The Utah Mammoth hype train is real — but can they deliver?

The Utah hype train is at full steam, with many believing this is the year the team breaks through. The Mammoth are loaded with high-end potential and the addition of JJ Peterka only adds to that. It’s hard not to be intrigued by the upside.

Utah has to actually realize it, though, and until that happens, it’s best to err on the side of caution. The Mammoth’s time will come and it could be as early as this season. For now, there are still questions and concerns that push them to the outside of the playoff bubble to start the season.

The projection

Points: 90.5

Playoff odds: 50%

Stanley Cup: 2.4%

If there’s any projection that makes us most nervous, it’s this one. It’s hard not to see Utah’s explosive potential as a future powerhouse, especially after a sizable rise in the team’s underlying numbers despite key injuries on the back end. But a 90-point forecast actually positions the Mammoth lower than last season. What gives?

It all comes back to the past offseason, where Utah paid the price of Peterka in depth. The forward and defense group is noticeably thinner and Peterka’s impact doesn’t presently look high-end enough to offset that. The two Peterka trade pieces — Josh Doan and Michael Kesselring — were a big part of Utah’s xG glow-up.

All it takes for the Mammoth to make this projection look laughably low is a meteoric jump from a young player or two. We’re going to wait and see on that front; a legit playoff team enters a season with fewer maybes and more certainty.

The big question

Can Logan Cooley and Dylan Guenther create a playoff-worthy Big Three with Clayton Keller?

If you’re looking for a one-word answer based solely on their projections for this season: Yep. The model has Utah’s best three forwards providing a combined Net Rating of plus-26.2. That puts them in line with some of the Western Conference’s other fringey playoff teams: the St. Louis Blues are at 29.1 (Robert Thomas, Jordan Kyrou, Dylan Holloway) and the Los Angeles Kings at 28.9 (Adrian Kempe, Quinton Byfield, Kevin Fiala).

It also puts the Mammoth ahead of some others, though those should come with an asterisk; there’s nothing special about having more production at the top of your forward group than the Calgary Flames, and the Vancouver Canucks have an MVP-tier player leading their blue line.

What’s clear is that Keller, Guenther and Cooley, as a top layer of talent, should be enough to put Utah in the playoff discussion this season. There’s no real margin for error baked into that, though. Unless the depth pieces on the third and fourth lines over-perform to a serious degree, Utah is likely to need every bit of production it is projected to get from Keller, Guenther and Cooley to make the postseason.

The good news is that all three have set themselves up quite well for 2025-26, even beyond the projections. Keller leads the way. He’s coming off the first 90-point season of his career and continues to cement his status as an elite offensive winger. His work gaining the zone and creating chances is high-end by any measure, and Utah’s defensive results with him on the ice have improved for three consecutive seasons. He deserves credit for improving, in one way or another, basically season-over-season.

“He’s got to be on the (U.S.) Olympic team,” one coach told us over the summer. “I think he’s a better player than (Jake Guentzel) at this point overall.”

Keller is also still probably younger than you’d guess — he’ll play the whole season as a 27-year-old. That makes further improvement a real possibility, but even if it doesn’t come, he’s still a no-doubt All-Star.

Guenther and Cooley might not have Keller’s track record, but they’re still reasonably known quantities. These aren’t rookies we’re talking about — they’re young pros (Guenther is 22, Cooley is 21) who both have about 150 games under their belts and room for major improvement. For Utah, that’s a beautiful thing.

In Guenther’s case, night-to-night consistency might still be something of an issue, but his offensive game (beyond a world-class shot) is increasingly undeniable. Guenther’s impact on shots and scoring chances, for himself and others, is immense compared to other wingers. The same goes for his zone-entry work — and he’s already an elite rush player as well. The next step is becoming a more productive five-on-five player; 1.72 points per 60 is fine enough, but it doesn’t line up with his talent level or his overall impact.

Cooley, as a center, might be the most intriguing of the three. Almost every element of his game improved between Years 1 and 2 — his scoring increased by 21 points, his transitional play developed and he emerged as a dangerous passer, even before scoring eight goals and 18 points over his final 16 games. “His skating is so dynamic that if he took off like Jack Hughes, that wouldn’t shock me,” an executive said. And that exec is far, far from alone in their assessment.

Knowing all that, ask yourself how realistic it sounds that Keller turns in another 90-point season, Guenther’s point production catches up to the rest of his game and Cooley turns into a high-end first-line center. It shouldn’t be tough to envision — and if that comes to pass, we’re not going to be talking about the Mammoth as a playoff team. We’re going to be talking about them as a real threat.

The wild card

Can Maveric Lamoureux fill Michael Kesselring’s shoes?

There’s plenty to like about the Peterka addition, but it also created a hole on Utah’s blue line, where Kesselring had grown into a steady, top-four option on the right side. Those don’t grow on trees — he’s going to bring size, skating, impressive shot/chance impacts and good breakout skills to Buffalo.

Utah’s hope has to be that Lamoureux, 21 years old and the No. 29 pick in 2022, is prepared to backfill after his first professional season. He’s got the physical profile teams crave: 6-foot-7 with a gigantic shot and good skating for a player his size. A player that big and that mobile is tough to bet against.

It’s also worth noting Lamoureux’s compete level drew raves from Corey Pronman, and he showed up on both Pronman’s list of top drafted players (No. 57) and Scott Wheeler’s Prospect Tiers. There’s plenty to like, even though it’s hard to imagine Lamoureux recreating Kesselring’s contributions this season. Utah, in some sense, is swapping polish for potential.

There’s nothing wrong with that, especially for a team with a still-improving core. If Lamoureux needs to take his lumps, the time may be now, even if Utah gives something back in the short term.

The strengths

Keller, Cooley and Guenther give Utah a strong foundation. Cooley and Guenther’s growth in particular is important because as they rise up the depth chart, others are knocked into more fitting roles.

A playoff-caliber roster doesn’t have Nick Schmaltz as the No. 2 behind Keller; in a perfect world, he’s a part of the supporting cast somewhere in the middle six. Between internal growth and the addition of Peterka, he has transitioned into a more appropriate role. In Schmaltz, the Mammoth have a solid puck-mover whose passing tends to set up scoring chances at a high rate. He is projected to be worth a plus-2.3 Net Rating, which is very solid for a team’s sixth-best forward; the league-average for that role is closer to a minus-0.4.

Schmaltz isn’t the only player to shift into a more fitting role. With Cooley on track to be a high-end first-line center, Barrett Hayton can comfortably slot in at 2C.

Center depth was a wild card for this team last fall; Hayton, to that point, looked like a passenger who fell behind the curve of a top-five draft pick. While he hasn’t experienced a true breakout just yet, he showed a lot more promise in 2024-25. At five-on-five, Hayton’s ability to generate scoring chances, both in transition and off the cycle, stands out. That shot quality added up to 30 expected goals last year; now he has to work on converting on those chances more consistently.

What works in Hayton’s favor is that the top-six winger depth is even deeper this season with the addition of Peterka. He brings a plus-5.8 Offensive Rating, which helps kick Utah up to 13th in the league. Peterka’s ability to set up his teammates with dangerous passes stood out leaguewide, according to All Three Zones tracking. That kind of puck-moving should help the Mammoth generate more quality offense, after finishing 18th in five-on-five scoring last year.

But Peterka is more than just another top-six forward — he represents ownership’s willingness to take bold swings and invest in this team.

Two summers ago, Mikhail Sergachev was one of those swings. The big question heading into 2024-25 was whether he was ready for the responsibility of being a team’s No. 1. With a projected plus-8.3 Net Rating, he is in line with the average value for the role.

Opinions were still split on him in this year’s Player Tiers project. Some felt he doesn’t belong in the top 20, while others thought he has proven his worth enough. That landed him at the top of Star territory in 4A, after landing in Tier 5 last year.

A little further down the blue line, the Mammoth’s bottom three is solid, relative to league average. With John Marino and Sean Durzi healthy, Olli Maatta is in a more fitting role as a No. 4. He doesn’t really have any offensive upside, but is a solid puck-retriever who helps limit scoring chances against. Maatta’s plus-2.8 Defensive Rating leads the team and helps bring this blue line’s collective value up to 10th in the league. Nate Schmidt, on the other hand, revived his value in a third-pair capacity in Florida.

That defensive group should help give Karel Vejmelka more support. He is coming off a career year in Utah, where he proved he can be a reliable starter. He saved 20.8 goals above expected, which ranked 11th in the league, and earned a .904 save percentage in 58 games. And when the team needed him to step up down the stretch, he started 24 consecutive games to close out the season. If this level can be the standard moving forward, the Mammoth have an above-average number one to lean on.

The weaknesses

Vejmelka may have started 24 straight last spring, but that isn’t a sustainable workload, especially for a team with playoff aspirations. That means Utah needs a backup reliable enough to start at least 20 regular-season games. With the team mutually parting ways with Connor Ingram, that role may belong to Vitek Vanecek. While he would likely only be needed in a backup capacity, his numbers have been suspect most years (outside of 2022-23 in New Jersey).

While Sergachev and the bottom three check the boxes of the average team on defense, there are a couple of question marks in between. John Marino has shown that he is capable of crushing top-four minutes with his all-three zone play. But his value started to plateau a couple of years ago, and he hasn’t consistently put it all together since.

Last season in Utah, there were promising signs. Marino made a ton of puck touches in his own zone. He retrieved pucks and helped drive play out of the defensive zone with a high rate of exits, without too many errors along the way. His retrieval rate was comparable to Alex Pietrangelo’s, while his possession exits stacked up to Quinn Hughes and Shea Theodore. While the Mammoth generated more offense in his minutes, they allowed a higher rate of expected goals against relative to the team. Add in his recent history from the couple of seasons prior, and it adds up to a minus-0.7 Net Rating, which is pretty underwhelming. So Utah needs last year’s version of Marino, with a little more emphasis on defense.

He’s not the only potential weak link on the back end relative to what a playoff-caliber team should be striving for. Sean Durzi also falls short as a No. 2; if Marino can step up to that capacity, it would recalibrate the depth chart with Durzi in a more fitting No. 3 role. Durzi’s 2024-25 was limited to just 30 games. To his credit, Utah generated more offense in his minutes. But he generally needs support, whether it’s with a defensively sound partner or more sheltered usage, to minimize any lapses in his own zone.

Between Durzi and Sergachev, the blue line only has an Offensive Rating of minus-2.5, which slips down to 18th in the league. Up front, the top six help drive the bus, but the bottom half of the lineup is a black hole for scoring.

Lawson Crouse, Jack McBain, Alex Kerfoot, Michael Carcone, Kevin Stenlund and Brandon Tanev combine for a minus-35 Offensive Rating. If Liam O’Brien joins the fold when he is healthy, that dips even further.

Carcone, at least, has some bright spots below the surface. While he didn’t score much last year in 53 games, he chipped in scoring chances between his passing and shot-making. Carcone helped transition play into the offensive zone often and efficiently, and turned those entries into chances. It just hasn’t translated to the scoresheet.

Ideally, a team has at least three reliable scoring lines. Utah, as it stands, has two. And what this group lacks offensively isn’t made up for defensively. That would help cancel out some of the weaknesses in the top six, like Peterka’s team-worst minus-three Defensive Rating; that brings the forward group down to 21st in the league and opens up another potential vulnerability.

The best case: 102 points

Believe the hype: Utah enters the conversation as a future powerhouse in the West. Keller continues last season’s dominance while Cooley, Guenther and Peterka take major steps. Led by Sergachev on the back end, the Mammoth are the real deal.

The worst case: 77 points

Don’t believe the hype: Utah flounders thanks to weaker depth and stalled development. No player takes a leap toward being a franchise player and there isn’t enough talent to take a major step.

The bottom line

Utah is better positioned than most hype-train teams to deliver the goods, but there are still a handful of important questions that need to be answered over the next 82 games before we can truly label the Mammoth for the long haul.