Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Bruins Prospects XI - Stay on subject!

Status
Not open for further replies.

BruinsNetwork

Guest
DKH said:
Here is Wheeler assessment on Vaakanainen

I thought his actual scouting was pretty good and exactly what I signed up for

This comes to fruition he would look like a nice match for McAvoy

here it is - overall I’ll take


Urho Vaakanainen, D, Providence (AHL)
High-end comparables: Jordan Oesterle, Mario Ferraro
Wheeler: Vaakanainen has always been a little challenging to evaluate because he doesn’t have a ton of small-area puck skill. He’s not going to hit seams and create through traffic like most first-round defensemen. He’s not a great escape artist. But there are some really impressive qualities to his game, including admirable simplicity, a defensive game that has always been a little beyond his years and plus-level skating.
At this point, he projects as a complementary partner for a more talented player in the bottom-four. There’s a smoothness and ease to his game that should help him play a low-risk, possession-driving game at 5-on-5.
Click to expand...

The “bottom-four” is such a weird, pessimistic term for me. It’s like they’re praising the prospect, but bashing him at the same time by trying to glorify the “bottom” element. There’s an uneven amount of lines on defense, so “bottom-four” is weird anyways— it’s 66% of the pairs.

I’m not even as high on Urho as others are, but he’s definitely a top-four capable defender in my eyes if he hits his mark. I mean, his skating and mobility alone brings him into second-pair territory.

I don’t know, the whole thing just read like it was a chore to say nice things about Boston prospects. Like, Vaakanainen has been pretty much regarded around the league, writers and fans as a top-four or even top-pair caliber compliment, but here he’s a “bottom-four” guy? Just weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strafer, BruinsFanSince94 and WestCoastBruinsFan
BruinDust

BruinDust

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
24,433
21,966
DKH said:
Here is Wheeler assessment on Vaakanainen

I thought his actual scouting was pretty good and exactly what I signed up for

This comes to fruition he would look like a nice match for McAvoy

here it is - overall I’ll take


Urho Vaakanainen, D, Providence (AHL)
High-end comparables: Jordan Oesterle, Mario Ferraro
Wheeler: Vaakanainen has always been a little challenging to evaluate because he doesn’t have a ton of small-area puck skill. He’s not going to hit seams and create through traffic like most first-round defensemen. He’s not a great escape artist. But there are some really impressive qualities to his game, including admirable simplicity, a defensive game that has always been a little beyond his years and plus-level skating.
At this point, he projects as a complementary partner for a more talented player in the bottom-four. There’s a smoothness and ease to his game that should help him play a low-risk, possession-driving game at 5-on-5.
Click to expand...

I thought in his stints in Boston he looked a bit like Seidenberg. Maybe not quite as thick and as powerful as Seids, but stylistically I thought they were similar, Vaak is a bit better skater.

If he makes it, it will be a complimentary defenseman, and will likely fit best with another partner who can move the puck well and break-out effectively under a heavy forecheck, a guy like Gryz for example. And there is nothing wrong with that, a complimentary player, even for a first rounder. Seids was like that, so were guys like Hjalmarsson and Muzzin, and all of them helped win cups while part of a solid Top 4 group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scruffy, BruinsFanSince94 and HustleB
DKH

DKH

The Bergeron of HF
Feb 27, 2002
74,323
52,291
BruinDust said:
I thought in his stints in Boston he looked a bit like Seidenberg. Maybe not quite as thick and as powerful as Seids, but stylistically I thought they were similar, Vaak is a bit better skater.

If he makes it, it will be a complimentary defenseman, and will likely fit best with another partner who can move the puck well and break-out effectively under a heavy forecheck, a guy like Gryz for example. And there is nothing wrong with that, a complimentary player, even for a first rounder. Seids was like that, so were guys like Hjalmarsson and Muzzin, and all of them helped win cups while part of a solid Top 4 group.
Click to expand...
Seidenberg was a powerful beast - Vaakanainen almost looks like he’s gliding. I thought it was BS but I could see the Paul Coffey like skating.

From where I sit I could watch him first and third period just feet away and projecting him with additional strength and experience ~ at 200 professional games ~ I see him as a logical if not perfect match for McAvoy.

This is a likely high-end complimentary piece/player

One more season at Providence could be what he needs to make the next step for good

that unnecessary cheap shot concussion he received from that ugly as shit dirt bag in Ottawa was a big valley in his development

it set him back anywhere from half a year to a full year ~ he never looked the same until maybe this past second half
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scruffy, BruinDust, PatriceBergeronFan and 1 other person
DKH

DKH

The Bergeron of HF
Feb 27, 2002
74,323
52,291
BruinsNetwork said:
The “bottom-four” is such a weird, pessimistic term for me. It’s like they’re praising the prospect, but bashing him at the same time by trying to glorify the “bottom” element. There’s an uneven amount of lines on defense, so “bottom-four” is weird anyways— it’s 66% of the pairs.

I’m not even as high on Urho as others are, but he’s definitely a top-four capable defender in my eyes if he hits his mark. I mean, his skating and mobility alone brings him into second-pair territory.

I don’t know, the whole thing just read like it was a chore to say nice things about Boston prospects. Like, Vaakanainen has been pretty much regarded around the league, writers and fans as a top-four or even top-pair caliber compliment, but here he’s a “bottom-four” guy? Just weird.
Click to expand...
You should read this if you haven’t. I enjoy Wheeler and think he’s overall very good. However, he’s focused on 600+ prospects and Im watching 20.

I thought he missed on almost all Boston’s guys and I think going by Jay Leach assessment on the podcast he would concur
 
UncleRico

UncleRico

Registered User
May 8, 2017
8,016
10,086
It might just be me but when it comes to The Athletic, I think they have terrible hockey writers. Their hockey coverage unless it’s breaking news just seem to be clickbait articles from amateur style writers who don’t really know what they are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rubber Biscuit
UncleRico

UncleRico

Registered User
May 8, 2017
8,016
10,086
UncleRico said:
It might just be me but when it comes to The Athletic, I think they have terrible hockey writers. Their hockey coverage unless it’s breaking news just seem to be clickbait articles from amateur style writers who don’t really know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Senyshyn at #4 for forward and vlader over keyser is interesting. I wonder if it’s just more of an NHL ready type situation.
 

member 96824

Guest
BruinsNetwork said:
The “bottom-four” is such a weird, pessimistic term for me. It’s like they’re praising the prospect, but bashing him at the same time by trying to glorify the “bottom” element. There’s an uneven amount of lines on defense, so “bottom-four” is weird anyways— it’s 66% of the pairs.

I’m not even as high on Urho as others are, but he’s definitely a top-four capable defender in my eyes if he hits his mark. I mean, his skating and mobility alone brings him into second-pair territory.

I don’t know, the whole thing just read like it was a chore to say nice things about Boston prospects. Like, Vaakanainen has been pretty much regarded around the league, writers and fans as a top-four or even top-pair caliber compliment, but here he’s a “bottom-four” guy? Just weird.
Click to expand...

Ehh I disagree. They're saying two separate things with some overlap. Top 4 says "1st or 2nd pairing" bottom 4 says "2nd or 3rd pairing"

It would be disingenuous if you believed that Vaak's ceiling was a #3 guy to say he's a top 4 potential. Seidenberg above is a really interesting example of that. Where as top four suggests there's upside room for him to be a bonafide #1..saying he could be Drew Doughty.

That's not to say that a bottom four guy can't play top 4 minutes in the right pairing. I don't think anyone but the Islanders would ever mistake Johnny Boychuk as a #1 or #2 defender..he was a bottom four talent and type, but played up because of the fit with Z.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finchster and UncleRico
BruinsFanSince94

BruinsFanSince94

The Perfect Fan ™
Sep 28, 2017
32,709
43,379
New England
Jim said:
It’s slightly problematic for me when your most recent 1st round pick falls into the honorable mention category while an undrafted 5’8” defenseman catapults into the top 10. At that point something went wrong, either with management, the draft pick, or the article writer.
Click to expand...

I guess it's how you look at it.

To start, it's nothing more than an opinionated piece that seems to be written by a collection of people (as Dan Ryan wrote the HM part, and Angelina Berube wrote #10).

Everyone is different, and everyone sees players more/less/etc. I'm definitely not going to make a basis and lose my shit over this and say it's problematic. No one has gone wrong here. He was drafted and played 31 games only to have his freshman year cut short.

Ahcan = 144 NCAA games
Beecher = 31 NCAA games

Along with those 144 games, he's produced at a 0.72 PPG level as a defenseman which is quite impressive. He's clearly more pro-ready than Beecher is. While JB was a first round pick, we're talking #30 / 31 picks here. He was 2 spots away from being a 2nd round pick. It's not like we're talking about a guy who went Top 15-20. He is a player with upside but has a few things to develop. Ahcan is a more finished product and since he also plays a key position (D), I can definitely understand why he'd slip into a ranking over Beecher. It'll be interesting to compare this to the full list and see. Having Beecher as an HM is interesting because that means they have some guys over him that many here may not.

We'll see but I wouldn't freak out about it at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneManIsNoMan
DKH

DKH

The Bergeron of HF
Feb 27, 2002
74,323
52,291
Jim said:
It’s slightly problematic for me when your most recent 1st round pick falls into the honorable mention category while an undrafted 5’8” defenseman catapults into the top 10. At that point something went wrong, either with management, the draft pick, or the article writer.
Click to expand...
Who was most recent first round pick that fell into honorable mention category
 
Smitty93

Smitty93

Registered User
Dec 6, 2012
8,216
9,380
Jim said:
It’s slightly problematic for me when your most recent 1st round pick falls into the honorable mention category while an undrafted 5’8” defenseman catapults into the top 10. At that point something went wrong, either with management, the draft pick, or the article writer.
Click to expand...

I look at it more as a bad ranking than anything about Beecher. I mean, they had Samuel Asselin as one of six honorable mentions, so that means they view him as a top 16 prospect in the system. That's way too high for a player who spent the entire year in the ECHL, and doesn't even consider the fact that he's on an AHL contract, so he's technically not even Bruins property (i.e. not a Bruins prospect). If you can't bother to know that, why would I trust the rest of your rankings?

I don't know how much Kirk sees all these guys, but he just put out his prospect rankings (by position, not overall), and had Beecher as his second forward. I'll keep my trust in him.

Boston Bruins Prospects Pre-Draft Rankings- 2020
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatriceBergeronFan, neelynugs, CHRDANHUTCH and 2 others
mikelvl

mikelvl

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
5,914
2,082
Newton, MA
Smitty93 said:
Who knows if these comparables will turn out to be right or wrong, but I have trouble believing either Wheeler or Fluto have seen enough of any of them recently to offer accurate projections.

Wheeler is a national prospect writer and Fluto seems to mostly focus on the big league team, at least when he's not writing about his first love, food. I believe Joey Mac actually goes down to Providence with some consistency, so he probably would have been the better person to write this. Oh, that's right, they decided to keep Fluto over him. I've liked my Athletic subscription, but I can't say I understand that decision.
Click to expand...

Just catching this now, I haven't seen anything on this. Is that accurate? He's gone from The Athletic?
 

BruinsNetwork

Guest


Quinn Olson. Young, but had himself a very good season in a tough division for a powerhouse team. UMD plays an NHL-style of hockey with plenty of speed and structure. He's not much of a "wow you" type of player, but he's something of a Kuhlman-Nordstrom hybrid. Not quite as authoritative as Kuhlman, but also not quite as passive as Nordstrom.

Olson, 19, definitely looks like he's going to be a player in the NHL one day. It's early, I know, but he was trusted with a lot of responsibility at times this year and delivered. Don't think he's going to be a top-six guy or someone in that mold, but he looks like a solid bottom-six piece you'd love to have for depth. The kind of guy who goes out there and plays hard each night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neelynugs, Saxon Eric, SanDogBrewin and 2 others

BruinsNetwork

Guest
JoeIsAStud said:
One thing I like a lot about Olson is he got much better as the year went on, with only 1 pt and 2 assists in his first 14 games. And then finished the year with 6G 6A in his final 18
Click to expand...

Part of that also started happening when he was bumped to the top line as well.
 
BlackFrancis

BlackFrancis

Athletic Supporter Patch Partner
Dec 14, 2013
5,746
9,158
  • Like
Reactions: Saxon Eric and SanDogBrewin
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom