Written by Austin Garret
I love to scout players, but it also comes with an absolute love of college hockey. On the weekends you will find me with my computer scouting players with a college hockey game on the TV in the background at all times. From the fan atmosphere (my trip to Yost last year is still the top hockey game experience I’ve ever had), the pace and flow of the game, to the rivalries that have developed: there’s no greater hockey experience outside your favorite team winning a playoff game.
I took a look at the six draft eligible players in the NCAA the past two weeks. Tracking one game each and flipping around to catch bits and pieces of the rest of their games the past two weekends. There are some early thoughts.
James Hagens, C, Boston College
What I liked: I thought Hagens continues to be one of the smarter players in this year’s draft. His off-puck game continues to be a strength and his ability to read plays as they develop has translated to the faster, more physical play in the NCAA. Boston College started their season on the road against a top 10 team in Michigan State for a two game series, which didn’t exactly ease Hagens into his college career. He played well in the game I tracked and didn’t look out of place. He generated 5 even strength shot attempts, was involved in 50% of his line’s offensive transitions, and played well off the puck as the second line pivot. He centered Teddy Stiga and Andre Gasseau, perhaps a shift from the expectations that he was going to immediately supplant Will Smith on the top line between Gabe Perreault and Ryan Leonard although they pulled Hagens up to the first line when they were down a goal in the third.
What gave me pause: Hagens doesn’t have top-end north/south speed and Michigan State was able to get on top of him in the neutral zone. While he was involved in 50% of his line’s successful offensive transitions, he did so at just a 59% success rate. They pressured him often at the blue lines and he struggled to find lanes to puck handle by or to hit teammates exiting/entering the zone. Michigan State is very physical and Hagens struggled to make plays on the inside, with just three of his shot attempts coming from dangerous areas and just 13% of his passes going there as well. His skill level is clearly above average and his anticipation to make a play is high-end, however he lacked a clear ability to be able to make a play at will throughout the series with Michigan State.
Final thoughts: I went into the last two weekends expecting Hagens to separate himself from Michael Misa as the clear #1 prospect coming out of North America, and I have left the viewings having more questions than answers. Right now, and I don’t mean for this to be a hot take, I have Misa ahead of Hagens on my initial rankings. I’m not big on point production, but his point production is right on par with where Celebrini was last year through three games. However, the one big difference between Celebrini/Fantilli and Hagens is (and probably will be) the point differential between themselves and their nearest teammate. I find it hard to believe that Hagens will have the 15 point differential that Celebrini had at BU with Gabe Perreault and Ryan Leonard on the team. Perhaps, eventually, Hagens begins to center the top line and supplants Oskar Jellvik as the center between Perreault and Leonard. Or perhaps Hagens blows away the competition at the World Juniors. But going into November, I would say that the 1st overall pick is up for grabs.
Cullen Potter, C, Arizona State
What I like: Potter has dynamic skating and play creativity that pops off the screen. Even against a powerhouse team like Michigan, Potter put the defense on their heels every time he touched the puck. Once he got a little space in the neutral zone he could fly through the zone and puck handle through the defense with somewhat ease. He took nearly a third of his team’s shot attempts at even strength with all of them coming from dangerous areas, sent 21% of his passes to dangerous areas of the ice, and was involved in 41% of his teams offensive transitions with a 71% success rate. He backchecks hard, and is tenacious as a smaller player in suffocating space and forcing turnovers. He has a wicked wrist shot, and attempts some of the more creative passing plays I’ve seen from this year’s draft class.
What gives me pause: Potter plays the game at 100 miles an hour, and at the beginning of the game he was trying to think the game a bit too fast which led to some unwarranted turnovers or trying to create plays that weren’t there. From immediately getting a turnover and trying to turn around and hit a homerun on a stretch pass, to trying to do too much with the puck on his stick and ignoring simple plays that would’ve been dangerous shot attempts to try to create something himself, he displayed a lot of high-end tools without the high-end processing it takes to generate scoring changes as a playmaker. He settled into his game in the backend of the first period and throughout the rest of the game though. Against Providence, in the limited times I saw him play over this past weekend, he was still creating chances against a very structured defensive team.
Final thoughts: Potter has cemented himself inside my top 15 for this year. It will be difficult to move him past that point. Currently he’s sitting outside the Misa/Hagens/Martone tier, but is in the second tier of players that I have labeled as top 15 picks. There hasn’t been a player in North America that has showcased an ability to break open a game like him so far, but he’s going to have to demonstrate that he can slow his mental processing down to make optimal plays for him to drive up the rankings.
Logan Hensler, RHD, Wisconsin
What I like: Hensler was the best carry-out offensive transition player I tracked in the NCAA the last two weeks. He’s aggressive taking the puck up the ice and, as Wisconsin was struggling throughout the weekend with Lindenwood, Hensler seemed to take it upon himself to try to jump start a struggling Wisconsin offense. I thought he was very good defensively. He has an active stick at the blue line and isn’t afraid to drive players to boards to physically take them out of their rush lane and battles hard down low to dig out pucks to start transition. He was the most involved defensemen in transition, being involved in 46% of Wisconsin’s successful transitions, and was always looking for a way to try to contribute offensively. Unfortunately, Wisconsin plays a pretty conservative system so there were not many activation strategies used for Hensler to drive deep into the zone on the offensive end.
What gives me pause: Hensler carrying the puck out of the zone on his stick was impressive, Hensler trying to complete a pass for a defensive exit was a major struggle, especially against such a lackluster opponent in Lindenwood. He’s last in the defensemen dataset in offensive transition success percentage, with almost all of them being turnovers due to his defensive exits. He passes the puck well with space, but struggles under pressure to find optimal plays as, once again, he’s sitting last in the dataset for defensemen in passing completion percentage.
Final thoughts: Similar to Hagens, I dropped Hensler down in the rankings after tracking a Lindenwood game and watching the Ohio State game. Wisconsin, as a team, is a hot mess to start this year. They lost a significant part of their roster and are trying to gel multiple pieces together to begin the year under Mike Hastings’ famously defensive system. They have a big weekend coming up with two games against the defending National Champions University of Denver. As the year progresses I want to see Hensler have more of a plan when completing his passes and trying to generate the offensive breakout.
Dakoda Rheaume-Mullen, LHD, Michigan
What I like: He’s the smartest puck mover I’ve seen in the draft class thus far. He completed over 86% of his passes, and 3 of the 4 passes he didn’t complete were scheduled dump-ins based off a line-change or off a draw just outside the offensive zone. In the offensive zone he’s quick to move a puck to the slot for a dangerous chance and doesn’t think first to just shoot into traffic from the point, and I love his off-puck defensive game. He mitigates transition not by suffocating the puck as it hits the blue line, but rather by taking away the breakout/entry passing options to force players to find another option that would not be their primary passing option.
What gives me pause: I have long held the philosophy that I don’t draft defensemen in the first round unless they have powerplay potential or are a lengthy, shutdown defender with great transition ability. Rheaume-Mullen played just over 11 minutes of total ice time against Arizona State and saw no power play time. His skating isn’t a strength, and he gives up considerable space at the blue line on entries for players to be able to gain control in the offensive zone. He mitigates the latter point by forcing players into the corners and then pressuring the offensive player to try to cycle or go back to the point. His one-on-one with Cullen Potter was noteworthy as he didn’t allow Potter to turn the corner on him and the backchecking forward was able to then separate Potter from the puck on his turn back to the outside.
Final Thoughts: I love so much about Rheaume-Mullen’s game, but I don’t know if I see the offensive upside to justify a first round grade on him at the moment. He currently sits as my first player in the second round, but as the year goes on I’m hopeful he’ll earn more ice time to see his ranking rise. The addition of Tim Rovell from the transfer portal boxed him out of a PP2 role behind Ethan Edwards, but his ability to quarterback the backend at even strength, thus far, could see him earn some PP time as the year goes on.
Sascha Boudmedienne, LHD, Boston University
What I like: In a similar vein to Rheaume-Mullen, I really liked how well he was able to generate transition through smart passes in the neutral zone. They were both almost identical in transition involvement percentage and success rate. Boudmedienne had a bit more offensive flair to his game at even strength by looking to move into open ice to take his shot and activating down the wall to thread a couple passes into dangerous areas of the ice. He made some nice defensive plays down low given his size to box out defenders to win board battles and his skating looked at an NHL pace with very good edge work.
What gives me pause: He tries to make difficult passes when attempting offensive zone exits and too often tries to thread passes to forwards who weren’t going to be able to make a play even if they were able to receive the pass in the neutral zone. He’s a smart passer, but his aggressiveness in transition did cause a few turnovers that came back the other way on him. Defensively I thought he was good, but I would like to see him use his mobility a bit more on the blue line to stop plays earlier. His off-puck defensive game could use some refinement as well as he played a very traditional role and didn’t read the plays that were developing in front of him fast enough to be able to counteract what UConn was trying to do for an entry/exit.
Final thoughts: Similar to Rheaume-Mullen, Boudmedienne is currently boxed out of any power play time by the players in front of him. Having Wallinder and Cole Hutson playing in front of him is going to limit his opportunity to generate points. I do think Boudmedienne has earned a similar status as Rheaume-Mullen in terms of ranking, and both (to me) are candidates for D+1 breakout seasons when their ice time on the PP is increased.
Shane Vansaghi, C/W, Michigan State
Shane played 9 minutes of ice time against Boston College in a checking line role. He could carry the puck out for an offensive exit but struggled with offensive entries. He completed just 40% of his passes and both shot attempts were long-distance shots meant to draw a rebound. He is super physical and hits anything that comes across his path, but in terms of draft stock, I would say he’s sitting somewhere in the mid-late rounds if you’re looking for a player who could play as a physical, F1 forechecker on your 4th line.
Three Players I’m Fawning Over
- Lynden Lakovic, LW, Moose Jaw
The most fluid skater in North America and does it at 6’4 as well. While he plays with Brayden Yager on a line, Lakovic is driving a lot of play himself and is not necessarily sitting as a passenger in transition or the offensive zone. He had a 50% shot share for his line in the game I tracked to go along with completing 82% of his passes, a 53% offensive transition involvement at a 95(!)% success rate. He has so much skill and speed as well as a great wrist shot from dangerous areas. He’s firmly planted inside my top 10 right now with even more room to improve. He drives a lot of his own offense from the inside, but once he starts driving his passing in the zone from facilitating the cycle/to the point and more to creating chances in the dangerous areas of the ice his point numbers could skyrocket even more than they are now.
- Carter Bear, LW, Everett
I talk about players that endear themselves to me through always making the right play and playing hard on both ends of the ice, and no one has done that more in the past two weeks than Carter Bear. A tenacious forechecker and aggressive suffocator of space, he has played well off of Julius Miettinen to form a lethal even strength line. He plays with great pace and above average skill as well. He generated a 20% shot share, completed 81% of his passes with 38(!)% going to dangerous parts of the ice and was involved in 37% of his team’s offensive transitions at a 71% success rate. In the game I tracked that equated to 3 even strength points. He’s sitting within my top 15 with room to move into the top 10.
- Cameron Reid, LHD, Kitchener
Just an absolute eraser on the blue line in transition. Saginaw avoided him at all costs when trying to enter the zone because his stick and physicality took away almost any chance of successfully gaining the zone. Coupled with his great mobility and smart puck moving skills, I became an instant fan of Reid. He’s a bit smaller as he’s listed at 5’11 (he looks to be at least 6’0 when I watch him play though), but his defensive game has been outstanding to start the year. He’s also smart in his activations from the blue line, cutting backdoor off a faceoff for a one-time goal in the game I tracked. As the year goes on I’d like to see him get a little bit more involved in the offensive transition game as he deferred the exit/entry to his forwards, and he was a bit too risky in his passing decisions, but overall he’s been one of my favorite defenders to start the year in North America.
Random Thoughts
- Jett Lajoie is a player I’m struggling with putting together his production stats and microstat profile. He plays a power forward style game but at 5’11 without a lot of pace. I didn’t see a lot of skill in the neutral zone and struggled at offensive zone entries, but once he was in the zone he was a shooting machine with a 70% shot share. I tend to stay away from players in archetype to the late 2nd round at least, but he’s one I will be keeping a close eye on throughout the year.
- David Holub doesn’t have great mobility and doesn’t defend the blue line well, but is an excellent passer in transition, activates well in the offensive zone, and makes smart plays that lead to offensive chances. The skill doesn’t line up with the microstats, but could see him as an early day 2 pick in the draft.
- Two players I liked watching but have to let the year play out to really figure out what I want to do with them are Jonas Woo and Jack Nesbitt. Woo is incredibly small and plays small in the defensive zone. However, he was incredible at offensive transitions and made high-end plays to complete passes in transition. There’s offensive potential, but his lack of a defensive game and size makes him a risky gamble for any NHL team taking him. Nesbitt was overshadowed by an ‘08 forward on his line, but I really like his defensive game, size, and he makes some smart passes in the offensive zone. He was a low volume shooter so if he gets a bit more aggressive in the offensive zone with his size I’ll be interested to see what he looks like at the end of the year.
- Matteo Nobert is smooth in his playmaking. Makes some really nice passes and has good skill and thinks the game very well. He was a rollercoaster in the offensive zone with his lack of engagement, and his lack of intensity and average mobility made him a non-factor in the defensive zone.
- Henry Brzustewicz is a conundrum. In the offensive zone he is consistently looking to make things happen. He is second in the defensemen dataset in shot attempts, completed 80% of his passes, and is involved in 35% of his team’s offensive transitions. However, he made some very bad mistakes in the defensive zone for a 6’2 defender. I don’t think he goes as early as his brother, but I also think there’s a bit more mobility to his game.
- I have a lot of time for Bill Zonnon. He plays a very traditional power forward role as he took all of his shot attempts from high danger areas, was a low volume passer but 27% of them went to dangerous areas of the ice, was involved in 37% of his team’s offensive transitions at a 77% success rate. His skating is a concern and he isn’t able to separate from players with the puck on his stick and too often players were able to get around his forecheck with their mobility.
- The first player that I have on my “oh who was that!” that I didn’t track is Xavier Label. He’s super involved in all facets of the offensive game, and he tries a lot of difficult plays. While he fails at them more often than not, he was a player that was off my radar who caught my eye more than once while scouting another player. Look forward to digging into his game a bit more.