Prospect Info: Zach Senyshyn who are you?

[reffree]

I just wonder how much of this is people who didn't like the picks when they occurred taking a second opportunity to poop on them now.

Seriously, what more could Senyshyn have done this year? He scored 19 more goals for a team that scored 100 fewer goals this year

You're not talking about HF "Bruins hater" poster, they don't have a "haha Boston" agenda and if they had they wouldn't have rank JFK and Carlo higher than they were before ...

Senyshyn score 19 more goals playing on the 3rd/4th line with no power play to playing on the 1st/2nd line with power play. His goals total are good to real good, his point total are bad to real bad. The guy is still a one dimensonal offensive foward at the moment so he can't get the Crouse 2 way game factor with his ranking.

Senyshyn is still a pretty solid prospect, but last year was an amazing draft with solid depth. Our 6th first pick all looks promising and were all taken from that outside depth group (well except for Zboril who regressed this year). Last year was an amazing opportunity to draft depth and blue chip prospect at the same time. We only drated depth, amazing depth in fact. But were we not Bruins fans nobody here would argue about Senyshyn having a monsterous season seeing what other 2015 prospect have done this year.

 

[riverhawkey91]

Go tell that to Patrik Laine, whose knocking on going 1st overall now.

Or Jacub Chychrun, whose gone from No.2/3 to not even being the consensus top D-man in his draft.

At lot can change in terms of a players development in a year, especially when your talking about 17, 18, and 19 year olds, and when all players have different development curves.

Fact is the three Bruins 1st round picks were questionable a year ago. A year later they are all still highly questionable, which is not a good sign IMO.

Luckily it looks like the Bruins did get good value with their three 2nd rounders.

Sorry, I should have better iterated that I meant only the potential of these players has really changed...none of them have come close to reaching their peak or are necessarily going to be anything more or less than they were going to be last year, so obviously yeah with a year's more knowledge it's going to shake out better just how good some of these players really are.

But that's the entire problem with this kind of thing: it's all revisionist. How can anyone take these things seriously when there was a guy taken 123RD! in the draft now in the top 30? No one would have feasibly taken him in the first last year, because he was probably too much of an unknown, be it for character issues or physical issues or whatever. It's also completely unrealistic in that following their draft, there would be different players available that would likely have been more appealing to us (Meier and Crouse for example). It's an interesting thing to do in retrospect, but to use it to make a point or hold it against scouts is just preposterous.

I'm no more or less worried about our picks now than I have been all along. I've had a pretty good feeling since that draft that the Bruins weren't at all interested in picking the best possible players available (be it currently or projected), that they were more looking for the ones who would actually make the league and work the best for them (basically following the Pats model). For me, it was one of those "100% chance at $500K now or 50% chance at $1M" situations for them, and they chose to go with the former. As I said before, if we manage to get a few good second/third liners and 2nd pairing defensemen out of that draft, to me it's a big success.

 

[reffree]

Sorry, I should have better iterated that I meant only the potential of these players has really changed...none of them have come close to reaching their peak or are necessarily going to be anything more or less than they were going to be last year, so obviously yeah with a year's more knowledge it's going to shake out better just how good some of these players really are.

But that's the entire problem with this kind of thing: it's all revisionist. How can anyone take these things seriously when there was a guy taken 123RD! in the draft now in the top 30? No one would have feasibly taken him in the first last year, because he was probably too much of an unknown, be it for character issues or physical issues or whatever. It's also completely unrealistic in that following their draft, there would be different players available that would likely have been more appealing to us (Meier and Crouse for example). It's an interesting thing to do in retrospect, but to use it to make a point or hold it against scouts is just preposterous.

I'm no more or less worried about our picks now than I have been all along. I've had a pretty good feeling since that draft that the Bruins weren't at all interested in picking the best possible players available (be it currently or projected), that they were more looking for the ones who would actually make the league and work the best for them (basically following the Pats model). For me, it was one of those "100% chance at $500K now or 50% chance at $1M" situations for them, and they chose to go with the former. As I said before, if we manage to get a few good second/third liners and 2nd pairing defenseman out of that draft, to me it's a big success.

That's what we like too think, we didn't got the high reward guy, but our guy are pretty safe to make it. Well, our guys have less high end potential than others guys in those range but that by no means make them safer prospect. Crouse is the defenition of a guy who's a low risk medium reward prospect, our guys are medium reward, but not low risk.

 

[cat400]

Interesting article on OHLERS and analytics re scoring in junior versus the NHL.
Zach was rated in the top 10.

Which OHLers have the best shot at being NHL snipers?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juni...-snipers-best-shot-becoming-nhl-goal-scorers/

"The skaters we would see as the most comfortable in transitioning to the pro game are those who are most comfortable shooting from high traffic areas in junior. Interestingly, only 30 OHLers managed to fire 30 or more shots from the High Danger zone, and only three of those scored fewer than 20 goals."

 

[riverhawkey91]

That's what we like too think, we didn't got the high reward guy, but our guy are pretty safe to make it. Well, our guys have less high end potential than others guys in those range but that by no means make them safer prospect. Crouse is the defenition of a guy who's a low risk medium reward prospect, our guys are medium reward, but not low risk.

Yeah that's the problem I have with the re-draft thing, a guy like Crouse wasn't available on draft day, but would have been in the re-draft...I have to imagine he would have been up there on our list of guys to take.

I really don't think they were interested in high-end potential, I think they were much more concerned with getting guys who fit what they were looking for and were fairly safe bets to actually make it to the NHL, which hasn't really changed with who we picked...I don't think any of them are magically going to turn into stud players, but are we honestly worried about any of them having real actual NHL potential anymore? The only one whose even close to bust territory is Zboril, and even he looks to have enough of a mean streak to be somewhat worthwhile in the NHL (and he was the one actually taken in the right draft spot based on rankings!). Senyshyn might only max out as a good second liner, Debrusk as a solid 3rd liner, but most importantly, they definitely still look like NHL-caliber players.

If anything, the re-draft just kind of confirms that belief. The first rounders probably aren't really firsts, and the seconds are probably actually firsts, but either way, it looks like they actually hit NHL players on all 6 picks, which is miraculous compared to the 7 years or so of Chiarelli drafting.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Interesting article on OHLERS and analytics re scoring in junior versus the NHL.
Zach was rated in the top 10.

Which OHLers have the best shot at being NHL snipers?

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/juni...-snipers-best-shot-becoming-nhl-goal-scorers/

"The skaters we would see as the most comfortable in transitioning to the pro game are those who are most comfortable shooting from high traffic areas in junior. Interestingly, only 30 OHLers managed to fire 30 or more shots from the High Danger zone, and only three of those scored fewer than 20 goals."

That's a great article. My guess is that the Bruins scouts have known that, intuitively, for awhile. I think it's why they coveted Jared Knight. That guy was all about driving the net. They seem to like the way Senyshyn and DeBrusk take it there as well.

 

[4ORRBRUIN]

You'd think they would use the crystal ball they own for something more meaningful

How did the Habs first rounder look this season ? Oh he moved up Looks like he had a mediocre season yet he goes up and Bs guys go down.

That article was a Bruins smear piece, period. It was equally funny to listen to the dicks on 98.5 use it as gospel so I guess it must be true

Freud Felger called JFK a defenseman while taking about our future and this piece. I would be willing to bet very few if any Bruins beat writers could tell you who the Bruins drafted last year.

It's pathetic how bad hockey is covered in this town, a "hockey" town.

 

[Absurdity]

Greyhounds’ Senyshyn seizing opportunity rather than shrinking from it:http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articl...senyshyn-seizing-opportunity-rather-shrinking

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I just wonder how much of this is people who didn't like the picks when they occurred taking a second opportunity to poop on them now.

Seriously, what more could Senyshyn have done this year? He scored 19 more goals for a team that scored 100 fewer goals this year

Had this conversation with another poster today. Like or dislike the Senyshyn pick, I'm not sure what more he could have done on his end to justify the pick? And I don't give a **** what the Hockey News says, there is no way an NHL GM or scout watches the 6'2" 200 pound Senyshyn put up 45 this year with the way he skates...and takes the 5'7"-5'8" Conor Garland before him.

 

[pemulis]

Had this conversation with another poster today. Like or dislike the Senyshyn pick, I'm not sure what more he could have done on his end to justify the pick? And I don't give a **** what the Hockey News says, there is no way an NHL GM or scout watches the 6'2" 200 pound Senyshyn put up 45 this year with the way he skates...and takes the 5'7"-5'8" Conor Garland before him.

We have a winner! I feel like many of those type of "articles" are devoted to justifying the writer's original thoughts about the Bruins's draft. For example, NHL prognosticator after the draft: "I can't believe the Bruins chose X, Y, and Z"; same prognosticator a year later: "I don't care that player Z outperformed all expected metrics, he was still a laugher of a pick. See, I was right all along!"

 

[FROMSHORETOCHARA]

I talked to a well respected scout, I'll leave it at that, believe him or not. He said senyshyn is a very good prospect, great skills and developing nicely. Not an elite prospect but a good one with a reasonable chance to be a good top 6 forward on good team. Told me last year he thought debrusk was taken 10 pix minimum too early and a year later feels that even that too high. Not a bust, might still make it and be an nhler but not a high end talent and passing on Connor and chabot types for him was ludicrous. As for zboril said he is an nhl player for sure but more likely middle pair guy. A lot to offer but not any high end skill to jump out at you. Says he doesn't really blame the Bruins since zboril and chabot were close last year but chabot has blown by him this year.

Guy might be right or wrong and again calls none of them a bust and writes none of them off but other than 15 who he does really like he considers 14 and 13 very shaky pics at this point.

For the record so I don't come across as pretending to be Nostradamus I liked zboril at 13. and senyshyn seemed like a risky pick but great prospect so I didn't mind that. But I never liked debrusk pick although this scout sort of defended Bruins and said it is easy to get drawn in by a guy who scored like he did last year. We will see how they turn out.

 

[pemulis]

I talked to a well respected scout, I'll leave it at that, believe him or not. He said senyshyn is a very good prospect, great skills and developing nicely. Not an elite prospect but a good one with a reasonable chance to be a good top 6 forward on good team. Told me last year he thought debrusk was taken 10 pix minimum too early and a year later feels that even that too high. Not a bust, might still make it and be an nhler but not a high end talent and passing on Connor and chabot types for him was ludicrous. As for zboril said he is an nhl player for sure but more likely middle pair guy. A lot to offer but not any high end skill to jump out at you. Says he doesn't really blame the Bruins since zboril and chabot were close last year but chabot has blown by him this year.

Guy might be right or wrong and again calls none of them a bust and writes none of them off but other than 15 who he does really like he considers 14 and 13 very shaky pics at this point.

For the record so I don't come across as pretending to be Nostradamus I liked zboril at 13. and senyshyn seemed like a risky pick but great prospect so I didn't mind that. But I never liked debrusk pick although this scout sort of defended Bruins and said it is easy to get drawn in by a guy who scored like he did last year. We will see how they turn out.

That is a totally reasonable opinion and one that I can't disagree with.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

I talked to a well respected scout, I'll leave it at that, believe him or not. He said senyshyn is a very good prospect, great skills and developing nicely. Not an elite prospect but a good one with a reasonable chance to be a good top 6 forward on good team. Told me last year he thought debrusk was taken 10 pix minimum too early and a year later feels that even that too high. Not a bust, might still make it and be an nhler but not a high end talent and passing on Connor and chabot types for him was ludicrous. As for zboril said he is an nhl player for sure but more likely middle pair guy. A lot to offer but not any high end skill to jump out at you. Says he doesn't really blame the Bruins since zboril and chabot were close last year but chabot has blown by him this year.

Guy might be right or wrong and again calls none of them a bust and writes none of them off but other than 15 who he does really like he considers 14 and 13 very shaky pics at this point.

For the record so I don't come across as pretending to be Nostradamus I liked zboril at 13. and senyshyn seemed like a risky pick but great prospect so I didn't mind that. But I never liked debrusk pick although this scout sort of defended Bruins and said it is easy to get drawn in by a guy who scored like he did last year. We will see how they turn out.

Just curious, where does this guy scout normally? He's talking to you about three prospects from three different junior leagues spread across an entire country. I suppose it's possible, but in my limited experience with scouts, they usually have designated areas of the country or specific leagues that they cover. It would seem unusual for a scout to be watching all three of these players, unless he's just speaking generally about these kids and hasn't watched all three extensively?

 

[reffree]

Just curious, where does this guy scout normally? He's talking to you about three prospects from three different junior leagues spread across an entire country. I suppose it's possible, but in my limited experience with scouts, they usually have designated areas of the country or specific leagues that they cover. It would seem unusual for a scout to be watching all three of these players, unless he's just speaking generally about these kids and hasn't watched all three extensively?

Thoses guys talk to each others, have team meeting with the other scouts ...

 

[reffree]

We have a winner! I feel like many of those type of "articles" are devoted to justifying the writer's original thoughts about the Bruins's draft. For example, NHL prognosticator after the draft: "I can't believe the Bruins chose X, Y, and Z"; same prognosticator a year later: "I don't care that player Z outperformed all expected metrics, he was still a laugher of a pick. See, I was right all along!"

JFK and Carlo outperformed expected metrics and got bump up. Senyshyn had 45pts as a 17yo 4th liner and 65 pts as a 18yo 1st liner. I wouldn't say he outperformed expected metrics.

 

[bearcountry17]

JFK and Carlo outperformed expected metrics and got bump up. Senyshyn had 45pts as a 17yo 4th liner and 65 pts as a 18yo 1st liner. I wouldn't say he outperformed expected metrics.

You would think when drafting a sniper/finisher that goals would be held in higher regard than point totals, no?

 

[Pia8988]

You would think when drafting a sniper/finisher that goals would be held in higher regard than point totals, no?

Goal totals don't count unless you heavily weighted in assists, the inverse is true for goals. Have to be right down the middle in both or else.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Goal totals don't count unless you heavily weighted in assists, the inverse is true for goals. Have to be right down the middle in both or else.

So if a guy scored 62 goals and 10 assists in 72 games, he'd be a disappointing offensive prospect because he was only a point per game? Or else?

 

[Pia8988]

So if a guy scored 62 goals and 10 assists in 72 games, he'd be a disappointing offensive prospect because he was only a point per game? Or else?

I was being sarcastic. I have no issue, more towards to people who point to his lack of assists, Krejci's not breaking 20 goals, Beleskey putting up points but not goals, ect.

 

[reffree]

You would think when drafting a sniper/finisher that goals would be held in higher regard than point totals, no?

To each his own I suppose, but to me the answer to this is a big time NO.
Wich player provided more offense to his team? Krejci or Ryder? 20 goals vs 30 goals. At the end of the day I want to score more goal than the other team, I don't care if you're the one who puts it in or the one who made the play happen, I just want you to cause goal for. If you finish the season with 70pts you cause 20 more goal for than the guy who had 50 pts, even if the later have more goal to his credit.

Just say you're not a superstar sniper and just a pretty good 25 goals/season player. We all know goal scorer come hot and cold, and sooner or later the guy will caught fire and score 10 goals in 10 games. Then he'll have those 70 other games to score those 15 goals missing to hit the 25 mark and if the guy is a primary a goal scoring (meaning he doesn't create play for others to score goal too) then you'll hate him for those 70 games because the guy is just taking a place in a jersey without contributing. Yeah, in those 10 games he was so hot, looked like he could score 40, but nobody score 40 anymore ...

I specifically chose Ryder in my exemple because the guy was a goal scorer, a really good one, good for 25-30 every year. But what did he bring to the team in those 70 games where he wasn't on fire? How much was he loved arround here for those 25-30 goals a year?

Causing goal for is everything, scoring them is only a part of it.

 

[PB37]

To each his own I suppose, but to me the answer to this is a big time NO.
Wich player provided more offense to his team? Krejci or Ryder? 20 goals vs 30 goals. At the end of the day I want to score more goal than the other team, I don't care if you're the one who puts it in or the one who made the play happen, I just want you to cause goal for. If you finish the season with 70pts you cause 20 more goal for than the guy who had 50 pts, even if the later have more goal to his credit.

Just say you're not a superstar sniper and just a pretty good 25 goals/season player. We all know goal scorer come hot and cold, and sooner or later the guy will caught fire and score 10 goals in 10 games. Then he'll have those 70 other games to score those 15 goals missing to hit the 25 mark and if the guy is a primary a goal scoring (meaning he doesn't create play for others to score goal too) then you'll hate him for those 70 games because the guy is just taking a place in a jersey without contributing. Yeah, in those 10 games he was so hot, looked like he could score 40, but nobody score 40 anymore ...

I specifically chose Ryder in my exemple because the guy was a goal scorer, a really good one, good for 25-30 every year. But what did he bring to the team in those 70 games where he wasn't on fire? How much was he loved arround here for those 25-30 goals a year?

Causing goal for is everything, scoring them is only a part of it.

But he was talking about snipers here. Snipers are known for their shoot first, high goal/low assist totals. We drafted what we believed to be a sniper ( or as your example, a Michael Ryder type ) not a playmaker ( or as your example, a David Krejci type ).

 

[JoeIsAStud]

I specifically chose Ryder in my exemple because the guy was a goal scorer, a really good one, good for 25-30 every year. But what did he bring to the team in those 70 games where he wasn't on fire? How much was he loved arround here for those 25-30 goals a year?

Causing goal for is everything, scoring them is only a part of it.

Ryder as a 25-30 every year except the 2 years in Boston where he scored 18.

when the 25-30 guy scores 18 he doesn't get much love.

Than again he should never pay for a drink again in his life for making by far the most important save anyone in a Bruins uniform made in the postseason in 2011

 

[ODAAT]

I talked to a well respected scout, I'll leave it at that, believe him or not. He said senyshyn is a very good prospect, great skills and developing nicely. Not an elite prospect but a good one with a reasonable chance to be a good top 6 forward on good team. Told me last year he thought debrusk was taken 10 pix minimum too early and a year later feels that even that too high. Not a bust, might still make it and be an nhler but not a high end talent and passing on Connor and chabot types for him was ludicrous. As for zboril said he is an nhl player for sure but more likely middle pair guy. A lot to offer but not any high end skill to jump out at you. Says he doesn't really blame the Bruins since zboril and chabot were close last year but chabot has blown by him this year.

Guy might be right or wrong and again calls none of them a bust and writes none of them off but other than 15 who he does really like he considers 14 and 13 very shaky pics at this point.

For the record so I don't come across as pretending to be Nostradamus I liked zboril at 13. and senyshyn seemed like a risky pick but great prospect so I didn't mind that. But I never liked debrusk pick although this scout sort of defended Bruins and said it is easy to get drawn in by a guy who scored like he did last year. We will see how they turn out.

I question if that scout has seen Chabot play one game, for if he had, he wouldn`t say he had "blown by" Zboril and would have recognized that Flynn (Sea Dogs head coach) recognized that Chabot`s D-game wasn`t near strong enough to ask him to be a guy to put out there and shut down opponents where Zboril`s was/is

Chabot may have "blown by" Zboril offensively, but there are very good explanations why

I assume this scout has only spoken to other scouts about these prospects as I see almost the exact same scouts at all Moosehead games (they ain`t hard to find in the box) and these guys scout one league and sometimes, within that league, they scout a specific region so I`ll assume this guy is speaking on reports from others.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

You would think when drafting a sniper/finisher that goals would be held in higher regard than point totals, no?

How many successful NHL snipers didn't rack up assists in the CHL ?

 

[DominicT]

How many successful NHL snipers didn't rack up assists in the CHL ?

as a %age of points?

Senyshyn: 64% of points were goals

Mike Bossy 59%
Reggie Leach 65%
Guy Lafleur 59%
Dave Andreychuk 56%