Prospect Info: 2017 NHL Draft / Pick #7 - Lias Andersson (C) - Part II

[Edge]

I dunno, his trajectory seems right about in that Horvat/ROR sensible projection that seems to be drowned in some of the more...Shatner-esque debate performances over the last 15 months.

Admitedly, part of me has to chuckle.

His SHL, WJC, WC, AHL and NHL performances last year were all right on par with him progressing.

Heck, even his camp and start to the preseason continued that trend.

Then the Rangers decide to start with two other rookies at center, and he’s in the AHL, and we’re back to the this again.

 

[Ori]

Yes true @Edge - Lias compete in a position many can play in at the moment and the player development staff don`t wan him to adapt in a new wing role. I believe they still hope he can fit into a top 6 role in NHL, but is`t realistic? Maybe not now, but Lias can improve with good coaching. And higher role Lias can play is actually a win win situation for the Franchise and Gordie Clarke.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It's very early to project Andersson's ceiling, or the strength of his peers from the same draft year, but I don't for a second believe that the Rangers drafted him with the hope that he tops out as a 3rd line center.

I think you are correct, but I also think we should look at it for what it is. The Rangers went off the board. They must've thought Andersson had higher upside or a higher floor than most thought he had. They also thought Kravtsov was the second best forward in the last draft. The Rangers have a tendency with high picks to go off the board. Going off the board isn't a bad thing, but if you do so, you better be good at it. I'm not sure the Rangers have demonstrated that they are good at it.

 

[haohmaru]

I think you are correct, but I also think we should look at it for what it is. The Rangers went off the board. They must've thought Andersson had higher upside or a higher floor than most thought he had. They also thought Kravtsov was the second best forward in the last draft. The Rangers have a tendency with high picks to go off the board. Going off the board isn't a bad thing, but if you do so, you better be good at it. I'm not sure the Rangers have demonstrated that they are good at it.

Meh - if you're drafting at #7 and you pick a guy who ends up being a top 9 center for 10-12 years then you've been successful.

Lias is NINETEEN and a center. Let's step off the ledge a bit and a.) let the guy get a little older b.) wait until the Rangers actually have a spot for a top 9 C c.) let him get huge AHL minutes and see where he's at.

If he plays this year or next year it's not going to be the determining factor whether or not he's a "bust". If there was a place for him, he'd be playing this year.

 

[Irishguy42]

Meh - if you're drafting at #7 and you pick a guy who ends up being a top 9 center for 10-12 years then you've been successful.

Lias is NINETEEN and a center. Let's step off the ledge a bit and a.) let the guy get a little older b.) wait until the Rangers actually have a spot for a top 9 C c.) let him get huge AHL minutes and see where he's at.

If he plays this year or next year it's not going to be the determining factor whether or not he's a "bust". If there was a place for him, he'd be playing this year.

He turns 20 in a week. Boom, point "A" completed.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Meh - if you're drafting at #7 and you pick a guy who ends up being a top 9 center for 10-12 years then you've been successful.

Lias is NINETEEN and a center. Let's step off the ledge a bit and a.) let the guy get a little older b.) wait until the Rangers actually have a spot for a top 9 C c.) let him get huge AHL minutes and see where he's at.

If he plays this year or next year it's not going to be the determining factor whether or not he's a "bust". If there was a place for him, he'd be playing this year.

By the same token, McDavid is a top 9 center. If you asked our fans if they'd want a player about the caliber of Kevin Hayes at #7, a very large percentage wouldn't be happy with that outcome.

No one called him a bust, so stop with that type of rhetoric. Its only used to stop real discussion about the merits of the pick and Andersson's game. He's still a young player and his ability isn't completely determined, but why should fans stop discussing Andersson just because the terms aren't particularly favorable for the team?

 

[Edge]

I think you are correct, but I also think we should look at it for what it is. The Rangers went off the board. They must've thought Andersson had higher upside or a higher floor than most thought he had. They also thought Kravtsov was the second best forward in the last draft. The Rangers have a tendency with high picks to go off the board. Going off the board isn't a bad thing, but if you do so, you better be good at it. I'm not sure the Rangers have demonstrated that they are good at it.

I think it somewhat comes down to how one defines "off the board."

I think as fans, we focus on lists put out by observers and reporters and use that to decide what is considered off the board.

However, for all we know a lot of teams had Andersson in the top 13 or so. That's something we usually fail to take into account.

In Andersson's case, he was on more than a few lists in the 8-13 spot, and the third European by Central Scouting. I don't think most NHL teams would consider that as being "off the boards" so to speak. Same thing with Kravtsov.

I don't know if the hang-up is so much that the Rangers go bananas when picking high, so much as this board has usually compiled a rough sketch of its own list and usually struggles when we deviate from that list.

But overall, I don't know if we have a track record for this front office. In terms of known quantities, we can say they are 0 for 1 with McIlrath. But the jury is still very much out on Andersson and Kravtsov.

To be blunt, I think a lot of people did not want Andersson as the pick. As a result, they're never going to miss a chance to snipe on the issue. In their minds they're being objective. In reality, they really aren't and wouldn't be doing this if "their guy" was selected.

 

[haohmaru]

By the same token, McDavid is a top 9 center. If you asked our fans if they'd want a player about the caliber of Kevin Hayes at #7, a very large percentage wouldn't be happy with that outcome.

No one called him a bust, so stop with that type of rhetoric. Its only used to stop real discussion about the merits of the pick and Andersson's game. He's still a young player and his ability isn't completely determined, but why should fans stop discussing Andersson just because the terms aren't particularly favorable for the team?

Comparing a 1OA generational type Center with a typical #7 draft pick is disingenuous at best. I'm saying that a 7th OA player that turns into a top nine center for a decade or more is a successful draft pick at that point in the draft. You can disagree with that if you want to but I'd stand by that, generally speaking, as a metric for determining if the pick was successful.

"No one called him a bust"? You must not be reading these boards very thoroughly. I haven't asked you to stop discussing anything - but you clearly aren't happy with my discussion of counter points. Cast doubt about whatever you want and I'll say the same thing - too early to make the call at this point.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Comparing a 1OA generational type Center with a typical #7 draft pick is disingenuous at best. I'm saying that a 7th OA player that turns into a top nine center for a decade or more is a successful draft pick at that point in the draft. You can disagree with that if you want to but I'd stand by that, generally speaking, as a metric for determining if the pick was successful.

"No one called him a bust"? You must not be reading these boards very thoroughly. I haven't asked you to stop discussing anything - but you clearly aren't happy with my discussion of counter points. Cast doubt about whatever you want and I'll say the same thing - too early to make the call at this point.

Its also disingenuous to say he's a top 9 forward. He's more likely a 3rd line forward or low end second line guy.

Who called him a bust? I'd like to see these posts. So many say this, yet I don't think I've seen much evidence that it happens.

 

[haohmaru]

Its also disingenuous to say he's a top 9 forward. He's more likely a 3rd line forward or low end second line guy.

Who called him a bust? I'd like to see these posts. So many say this, yet I don't think I've seen much evidence that it happens.

I didn't say he was a top nine forward. I said "IF" he ends up being a top 9 forward for 10-12 years then the pick is successful and he's not on the team, right now, because management doesn't think he's a 4th line center.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I think it somewhat comes down to have one views being off the board.

I think as fans, we focus on lists put out by observers and reporters and use that to decide what is considered off the board.

However, for all we know a lot of teams had Andersson in the top 13 or so. That's something we usually fail to take into account.

In Andersson's case, he was on more than a few lists in the 8-13 spot, and the third European by Central Scouting. I don't think most NHL teams would consider that as being "off the boards" so to speak. Same thing with Kravtsov.

I don't know if the hang-up is so much that the Rangers go bananas when picking high, so much as this board has usually compiled a rough sketch of its own list and usually struggles when we deviate from that list.

But overall, I don't know if we have a track record for this front office. In terms of known quantities, we can say they are 0 for 1 with McIlrath. But the jury is still very much out on Andersson and Kravtsov.

To be blunt, I think a lot of people did not want Andersson as the pick. As a result, they're never going to miss a chance to snipe on the issue. In their minds they're being objective. In reality, they really aren't and wouldn't be doing this if "their guy" was selected.

I think a lot of us get hung up with NA guys simply because most of us are exposed to them more. I actually wasn't super happy about LA at first but I look at it and it's pretty much close to the best we could have done at the time. Mittelstadt is not THAT much better if at all right now. He's on a team in rebuild year 6.5 with their... 4th coach... and 3rd gm. And only this year does the roster ON PAPER seem more confident, for example/to put that in perspective. For some reason I see a lot of Casey gushing here. I actually understand the fan outrage over Kravtsov more honestly because a lot of people do think the guys we wanted in the organization will be pretty good, but I trust the Rangers' European scouting more than NA scouting quite honestly myself. Back on LA the moment he got on with the team he's our guy if that makes sense. If he gets here and is a very good 3c, great! 2c? Super. He seems to be on track for good and steady development and at this stage that's kind of what we want.

I think Andersson could be a more versatile player and will be able to fill multiple roles for this team handsomely

 

[Kovalev27]

If He didn’t have one of the worst skating strides I’ve seen in a long time of course I’d say yes he just needs to grow and develop. But you can only fix that so much. I don’t see how that’s going to be different at 22 than it is now.

He’s also not a guy that always has the puck and is making plays. He never has the puck. So he doesn’t skate well at all in a league that’s becoming more and more about speed, he’s about 5’11 tops, and never has the puck on his stick and he’s a center? I’m supposed to be excited about him 7th overall over guys like mittelstadt Necas Vilardi?

While we’re all screaming for elite prospects(this is the part I don’t get at all that guys defend this pick)

We can’t afford to do this again.

 

[Edge]

If He didn’t have one of the worst skating strides I’ve seen in a long time of course I’d say yes he just needs to grow and develop. But you can only fix that so much. I don’t see how that’s going to be different at 22 than it is now.

He’s also not a guy that always has the puck and is making plays. He never has the puck. So he doesn’t skate well at all in a league that’s becoming more and more about speed, he’s about 5’11 tops, and never has the puck on his stick and he’s a center? I’m supposed to be excited about him 7th overall over guys like mittelstadt Necas Vilardi?

While we’re all screaming for elite prospects(this is the part I don’t get at all that guys defend this pick)

We can’t afford to do this again.

I think we have a few differences of opinion.

We're getting hung up on skating, but it's not really holding him back right now. He continues to produce --- at every level he's played at. I think that becomes a concern if its actually holding him back --- thus far it hasn't.

As for making plays, I disagree. When watching Andersson to this point, I often find that he's a catalyst for making something happen out there --- be it with a decision, a pass, being in the right place, picking up the right assignment, etc.

Is he weaving around guys, making no-look passes and roofing shots from 10 feet out? No. But he does show a very pro-style game that gets results and maximizes his strengths.

I get the flashy skill component. And yet for all the other guys you mentioned in your post, Andersson's D-1 accomplishments were as good or better. You'd take what he did as a pro last year over what Vilardi did against 16 and 17 year olds? (BTW, if you don't like Andersson's skating, Vilardi's would look very similar against pro competition.)

As for Mittelstadt, wasn't he just getting ragged on for his camp and preseason?

 

[Mac n Gs]

I think we have a few differences of opinion.

We're getting hung up on skating, but it's not really holding him back right now. He continues to produce --- at every level he's played at. I think that becomes a concern if its actually holding him back --- thus far it hasn't.

As for making plays, I disagree. When watching Andersson to this point, I often find that he's a catalyst for making something happen out there --- be it with a decision, a pass, being in the right place, picking up the right assignment, etc.

Is he weaving around guys, making no-look passes and roofing shots from 10 feet out? No. But he does show a very pro-style game that gets results and maximizes his strengths.

I get the flashy skill component. And yet for all the other guys you mentioned in your post, Andersson's D-1 accomplishments were as good or better. You'd take what he did as a pro last year over what Vilardi did against 16 and 17 year olds? (BTW, if you don't like Andersson's skating, Vilardi's would look very similar against pro competition.)

As for Mittelstadt, wasn't he just getting ragged on for his camp and preseason?

Vilardi was hurt again in pre-season. If we took a kid with a bad back and busted ankle, we’d never hear the end of it.

The whole notion that Lias doesn’t have the puck or can’t play well with it is asinine considering that’s what his whole game is predicated being strong on the puck and winning those 1v1 battles in tight spaces.

I swear that this thread is on a goddamn loop.

 

[Tawnos]

Vilardi was hurt again in pre-season. If we took a kid with a bad back and busted ankle, we’d never hear the end of it.

The whole notion that Lias doesn’t have the puck or can’t play well with it is asinine considering that’s what his whole game is predicated being strong on the puck and winning those 1v1 battles in tight spaces.

I swear that this thread is on a goddamn loop.

And it's really only two posters making it that way.

(By the way, I don't have a problem with those posters having a different viewpoint. I think it's good to see.... but at some point the discussion has to be given a rest, right? We can wait to see how he performs this year instead of re-hashing the same draft discussion and D+1 discussion for the 93 millionth time... we don't HAVE to talk about this anymore. I'm as guilty as anyone, but still)

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think it somewhat comes down to how one defines "off the board."

I think as fans, we focus on lists put out by observers and reporters and use that to decide what is considered off the board.

However, for all we know a lot of teams had Andersson in the top 13 or so. That's something we usually fail to take into account.

In Andersson's case, he was on more than a few lists in the 8-13 spot, and the third European by Central Scouting. I don't think most NHL teams would consider that as being "off the boards" so to speak. Same thing with Kravtsov.

I don't know if the hang-up is so much that the Rangers go bananas when picking high, so much as this board has usually compiled a rough sketch of its own list and usually struggles when we deviate from that list.

But overall, I don't know if we have a track record for this front office. In terms of known quantities, we can say they are 0 for 1 with McIlrath. But the jury is still very much out on Andersson and Kravtsov.

To be blunt, I think a lot of people did not want Andersson as the pick. As a result, they're never going to miss a chance to snipe on the issue. In their minds they're being objective. In reality, they really aren't and wouldn't be doing this if "their guy" was selected.

Agree here. I said this a few days ago and stand by it:

In my experience, most posters base their assumption on two things:

- Draft rankings
- Having seen more of North American players compared to European players

I am guilty of the 2nd point but in reverse. I do have a bias towards European players because I actually see them play. However, I feel I judge them without comparing them to NA skaters who I have not seen. A good example is Kravtsov vs Wahlstrom. I have not seen enough of Wahlstrom to say who is better but I do like the Kravtsov pick based on what we need and what I expect to see from a 9th overall pick.

If the Rangers go with European players for the 3rd year in a row, there will be an outrage because we passed over a NA player who is in the same tier. I remember how negative people were about Chytil and now people can't shut up about how he's the new Malkin. I think the biggest factor in this is that people get too caught up in a certain prospect. The Wahlstrom hype was caused by Larry Brooks mentioning him a few times for instance plus his draft ranking during the season where he was ranked in the top-5 regularly. With Mittelstadt it was mainly the rankings. I remember 5 or 6 rankings having him higher than where he was picked and one of them even having him 2nd overall (Steve K). Kravtsov's ranking was all over the place, ranging from 6 to 23.

If Podkolzin is ranked between 5 and 15 and we pick him at 6 while passing on (just an example) Newhook who was ranked between 4 and 9 people will use that as justification to call Podkolzin a reach. That's the other problem I am having with the terms steal and reach. A reach is not always a bad thing and a steal is not always a good thing. Veleno was considered a steal, same with Bode Wilde. Does that make them great picks? Maybe. But there has to be a reason so many teams passed up on them compared to where they were ranked by guys like McKenzie, Button, Pronman etc. By that same logic, a reach is not always bad because despite a player being ranked lower than where he was picked, a team saw something in them that made them pick that player earlier than where journalists saw them being picked. We will never know how many other teams wanted to go with Kravtsov in the picks right after ours. Same goes for Lias in 2017. Michael Dal Colle was ranked not lower than 8th overall by guys I mentioned earlier. Just an example. Draft rankings aren't the holy grail people make them out to be.

My last bit, and then I have to leave for the airport, is that people often forget that most NA prospects are putting up amazing numbers because they play against inferior opposition. It is impossible to compare a 90-point season in the USHL to a 15-20 point season in the SHL/KHL because of so many factors. Yet I see people draw conclusions based on this and actually make comparisons between the two. When I watch Kravtsov, I look at what he does and try to remember who he reminds me of, in the KHL. Comparisons are great, but they have to be made based on the same parameters. Even when comparing Kravtsov to Kuznetsov (Who played for the exact same team) you run into the problem of a difference in ice-time, a weaker or stronger team etc. Just because a team picked a different player than who you wanted, doesn't make it a bad pick. And even if that other player reaches the NHL first, it doesn't mean that player is the better prospect. I've posted a list of players earlier this week who didn't make the NHL team out of camp in their D+2 season Among those are guys like Brayden Schenn and Logan Couture. Not exactly busts.

Anyway, that's it. Rant over.

People go with familiarity. Look at the amount of people who say Pettersson hasn't done anything yet and 1 game doesn't mean anything. While there's some truth to this, his season in the SHL is the best ever by a rookie. He broke records as a teenager.

Andersson did the same in SuperElit. He had one of the best ever SuperElit seasons in history. He was an important cog in the Husqvarna machine that won the title in 2017. His play off performance had him jump in rankings. But, people who don't watch European hockey tend to just go by rankings which are also put together by people who don't see enough to really observe how good a player is. The public rankings aren't perfect and neither are the team's rankings. But those are never released. We get some into from Mckenzie saying that several teams had Kravtsov in their top 10, 2 had him in their top 5 etc. But that's about it.

However, the public rankings are seen as perfect. And then you hear words thrown around like "consensus" which doesn't mean much to me personally.

Lastly, if a player drops in the draft he's considered a steal. You rarely hear fans question why that player dropped and that it might be a bad pick. And the same is true for reaches. A reach is often considered a bad pick or a high risk pick. But why did a team reach? Why don't they just trade down? Because maybe other teams also had the player higher than those public rankings.

Does anyone remember where Scheifele was ranked? Definitely not at 7, where he was picked. Winnipeg reached and went with a guy they thought was the best player available. It looks like a great pick now. At the end of the day all the talk about BPA, consensus, reach, steal etc is based on rankings put together by people who aren't GMs.

 

[Lundy HOF]

If He didn’t have one of the worst skating strides I’ve seen in a long time of course I’d say yes he just needs to grow and develop. But you can only fix that so much. I don’t see how that’s going to be different at 22 than it is now.

He’s also not a guy that always has the puck and is making plays. He never has the puck. So he doesn’t skate well at all in a league that’s becoming more and more about speed, he’s about 5’11 tops, and never has the puck on his stick and he’s a center? I’m supposed to be excited about him 7th overall over guys like mittelstadt Necas Vilardi?

While we’re all screaming for elite prospects(this is the part I don’t get at all that guys defend this pick)

We can’t afford to do this again.

This is going to come off as very absolute but to me, Vilardi is hot garbage.

I don’t know enough about Necas to make an opinion.

Mitt would have been a fine pick too but to Edge’s point. Lisa has producers on par, if not better, to this point. They just drastically play different style games. You don’t HAVE to be flashy to be a good proespect.

I mean heck, look at Football, Brady is not really a gifted athlete nor is he flashy (as maybe Rodgers would be) and is the greatest QB of all time.

Let Lias play to his strengths, don’t hate on him because he doesn’t play a style you want him to.

 

[Kovalev27]

I respect the posters above more than most so honestly I have no problem going back and forth in a Lias Andersson thread about talking about Lias Andersson whether he looks good or bad and when he’s looked good I’ve never not said so.

However to say one of his strengths is play with the puck? At the ahl and nhl level he has never demonstrated a propensity for carrying the puck or having the puck and making plays. He’s good in making a few quick plays in tight and that’s great and he’s very good when the puck actually is on his stick but that’s almost never. He never carries it. It’s one of the main reasons I want him on wing. I think he’s a shooter or a guy that can score down low when a center gets him the puck by the net. But coming thru the neutral zone? No way

 

[Mac n Gs]

I respect the posters above more than most so honestly I have no problem going back and forth in a Lias Andersson thread about talking about Lias Andersson whether he looks good or bad and when he’s looked good I’ve never not said so.

However to say one of his strengths is play with the puck? At the ahl and nhl level he has never demonstrated a propensity for carrying the puck or having the puck and making plays. He’s good in making a few quick plays in tight and that’s great and he’s very good when the puck actually is on his stick but that’s almost never. He never carries it. It’s one of the main reasons I want him on wing. I think he’s a shooter or a guy that can score down low when a center gets him the puck by the net. But coming thru the neutral zone? No way

I better be included in that list of people you respect

And yes, re-read what I wrote since you basically just agreed with me. His play is predicated on being strong on the puck and winning battles in tight. I never said he’s good at lugging it up ice, although we’ve seen him do it in the SHL and WJC. Maybe we just see this very differently, but I disagree about him never having the puck on his stick. That’s hyperbole.

I agree with you about playing on LW. It maximizes his ability to win those 1v1 battles and open space for his teammates. He also has one of the better shots on the team, so getting him in a better position to shoot the puck is something we should try to maximize.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I respect the posters above more than most so honestly I have no problem going back and forth in a Lias Andersson thread about talking about Lias Andersson whether he looks good or bad and when he’s looked good I’ve never not said so.

However to say one of his strengths is play with the puck? At the ahl and nhl level he has never demonstrated a propensity for carrying the puck or having the puck and making plays. He’s good in making a few quick plays in tight and that’s great and he’s very good when the puck actually is on his stick but that’s almost never. He never carries it. It’s one of the main reasons I want him on wing. I think he’s a shooter or a guy that can score down low when a center gets him the puck by the net. But coming thru the neutral zone? No way

Neither has Mittelstadt or anyone else from the draft aside from Patrick and Hischier. Also, you don't have to dominate in the NHL at age 19 to become a top 6 center later on.

 

[Tawnos]

I respect the posters above more than most so honestly I have no problem going back and forth in a Lias Andersson thread about talking about Lias Andersson whether he looks good or bad and when he’s looked good I’ve never not said so.

However to say one of his strengths is play with the puck? At the ahl and nhl level he has never demonstrated a propensity for carrying the puck or having the puck and making plays. He’s good in making a few quick plays in tight and that’s great and he’s very good when the puck actually is on his stick but that’s almost never. He never carries it. It’s one of the main reasons I want him on wing. I think he’s a shooter or a guy that can score down low when a center gets him the puck by the net. But coming thru the neutral zone? No way

Discussing Andersson's play and current abilities is one thing. Re-hashing his draft position and ceiling is more what I was referring to.

I don't disagree about carrying the puck through the neutral zone. However, the puck does have a tendency to find him rather than the other way around. Probably related to his "IQ" (can I just mention how much I despise that term). And when it does find him, he often makes a good play with it.

 

[Kovalev27]

I better be included in that list of people you respect

And yes, re-read what I wrote since you basically just agreed with me. His play is predicated on being strong on the puck and winning battles in tight. I never said he’s good at lugging it up ice, although we’ve seen him do it in the SHL and WJC. Maybe we just see this very differently, but I disagree about him never having the puck on his stick. That’s hyperbole.

I agree with you about playing on LW. It maximizes his ability to win those 1v1 battles and open space for his teammates. He also has one of the better shots on the team, so getting him in a better position to shoot the puck is something we should try to maximize.

Well I was referring to your post in my answer so yes you’re included!

Your last paragraph is spot on with what I see in him. Good winger. Good on boards and puck battles great shot and great around the net. Middle 6 LW and hopefully wearing a C. That’s to me his upside.

He cannot play center in this league and be a driver of offense. It’s not going to happen. We may disagree on his puck possession clearly but I don’t think we disagree on his upside

 

[Trxjw]

I think you are correct, but I also think we should look at it for what it is. The Rangers went off the board. They must've thought Andersson had higher upside or a higher floor than most thought he had. They also thought Kravtsov was the second best forward in the last draft. The Rangers have a tendency with high picks to go off the board. Going off the board isn't a bad thing, but if you do so, you better be good at it. I'm not sure the Rangers have demonstrated that they are good at it.

I don't think he was an off the board pick. Off the board is Calgary taking Jankowski or Arizona taking Wheeler. Andersson was rated in the 8-15 range by most lists I saw, so he may have been a slight reach but certainly not off the board.

People tend to take the public lists, or their own list, as the gospel but tend to forget there are 31 other lists that we almost never see -- the ones that really matter. McKenzie's list is always the most interesting for me because he's polling NHL scouts. The "5 out of 10 scouts had this guy rated in their top-5" snippets are always eye-opening. There's so much variation amongst teams that people just seem to ignore. The Rangers had Patrick, Pettersson, and Glass higher than Andersson on their list. So they obviously have an eye for talented players. If they were able to move up, or if Vegas or Vancouver went a different way, we could have very well ended up with one of those guys.

Now, what I will acknowledge is that the Rangers seem to put a premium on "tools" when it comes to amateur scouting. They like strong skaters, character players, guys with an elite shot, etc. Rarely do they seem to go with the "flashy" player. They seem to focus on the safer bet to make the NHL as opposed to the guy who might be a human highlight reel. I think a lot of that is a result of the way they ran their team for so long. They wanted to buy the talent and draft the filler and were very slow in changing their strategy. Kreider and Miller were safe bets to be 3rd liners in the NHL based on their size, skating, and gritty play. McIlrath was a safe bet had the league not pivoted away from that sort of player and he hadn't suffered the knee injuries. Skjei was a safe bet to be a 3rd pairing defensemen. They take these guys and then hope they take a step forward. It doesn't really lend itself to bagging elite talent, but you can't argue that they've managed to turn out a high number of solid NHL players.

 

[Kovalev27]

Discussing Andersson's play and current abilities is one thing. Re-hashing his draft position and ceiling is more what I was referring to.

I don't disagree about carrying the puck through the neutral zone. However, the puck does have a tendency to find him rather than the other way around. Probably related to his "IQ" (can I just mention how much I despise that term). And when it does find him, he often makes a good play with it.

But when your a top 10 pick this is going to follow you. You either live up to expectations and people shut up or you don’t and people will talk about it forever sort of like how we still talk about mcilrath vs tarasenko/Fowler or jessiman vs like everyone in the 2003 draft. But at least when those guys were picked they were picked with boom/bust on them. They had high ceilings. I think the part that is most troublesome is lias out the gate didn’t have that high ceiling and was sold as nhl ready. It was very clear to anyone watching him on day one that he couldn’t skate. And the excuses that he was just tired came out. He was a good Skater he was just tired. Well no he’s a terrible skater he’s not just tired that how he skates. I can’t honestly accept that anyone here saw his skating prior to the draft and still would have taken him 7th. I think kreiderman was the only one that even remotely mentioned him as someone he liked as a top 10 pick here. We also heard he was a good skater and compared to Fast who actually is a good skater. If he skated like fast he would be a higher end prospect with his hands and shot. But he doesn’t.

So fair or unfair a top 10 pick will be scrutinized particularly if guys around them turn out better and they underwhelm. Consider me and many others cause it’s far from just me on this board, underwhelmed.

 

[Tawnos]

But when your a top 10 pick this is going to follow you. You either live up to expectations and people shut up or you don’t and people will talk about it forever sort of like how we still talk about mcilrath vs tarasenko/Fowler or jessiman vs like everyone in the 2003 draft. But at least when those guys were picked they were picked with boom/bust on them. They had high ceilings. I think the part that is most troublesome is lias out the gate didn’t have that high ceiling and was sold as nhl ready. It was very clear to anyone watching him on day one that he couldn’t skate. And the excuses that he was just tired came out. He was a good Skater he was just tired. Well no he’s a terrible skater he’s not just tired that how he skates. I can’t honestly accept that anyone here saw his skating prior to the draft and still would have taken him 7th. I think kreiderman was the only one that even remotely mentioned him as someone he liked as a top 10 pick here. We also heard he was a good skater and compared to Fast who actually is a good skater. If he skated like fast he would be a higher end prospect with his hands and shot. But he doesn’t.

So fair or unfair a top 10 pick will be scrutinized particularly if guys around them turn out better and they underwhelm. Consider me and many others cause it’s far from just me on this board, underwhelmed.

You overstate his skating issues. Badly. And you underestimate his ceiling. Badly.

It only "follows a player around" when we choose to make that happen. Right now, you and a couple of other posters are choosing to keep bringing it up as if it matters even a little at this point.