes or Clarke, with a slight edge to Clarke because he's puck moving a RHD (which we lack in our system) with a ton of offensive upside.  With him on 1 D pairing, Smith on the other, that's a pretty solid start to a top 4. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean... following this sh!t year i'm fully expecting a sort of awkward situation where...

we're picking like.... 4th... vancouver picking 5th...

And when we're up... BOTH Hughes and Clarke are on the board. I think i'd personally prefer Clarke and want to draft him... i know it's a business and that it would likely bum out Jack but it is what it is... But then knowing Vancouver will likely pick luke then that whole black cloud of Jack wanting to join his brothers will always be hovering over us for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I mean... following this sh!t year i'm fully expecting a sort of awkward situation where...

we're picking like.... 4th... vancouver picking 5th...

And when we're up... BOTH Hughes and Clarke are on the board. I think i'd personally prefer Clarke and want to draft him... i know it's a business and that it would likely bum out Jack but it is what it is... But then knowing Vancouver will likely pick luke then that whole black cloud of Jack wanting to join his brothers will always be hovering over us for years.

This seems unlikely; Vancouver is closer to the playoffs than they are to finishing in the top-5 of the draft. If they win just one of their next 5 games they’d already be picking outside the top-10. 

I hope the Devils draft Luke wherever they are. It’s such a crapshoot of a draft, and he fits a need. I guess if you’re drafting number 1 overall you consider trading down a few spots?  

Edited by MB3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MB3 said:

This seems unlikely; Vancouver is closer to the playoffs than they are to finishing in the top-5 of the draft. If they win just one of their next 5 games they’d already be picking outside the top-10. 

I hope the Devils draft Luke wherever they are. It’s such a crapshoot of a draft, and he fits a need. I guess if you’re drafting number 1 overall you consider trading down a few spots?  

If there was ever a year to trade down from #1, this is the year. There really isn’t a clear-cut, no doubt #1 overall this year. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

If there was ever a year to trade down from #1, this is the year. There really isn’t a clear-cut, no doubt #1 overall this year. 

The concept makes me very uncomfortable. The idea of having your choice of whoever your guy is and then giving that chance to another team is troubling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean, this likely means we'll land first overall and would have basically landed on all the wrong years lol 

Give us a different timing and getting McDavid and Matthews instead and it's a different story

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

The concept makes me very uncomfortable. The idea of having your choice of whoever your guy is and then giving that chance to another team is troubling. 

Obviously, it would depend on the return. But if someone makes a stupid offer, you always listen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Obviously, it would depend on the return. But if someone makes a stupid offer, you always listen.

I understand. It’s probably only safe if you haven’t picked your guy. If you have, say, #1 and you trade for #4 because you think #2 and #3 won’t pick your guy, and they do, that’s bad. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I understand. It’s probably only safe if you haven’t picked your guy. If you have, say, #1 and you trade for #4 because you think #2 and #3 won’t pick your guy, and they do, that’s bad. 

Yeah no doubt. That’s why you only do it for a ridiculous Godfather type of offer, or if you absolutely KNOW the guy you want will be available where you trade down to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.