Its weird... I thought Pulju was super overrated at the draft, but now I think he is super underrated.
It blew my mind some people thought he was better than Laine pre-draft. That to me is like seeing Gagner and Kane play and thinking Gagner was better. Its just obvious to me one player doesn't quite have the same tools. Only way Pulju was better than Laine is if Laine straight busted. Same with Gagner/Kane. Laine is a player that can score from anywhere in seconds in any kind of traffic. He's a special player that just has an elite shot with an elite sense of timing and finding open ice and lanes to the net; best by far at that entire skill set since Ovechkin. This was something that was pretty evident in my eyes pre-draft.
Like nothing against Pulju, I think he has a ton of assets that will make him a great NHL player. Like right now I think he has above NHL average skating and shooting. I think he has good size and strength, and has a tenacity to him. For a young player he is also quite "complete" in that his game, while raw as hell, doesn't really have huge deficiencies to it. He makes unforced errors and whiffs shots, and is sometimes in the wrong spot, but I don't think its a fundamental failing, its more hes a lanky kid (lower BMI than Nurse, LOL.) who just rehabbed a knee and doesn't know a lot of system play yet. He's a dynamic player with a ton of tools but you never watch him and go "wowow boy, this kids XXXX is elite. Something special." A lot of people compare him to Yak, but I don't see it. He has similar deer in the headlights monikers, and the same work ethic, but Pulju is a guy who number one has the size to play Yak's game at this level, but more importantly doesn't actually play yaks game; Pulju actually utilizes his teammates pretty well and has a good idea in general how to play as a team player he just needs seasoning. You get the sense with him like you got the sense with Eberle or RNH that he is quite comfortable passing and being a cog in the machine instead of the guy. Its a good trait.
A guy who Pulju reminds me of a lot is Jere Lehtinen; I'm not saying will be a Selke nominee or anything like that, I think he leans more towards the O-Zone, but he is a pretty good defensive zone player for a guy who was 17 at the start of the year. Think about the comparison for a second; what was Lehtinen good at? What did he excel at? He was a good skater. Excellent shot. Hard worker. Good Size. But really... all in all nothing that special about him. Doesn't mean he was a bad player, he was a great player that I think will one day make the HHOF. But for a guy who leads his team all time in GWG and is like 3rd in scoring behind guys like Hull and Modana.... nothing really sticks out. Lehtinen was frankly just a solid hockey player. I guess another comparison that could be made is Thornton vs Marleau; Marleau has always been an awesome hockey player. Been a top line guy for like 15 years. Nothing against Marleau, but frankly he has nothing about him that is frankly overly memorable, he does great things but largely its because he is just a strong overall hockey player. Thornton on the other hand has been likely the best combination of elite passing and puck control the NHL has had over the course of his career.
I think a lot of people thought for some reason Pulju would be this world beater to put a team on his back and drag them around but that's just not Pulju's game. Pulju is the kind of player who can put up big numbers and be a huge part of a team, but hes a team guy and will never be the lone wolf. Its just not his game. Think of his WJC in his draft year; he played very well and was arguably the best player in the tournament... But can anyone vividly recall any particular goal he scored or point he got? He was pretty much just good; he was fast, won puck battles, supported the puck well, was in the right spots, and just played good hard Hockey. If things go well for Pulju, In his prime he will be a player that you could call the best player on a team at any given night; but like Lehtinen even if he was our teams best player over the course of 5+ years and did a ton right, he is not a player who you can sit down and name a single notable or unreal goal.
This is a great thing for us; we don't need an elite player, we have 2 of them. I'm quite happy about the prospect of Pulju long term, the player he projects to be with his skillset, and even the year he had last year. This is the kind of player that takes some breathing room and some time to get his feet wet in the NHL. Just plain overall good hockey players rarely take the league by storm, it is the elite at one thing kind of guys that do. Compare these two lists:
1) Marleau, Lehtinen, Sedinx2, Doan, Ribiero, Briere
2) E. Staal, Heatley, Nash, Samsonov, Skinner, Alfredsson
At their peak, the level of these players wasn't truly that different; but you look at the first group and while you can say most of these players where damn good at almost every facet of the game, you can't look at a single one and say "boom that right there, he was always fundamentally the best at that!" or "wow, his XXX really makes him as a player. Elite talent." Look at the second group, and all of them just had that one thing that makes them special that they abused and took the league by storm with because they were frankly just so good at that one thing that they can just do it to anyone all the time and beat them with it right out of the gate; not thought, no learning to it just bashing the NHL over the wall with the same skill till it stops working and they had to adapt (and notably, all these guys had a period after a year or two where the NHL "figured them out.") A guy like Briere even early was flat out better than much of the NHL at a lot of things, but he had to learn when and where to use whatever skill.
All things considered, I don't think there is any cause for concern with Pulju.
