Prospect Info: Logan Stanley: How has he progressed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crocket

Registered User
Jul 14, 2013
1,065
455
I have heard Stanley has a great attitude and works hard to be better. I love that. If he can improve incrementally, like many D do, he could have a career as a stay at home who can clear the net, be a physical presence and be valuable. His size is welcoming, that's for sure. 3rd pair with some solid mentor-ship, I think he makes it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetsmooseice

Crocket

Registered User
Jul 14, 2013
1,065
455
A reminder that Maurice started last season with Heinola, Morrissey and Pionk on his D. Stanley didn't really get a sniff.
But he knew full well Heinola wasn't going to play, that was just to give him the experience. Stanley was destined to develop in the A last year, it was the best for him.
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,718
69,048
Winnipeg
A reminder that Maurice started last season with Heinola, Morrissey and Pionk on his D. Stanley didn't really get a sniff.

I'm not sure what point you are making. Yeah he started with that group but has a history of liking big physical dmen. Stanley was injured/not playkng very well on the Moose. That is why he didn't get games.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
I have heard Stanley has a great attitude and works hard to be better. I love that. If he can improve incrementally, like many D do, he could have a career as a stay at home who can clear the net, be a physical presence and be valuable. His size is welcoming, that's for sure. 3rd pair with some solid mentor-ship, I think he makes it.

That's the weird thing about Stanley. He's big but he's never been very good at being a stay-at-home type. Oddly enough his skillset is best used in the offensive zone. I think if you try to make him into this big physical stay-at-home crease clearing guy you are going to be disappointed.
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,718
69,048
Winnipeg
That's the weird thing about Stanley. He's big but he's never been very good at being a stay-at-home type. Oddly enough his skillset is best used in the offensive zone. I think if you try to make him into this big physical stay-at-home crease clearing guy you are going to be disappointed.

Agreed. I just have no idea where he can actually be used effectively at the NHL level. His offense has always been his strong suit but even that is well below average when compared to most.

Maybe as a big point shot that can move the puck effectively if paired with a strong Defensive dmen. But imo there are likely better candidates for such a role like say Niku.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mortimer Snerd

snowkiddin

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 26, 2016
16,018
26,132
Agreed. I just have no idea where he can actually be used effectively at the NHL level. His offense has always been his strong suit but even that is well below average when compared to most.

Maybe as a big point shot that can move the puck effectively if paired with a strong Defensive dmen. But imo there are likely better candidates for such a role like say Niku.
Yeah I would like Stanley to use his size more and be more physical. In the games I saw he was usually in pretty good position defensively and was using his stick to break up passing lanes. But he seldom hit anyone. And he was still getting beat by wingers with speed.

Offensively, he has a rocket of a point shot, but that’s about it, really.
 

Mortimer Snerd

You kids get off my lawn!
Sponsor
Jun 10, 2014
57,187
28,768
I have heard Stanley has a great attitude and works hard to be better. I love that. If he can improve incrementally, like many D do, he could have a career as a stay at home who can clear the net, be a physical presence and be valuable. His size is welcoming, that's for sure. 3rd pair with some solid mentor-ship, I think he makes it.

Trouble is that the defensive part of the game is still his weakness.
 

Jet

Free Capo!
Jul 20, 2004
33,026
31,484
Florida
Mind numbing pick at the time and I hope the faction that pushed for him has lost some credibility in the war room.

That being said I like Logan the person and he works hard so hopefully he stays healthy this season and progresses. I am not holding out much hope for him as an NHL asset but I would like to see him have a good season.
The thing is, teams that gamble win some and lose some. I still remember how contraversial the Scheifele pick was, and that ended up obviously being the right call.

Pionk was also a trade that was absolutely destroyed in the media and around here but as it turned out, the scouts and management team looks as if they knew what they were doing there, as well.

I'm not ready to close the book on Stanley yet, but it's looking pretty safe that he won't fulfil his draft position promise. However, with the team's success, I'm not going to be too critical. Drafting is an inexact science as you have to predict the future, and there are so many variables.

If we don't want to have some high risk/ reward behavior in drafting, we might as well just fire the entire scouting staff and pick off the NHL Central Scouting report.
 

nobody imp0rtant

Registered pessimist
May 23, 2018
10,812
17,977
The thing is, teams that gamble win some and lose some. I still remember how contraversial the Scheifele pick was, and that ended up obviously being the right call.

Pionk was also a trade that was absolutely destroyed in the media and around here but as it turned out, the scouts and management team looks as if they knew what they were doing there, as well.

I'm not ready to close the book on Stanley yet, but it's looking pretty safe that he won't fulfil his draft position promise. However, with the team's success, I'm not going to be too critical. Drafting is an inexact science as you have to predict the future, and there are so many variables.

If we don't want to have some high risk/ reward behavior in drafting, we might as well just fire the entire scouting staff and pick off the NHL Central Scouting report.

I may be misremembering but I seem to remember Garret showing how a very basic, by the numbers approach (not central scouting) to draft selections would have yielded better results than what the Jets got.

I would still prefer it if we had taken Couturier although that obviously has an effect on the path forward and who knows what we end up with in subsequent drafts as a result of that change. Still, I would trade Sheifele for Couturier straight up now. Bet Philly wouldn't.

As for defending the Pionk trade, don't be riling up Sip now. Don't make @sipowicz get outta his chair. :laugh:
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
I may be misremembering but I seem to remember Garret showing how a very basic, by the numbers approach (not central scouting) to draft selections would have yielded better results than what the Jets got.

I would still prefer it if we had taken Couturier although that obviously has an effect on the path forward and who knows what we end up with in subsequent drafts as a result of that change. Still, I would trade Sheifele for Couturier straight up now. Bet Philly wouldn't.

As for defending the Pionk trade, don't be riling up Sip now. Don't make @sipowicz get outta his chair. :laugh:
Ah yes, the "Legend of Sham Sharron". This was the point production based method that led some to the erroneous conclusion that just using points is better than NHL team drafting.

But that's not what they found.

First, the system ignored drafting defensemen and goalies, so it was already skewed because more forwards make the grade than D or goalies, but it's not really practical.

Second, the system only had some success if they only selected CHL players from the next 30 on Central Scouting's N American list. So they basically selected from an existing scout-ranked list.

There's a full article and results here...

Sham Sharron takes over all 30 draft tables; how did he do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nobody imp0rtant

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,718
69,048
Winnipeg
Ah yes, the "Legend of Sham Sharron". This was the point production based method that led some to the erroneous conclusion that just using points is better than NHL team drafting.

But that's not what they found.

First, the system ignored drafting defensemen and goalies, so it was already skewed because more forwards make the grade than D or goalies, but it's not really practical.

Second, the system only had some success if they only selected CHL players from the next 30 on Central Scouting's N American list. So they basically selected from an existing scout-ranked list.

There's a full article and results here...

Sham Sharron takes over all 30 draft tables; how did he do?

As with most good decision making processes you need a healthy dose of both qualitative and quantitative data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke749

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,828
30,966
The thing is, teams that gamble win some and lose some. I still remember how contraversial the Scheifele pick was, and that ended up obviously being the right call.

Pionk was also a trade that was absolutely destroyed in the media and around here but as it turned out, the scouts and management team looks as if they knew what they were doing there, as well.

I'm not ready to close the book on Stanley yet, but it's looking pretty safe that he won't fulfil his draft position promise. However, with the team's success, I'm not going to be too critical. Drafting is an inexact science as you have to predict the future, and there are so many variables.

If we don't want to have some high risk/ reward behavior in drafting, we might as well just fire the entire scouting staff and pick off the NHL Central Scouting report.

honestly I have been fine with how they have selected. This was literally the only pick I begged them (on here) not to make. In my opinion on this one there was risk but no first round level reward potential.

I was fine with the Scheifele pick at the time but honestly ignorance was bliss. When I watched the video footage the skill level was obvious.

I was a big fan of Trouba before the draft.....had no idea about Morrissey but loved the video on him. Was in Philly live for the draft and Prayed Ehlers fell to us and debated the Ehlers vs Ritchie crowd who said you have to go for the big guy. Like everyone on here was shocked and thrilled Connor fell to us. Had no idea who Rosie was really....Loved the Laine pick but that was a no brainer. Said anyone But Stanley in our draft thread. Thought they got good value with KVes late but was worried about his interviews. Did not study last years draft at all.

I tend to like our teams picks in the 1st round if they have skill. Save the size physical prototype porn picks for the Cederholm’s of the world after the first 3 rounds.
 

voyageur

Hockey fanatic
Jul 10, 2011
9,467
8,157
honestly I have been fine with how they have selected. This was literally the only pick I begged them (on here) not to make. In my opinion on this one there was risk but no first round level reward potential.

I was fine with the Scheifele pick at the time but honestly ignorance was bliss. When I watched the video footage the skill level was obvious.

I was a big fan of Trouba before the draft.....had no idea about Morrissey but loved the video on him. Was in Philly live for the draft and Prayed Ehlers fell to us and debated the Ehlers vs Ritchie crowd who said you have to go for the big guy. Like everyone on here was shocked and thrilled Connor fell to us. Had no idea who Rosie was really....Loved the Laine pick but that was a no brainer. Said anyone But Stanley in our draft thread. Thought they got good value with KVes late but was worried about his interviews. Did not study last years draft at all.

I tend to like our teams picks in the 1st round if they have skill. Save the size physical prototype porn picks for the Cederholm’s of the world after the first 3 rounds.

The only thing I can say about Stanley is that he was taken in 2016 when our left d was already starting to look suspect. Enstrom was fading. We had Stuart and Chiarot as a 3rd pairing, struggling, while Trouba and Buff played together. Julian Melchiori was our best callup. Morrisssey had just finished a pretty average 1st year on the Moose. There was a need for LD, and I think the Jets want some size back there. As Stanley was described as a project at the time of his draft, do the Jets wait until d+5/6 like they did with Chiarot, who gave them some hard minutes? Big difference between his draft year and now is that there are 2 LD drafted after him ready to move past him already, and another one starting his first year as a pro. If there is a player that needs to improve his skating it's Stanley, but being of his stature if he can make those improvements, maybe he fills Benny's void and becomes an effective bottom pairing defenseman and PKer.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
Not so great here more recently vs. Arborg's Jermaine Loewen



I don't think Stanley would ever be able to handle an actual fighter like Loewen. Guys like Reaves, Lucic and the like would dust him off pretty easily. He's big, he's not particularly strong though.
 

ps241

The Ballad of Ville Bobby
Sponsor
Mar 10, 2010
34,828
30,966
I don't think Stanley would ever be able to handle an actual fighter like Loewen. Guys like Reaves, Lucic and the like would dust him off pretty easily. He's big, he's not particularly strong though.

Yea that gave a glimpse of how he would fair against actual fighters. Not many of those left in the NHL anymore but this was a route.
 

Mortimer Snerd

You kids get off my lawn!
Sponsor
Jun 10, 2014
57,187
28,768
Ah yes, the "Legend of Sham Sharron". This was the point production based method that led some to the erroneous conclusion that just using points is better than NHL team drafting.

But that's not what they found.

First, the system ignored drafting defensemen and goalies, so it was already skewed because more forwards make the grade than D or goalies, but it's not really practical.

Second, the system only had some success if they only selected CHL players from the next 30 on Central Scouting's N American list. So they basically selected from an existing scout-ranked list.

There's a full article and results here...

Sham Sharron takes over all 30 draft tables; how did he do?

Also, IIRC, it was looking at an 'average' team, not specifically the Jets.

But I think it would be interesting to compare the Jets 9 drafts to date with something like the Black Book. Do it for all 7 rds, not just the 1st. How different would it be from what has actually happened. :laugh: Who would Bruins have gotten in '15? I shudder to think how good that team could have become. What would have been left for us at #17?

But I am curious about the net benefit we have received from our scouting program compared to just buying the book. Nine years should be enough to produce a valid answer.
 

jgimp

Registered User
Sep 18, 2017
2,515
3,197
Ripley, Ont
That's the weird thing about Stanley. He's big but he's never been very good at being a stay-at-home type. Oddly enough his skillset is best used in the offensive zone. I think if you try to make him into this big physical stay-at-home crease clearing guy you are going to be disappointed.

Put him in front of the net on the PPlay :nod:
 

HannuJ

Registered User
Nov 20, 2011
8,108
3,669
Toronno
Agreed. I just have no idea where he can actually be used effectively at the NHL level. His offense has always been his strong suit but even that is well below average when compared to most.

Maybe as a big point shot that can move the puck effectively if paired with a strong Defensive dmen. But imo there are likely better candidates for such a role like say Niku.
to be fair, it may be an example of square pegging him.
the push is for him to grow as a d-man, to keep the gaps, not get skated around, etc. pretty much the similar situation we saw from Morrissey in his first few seasons with the Jets. Morrissey was a point per game guy in jr. didn't get any power play time until, what, this season?
 

HannuJ

Registered User
Nov 20, 2011
8,108
3,669
Toronno
lol @ you guys posting Stanley's hockey fights as if a fight stops McDavid from skating down your side or a fight clears the puck from in front of your net
 

surixon

Registered User
Jul 12, 2003
48,718
69,048
Winnipeg
to be fair, it may be an example of square pegging him.
the push is for him to grow as a d-man, to keep the gaps, not get skated around, etc. pretty much the similar situation we saw from Morrissey in his first few seasons with the Jets. Morrissey was a point per game guy in jr. didn't get any power play time until, what, this season?

JoMo got pp time in 18-19 in a year he was pacing over 45 points.

I get what you are saying but Stanley hasn't really ever shown much defensive aptitude whereas JoMo was always more of a two-way guy even in juniors. I feel that Stanley has a mountain to climb just to be adequate defensively at the NHL level.
 

Daximus

Wow, what a terrific audience.
Sponsor
Oct 11, 2014
38,856
24,729
Five Hills
Also, IIRC, it was looking at an 'average' team, not specifically the Jets.

But I think it would be interesting to compare the Jets 9 drafts to date with something like the Black Book. Do it for all 7 rds, not just the 1st. How different would it be from what has actually happened. :laugh: Who would Bruins have gotten in '15? I shudder to think how good that team could have become. What would have been left for us at #17?

But I am curious about the net benefit we have received from our scouting program compared to just buying the book. Nine years should be enough to produce a valid answer.

If you go by HP for the 2015 draft. Then Boston gets Meier, Merkley and Eriksson Ek. Definitely better than they got but not what they could have had in real life.
We get Evgeny Svechnikov at 17 if you go by black book.

But if you use the black book as a guide for BPA then it was Connor all the way still. He as ranked #5 by them.

If you use BB BPA on Boston they take Connor, Barzal, Meier. That's basically a 1st line.

If you use BPA and BB BPA when you can just on the Jets first round you get..

2011 - Sean Couturier (C)
2012 - Filip Forsberg (LW)
2013 - Josh Morrissey (LD)
2014 - Nik Ehlers (LW)
2015 - Kyle Connor (LW)
2016 - Patty Laine (LW), German Rubstov (C)
2017 - Isaac Ratcliffe (LW)
2018 - No pick
2019 - Bobby Brink (RW)

So our 4 picks between 2013 and 2016, except Stanley remain the same. We grab Forsberg instead of Trouba and we snag Couts instead of Scheifele. Rubstov and Ratcliffe haven't really put it together yet. Brink is a skilled yet small winger who just had a good rookie campaign in at U. Denver. We would still have an embarrassment of riches on the wing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->