Prospect Info: At 9th Overall the Detroit Red Wings Select Michael Rasmussen

[cjm502]

Bad pick is bad. Prove me wrong Rasmussen.

 

[crashnburnluder]

I guess for me, if he is a better Homer, ends up top 6, scoring 30 to 40 goals a season anchoring a pp and if Homer could keep up to pav and Z, imagine a better skating version of him. Give the kid a chance, who knows maybe he becomes a simmonds type, or just a big net front guy who can move.

I guess for me, as a hockey player, I turned the biggest corner after 18, a lot. Of guys do especially big framed kids. If he ends up turning a corner we have a 6 foot 6 center who can move, and score in tight. People jump on these prospects so hard when their game can go to either end of the spectrum in a season.

 

[Martinez]

506th in WHL for +/- and 23rd on his team.

Maybe if he improves drastically defensively he might reach Brian Boyle potential.

I'm hoping for Patric hornqvist. I've heard the Brian Boyle comparison a few times.

 

[Martinez]

Well at least our prospect pool improved
1. Svechnikov
2. Hronek
3. Cholo
4. Vili
5. Rasmussen
Flip flop 4 and 5 if you want

 

[Nut Upstrom]

But it's not man. This is so exhausting. I posted my rankings BEFORE the draft for this reason.

I woud have legimately been happy with Vilardi, Necas, Suzuki, Valimaki, Foote.

Like I take the time to voice my opinions before the Wings do something so you can see my opinion is independent from what the Wings actually do.

But we just do things I continuously disagree with. Which wasn't the case 7 years or so when I joined the board.

And it's too bad. But y'all will realize in time.

I am glad and grateful that people here like you have somewhat educated opinions on these prospects. I sure don't have the time to read all the information about so many players and I certainly can't watch them on a regular basis, so I form the vast majority of my opinions on these players based on the information I read here. But I do that with the knowledge that even the most informed and most opinionated posters here are people who watch what hockey they can in their spare time, read what articles they can dig up and watch highlight reels of these prospects. I get that I am not reading the evaluation of professional scouts, but I still appreciate the time and effort many of you put into this.

Having said that, I get the sense that a lot of you want to have been right, want to have been proven publicly to be an authority on these matters beyond the limited scope that you actually are. Some of you seem to be taking it personally that your guy wasn't chosen or that someone was chosen who you vocally spoke out against. Rather than raving on about it, try to accept that you're not a professional scout, that the information you have on these prospects is very limited and therefore, it limits your ability to be as accurate as pro scouts who travel with these players, watch them on a regular basis, have access to game tapes, practices, locker rooms, coaches, parents and so on...
You all may be proven right in time - it happens. Even pro scouts miss on top ten draft picks, but a draft enthusiast would probably be better served to shrug his shoulders and accept the possibility that these pro scouts just might have seen something in a prospect that you did not. At the very least I'd suggest giving it a year minimum before declaring so loudly and with such certainty that these professionals are idiots.

 

[Reddwit]

I guess for me, if he is a better Homer, ends up top 6, scoring 30 to 40 goals a season anchoring a pp and if Homer could keep up to pav and Z, imagine a better skating version of him. Give the kid a chance, who knows maybe he becomes a simmonds type, or just a big net front guy who can move.

I guess for me, as a hockey player, I turned the biggest corner after 18, a lot. Of guys do especially big framed kids. If he ends up turning a corner we have a 6 foot 6 center who can move, and score in tight. People jump on these prospects so hard when their game can go to either end of the spectrum in a season.

Ok, lets put something to bed here. Rasmussen didn't anchor the PP anymore than Holmstrom could've been said to anchor a PP with Yzerman, Shanahan, and Lidstrom. He played on the 4th best PP in the Dub and his most common linemates on the PP were the teams best players (Sandhu, Valimaki, the lesser hyped Wotherspoon, et al). He wasn't being trotted out to lay the foundation by any means.

I'm hoping for Patric hornqvist. I've heard the Brian Boyle comparison a few times.

The Boyle comparison is as bad as the apologists impromptu scouting reports saying Rasmussen is the next Kopitar. Boyle's whole career has been defined by the fact that he can't skate. He was practically run out of the league before he dedicated a couple off-seasons to re-inventing his skating and he still isn't a good skater. Rasmussen should be better than that.

The Hornqvist comparison is off, IMO. Hornqvist creates a lot of his own net-front goals off the rush and Rasmussen does little/none of that.

 

[jaster]

Ended up in a room with Blashill tonight. Asked him what he thought of the Rasmussen pick. His reply was, "I don't know anything about the kid."

Take from that what you will.

 

[Martinez]

Ok, lets put something to bed here. Rasmussen didn't anchor the PP anymore than Holmstrom could've been said to anchor a PP with Yzerman, Shanahan, and Lidstrom. He played on the 4th best PP in the Dub and his most common linemates on the PP were the teams best players (Sandhu, Valimaki, the lesser hyped Wotherspoon, et al). He wasn't being trotted out to lay the foundation by any means.



The Boyle comparison is as bad as the apologists impromptu scouting reports saying Rasmussen is the next Kopitar. Boyle's whole career has been defined by the fact that he can't skate. He was practically run out of the league before he dedicated a couple off-seasons to re-inventing his skating and he still isn't a good skater. Rasmussen should be better than that.

The Hornqvist comparison is off, IMO. Hornqvist creates a lot of his own net-front goals off the rush and Rasmussen does little/none of that.

Do you have a stylistic comparison?

 

[Ingvar]

Fire the scouts. Now we have our Virtanen.

 

[Reddwit]

I am glad and grateful that people here like you have somewhat educated opinions on these prospects. I sure don't have the time to read all the information about so many players and I certainly can't watch them on a regular basis, so I form the vast majority of my opinions on these players based on the information I read here. But I do that with the knowledge that even the most informed and most opinionated posters here are people who watch what hockey they can in their spare time, read what articles they can dig up and watch highlight reels of these prospects. I get that I am not reading the evaluation of professional scouts, but I still appreciate the time and effort many of you put into this.

Having said that, I get the sense that a lot of you want to have been right, want to have been proven publicly to be an authority on these matters beyond the limited scope that you actually are. Some of you seem to be taking it personally that your guy wasn't chosen or that someone was chosen who you vocally spoke out against. Rather than raving on about it, try to accept that you're not a professional scout, that the information you have on these prospects is very limited and therefore, it limits your ability to be as accurate as pro scouts who travel with these players, watch them on a regular basis, have access to game tapes, practices, locker rooms, coaches, parents and so on...
You all may be proven right in time - it happens. Even pro scouts miss on top ten draft picks, but a draft enthusiast would probably be better served to shrug his shoulders and accept the possibility that these pro scouts just might have seen something in a prospect that you did not. At the very least I'd suggest giving it a year minimum before declaring so loudly and with such certainty that these professionals are idiots.

In an otherwise well thought out post, this is a bizarre conclusion. If there were ever a draft where there were multiple guys to be excited about, and a token few to be leery of, this was it. This is the antithesis of most drafts where folks do have pet prospects at their team's draft position. Instead, in this draft, there were swaths of guys you could make good arguments for. In fact, if you followed the many, many threads on this board and the prospects board (where a number of the Wings fans here post), there were more hyped options at our spot than any draft I can remember, period. I don't even think anyone had one particular guy at our spot that was all-or-nothing...

In fact (and maybe its because I actually do follow prospects and take into account the fellow posters here who make it a point to track the draft), the response that so many have had about the backlash against this draft pick is bizarre in and of itself to me. For anyone who has followed the draft, Rasmussen has almost uniformly been discussed as a bad option for the Wings strategically. I mean, I think most people thought there was no way we would even touch him, given the skill level of the other pack of guys available where we were picking.

Lastly, can we put an end to this ******** that fans have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to prospects? If a fan is dedicated enough, he/she can watch games, tournaments, tapes, highlights, streams (both legal and illegal), follow scouts, mock drafts, draft lists, the media, and others to form his or her opinion. This isn't the 90s, we aren't just relying on McKeens anymore, and it isn't ****ing physics. Its akin to telling a student of philosophy that they don't know **** if all they've done is read the primordial texts and listened to the lectures of the preeminent academics on the issue.

 

[Nut Upstrom]

In an otherwise well thought out post, this is a bizarre conclusion. If there were ever a draft where there were multiple guys to be excited about, and a token few to be leery of, this was it. This is the antithesis of most drafts where folks do have pet prospects at their team's draft position. Instead, in this draft, there were swaths of guys you could make good arguments for. In fact, if you followed the many, many threads on this board and the prospects board (where a number of the Wings fans here post), there were more hyped options at our spot than any draft I can remember, period. I don't even think anyone had one particular guy at our spot that was all-or-nothing...

In fact (and maybe its because I actually do follow prospects and take into account the fellow posters here who make it a point to track the draft), the response that so many have had about the backlash against this draft pick is bizarre in and of itself to me. For anyone who has followed the draft, Rasmussen has almost uniformly been discussed as a bad option for the Wings strategically. I mean, I think most people thought there was no way we would even touch him, given the skill level of the other pack of guys available where we were picking.


Lastly, can we put an end to this ******** that fans have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to prospects? If a fan is dedicated enough, he/she can watch games, tournaments, tapes, highlights, streams (both legal and illegal), follow scouts, mock drafts, draft lists, the media, and others to form his or her opinion. This isn't the 90s, we aren't just relying on McKeens anymore, and it isn't ****ing physics. Its akin to telling a student of philosophy that they don't know **** if all they've done is read the primordial texts and listened to the lectures of the preeminent academics on the issue.

Right. Many thought there was no way we would touch him, this is why when I heard the name I was hardly familiar with him at all. However, he was chosen and I think assuming the pro scouts have it wrong rather than internet draft enthusiasts is an extremely arrogant conclusion to draw from his being selected. So I am deciding to make the assumption that part of the anger stems from the proverbial egg on the faces of people who, for the last few weeks have been screaming "NO!" at the notion of taking this guy.


As to your last paragraph - no offense meant, but this smacks of arrogance again. I know there is a lot out there a dedicated fan can view or get his hands on, and I acknowledge that nearly all of my information on these prospects comes from HF, so I appreciate the effort you all put into this and I love reading your opinions. But if there is a contention between player X being taken over player Y I am going to give the pro scouts the benefit of the doubt and at least remain patient to see how their pick plays out before pulling out the torches and forks.
In regards to your analogy about the philosophy student; I wouldn't even consider telling him/her that they don't know ****, especially given they likely know far more on that topic than I ever will. I am not suggesting that people who pour hours and hours into learning these prospects know **** about them, I am suggesting, however, that the pros most likely know more - just as I would assume that the professor of philosophy is a higher authority on that subject than your student.

And as to Rasmussen's skill, I've never seen him play so I don't have a personal opinion, but the prospect write ups I have read thus far have praised his skill, his vision and his skating. Again, I'll have to wait and see - but I don't mind waiting before declaring this a failure or a success.

 

[Reddwit]

Do you have a stylistic comparison?

When it comes to ES, he plays more like a center, and I think Hanzal is an OK comparison, but I don't think he's as tough to play against as Hanzal is nor is he as good as Hanzal is defensively (but Hanzal wasn't supposed to be a pure defensive forward either). Not to date myself, but whenever people talk about Rasmussen as a 2-way C (which I don't see him being, but whatever), I'm always reminded of Handzus.

But when it comes to the PP, and if he were deployed as a winger, I actually think Rick Nash is a good comparison sans the stick-handling and skating. He doesn't have Nash's playmaking skills, but he knows when to cherry-pick like Nash does. On the PP, he actually really reminds me of the Nash we saw in his first few years in Columbus, when it was devoid of talent (and, strangely, Nash played with Tyler Wright in those days) - he knows where to be and has the hands in close. I don't think you can deny him that.

Bottom line for me is, for a lot of the beneficial comparisons he's received, I have never seen him have the puck skills on the transition. Its a huge hole in his game if you ask me, and its the missing link between him being a contributing center or a net-front specialist.

 

[gretskidoo]

At least it's kind of funny that Holland drafted someone purely because of size after quite a few people around here didn't want Pettersson at 9 purely because of size.

Like all this stuff aside, I want you to watch the first half of this video and tell me about how he's the new Mantha.



Rasmussen has a decent shot, but he's drastically less skilled when it comes to vision and puck skills. He can wrist the puck okay, score tap-ins from on the doorstep, deflect the odd puck in front of the net, and that's it. Is that really worthy of a top 10 pick to you, especially when this team has almost no skill at center or on defense? They could have used that pick to address their weaknesses, and they just didn't.

Most clips are just better players getting him the puck. Thankfully highlights videos don't mean ****, but still pretty sad.

It wins games when you have about half a dozen other pieces in place first. Our transition game sucks. Our playmaking sucks. Our PPQBing sucks, and we just picked a guy who needs ideally all of the above to be an impact player.

It seems like some people think we have our future top 4-5 scorers on the team already. Or they forgot what year it is.

 

[Reddwit]

Right. Many thought there was no way we would touch him, this is why when I heard the name I was hardly familiar with him at all. However, he was chosen and I think assuming the pro scouts have it wrong rather than internet draft enthusiasts is an extremely arrogant conclusion to draw from his being selected. So I am deciding to make the assumption that part of the anger stems from the proverbial egg on the faces of people who, for the last few weeks have been screaming "NO!" at the notion of taking this guy.


As to your last paragraph - no offense meant, but this smacks of arrogance again. I know there is a lot out there a dedicated fan can view or get his hands on, and I acknowledge that nearly all of my information on these prospects comes from HF, so I appreciate the effort you all put into this and I love reading your opinions. But if there is a contention between player X being taken over player Y I am going to give the pro scouts the benefit of the doubt and at least remain patient to see how their pick plays out before pulling out the torches and forks.
In regards to your analogy about the philosophy student; I wouldn't even consider telling him/her that they don't know ****, especially given they likely know far more on that topic than I ever will. I am not suggesting that people who pour hours and hours into learning these prospects know **** about them, I am suggesting, however, that the pros most likely know more - just as I would assume that the professor of philosophy is a higher authority on that subject than your student.

And as to Rasmussen's skill, I've never seen him play so I don't have a personal opinion, but the prospect write ups I have read thus far have praised his skill, his vision and his skating. Again, I'll have to wait and see - but I don't mind waiting before declaring this a failure or a success.

But you aren't giving deference to "the pro scouts" - you're giving deference to a particular set of pro scouts. I mean, what do you make of the fact that reasonable scouts can disagree as to who the better pick is, particularly when you're talking about X vs. Y?

As for my analogy, that wasn't so much directed as you as it was directed to a collective of posters who assume that, even in this day and age, fans have no recourse to becoming informed about draft selections.

As for prospect write ups, if you're ever interested in following NHL prospects, I suggest you either read all of them (so as to learn that you should take them with a grain of salt) or none at all. Same thing with highlight reels. Name any high-profile prospect who matured during the Youtube age and you will probably find a beautiful highlight reel and ample congratulatory prospect write-ups dedicated just to him, regardless of whether or not they busted.

But thanks for taking the time to explain your support of the pick anyways!

 

[Martinez]

When it comes to ES, he plays more like a center, and I think Hanzal is an OK comparison, but I don't think he's as tough to play against as Hanzal is nor is he as good as Hanzal is defensively (but Hanzal wasn't supposed to be a pure defensive forward either). Not to date myself, but whenever people talk about Rasmussen as a 2-way C (which I don't see him being, but whatever), I'm always reminded of Handzus.

But when it comes to the PP, and if he were deployed as a winger, I actually think Rick Nash is a good comparison sans the stick-handling and skating. He doesn't have Nash's playmaking skills, but he knows when to cherry-pick like Nash does. On the PP, he actually really reminds me of the Nash we saw in his first few years in Columbus, when it was devoid of talent (and, strangely, Nash played with Tyler Wright in those days) - he knows where to be and has the hands in close. I don't think you can deny him that.

Bottom line for me is, for a lot of the beneficial comparisons he's received, I have never seen him have the puck skills on the transition. Its a huge hole in his game if you ask me, and its the missing link between him being a contributing center or a net-front specialist.

Nice write up. Thanks

 

[SpookyTsuki]

At least it's kind of funny that Holland drafted someone purely because of size after quite a few people around here didn't want Pettersson at 9 purely because of size.



Most clips are just better players getting him the puck. Thankfully highlights videos don't mean ****, but still pretty sad.



It seems like some people think we have our future top 4-5 scorers on the team already. Or they forgot what year it is.

I can't wait for when hollands still here 2-3 years from now and people are still gonna be wanting size and we've been drafting size since like 2013 smh

 

[CorgisPer60]

I legitimately think this pick will be laughed at forever. Worst case scenario. I hate this team so much.

Can't be any worse than what we Jets fans endured with the Logan Stanley pick last year, or what Nucks fans go through with Jake Virtanen. Chevy spent a late first round pick and a second round pick to move up four spots to draft a player who's ceiling is a third pair defenseman. At least if Rasmussen is a power-play specialist, he can be molded into a Tomas Holmstrom clone; park your ass in front of the net and bang in rebounds.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Can't be any worse than what we Jets fans endured with the Logan Stanley pick last year, or what Nucks fans go through with Jake Virtanen. Chevy spent a late first round pick and a second round pick to move up four spots to draft a player who's ceiling is a third pair defenseman. At least if Rasmussen is a power-play specialist, he can be molded into a Tomas Holmstrom clone; park your ass in front of the net and bang in rebounds.

What good is a clone of Holmstrom if there is nobody around with any talent to make use of him?

 

[CorgisPer60]

What good is a clone of Holmstrom if there is nobody around with any talent to make use of him?

Good thing he's at least three years away then. Holland may be able to grow or acquire talent in that time.

 

[SpookyTsuki]

It's not a terrible pick it's really only bad cause who was left available. If holland drafted him cause his character though hahaha. Didn't expect much from the first round after the lottery

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I'm hoping for Patric hornqvist. I've heard the Brian Boyle comparison a few times.

I don't like this pick, especially with who was on the board. However, Brian Boyle doesn't have this kids hands, he doesn't skate as well as him and he is an awful comparison.

There is some work to be done though by Rasmussen. With his frame he can become a dominant player. He has very good hands in tight, he reads the game pretty well the couple times I have seen him and he is fantastic at protecting the puck at his age.

I mean if his skating gets a stride or two faster here is a fun name for people Jamie Benn, not that shot release but the doom of trying to get the puck of him will be there. I doubt he puts it all together and I wanted Vilardi or Necas. But Rasmussen doesn't need to be compared to try hard players right now, he has a intriguing package. He needs to work hard in the gym and on the ice towards using his frame to dominate.

The Wings spent years telling us they didn't get a crack at this kind of player. A massive kid with plus hands, so it doesn't totally shock me. But with what was left on the board this kid starts behind the eight ball a little and it is worrying that the league is trending away from this. But we are building a massive team at this point. I don't like that we continue to ignore handedness in our decision making though.

 

[Filppula]

Just watched his highlights. And by no means does that make me informed, but literally every single goal is within 10 feet of the net. Now that's a skill, always needed, but we drafted a garbage goal guy at 9? Seriously. Wow. He was BEST AVAILABLE?

I will say though, towards the end of the highlights, he did show more skill, more confidence, and a quick wrist shot. Hoping they were late in the season and he starting show more overall ability.

 

[Mlotek]

Can't be any worse than what we Jets fans endured with the Logan Stanley pick last year, or what Nucks fans go through with Jake Virtanen. Chevy spent a late first round pick and a second round pick to move up four spots to draft a player who's ceiling is a third pair defenseman. At least if Rasmussen is a power-play specialist, he can be molded into a Tomas Holmstrom clone; park your ass in front of the net and bang in rebounds.

Don't get me started on Stanley. Chosen only for his size. In the OHL there are guys 5' something pushing him around. Watching Spitfire games he is good for 2 things; 1. Defensive blunders, and 2. Dumb penalties. He reminds me of Jonathan Ericsson.

Big guy, can't shoot, limited skating ability, defensively awful, can hardly make a pass, and consistently beat in 1 on 1 battles by much smaller players.

He is so great that the Spitfire fans heckle him, especially after taking a dumb penalty.

 

[Mlotek]

I don't like this pick, especially with who was on the board. However, Brian Boyle doesn't have this kids hands, he doesn't skate as well as him and he is an awful comparison.

Your right. Boyle has much better hands. And he can actually score with a wrist shot once in a while instead of only having capability of tapping puck into a half empty net.

I don't think Boyle is that bad of a skater.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Your right. Boyle has much better hands. And he can actually score with a wrist shot once in a while instead of only having capability of tapping puck into a half empty net.

I don't think Boyle is that bad of a skater.

I will disagree strongly with that. Boyle has a better shot from farther away sure which isn't good enough to beat NHL netminders often, but he isn't a good passer (I know queue his beauty in the playoffs which is what once in 500 games) and the reason he doesn't score as much in tight is his hands and hockey IQ are not fast enough. Since most NHL goals are scored right where this kid scores and not on the perimeter I am not sure what the moaning about is in this regard. Good deal the kid could fill out to be 6'6" 240 have fun dissuading him from going there. Boyle doesn't process the game as well as this kid and certainly didn't at the same age.

Boyle has gone from a guy who was washing out of the league entirely because of skating to a below average skater if that is what you mean. He was a reach of a pick when the Kings made it at the bottom of the first round. They are totally different caliber players. Rasmussen is a top 15 graded player for a reason. He has hockey sense and hands Boyle was certainly not blessed with at this same point in his career and he starts as a far superior skater. He has a lot to work on but it isn't to become Brian Boyle that is what happens if he completely underwhelms. So if Rasmussen is terrible he is likely an upgraded version of Brian Boyle. Probably not as good defensively but still better offensively without adding to what he is.