Prospect Info: NHL 2017 Entry Draft - Part II

[Aavco Cup]

What players in this draft, if picked by the Jets, would make you question their drafting? Again simple question no need to overly complicate it to avoid answering.

I'm not familiar with enough of the pool to answer. Most of the players they end up picking will be players I will have no clue about. I don't have enough background to answer your question that way.

But I always have questions about the Jets picks every year. Some I find issue with after research and some I don't. Last year I was more familiar with the overall pool than this year. I was generally disappointed last year but Laine made it less troublesome.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What you guys are missing is that all those successful drafts were run by Marcel Comeau. We have a new Director of Amateur Scouting in Hillier and in his first draft, Jets appeared bet bigtime on size.

I will say what I said earlier in the season. This draft is a litmus test for the Jets as far as I am concerned. I am willing to concede that last draft was an abberation and that Hillier hasn't fundamentally changed the Jets scouting philosophy to the core only if they have a reasonble draft this summer. If we see the repeat of same patterns from last year, it will confirm the narrative about the Jets scouting and drafting

The Stanley move certainly gives cause for concern and I am also looking at this draft to re-establish my shaken faith in Jets drafting. - But - I have to take exception to your contention that there was a pattern of over-emphasizing size last year. 1 instance does not equal a pattern. Stanley was followed by 6'1 Green and he was followed by Cederholm who is 6'3. 6'3 does not qualify as extraordinary size.

There isn't a pattern unless they draft for size again this year. There is only 1 instance so far.

 

[surixon]

What players in this draft, if picked by the Jets, would make you question their drafting? Again simple question no need to overly complicate it to avoid answering.

People will always question picks, look at the reaction to Scheifele and Morrissey on here. I haven't like all their first round picks but over the years I've grown to trust their assessment of 1st round talent due to the results. We have yet to see who is available and how they draft this year but there seems to be a lot of fear mongering due to one pick. The subsequent development of said pick has seemingly not gone unnoticed by members of the Jets if Garret is to be believed. Until shown otherwise I believe we will get back to the 2013 - 2015 type of drafting.

Most people on here didn't like the Stanley pick nor the 2016 draft as a whole (I was pissed when they called his name) So plenty question management on that draft.

 

[portamoral]

i think valimaki, necas, tolvanen, brannstrom, suzuki are realistically going to be the best left at 12. been praying every single night that makar slides to us but i just can't see it happening no matter what scenario plays out. it would require tippett, rasmussen and one of necas/valimaki being off the board already which i seriously doubt happens. i will keep praying though just incase

 

[Whileee]

The Stanley move certainly gives cause for concern and I am also looking at this draft to re-establish my shaken faith in Jets drafting. - But - I have to take exception to your contention that there was a pattern of over-emphasizing size last year. 1 instance does not equal a pattern. Stanley was followed by 6'1 Green and he was followed by Cederholm who is 6'3. 6'3 does not qualify as extraordinary size.

There isn't a pattern unless they draft for size again this year. There is only 1 instance so far.

Green is small by D standards, and plays even smaller. Meanwhile, the genius Leafs management bracketed the Green pick with Greenway and the human Stonehenge named Keaton Middleton. He makes Cederholm look like Karlsson.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

1 Patrick
2 Hischier
3 Vilardi
4 Heiskanen
5 Mittlestadt
6 Tippet
7 Makar
8 Rasmussen
9 Glass
10 Necas
11 Petersson
12 Liljegren
13 Kostin
14 Andersson
15. Vesalainen

I'm a little leery of Liljegren even after comparing to Chychrun last year. The comments I've seen that would go to hIQ are concerning. But there are only 2 D gone at 12. There are several to choose among there besides Liljegren. A couple of them look very good. I think at that point I would be looking at Valimaki and Brannstrom as well as Foote and Vaakanainen. Vaakanainen seems to be flying under the radar. I don't know why.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It is amazingly close. Tied 5-5 after 10 scouts so Bob calls another 10 scouts and it's still tied. Called 3 more to break the tie.

Could this be the year we see a 1st overall or 2nd pick traded? Or even both traded?

About half the teams will believe the best player in the draft is still available no matter who goes #1

That is a 'Fun Fact'.

Also, though it may be clear who 1 & 2 are is the gap to 3,4,5 really very wide?

 

[portamoral]

I'm a little leery of Liljegren even after comparing to Chychrun last year. The comments I've seen that would go to hIQ are concerning. But there are only 2 D gone at 12. There are several to choose among there besides Liljegren. A couple of them look very good. I think at that point I would be looking at Valimaki and Brannstrom as well as Foote and Vaakanainen. Vaakanainen seems to be flying under the radar. I don't know why.

i would sprint to the podium if he was available at 12. won't happen though

he's getting underrated so badly now.

also, vaakanainen is good but not at 12. same thing with foote. brannstrom and valimaki are clearly better IMO

 

[JetsFan815]

The Stanley move certainly gives cause for concern and I am also looking at this draft to re-establish my shaken faith in Jets drafting. - But - I have to take exception to your contention that there was a pattern of over-emphasizing size last year. 1 instance does not equal a pattern. Stanley was followed by 6'1 Green and he was followed by Cederholm who is 6'3. 6'3 does not qualify as extraordinary size.

There isn't a pattern unless they draft for size again this year. There is only 1 instance so far.

Cederholm fit that same "big physcial dman who hits but cant put up points" profile. The main thing amplifying my concerns about the so caller Hillier era is a) How high they had Stanley and b) Hillier's post-draft interview where he was gushing about Stanley's size.

I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt. If they have a reasonable 2017 draft I promise to not complain about the Jets drafting for a year. As Daximus said, this draft will go a long way in determining what the Hillier era will look like, if we have a good draft we can probably sleep easy, if we have something like last season than we might be doomed

 

[JetsFan815]

I also find it concerning that many here are pre-emptively defending drafting Rasmussen at 12. Do you guys have an inside scoop? lol

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Yea I have been beating the drum too much on this but 3-15 will be so all over the map that I am sure TNSE are getting a top 5 level talent off their board again this season. Now whether we like it here will be another thing but my guess is TNSE are going to be really happy.

A little reluctance to endorse the Jets pick ahead of time based on faith ps?

TNSE certainly seemed happy with Stanley. Its not like their choice has been affirmed by his progress to date. Of course it hasn't been denied either.

Honestly I don't think there will be any good excuse for not coming away with a good player, even if it is not one we can all get behind.

Scheifele was very highly recommended by his coach. That was probably what tipped the scale in his favour. IIRC Stanley was also very highly recommended by his coach. Work ethic, determination, improvement from the start of the season, etc. Now we see Rasmussen being praised quite highly by his coach. Could there be a pattern here?

 

[portamoral]

I also find it concerning that many here are pre-emptively defending drafting Rasmussen at 12. Do you guys have an inside scoop? lol

this. it would be just as bad as picking stanley last year as far as I'm concerned

 

[Aavco Cup]

this. it would be just as bad as picking stanley last year as far as I'm concerned

IMO Rasmussen has a much better chance of being successful in the NHL than Stanley. Yes other players are more than intriguing than Rasmussen but I dont think he equates to Stanley at all. He probably even beats Stanley to the NHL.

 

[surixon]

this. it would be just as bad as picking stanley last year as far as I'm concerned

I have not seen Rasmussen play so I can't comment on whether it would be a good pick or not.

My list based mostly on what I've read on here and elsewhere:

Glass
Petterson
Suzuki
Heiskanen
Makar
Valimaki
Foote

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I have glass 3, vilardi 5-6. Can someone who has seen lots of vilardi tell me why he should be picked at three like most scouts have him, and ahead of glass? I just don't get the love for him. Good player, but I think him and mittlestadt slide. I see glass improving a ton yet with higher ceiling with vilardi being closer to that already and won't improve as much.

Vilardi doesn't turn 18 until Aug. so quite a bit younger than some others. That may be a factor in his favour.

 

[portamoral]

IMO Rasmussen has a much better chance of being successful in the NHL than Stanley.

eh maybe slightly, he has a pretty low ceiling though. there are so many better players to choose from in that range, i dont think rasmussen should even be looked at. don't see any stand out traits with his game, people are talking about his skating like its a huge strength but he looks kind of slow and clunky to me. also his hockey IQ is nothing special and he doesn't have a lot of skill compared to some of these other guys. would be fine taking him if we had a late first but no way at 12.

 

[Aavco Cup]

eh maybe slightly, he has a pretty low ceiling though. there are so many better players to choose from in that range, i dont think rasmussen should even be looked at. don't see any stand out traits with his game, people are talking about his skating like its a huge strength but he looks kind of slow and clunky to me. also his hockey IQ is nothing special and he doesn't have a lot of skill compared to some of these other guys. would be fine taking him if we had a late first but no way at 12.

He might even be picked before 12.

 

[portamoral]

He might even be picked before 12.

i really hope so. leaves a better player for us

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Size is not irrelevant. Neither is skating. Otherwise Petan would be a top C. Getzlaf would not be a top C if he was 5'10". Physical size and strength is still a determinant of success, even though it is over-valued by many, including the Jets scouts in relation to defensemen prospects.

Hillier took Green last year. Green is small for a D, and plays even smaller, but has great wheels and offensive talent. Leafs took Greenway and Middleton. I think there is too much generalization based on the Stanley pick.

BTW: Stanley's EV production seems overlooked because, you know, he's really big.

Yes - absolutely. And it has been a determinant in the success he has already had so it is accounted for in his production. He would not have scored his 55 pts in 50 games if he was exactly the same except 6'1. Now if he had started the season at 6'1 and gone on a growth spurt in the last half of the season we might need to consider it as a separate factor. But I haven't heard of anything like that happening here.

Generally speaking, bigger is better. But it is not an attribute separate from what he has already done. It does not multiply his accomplishments. When Nic Petan scored 120 pts in 71 games he was no bigger than he is now.

This is what gets me about the pro size bias. Don't use it as a multiplier. Don't treat Rasmussen's 55 pt production as though it was 65 points. Use it as a tie breaker. If all else is equal take the bigger player. Maybe give it a little more emphasis when the difference is large, if you suspect that the smaller player may not be able to deal with the big players at the next level. But in that case keep in mind that the small guy has been compensating and coping successfully all his life.

Nick Suzuki has scored 96 pts in 65 games and yet is rated well below Rasmussen. Why? Kailer Yamamoto 99 in 65. Same story. Actually he is quite a bit smaller even than Suzuki but is rated higher. What's with that? This size bias isn't even consistent.

 

[Daximus]

They would have to have bust after bust to start questioning there drafting strategy.

That would require waiting 5 to 6 years to find out. I'd definitely begin questioning their drafting if they have a similar draft to last year after Laine of course.

Is Hague notable for his skating? I'm not sure there's anyone who's really talked about at the high end of this draft that has issues producing offense but is thought of highly in terms of skating/physical traits. (Since that seems to be the trend with the Jets drafting defensemen)

A Foote pick would actually be pretty interesting since skating is generally the knock on him I think.

Both Hague and Foote aren't great skater. One is a more offensive guy with a great shot the other is more of a shutdown and transition defender with a great shot.

Hard to get that at 12 in a weaker draft. We aren't getting Patrick, Hischier or Glass there. More likely a future 3C.

I think Pettersson, Suzuki, Mittelstadt and Necas all have top 6 upside as centers.

I'm not familiar with enough of the pool to answer. Most of the players they end up picking will be players I will have no clue about. I don't have enough background to answer your question that way.

But I always have questions about the Jets picks every year. Some I find issue with after research and some I don't. Last year I was more familiar with the overall pool than this year. I was generally disappointed last year but Laine made it less troublesome.

I just imagine who we would have picked at 6 had we stayed there.

I'm a little leery of Liljegren even after comparing to Chychrun last year. The comments I've seen that would go to hIQ are concerning. But there are only 2 D gone at 12. There are several to choose among there besides Liljegren. A couple of them look very good. I think at that point I would be looking at Valimaki and Brannstrom as well as Foote and Vaakanainen. Vaakanainen seems to be flying under the radar. I don't know why.

Those same questioned were brought up about Chychrun around the time of the draft. There were questions about his IQ and work ethic. I think it's just a case over scouting.

IMO Rasmussen has a much better chance of being successful in the NHL than Stanley. Yes other players are more than intriguing than Rasmussen but I dont think he equates to Stanley at all. He probably even beats Stanley to the NHL.

I'll give you that for sure. I see him as a really solid 3rd line C with upside to become a 2nd line C. Though I think he'd be a better winger.

 

[Gm0ney]

The Stanley move certainly gives cause for concern and I am also looking at this draft to re-establish my shaken faith in Jets drafting. - But - I have to take exception to your contention that there was a pattern of over-emphasizing size last year. 1 instance does not equal a pattern. Stanley was followed by 6'1 Green and he was followed by Cederholm who is 6'3. 6'3 does not qualify as extraordinary size.

There isn't a pattern unless they draft for size again this year. There is only 1 instance so far.

The Jets have never drafted a defenseman < 6'0"
9 out of the 15 defensemen drafted by the Jets are at least 6'3"
NHL average defenseman height: 6'1.8" (2015)

Hillier's been with the Thrashers/Jets organization since 2003. From 2003-2010 he was their Ontario region amateur scout.

2003-2010 the Thrashers picked the following defensemen out of Ontario leagues:

2004 1st round, 10th overall, Boris Valabik 6'7"
2004 3rd round, 76th overall, Scott Lehman 6'1"
2008 1st round, 3rd overall, Zach Bogosian 6'3"
2009 4th round, 120th overall, Ben Chiarot 6'3"
2009 5th round, 125th overall, Cody Sol 6'6"
2010 3rd round, 87th overall, Julian Melchiori 6'4"

Draw your own conclusions...

 

[Whileee]

Yes - absolutely. And it has been a determinant in the success he has already had so it is accounted for in his production. He would not have scored his 55 pts in 50 games if he was exactly the same except 6'1. Now if he had started the season at 6'1 and gone on a growth spurt in the last half of the season we might need to consider it as a separate factor. But I haven't heard of anything like that happening here.

Generally speaking, bigger is better. But it is not an attribute separate from what he has already done. It does not multiply his accomplishments. When Nic Petan scored 120 pts in 71 games he was no bigger than he is now.

This is what gets me about the pro size bias. Don't use it as a multiplier. Don't treat Rasmussen's 55 pt production as though it was 65 points. Use it as a tie breaker. If all else is equal take the bigger player. Maybe give it a little more emphasis when the difference is large, if you suspect that the smaller player may not be able to deal with the big players at the next level. But in that case keep in mind that the small guy has been compensating and coping successfully all his life.

Nick Suzuki has scored 96 pts in 65 games and yet is rated well below Rasmussen. Why? Kailer Yamamoto 99 in 65. Same story. Actually he is quite a bit smaller even than Suzuki but is rated higher. What's with that? This size bias isn't even consistent.

Tall and weak is not an advantage. Scheifele's improved play is largely due to gaining additional power and speed.

It would be foolish not to project future productivity based somewhat on physical development.

Very tall 17 year olds often take more time to match their size with strength and coordination, which can constrain their productivity at that stage.

 

[Daximus]

Let's do a little pre-lotto mock going by who is getting the most tak on their teams boards up to us.

1. Colorado- Patrick
2. Vancouver - Hischier
3. LV - Vilardi (Lots of talk of Heiskanen as well)
4. Arizona - Heiskanen
5. NJ - Glass (Between Glass/Mittelstadt)
6. Buffaloni - Makar (want Heiskanen)
7. Detroit - Liljegren (want Heiskanen)
8. Dallas - Suzuki (want Heiskanen)
9. Florida - Tippet
10. LA - Pettersson (Would also take Necas)
11. Carolina - Vesalainen (Want Suzuki)

Interestingly enough a lot of boards are very hesitant of Rasmussen and Liljegren. Tons of boards are in love with Heiskanen and Makar. Glass and Suzuki are also getting a lot of love.

This leaves Valimaki, Necas, Mittelstadt, Foote, Rasmussen, Tolvanen, Andersson, Yamamoto, Poehling, Brannstrom, Kostin, etc.

Still a decent crop to choose from I'd probably rally around Mittelstadt or Valimaki at our spot. Really want Glass or Suzuki though.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What happened to best player available with a high pick?

I have always argued for a modified BPA. Choose the organizational need from from within a tier, to make a long story short. Or call it modified organizational need if you prefer. Some posts I have seen lately have made me question that. If people can't balance those things successfully then I would default to simple BPA.

Of course comments by random internet posters don't represent the actual pro scouts and managers who make the decisions. But (big but) if the Stanley deal is an example of what the pros do when they decide to emphasize an organizational need over BPA then I would also prefer to just default to pure BPA.

My hope is that they really did identify some characteristic that makes him defy the odds. I will happily eat a full serving of crow if that happens.

As all that applies to this draft, it certainly appears that there will be a few D plus a C or two who are, for practical purposes tied for BPA when our turn comes. I would prefer a D but I won't be too upset if we were to get a high ceiling C instead. I will be a little unhappy if we get a high ceiling winger. I will be more unhappy if we settle for a C who projects as more likely a 3C than a 2C if he turns out at all.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The Jets are accused of drafting to find the next Chara. Maybe the real problem is they draft too many little runts trying to find the next Tyler Johnson..

You obviously mean Connor. Ya, terrible pick. Or maybe you are thinking of Ehlers? I actually think he was not too bad for where he was taken. Give him a chance. He'll come around.

Seriously - that leaves Petan. 1 guy. And he might be the next Tyler Johnson if Maurice ever figures out that he doesn't belong on a 4th line with grinders.

What other 'runts' have they drafted?