---

One Thing I Love: Robertsson can really shoot the puck.

Swing Skill: I don’t think we really saw the full extent of Robertsson’s scoring potential this past year, which saw him score 9 goals in 15 games in the J20 league. We don’t have box score shots for the SuperElit (not on pick224 at least), but Instat’s stat tracking pins Robertsson at 7 goals on 84 shots on goal at even-strength– an 8.3% shooting percentage. On the powerplay: 3 goals on 28 SOGs for 10.7% shooting. Guys with big shots like Robertsson usually challenge 15% in juniors. Why is that? Part of its luck, but part of it is shot location and placement. Here’s Robertsson’s shot chart.

Quite a few chances around the slot– Robertsson can bang around the crease– but also a lot of shots not just from around the circles, but often above them too. Those are the types of chances you generally want to get away from in favour of higher-percentage offence. The Swede also misses the net a lot– only about 55% of Robertsson’s shot attempts found the net, with the rest either missing or being blocked.

Development: I want Robertson to funnel more of his shot attempts into the slot while also improving the technical details of his shot. Trying to alter a player’s tendencies can be fun, especially when you’re talking about a Robertsson-level shooter that is used to being able to score consistently from borderline low-danger areas. This was a goal per game guy at lower levels, but you can see his scoring start to fade once he hits the goaltenders of U20 and eventually the SHL as you scroll the rows of EliteProspects. I’m not sure if this is something you try to tackle with game-simulation or through consistent reminders and location targets or perhaps, you simply wait for him to realize that you can’t really beat SHL, AHL, or NHL goaltenders with any real frequency unless you’re shooting from the immediate slot.

Projection:
Top-end: The Robin to some star playmaker on the top line of a team– not a driver, but thriving in a role where he can focus on his scoring and use that release to terrorize goaltenders.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger that can play fast up and down the wing and unleash that shot off the rush and on chance opportunities in the slot.
Low-end: SHL/AHLer that can’t get enough good chances to really use that shot.

Methodology:
I’ve got a few players in the back part of this list who might not have the most well-rounded offensive profiles in the world, but should still be valuable pieces simply because of their ability to play fast down the wings, handle the puck, and present options off the rush. Robertsson is the first; I’d also place Aryton Martino and Logan Stankoven in that category. The Swede leads the group because he’s definitely the best shooter of the trio– in fact, he’s one of the better shooters in the draft. Playing a driving role in a top-six requires a variety of tools, but a player can succeed in a more complimentary casting with only a few significant strengths. Robertsson checks off two major ones as a very good skater and a very, very good shooter. Just about every team has a crazy fast playmaking centre nowadays; who better to place on his wing than a fast forward with a terrific release and real scoring touch? Robertsson seems likely to be able to play that type of role– his range of skills is a little more constrained than some of the other forwards around here, but he has two NHL-level tools and projects to play the type of position that you only need a couple of high-level traits for.

---

One Thing I Love: Ceulemans is extremely poised with the puck, rarely rushing a play and often moving the puck right as a checker closes in on him. Puck retrieval, traffic around him, no rush, finds a play.

This one’s fun– has a little oopsies moment with the puck, doesn’t panic, doesn’t get the stick up, stays on it, and regains possession.

Another Thing I Love: Surveying the play before you receive the puck is an important skill, especially at NHL pace. Ceuleman likes to skate with the puck, but he can also play an efficient, on-the stick off-the-stick type of game to get the puck moving up ice as quickly as possible.

Swing Skill: One checkbox that can often determine the extent of a defenceman’s NHL upside: can they beat F1? If you can do this, you’re gonna be a plus-plus transition influence and almost definitely a plus play-driver. Ceulemans, in his current state, doesn’t look like a guy that can beat F1 and I think that’s why there’s a clear gap between him and the top defencemen. Let me show you.

Okay so we’re grabbing a puck off the draw, using the net to put the forechecker on our back hip, and wheeling out of the zone. Good stuff. But by the red line, that forechecker’s regained that gap. He’s creating separation, but he isn’t sustaining it nor is he creating enough to get capitalize on that initial space by slowing down a notch, getting his head up, and finding an open teammate. End result: uncontrolled entry.

Ceulemans is an elite AJHL player because he can create a step of space against his AJHL opponents. But he isn’t explosive; a step of AJHL space is equivalent to only a tiny fraction, if any at all, of NHL space.

Corson’s real effective at the AJHL level, but you gotta be leaving these guys in the dust to look like a top-level NHL prospect against this competition. There’s a reason why Michael Benning never caught traction as a top-62 pick last year despite exceptional numbers: he isn’t explosive (and he scored a fuck ton of powerplay points on a stacked team). Ceulemans looks more like Benning than Cale Makar.

Development: Skating work, fun. Two things I have to offer: 1. Let’s get those edges involved more. C-cuts, baby! 2. Crossovers! There are very few situations where you should be starting from a near-stop and not spamming crossovers like pokechecks in chel. Nobody’s explosive without crossovers. The good news: Ceulemans is headed off to the NCAA, my favourite dev pathway. His offensive instincts and frequent activation along with his size should buy him playing time at that level, giving him valuable experience as he finetunes his skating against faster, larger opponents. It might sound like I’m very down on Ceulemans after that swing skill blurb, but skating is an improvable trait. Ceuleman’s won’t reach Cale Makar-level fluidity, but if he can adopt some more efficient habits, be a little lighter and quicker on his feet, and integrate his size as an asset to hold off forecheckers, he could develop that ability to beat F1 on a semi-to-frequently consistent basis. And if he can do that, he’ll have plenty going for him.

Projection:
Top-end: With improved skating, a well-rounded top-four puckmover that can handle reasonably difficult minutes and provide above-average transitional value.
Mid-level: #4-5 defenceman. Not sure about the transitional impact without skating improvement, but his offensive activation should provide value in that end and his size/reach could be leveraged into solid defensive results. Could probably pass in a top-four along a partner that can handle the majority of the breakout duties.
Low-end: Lots of defencemen top out in the AHL because they just aren’t quick enough to face an NHL forecheck. Ceulemans could be one of them.

Methodology:
I think we’ll probably have a good idea after his first NCAA season whether Ceulemans will be a successful pick or not. If he’s mobile and explosive enough to retain his transition influence at the NCAA level, I think he’ll probably eventually be able to carry it over to the NHL too. But if he struggles to translate that area of his game to college, his overall impact will be a shell of what it was for Brooks. Of course, it’s possible that he makes improvements as a skater or picks up new mitigation strategies later in his arc, but it would set him back significantly and probably limit his overall upside. That is, unfortunately, the curse of the AJHL prospect– you don’t quite know what you’re getting until they move up a level (that is, of course, true for all prospects but especially so for Junior A and other lower-level leagues). The other skills are there: Ceulemans was a very good passer and comfortable puck carrier against AJHL competition, capable of controlling the pace of the game and dominating the transition battle. He’s eager to join the rush and involved all over the ice. But, compared to a player like Olen Zellweger who has a similar (but different) type of uncertainty around his game (low-level league vs low sample), I’m not as confident in Ceulemans translatability because part of me feels that his skillset may just be very suited for the AJHL level, and not so much for the faster pace of the NCAA and eventually NHL.

---

One Thing I Love: Mr. Stankoven can really wheel. He’s a real danger to break free on the breakout, can threaten to beat defenders wide with his speed, and is generally most dangerous off the rush

Swing Skill: Logan is not what I would describe a ’natural” playmaker. I don’t think I’d classify any of these plays as bad reads, but Stankoven’s inability to place the puck in a position where his teammate can fluidly make a play on it really disrupts the potential of these actions.

Development: This is an interesting one. This is more than just a pass accuracy/execution problem; it’s a timing one. A successful pass into the slot requires hitting a tight window that is affected by the ever-changing actions of everyone on the ice. That isn’t easy. One thing that can help is dynamic, actionable posture– if you’re ready to pass at all times, your window to hit that passing window is longer. This isn’t much of an issue for Stankoven though, I don’t think. You watch those clips above– when he has the puck on his forehand, it’s usually in his hip pocket where he can make a variety of plays. Aside from that, it’s difficult to build these instinctual things with anything beyond experience/reps in games and game-simulation drills. Maybe some 3v3 below the ringette line– should be tight enough to require effective team play, and it could help sync up some of those windows as you curl out of the corner and look to make plays towards the slot.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger in a more complementary role. Brings a combo of speed/hands to play fast up and down the wing and threaten off the rush. More of a scoring role.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger with high-level transition impact and good but inconsistent offensive output. In-zone creation will be more of an off-puck scoring role.
Low-end: If Stankoven gets shut down by tighter gaps in transition at higher levels, does he have enough in the way of other tools to continue to create offence? And if he can’t create offence, will NHL teams give a 5’8” guy a real chance to provide speed in a fourth-line role? Not sure, but I can see a scenario where Stankoven fizzles out.

Methodology:
Stankoven’s the second member of that fast, complimentary winger group. He’s the fastest of the three, able to turn an innocent breakout into a breakaway. But he’s also probably the most likely of the trio to frequently have plays die on his stick due to an absence of passing sense. He’s also not an extraordinary shooter like Robertsson is; that’s why the Swede is ranked a couple spots ahead, because he’s more capable of turning opportunities created by his speed into actual goals for his club. Stankoven’s speed will allow him to always be involved in the rush, whether he’s leading it through the neutral zone or flanking a teammate. Rushes are the most efficient producer of offence, and Stankoven should always be the thick of it. That’s why he doesn’t necessarily need top-level offensive tools (beyond his skating) to be successful in a complimentary top-six role– he should get his fair share of slot opportunities just by being present on the rush, and you don’t need elite passing or finishing to convert those chances.

Related
• The Arsenal: Comparing Sillinger and Stankoven (Justin Froese/Greg Revak, FC Hockey)
• ANALYTICS APPROACH: LOGAN STANKOVEN (Curtis Schwartzkopf, FC Hockey)

---

One Thing I Love: Johnson is an extremely talented playmaker from the point, extending far beyond the usual ‘point shots + occasional rush involvement’ that we expect from defencemen. Instead, he frequently activates down the wall and can find teammates open in the slot from that area as well as from his standard position on the blueline. Plenty of time sharing the ice with Cole Sillinger helped his case (and the USHL has never been much of aproducer of defensive prospects), but Johnson’s 0.4 even-strength primary points per game are the most from a non-NTDP defender in the USHL going back to 2008. Definitely has some potential to run a powerplay down the line with his passing vision.

And he’s just as effective at even-strength, too, whether it be off the rush or off the point.

Stepping around this defender and then picking up his teammate moving in back-door is some really high-level stuff.

Swing Skill: How good will Johnson’s transition game be? He shows plenty of poise and a pass-first process on the breakout, but the lax forechecks of the USHL make it tough to evaluate his ability to handle pressure or make quick decisions with the puck. What I like: Johnson plays with his head up and scans the entirety of the ice before making an outlet pass. The vision that he shows in the offensive zone is evident on the breakout as well.

Instead of rushing a pass to #11 when he first presents his stick here, Johnson surveys his options and finds a play to a forward with space ahead instead.

However, Johnson’s pass accuracy can be a little wild sometimes. Always a shame when an otherwise strong read is mired by poor execution.

There’s reason to be optimistic about this part of Johnson’s game. He’s mobile, poised, and intelligent in his outlet passes. But his execution is inconsistent and he’s doing this against USHL forechecks (which, as you can probably see here, aren’t exactly urgent in applying pressure to the puck).

Development: Johnson’s pathway to the NHL is a bit fuzzy. He’s committed to the University of North Dakota, but not until the 2022-23 season. Where’s he gonna play next year? Another year in Sioux Falls? It wouldn’t be the end of the world, but I don’t think the USHL is an environment where he’ll be adequately challenged to develop his transition game. Forechecks are passive and forecheckers lack strength, giving defenders plenty of time to assess situations and make plays on the breakout without having to worry about getting their head taken off. That changes at higher levels, where decisions are split-second and a slow one could end painfully. It’s hard to improve processing speed when outside influences (read: other players) aren’t forcing you to.

With that said, if Johnson does stick around in the USHL for one more year (there aren’t many options for him without sacrificing his NCAA eligibility), there will still be ways for him to maximize his development in the situation he’ll be in. The slower pace of the USHL could be a good environment for him to focus on adding an element of mobility to his breakout arsenal, trying to take all the space the forecheck gives him (which is often quite a bit) and a little more before he moves the puck. It’s better to try to establish skating the puck as a comfortable option in a situation where you don’t need to worry about getting leveled by a forechecker quite as much as you would have to in the NCAA. If he could add that dimension, perhaps he could go from a two-or-three year NCAA guy to someone that could pass through in only one or two.

Projection:
Top-end: A legitimate top-four guy and powerplay option who can put up points from the blueline with his clever passing and frequent offensive activation.
Mid-level: Fringe top-four defender that won’t be exposed against high-level competition, but is most comfortable/effective in a more sheltered role where he can be more aggressive with his offence and utilize his playmaking from the blueline against weaker opponents.
Low-end: Struggles to adjust to the faster pace of higher levels and is slow to ramp up his strength (remember, he’s only 165 lbs atm), holding back an already longer developmental arc even further. Could top out in the AHL in this scenario.

Methodology:
Johnson’s playmaking ability is pretty incredible for a defenceman. A lot of defencemen, even some of the top guys in this draft, look a little out of place with the puck on their stick at times. Not Johnson– he’s confident, skilled, and has forward-level passing. Now, he did do it in the USHL, but this isn’t a common sight for blueliners even at that level. Offensively, Johnson is very, very good. Transition is king though, and Johnson isn’t as strong on the breakout. He’s still a very good passer, but I’m unsure of his ability to handle forechecking pressure and he isn’t particularly eager to utilize his mobility on that end. He has upside in that area for sure, but it is far from polished. It’s also a little more difficult to bet on Johnson’s development because his pathway is a weird spot right now. That’s why I think a realistic projection for Johnson puts him in a more sheltered, in-between role– able to put up really good results on a third-pairing, but perhaps not quite good enough in certain areas to consistently play top-four minutes. Johnson’s offensive tools are strong enough for top-four minutes, I believe, but his transition and defensive work could get exposed against that type of competition. But if you put him on a third pair, give him part of his minutes in a traditional third-pair role against lower-level competition and the rest playing behind your team’s top line as a 5-man offensive unit that should play the majority of its time in the o-zone (thus limiting any potential exposure of Johnson’s deficiencies), then throw in some powerplay time, and you have a defenceman that could contribute a lot of offence without costing you much in other areas.

---

One Thing I Love: Martino really likes to play fast, getting up ice quickly and really pushing the pace in pursuit of rush opportunities. That’s a playstyle that should fit well in the NHL, as we see teams try to send forwards into the neutral zone on the breakout a little earlier than they would have in the past. Martino doesn’t really have any close puck-support responsibilities as a winger, and so he doesn’t waste any time getting up ahead of the play into space in the neutral zone and stretching the defence vertically.

Another Thing I Love: Martino has been getting his due as a consensus value target on Twitter for months now. Matthew Coronato absolutely destroyed the USHL on a really good team. I wouldn’t say Martino destroyed the USHL, but he put up only 0.1 even-strength primary points per game fewer than Coronato on a team that scored nearly 100 goals less than the Chicago Steel did over the season and was involved in a very high 46% of Omaha’s goals (adjusted for games played). Bobby Brink, 34th overall pick of the Flyers in 2019 and probably best known for his WJC play several months ago, was at 52% in his draft season for Sioux City. I had Brink ranked 11th that year and he’s been quite good in the NCAA since.

Swing Skill: Martino can be a little shaky as a playmaker off the rush, a concerning trend considering his up-tempo, rush-centric style. He’s a pass-first guy, but he doesn’t seem to be exceedingly comfortable manipulating defenders and creating lanes out of those situations– he’s usually quite stationary, slows his feet down, and looks for his teammates to drive into preexisting space rather than moving defenders around and making space himself. I don’t understand why Martino’s kills the wheels here, turns into a real ugly play.

This is a funny little brain cramp moment.

Development: Rush creation is the coolest part of hockey because it’s where creativity really shines: east-west movement and clever passing plays reign supreme as they stretch defences and overwork defenders by bringing them into isolated odd-man actions. That’s why I’d think loose, game-sim rush drills would be ideal for developing these skills. Creativity should be encouraged, however, I think some slight guidance to ensure that a player is mixing things up and utilizing consistently viable strategies is ideal. A player really should not be slowing to a crawl, telegraphing the pass, and then passing right into a defender over and over again, for example.

Instead, they should be reminded to focus on east-west play and maintaining their speed to keep multiple options available. I might challenge them to focus on overloading a defender without any specific guidance on how to do so (other than the principles of high pace and east-west play), making them rely on their own creativity and problem-solving to figure out how to do so.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-six winger that really thrives on a high-pace team. Plays fast up and down the wing and becomes a strong rush creator.
Mid-level: Middle-six winger whose up-tempo game creates a lot of rush chances. Will still need to show growth as a creator off of entries, but won’t require as much skill if he isn’t usually facing off against the opponent’s top defenders.
Low-end: Just can’t do enough with the puck to convert chances into goals and tops out in the AHL.

Methodology:
And finally, the last of the trio. I am a tremendous fan of Martino’s playstyle– I think it makes a lot of sense to try to generate as many rush opportunities as possible, considering the efficiency of those chances. Occasionally he might fly the zone a little early, but I think you gotta respect the winger who recognizes that he has next to no actual defensive responsibility and consistently gets a head start on the rush with the downside of allowing the occasional point shot, which is generally a win for the defence anyways. Martino is more of a pass-first player, but similar to Stankoven (but not as significantly), he doesn’t appear to be a particularly natural playmaker with his reads, timing, and lane creation. Martino is ranked the lowest of these three because he lacks a standout skill– his shot isn’t anything crazy like Robertsson’s and he isn’t super fast like Stankoven. Instead, he combines good speed with very good transition instincts to generate a high rate of rush chances. Robertsson is definitely the most capable at actually finishing rush opportunities, after that I’d probably put Stankoven and Martino on a similar level in terms of offensive tools. With Logan’s speed advantage, I prefer him over Martino.

---

One Thing I Love: U18 defencemen that are good enough to play in the SHL generally have pretty good shots at the NHL. If you sort the list of U18 SHL defenders by games played, the top of the list is absolutely littered with NHL players: Adam Larsson, Tim Erixon, Victor Soderstrom, Jonas Brodin, Rasmus Dahlin, Victor Hedman, Erik Brannstrom, Oliver Kylington. Tucked between Hedman and Brannstrom? Anton Olsson. Filip Westerlund, a 2017 2nd round pick of the Coyotes who has since fizzled out and dropped down to the Allsvenskan, is the only player in the top ten besides Olsson who has yet to play an NHL game. SHL games played is probably not a very meaningful statistic on its own, but defencemen good enough to play an everyday role in a high-level professional league at 18 years old generally become good enough to play an everyday role in an even higher-level professional league (the NHL) further down the line.

Another Thing I Love: It’s not consistently present, as you’ll read below, but Olsson seems to have the two base skills that successful defencemen generally need to have: he skates real well and he can make intelligent plays on the breakout. This is a fun Anton Olsson special– he goes for this type play a ton, with lots of success, and has done it so many times that I am now sure that every time he does it is with purpose and intent. The ’intentional icing”:

Love the attack mentality and the ability to beat an SHL defender wide and take the puck to the net here.

Swing Skill: Olsson is a really raw defenceman with some excellent base skills– he’s mobile, he shows capacity making some really intelligent passes in transition, he can activate off the point and make plays with the puck on his stick, all that jazz– but he’s also unrefined and can be a very chaotic player to watch. He can be a little prone to these types of homicide passes.

And can get a little overeager handling the puck and take the puck into some pretty intense pressure.

Development: Olsson’s more of a longer-term project and has quite a bit to sharpen up, but the payoff could be great. I really don’t think the upside here is too hard to imagine: He’s a very mobile player with a little wonkiness in his stride– do some work to clean that up and he could be an even more mobile player with no wonkiness in his stride. He’s an inconsistent passer that shows some real intelligence and high-level pattern recognition with his ability to make these intentional icing plays– get him to more frequently extrapolate that intelligence to other situations, and now you’ve got a real nice outlet passer on your hands. Combine the two, and this is a high-level transitional player. Even in this raw state he’s been an effective SHL player at 18 years old; Olsson boasted the second highest corsi-for percentage of Malmo’s defenders, albeit in only a little over 11 minutes a night. Still, that should speak to his ability to at least function as a plus guy on a bottom-pairing in the NHL someday.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-pair defender with mobility and a strong outlet pass. Offensively involved and frequently jumps up to lead and support the rush.
Mid-level: Bottom-pair defender who still tends to be a little chaotic and potentially gaffe-prone, but a player that can use his mobility to transport the puck forward through the neutral zone.
Low-end: A player whose highly volatile game causes him to fall out of favour in the SHL and he never makes it beyond Sweden.

Methodology:
I don’t think drafting Anton Olsson in the first round is unreasonable. Skating and intelligence are the two core facets of transition success; Olsson has both. Early success in a men’s league is also a key indicator of a future in the NHL; Olsson did that. I’ve seen him labeled as more of a shutdown defender. The Swede is what we call a raw prospect, possessing tools and upside but remaining a little while away from putting everything together. His defensive game is more mature, so that’s what may catch the eye. Meanwhile, his more unpolished offensive tools slip by because they don’t yet frequently combine into eye-catching plays. We have a raw defenceman with important base skills who already has a strong SHL season under his belt (39 games played, 11 minutes a night, second highest shot attempt percentage of his team’s defencemen). If he puts everything together, refines his ancillary skills, and nails in his consistency, this could be a real source of value. That’s a bet I like.

---

One Thing I Love: The hair. As you can guess, that’s McTavish on the right.

Another Thing I Love: McTavish scores goals. He’s very present around the net and is the type of player that could thrive in a net-front role on the powerplay, using stellar in-tight finishing ability to convert chances around the crease at a high rate. I think his rather smooth transition to pro hockey in Switzerland was really enabled by his ability to play around the net and get involved down low.

Swing Skill: Playmaking. McTavish’s goal-assist splits over his young career have been quite extreme: he scored 9 goals to only 2 assists this year and had 29 goals with 13 assists last season for Peterborough. That is a little bit abnormal for a top prospect, who you could typically expect to have a reasonably well-rounded junior skillset. McTavish’s playmaking deficiency is really centred around what he doesn’t do. His assists are often secondary, stemming from zone entries or cycle play. His primary helpers are often only basic reads– passes that are right in front of him. He doesn’t pass with intent to create offence, he passes with intent of retaining possession for his team. And that really relegates him to a pretty strictly off-puck player, one who can bang around the net, use that shot from the slot, and connect his linemates with basic passes, but not a player that will be much of a threat off the rush or curling off the boards and towards the centre of the ice.

Development: McTavish will never be one to drive play (or it’s very, very unlikely that he will). His score-first, off-puck game is best suited for complementary roles like net-front powerplay duties and a scoring winger role. But deficiencies as an on-puck creator can become glaringly obvious within an NHL top-six, and McTavish will likely need to make some significant strides in this area even just to play as a complementary top-six winger on an everyday basis. I might give McTavish a similar base regimen to EHC Olten teammate Brennan Othmann: elongate the stride and increase comfort making advanced puck moves through a progression of drills, culminating in rush and small-area work. But another focus should be that playmaking. It’s not enough to only make obvious passing reads in an NHL top-six. You’re never going to be able to make plays into the slot like that, because no pass into the slot will be a clear read against a strong defence. Improving split-second passing reads in the traffic of the offensive zone is really tough. Instead, I’d focus on adding deception to McTavish’s passing game. He can still make the play in front of him, but if he can make it seem like that play isn’t the one right in front of him, he could fool defenders and create some space for teammates. Work on looking off defenders (ideally working up to some cheeky no-look passes), throwing in head fakes, and changing passing angles in a combo of rush, small-area, and cycle drills.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-six scoring winger. Not a lot of ability on the puck, but a useful powerplay option that can score from anywhere around the slot at even-strength as well.
Mid-level: Bottom-six winger that can play on a powerplay and finish opportunities around the net.
Low-end: Could be difficult to rise up the ranks without on-puck ability at the AHL level, where McTavish could struggle to move past the bottom-six and remain there for longer than he would hope.

Methodology:
McTavish is thought of very highly by many sources out there: EliteProspects has him 5th, Bob’s got him 11th, NHL Central Scouting has him as the second best NA skater (!)– he’s generally thought of a top 10, top 15 at the lowest type of guy. I am not totally sure why. People like big, physical, scoring centres, and I mean, sure, McTavish is that. But he has little on-puck creation ability, and from what I’ve seen, even those who think highly of him don’t seem to contest that he does. His hands in space aren’t great, his skating isn’t great, he’s not a strong playmaker… I just don’t really get it. The forward group in this draft may not be spectacular, but there isn’t such a shortage of creation ability that drafting a complimentary scorer in the top-ten is anywhere near justified. McTavish doesn’t even bring the speed going down the wing of a Simon Robertsson (who has a better shot, too) or a Logan Stankoven. His skating is better than it used to be, so maybe others are projecting even further improvement there, but right now this isn’t a player who’s going to threaten off the rush. He’s not a guy that’s going to consistently be making good passes into the slot. How is he going to drive play? If he’s not going to drive play, why draft him so high? I don’t see it.

Related
• Deep Dive: A look into Mason McTavish’s game (Austin Broad, FC Hockey)