Ranking the Entire Devils' Pipeline: No. 34 - No. 30
The time has come — my comprehensive rankings of the entire Devils’ pipeline. Most minor league and European leagues have already finished or are wrapping up their seasons shortly, so I figured now would be as good a time as any.
For this ranking, I’m taking into account every player in the Devils’ system 25 years old and younger, much like I do with the biweekly prospect updates.
In this, I will be rating players’ individual skills on a 1-10 scale, with skaters being judged on their skating, hockey sense, puck skills, shot, defensive awareness, and physicality/size. Goaltenders will be judged on their athleticism, mobility, positioning, and puck tracking. I’ll also have film examples on occasion to illustrate my points/the prospects’ skillsets.
I’ll also be including NHL comparables, though it’s very important to note that the players I list there are simply stylistically similar — the caliber of skill is obviously not synonymous here, especially at the lower parts of the ranking.
With all that in mind, let’s get into it!
No. 34: Viktor Hurtig (RHD)
6th Round, 2021 (164th Overall) — 35 Games Played | 1 Goal | 4 Assists | 5 Total Points — Michigan Tech (NCAA)
Viktor Hurtig was selected as a re-entry in the 2021 draft, but there wasn’t much rhyme or reason to the pick outside of, in my opinion, his size. He’s a hulking 6’6 defender who, at the time of the draft, was able to push the puck up-ice occasionally against lesser competition. As always, though, his game was exposed at higher levels than the Allsvenskan.
Skating: 3/10
For being 6’6, I’m not disgusted at how he skates. His top speed isn’t quite league-average, and he accelerates slowly, but his edges are decent and he can maneuver in the neutral zone with his skating on very rare occasion. He stands up pretty straight when accelerating, so he doesn’t generate a whole lot of power from the individual strides, meaning that he has to do a lot more work to get to his top speed than he should have to.
Hockey Sense: 3/10
Hurtig struggles a lot with decision-making when zeroed in on or pressured in any way. He panics with the puck on his stick and it often results in turnovers on both ends of the ice. When cycling, he rarely passes the puck down low, opting to give it to his defense partner instead. While that is the safe play and doesn’t destroy possessions, I’d like to see him take even an iota of risk to get a higher-danger opportunity.
One time — literally once — I saw him join the rush, which was a pleasant sight to see. In fact, it turned into his only goal of the NCAA season.
Puck Skills: 1/10
As you would expect from a huge defenseman with five points in 35 games, Hurtig is largely unable to make moves around defenders to free up space for himself and his teammates. I’m not quite sure I’ve seen him make a single deke that wasn’t anything more than a head fake.
Shot: 3/10
His shot from the point is accurate but weak, especially for someone of his stature. I’ve noticed that he shies away from shooting altogether, and when he does shoot, it’s mostly wrist shots from the blue line rather than a powerful slapshot that one would hope for. He does not lift the puck very well.
Defensive Awareness: 4/10
With a general lack of offensive skill, one would hope that there is some defensive aptitude to negate that, but he generally struggles on that side of things too. Hurtig gets caught puck-watching a lot, letting skaters dance around him without much of a fight. When he does engage in a board battle, the results are usually positive, but it usually takes a eureka moment for him on the ice to get to that point. The decisionmaking is, and always has been, a major concern.
Physicality/Size: 6/10
As I’ve noted a few times, he does have NHL-plus-level size. That’s all fine and well, and he can use shoulder checks along the board to free up the puck, but if he is generally lacking in his offensive toolkit, I’d like to see him lean into that physical aspect of his game a bit more. He isn’t hard to play against, he doesn’t punish others physically, and he doesn’t stand attackers up at the blue line on zone entries. Even if there are mistakes made along the way, I want to see more of that from him specifically.
NHL Comparable: Cody Ceci
NHL Ceiling: Injury Call-Up
NHL Likelihood: Longshot
There is almost a 0% chance that Hurtig will ever play in the NHL, and I would honestly be shocked if he spent meaningful time in the AHL, either.
No. 33: Tyler Brennan (G)
4th Round, 2022 (102nd Overall) — 29 Games Played | .878 SV% | 3.48 GAA | 9-16-3 | 0 SHO — Adirondack Thunder (ECHL)
Tyler Brennan was a good bet at the time, as he was touted as one of the better prospects in net for the 2022 NHL Entry Draft. He had played for a WHL team that had been one of the leakiest defenses in the league while posting a relatively impressive .899 SV% in a backup role. His calling card was positioning as opposed to raw athleticism, and while that’s still his strongest characteristic, it seems as though in retrospect the issues in his game that were previously attributed to his abysmal WHL defense may have just been flaws within his game.
Athleticism: 3/10
Very, very rarely, Brennan can pull out a desperation save that will draw some ooh’s and aah’s from the crowd. Those are few and far between, though, and for a goaltender of his size (6’4), you’d expect a bit more there. With that said, here’s an example of that desperation save:
Mobility: 3/10
Despite having a good 6’4 frame, Brennan’s lack of ability to cover both sides of the net when in a butterfly is a bit disappointing. His butterfly is a bit tight — in other words, he doesn’t have a near-straight line across when he drops down — and that results in him getting beat on chances he otherwise wouldn’t. His side-to-side movement is also a bit clunky as a result, not being able to generate a whole lot of power laterally.
Positioning: 5/10
As previously mentioned, positioning is generally his strong suit. Brennan does let his frame do the work when need be, not overcommitting in one direction or another. He hugs the post well when called upon to do so and, when screened, generally puts himself in a position to succeed even if he can’t see the puck.
Puck Tracking: 4/10
At times, Brennan can lose sight of the rubber. This means that, if he is caught out of position, pucks will often beat him clean. Because he doesn’t have the consistency you’d like to see from a fourth-round-selected goalie prospect, this happens pretty often. Low-grade chances that otherwise wouldn’t pose a threat can beat him from both the point and the walls, and that just shouldn’t happen.
NHL Comparable: Stuart Skinner
NHL Ceiling: Injury Call-Up
NHL Likelihood: Longshot
If you were to ask me in his draft year, I’d have said there was a legitimate chance that Brennan turned into a backup-caliber goalie at the NHL level. Three years later, though, he has shown practically no improvement in his game and, although goalies are voodoo and you never truly know when one will magically have their game click, it’s highly, highly unlikely that Brennan turns into more than an AHL backup.
No. 32: Charlie Leddy (RHD)
4th Round, 2022 (126th Overall) — 35 Games Played | 1 Goal | 8 Assists | 9 Total Points — Quinnipiac Univ. (NCAA)
Despite being projected to go around this part of the 2022 draft, I didn’t think there was all that much to like about his projectability then outside of being a physical defender who might have some shutdown capabilities. It seemed like a pretty good opportunity to draft a forward with good production — I liked Servác Petrovský at that time (who, to be clear, isn’t a good prospect by any means) — as it already felt like at this point the Devils had far too few forward prospects in the system. Flash forward to now, and Leddy is really struggling to even garner time in Quinnipiac despite their relatively weak blue line and his status as a junior.
Skating: 2/10
There’s not much to like about Leddy’s skating ability. His mechanics are a bit clunky and he doesn’t generate much speed or get to his top speed quickly. His edgework is equally as middling.
Hockey Sense: 2/10
In the offensive zone, Leddy struggles to make meaningful decisions. As with Hurtig, far too often, I see him opt to simply pass the puck to his partner rather than creatively move it down low. While it’s the safe play, I’d really prefer to see Leddy do something to generate higher-danger chances even if it comes at the cost of opportunities the other way.
Puck Skills: 1/10
I have legitimately no comments about his puck skills other than that they’re practically nonexistent.
Shot: 4/10
I actually like Leddy’s shot a bit and think that he should use it more. He has a good sense of timing when letting it rip from the blue line and can occasionally purposefully miss the net to generate a chance for his teammate. His slapshot is powerful but inaccurate, while his wrister is unimpressive.
Defensive Awareness: 5/10
I do like a lot of the things Leddy brings to the table defensively. In board battles, he is an effective tool for his team, either ensuring that the puck and puck carrier stay unmoving or getting the puck along the boards to an open teammate. He is an effective retriever as well, pouncing on loose pucks and getting them out of the zone with solid success rates. I would like to see him control that a bit more rather than just vying to dump it out as quickly as possible, but that is to be expected from a purely defense-first player.
Physicality/Size: 7/10
If there is one thing Leddy is confident in, it’s his ability to play physical hockey. He isn’t the biggest defender, at 6’2, 180-something, but he plays hard and mean. Early on in his NCAA career, he overdid it, leading to frequent visits to the penalty box (he had 47 PIM in his rookie season in just 35 games), but he has learned how to control that for the most part. Leddy seals off competition well, particularly along the boards, and is unafraid of contact and physical games.
NHL Comparable: Ilya Lyubushkin
NHL Ceiling: Injury Call-Up
NHL Likelihood: Longshot
It’s a far cry to imagine Leddy in an NHL uniform, but he may have a role as a depth AHL defender.
No. 31: Dylan Wendt (RW/C)
Undrafted — 40 Games Played | 8 Goals | 17 Assists | 25 Total Points — Adirondack Thunder (ECHL)
I’ll be the first to admit that when Dylan Wendt decided to sign with the Devils after a masterful NCAA season at Western Michigan University, I was ecstatic. I thought there were some excellent tools in there that were on full display in a difficult league and that they were getting someone with legitimate NHL upside.
Boy, was I wrong. He’s tempered out significantly, and in many ways, has actually seen his toolkit diminish with a lack of confidence. It’s such a shame, too, because I really liked his game before. He’s bounced back and forth between the AHL and ECHL this season but has spent the vast majority of his time in the latter league.
Skating: 4/10
I’m not in love with Wendt’s skating ability, but it isn’t necessarily a detriment to his game. His acceleration is solid, and while his top speed may not always match the level of his competition, I do think he can get to it faster than most. This allows him to beat defenders with bursts of speed on occasion. He also has the edges one would expect from a 6’1 forward, giving him the ability to lose coverage with a quick turn while in possession of the puck.
Hockey Sense: 5/10
Wendt has pretty good wherewithal in the offensive zone, finding himself in the right spot at the right time. He is effective at understanding when he can sneak into high-danger areas of the ice and has the shot to capitalize on those opportunities. At times he can be caught puck-watching and he can miss the occasional obvious play because he holds on to the puck for too long, but his knowledge of time and space relative to generating opportunities for himself makes up for those.
Shot: 5/10
I’m a fan of Wendt’s shot, and it’s something that his past teammates have cited as his best attribute. As Alex Bump put it, “Dylan only needs one chance to put the puck in the net.” His wrister is just as good as his snap shot, which can best goaltenders from a distance as well as from the inner slot. His one-timer is okay, but his other two shots make up for it. He also gets somewhat dangerous backhanded looks from time to time.
Defensive Awareness: 4/10
Some have touted Wendt’s defensive play as solid, but I disagree. He definitely tries and is a competitor in all zones, but the actual on-ice results tell a different story. He can get caught out of position and burned somewhat regularly, but as I said, the effort is never in question.
Physicality/Size: 3/10
Wendt is not overly big nor is he overly physical, but he has grit in the sense that you can tell he’s trying every single shift. He possesses an unquestionable motor and wants to succeed, results be damned.
NHL Comparable: Ryan Donato
NHL Ceiling: Injury Call-Up
NHL Likelihood: Longshot
It’s highly unlikely that Wendt makes it to the NHL, but I would be shocked if he wasn’t eventually an impact player for the AHL — perhaps he caps out as a second-liner there — because I really do like a lot of his tools in a vacuum. He just hasn’t figured out how to put it all together, which is a shame.
No. 30: Cole Brown (LW/RW)
6th Round, 2023 (164th Overall) — 64 Games Played | 33 Goals | 35 Assists | 68 Total Points — Brantford Bulldogs (OHL)
I was pretty happy when the Devils picked Cole Brown in the sixth round in 2023 — the best players picked in the latter stages of the draft always have one or two really solid tools while the rest of their game is raw, and at the time, Brown had appeal in his NHL-level shot and puck skills. Flash forward to today, and he’s plateaued quite a bit in the Canadian Juniors.
His microstatistical profile, tracked by Mitchell Brown, tells the story of a fairly good to great offensive player, but it’s important to note that (Cole) Brown is a 19-year-old playing amongst mostly children. He’s bigger, more mature, and should be better than everyone else. Given those circumstances, the fact that he’s getting outproduced by over 30 points by a linemate who is two years younger than him is concerning, so I’m not taking a whole lot of stock in the microstats that say “Well, there should be something here.”
Skating: 3/10
Brown has a clunky stride and struggles immensely to generate speed with and without the puck on his stick. Although somewhat powerful with the puck on his stick when performing power moves, his edgework also lacks in that he can struggle at times to maneuver away from defenders who are trying to get the puck away from him.
Hockey Sense: 3/10
At the time he was drafted, Brown’s hockey sense was touted as one of his better attributes, but I disagree. While I think he possesses some underrated passing abilities —
— his positioning when his team is cycling in the offensive zone leaves a lot to be desired. I find that he stagnates a lot in the zone, particularly when he’s set up in the slot and around the netfront. Brown’s lack of movement stymies his team from developing as many opportunities as they would be able to if he were active in trying to get away from defenders covering him. He watches the puck when it is on the stick of his teammates and is content to just sit there and hope for defenders to lose interest rather than proactively moving within the zone.
Puck Skills: 5/10
I am somewhat impressed with his puck skills, particularly from in-tight. When Brown does get the puck around the net, he is able to deke around the goaltender to make scoring opportunities for himself much easier. In stride, he possesses a somewhat wide array of dangles that he can use to get around defenders on occasion mano-a-mano, though the consistency there leaves a good bit to be desired. This makes him better suited for being a passenger player when on the rush, especially considering his general lack of foot speed.
Shot: 6/10
The best part of Brown’s game is unequivocally his shot. He has an NHL-level release that he can pull out in-stride to beat goaltenders clean with deception. His one-timer is also a great tool, generating a surprising amount of power for how little he moves in his wind-up. He is able to use his one-timer in stride as well.
Defensive Awareness: 2/10
Brown is generally uninterested in defensive endeavors. Much like he does in the offensive zone, he puck watches in his own end and it often leads to the opposing team generating high-danger chances with him on the ice.
Physicality/Size: 4/10
Brown is a bigger winger at 6’3 and 190ish pounds. He uses his size somewhat well, being able to fend off defenders with power moves on occasion. He doesn’t have a lot of bite or snarl to his game, though, which might do him some justice if his goal is to make The Show.
NHL Comparable: Morgan Geekie
NHL Ceiling: Shoot-first Passenger 3W or, much more likely, Injury Call-Up
If everything clicks for Brown — which I view as unlikely — he could tap out as a third-line scoring winger who would be best suited for playing alongside a playdriving center. I don’t think his skillset attributes very well to a fourth-line, grinder role, so it would have to be in a third-line capacity. In all honesty, though, that’s far from likely. His ceiling is likely capped out as an injury call-up, and even then, the odds are slim.
NHL Likelihood: Longshot
Brown has a lot to work on if he wants to make it to the NHL in any capacity. His skating is a huge issue, especially when paired with the fact that he doesn’t put himself in positions to succeed in the offensive zone while his teammates have the puck. There are players who can’t skate well and make it off their smarts — Jason Robertson, Dylan Strome, Jeff Skinner — but Brown doesn’t really have either of those things. The two most appealing assets to his game — his shot and his puck skills — mean nothing if he doesn’t really do anything else of note. He might be worth signing to an AHL deal just to see if there’s any growth in a year or two, with his rights expiring on July 1, but chances are slim of the Devils keeping him around in their system.
I hope you enjoyed the first part of my lengthy series on breaking down the Devils’ pipeline. Tomorrow, I’ll have prospects No. 29 through No. 25 listed.