---

One Thing I Love: Disclaimer: If you are particularly interested in Wallstedt– perhaps your favourite team is in need of a goaltender– I’d recommend that you read the thoughts of somebody with a better understanding of the position (like say, a former goaltender). I do not know a whole lot about goaltenders; what I do know is that Wallstedt has had tons of success thus far in his career and that people who know more than myself see a lot of potential in his profile. I’ll try to compile some good sources of information in the related section at the end of all this text.

Wallstedt is supposed to be just about as good as it gets as far as technical ability goes. Very good at getting set and even better at placing his body in front of incoming pucks. He also seems to be very mobile in the crease, able to adjust his angle very quickly with pushoffs and other goaltending movements. Looks pretty good here.

Swing Skill: This section is already difficult because Wallstedt is a goalie, but Wallstedt’s technical strength and movement make it even more difficult to pinpoint a potential flaw. The Swede isn’t supposed to have the raw athleticism of a guy like Yaroslav Askarov (or for an NHL example, Andrei Vasilevsky). With his positioning, situations where Wallstedt would need elite athleticism aren’t common, but they do and will continue to occur. If you had to pick a reason why Wallstedt might not hit his ceiling, this would seem to be the most obvious example.

Development: I am not even remotely qualified for this and don’t want to offend any goaltenders out there with my ignorance, so I won’t even try. In an ideal developmental progression, Wallstedt will continue to stop a lot of pucks at this level, probably do the same at another level, and then, gasp, recommence with the stopping of pucks as an NHLer. I don’t think there’ll be any rush to get Wallstedt out of Sweden next season. His .908 save percentage was 16th highest of SHL goaltenders this year. You’d probably want to see him establish himself a top-five SHL goalie next season (keeping with that theme of stopping lots of pucks), which would probably necessitate a save percentage of around .920. If he does that, then you get him in training camp and give him every chance to make the team. Maybe he needs some AHL time, get used to the North American game or whatever, but his timeline is probably quite a bit faster than you’d expect from any typical goaltender.

Projection:
Top-end: Best goaltender in the league and a perennial Vezina candidate.
Mid-level: A top-tier goaltender that could win a Vezina at his career peak.
Low-end: Fringe starter? Wallstedt is so advanced and has such a strong record of success that it’s tough to imagine him not becoming a high-level starter, but a tough year in the SHL next year could add some questions to his pathway.

Methodology:
The first thing to understand about this draft class is that there is no clear top prospect. Mr. Aatu Raty lost that status a long time ago, and no player has stepped up to do Lafreniere/Hughes/Dahlin and take his place. That is perhaps a product of the defence-heavy aspect of this class; blueline impact is less visible on the scoresheet than that of a forward. It may also be a product of this COVID-affected year. Maybe Dylan Guenther’s two point per games in the shortened WHL season could have been sustained over a full season. That type of full-season performance certainly would propel him closer to Lafreniere status. Instead, we got only a promising but fleeting small sample.

If you’re picking first overall and there is no clear selection, what do you do? I think you have to really begin your process with a prominent focus on value, especially in a draft where so much of the top chunk is made up of defencemen. Which prospect is more valuable: a forward that could be a star but is more likely to just be a toolsy top-sixer (Kent Johnson), a forward with a very strong all-around game but even less of a shot at stardom (Matty Beniers, William Eklund), a defenceman whose most likely outcome is a good top-4 guy (Luke Hughes, Brandt Clarke, Owen Power), or a goaltender with as good of a shot at becoming a high-level starter as anybody you’ll ever get in a draft? None of these skaters are likely to be night-to-night gamechangers– they’ll be real good players that will win you games over the season, but not likely stars. An elite goaltender can change the outlook of every game. This might be a slightly oversimplified view of the situation, or maybe even a subconscious part of me trying to avoid the challenge of picking one of these jam-packed skaters, but Wallstedt already has a full season of pro-level hockey under his belt at 18 years old and is widely viewed as a phenom in goaltending circles. It almost seems inevitable that he’ll challenge for a Vezina at some point in his career. None of the skaters in the draft have the track record of success that Wallstedt carries.

Related
• Player Profile: Jesper Wallstedt (Jakob Hromoda, Recruit Scouting)
• Scouting Report: Jesper Wallstedt (Alexander Appleyard, Smaht Scouting)

---

One Thing I Love: Beniers shows little preference between shooting or passing, instead possessing a well-rounded offensive game that allows him to play a variety of roles within the attack. It’s a trait that is well-demonstrated by his behaviour on two-on-one opportunities; sometimes he’s very eager to shoot it himself, other times he shows exceptional awareness and finds even higher percentage opportunities. Here’s shoot-first Beniers.

And pass-first Beniers:

Swing Skill: I’m not particularly sold on the translation of Beniers’ exceptional point per game NCAA production to higher levels, largely because of slot penetration concerns. His offensive game revolves around perimeter creation and off-puck play in higher-danger areas, often stepping in to further develop an opportunity but rarely creating one himself. His growth in this area could influence whether or not he ever lives up to the first overall expectations that some in the public community have crowned him with following an impressive WJC. Beniers does a lot of things well, but he’s not a player that can consistently work off the wall towards the net or funnel pucks into the slot as a rush creator. He’s most effective as an offensive player when he’s receiving pucks in the slot, not when he’s trying to carry them there himself. Getting shut down on zone entries is a trend to his game.

Development: So, how can Beniers more effectively get into dangerous areas with the puck already on his stick? Mixing in some east-west, slow-fast plays could add a little extra unpredictability to Beniers’ toolbox with the puck on his stick. For developing puck skills and one-on-one ability, I like drills that involve receiving a pass and immediately looking to beat a defender 1v1. It encourages skill blending– skating and receiving a pass, accelerating and stickhandling– and forces players to explode out of that pass reception. A simple puckhandling drill generally isn’t going to really challenge a player mentally; making a player balance multiple things on their mind while they receive a pass and try to figure out how they’re going to attack a defender should be a little more beneficial to their overall gameplay. Plus, controlling a pass and immediately getting the puck into a hockey position is probably one of the most frequent applications of puck skills that a player will utilize in a game situation.

I’d set it up by having the forward curl around a cone around the blueline faceoff dot; a defender will come out with them, pivot as they curl, and prepare for the upcoming one-v-one. Another player on the opposite blueline dot will be looking to deliver a pass once the forward curls around that cone and makes themselves available for the pass. An extra layer: challenge the defender to really get up tight on the forward and try to deny the pass altogether– this should extract some creativity and east-west play out of that forward as they have to work just to be available for the pass.

Projection:
Top-end: Gonna bump this assessment up to a mid-tier #1 centre from my previous high-level #2 outlook in my mid-season rankings. His well-rounded game, excellent passing, and ability to make plays without the puck on the attack make him the type of player that can handle big minutes and play alongside star wingers.
Mid-level: #2 centre– 40-50 points a year with a strong two-way game and that off-puck ability. Doesn’t play quite well enough with the puck on his stick to command a top-line role.
Low-end: Bottom-six centre who makes a living as a two-way, more defensively-oriented centre that should still be able to chip in a little bit of offence.

Methodology:
Who’s the best of the skaters? I say Matthew Beniers. If we’re comparing him to the rest of the forwards, I think he’s established himself as the clear top dog. Kent Johnson does offer a higher absolute ceiling, I think, but that’s contingent on him continuing to manage to get into the middle of the ice despite unspectacular skating. Dylan Guenther’s WHL play gave him a nice late-season push, and his statistics over that sample are incredible, but he still strikes me as more of an off-puck guy– I don’t want to overfocus on a few early-season games after a long COVID break (and have been careful not to let such a small sample weigh too heavily in my analysis of Guenther), but I’d be lying if I said that images of Guenther looking far from dominant with the puck on his stick in the handful of AJHL games he played in the fall don’t still stick with me (I must mention though that his spectacular off-puck skills allowed him to still tally 5 points in 4 games while seemingly not playing his best hockey). Beniers, I feel, is the strongest bet to be a top-six mainstay of these forwards while still boasting plenty of high-level skill of his own. His array of tools is wide, but most central to my optimistic outlook regarding Matthew is my optimistic outlook on his swing skill: slot penetration and playing in traffic. Even with the flashy, elite-level hands of Kent Johnson and some very good puck skills on Guenther as well, I believe that Beniers has the skating, intelligence, and attack mentality to eventually be able to consistently work the puck off the wall and make plays in traffic in the centre lane. Making plays under pressure is about more than just puck skills– awareness tends to be more important, as the player that can seek out small pockets of space and best understand his options with the puck on his stick should be able to maintain possession in those situations most consistently. Combine that with his responsible, unshaken defensive play as a centreman and Beniers seems most likely to be a consistent driver of possession for his club.

The other consideration here pertains to how Beniers’ value compares to that offered by a defenceman such as Clarke, Hughes, or Power. And this is where this draft class becomes very interesting to analyze. Like we did in Wallstedt’s case, I feel that we must approach this question from a perspective of positional value. With the defencemen, I see three strong shots at capable top-four defenders. With Beniers, I see a strong shot at a top-six centre, and one with a real two-way game in addition to high-level offensive capabilities. I also see a player with a track record of quite seamlessly translating his game to levels of competition that would be very challenging for every player his age. Beniers went a point per game as an 18-year-old NCAA freshman! That’s an incredible accomplishment. Beniers played a central role for Team USA at the World Junior Championships as an 18-year old! And then he represented Team USA at the World Non-Junior Championships as an 18-year-old! And he didn’t look out of place at any of those levels! Like with Wallstedt, Beniers’ record of success just makes it seem likely that he’ll continue to translate his game effectively to higher and higher levels until he hits the NHL. The two-way top-six centre is more valuable than the top-four defenceman, I think, especially when that centre seems like he’s primed for an abnormally strong rate of success.

Related
• Buyer Beware Beniers (Justin Froese, FC Hockey)
• Jesper Wallstedt: 2021 NHL Draft Prospect Profile; A Poised, Technical, Potential Franchise Goaltender (Brian Franken, All About The Jersey)
• Skills Analysis: Owen Power, Kent Johnson, and Matt Beniers (Greg Revak/Justin Froese, The Hockey IQ Newsletter)

---

One Thing I Love: Clarke is really, really good at quickly looking up ice and making long passes that keep the pace high and frequently generate odd-man rushes going the other way. His vision, processing speed, and poise under pressure are exceptional.

Another Thing I Love: Clarke has shown flashes of brilliance as an entry creator that I haven’t seen from any of the other defencemen in this draft class. He can make plays into the slot with his puck skills in situations where most players would be easily contained to the outside of the ice.

Swing Skill: Clarke’s most concerning area of inconsistency, I think, lies in his short-to-intermediate passing on the breakout. He’s really good at those fast, long, Erik Karlsson-esque stretch passes, but his focus on looking up ice and maintaining a high pace can sometimes betray him when a lateral or shorter pass to create space is a better option. Returning the D-to-D pass would have been a stronger result here.

Development: Clarke’s transition passing profile– a player who excels at long passes but can miss easier checkdowns and simple reads– might benefit from a focus on passing progressions. I think it simplifies the read/thought process a little bit, allowing a player to quickly flash through his options in a manner similar to a quarterback distilling the chaos of a football field and finding an open receiver to throw to. I’d also play around with some game-simulation breakout drills in practice. These were always some of my favourite drills back in my playing days: set up 5v5, dump a puck into a defenceman’s corner, let the play go from there. You want the defenceman to have to vary his reads– if he’s going to the same option over and over, throw in a sixth player on the forechecking team to double-team that area of the ice and really challenge the defenceman to find an open teammate. I like the idea of ’overload” when it comes to player development: if a player is repeatedly succeeding in a drill, find a way to increase the difficulty until they find themselves struggling. Let them figure out that level of difficulty, then increase it again. You want them to continually overload their capability, forcing them to either raise their skill ceiling or identify and employ strategies that ease the load on them in a particular situation. Both of those are positive results that should benefit them in game settings down the line.

Projection:
Top-end: #1 defenceman, elite in transition, and the best offensive defenceman in the draft class. Uses his combination of skating and puck skills to command play with the puck on his stick.
Mid-level: Fringe top-pair defender that could excel in a high-pace system. Inconsistency in several areas of his game could drop his dependability below top-pair expectations.
Low-end: A good #5 defenceman that can step into a top-four at times, but struggles too much consistently reading forecheckers to be a positive influence in those kinds of minutes full time.

Methodology:
I’ve waffled on this all year long, demonstrated by my ranking of Luke Hughes first overall in my mid-season rankings (and Owen Power has tempted me at points as well), but I believe Brandt Clarke is the best of the draft’s defencemen. Clarke continues to be a very highly regarded prospect by most of the draft people out there despite the cancellation of the OHL season. In ranking Clarke ahead of both Hughes and Power, the decision came down to the offensive portion of their games. All three of these guys have their own significant strengths in the transition game: Clarke is very mobile and an excellent long passer, Hughes excels at evading forechecking pressure, and Power is unbothered by pressure because he’s absolutely massive and can deliver a consistently perfect outlet. Clarke, though, is the most offensively involved of the three. He had 113 points in 73 games in U16, 38 in 57 as an OHL rookie, 15 in 26 in the professional Slovakian league, and probably would have sat comfortably above a point per game as an OHL sophomore. His puck skills are off the charts, especially for a defender, and he’s able to drive the puck into the middle off of zone entries at a level that neither Hughes nor Power can nearly match.

My next ranked player is Kent Johnson (I am going to make no effort to avoid spoilers in this methodology section). Why do I like Clarke more than Johnson? Well, I prefer Beniers over Clarke because Beniers provides a strong bet at real two-way value (offensive AND defensive, not just defensive) as a centre. I think that’s more valuable than an offensive-leaning top-four defenceman. Johnson projects as a top-six forward too, but as a winger with less defensive value. Kent, of course, has the tools and creativity to break big as a star, but Clarke’s puck skills and eager offensive game could take him to similar levels on the blueline as well. Brandt’s realistic projection, a near top-pair guy with real offensive influence, tops Johnson’s outlook as an offensively-oriented top-six winger.

Related
• Could Brandt Clarke be a #1 defenceman in the NHL? (Draftlook, The Prospect Network)
• An Anecdotal Case Analysis of Brandt Clarke’s Skating Deficiencies (Josh Mallory, Mallory’s Playbook)

---

One Thing I Love: Johnson’s craftiness extends beyond single moves like the Michigan. He’s probably the most made for the highlight-reel forward in the draft, able to beat defenders with his puck skills, shiftiness, and creativity.

Swing Skill: The point of criticism for Johnson is definitely his skating. He knows it too– I liked this quote of his courtesy of Steve Ewen at the Province: ’I’m not the fastest guy yet at this level, so I can’t bust down the wall with speed. I have to get off the wall so I can use my shiftiness and IQ. Whenever I get the puck, I try to take a step to the middle and I’m getting more comfortable with that. I think I’ll get more comfortable the more games I play on the wing.” Even at the BCHL level, Johnson’s speed was never a considerable weapon for him. He prefers to attack outside-to-inside, where he can toe drag and deploy other moves to gain a step on the defender. Conversely, attacking inside-to-outside usually requires a greater reliance on speed to gain an advantage unless a player can force a defender to overcommit inside and cross over like in the clip above. I wrote in my Johnson breakdown, linked below, that he could fit well on the wing because of his ability to work off of the wall into the middle of the ice, especially on his strong-hand left wing. Johnson is much more agile than he is fast, preferring to step around defenders rather than accelerating past in a straight line. He carries little danger as an outside lane attacker because he doesn’t possess the burst to outskate defencemen.

He’s still quite proficient in transition at the NCAA level, but the concern is that the more aggressive defenders and quicker, more disruptive backcheckers at the NHL level could begin to neuter Johnson’s offensive possessions in the neutral zone before they even begin as a result of his so-so speed.

Development: How can Johnson unlock some additional speed? Easy answer: a skating coach. But what adjustments might that coach encourage the forward to make? I’m not particularly well-versed in skating mechanics, so we’re going to reference a series of articles by Josh Mallory of Mallory’s Playbook and as of a few days ago, the video coach for the Edmonton Oil Kings of the WHL.

Let’s summarize (I’ll link each one and I would recommend reading each in full), then try to apply what we learn to Johnson’s stride.

1: Lower-Body

Per Josh, there are three main lower-body components to a skating stride: Ankle flexion, knees, and rear-leg extension.

2: Hips – The hips are crucial in maintaining versatility as a skater in how you are able to receive passes, manipulate opposing defenders, and make plays with the puck. Mohawks and pivots both start with the hips. And in a typical stride, the hips are impactful through the idea of “falling”, which Josh and Mitch Brown combine to explain far better than I can. https://twitter.com/mitchlbrown/status/1330262552035651584?s=10

3: Upper-Body – This was my favourite installment of the series. Josh writes that, despite popular belief and coaching, side-to-side arm motion generates more propulsion from the skate than the forwards-backwards motion of a sprinter. Skating is a really weird thing to analyze from a physical perspective: there are a lot of changing factors when you’re moving on top of a flat blade with very sharp edges on a slippery surface; depending on the orientation of your blade, you may be facing very little or quite a lot of friction at any given time. But the crux of the arm-swing matter is that because a skater strides diagonally (backwards and away from their body) with a significant horizontal component (this is the “away from their body” part), their arms should match that horizontal component by swinging in a similar manner. If you’re pumping your arms straight forwards and backwards without a horizontal component to that motion, you’re giving up force. Torque, or rotational force, is also present in a skating stride. Upper-body rotation can create additional force through the skates. Of course, there’s a sweet spot that balances achieving effective torque with maintaining balance and avoiding wasted energy. And then we have posture and centre-of-mass: too upright or too hunched can compromise power and balance.

Let’s try to apply some of this to Johnson’s stride. As I said, my skating mechanics expertise is very limited, but even I can tell that there’s substantial inefficiency in Johnson’s stride. Just look at him work down the wall here– he looks awkward, almost like he’s spinning his tires as he tries to accelerate and get to full speed.

Lower-body: Here’s a still of Johnson’s stride. I apologize for the terrible resolution and suspect angle, I did my best with what I could dig up. Game broadcasts definitely aren’t ideal for this sort of thing; an ice-level angle would be a godsend. This is at the end of his extension. First thing that pops out to me: notice the bend in his striding leg. You want full extension, that’s not it. Maybe it’s just something that he’s missing, or perhaps there’s some sort of knee flexibility issue that he should meet with a trainer about. His knee is over his toe, but it doesn’t seem to be distinctly out ahead like Barzal’s is in that screencap above. Johnson seems to have some issues generating power, especially when he’s first accelerating. Would a deeper knee bend help him with that?

Hips: I’d say this is Johnson’s greatest strength as a skater. He’s a flexible skater that can disconnect his upper and lower body; that’s an ability that flows through the hips. It’s what makes him so agile. I like this clip here– Johnson’s upper-body can face one direction while his skates point another, and he’s able to smoothly transition out of those moves back into a typical acceleration.

Upper-body: Let’s return to that grainy screenshot (yay!). We’re a little upright here. Another thing that stood out to me from this earlier clip right here– – is that Johnson really appears to lack stability in his upper body. There shouldn’t be much movement in the torso as a skater; if it doesn’t create additional force (it doesn’t), then it’s wasted movement. You can see how Johnson’s balance really seems to shift around quite a bit.

Projection:
Top-end: I’m all for betting on puck skills, craftiness, and creativity, so I’m just gonna say it– top-line centre. If Johnson can improve his skating, what’s stopping him? He works well in traffic, he’s got a well-rounded offensive profile, and his off-puck game has really grown at Michigan.
Mid-level: Top-six winger that can pop 20+ and hit the highlight reel on a regular basis. He’s so crafty that I think he’ll be able to figure out NHL defences, even if his skating holds him back from legitimate top-line levels.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger with flashes of skill. Should at least be able to hang around in the slot and use his quick release and puck skills to finish rebounds and passes.

Methodology:
The two Michigan forwards, Beniers and Johnson, are my two top ranked attackers. Like Beniers, Johnson had a tremendous 18-year-old season as an NCAA freshman, finishing a point above a point per game. It was an interesting progression for him throughout the year, initially struggling pretty significantly to get himself off the wall and into dangerous areas. Even during those struggles though, Johnson got off to a very strong start production-wise because of his perimeter playmaking, and his puck skills and slot penetration saw a resurgence as his comfort grew throughout the season. I like Johnson over Dylan Guenther because I think Johnson is significantly more dangerous when in possession of the puck. Johnson isn’t a terrific skater, but his creativity, craftiness, and elite hands allow him to attack defenders one-on-one and drive the puck inside. In contrast, I believe Guenther will be a guy who does his best work away from the puck, getting into scoring locations and most effectively functioning as a guy who will only actually possess the puck in short bursts in the offensive zone– just long enough to collect it, maybe put a quick move on to create a little space, and shoot.

So, I’ve got Johnson sandwiched in between Brandt Clarke and the two other top-tier defenders, Luke Hughes and Owen Power. I expect Clarke, Hughes, and Power to all be roughly similar with their transitional impacts– all of these guys don’t find it very difficult to create a controlled exit at their respective levels, even if they do it in different ways. The same goes for the defensive aspect of the game, with all three of these guys having potential to be plus defenders– Power because he’s huge and mobile, Clarke and Hughes because they are even more mobile and should be able to deny entries very well if they develop their technique. Offensively, as I said, I think Clarke has the edge. All three defenders will probably play similar roles as everyday top-four guys who could probably even pass as top-pair defenders, but I think Clarke will provide more value in that role, so that’s why he’s ahead. Now we throw these two forwards in the mix. If you were to ask a group whether a top-six forward or a top-four defender is more valuable, the responses would probably be quite mixed (I’m not even sure which one I’d choose). But the reason why I feel the need to fit Johnson in here is because of the sheer upside that he offers. Clarke has a similar upside because of the extent of his offensive tools. Hughes and Power do not.

Related
• How will Kent Johnson’s BCHL dominance translate to higher levels? (DraftLook, The Prospect Network)
• Skills Analysis: Owen Power, Kent Johnson, and Matt Beniers (Greg Revak/Justin Froese, The Hockey IQ Newsletter)

---

One Thing I Love: Hughes excels under forechecking pressure, easily curling off forecheckers and creating space for himself on the breakout.

Swing Skill: Hughes has been able to be quite reliant on his skating against NTDP competition and we haven’t really seen him lean on any non-skating traits to beat forecheckers yet. His outlet passes don’t look particularly well-timed or clean and he hasn’t needed to mix in much deception to beat USHL forecheckers. Both of those are gonna be key against NHL competition– you don’t flat-out outskate many NHLers and he sure as hell isn’t going to be bringing the puck all the way up purely by himself every time he collects a puck in his own zone. Deception and passing are key at the NHL level; Hughes isn’t in an environment yet where he’s needed to depend on and develop those skills. The jump to the NCAA next season should change that.

Development: To best prepare himself for the NHL, Hughes should seek to expose himself to situations where he is forced to lean on skills other than his skating to solve problems. My hope is that NCAA forecheckers will present enough of a challenge to do so; I want him to be in situations where some deceptiveness is required to free up skating space or scenarios where his skating lanes are completely absent and he is forced to distribute under pressure. Increased comfort in those situations will be huge for him when he eventually jumps into the NHL, where end-to-end rushes from defencemen are very rare.

Projection:
Top-end: #1 defenceman with two-way impact. Top-percentile transitional results, consistently exiting and entering with control at an elite level. Joins rush frequently and leverages his offensive skills into about 50 points a season. Reasonably similar to brother Quinn.
Mid-level: #3 defenceman with positive transitional influence and quasi-frequent offensive involvement. The type of player that you can count on to collect a dump-in and make a positive play with the puck, but not a steady or well-rounded enough player to dictate play against absolute top competition.
Low-end: High-level AHLer and NHL-tweener, doesn’t learn to make plays using skills beyond his skating on the breakout. Hits a wall against better forecheckers.

Methodology:
Luke Hughes versus Owen Power is an interesting question. Power’s nearly a year older and is a year ahead in his development, having played his NCAA freshman this year while Hughes will make his college debut next season for Michigan. It’s a fun comparison because they play very different styles: Power skates quite well, but relies heavily on his passing in transition and is very comfortable with his outlets. Hughes skates better, is comfortable evading forecheckers, but isn’t quite as natural of a passer. I prefer Hughes because I think his transition game will stand up better against NHL forecheckers. Power’s big, yeah, but Hughes’ explosiveness should continue to allow him to escape forecheckers and create space for himself whereas Power’s size will become less of a crutch against stronger, more courageous NHL forecheckers.

Related
• Assessing Luke Hughes’ outlook in the transition game (DraftLook)

---

One Thing I Love: Owen Power doesn’t just ‘skate very well for his 6’5 frame (a phrase that I hate)’. He skates very well, period. And that size/mobility combo becomes highly useful on the breakout, where Power is unbothered by forecheckers and can simply do more with the same amount of space as most puckmovers. Some forecheckers don’t even attempt to check Power because of the sheer physical advantage he holds over everyone else on the ice.

Another Thing I Love: Power is simply a very natural passer on the breakout. His passes are well-timed to forwards in space and he rarely jams forwards in situations where they’ll face imminent pressure as soon as they collect the pass. A lot of defencemen struggle to read neutral zone forechecks and often end up delivering passes late or behind their target, disrupting the flow of the breakout. Power does not.

Swing Skill: The easy comparisons for these big, mobile defencemen with strong offensive records like Power are players like Victor Hedman and Dougie Hamilton. Those two players control the transition game with their mobility and passing, and can profoundly impact a game with their offensive tools as well. At this point in his development, I don’t like those types of players as Power comparables because he doesn’t have the fluidity of a skater or comfort handling the puck that they do. Hedman and Hamilton don’t look 6’6” as they possess the puck– an unkeen eye might mistake them for 6’0” simply because of their quickness and agility. Look at Dougie– just an incredible skater.

Power is not nearly as efficient and fluid.

Development: I want to see Power nail in the efficiency of his stride to improve his burst, quickness, and fluidity as a skater. By no means am I particularly well-versed in skating mechanics, but I sense some upper-body issues here: exaggerating horizontal arm swing and an imbalance that can lead to Power dropping a shoulder and almost falling to one side at times as he skates. This is probably an opportunity for some strength work; Power is young and lanky and I doubt that his body is geared as well for quick and efficient movement as it could be. Dougie Hamilton, who generates an extraordinary amount of burst with his 6’6 frame, is a very lean 229 pounds. Power, an inch shorter, currently weighs in at 214. Quick feet translate to quick acceleration– when Power is looking to gain speed, his focus should be mixing in as many strides and crossovers as he can. Once he gets up to speed, he can revert to a lengthier, and perhaps more natural, gait.

Projection:
Top-end: #1 defenceman with a steady, all-around presence: effective and dependable on the breakout even while facing pressure, powerplay QB with offensive influence, and a solid defender.
Mid-level: All-around 20-minute a night defender, but not the guy that counters every team’s top offensive threats. A good breakout passer, but probably doesn’t develop that quickness and escapability to add dimensions on the breakout and allow him to frequently involve himself up-ice in the offence.
Low-end: Bottom-pair defender. Power’s size and speed in open ice will very likely make him an NHL defender. But if he’s not quick enough to consistently outmatch forecheckers and his passing takes a hit, he won’t be effective enough in transition to play big minutes.

Methodology:
I have Power and Hughes ahead of my third-ranked forward, Dylan Guenther. As I said, Kent Johnson was able to jump up ahead of Power and Hughes because of his tremendous upside. I don’t think Guenther has that type of star power. The best players are those who are able to do special things with the puck on their stick. As we’ve touched on, Guenther doesn’t have that type of on-puck ability. He’s a scorer, an exceptional one, but not as much of a playmaker or a puckhandler. Hughes and Power I see as high-level top-four defenceman; Guenther should be a high-level top-six winger. Value-wise, there isn’t much of a difference between those projections, that’s why these guys are all tiered the same. Hughes and Power though, have some elite upside of their own. If Hughes takes a step forward as a passer and harnesses some of the offensive flashes that he’s shown with the NTDP, he could be a legit #1. If Power grows into his body a little more, he could do the same. I don’t see Guenther suddenly changing his playstyle to adopt more of a puck-dominant role, it’s just not the way he plays. He could lead an offence in goals, but he won’t lead an offence.

Related
• What would Owen Power have brought to Team Canada’s blueline? (DraftLook, The Prospect Network)
• Skills Analysis: Owen Power, Kent Johnson, and Matt Beniers (Greg Revak/Justin Froese, The Hockey IQ Newsletter)
• Owen Power: 2021 NHL Draft Deep Dive (Austin Broad, The Charging Buffalo)

---

One Thing I Love: Guenther is best-known for his scoring– he’s near a goal per game in this WHL COVID-shortened season. He’s an off-puck scorer, relying on his instincts to find space and often releasing the puck on net after only a couple of touches. One-timers, rebounds, chances around the net– the like. Off-puck scoring is a high-floor trait: as long as Guenther is able to get to his spots as a scorer, he should be good for high goal totals.

Another Thing I Love: That said, Guenther is waaayyy more than a scorer that pounces on opportunities. Oh baby, the blue in this chart.

https://twitter.com/MitchLBrown/status/1378412491332448258?s=20

Swing Skill: Rush offence is a work in progress. Guenther does pretty well generating controlled entries, but he isn’t frequently facing a tight gap or a particularly mobile defenceman in the WHL. After he gains the line, when the defender finally challenges him, Guenther’s results have been a work in progress thus far. Case in point– Guenther was credited with seven stickhandling controlled entries on Instat in this game against Red Deer. One ended in an outside shot; one ended in a sustained offensive possession on the powerplay; the other five went back the other way.
Video

Development: At this time, I tend to subscribe to two essential keys to consistent zone entry offence: lateral movement and puck support. Nobody that isn’t named Connor McDavid is gonna consistently beat NHL defenders wide (and the whole reason McDavid is able to do that is because of how effectively he moves side-to-side with his crossovers and the threat that it presents) and few players not named Connor McDavid are able to take on swaths of defenders without support and come out with the puck. Guenther, believe it or not, is not named Connor McDavid. You can see some issues there just looking at the video above: Guenther frequently chooses to attack in straight lines at defencemen, but more prominently, he’s very often the only offensive player in the picture at all. We can blame some of that on his teammates and the circumstances– his teammates are probably looking to get a change– but knowing when to delay the attack and wait for reinforcements, ideally while retaining possession, is an important skill. Part of this plays into that idea of lateral movement too: a good player needs to know when to break out of north-south, ’attack attack attack” patterns and instead cut laterally, curl, or stop up to put his team in a stronger offensive position. Right now, linear and predictable movement is Guenther’s go-to.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger with a real scoring touch and a well-rounded offensive arsenal. I don’t see him as a line-driver, especially on a top line, because Guenther isn’t particularly dynamic nor a distinctly natural playmaker. But in a role where he can hunt out his spots off the puck and focus on scoring, he could be a tremendous piece of a top line.
Mid-level: Top-six do-all winger that can chip in 20 goals. Complimentary scorer that gets opportunities around the slot.
Low-end: NHL tweener that struggles to find space in scoring areas, dampening his high-level tools.

Methodology:
Guenther versus Eklund? Good question. Both players are best away from the puck– Guenther because he’s such an incredible threat to score anytime he gets to the end of a passing lane, Eklund because he works off his teammates so well and is best as part of the offence, making plays to connect his teammates, rather than the offence. I’m taking Guenther because goalscoring is an immensely valuable trait– it’s literally the goal of the sport. Guenther could definitely pop 30+ at points in his career, maybe 40 in an excellent situation. Eklund has two-way ability, but isn’t quite as dangerous of an on-puck creator as Matthew Beniers is nor is he as much of a lock to play centre. If we’re choosing between two primarily off-puck players, I think the guy with elite-level scoring upside is a better bet to provide more value.

Related
• Deep Dive: A look into Dylan Guenther’s game (Justin Froese, FC Hockey)

---

One Thing I Love: Eklund’s comfort level in his first season as a full time SHLer has been incredible. His ability to get to dangerous areas and make plays in traffic have really helped his transition and are bright, bright arrows for the eventual jump to the NHL.

Swing Skill: Eklund and Matty Beniers share some similar elements: promising two-way games, can score and pass, really effective working off their teammates and playing off the puck in the offensive zone. They also share a swing skill: how good are they at creating with the puck on their stick, especially off the rush?

Eklund is an unexplosive skater that doesn’t mix speeds or direction effectively enough to really threaten much at all entering the offensive zone.

And his attempts at creativity usually don’t get him any closer to the middle lane.

Development: Just like Beniers, I want to see Eklund add effective creativity and unpredictableness to his zone entry game. Changes of speed, faster directional changes, add some more puck moves to his arsenal, that type of thing. See the Beniers development profile for more.

Projection:
Top-end: Top-line winger with an effective all-around game. With his ability to work off of his teammates, could see him as a part of one of the NHL’s better lines one day (probably not as the headliner). Needs to improve on-puck creation.
Mid-level: Complimentary-type top-six forward, probably on the wing. Could tie a line together nicely with his slot presence, off-puck ability, and two-way game. Not a particularly strong playdriver though because of middling ability in transition, will rely on his linemates in that area.
Low-end: Bottom-six winger with limited on-puck creation. Grinds it out in the corners and can sustain possession down low, but little else to his arsenal.

Methodology:
Eklund is not dissimilar to Matty Beniers (you already saw a bit of that comparison above): Eklund is a two-way beast who is equally or arguably even more proven against better-than-usual competition. A full season as a legit, above-average SHL player is a rare, rare achievement for an 18 year old player. Eklund is the last player in this massive top tier, so I’m going to take this as an opportunity to outline the makeup of this group. Every guy in this tier has a non-outside shot at becoming a top-line player— I’m not saying it’s the most realistic outcome, but it wouldn’t be a major surprise if they did. I could definitely see Eklund reaching that level— whether it be in a more off-puck, connecting role as a top-line winger, or maybe even as a 1C who hits his absolute ceiling and begins to show a little more creation ability. He’s at the bottom of this tier because I do think his most realistic projection is as more of a short-possession player, not a puck-dominant (long-possession) creator. Guenther’s scoring is a more valuable fashion of off-puck play. Near top-pair defencemen trump more complimentary top-sixers. Beniers brings a similar well-roundedness and maturity with more creation ability. Johnson has much more creation ability and raw upside. Wallstedt could be an elite goalie.

Related
• Scouting William Eklund (Greg Revak/Justin Froese, The Hockey IQ Newsletter)
• William Eklund: 2021 NHL Draft Deep Dive (Curtis Schwartzkopf, The Charging Buffalo)