Ranking the 2026 NHL Draft's top defencemen in six different categories
The 2026 NHL draft will be defined by its many defencemen. If most of them break out, it could become one of the best defensive groups ever, providing many NHL teams with high-minutes, playoff-capable, top-four elements.
History tells us that not all of them will work out. Projecting the future stars and disappointments proved highly challenging this season. Some prospects rose during the season, proving their worth against professional opponents or in their league’s playoffs, while others faltered, forcing us to reevaluate their upside and projection. The variety of settings in which those defencemen evolved, from major junior to the DEL, also complicated their evaluations.
In the end, seven prospects formed our top group:
To separate these prospects, we broke down their projectable tools, hockey sense, offensive and defensive upside, floor, and development runway, which gave us a good measure of their value.
Here, we’ll re-rank the defencemen across all of these categories, shedding light on our process and how we arrived at our final ranking.
So much of the effectiveness of defencemen depends on physical assets, the ability to cover ice and win one-on-one battles. To be at ease in the NHL game, ideally, they need top-end skating, physical potential, and a large armspan.
Tools are the reason why many of this class’ top-end defencemen are ranked as highly as they are.
Among that top group, in that category, a few prospects separate from the pack: Carels, Gustafsson, Reid, and Šmits.
Carels and Šmits mirrored each other defensively this season, closing on opponents with projectable agility and physicality. While Gustafsson’s skating grades a level below, it remains a significant asset in his toolkit. At 6-foot-5, he towers over the rest of the group.
When you factor in offensive assets, Reid immediately rises above the rest. Not only does he have physical potential and the mobility to go with it, but his passing, handling, and shooting give him a solid play-driving foundation. There wasn’t a more well-rounded defenceman in Head of Scouting Mitchell Brown’s tracking data. Thanks to his multiple abilities, Reid accumulated high marks in all facets of the game.
Rudolph lacks the pace of play and athletic base needed to defend at a high level. Those elements could improve as he ages, but we’re less optimistic about Verhoeff’s skating. Lacking depth in his stance and struggling with weight transfers and pivots, he may remain more limited agility-wise at the NHL level.
Of below-average NHL size, Villeneuve lags behind others, power-wise, but no one uses skating better, performing one-on-one and agility moves at just the right time to shake pressure. His handling and passing also graded as near-elite.
To us, hockey sense is more than decision-making and learned habits. This definition clashes with the commonly accepted ones, which state that players who make the most correct decisions have the highest hockey-sense potential.
We do value players who make good decisions and avoid turnovers, but more than that, we favour players who show potential to understand the NHL game, keep track of it, anticipate it, and impact it by breaking down the opposition’s attack and their defensive coverage.
The more players anticipate and manipulate opponents’ movements, both offensively and defensively, the higher their hockey sense grade. While not synonymous, our hockey sense grade is more of an indication of a player’s future play-driving capabilities than of their puck and system management.
After a defenceman’s ability to cover ice and engage opponents, sense is the second attribute that we value the most when evaluating young defencemen. Rudolph, Villeneuve, and Reid received the highest mark in that category from our staff, having the highest play-driving potential.
This season, they showed awareness of teammates, the ability to anticipate activation opportunities, the ability to push the offensive play, and the ability to deceive opponents to create scoring chances. While Reid had the most and best shutdown flashes, all three showed defensive foresight and trapping.
Carels and Gustafsson displayed a feel for the playmaking and activation game, to a lesser extent than the three players above, but they showed a more consistent ability to limit risk defensively.
Our team doubted Verhoeff’s and Šmits’ reads more and more as the season progressed, as they accumulated errors under pressure. Unlike their counterparts, these mistakes were not erased or sufficiently counterbalanced by higher-end reads. Their lack of awareness, anticipation, and manipulation skills gives them a lower chance of becoming play-drivers at the NHL level.
Verhoeff ended up with one of the lowest puck-management scores in Brown’s data. Forechecking pressure made him rush his plays, sending many rims and passes directly to the opposition.
Production is only a minor factor in our evaluation of defencemen, as their points are usually more a reflection of their role and league/team context than of their offensive skills. As long as they score a reasonable amount for the roles and the league they’re in, it’s enough for us. Only when a defencemen scores well below or above the expected level for his role and league do we factor production into his evaluation.
A down year in the QMJHL at the wrong moment may have hidden Villeneuve's upside, but after Gavin McKenna, there may not be a player with a higher offensive ceiling than him. At his best, timing his moves perfectly, he beats opponents one-on-one, deceives them, passes through them, manipulates entire defences, carries the puck, and creates scoring chance after scoring chance.
His puck-moving capabilities earned him top offensive marks on Brown’s data.
Although they lack Villeneuve’s one-on-one ability, Reid and Rudolph could match Villeneuve’s offensive output due to their playmaking and shooting skills. They also have a higher chance of integrating the kind of high-minute, top-four roles needed to produce at a high rate.
Carels, Verhoeff, Gustafsson, and Šmits can all activate and complement teammates’ plays. The most eventful playmakers of the bunch, Carels and Verhoeff, could grab more points in a system geared toward offence.
More of a smart puck manager, Gustafsson occasionally flashed more advanced skill against his peers and also brought a heavy slapper.
Šmits’ desire to look for individual solutions led him to rack up a ton of shots — and also some chances — against Liiga competition, even if his production cooled down significantly after a red-hot start. His inability to create higher-value plays off his activations was noticeable on many nights.
The defensive side of the game tends to come later for more creative defencemen. As long as they flash defensive skills, we give those types more leeway in our evaluation, believing that they will add those skills as they mature and their development focus changes. That’s why Villeneuve and Rudolph remained in our top defensive group, despite clear flaws in that side of their games.
With his size and strength, Verhoeff could already punish and stick to opponents on the walls and the front of the net as a 16-year-old in the WHL and as a 17-year-old in the NCAA. Still, his lack of agility and anticipation may hinder his defence at the NHL level. He could work inside a structured system, but may struggle to manage the chaos of a rebuilding team as a main defensive piece.
Carels, Gustafsson, and Šmits could all win the title of best defensive defencemen in the class, boasting similar toolsets in that facet of the game. Their play-killing aggressiveness and motor had them slide above Reid, who will have to develop those qualities on his way to the NHL.
The above ranking was also influenced by these prospects’ play-driving potential. It’s hard to separate defence and play-driving. The more you control the puck, the less your opponents have it, and the better your defensive score.
Carels’ transition skills, as illustrated in Brown’s data, should allow them to control the game more and to spend less time defending at the NHL level, leading to better expected goals against marks. He retrieved pucks at a high rate and moved them out of the zone at a similar high rate, too. And it’s the same for Gustafsson, who also accumulated elite transition metrics for a draft-eligible defenceman playing in the SHL, according to our Director of European Scouting, Lassi Alanen’s tracking data.
Šmits generated excellent results in retrievals, being highly efficient and active at recovering opponents’ dump-ins, either by making a pass on the first touch or by using his feet to carry the puck out of danger.
In other breakout situations, though, his highlights were often overshadowed by either his resorting to glass-and-out plays under pressure or failing his controlled attempts. Gustafsson had a clear advantage over him in this regard, making plays even under heavy pressure and successfully executing them at a high percentage.
Multiple factors influence the perception of a prospect’s development runway, some of which are not known to our team, like work ethic, self-awareness, and willingness to change. They’re the qualities that NHL teams look for when interviewing players and surveying their entourage.
While we’re not interviewing players, other factors make us believe more or less in a player’s ability to improve, such as potential for further physical growth, younger age, and a prospect’s development path. A less physically mature prospect who has shown many flashes of NHL-projectable abilities and has developed consistently will be perceived as having more development runway — especially if he’s about to integrate or is in an environment favourable to his development.
A prospect’s risk tolerance, hockey sense, the strength of competition they faced in their draft year, and their program’s reputation also affect their perceived development potential. Environments that encourage prospects to experiment with their assets and develop those tend to lead to more development.
In other words, the above ranking reflects how much we believe these prospects will change over the next couple of years, becoming better or different versions of themselves.
One of the class’ oldest players, Šmits looks like a strong play-killer in the making. He already possesses NHL-level strength and tools, but his hockey sense didn’t develop this season. As he will continue to play professional hockey and may arrive in the NHL early, there’s a higher chance his game will remain the same.
Gustafsson mostly limited himself to a shutdown role at the SHL level this season. He should earn more minutes and trust in the league next season. As a more conservative player by nature, evolving in a professional environment where puck management matters most, there’s a higher chance that he remains more of a defensive piece going forward.
At his best, Carels already looked like an NHLer this season, showing developed abilities in all facets of the game. We’ve likely already seen the player that he will become in the NHL. All the assets are there – it’s just a matter of developing consistency.
Reid’s defence should undergo a natural evolution. Top-end prospects like him tend to add pace and aggression to their game as they rise in level, matching the level of play that they integrate.
His offensive skills should only shine more as he meets better and better teammates, capable of reading his intentions and getting open for him. While Reid was born in late 2007, he only has two OHL seasons under his belt, not three, contrary to other late-born CHLers. His rapid ascension over the past seasons, going from a USHL cut to a No. 1 OHL defenceman, also erases the usual doubts that come with a later birth year.
Another older player in this draft class, Villeneuve barely developed this season. An injury cut short his season, and his style of game didn’t fit Blainville’s needs. One of the lightest players in the draft class, he would benefit from adding strength. Going to Boston University, the team that developed the Hutsons, should help him develop his overall game, giving him the required time in the gym.
One of the youngest prospects in the class, Verhoeff has remained largely the same player over the past couple of seasons, boasting the same strengths and weaknesses. That being said, playing NCAA hockey as a 17-year-old is a challenge. Returning as a sophomore in college, he should show more of his strengths and make better decisions. Having grown at an earlier age than other top prospects, we don’t expect as much physical maturation in his case, but he’s focusing his off-season training on becoming more explosive.
Rudolph needs to develop his athleticism or show more of it on the ice. Denver is the ideal program to help him round out his play, making his offensive talents shine and also giving him ample time to work in the gym.
Some prospects are more ready to play NHL roles than others. They play a more NHL-like game in their draft years and can fit into more roles in a hypothetical lineup, increasing the chance they will find a home in the league and reducing the need for projection. Their high floor boosts their value.
Due to their all-around higher-end assets, Carson Carels and Chase Reid could fit a variety of roles. Gustafsson and Šmits should also have no problem finding jobs, considering their developed defensive sides. It’s the same for Verhoeff, to an extent.
Conversely, prospects who may require a perfect fit to realise their upside carry more risk. That’s the case for Daxon Rudolph and Xavier Villeneuve. A team will have to trust that their offensive skills will make up for the mistakes that their playstyle will inevitably generate. Their impact may be more muted in the playoffs.
If you assign points to players for all of the above rankings and order them based on those, you end up with our final ranking of these prospects.
As we’re not drafting for a team, we don’t have specific needs or a value system. When making our rankings, we try to remain neutral and consider the potential strengths and weaknesses of prospects, valuing different types of defencemen.
An NHL team could have a more specific process. Maybe they already have offence on their back end and are looking for insulators. In that case, they may want to develop Gustafsson or target Šmits for more immediate help. Another team may have many left-shooting defencemen, making Verhoeff more enticing.
The goal of this list is not only to shed light on our process but also to help you understand some of the choices your team may make.
No matter who they choose, considering the exceptional talent of this defensive class, your NHL team will likely add a player who will have a significant chance to become a foundational piece of their back end.
