Prospect Info: Round 1, Pick #19: Jay O'Brien, C, MA-USHS --> Providence U

[Hockeyville USA]

If you don’t think taking a guy with a handful of US games above New England High School hockey in the top 20 of a draft is a big swing, we just don’t look at things the same way. Frankly, we almost never agree because we don’t approach much of anything the same way. That’s ok. It is what it is.

The problem is that is a reckless swing for the fences. Late birthday, no statistically significant USHL sample size, dominating games against mostly younger future NCDC and D3 players. Yes the draft is about risk, but at least Lundestrom, Sandin, Miller, Veleno, Berggren, Addison were a birthyear younger, plus had proven they were legitimate 1st round caliber types against real competition.

EDIT: I was corrected, Lundestrom is not a birthyear younger, but did have SHL experience.

 

[FromOyVey2Matvei]

Still has never played a pro game. At least you guys get the compensatory 2nd this year.

So you bumped a nearly year dormant thread to tell us nothing has changed with a former prospect of ours?

 

[usahockey22flyers]

Is he hurt?

 

[DancingPanther]

Is he hurt?

No, he just stinks

 

[Ghosts Beer]

The problem is that is a reckless swing for the fences. Late birthday, no statistically significant USHL sample size, dominating games against mostly younger future NCDC and D3 players. Yes the draft is about risk, but at least Lundestrom, Sandin, Miller, Veleno, Berggren, Addison were a birthyear younger, plus had proven they were legitimate 1st round caliber types against real competition.

Yes, JOB was a horrendous waste of the 19th overall pick.

 

[renberg]

AIR, O’Brien played for Thayer Academy and was coached by Tony Amonte who had played with the Flyers in ‘02-04. He convinced Holmgren and Hextall that JOB was an unmined gem. They bit on this endorsement and suffered for it.

 

[GKJ]

Wasn’t he signed by the Toronto Marlies?

 

[renberg]

Wasn’t he signed by the Toronto Marlies?

I believe so. Don’t think that he’s played much if at all due to injuries

 

[prototypical4thliner]

AIR, O’Brien played for Thayer Academy and was coached by Tony Amonte who had played with the Flyers in ‘02-04. He convinced Holmgren and Hextall that JOB was an unmined gem. They bit on this endorsement and suffered for it.

Ugh. I forgot about the Amonte thing. Woof.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

AIR, O’Brien played for Thayer Academy and was coached by Tony Amonte who had played with the Flyers in ‘02-04. He convinced Holmgren and Hextall that JOB was an unmined gem. They bit on this endorsement and suffered for it.

JOB wasn’t near my radar at 19, yet I talked myself into the pick at the time.

I admit it. Live & learn. He was a bad pick & Hextall is a far worse talent evaluator than I realized then.

They had Vorobyev rated virtually equal with Eriksson-Ek. Nick Merkley rated virtually even with TK (thank God they went with TK).

 

[FLYguy3911]

Not even the worst pick that draft.

 

[dragonoffrost]

Not even the worst pick that draft.

this is where there needs to be a "Leave Brady alone!" meme.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

The problem is that is a reckless swing for the fences. Late birthday, no statistically significant USHL sample size, dominating games against mostly younger future NCDC and D3 players. Yes the draft is about risk, but at least Lundestrom, Sandin, Miller, Veleno, Berggren, Addison were a birthyear younger, plus had proven they were legitimate 1st round caliber types against real competition.

I get what you’re trying to say, but for example Lundestrom is 2 days younger.

Your response is well outside of the scope and/or purpose of the post I made, but it does bring up another good point. Maybe you’re the one in a million that really did think this way, but for most people the problem wasn’t risk. It was disagreement on the evaluation of the player that may have swung on how risky you think he was. That’s a different animal entirely and of course completely fine.

There were a whole range of opinions on JOB that could have been described as reasonable. Yes, the Flyers were likely one of the highest teams on him. In most cases, that describes the picks made after the Tier 2/3 drop off every single season. Sometimes that starts at 10. Sometimes it’s at 18. That depends on the class. From what I remember, I think it might have been after 12 that year. I preferred taking the Sandin risk to the other available options, so I do empathize at least a little. But I can recognize that JOB was a big swing. I would prefer that to the Veleno route every single time at 19. Veleno is the human embodiment of the inexorable march to the playoff bubble.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I get what you’re trying to say, but for example Lundestrom is 2 days younger.

Your response is well outside of the scope and/or purpose of the post I made, but it does bring up another good point. Maybe you’re the one in a million that really did think this way, but for most people the problem wasn’t risk. It was disagreement on the evaluation of the player that may have swung on how risky you think he was. That’s a different animal entirely and of course completely fine.

There were a whole range of opinions on JOB that could have been described as reasonable. Yes, the Flyers were likely one of the highest teams on him. In most cases, that describes the picks made after the Tier 2/3 drop off every single season. Sometimes that starts at 10. Sometimes it’s at 18. That depends on the class. From what I remember, I think it might have been after 12 that year. I preferred taking the Sandin risk to the other available options, so I do empathize at least a little. But I can recognize that JOB was a big swing. I would prefer that to the Veleno route every single time at 19. Veleno is the human embodiment of the inexorable march to the playoff bubble.

My bad on Lundestrom, I forgot he was a late birthday. He at least had played most of 2 seasons in the SHL at that point. He was seen as a high floor low ceiling type, same with Veleno. Miller and Sandin had the higher ceilings,

Merkley was the talented risk, Bokk was talented but hadn't proven much at the pro level, Berggren was the dominant junior player that many liked. Addison was pretty similar production wise as Merkley, only without the character issues.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

My bad on Lundestrom, I forgot he was a late birthday. He at least had played most of 2 seasons in the SHL at that point. He was seen as a high floor low ceiling type, same with Veleno. Miller and Sandin had the higher ceilings,

Merkley was the talented risk, Bokk was talented but hadn't proven much at the pro level, Berggren was the dominant junior player that many liked. Addison was pretty similar production wise as Merkley, only without the character issues.

I think it's worth remembering that JOB was above Berggren in McKenzie's final list. That's not to say I would have made that decision and it's certainly not an appeal to NHL authority. It's just data to support it being a reasonable range to select him if you particularly believed in the player.

I understand that you're focused on a different aspect of the selection, but I look at it and think I had no way of having an opinion on him worth hearing. Albeit in an even less informed way, I had a similar opinion on the Laberge pick. I don't like selecting these guys for "value." You have to love them and see a range of star outcomes. I have no mechanism to determine whether they did or not. It's rare that we get a Trent Frederic situation where they outright tell you on draft night they think they took a 4th liner in the top 35.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I think it's worth remembering that JOB was above Berggren in McKenzie's final list. That's not to say I would have made that decision and it's certainly not an appeal to NHL authority. It's just data to support it being a reasonable range to select him if you particularly believed in the player.

I understand that you're focused on a different aspect of the selection, but I look at it and think I had no way of having an opinion on him worth hearing. Albeit in an even less informed way, I had a similar opinion on the Laberge pick. I don't like selecting these guys for "value." You have to love them and see a range of star outcomes. I have no mechanism to determine whether they did or not. It's rare that we get a Trent Frederic situation where they outright tell you on draft night they think they took a 4th liner in the top 35.

League quality and birthday are quite important to consider. Laberge was good, not great in a weak Q, then had his career completely altered from one head hit. O'Brien was a late birthday playing against quite weak competition compared to the CHL and USHL.

 

[Magua]

Not even the worst pick that draft.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

League quality and birthday are quite important to consider. Laberge was good, not great in a weak Q, then had his career completely altered from one head hit. O'Brien was a late birthday playing against quite weak competition compared to the CHL and USHL.

I had a Q package that year. Laberge sucked before the hit in his D+1. That was just an excuse. Laberge randomly had 2 red hot months right before his draft day. That's the whole story. Sometimes those risers work out and sometimes they don't.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Not even the worst pick that draft.

Hexy, speaking without notes, to Pittsburgh ownership.

 

[Magua]

It was disagreement on the evaluation of the player that may have swung on how risky you think he was.

The Flyers missed on the evaluation of JOB -- everything else is story filler. It wasn't a reckless pick; they just got it wrong. High school picks have found success. Like with Rubtsov, someone we all got quite wrong. But if anyone thinks Rubtsov's middling draft year numbers didn't carry similar risk (plus no u18s with the substance scandal) in a Wild West (err East) junior league, they're out to lunch.

My opinion of JOB at his peak value was that he might be a solid middle 6 player. Now, that doesn't sound gaga over his ceiling. There were a fair number of people who said his ceiling was higher than Farabee's, but that always struck me as getting daydreamy about the lesser known.

People always talk about taking players with skating flaws, betting on the upside. I think JOB ended up being the flip side: it didn't bother me until watching him in college, and then it never progressed. He had a short awkward stride; I found he looked more busy with it than effective. He had trouble making space for himself. But none of that is unique to a prep player. You're always projecting up.

 

[Magua]

My bad on Lundestrom, I forgot he was a late birthday. He at least had played most of 2 seasons in the SHL at that point. He was seen as a high floor low ceiling type, same with Veleno. Miller and Sandin had the higher ceilings,

Merkley was the talented risk, Bokk was talented but hadn't proven much at the pro level, Berggren was the dominant junior player that many liked. Addison was pretty similar production wise as Merkley, only without the character issues.

I don't understand the logic of, "I wish they followed the normal path and drafted this bust or that disappointment instead." Now, Miller, Berggren, Sandin were who we wanted on this forum. Every single player has risk, including these guys. Projecting an added level of play is just a different one.

League quality and birthday are quite important to consider. Laberge was good, not great in a weak Q, then had his career completely altered from one head hit. O'Brien was a late birthday playing against quite weak competition compared to the CHL and USHL.

I just want to clarify that a big thing about early birthdays (as in Sep 16-Dec 31) is that it means you have an extra year of junior play at the time of the draft. That's THE biggest advantage. Physical development is case by case. Obviously, summer birthdays are statistically appealing, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Especially for a kid who played prep hockey at a normal US schooling age. Veleno was an early January birthday who was granted exceptional status. Then you have cases like Sanheim and Scheifele, born in March, but they played their rookie CHL years their D-year. Ryan Merkley was born in August, but he could've been pre-born with the mind of an adult like in Dune, and it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I don't understand the logic of, "I wish they followed the normal path and drafted this bust or that disappointment instead." Now, Miller, Berggren, Sandin were who we wanted on this forum. Every single player has risk, including these guys. Projecting an added level of play is just a different one.



I just want to clarify that a big thing about early birthdays (as in Sep 16-Dec 31) is that it means you have an extra year of junior play at the time of the draft. That's THE biggest advantage. Physical development is case by case. Obviously, summer birthdays are statistically appealing, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Especially for a kid who played prep hockey at a normal US schooling age. Veleno was an early January birthday who was granted exceptional status. Then you have cases like Sanheim and Scheifele, born in March, but they played their rookie CHL years their D-year. Ryan Merkley was born in August, but he could've been pre-born with the mind of an adult like in Dune, and it wouldn't have mattered.

Late birthday, as in late in the birthyear (September 16-December 31)

 

[Larry44]

The Flyers missed on the evaluation of JOB -- everything else is story filler. It wasn't a reckless pick; they just got it wrong.

I think in future it should be a rule: If Boston is high on a kid, avoid him like the plague. Not one of Hexy's better moves, in retrospect, but look how great Konecny worked out!

 

[Hockeyville USA]

I think in future it should be a rule: If Boston is high on a kid, avoid him like the plague. Not one of Hexy's better moves, in retrospect, but look how great Konecny worked out!

Rangers were high on O'Brien IIRC.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

The Flyers missed on the evaluation of JOB -- everything else is story filler. It wasn't a reckless pick; they just got it wrong. High school picks have found success. Like with Rubtsov, someone we all got quite wrong. But if anyone thinks Rubtsov's middling draft year numbers didn't carry similar risk (plus no u18s with the substance scandal) in a Wild West (err East) junior league, they're out to lunch.

My opinion of JOB at his peak value was that he might be a solid middle 6 player. Now, that doesn't sound gaga over his ceiling. There were a fair number of people who said his ceiling was higher than Farabee's, but that always struck me as getting daydreamy about the lesser known.

People always talk about taking players with skating flaws, betting on the upside. I think JOB ended up being the flip side: it didn't bother me until watching him in college, and then it never progressed. He had a short awkward stride; I found he looked more busy with it than effective. He had trouble making space for himself. But none of that is unique to a prep player. You're always projecting up.

I'm still on team draft guys with some skating issues. Just not in the first say 75? picks.

Especially if they are undersized, and aren't atrocious technically. A lot of skating issues go away with strength gain.

Once you get outside the top 75-100 players are going to all have a hole in their skill set, skating just seems like the most likely you get lucky and they either fix or find a way to compensate for.

Vs kids that are dumb but can fly, you can't fix stupid.