Prospect Info: Logan Stanley - Part III

[ps241]

Nice to see those highlights of Stanley’s offense last season. Pretty nice vision and accuracy on his passing. His shot is really heavy and unlike Chiarot he seems to be able to hit the net. One expects D +2 1st round picks to dominate but there was still lots to like.

The AHL will be the perfect spot now for him for a few seasons. He needs to learn how to defend much better to get to the next level. The bulk of his challenge comes down to defensive footwork and quickness. The league is so much fast now and mobility is hard to fake and cover up. It remains to be seen if he can improve that area of his game enough but time will tell.

 

[scelaton]

Nice to see those highlights of Stanley’s offense last season. Pretty nice vision and accuracy on his passing. His shot is really heavy and unlike Chiarot he seems to be able to hit the net. One expects D +2 1st round picks to dominate but there was still lots to like.

The AHL will be the perfect spot now for him for a few seasons. He needs to learn how to defend much better to get to the next level. The bulk of his challenge comes down to defensive footwork and quickness. The league is so much fast now and mobility is hard to fake and cover up. It remains to be seen if he can improve that area of his game enough but time will tell.

Aha, I know how to fix that in 2 simple steps!
First, he needs to bulk up and get really "explosive"--I would recommend a bean burrito, Kool-Aid and video game diet.
Then, he needs to stop eating sugar so he loses all that weight but keeps his 'explosive' fast twitch powers. I would recommend he stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start playing only badminton on his training days. Video games are still allowed on his off days.
Presto.

Notes:
1)Keep eating those burritos--you have to be full of beans to believe in the program
2)Reality may set in as a side effect when you stop drinking the Kool-Aid

 

[Jet]

Alot more if you are going to say what round he should have drafted in

I agree. I don't have a lot to say about Stanley , but to have someone call the scouts 'so-called experts', and then pass some grandiose judgement on a player based on one game and a handful of highlights and parts of games is laughable.

These 'so-called experts' may have a range of skill when it comes to assessing player talent, but at least they are making those assessments based off a lot more exposure to the kids game.

The biggest knock on Stanley seems to be his skating. It's also noted that he is steadily improving that skill. If he continues down this path I will be very happy.

The one slight pain point I have with the pick is moving up to get it. I don't think it was necessary by many accounts, but I guess it illustrates just how much the Jets like him. Having drafted guys like Scheifele higher than expected, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt

 

[Imcanadianeh]

I agree. I don't have a lot to say about Stanley , but to have someone call the scouts 'so-called experts', and then pass some grandiose judgement on a player based on one game and a handful of highlights and parts of games is laughable.

These 'so-called experts' may have a range of skill when it comes to assessing player talent, but at least they are making those assessments based off a lot more exposure to the kids game.

The biggest knock on Stanley seems to be his skating. It's also noted that he is steadily improving that skill. If he continues down this path I will be very happy.

The one slight pain point I have with the pick is moving up to get it. I don't think it was necessary by many accounts, but I guess it illustrates just how much the Jets like him. Having drafted guys like Scheifele higher than expected, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt

It was rumored that Detroit was going to select Stanley, if that was true that would be why the Jets moved up to get him.

 

[Whileee]

It was rumored that Detroit was going to select Stanley, if that was true that would be why the Jets moved up to get him.

Yup. I think it's very likely that Chevy moved up to #18 to get Stanley ahead of the Wings, who moved from #16 to #20.

 

[ps241]

Yup. I think it's very likely that Chevy moved up to #18 to get Stanley ahead of the Wings, who moved from #16 to #20.

Part of what stung for me was thinking back there were 3 D prospects I really liked in the draft that I was hoping would fall to us.......those 3 were McAvoy, Chychrun, and Fabbro. I think I had been spoiled by Ehlers and Connor falling to us later in the draft so I was really hoping one of those 3 would. Things were winding down closer and closer then MCAvoy went at 14, then the two picks before us were Chychrun, and Fabbro and I was devestated at the time.

Either way that was then this is now good luck to Stanley on the Moose this season and please make me eat my words large dude.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Part of what stung for me was thinking back there were 3 D prospects I really liked in the draft that I was hoping would fall to us.......those 3 were McAvoy, Chychrun, and Fabbro. I think I had been spoiled by Ehlers and Connor falling to us later in the draft so I was really hoping one of those 3 would. Things were winding down closer and closer then MCAvoy went at 14, then the two picks before us were Chychrun, and Fabbro and I was devestated at the time.

Either way that was then this is now good luck to Stanley on the Moose this season and please make me eat my words large dude.

I remember prior to the lottery, Chychrun was a prospect we would be interested in around the 7th pick. When he started to fall on draft night, the thought we might end up with him and Laine had me pretty excited.

 

[GaryPoppins]

Complete games? Just 1. A couple of part games and some highlights/lowlights.

How many do you think it takes?

This is laughable. You've made it known you dont like the player, yet have seen him in only 1 full game. You never know if that one game he was sick, dealing with something with his family or just a general off night. You need a far larger sample size than that, hence why NHL scouts usually like to see more than one game by players if they're a potential first rounder.

Give the hate train a break and let the kid be. He lost a year with his knee and is working hard to get where he needs to be.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

I do find it funny how he is assessed, a kind of a double take on Stanley.

The take on him up to us drafting him, by an analytics view, was a big, slow less mobile dman with some physicality to him.

Yet, in every DC we held, anyone that has gone to watch him live almost to a tee, say he has very good mobility along with a strong iq, solid shot and makes decent passes. In other words a big with skill.

There was a negative narrative attached to Stanley long before we drafted him, and it was heavily based off his d -3 season. He has consistently improved over the past 3 years since, even while losing a half season to injury.

It is going to be an interesting year to track Stanley in the A. I can only imagine some of the early analyses he will get on here, because I fully expext him to have his struggles. I will be paying more attention to the second half of his season, as he is going to need 40 games to get his feet wet, adjust to the speed and size ect..

Stanley is a slow and steady progressor, big players usually are. Hope some will refrain from making massive proclamations that he is a bust if he struggles a bit to start his pro career.

 

[204hockey]

hope he turns into that big steady stay at home guy niku is gonna need on the 2nd pairing in future. ill give him till 2020 before i judge him

 

[scelaton]

hope he turns into that big steady stay at home guy niku is gonna need on the 2nd pairing in future. ill give him till 2020 before i judge him

I'm going to give him till 2022.
Zdeno Chara was a third round pick--where the analytics suggested Stanley belonged--and didn't blossom until his 5th NHL season. Obviously, to think Stanley will scale those heights is a reach (all 3 puns unfortunately intended), but that is always the hope when you draft such a raw physical specimen in the first round.
I admit to having been highly skeptical of the pick at the time, but I am watching this play out with great interest and an open mind. Scouting young players is such an inexact science that it is barely a science at all beyond the first dozen picks. The scouts may have something to teach us after all.
To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we don't yet know what we don't know.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

This is laughable. You've made it known you dont like the player, yet have seen him in only 1 full game. You never know if that one game he was sick, dealing with something with his family or just a general off night. You need a far larger sample size than that, hence why NHL scouts usually like to see more than one game by players if they're a potential first rounder.

Give the hate train a break and let the kid be. He lost a year with his knee and is working hard to get where he needs to be.

There is plenty of information available on him and on the other players. It isn't absolutely necessary to have seen any games. There is feedback from plenty of people who have seen him play. There are scouting reports available from professional observers. There is a wealth of statistical data. My opinion of the player is an amalgamation of that and was born out by what I have seen of his play.

There is no hate train here. I am in no position to give the kid a break, or not. I have nothing against HIM. I simply doubt that he will live up to his draft position. I don't think you will ever amount to much of an NHL hockey player either. Does that mean I hate you? I think the trade up and the pick were both mistakes. Big, obvious ones. That's it. I resent you characterizing that as hatred of some kid I don't know from Adam.

 

[Whileee]

There is plenty of information available on him and on the other players. It isn't absolutely necessary to have seen any games. There is feedback from plenty of people who have seen him play. There are scouting reports available from professional observers. There is a wealth of statistical data. My opinion of the player is an amalgamation of that and was born out by what I have seen of his play.

There is no hate train here. I am in no position to give the kid a break, or not. I have nothing against HIM. I simply doubt that he will live up to his draft position. I don't think you will ever amount to much of an NHL hockey player either. Does that mean I hate you? I think the trade up and the pick were both mistakes. Big, obvious ones. That's it. I resent you characterizing that as hatred of some kid I don't know from Adam.

So, would that amalgamation of information from others include the strong consensus of him being a 1st round talent? I didn't like the pick at that stage, but it wasn't a pick that was off the wall. If I had known that he would approach top 10 in ES scoring among OHL D in his D+2 season, I would have felt better about the pick at the time.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

So, would that amalgamation of information from others include the strong consensus of him being a 1st round talent? I didn't like the pick at that stage, but it wasn't a pick that was off the wall. If I had known that he would approach top 10 in ES scoring among OHL D in his D+2 season, I would have felt better about the pick at the time.

I don't believe the consensus was a s strong as you say. According to Garrett it was more divided than that. But yes, it does include the fact that many pro scouts rated him highly. I believe a lot overrated him because of his size.

I watched the vid of the Flyers draft room when they chose Morin. I listened to Hillier interviewed right after the pick. IMO, it is pretty clear that Jets uprated him due to size. Not saying that was the only thing Stanley brought to the table. Only that it was the difference between 1st rd and 3rd/4th rd.

Size makes a player better than the same player would be without the size. It doesn't make him better than he is with the size. Stanley was as good as he was because of his size. He was not that good plus a bonus for being big. What you see is what you get - size included.

You are the one here who has pointed out how good his scoring was last year when looking only at ES. That is a very encouraging development. It does make me feel a little better too. But only a little. My main concern has always been his D zone play. Positioning, decision making and quickness are all areas of concern.

Looking at total scoring, not just ES, Chiarot in D+2 scored .58 ppg, Stanley .69 ppg. I suspect that is statistically significant - but not a big difference. So far, Chiarot is better defensively. But all of Stanley's shortcomings are things that can be improved on with hard work. Everything we hear about Stanley credits him with being a hard worker.

It takes hard work to get better but hard work does not guarantee big improvement. The work can only bring out what is there to begin with. It can't overcome lack of inborn ability.

We will see what Stanley can become in 2-3 years. I'm fairly optimistic that he can be a better Chiarot. Anything beyond that would be a bonus, IMO.

 

[ffh]

I don't believe the consensus was a s strong as you say. According to Garrett it was more divided than that. But yes, it does include the fact that many pro scouts rated him highly. I believe a lot overrated him because of his size.

I watched the vid of the Flyers draft room when they chose Morin. I listened to Hillier interviewed right after the pick. IMO, it is pretty clear that Jets uprated him due to size. Not saying that was the only thing Stanley brought to the table. Only that it was the difference between 1st rd and 3rd/4th rd.

Size makes a player better than the same player would be without the size. It doesn't make him better than he is with the size. Stanley was as good as he was because of his size. He was not that good plus a bonus for being big. What you see is what you get - size included.

You are the one here who has pointed out how good his scoring was last year when looking only at ES. That is a very encouraging development. It does make me feel a little better too. But only a little. My main concern has always been his D zone play. Positioning, decision making and quickness are all areas of concern.

Looking at total scoring, not just ES, Chiarot in D+2 scored .58 ppg, Stanley .69 ppg. I suspect that is statistically significant - but not a big difference. So far, Chiarot is better defensively. But all of Stanley's shortcomings are things that can be improved on with hard work. Everything we hear about Stanley credits him with being a hard worker.

It takes hard work to get better but hard work does not guarantee big improvement. The work can only bring out what is there to begin with. It can't overcome lack of inborn ability.

We will see what Stanley can become in 2-3 years. I'm fairly optimistic that he can be a better Chiarot. Anything beyond that would be a bonus, IMO.

like you I don't have to watch any videos to know hillier said no such thing.

 

[fmrdh]

Maybe I am in the minority here but I am okay with the pick. He has more skill than given credit for IMO.

 

[angrymnky]

like you I don't have to watch any videos to know hillier said no such thing.

Uh what? On TSN the first thing Hillier said was how Maurice had to look up at him because of his size. Second thing he mentioned was he's 6"7, he can skate for a big man, he's got to keep improving, he's got good coordination and agility for a big kid, he moves the puck, he shoots it and plays physical. How can you hear that and not think the key word is size?

 

[garret9]

I don't believe the consensus was a s strong as you say. According to Garrett it was more divided than that. But yes, it does include the fact that many pro scouts rated him highly. I believe a lot overrated him because of his size.

I watched the vid of the Flyers draft room when they chose Morin. I listened to Hillier interviewed right after the pick. IMO, it is pretty clear that Jets uprated him due to size. Not saying that was the only thing Stanley brought to the table. Only that it was the difference between 1st rd and 3rd/4th rd.

Size makes a player better than the same player would be without the size. It doesn't make him better than he is with the size. Stanley was as good as he was because of his size. He was not that good plus a bonus for being big. What you see is what you get - size included.

You are the one here who has pointed out how good his scoring was last year when looking only at ES. That is a very encouraging development. It does make me feel a little better too. But only a little. My main concern has always been his D zone play. Positioning, decision making and quickness are all areas of concern.

Looking at total scoring, not just ES, Chiarot in D+2 scored .58 ppg, Stanley .69 ppg. I suspect that is statistically significant - but not a big difference. So far, Chiarot is better defensively. But all of Stanley's shortcomings are things that can be improved on with hard work. Everything we hear about Stanley credits him with being a hard worker.

It takes hard work to get better but hard work does not guarantee big improvement. The work can only bring out what is there to begin with. It can't overcome lack of inborn ability.

We will see what Stanley can become in 2-3 years. I'm fairly optimistic that he can be a better Chiarot. Anything beyond that would be a bonus, IMO.

Garret*

Yes, there was very low consensus on the pick, both at the Jets table and looking team-to-team...

That said, that's typically normal for any non-top-10 pick (well... at least to some degree). That's the nature of drafting and why no one tries to game theory the draft, there's such so low consensus.

 

[Whileee]

I don't believe the consensus was a s strong as you say. According to Garrett it was more divided than that. But yes, it does include the fact that many pro scouts rated him highly. I believe a lot overrated him because of his size.

I watched the vid of the Flyers draft room when they chose Morin. I listened to Hillier interviewed right after the pick. IMO, it is pretty clear that Jets uprated him due to size. Not saying that was the only thing Stanley brought to the table. Only that it was the difference between 1st rd and 3rd/4th rd.

Size makes a player better than the same player would be without the size. It doesn't make him better than he is with the size. Stanley was as good as he was because of his size. He was not that good plus a bonus for being big. What you see is what you get - size included.

You are the one here who has pointed out how good his scoring was last year when looking only at ES. That is a very encouraging development. It does make me feel a little better too. But only a little. My main concern has always been his D zone play. Positioning, decision making and quickness are all areas of concern.

Looking at total scoring, not just ES, Chiarot in D+2 scored .58 ppg, Stanley .69 ppg. I suspect that is statistically significant - but not a big difference. So far, Chiarot is better defensively. But all of Stanley's shortcomings are things that can be improved on with hard work. Everything we hear about Stanley credits him with being a hard worker.

It takes hard work to get better but hard work does not guarantee big improvement. The work can only bring out what is there to begin with. It can't overcome lack of inborn ability.

We will see what Stanley can become in 2-3 years. I'm fairly optimistic that he can be a better Chiarot. Anything beyond that would be a bonus, IMO.

I presented rankings from a bunch of sites. I think that gives a reasonable sense of the scouting consensus. Of course there would be some ranking him lower, but the average consensus was late first round.

All things considered (including playoffs), Stanley's D+2 production was significantly better than Chiarot's.

I agree he has a considerable way to go, but I'd say he's progressed better than I expected, and has shown the attitude and inclination to work hard to continue to improve. I don't think he's nearly as much of a longshot to make the NHL as I previously thought.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

like you I don't have to watch any videos to know hillier said no such thing.

Having not heard the interview you know what he didn't say? OK.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Garret*

Yes, there was very low consensus on the pick, both at the Jets table and looking team-to-team...

That said, that's typically normal for any non-top-10 pick (well... at least to some degree). That's the nature of drafting and why no one tries to game theory the draft, there's such so low consensus.

Just a hypothetical. If there are 12 voices in the room and 5 players being considered there will be 5 voices championing each of the 5, leaving 7 free voices. If 1 of the players gets 3 of those votes and each of the others gets 1 then that player wins 4 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2. Assuming it goes by a vote then a player with 33% support will be taken with that pick but that does not constitute a consensus of any kind. Consensus meaning a general or wide agreement.

I suspect that, or something very like it is a common situation.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I presented rankings from a bunch of sites. I think that gives a reasonable sense of the scouting consensus. Of course there would be some ranking him lower, but the average consensus was late first round.

All things considered (including playoffs), Stanley's D+2 production was significantly better than Chiarot's.

I agree he has a considerable way to go, but I'd say he's progressed better than I expected, and has shown the attitude and inclination to work hard to continue to improve. I don't think he's nearly as much of a longshot to make the NHL as I previously thought.

Yes, I didn't even glance at the PO numbers. LS had a strong PO run.

I partly agree. I don't see him as being as big a longshot as I once did. Judging from your choice of words, I think you have moved farther than I have.

Garrett (again ) pointed out that his scoring increase was only what should be expected for D+2. However looking at ES only I believe he was better than that. So an actual gain compared to his expected trajectory. His PO performance indicated another step forward. The reports from DC indicated that his skating has improved. Even if we discount those reports a bit for homerism it sounded encouraging.

His highlights from the '18 season had a couple of snippets showing some nice quick reactions to the puck that might also be encouraging.

All that said, I would still be happy with a better Chiarot - but then, I like Chiarot more than most here do.

Contrary to the expectations of some here, who seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between disliking the pick and disliking the person, I will be very pleased to have been wrong about Stanley. If it turns out that way. I always projected him as a 3rd pair D, if he succeeds. I still do, but I rate the chances of that as quite a bit higher now than I did before.

 

[garret9]

I'm not huge on Chiarot, but I take him over Mark Stuart.

Fun game... who would be worse in the NHL?

A raw, undeveloped 2018-19 Logan Stanley.
Mark Stuart over 2013-15.

(insert poll)

 

[Whileee]

Uh what? On TSN the first thing Hillier said was how Maurice had to look up at him because of his size. Second thing he mentioned was he's 6"7, he can skate for a big man, he's got to keep improving, he's got good coordination and agility for a big kid, he moves the puck, he shoots it and plays physical. How can you hear that and not think the key word is size?

Size is good if you have agility, can move the puck and have a good shot, though.

Size was clearly a key criterion, but that's not entirely irrational. If Buff was small, he'd be a much less effective defenseman. Same with Chara and any other really big D. Size amplifies the effectiveness of their skill. The problem is that too often scouts, including the Jets', overestimate the size dividend.

 

[Whileee]

I'm not huge on Chiarot, but I take him over Mark Stuart.

Fun game... who would be worse in the NHL?

A raw, undeveloped 2018-19 Logan Stanley.
Mark Stuart over 2013-15.

(insert poll)

I take Stanley. I doubt he'd be less mobile defensively, and he's already much better in puck skills and decision making.

I would take a pairing of Stanley with any current Jets' D over the Stuart-Harrison fiasco. Maurice lost a lot of my confidence through that phase.