I do, too.
But that stuff usually happens where we saw Caufield drop.
Goal scoring is great and every team needs it, but if you look at him against Lindstrom, it's easy to see why a NHL GM would take Lindstrom first. Might not score as many goals but he can do so many more things for a team.
Eiserman not expanding his toolkit brings up the same questions that knocked Caufield down 4-6 spots lower than he should have been picked.. and that's, what is he doing for our team when he isn't playing an A game and isn't finishing?
If Eiserman could add more dimensions to his offensive game or get more implicated physically, etc. he can redeem his stock.
Still looks like the 3rd forward off the board to me, but may get jumped by a number of D.
Good post. Everyone is aware of Eiserman's talent level, but how he handles himself in his draft year is very important when comes time to make projections. If there are doubts about his compete level, defensive involvement or game away from the puck, that will make him drop a few spots, if he shows improvements in those areas, he could pretty well rise on lists again. You want to see an upward trajectory with these kids and a dedication to improve in the areas they need to.
A kid like Wahlstrom was really talented too and a very good goalscorer, but his compete level was pretty meh and there were flaws to his game, the reason why he dropped. A few years later, those red flags were real and the kid hasnt established himself as a potent top 6 player yet. I do think that Eiserman is more talented and a bit less flawed than Wahlstrom was though, but thats what scouting is about, kids drop or rise for a reason.
Filip Zadina was a great junior player, but his skating wasnt great and thats what is still holding him back. The bust factor is important to considere when ranking these kids IMO, You cant just rank them on talent alone, it would be too easy.
