Clague's PP scoring jumped in his D+1 season, but his even-strength scoring didn't increase much...
d 0.366
d+1 0.417
Prospect Info: Logan Stanley - Part III
- Thread starter Romang67
- Start date
Clague's PP scoring jumped in his D+1 season, but his even-strength scoring didn't increase much...
d 0.366
d+1 0.417
- Mar 10, 2010
- 34,915
- 31,407
It is really interesting going back in time and reading the poll thread for the Morrissey pick where less than half liked the pick. A lot of the comments are exactly the same as for Stanley. A "second rounder taken in the first round" etc. For some reason I kept a screen shot of the votes - very revealing
Sometimes the wisdom of HF is very wrong.
I wouldn't say wisdom in this case I would say first reaction. Most of the polls are populated fast. If anyone would have taken 10-15 minutes to watch the video's and read some information they would have found out quickly Morrissey was very skilled and a great skater. He was good at hockey. Stanley was a riser and he was tall with not the greatest skill.
I think our Board has come a long way in prospect mining and evaluation pre-draft since then IMHO. Lots of posters tend to follow it much closer at least in the first round for sure. Also I think we started to find out how minimum scoring for D men is kind of important predictor of future success at the NHL level.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
It is really interesting going back in time and reading the poll thread for the Morrissey pick where less than half liked the pick. A lot of the comments are exactly the same as for Stanley. A "second rounder taken in the first round" etc. For some reason I kept a screen shot of the votes - very revealing
Sometimes the wisdom of HF is very wrong.
Morrissey dominated the WHL and set franchise record for goals. Stanley was probably the 4th best defender on his team last year.
I compare Stanley a lot more to Sutter than to Morrissey.
In fact, many people were against selecting Stanley and actively saying so prior to the draft, which is unique to any of our draft picks.
DeepFrickinValue
Formally Ruffus
- May 14, 2015
- 5,340
- 4,258
Any chance Stanley is given pp time as a net presence. Similar to buff playing in front of net?
Most of the people who were against Stanley going into the draft knew nothing about him except what you wrote.
Going into that draft you had an agenda with Stanley and we all know what that agenda was.
And what would that "agenda" be, other than to provide an opinion and evaluation of Stanley's play up to that point?
From the Morissey poll discussion, this discussion, and previous Stanley discussions it appears that most objections to both Morissey and Stanley are because of the position the Jets took them in the draft.
Because of injury Stanley didn't have the benefit of a full D+1 season to help change opinions. Morissey played 67 more games including with the Ice Caps by the end of his D +1. I remain optimistic that the Jets knew what they were doing with this off-the-board first round pick just as they did with their earlier off-the-board picks.
Last edited:
I prefer skilled players on the PP. Jets have other big guys with more skill (Armia, as an example).
I agree with much of this, but I think Stanley has a lot more going for him than Sutter, and the scenario was different. Sutter had probably reached his peak in performance relative to peers during his draft year, and had very little room to improve. His lack of drive to improve became very evident. Stanley was much more of a project, who many scouts thought was on an upward trajectory. His character and work ethic were touted as positive indicator of his potential to keep improving.
I think it was a big gamble with a low probability of success, but apples to oranges with Sutter's trajectory. I thought the Sutter pick was more worrisome in terms of the Jets' scouting competency than Stanley.
I saw him live twice at the U18 pre tourney games in WPG as well as on tv at the U18's as did a number of people on here. There was a decent nu.bwr of people who had an I formed opinion him leading up to the draft.
I'm sure he did. I was just commenting on the fact that a number of people saw him in the lead up to the draft. I had reservations from what I saw as did a number of other people. I'll get to see the two games today and will comment on them later.
truck
Registered User
Jets4Life
Registered User
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Yes... I did have an agenda:
In informing people WHY Stanley was a suboptimal choice.
If you are trying to accuse me of personally not liking Stanley, then you are beyond ridiculous..
As I even said in that piece, and quoted in bold just last page on this thread, I viewed Stanley as a legitimate NHL prospect, and a welcomed addition to Jets cupboards, but not nearly worth the 22 spot given what he had accomplished.
I agree with you that there was much more projection factored into the Stanley pick than there was for Sutter. To take Stanley where we did it was clearly based on a growth trajectory that was atypical of the development path we see for most players.
In regards to Sutter I have always cut the Jets some slack on that pick. Whenever I look at the players taken after him in the second round it is apparent that it was a real challenge for scouts on who to take that particular year. There were of course a couple of defensemen that stood out (McCabe and Severson) but all the forwards that have made it so far had draft year numbers that were far from eye popping. But you are right that Sutter's lack of drive was a huge issue with his development and I suspect this was only identified as a significant issue after he was drafted.
Last edited:
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
Closer doesn't mean the same.
My point was that Morrissey had a lot of evidence supporting the pick. He was one of the highest scorers overall and even strength, and also had a strong D-1 campaign. He had skill and a father that ran a camp specialized in producing defenders in the new NHL: fast, mobile, aggressive, with +++puck skills. Morrissey was a dominant player in the U18s and arguably Canada's best puck mover for the tournament.
Sutter was a fast riser in the draft who played 2C on a team that originally had Olsen as the 2C. He was toughted as having size and character with some inkling of skill by Jets interviews and scouts. He was very much a "if this big, physical character player figures it out, he will be great."
Stanley to me reads more like the latter than the former.
It is true that Stanley has moved forward, although IMO equal to expected given age development, unlike Sutter. That said, we were talking about perception when drafted. In many ways I view Stanley as a Sutter who took a lateral step or maybe half a step forward, instead of a step back like Sutter did.
That's my reasoning.
Last edited:
Understood.
I meant that I think that the Jets' scouts really misjudged Sutter in terms of his athleticism, skills, character/drive, etc. With Stanley, I think they over-valued some of those traits, but they didn't whiff like they did on Sutter.
PhilJets
Winnipeg is Good
Stanley will be 3 - 4 dman career wise.
But he will be called upon as #2 shutdown during his peak years.
But thats like 7-10years down.
Hope with the jets.
But he will be called upon as #2 shutdown during his peak years.
But thats like 7-10years down.
Hope with the jets.
truck
Registered User
I saw tweet about this a week ago. I shared it too, but it got been burried behind the bickering.
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
From what I heard, Windsor's price is higher than Kitchener wants to pay.
I believe it may end up just being picks.
Well I finally got to see the two games.
Game against Sweden:
He was on with his awareness and jumped into the play to disrupt things fairly effectively and scored a nice goal.
He also played with some snarl and knocked people off the puck.
His gap was solid but Sweden didn't challenge his side that much with speed. They were able to pass around him to create some chances off the rush on a few occasions.
Like with the Memorial cup I likes that he had his head up and was looking to make the breakout pass. He generally made the correct decision but I find he tends to hesitate a bit before passing and telegraphs things a tad. Sweden wasn't pressing him that hard though so it was all good. It was a different thing in the American game.
USA game:
The Americans upped the pace and I found Stanley's feet weren't able to keep up. He got beat to pucks and was pressured hard when trying to make a pass up the ice leading to an uneven transition game by him.
His major flaw in gap control and skating/pivoting was exploited quite a bit by the US.
On the whole he had a solid camp and imo put himself in the mix to make the team. His major issue still remains foot speed. When he is out against a team like Sweden that prefers the slow build and doesnt apply a lot of forecheck pressure he is able to play at his pace and be effective. However when teams bring the heat he's on his heels often. NHL teams generally play the more uptempo style so he's got his work cut out with regards to skating to have a chance at an NHL career.
Having said that the Canadian dmen drafted around him that played in the show case dont impress me that much either.
Claugue is a mess in his own end both in terms of play without the puck but also with regards to decision making with it.
Bean is very meh all around imo. Ok offensive skills and mediocre defense. I don't like much of what I see from him.
Fabbro plays a good all around game and looks like he will have a career in some capacity but I'm not sure if his U18 offense will translate. Still a better prospect than Stanley though.
Girard - Nice offense and ok defense. Haven't seen enough him to comment.
Chowlowski - Seems like a steady defensive dmen with solid mobility and first pass. Don't see much of an offensive game yet.
It seems all these dmen have question marks about them.
The 2017 guys look better to me.
Makar got substantially better as the tournament went on. Tremendous skating and skill. He also showed some nice awareness defensively and good gap control.
Foote- plays a nice steady pro game. Reads the play well and can control the puck and make plays with it.
Samberg: A real nice and steady game from him. Good anticipation, puck skills and awareness.
Game against Sweden:
He was on with his awareness and jumped into the play to disrupt things fairly effectively and scored a nice goal.
He also played with some snarl and knocked people off the puck.
His gap was solid but Sweden didn't challenge his side that much with speed. They were able to pass around him to create some chances off the rush on a few occasions.
Like with the Memorial cup I likes that he had his head up and was looking to make the breakout pass. He generally made the correct decision but I find he tends to hesitate a bit before passing and telegraphs things a tad. Sweden wasn't pressing him that hard though so it was all good. It was a different thing in the American game.
USA game:
The Americans upped the pace and I found Stanley's feet weren't able to keep up. He got beat to pucks and was pressured hard when trying to make a pass up the ice leading to an uneven transition game by him.
His major flaw in gap control and skating/pivoting was exploited quite a bit by the US.
On the whole he had a solid camp and imo put himself in the mix to make the team. His major issue still remains foot speed. When he is out against a team like Sweden that prefers the slow build and doesnt apply a lot of forecheck pressure he is able to play at his pace and be effective. However when teams bring the heat he's on his heels often. NHL teams generally play the more uptempo style so he's got his work cut out with regards to skating to have a chance at an NHL career.
Having said that the Canadian dmen drafted around him that played in the show case dont impress me that much either.
Claugue is a mess in his own end both in terms of play without the puck but also with regards to decision making with it.
Bean is very meh all around imo. Ok offensive skills and mediocre defense. I don't like much of what I see from him.
Fabbro plays a good all around game and looks like he will have a career in some capacity but I'm not sure if his U18 offense will translate. Still a better prospect than Stanley though.
Girard - Nice offense and ok defense. Haven't seen enough him to comment.
Chowlowski - Seems like a steady defensive dmen with solid mobility and first pass. Don't see much of an offensive game yet.
It seems all these dmen have question marks about them.
The 2017 guys look better to me.
Makar got substantially better as the tournament went on. Tremendous skating and skill. He also showed some nice awareness defensively and good gap control.
Foote- plays a nice steady pro game. Reads the play well and can control the puck and make plays with it.
Samberg: A real nice and steady game from him. Good anticipation, puck skills and awareness.
Good summary.
I agree with your comments about the other Canada D. Stanley had some defensive struggles, but he was certainly not alone in that. A lot of butter-soft play on D from a lot of them in their own zone. I think that might give Stanley a shot at the team.
That might give him a shot as imo there are already too many offensive first guys that play mediocre to poor defense that will either be gifted a spot (returning player) or the rest of the crop. It will come down to the start of his season and how he does in the Canada - Russian games imo.
