Prospect Info: Elias Pettersson | Pt. III

[DDRhockey]

Huselius. Classic late bloomer

Pretty damn talented. Pettersson moves like him.



Watch huselius at 2.45 pretty insane

 

[lawrence]

@CanaFan is literally the only poster who held out any hope for Jake Virtanen last season. By this board's standards he's not a pessimist.

Your entire post is a lie.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Yeah, it's almost comical.

The majority of good prospects don't make it. Therefore, a 'realistic' take on prospects and development will be 'negative' toward most prospects because that's just the way it is. Most players are not tracking well enough to make it, or alternatively even if they are tracking well in their first 1-2 years after being drafted it still has to be remembered that most players 'doing well' still don't make it.

This isn't 'being negative'. Being negative would be saying that every prospect sucks, and I've never seen anyone here do that.

Unfortunately, a lot of people here simply are incapable of forming a negative opinion on a young player, are convinced that every young player putting up good stats at low levels is a future NHLer, and label anyone with an actual grasp on reality a negative pessimist. And of course, as others have mentioned, love jumping to conclusions based on positive results but will scream WAIT AND SEE! at any negative result. And are in a constant state of being fooled that the most recent two draft classes are the BEST DRAFTS EVER! because they simply don't understand the recent draft mirage.

Like, I've been posting here through several administrations and have been consistently called a negative prospect basher, but I actually know that if anything I've historically been too positive about our young players.

If the goal is to be correct the most often than bashing every prospect is the best way to do it. Probably more than 80% are failures with Canucks over last 10 years you would have been wrong with who? Hutton, Horvat Boeser, Tanev? at the Nhl level. It is the safe route especially if they have a slow first year after draft or signing. You already have arbitrarily stated Petterson needs to play 2nd lines minutes in the Nhl next year to be trending ok. So bash every prospect then set unrealistic standards then declare yourself as a great talent evaluator when they do not meet these high standards. Lastly criticize others for being inferior prognostic skills. It is sound logic but what does it serve. I may be wrong maybe you do not bash all prospects you like McEwan right. I am judging off this thread mostly.

 

[MS]

Too bad pre-2012 posts on this forum seem to have been wiped. Would be incredible to look back at the hate you got for the Hodgson - Langkow prediction.

It's one thing when a kid like M2B gets hyped on Tate Olson - as mentioned in another thread recently, I did the same for players as bad as Juraj Simek and Patrick Coulombe. But posters who have watched for years should really know that those two guys are in all likelihood no worse than the Rathbone and Zhukenov type prospects in the system now. Any "pessimism" on this board is just discouraging posters from getting carried away with thoughts of a middle-6 in 2019 of Dahlen-Pettersson-Lind / Lockwood-Gaudette-Gadjovich because it's most likely that only half of those guys get past the AHL in a meaningful way.

At the same time, Pettersson may very well be the best player out of this draft and that is in line with what a fifth overall in a non-McDavid draft should be 6 months after being drafted. That is not sky high expectations or setting up the kid to fail. It's just the reality of what a fifth overall tracking well. No one on this board would have traded that pick for anything short of a Marner/Werenski type player, nor should they have. Even trading for a potential with any sort of doubt in his game like Dylan Strome would have the fanbase seething. So why would those expectations suddenly be tempered when a name is actually attached to that pick?

Agreed 100%.

And yeah, the flack I took here for having the audacity to compare Hodgson to a 1000 GP/700 point player was something to behold. There were literally people arguing that we shouldn't retire #19 for Naslund because we should be holding that jersey for Cody Godgson so it could be retired 20 years from now.

People really really really want prospects to succeed and get really really attached to these kids and as a result get utterly blinded to reality and their actual chances of success. And when you're 15 and you haven't been through this cycle a bunch of times, fair enough - I remember being a kid and thinking Rick Girard was gonna be totally awesome. But if you're an adult who has been following this team for years, you should probably clue in at some point instead of embracing your completely false reality and yelling insults at people who actually do understand.

 

[MS]

If the goal is to be correct the most often than basking every prospect is the best way to do it. Probably more than 80% are failures. with Canucks over last 10 years you would have been wrong with who? Hutton, Horvat Boeser, Tanev? at the Nhl level. It is the safe route especially if they have a slow first year after draft or signing

Is that how simple your analysis is?

Saying something like 'this 7th round pick is having a good year and doing some things well but is still a massive longshot to play in the NHL' isn't 'bashing' a player. You can be fair about a player and understand where they're at with their chances without being negative, even if you might perceive it that way through your rose-coloured glasses.

And again, absolutely NOBODY bashes every prospect here.

And of course the goal is to be correct as often as possible. Like, when you're evaluating something and formulating position on it, aren't you trying to be correct? And what would be the point of the opposite?

___________

Like, the laundry list of 'great draft picks' that currently gets listed here of Gadjovich/Palmu/Gaudette/Lockwood/Lind/Brisebois/whoever is fine, and it's ok to individually be positive about the picks in the context of their doing well relative to their draft position, while also understanding that when only 25% of 2nd rounders make the NHL and only half of those ever end up being really positive assets, doing well relative to your draft position doesn't guarantee a thing and even most of the guys performing above . Of that list of guys, we're doing well if 2 make it as regulars while the rest end up in the pool along with the whole whack of guys that were doing great at the same stage in years past but now get listed in 'LOL REMEMBER WHEN THAT GUY WAS A PROSPECT WE WERE EXCITED ABOUT? OUR DRAFTING IS SO MUCH BETTER NOW!' posts.

 

[CanaFan]

Agreed 100%.

And yeah, the flack I took here for having the audacity to compare Hodgson to a 1000 GP/700 point player was something to behold. There were literally people arguing that we shouldn't retire #19 for Naslund because we should be holding that jersey for Cody Godgson so it could be retired 20 years from now.

People really really really want prospects to succeed and get really really attached to these kids and as a result get utterly blinded to reality and their actual chances of success. And when you're 15 and you haven't been through this cycle a bunch of times, fair enough - I remember being a kid and thinking Rick Girard was gonna be totally awesome. But if you're an adult who has been following this team for years, you should probably clue in at some point instead of embracing your completely false reality and yelling insults at people who actually do understand.

Rick Girard, now there’s a name from the past. Right up there with Robb Gordon for players who I thought would be amazing because I read some Tony G write up in the Province during training camp.

 

[MS]

If the goal is to be correct the most often than bashing every prospect is the best way to do it. Probably more than 80% are failures with Canucks over last 10 years you would have been wrong with who? Hutton, Horvat Boeser, Tanev? at the Nhl level. It is the safe route especially if they have a slow first year after draft or signing. You already have arbitrarily stated Petterson needs to play 2nd lines minutes in the Nhl next year to be trending ok. So bash every prospect then set unrealistic standards then declare yourself as a great talent evaluator when they do not meet these high standards. Lastly criticize others for being inferior prognostic skills. It is sound logic but what does it serve. I may be wrong maybe you do not bash all prospects you like McEwan right. I am judging off this thread mostly.

You edited your post so will respond to the rest.

And I'm sorry, but this is such a pile of BS. That Benning supporters would criticize others for attempting to be correct in their arguments here is par for the course, though.

How is Pettersson playing in the NHL next year 'unrealistic standards'? Again, the majority of top-5 is pure offensive players play in the NHL at age 20 and produce, and those that don't ... usually don't. Why shouldn't Pettersson do what Marner and Tkachuk and Ehlers and Nylander and Huberdeau and whoever else did?

All you're doing is setting exceeding low standards for prospects that pretty much every prospect would meet, getting unrealistically excited about them and their chances for success ... then confused when they bust and rinse and repeat with a new group.

When a player is tracking well, I'll be one of their biggest supporters here. As I was for Boeser and Gaunce and Tanev and Edler and Kesler and the Sedins. And currently am for Pettersson and Chatfield and MacEwen (even though my extremely positive comments about Pettersson are somehow taken for criticism by people pre-manufacturing excuses for him that he doesn't need).

 

[drax0s]

And I'm sorry, but this is such a pile of BS. That Benning supporters would criticize others for attempting to be correct in their arguments here is par for the course, though.

Why do you do this? Why does a disagreement with one person who criticizes you turn into a thing about dreaded Benning Supporters.

Address the dude who criticized you, don't rope others into the argument as well.

 

[vancityluongo]

If the goal is to be correct the most often than bashing every prospect is the best way to do it. Probably more than 80% are failures with Canucks over last 10 years you would have been wrong with who? Hutton, Horvat Boeser, Tanev? at the Nhl level. It is the safe route especially if they have a slow first year after draft or signing. You already have arbitrarily stated Petterson needs to play 2nd lines minutes in the Nhl next year to be trending ok. So bash every prospect then set unrealistic standards then declare yourself as a great talent evaluator when they do not meet these high standards. Lastly criticize others for being inferior prognostic skills. It is sound logic but what does it serve. I may be wrong maybe you do not bash all prospects you like McEwan right. I am judging off this thread mostly.

Just to step in so MS doesn't have to keep citing himself at the risk of being called out for gloating, but the biggest mistake I can re-call in his prospect evaluations was legitimately Hodgson, who he overestimated. Juolevi over Tkachuk on draft day and Virtanen = Kreider are the others...neither being wrong by being too pessimistic. Citing Tanev as one of his mistakes is also absurd, because he's probably the biggest Tanev supporter on the forum. Pretty sure I saw a post the other day where he said Tanev should be on Team Canada if NHLers were going. Try posting that opinion on the main board; you'd be ridiculed as the biggest homer on the website.

And of course if someone has a track record of being correct, they have a right to bring that up when the argument stoops to personal attacks. Yes, someone could challenge the opinion that MacEwan or whoever will never reach their supposed upside and have a 90% chance of being correct. But taking the chances on throwing your track record out there for players with 10% chances is part of the fun, and is well worth bragging about if correct. It's awesome to see when posters are correct about future player evaluations. Certainly much better than just having a cheerleading forum where every draft pick and reclamation project reaches their top potential and the LA Kings once won the Cup as an 8th seed and Don Cherry always says anything can happen in the playoffs so the Canucks are going to win this year!!!

Expecting Pettersson to play second line minutes to start next season is not homerism, nor is it unrealistic. This is a really weird narrative. Pettersson will be 20 in November next year. In Horvat's rookie season, he turned 20 in April. Petersson will be starting the season at the same age Bo Horvat was in February 2015. From the end of January to the end of the season, Horvat put up 17 points in 36 games, which pro-rates to 39 points. Essentially mid-to-low-end second line numbers - and that was with Kenins and Hansen. Is it really outlandish to expect Pettersson, a much better offensive player at the time of being drafted, to put up similar numbers? A snapshot of players who hit 40 points in ~82 games last season include high bars such as Frans Nielsen, Adam Henrique, Phillip Danault, and Ryan Spooner. Mikko Ratanen, the 10th overall in 2015 (playing in his d+2 season) got 38 points in 75 games on a god awful Avalanche team. The only excuse for Pettersson to not be putting up similar numbers would be if the coach barely gets him off on the fourth line like Willie did with Horvat. But even then, he should be able to force his way up the lineup like Bo did.

 

[Knight53]

Pettersson, if he keeps this pace of scoring, will be tracking as a player who should be an impact player in the NHL as soon as next year just like Boeser is this year.

Pettersson and Gaudette should be NHL'ers next year. If they ain't then they aren't as good as we thought but nothing suggests that so far in terms of their play and production.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Rick Girard, now there’s a name from the past. Right up there with Robb Gordon for players who I thought would be amazing because I read some Tony G write up in the Province during training camp.

rick gerard played 18 seasons of pro-hockey without a single nhl game.

that is amazing.

so tony was right.

 

[Dissonance Jr]

Rick Girard, now there’s a name from the past. Right up there with Robb Gordon for players who I thought would be amazing because I read some Tony G write up in the Province during training camp.

Zenith Komarniski was my Rick Girard in the mid-'90s. I mean with a name like that how could he not be awesome?

 

[CanaFan]

Your entire post is a lie.

Compared to you Jim Benning at a job interview is a pessimist.

 

[Grub]

Agreed 100%.

And yeah, the flack I took here for having the audacity to compare Hodgson to a 1000 GP/700 point player was something to behold. There were literally people arguing that we shouldn't retire #19 for Naslund because we should be holding that jersey for Cody Godgson so it could be retired 20 years from now.

People really really really want prospects to succeed and get really really attached to these kids and as a result get utterly blinded to reality and their actual chances of success. And when you're 15 and you haven't been through this cycle a bunch of times, fair enough - I remember being a kid and thinking Rick Girard was gonna be totally awesome. But if you're an adult who has been following this team for years, you should probably clue in at some point instead of embracing your completely false reality and yelling insults at people who actually do understand.

So right in so many ways. Was 16 when Hodgson got drafted. So that was really my first cycle at closely watching these prospects. People really need to go through that cycle of dissapointment (following all prospects day in and day out). Many of them will not turn out to be anything.

I'm a but more optimistic with Petterson. Been hodged before hopefully we don't get hodged again.

 

[racerjoe]

Zenith Komarniski was my Rick Girard in the mid-'90s. I mean with a name like that how could he not be awesome?

It was Hosh Holden for me, although he did have that wrist injury I think.

 

[Canucker]

It was Hosh Holden for me, although he did have that wrist injury I think.

Yeah, I thought Josh Holden was a sure thing for us...I was also really high on Dan Hodgson back in the 80's, not sure what happened with him, probably fell victim to the size game back then.

 

[Zombotron]

 

[Knight53]

I'm going back and watching some of his games at the WJC.

The commentator thinks it's Andersson but it's Pettersson. What a pass.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

It was Hosh Holden for me, although he did have that wrist injury I think.

Wasn't it a skate cut? He had this deep skate cut in his forearm that severed tendons if I recall. Most seemed to believe it was career altering and he never reached the level he should have because of it.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

So right in so many ways. Was 16 when Hodgson got drafted. So that was really my first cycle at closely watching these prospects. People really need to go through that cycle of dissapointment (following all prospects day in and day out). Many of them will not turn out to be anything.

I'm a but more optimistic with Petterson. Been hodged before hopefully we don't get hodged again.

Pffft... that's nothing.

I've been Polaseked and Hertered.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Pffft... that's nothing.

I've been Polaseked and Hertered.

I've been Herted before. It herts.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

I've been Herted before. It herts.

Not as much as getting Neely'd in the crotch.

 

[Melvin]

Too bad pre-2012 posts on this forum seem to have been wiped. Would be incredible to look back at the hate you got for the Hodgson - Langkow prediction.

The pre-2012 stuff can be found using the wayback machine. There is some interesting stuff in there to be sure. Here is their 2008 draft thread.

If ya wanna give MS a tough time, remind him of how much he wanted Kyle Beach.

Edit: Here's the Hodgson selection thread. It contains the Langkow comparison for which vancityluongo was looking.

A lot of fun reading for insomniacs like me. This one is fun too.

 

[DDRhockey]

Chl kinda sucks

 

[Jyrki21]

Man, I know it's off-topic, but everyone was excited for Rick Girard... he was putting up two points-per-game in junior. I recall he ran into some injury issues as well. He and Peca were the main two guys who were on the radar back then.