How QB development helped Cade Klubnik, Drew Allar reach the CFP
-
David Hale, ESPN Staff Writer
THE LOW POINT for Clemson quarterback Cade Klubnik came after a Week 9 loss to NC State last year.
The Tigers were 4-4, assured of ending a streak of 12 straight seasons with 10 or more wins, and Klubnik was on the hook for the dynasty’s demise.
At least, that’s how it felt at the time.
Klubnik had been a prized recruit, but his ascendance at Clemson had come in fits and starts — a dizzying debut in mop-up duty, a long-delayed takeover of the offense in a rollicking ACC championship game win, a bowl loss, and now this.
In another era, the roller-coaster ride would’ve been part of the deal. Quarterbacks rarely develop into superstars overnight. It requires, as Clemson coach Dabo Swinney likes to call it, time “in the crock-pot.”
In this era, however, coaches and QBs rarely tolerate the slow simmer, and so the familiar narrative began for Klubnik, too.
“It was tough,” Klubnik told ESPN. “I had a lot of people in my ear after last season asking if I wanted to leave.”
That’s the preferred path these days. Look no further than the 2022 class, for which Klubnik was the crown jewel.
This year’s College Football Playoff will feature four starting QBs from the 2022 class: Klubnik, Penn State‘s Drew Allar, SMU‘s Kevin Jennings and Boise State‘s Maddux Madsen. Georgia‘s Gunner Stockton could add his name, depending on the health of starter Carson Beck. But they are the exceptions.
Of the top 30 QB recruits in that class, just four ended the regular season as a starter, and more than two-thirds have transferred. Klubnik and Allar are the clear-cut success stories, and even they’ve been dogged by criticism and setbacks. That they’re still here, on the verge of playoff games, is borderline miraculous.
Klubnik turned down all overtures from the outside. It helped that Clemson ended the 2023 season on a five-game winning streak and that Klubnik had seen marked — if gradual — growth in each outing. But it was more about his relationship with Swinney, about the time in that crock-pot.
“I never had any doubt with Cade,” Swinney said. “If I did, I would’ve gone and taken a big-time portal guy. But I believe in Cade. He’s a worker, he’s gifted, he’s smart. He deserves all the credit because he’s really grown.”
This is how the story is supposed to unfold, Swinney said. Quarterbacks are always a work in progress, and Swinney is aware of how rare it is to see someone like Deshaun Watson or Trevor Lawrence sprint up the growth curve.
After last season ended, Swinney pulled Klubnik aside for a meeting. His message was simple: No, 2023 wasn’t good enough, but yes, he believed unflinchingly that Klubnik would become something special at Clemson.
“After a season you wouldn’t ever dream of having,” Klubnik said, “to have somebody like that come and tell you he still believes in you and trusts in you, that means a lot.”
So Klubnik stayed, and he improved, and though he still hasn’t blossomed into the latest version of Lawrence, he threw 33 touchdowns and has Clemson back in the College Football Playoff for the first time since Lawrence left town.
Klubnik isn’t so much a success story. He’s a byproduct of staying the course.
THERE WAS A familiar sense of dread as Klubnik fished the cell phone from his locker in the aftermath of Clemson’s Week 1 loss to Georgia in September.
A year ago — heck, even a few months earlier, he said — this would’ve been the salt in the wound. He had already deleted all social media apps from his phone, determined to avoid a toxic feedback loop, but the silence was sometimes worse. After a good game, the texts praising his play were ubiquitous — a week later, after accounting for seven touchdowns in a blowout win over Appalachian State, he’d have upwards of 120 messages waiting — but after losses, it was crickets.
This time, there were just five texts, all from friends or family who didn’t care if he won or lost.
There’s a lesson in that, Klubnik said.
“Find your circle,” Klubnik said. “You listen to the four or five people. Those are the people that are there for you in the hard times.”
That’s not always easy.
For star recruits, there’s always an endless supply of opinions from people outside the circle. The struggles are the result of a bad fit, bad coaching, bad fans, bad vibes. The money is better elsewhere. There will be less pressure and more praise. The grass is bright green, just on the other side of the transfer portal.
For coaches, it’s nearly as bad. The pressure to win — and win now — is immense, and living with a QB still paying his dues might mean you’re out of a job before seeing the fruits of that labor.
“It’s hard to have patience, because you have so much noise,” Swinney said. “It’s a lot harder than it used to be. Everybody wants to win yesterday, and unfortunately with quarterback play, it’s developmental.”
Swinney’s former defensive coordinator, Brent Venables, lived that paradox at Oklahoma this season. The Sooners went 6-6 in 2024, due in part to myriad injuries at receiver and along the O-line, but the brunt of the criticism fell on the coach and his quarterbacks.
Venables opened the year with sophomore Jackson Arnold (a former five-star recruit) as his starting QB, then switched to freshman Michael Hawkins Jr., then flipped back to Arnold, who ultimately landed in the transfer portal after the regular season. It was hard to find much enthusiasm amid the constant criticism of the QB play, but Venables said he worked tirelessly to recalibrate the message.
“Well before the season started, you were talking about these moments,” Venables said of the team’s offensive struggles. “We spend a lot of time throughout the year developing toughness and mindset. And every week you have to start completely over with your process. And if you do it the right way, [improvement] is usually more incremental than not.”
Incremental improvements can be a tough sell when the expectations of immediate success mix with the temptations of an easier path somewhere else.
Klubnik admits he was unprepared for the wave of criticism he endured, along with the endless pressure to win or move on during that 2023 campaign. It was the first real failure in his career, which included three state championships in high school and an ACC championship game MVP in his first significant action at Clemson. Suddenly the talent and the work weren’t enough to guarantee results, and so the little voice in his head that worried he didn’t belong was amplified by the countless voices from outside nudging him out the door.
“Just because you’re not listening to the criticism doesn’t mean you don’t hear it,” Klubnik said. “Those words can definitely be heavy.”
There were times last season, Klubnik said, when he didn’t want to go to class or go out to eat. He was the face of Clemson’s football program, and in a small college town, there was nowhere to hide.
Looking back though, Klubnik is grateful.
“Pain like that, it does something to people,” he said. “But it can make you better. I’m thankful I went through stuff like that because I came out better on the other side.”
To fail is to learn.
The problem, of course, is the lessons are only fully realized long after the losses are added to the standings.
NOBODY TOLD ALLAR to stay quiet. In fact, his coaches encouraged him to put his own stamp on Penn State’s offense last year, but that wasn’t his nature. He had spent his first year on campus learning under incumbent Sean Clifford, a four-year starter. With Clifford, it all looked like a well-oiled machine, so when Allar took over, he figured it was his job to conform to the status quo.
It mostly worked. Penn State went 10-3 in 2023, and Allar threw 25 touchdowns with just two interceptions. But in the big moments against Ohio State and Michigan, when the Nittany Lions needed something extra special from the QB, there was only more of the same.
It was only later, after Penn State brought in new coordinator Andy Kotelnicki to rejuvenate the offense last offseason, did Allar understand that he had gotten the math backward, that he needed to help tailor the offense, not conform to it.
“It’s about experience,” Allar said. “You can talk about development all you want, and learning behind somebody, but experience is the biggest thing. You gain more perspective on the things you need to be on top of, on communication with the staff, about being open and honest with them.”
He had heard all that before he took his first snaps at QB1, but it took a year of living it to really understand.
And yet learning on the job is a luxury afforded to too few elite QB prospects.
Of 2022’s top 30 QBs ranked by 247’s recruiting composite — a consensus of all major recruiting services, including ESPN’s — just seven have at least 10 starts under their belts, three years into their college careers. Of those seven, just two — Klubnik and Allar — remain at their original school. Nine have avoided the transfer portal, and of that group, four have either one or zero starts to their name.
Some of those top-30 QBs — Maalik Murphy, Walker Howard, Nate Johnson — are in the portal for a second time. Combined, the top 30 have a Total QBR of just 56.0, are completing less than 60% of their throws and average just more than 6 yards per dropback. More than a dozen still haven’t started a game.
There is no simple explanation for why the 2022 class is so rife with bad evaluations, but there are ample possibilities. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted critical junior seasons for this class and kept coaches from doing serious in-person recruiting. The extra year of eligibility granted by the NCAA because of COVID also resulted in a wealth of veteran QBs in their fifth, sixth or seventh years retaining starting jobs, which relegated younger QBs to the bench.
Name, image and likeness took over the sport after many members of the 2022 class were committed, and the opening of the transfer portal at the same time made it easy for QBs to leave in search of more money, more playing time or more acclaim. The bottom line for the Class of ’22 — and likely, many more recruiting classes to come — is the odds are slim that more than a handful will find success with the team they sign with out of high school.
“If the kid’s not great as a freshman and the head coach is under a lot of pressure to win right now, you move on to the next guy,” Swinney said. “So there’s been this mass deal of one-year guys. Go get a guy that’s got a ton of experience.”
It’s the catch-22 of modern QB development: Every coach wants someone with experience, but getting experience requires a coach to live with the ups and downs of a young quarterback.
It’s perhaps not surprising then that, looking back at the Class of 2022, the biggest stars aside from Klubnik and Allar were largely overlooked on the recruiting trail.
Iowa State’s Rocco Becht was ESPN’s No. 36 pocket passer. USC‘s Jayden Maiava was No. 23. TCU‘s Josh Hoover was No. 24. Fernando Mendoza, a two-year starter at Cal before entering the portal this month, was No. 72.
Then there’s Madsen (No. 56) and Jennings (unranked), who’ll start playoff games alongside Klubnik and Allar this week, despite being largely passed over as recruits.
Those guys had the luxury of low expectations, which afforded them time to learn their craft without the constant pressure to perform immediately. When mistakes happened, they were expected. When success finally came, it was a surprise. Jennings, who played high school football in Texas at the same time as Klubnik, had a college experience that looks virtually nothing like what Clemson’s QB endured.
“Patience is not a good word in our world when it comes to coaches, fans, administrations,” Swinney said. “Sometimes the answer is right there, you just have to have some patience.”
AFTER CLEMSON LOST to South Carolina in the regular-season finale, a game that could have ended the Tigers’ playoff hopes, Klubnik slumped into his car and cried.
Losing is never easy, even with two years of starts under his belt.
But then a few hundred miles away, another former blue-chip recruit who had fallen from grace at Ohio State was engineering a miraculous comeback in Syracuse.
2:21
Syracuse knocks Miami out of ACC title game with stunning victory
Trailing 21-0 in the second quarter, Syracuse digs deep for its biggest comeback in program history to beat Miami 42-38.
Kyle McCord has seen both sides of the modern QB’s story, proof the portal can be a curse or a blessing.
A year ago, he won 11 of 12 games as Ohio State’s starter. He posted an 83.8 Total QBR, the second-best mark in the Big Ten, threw 24 touchdown passes to just six interceptions and had more than 3,100 passing yards.
“When you’re a young quarterback, you care a lot about what people have to say about your performance, but you play great one week and they love you and you don’t the next week and you’re terrible,” McCord said.
After a loss to Michigan at the end of the 2023 season, most Ohio State fans thought the latter.
So McCord was shown the door. Ohio State opted to replace him with a transfer: Will Howard from Kansas State. (Interesting side note: The Buckeyes chose Howard over junior Devin Brown, ESPN’s No. 4 pocket passer in the Class of 2022, who entered the portal this month.)
McCord landed at Syracuse, a school desperately in need of a veteran. In 2024, he threw for more than 4,300 yards with 29 touchdowns, including three in a Week 14 win over Miami that opened the door for Clemson to make one last push for the College Football Playoff and gave Klubnik another chance to live up to all those expectations.
“Failing’s not fun, but it teaches you a lot,” McCord said. “I’ve learned the most from my failures. It’s easy to be a quarterback when you’re winning, and everything’s going great, but the moment it hits the fan and things are going south and you have to be the guy that calms the locker room down, that’s not easy to do at all.”
KLUBNIK EDNURED THE ups and downs of 2023, stumbled in the opener this season, then righted the ship to get Clemson into the College Football Playoff.
Allar stuck it out at Penn State. The Nittany Lions hired the right offensive coordinator. Now, they’re in the field, too.
There’s probably little use in searching for a blueprint in those journeys beyond a simple understanding that most players get better with age and experience.
“Just going through it, you learn from those mistakes you made,” Allar said. “You gain perspective.”
Sometimes, the portal is the best path to figuring things out. Sometimes, a coach can’t wait for the seeds planted today to blossom when he also faces the threat of being fired. And sometimes, on increasingly rare occasions, there’s a player like Klubnik or Allar, who sticks it out just long enough for the pieces to finally click into place at the same school where the journey began.
The point, perhaps, is that the job is hard, and no one has the perfect blueprint. It’s just about knowing the right guy when you see him.
“I wasn’t where I wanted to be last year,” Klubnik said, “and I’m not where I want to be this year. I still see things I want to get better at.”
-
Rachel Doerrie
The games are done for the top draft prospects; there is no hockey left to be played. A few players in the top 10 played until the last possible moment, making a lasting impression on scouts and executives at the Memorial Cup. With the combine taking place this week in Buffalo, New York, players will undergo physical testing and a rigorous interview process with interested teams. The combine allows teams to ask out-of-the-box questions, get a feel for the personalities of the players and, in some cases, understand the significance of injuries.
There is room for movement on the draft board because combine testing does impact model outputs. Furthermore, this list weighs scouting as 40% of the evaluation. The final ranking, which will be published June 23, will weigh scouting, projection, off-ice assessments and industry intel to varying degrees, which may see some players move up or down.
There are five parts of this set of rankings:
-
The rank, which accounts for attributed value based on projection, the confidence of the projection and scouting.
-
The NHL projection weighs the projection formula at 70% and scouting at 30%, and represents the most likely outcome for that player. The final edition of the rankings will include the player’s NHL ceiling.
-
The NHL floor uses the same formula and represents the worst outcome, above 10% probability of occurring. If a player has a 4% chance of never playing NHL games and an 11% chance of becoming a fourth-line winger or No. 7 defenseman, then those projections will be used for NHL floor. For some players in the draft, the floor is outside of the NHL, perhaps the AHL or KHL.
-
Projection confidence is based solely on the projection formula and forms two parts: confidence and volatility. The confidence has four tiers: High, fair, medium and low. This represents that confidence the model has that the player will reach the NHL projection for 200 or more NHL games. The level of confidence impacts the value of the player and, therefore, their rank. High confidence is above 80%, fair is 60% to 79%, medium is 35% to 59% and low is below 35%. The volatility has four categories: Low, slight, medium and high. Volatility relates to the range of outcomes a player has in their career. A player with a low volatility means there is a smaller range of outcomes for the NHL career, whether that is a No. 1 defenseman to top-pair defenseman, or third-line center to bottom-six forward. A player with high volatility has a wide range of outcomes, with relatively even distributions over the NHL projection. It could be related to a number of factors: the league they play in, their scoring if they changed leagues, injuries or a significant uptick/downturn in play. Many of these players are considered “raw” in their development curve.
-
Strengths are each player’s standout abilities.
“Boom or bust” is an all-encompassing phrase with confidence and volatility. It means the player either hits their NHL projection or is unlikely to play 200 NHL games. The difference between a low-confidence/high-volatility projection and a boom-or-bust projection is simple: It means injuries played a role in the projection, and the sample size makes it difficult to confidently project the player’s most likely outcome; or that the league in which the player plays does not have a successful history of producing NHL players.
One other consideration is the “Russian factor,” where skilled Russians are more likely to return to Russia if they fail to hit their NHL projection.
Here is how the top 64 prospects line up according to my model:
1. Matthew Schaefer, D, Erie (OHL)
NHL projection: No. 1 defenseman
NHL floor: Top-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Mobility, puck moving, creativity, rush activation
2. Michael Misa, F, Saginaw (OHL)
NHL projection: Elite No. 1 center
NHL floor: Second-line winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Offensive instincts, explosiveness, transition offense, two-way play
3. James Hagens, F, Boston College (NCAA)
NHL projection: First-line center
NHL floor: Second-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Transition play, speed, hockey sense, puck handling
4. Porter Martone, F, Brampton (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-line power forward
NHL floor: Middle-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, scoring, hockey sense, size
5. Caleb Desnoyers, F, Moncton (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Top-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Third-line checking center
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, quick hands, playmaking, efficient puck play
6. Anton Frondell, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)
NHL projection: Second-line center
NHL floor: Third-line scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Versatility, two-way play, elite release, forechecking
7. Roger McQueen, F, Brandon (WHL)
NHL projection: First-line scoring center
NHL floor: Injury-shortened career
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, quick release, size
8. Viktor Eklund, F, Djurgardens (Allsvenskan)
NHL projection: Top-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Motor, transition offense, two-way play, off-puck play, hard skill
9. Jake O’Brien, F, Brantford (OHL)
NHL projection: Top-six playmaking center
NHL floor: Middle-six scoring winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, creativity, hockey sense
10. Jackson Smith, D, Tri-City (WHL)
NHL projection: Top-four defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, transition defense, mobility, puck moving
11. Brady Martin, F, Sault Ste. Marie (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six power forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Motor, wall play, physicality, hard skill, competitiveness
12. Radim Mrtka, D, Seattle (WHL)
NHL projection: Top-four shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair transition defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Size, stick positioning and use, hockey sense
13. Carter Bear, F, Everett (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-line versatile forward
NHL floor: Third-line checker
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, versatility, two-way play, motor
14. Justin Carbonneau, F, Blainville-Boisbriand (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring forward
NHL floor: Middle-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Powerful stride, playmaking, puck handling
15. Logan Hensler, D, Wisconsin (NCAA)
NHL projection: Second-pair transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Gap control, mobility, transition play
16. Lynden Lakovic, F, Moose Jaw (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, finishing ability, hands, size
17. Kashawn Aitcheson, D, Barrie (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Physicality, competitiveness, aggression, strength
18. Braeden Cootes, F, Seattle (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, speed, anticipation, forechecking
19. Cameron Schmidt, F, Vancouver (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, offensive instincts, finishing ability
20. Cole Reschny, F, Victoria (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, anticipation, quick hands, competitiveness
21. Cameron Reid, D, Kitchener (OHL)
NHL projection: Top-four transition defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defensive defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, transition play, hockey sense
22. Cullen Potter, F, Arizona State (NCAA)
NHL projection: Top-six forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, agility, offensive play driving, elite release
23. Benjamin Kindel, F, Calgary (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, transition, two-way play
24. Malcolm Spence, F, Erie (OHL)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six winger
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, two-way play, tenacity
25. Joshua Ravensbergen, G, Prince George (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 1 starting goaltender
NHL floor: 1B tandem goaltender
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Anticipation, crisp movements, competitiveness, lateral agility
26. Blake Fiddler, D, Edmonton (WHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: High confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Transition defense, in-zone defensive play, size, mobility
27. Sascha Boumedienne, D, Boston University (NCAA)
NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair offensive specialist
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, stick play, transition play, slap shot
28. Jack Murtagh, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line forward
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Motor, shooting, hard skill, straight-line speed
29. Jack Nesbitt, F, Windsor (OHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, competitiveness, two-way play
30. Bill Zonnon, F, Rouyn-Noranda (QMJHL)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: High-end motor, raw playmaking, competitiveness, puck battles
31. William Moore, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line forward
NHL floor: NHL depth player
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Puck protection, skating, offensive instincts, puck skill
32. Ryker Lee, F, Madison (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six playmaker
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Hockey sense, creativity, puck handling, one-timer
33. Nathan Behm, F, Kamploops (WHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six scoring depth
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, shooting, creativity
34. Milton Gastrin, F, Modo (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, two-way instincts, motor
35. Shane Vansaghi, F, Michigan State (NCAA)
NHL projection: Third-line power forward
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking forward
Projection confidence: High confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, strength, competitiveness, puck skill
36. Jakob Ihs-Wozniak, F, Lulea (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring forward
NHL floor: Third-line scoring depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Playmaking, finishing ability, offensive instincts
37. Jack Ivankovic, G, Brampton (OHL)
NHL projection: Platoon starting goaltender
NHL floor: High-end NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, controlled movements, patience in save selection
38. Henry Brzustewicz, D, London (OHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defender
NHL floor: AHL scoring defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Puck moving, gap control, creativity
39. Cole McKinney, F, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: Third-line, two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line defensive center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, penalty killing, competitiveness, finishing ability
40. Eric Nilson, F, Orebro (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL top-six center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, forechecking, competitiveness, defensive instincts
41. Vaclav Nestrasil, F, Muskegon (USHL)
NHL projection: Top-six power forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Size, motor, two-way play, puck skill
42. Benjamin Kevan, F, Des Moines (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way winger
NHL floor: Bottom-six speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, transition offense
43. Ivan Ryabkin, F, Muskegon (USHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Quick release, creativity, physicality
44. Daniil Prokhorov, F, St. Petersburg (MHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six power forward
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Size, strength, physicality, heavy shot
45. Carter Amico, D, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 transition defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Mobility, transition defense, physicality, size
46. Max Psenicka, D, Portland (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Instincts, mobility, gap control, puck moving
47. Luca Romano, F, Kitchener (OHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six, two-way center
NHL floor: Bottom-six checking speedster
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Speed, transition play, motor
48. Alexander Zharovsky, F, Ufa (MHL)
NHL projection: Middle-six scoring winger
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Puck handling, instincts, creativity
49. Kurban Limatov, D, Moscow (MHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair, two-way defenseman
NHL floor: KHL player
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Skating, mobility, aggressiveness, physicality
50. Mason West, F, Edina (USHS)
NHL projection: Middle-six physical forward
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical forward
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Strength, physicality, size, mobility
51. Kristian Epperson, F, Saginaw (OHL)
NHL projection: Third-line scoring winger
NHL floor: AHL top-six forward
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Two-way play, playmaking, hockey sense
52. Matthew Gard, F, Red Deer (WHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical center
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Strength, size, defensive play, motor
53. William Horcoff, F, Michigan (NCAA)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way center
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical presence
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, strength, size, wall play
54. Jacob Rombach, D, Lincoln (USHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, puck retrievals, motor
55. Peyton Kettles, D, Swift Current (WHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, low volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, size, physicality
56. Hayden Paupanekis, F, Kelowna (WHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six defensive center
NHL floor: Fourth-line center
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Competitiveness, size, defensive play
57. David Bedkowski, D, Owen Sound (OHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-pair shutdown defenseman
NHL floor: No. 7 physical defenseman
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, size, strong stick, penalty killing
58. Ethan Czata, F, Niagara (OHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking center
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Penalty killing, physicality, hard skill
59. Haoxi “Simon” Wang, D, Oshawa (OHL)
NHL projection: Second-pair two-way defenseman
NHL floor: AHL player
Projection confidence: Low confidence, high volatility
Strengths: Skating, mobility, size, transition defense
60. Theo Stockselius, F, Djurgardens (J20 Nationell)
NHL projection: Third-line two-way forward
NHL floor: AHL depth
Projection confidence: Low confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Hockey sense, hard skill, playmaking
61. Eddie Genborg, F, Linkoping (SHL)
NHL projection: Bottom-six checking winger
NHL floor: Fourth-line physical winger
Projection confidence: Medium confidence, slight volatility
Strengths: Physicality, two-way play, motor
62. Charlie Trethewey, D, USNTDP (USHL)
NHL projection: No. 4/5 two-way defenseman
NHL floor: Bottom-pair defenseman
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Defensive play, physicality, heavy shot, skating
63. Alexei Medvedev, G, London (OHL)
NHL projection: 1B NHL goaltender
NHL floor: Reliable NHL backup
Projection confidence: Fair confidence, medium volatility
Strengths: Positioning, competitiveness, anticipation, athleticism
64. L.J. Mooney, F, USNTDP (USA)
NHL projection: Middle-six two-way scoring depth
NHL floor: AHL top-six scoring forward
Projection confidence: Boom or bust
Strengths: Speed, puck handling, motor
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut