Prospect Info: Penguins #11 prospect

[Burgs]

Frederik Tiffels becomes the fifth college forward in our top 10. Added 2016 3rd round pick Connor Hall.

Results so far (and change from last year):
#1 Daniel Sprong (96.58%) (-)
#2 Tristan Jarry (65.65%) (+5)
#3 Zach Aston-Reese (80.19%) (new)
#4 Filip Gustavsson (58.49%) (+2)
#5 Teddy Blueger (42.00%) (+5)
#6 Zachary Lauzon (27.96% in #6 poll, 56.58% in runoff) (new)
#7 Josh Archibald (26.88% in #6 poll, 43.42% in runoff) (+6)
#8 Dominik Simon (50.59%) (-4)
#9 Adam Johnson (28.95%) (new)
#10 Frederik Tiffels (35.21%) (+5)

Click to read more...

 

[UnrealMachine]

Lafferty's last season was better than everyone on the list so far after #5.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Ölund.

Add Drozg maybe?

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Bork, Lafferty, or Olund. Hmmm.

 

[#1GuinFan]

anyway to change vote? i voted wrong player.

 

[FreeBobbyFarnham]

Lafferty's last season was better than everyone on the list so far after #5.

Yep.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I'm surprised by the gap between Phillips and Lauzon. Phillips had a fantastic combine apparently and was higher rated than Lauzon in nearly every draft ranking. And here he is, getting 0 votes.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Went with Bjorkqvist. The Pens saw something in him to draft him so high, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

Had to go with Almari. When your head of scouting guarantees that someone will be an NHL player, it has to count for something.

 

[Empoleon8771]

With Lafferty, you also have to remember that he put up less points in his first 2 seasons combined than he put up last season. Was his production last season due to him improving or him playing in a larger role? He was on an absolutely atrocious team, I don't think you can ignore that. That's not saying "he's on a bad team, so therefore he's bad", it's saying you have to put his production into context because he wouldn't be producing like that on a team like University of Denver or Boston College.

I think evaluating Lafferty before he turns pro is cloudy due to that. A decent comparable for his production in college would actually be Joe Vitale, who put up 16 points in 31 games followed by 16 points in 35 games followed by 35 points in 37 games, all on teams that ranged from terrible to mediocre. It actually isn't that uncommon for guys to have big junior seasons after two mediocre underclassmen seasons, guys like Vitale, Hanowski and Rust also did that while looking quickly.

 

[Zero Pucks]

With Lafferty, you also have to remember that he put up less points in his first 2 seasons combined than he put up last season. Was his production last season due to him improving or him playing in a larger role? He was on an absolutely atrocious team, I don't think you can ignore that. That's not saying "he's on a bad team, so therefore he's bad", it's saying you have to put his production into context because he wouldn't be producing like that on a team like University of Denver or Boston College.

I think evaluating Lafferty before he turns pro is cloudy due to that. A decent comparable for his production in college would actually be Joe Vitale, who put up 16 points in 31 games followed by 16 points in 35 games followed by 35 points in 37 games, all on teams that ranged from terrible to mediocre. It actually isn't that uncommon for guys to have big junior seasons after two mediocre underclassmen seasons, guys like Vitale, Hanowski and Rust also did that while looking quickly.

I really don't get the whole Brown is a bad team and that obscured Lafferty's production. If you want context, then how about him scoring more than a point per game while not even being put out on the power play. And if you want to talk about production then how about him scoring one less point last year than Tiffels did his previous two seasons combined. Leave it to this board to view someone having a solid breakout season as a bad thing, but get all giddy for someone that never got close to sniffing 30 points in their college career.

 

[Zero Pucks]

I'm surprised by the gap between Phillips and Lauzon. Phillips had a fantastic combine apparently and was higher rated than Lauzon in nearly every draft ranking. And here he is, getting 0 votes.

I see a ton of potential in Phillips, but the kid isn't even going to college yet next year. Seems like he's gonna be a loooong term project. I'm more interested in seeing what Jeff Taylor can do in WBS next year.

 

[Peat]

Had to go with Almari. When your head of scouting guarantees that someone will be an NHL player, it has to count for something.

Yeah. I don't get why Lauzon's already gone based on people rating him based on where the org took him - and now Bjorkqvist - but the org's chief scout saying that is seemingly ignored.


Also, yeah, while I get some of the skepticism on Lafferty, it's not like it wouldn't apply to Johnson or Tiffels in part either. None of those guys were consistent big scorers in college.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I really don't get the whole Brown is a bad team and that obscured Lafferty's production. If you want context, then how about him scoring more than a point per game while not even being put out on the power play. And if you want to talk about production then how about him scoring one less point last year than Tiffels did his previous two seasons combined. Leave it to this board to view someone having a solid breakout season as a bad thing, but get all giddy for someone that never got close to sniffing 30 points in their college career.

A. People talk so highly about Tiffels because of his performance at the world championships with Germany, not because of his college career. I also don't think anyone is giddy about him, seeing how he finished 10th in the prospect voting of a bad prospect look.
B. I never said Lafferty's production was a bad thing, I said you have to put it into context because he was playing a significant role on a bad team. A guy like Vrbata can put up 60 points on Arizona when he's being spoon fed minutes, but he's not a 60 point caliber player.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Yeah. I don't get why Lauzon's already gone based on people rating him based on where the org took him - and now Bjorkqvist - but the org's chief scout saying that is seemingly ignored.

I don't get it either. That'd be like voting for Nathan Moon.

Okay, that's kind of a hyperbole.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I see a ton of potential in Phillips, but the kid isn't even going to college yet next year. Seems like he's gonna be a loooong term project. I'm more interested in seeing what Jeff Taylor can do in WBS next year.

Does that warrant him going approximately ten spots behind Lauzon though?

 

[Burgs]

Phillips is the youngest and least proven prospect we have. He had good combine ratings and.... what else exactly? Last season he was the 25th highest scoring defenseman in a pre-college league. And he'll be playing against pre-college competition again this season while Ölund will be a regular in one of the best pro leagues in the world. It's not Phillips's fault he's still only 17 but currently I rank him behind pretty much everyone else on this list. Except maybe Bengtsson and Hall but that's only for health reasons.

 

[steelcityassault]

Had to go with Almari. When your head of scouting guarantees that someone will be an NHL player, it has to count for something.

Where did he say this?

 

[Peat]

Where did he say this?

In the interviews post-draft. Sexton and Allvin were talking about the guys they drafted, Sexton started talking about the great work the European scouts were doing and while doing so said that Almari will play in Pittsburgh.

 

[Zero Pucks]

A. People talk so highly about Tiffels because of his performance at the world championships with Germany, not because of his college career. I also don't think anyone is giddy about him, seeing how he finished 10th in the prospect voting of a bad prospect look.
B. I never said Lafferty's production was a bad thing, I said you have to put it into context because he was playing a significant role on a bad team. A guy like Vrbata can put up 60 points on Arizona when he's being spoon fed minutes, but he's not a 60 point caliber player.

How can you say he's playing a significant role on a bad team when he isn't even being used on the power play?

 

[Zero Pucks]

Does that warrant him going approximately ten spots behind Lauzon though?

It's hard to determine someone's potential until you can see what they can do in a better league. Unless we're 100% certain he's the next Karlsson or Letang, I'd say so.