Prospect Info: Penguins #6 prospect

[Speaking Moistly]

ETA: Also don't sleep on Angello.
Gotta see how he, Riikola, Militec perform in the pros.

Yeah, I think Angello is my next pick.

 

[jmelm]

I'm a little bothered by the lack of Adam Johnson love here. he was a tad slow in getting going last year but he ended up a solid guy in WBS. He is exactly what they should be trying out as a 13th forward along with Blueger. Other than his weight he has impressed me since his pre-season stint. All while being forced into a new position in WBS. He was very impressive as a C during that pre-season. I just don't see him as bad as, say Sheary was being knocked off the puck, since Johnson is 6.o'. That 175 lbs is my only knock. Hopefully he added some over this summer.

I appreciate the skill set and "upside" Johnson offers theoretically, and although with a strong season next year he could leapfrog Blueger pretty quickly, he did under-perform expectations this past season. That is not unheard of in the transition from college or juniors, but it would be akin to Miletic coming in next year and scoring 30 points. Johnson and Miletic are guys who were offensive forces at the lower level and we expect to be a bit more productive than Johnson was last year. I'm crossing my fingers he has a breakthrough year next year (20+ goals and 45+ points like Blueger), but he has to prove that, and that's why he has slid down a bit.

In short, I also don't get why Blueger is the runaway candidate here and I would put Almari, Riikola, Miletic, Bjorkvist, and Angello (and possibly a healthy Lauzon) in the same kind of tier in which all are about the same quality of prospect with no guy clearly on a different level at this point. So there's no wrong answer, but I think Blueger's NHL readiness is what puts him at the top among that group. I voted Riikola because I assume he is similarly NHL ready but if all goes well has #4/5 Dman upside which is a bit more valuable than a pure #4C like Blueger.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

I appreciate the skill set and "upside" Johnson offers theoretically, and although with a strong season next year he could leapfrog Blueger pretty quickly, he did under-perform expectations this past season. That is not unheard of in the transition from college or juniors, but it would be akin to Miletic coming in next year and scoring 30 points. Johnson and Miletic are guys who were offensive forces at the lower level and we expect to be a bit more productive than Johnson was last year. I'm crossing my fingers he has a breakthrough year next year (20+ goals and 45+ points like Blueger), but he has to prove that, and that's why he has slid down a bit.

In short, I also don't get why Blueger is the runaway candidate here and I would put Almari, Riikola, Miletic, Bjorkvist, and Angello (and possibly a healthy Lauzon) in the same kind of tier in which all are about the same quality of prospect with no guy clearly on a different level at this point. So there's no wrong answer, but I think Blueger's NHL readiness is what puts him at the top among that group. I voted Riikola because I assume he is similarly NHL ready but if all goes well has #4/5 Dman upside which is a bit more valuable than a pure #4C like Blueger.

Speaking of Riikola, I read somewhere that Kapanen said Riikola may need a while to adjust to NA ice. So we shouldn't be concerned if he struggles early. I'm excited to see him play. I think he's just low in the rankings because he's kind of an unknown.

I agree with the above with one exception. I kind of have Miletic in the next tier with guys like Johnson and Almeida, in that this is a big "show me" year for them. How will Miletic do against pros. Can Almeida produce on his own. Can Johnson build on a down rookie season. I think any of these guys could find themselves somewhere at the top of our rankings next year.

I'm not really sure what to think of Olund. He just turned 21 and has been playing against men in Sweden for a few years now but he barely gets talked about. I thought he might get some discussion in the current tier. Anyone have a scouting report on him?

 

[Peat]

Angello had nearly identical production to Blueger, the guy winning the poll, while playing a few less games. He left college a year early. He's 6'5", fast, physical and focused on being a complete player. Why wouldn't he be in 3rd?

Because his college production doesn't suggest a big ceiling and until he does it in WBS, there's got to be doubt over how safe a prospect he is. He wouldn't be my choice when there's guys who've done it in men's leagues still on the table, even if I do get why people like how big and quick he is.

In retrospect and based on that, I'd say Add Dea. It's a bit absurd not having the highest eligible WBS producer not on the poll.

I'm not really sure what to think of Olund. He just turned 21 and has been playing against men in Sweden for a few years now but he barely gets talked about. I thought he might get some discussion in the current tier. Anyone have a scouting report on him?

The most recent profiles from the press have really been talking up his IQ and defensive responsibilities. My guess is he sounds on track for a bottom 6 role in the NHL with the caveat that he's not super big and not super quick.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Angello had nearly identical production to Blueger, the guy winning the poll, while playing a few less games. He left college a year early. He's 6'5", fast, physical and focused on being a complete player. Why wouldn't he be in 3rd?

Blueger is winning right now because of what he has done in the AHL, not because of what he did in college. Angello also didn't leave college a year early, he played an extra year in the USHL.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

Because his college production doesn't suggest a big ceiling and until he does it in WBS, there's got to be doubt over how safe a prospect he is. He wouldn't be my choice when there's guys who've done it in men's leagues still on the table, even if I do get why people like how big and quick he is.
.

But that wasn't the issue. See below...

Blueger is winning right now because of what he has done in the AHL, not because of what he did in college. Angello also didn't leave college a year early, he played an extra year in the USHL.

The issue isn't Blueger winning, it is that you said you didn't know how Angello is even in the discussion with "Bjorkqvist, Blueger, Almari and Riikola" and I told you why.

I support going with the more proven, safer prospect but, I mean, by your rationale why would Bjorkqvist even be in the discussion? Is it because there's more to a player than just college numbers?

 

[Empoleon8771]

The issue isn't Blueger winning, it is that you said you didn't know how Angello is even in the discussion with "Bjorkqvist, Blueger, Almari and Riikola" and I told you why.

You didn't tell me why he was in this discussion, though. You compared his numbers to Blueger and said he was big. Was Blueger ever highly rated as a prospect here? I don't recall that.

I support going with the more proven, safer prospect but, I mean, by your rationale why would Bjorkqvist even be in the discussion? Is it because there's more to a player than just college numbers?

Bjorkqvist was drafted higher and his production is hurt by playing on a better team than Angello did. Angello also didn't really show much offensive progression in college either, his first year production is very similar to his 3rd year production. With Bjorkqvist, you've seen the big rise from him getting a larger role, so you think he can progress even further.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

You didn't tell me why he was in this discussion, though. You compared his numbers to Blueger and said he was big. Was Blueger ever highly rated as a prospect here? I don't recall that.

I never said Blueger or Angello were or should be highly rated. I said the guy you are dismissing deserves to be in the discussion with this tier of players. This was my exact reason...

"Angello had nearly identical production to Blueger, the guy winning the poll, while playing a few less games. He left college a year early. He's 6'5", fast, physical and focused on being a complete player. Why wouldn't he be in 3rd?"

You originally said "I don't get the hype with Angello, though. That's one thing I'll admit, I don't get it. Idk how he's in 3rd for this poll, he wasn't all that impressive throughout college offensively and he hasn't done much professionally yet." The bolded is the only reason I brought up Blueger's production.

I explained the so called "hype." I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I never said Blueger or Angello were or should be highly rated. I said the guy you are dismissing deserves to be in the discussion with this tier of players. This was my exact reason...

"Angello had nearly identical production to Blueger, the guy winning the poll, while playing a few less games. He left college a year early. He's 6'5", fast, physical and focused on being a complete player. Why wouldn't he be in 3rd?"

You originally said "I don't get the hype with Angello, though. That's one thing I'll admit, I don't get it. Idk how he's in 3rd for this poll, he wasn't all that impressive throughout college offensively and he hasn't done much professionally yet." The bolded is the only reason I brought up Blueger's production.

I explained the so called "hype." I'm sorry you didn't like the answer.

Yes, I know what you said. Here's how the conversation went:

"I don't get the hype with Angello"
"Angello's production was the same as Blueger's production in college and he's big"
"Blueger was never a highly rated prospect in college, he's only highly rated now because of what he had done in the pros"
"The issue isn't with Blueger winning, it's why you think Angello shouldn't be included"

You never explained the hype here. The problem here is that you didn't give an answer, or at least a good one. Saying that Angello produced the same as Blueger in college isn't a good argument for him being included around here, because I'd never vote for a 2016 Blueger to be near the 6th best prospect in the organization.

Edit: for comparison, Blueger was voted the 11th best prospect in 2015 and 10th best prospect in 2016, although I think you can argue the Penguins prospect pool was better in 2015 and 2016 than it is now.

 

[Jacob]

C’mon kings.. not that big of a deal either way.

 

[Peat]

C’mon kings.. not that big of a deal either way.

There's nothing better to argue about right now.


Anyhoo, while I do see clear water between Bluegers and Angello, I don't see it between Angelo and Bjorkqvist for what its worth.

That said - I do like that Angello was equal 1st for production on his team last season and I like that Bjorkqvist was equal 1st for goals on his team. The latter bit is relatively impressive for his age.

 

[Jacob]

There's nothing better to argue about right now.


Anyhoo, while I do see clear water between Bluegers and Angello, I don't see it between Angelo and Bjorkqvist for what its worth.

That said - I do like that Angello was equal 1st for production on his team last season and I like that Bjorkqvist was equal 1st for goals on his team. The latter bit is relatively impressive for his age.

I like that they both have size. There’s lots of midgets putting up points in the NCAA but far fewer big, broad kids like them. 15 goals by a 6’3” 215 kid is like as good as 25 by a 5’9” 170 kid.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

C’mon kings.. not that big of a deal either way.

You're right. It's just a couple of bottom 6 prospects. Pretty pointless to be arguing about it. I just took issue with being misrepresented/strawmanned.

I've said my piece. The 5 people still reading this thread can make their own judgements.

On to number 7.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

Filip Hallander wins that round convincingly and ranks right behind fellow 2018 2nd rounder Calen Addison at #5. Three out of the current top 5 are newly ranked prospects.

Added Zachary Lauzon.

Results so far (and change from last year):
#1 Daniel Sprong (87.6%) (-)
#2 Tristan Jarry (52.6%) (-)
#3 Jordy Bellerive (72.8%) (new)
#4 Calen Addison (54.7%) (new)
#5 Filip Hallander (79.2%) (new)

This is when the tier drops and it gets messy. I think the first 5 players are all very good prospects and I really like the group and believe the order can be argued 2-5 and 3-5 for sure. This next group you just hope to get a couple to make it and help out the big club on some minor way such as 3rd pairing defense or 4th line player. With a little luck maybe one becomes a good 3rd line player but the drop off is considerable compared to the first 5 that all have the top end ability to be a top 6 forward, top 4 defenseman, or starting goalie if they reach top potential. I didn't vote because I think it is a crap shoot on which one or two make it if any.

 

[steelcityassault]

Thanks. Does it say why they think it's better to put on weight overseas rather than start playing the NA style against men? Is there concern about him getting injured or something?

Was mutually agreed on that he's not ready for AHL full-time duty, strength wise.