LW Cole Eiserman - USNTDP U18 (2024 draft)

[BHawk21]

Totally clueless in his own zone, game away from the puck very flawed, some floating and pretty weak in puck battling.

I have him outside of my top 10 at this point.

Drew a penalty, two breakaways, and could have an assist in the first 5 min of that video. No time in his own zone 1st period.

This is so overblown. He created wayyyy more good then bad in that whole game. at 1130 iinto the video was like the only time they were in the defensive zone. He was directing everyone and prob didnt switch fast enough but nothing came of it.

At what point in the whole game was he clueless in his own zone?

Take him and take him high. Goal Scoring.

*Hagans is really good*

 

[WarriorofTime]

I guess the question to ask is: why?

When you say "why?" what do you mean? Are you asking if the issue is physical (he doesn't have the tools to play a well-rounded game), mental (he doesn't have the brain power to understand how to play a well-rounded game), attitude (he isn't interested in becoming a well-rounded player)?

 

[57special]

Wahlstrom.

But, Laine is still a fairly flawed player, and I believe he only played center this year, and didn't do it particularly well.

That's the cautionary tale. Maybe Hoffman, but he was a 5th rounder...big difference.

Brett Hull was one dimensional, too, though. Steve Shutt, also.

To me, a lot depends on his character. does he have a big ego, and think that he has nothing more to learn? Does he train well? Off ice problems? I do think that a proven ability to score goals is very valuable, so all I'm looking for on top of that character wise is a guy who works hard, loves hockey, and isn't stupid. He's already got ok size, and good tools. I can't blame him for concentrating on scoring goals, especially when he is so damn good at it.

 

[MuckOG]

Caufield isn't really known for his two way game, either, and still brings value to the Habs.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Caufield isn't really known for his two way game, either, and still brings value to the Habs.

Thought experiment - how high would you draft Cole Caufield if you knew he was gonna be Cole Caufield?

 

[MuckOG]

Thought experiment - how high would you draft Cole Caufield if you knew he was gonna be Cole Caufield?

If I knew Eiserman was guaranteed to be a 5'11" version of Caufield with the same production I would take him anywhere from 5-10.

If we were doing a re-draft of 2019 with hindsight, I would also be willing to select Caufield a little higher than where he was taken at 15. The only players I would definitely take before him are Hughes, Cozens, Boldy, Zegras and Seider.

 

[coooldude]

Others have said it, but it'll all come down to: is he coachable, does he have an off the charts drive and work ethic, is he always learning. You don't draft someone top 5 because they scored a lot of goals in the USHL... you have to think about 5-10 years forward. The reason he's sliding is because the on ice indications are not very clear that he has that work ethic and coachability/focus on learning. He'll still get drafted high for the shot and scoring, but probably not in the top 5 unless the off ice /in person indications are contrary to what is on tape.

Lots of guys skate extremely well, lots of guys can score goals, but who is dedicated to growth and working their balls off to get better every day? Who shows the ability to learn and adapt as the game gets faster, stronger, tighter? This is the hard part of course and teams get it wrong all the time because it turns out that predicting the future is hard. Eiserman isn't helping by having a flat year, but he is very young, so we'll see.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Do you though?
Peter Bondra scored 503 goals in the NHL, including two 50 goal seasons, leading the league in goalscoring twice. While he is in the IIHF Hall of Fame, he is not in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Goalscoring is pretty useless for a goaltender, and it is hardly the most important thing for a defender either. And while it is certainly a good quality to have as a forward, many of the best in the game were better at other things than goalscoring. Joe Thornton certainly didn't suffer from being very average at scoring goals.

And yes, I'd very much say that goalscoring in itself is not a skill. It's a combination of multiple skills that leads to the outcome of scoring lots of goals.

Of course it’s a combination of different things. Built if you’re elite at it, that skill alone can take you to the HOF. Look at Brett Hull. One dimensional player who won a Hart and is a HOFer.

It’s the single most important attribute a player can have. (And please don’t bring in goaltenders- that’s silly and obviously not applicable to what we’re talking about.)

Yeah, Bondra isn’t in the HOF. But he probably would be if he’d managed 500 goals. He just missed the cut.

If I knew Eiserman was guaranteed to be a 5'11" version of Caufield with the same production I would take him anywhere from 5-10.

If we were doing a re-draft of 2019 with hindsight, I would also be willing to select Caufield a little higher than where he was taken at 15. The only players I would definitely take before him are Hughes, Cozens, Boldy, Zegras and Seider.

I’d take Caufield second or third overall. In his first 82 games under a non-idiot coach he scored 48 goals.

This year he should’ve been on track for close to 50 again but was snakebit. After a horrible first half his shooting percentage is normalizing and he’s got something like 8 goals in his last 12 games.

He’s a a 40 to 50 goal guy next year for sure.

When you say "why?" what do you mean? Are you asking if the issue is physical (he doesn't have the tools to play a well-rounded game), mental (he doesn't have the brain power to understand how to play a well-rounded game), attitude (he isn't interested in becoming a well-rounded player)?

All of the above.

Does he. It have the heart or is he in a bad situation? Is his coach an idiot or does he just not care enough? That’s what the scouts will have to figure out. Why has the progressed in other areas?

Thought experiment - how high would you draft Cole Caufield if you knew he was gonna be Cole Caufield?

No lower than third.

 

[WarriorofTime]

All of the above.

Does he. It have the heart or is he in a bad situation? Is his coach an idiot or does he just not care enough? That’s what the scouts will have to figure out. Why has the progressed in other areas?

Dunno, never met the kid.

 

[MuckOG]

I’d take Caufield second or third overall. In his first 82 games under a non-idiot coach he scored 48 goals.

This year he should’ve been on track for close to 50 again but was snakebit. After a horrible first half his shooting percentage is normalizing and he’s got something like 8 goals in his last 12 games.

He’s a a 40 to 50 goal guy next year for sure.

Not me, I'd take him at 6 or 7. While Caufield is a legitimate sniper, he's a "luxury" player to have on an already good team. I'd still take the more well rounded players I listed ahead of him: Hughes (of course) Boldy, Cozens and Zegras not only can put the puck in the net but also contribute in other ways to team success....important if they are going through a goal scoring slump.

I look at Eiserman the same way. If the Wild are picking between 6 and 10, I would have no issue picking him if he was there.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Is he really dropping though?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Not me, I'd take him at 6 or 7. While Caufield is a legitimate sniper, he's a "luxury" player to have on an already good team. I'd still take the more well rounded players I listed ahead of him: Hughes (of course) Boldy, Cozens and Zegras not only can put the puck in the net but also contribute in other ways to team success....important if they are going through a goal scoring slump.

I look at Eiserman the same way. If the Wild are picking between 6 and 10, I would have no issue picking him if he was there.

50 goal scorers (assuming CC becomes one) is not a luxury player. His 48 in 82 was split over two seasons including the back half of his rookie year.

48 goals would’ve been good for fourth in the league last year. Goals are not easy to come by in this league.

It’s not that I think goalscorers are necessarily “better” players, but they what they do is highly valuable and they are a lot more rare. It’s much easier to find two way guys to round out a lineup. Good luck trying to get a 50 goal guy though.

It’s a rare skill and goals for and against determine wins and losses. Scoring a goal is the single most important thing a player can do to win a game. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see CC turn out to be the 2nd best player in that draft.

 

[MuckOG]

50 goal scorers (assuming CC becomes one) is not a luxury player. His 48 in 82 was split over two seasons including the back half of his rookie year.

48 goals would’ve been good for fourth in the league last year. Goals are not easy to come by in this league.

It’s not that I think goalscorers are necessarily “better” players, but they what they do is highly valuable and they are a lot more rare. It’s much easier to find two way guys to round out a lineup. Good luck trying to get a 50 goal guy though.

It’s a rare skill and goals for and against determine wins and losses. Scoring a goal is the single most important thing a player can do to win a game. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see CC turn out to be the 2nd best player in that draft.

Caufield is not a 50 goal scorer

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Caufield is not a 50 goal scorer

Not yet.

 

[Antonche]

Not yet.

And not will be.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

And not will be.

I think he will. 48 in his first 82 under MSL. Half of those coming in the backend of his rookie year.

I thought he’d hit 50 this year. And the underlying numbers are there. But he had a sub 7 shooting percentage at the halfway mark. Since then it’s normalized and he’s gone back to pacing for around 50 over the past 15 games.

He generates shots at a rate of about 300 per season. His shooting percentage last year matches what it’s been in the past 15 games: 16.5

300 x 16.5 = 49.5

Is it a sure thing? No. But 48 in his first 82 under MSL is impressive. Last season he was pacing for close to 50 all year until he got hurt. And his underlying numbers were great this year. He’s got the highest goal per game ratio of any player in the league under 23. That’s including half of his rookie season under a moron coach. And he’s done this on really bad, offensively starved teams.

I see no reason to doubt him being a 45-55 goal scorer in the coming years.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

His passing has disappointed me a lot this season. I know he's a goal-scorer, but his inaccuracy in hitting teammates sticks is alarming for a player who has as much offensive ability as he does. He also has the tunnel-vision and takes bad shots that people have mentioned a lot, but I haven't seen it mentioned how his playmaking has virtually regressed or not improved.

I think he's a goal-scorer only now. Doesn't have true playmaking ability. 6 of his teammates have more assists than him. Considering not all six will be big assist guys in the NHL either (if they get there), I think that only proves the point.

I haven't found him to be as lazy or lacking in physicality as some say. I think you have to start with that he's not a defensive player. He's probably never going to be on an NHL PK (he doesn't even PK for the NTDP), but I've seen worse or players as bad. He also is more physical than he gets credit for. Scott Wheeler has mentioned this, and I don't think it has been mentioned enough. He's very solidly built. Already has an NHL frame, and the skating is pretty good. Obviously has the shot.

He's going slightly backwards from what I've seen, and I have no clue if some of the on-ice demonstrative stuff people don't like is as big of a problem as stated, but I think some of the things people mention (defense, laziness, lack of engaging physically) is overplayed. I don't see too many massive red flags of why he's DND, but I think you should expect a pretty one-dimensional player, and not expect Matthews or Pastrnak. He's a sniper who likely plays in a top 6 yet probably won't have the rest to be a star.

 

[wetcoast]

I think he will. 48 in his first 82 under MSL. Half of those coming in the backend of his rookie year.

I thought he’d hit 50 this year. And the underlying numbers are there. But he had a sub 7 shooting percentage at the halfway mark. Since then it’s normalized and he’s gone back to pacing for around 50 over the past 15 games.

He generates shots at a rate of about 300 per season. His shooting percentage last year matches what it’s been in the past 15 games: 16.5

300 x 16.5 = 49.5

Is it a sure thing? No. But 48 in his first 82 under MSL is impressive. Last season he was pacing for close to 50 all year until he got hurt. And his underlying numbers were great this year. He’s got the highest goal per game ratio of any player in the league under 23. That’s including half of his rookie season under a moron coach. And he’s done this on really bad, offensively starved teams.

I see no reason to doubt him being a 45-55 goal scorer in the coming years.

You thought he would hit 50 this year yet he has 17 goals.

you must have him on your fantasy team or something because he isn't a 50 goal scorer in the NHL.

Back to Eiserman, I'm just glad the Canucks don't have a first rounder this year to get another Boeser type who looks good for stretches then doesn't.

Too much risk for me.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You thought he would hit 50 this year yet he has 17 goals.

you must have him on your fantasy team or something because he isn't a 50 goal scorer in the NHL.

I love these kinds of posts. Just ignore everything that was written and “but uh… seventeen goals…”

 

[wetcoast]

I love these kinds of posts. Just ignore everything that was written and “but uh… seventeen goals…”

I knew you would because you kind of ignore the actual goals CC has scored and then go on to call him a 50 goal scorer, 2 can play that game.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I knew you would because you kind of ignore the actual goals CC has scored and then go on to call him a 50 goal scorer, 2 can play that game.

Yeah, that’s what I wrote…

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah, that’s what I wrote…

I know one can write anything it seems but the fact of the matter is aside from a 46 game stretch he doesn't have anything in his career to support what you wrote and this year isn't trending that way either but maybe he scores 30 this year.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I know one can write anything it seems but the fact of the matter is aside from a 46 game stretch he doesn't have anything in his career to support what you wrote and this year isn't trending that way either but maybe he scores 30 this year.

His career is like 170 games. In the minors he holds the NCAA record for goals. And he scored 48 in his first 82 under MSL.

Yeah, nothing to indicate anything there…

 

[wetcoast]

His career is like 170 games. In the minors he holds the NCAA record for goals. And he scored 48 in his first 82 under MSL.

Yeah, nothing to indicate anything there…

You are the one who thought he would score 50 this year and he ahs 17 which is good for 59th in the league along with 10ish other guys right now.

When he scores 50 in a season make a thread about, heck when he scores 40 or even 30 do it but this is a thread about a prospect named Cole Eiserman no need to derail it any more is there?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

You are the one who thought he would score 50 this year and he ahs 17 which is good for 59th in the league along with 10ish other guys right now.

And you clearly didn’t read the post. You come out guns ablaze on something you know little about and prove it with these posts.

Actually read the posts and then get back to me.

Thanks for coming out though.