Prospect Info: 22nd Overall Tobias Bjornfot, Defence

[Raccoon Jesus]

I love his mobility. And I actually think his production is going to be fine, he's got that Swedish instinct to just get shots/pucks through traffic instead of trying to kill people.

The only thing I don't like in his game is that soft, wide turn he makes repeatedly to skate the puck out on his backhand, often one handed with his torso and arm down, someone is going to destroy him in the NHL if he keeps that up, haha.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Post from May 21. On the pick #22 thread. I had Bjornfot on my list...albeit, I had 10 listed!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's got to come down to BPA at 22. There is going to be several very good prospects at 22. A mix of: Tomasino,, Heinola, Seider, Bjornfot, Suzuki, Brink, Afanasayev, Hoglander, McMichael there...and Albin Grewe. I'd rather have most anyone of them over Knight. If the Kings get either Campbell or Petersen under a longterm deal, either of them can go 5 years or more. The Kings have a ton of goalie prospects in the pipeline now, and Ranford will polish a few of them: Hrenak, Vilallta, Kehler, Ingham...this aint the Lombardi era, where there was like one in the pipeline, JF Berube years. There's 4 or more now...not even counting Cal.

Last edited: May 21, 2019
Peter James Bond II, May 21, 2019ReportUnbookmark
340

 

[Ghetty Green]

The comps are never going to be perfect, I get it. But what I was probably doing a poor job of communicating is that this is a kid who has played great defense at his level of competition AND he can skate and carry the puck on the rush. If he turned into a Mitchell or Scuderi type defensively who can skate the puck out of trouble and then rush it up the ice and get the opponents defense to back off the blue line? This pick would be an absolute home run, even if he only put up 10 to 20 points a season (I think his offense is better than that). Forbort can play defense and skate some. But he makes poor decisions with the puck and forget skating out of trouble. He'll skate into it. He's the negative Kings break-out of the zone. Walker and Roy can skate and provide some offense. Defense TBD. Bjornfot's got more potential than any of our D in the pipeline save Mikey Anderson. I don't like comparing any of our prospects to Drew, but finding an elite PMD who is also a shutdown defender? That's a rare breed. Anderson and Bjornfot look like guys who can play shutdown and move the puck, not like Drew, but better than anyone else we have. I haven't forgotten Clague. I know he can move the puck. Hopefully he's better at defending than Roy/Walker.

Roy is adequate defensively

 

[deaderhead28]

 

[Statto]

I’m not suggesting we put him in but this guy wouldn’t be the worst Defenseman on our opening night roster. We should obviously develop him properly but we’ve let our blue line standards slip.

We have a whole bunch of guys best suited in 5-7 roles, in part because that’s their ceiling and in part because they are still developing them. We can argue that Martinez is a #4 (just) but it means we have glaring vacancies at 2 and 3.

We have people thinking taking someone at #22 that is projected as a sure fire 3/4 guy is too high. Yet he is more ready than anyone in our system to play that role today, to fill what is a glaring hole in our system. He is quite likely to be a solid consistent #3, the player we wanted Muzzin to be. One more year in Sweden and he will step straight in as doing so now (ignoring his contract) isn’t right for his development.

Forbert will take one of the roles on opening night whilst Roy and Walker will likely take 2 more spots. So that leaves 2 more.

We still have people thinking LaDue can do a job for us, come on really? He’s fit for waiving at this point. His time has passed and wishful thinking won’t change that. That development time is far better spent seeing where we are with Anderson, Clague and Brinkley. Hopefully one can take an opening night spot with MacD there as the #7. The other two are then left in Ontario battling it out to be first call up.

 

[Maynard]

Post from May 21. On the pick #22 thread. I had Bjornfot on my list...albeit, I had 10 listed!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's got to come down to BPA at 22. There is going to be several very good prospects at 22. A mix of: Tomasino,, Heinola, Seider, Bjornfot, Suzuki, Brink, Afanasayev, Hoglander, McMichael there...and Albin Grewe. I'd rather have most anyone of them over Knight. If the Kings get either Campbell or Petersen under a longterm deal, either of them can go 5 years or more. The Kings have a ton of goalie prospects in the pipeline now, and Ranford will polish a few of them: Hrenak, Vilallta, Kehler, Ingham...this aint the Lombardi era, where there was like one in the pipeline, JF Berube years. There's 4 or more now...not even counting Cal.

Last edited: May 21, 2019
Peter James Bond II, May 21, 2019ReportUnbookmark
340

You listed 10 possible players that could go at 22 and you’re quoting and reposting your own post to pat yourself on the back because you were right about one of them.

Congrats?

 

[Legionnaire]

You listed 10 possible players that could go at 22 and you’re quoting and reposting your own post to pat yourself on the back because you were right about one of them.

Congrats?

Lol. You know who really nailed it? Central Scouting. They had like everyone listed.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Yes it is more interesting which player PJBII did NOT list.

 

[kings11]

This kid is being compared to Ryan McDonagh and lets just say the similarities are pretty damn shocking... The kid is 6ft, 203lbs... safe to assume that even if he doesnt grow much if any he will mature into a sweet skating, puck driving, offense creating, 215-220lb defensive nightmare..

yeah, we did pretty good in the 1st round

 

[SettlementRichie10]

You specifically said Bjornfot needs to improve his production (scoring) to be a top 4 dman. When in fact his production is comparable to top 4 NHLers who played in similar leagues at similar ages.

As for Mitchell he was awesome. One of the best defensive dmen ever. He used his height and reach to his advantage (he also used an extra long stick). But that was HIS game. Ultimately it's not height that matters, it just matters how effective you are. Every player has different tools/attributes and uses them differently.

The fact that Scuderi and Mitchell were drafted in late mid/rounds doesn't mean anything. There's also been lots of great scorers taken later in the draft. If you can get a guy who you think is going to be a good top 4 dman late in the 1st you take him there. Bjornfot isn't simply a shutdown guy anyways. His scouting report literally says "Two-way defenseman" "contributes both offensively and defensively." I would absolutely take Willie Mitchell in the 1st round, BTW.

Hickey had the 8th most points of any Dman in the WHL as a 17 year old. He was absolutely considered a good offensive dman that would probably go in the 2nd round.

And that’s exactly where I think a player like Bjornfot is worth picking: the 2nd round.

But to be honest, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I think you believe I’m disputing things I’m not, and misinterpreting some of my points.

1. Yes, I do believe Bjornfot needs to improve his offensive production. That is not the same as saying, “you need to be a scorer to play in the top four,” which is hyperbolized absolutism. I don’t believe that and I never said that.

2. If Bjornfot’s strength is a two way game, yes, he does need to improve the offensive side of his game.

3. Yes, a fully developed Willie Mitchell at 28 years old is worth picking in the 1st Round. But those kinds of defenders rarely if ever have a fully developed defensive game at 18. This is why no one is looking for Willie Mitchells and Rob Scuderis in the 1st Round. Those kinds of players are typically found in later rounds and slowly developed in a farm system. Overall, this point is somewhat of a tangent, but worth clarifying.

4. Lastly, again, my contention is not whether Bjornfot is worth drafting. My contention is whether he is worth drafting at 22nd overall. Ultimately, the Kings got the player I wanted at 22nd overall anyway, so none of this really matters. It’s the mere principle of drafting a player like Bjornfot that high, when he would have likely been available well into the 2nd round. That’s really all I’m saying.

I’m happy we drafted Bjornfot. But do I think he’s worth picking at 22nd overall? No, I do not.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

And that’s exactly where I think a player like Bjornfot is worth picking: the 2nd round.

But to be honest, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I think you believe I’m disputing things I’m not, and misinterpreting some of my points.

1. Yes, I do believe Bjornfot needs to improve his offensive production. That is not the same as saying, “you need to be a scorer to play in the top four,” which is hyperbolized absolutism. I don’t believe that and I never said that.

2. If Bjornfot’s strength is a two way game, yes, he does need to improve the offensive side of his game.

3. Yes, a fully developed Willie Mitchell at 28 years old is worth picking in the 1st Round. But those kinds of defenders rarely if ever have a fully developed defensive game at 18. This is why no one is looking for Willie Mitchells and Rob Scuderis in the 1st Round. Those kinds of players are typically found in later rounds and slowly developed in a farm system. Overall, this point is somewhat of a tangent, but worth clarifying.

4. Lastly, again, my contention is not whether Bjornfot is worth drafting. My contention is whether he is worth drafting at 22nd overall. Ultimately, the Kings got the player I wanted at 22nd overall anyway, so none of this really matters. It’s the mere principle of drafting a player like Bjornfot that high, when he would have likely been available well into the 2nd round. That’s really all I’m saying.

I’m happy we drafted Bjornfot. But do I think he’s worth picking at 22nd overall? No, I do not.

Why do you keep arguing that his offensive output is average. It is not.

Besides lets face it, barely anyone has seen much of him at all to talk about his offensive game, so we have to rely on his stats.

 

[johnjm22]

And that’s exactly where I think a player like Bjornfot is worth picking: the 2nd round.

But to be honest, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I think you believe I’m disputing things I’m not, and misinterpreting some of my points.

1. Yes, I do believe Bjornfot needs to improve his offensive production. That is not the same as saying, “you need to be a scorer to play in the top four,” which is hyperbolized absolutism. I don’t believe that and I never said that.

2. If Bjornfot’s strength is a two way game, yes, he does need to improve the offensive side of his game.

3. Yes, a fully developed Willie Mitchell at 28 years old is worth picking in the 1st Round. But those kinds of defenders rarely if ever have a fully developed defensive game at 18. This is why no one is looking for Willie Mitchells and Rob Scuderis in the 1st Round. Those kinds of players are typically found in later rounds and slowly developed in a farm system. Overall, this point is somewhat of a tangent, but worth clarifying.

4. Lastly, again, my contention is not whether Bjornfot is worth drafting. My contention is whether he is worth drafting at 22nd overall. Ultimately, the Kings got the player I wanted at 22nd overall anyway, so none of this really matters. It’s the mere principle of drafting a player like Bjornfot that high, when he would have likely been available well into the 2nd round. That’s really all I’m saying.

I’m happy we drafted Bjornfot. But do I think he’s worth picking at 22nd overall? No, I do not.

Look at where the defensemen in this draft ended up being taken relative to where they were ranked. I think it's pretty clear NHL teams were higher on this class of defensemen than fans and media were. So I don't think it's likely he'd still be around in the 2nd. But we don't know.

I admit I see more upside in Bjornfot than most. I see him as a guy you can have on your top pair because he's the perfect complement to an elite #1 defender. A player of Bjornfot's ilk can play the big minutes. He can cover the ice well with his skating and play good enough defense to let a player like Doughty/Karlsson/Burns/Letang roam more. He's the exact type you want paired with your number 1 guy, and he still has the skillset to chip in offensively and be used on the PP.

I know that's speaking highly of him, but that's what I see as his top potential. Maybe I’m wearing my rose colored glasses.

There's plenty of players I see drafted after him that I like, but no so much so that I think they're obviously better picks then him. So I’m fine taking him 22nd OA.

Also defensive guys have a history of being taken in the 1st round. Hell Alzner and Schenn went top 5.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

Why do you keep arguing that his offensive output is average. It is not.

Besides lets face it, barely anyone has seen much of him at all to talk about his offensive game, so we have to rely on his stats.

Every scouting report on Bjornfot flags his offensive production as a concern.

 

[Choralone]

And that’s exactly where I think a player like Bjornfot is worth picking: the 2nd round.

But to be honest, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I think you believe I’m disputing things I’m not, and misinterpreting some of my points.

1. Yes, I do believe Bjornfot needs to improve his offensive production. That is not the same as saying, “you need to be a scorer to play in the top four,” which is hyperbolized absolutism. I don’t believe that and I never said that.

2. If Bjornfot’s strength is a two way game, yes, he does need to improve the offensive side of his game.

3. Yes, a fully developed Willie Mitchell at 28 years old is worth picking in the 1st Round. But those kinds of defenders rarely if ever have a fully developed defensive game at 18. This is why no one is looking for Willie Mitchells and Rob Scuderis in the 1st Round. Those kinds of players are typically found in later rounds and slowly developed in a farm system. Overall, this point is somewhat of a tangent, but worth clarifying.

4. Lastly, again, my contention is not whether Bjornfot is worth drafting. My contention is whether he is worth drafting at 22nd overall. Ultimately, the Kings got the player I wanted at 22nd overall anyway, so none of this really matters. It’s the mere principle of drafting a player like Bjornfot that high, when he would have likely been available well into the 2nd round. That’s really all I’m saying.

I’m happy we drafted Bjornfot. But do I think he’s worth picking at 22nd overall? No, I do not.

Saying he's a second-round pick based on what you essentially is his play style is ignoring context. He was a late riser, and by the time of the draft he was ranked where he was taken. And, as mentioned, teams were snapping up the quality defensemen at that point in the draft. It is highly unlikely that Bjornfot would have been available in the second round as you contend. The Kings staff deserves kudos because not only did they have their list, but they had their fingers on the pulse of the draft as well.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Every scouting report on Bjornfot flags his offensive production as a concern.

I beg to differ.

It’s also mainly based on his international play. If you read some scouting reports, they are summing up his point totals and call it a scouting report. Any nitwit can do that.

Now, I certainly cant guarantee he is Bjorn Salming 2.0 but his offensive output is better than Hampus Lindholm at the same age. Do you consider him a black hole on offense ? I think not.

His numbers were more than good in the league he has been playing in. That is what counts so far.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

I beg to differ.

It’s also mainly based on his international play. If you read some scouting reports, they are summing up his point totals and call it a scouting report. Any nitwit can do that.

Now, I certainly cant guarantee he is Bjorn Salming 2.0 but his offensive output is better than Hampus Lindholm at the same age. Do you consider him a black hole on offense ? I think not.

His numbers were more than good in the league he has been playing in. That is what counts so far.

If you need to rely on hyperbole to continue characterizing my opinions on Bjornfot, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

I never said Bjornfot was a “black hole on offense.” I said his offensive production needs improvement, which is consistent with every major scouting report available on him.

If you want to take the stance that these scouting reports are wrong, that’s fine.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I beg to differ.

It’s also mainly based on his international play. If you read some scouting reports, they are summing up his point totals and call it a scouting report. Any nitwit can do that.

Now, I certainly cant guarantee he is Bjorn Salming 2.0 but his offensive output is better than Hampus Lindholm at the same age. Do you consider him a black hole on offense ? I think not.

His numbers were more than good in the league he has been playing in. That is what counts so far.

Not a black hole but he's showing that concerns about his offensive upside were warranted, with a high of 34 points despite #1 minutes and deployment (but minus PP time because the Ducks had plenty of better offensive players).

That doesn't mean they're blackholes or have no offensive IQ, quite the contrary, but that he's more of a Vlasic clone, which is what keeps him from being a true all situations elite #1. And that's totally fine, obviously, but it's also a fair criticism, no?

I do think Bjornfot-to-Lindholm is a good comparison for upside, so it's probably a good value pick in the end, but if he was amazing at everything, he wouldn't have slid. It's ok to criticize guys. The absence of a "true weakness" is nice, for sure, but it's almost the same scouting report as, say, Roland McKeown. Except where they criticized Roland as identityless, at least Bjornfot has an identity.

 

[Frolov 6'3]

If you need to rely on hyperbole to continue characterizing my opinions on Bjornfot, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

I never said Bjornfot was a “black hole on offense.” I said his offensive production needs improvement, which is consistent with every major scouting report available on him.

If you want to take the stance that these scouting reports are wrong, that’s fine.

You compared him to Thomas Hickey earlier. Now you say i rely on hyperbole. I think that is very strange.

Thomas Hickey might not be a black hole but he is damn close to it, unfortunately, because i seriously rooted for him. He put up some points but mostly because he got too much playing time on a horrible team and certainly isnt 2nd pairing material.

 

[Peter James Bond II]

Yes it is more interesting which player PJBII did NOT list.

TOUCHE! Was not a giving credit thing...several could have had him in a 10 player list...but have been high on him a few months. I thought of his name 4 on my list as I was typing.

However, love this pick!! Love first 4 picks....the culture is changing and level of talent is going WAY UP! Go Kings Go!

who's your leader? BJORNFOT IS OUR LEADER!!!

from Lakinginsider:
Christian Ruuttu, on Tobias Bjornfot using his feet to work out of trouble:
Exactly. Closes gaps really quickly. Defending-wise, he gets his body in front because he’s such a good skater. It’s very hard to play against, plus he has a good stick at the same time, defending-wise. They said it last night and I hadn’t even thought about it, but he does remind me of Ryan McDonagh. That’s exactly what he is. He’s not flashy, but he’s still a good power play guy. His skating is so good with the puck, and he can move. He’s not going to look for the second out past. If he sees the first pass, he’ll give it to you.
Ruuttu, on examples of Bjornfot’s character while scouting him:
When you asked anybody on the Swedish team that he played for, ask who’s the leader on the team, one name came out every time. It was Tobias. It was Tobias Bjornfot. Bjornfot, Bjornfot, Bjornfot. Every single guy said that, so it’s very impressive. You can’t go around asking Tobias who’s the leader, but every player said that on his team. ‘Tobias is our leader,’ and leading a team, getting the first World Championship under-18 for Sweden, it was a very good thing – winning at home, too. But Tobias is a solid player that way

 

[Frolov 6'3]

Not a black hole but he's showing that concerns about his offensive upside were warranted, with a high of 34 points despite #1 minutes and deployment (but minus PP time because the Ducks had plenty of better offensive players).

That doesn't mean they're blackholes or have no offensive IQ, quite the contrary, but that he's more of a Vlasic clone, which is what keeps him from being a true all situations elite #1. And that's totally fine, obviously, but it's also a fair criticism, no?.

I think not. He was drafted 22nd overall, nobody should expect elite #1 players from that position and his numbers in the junior league in Sweden show good enough offensive output. Thats why i fail to understand this.

It looks like Bearfoot is a victim of his own excellent solid defensive play which is so much better than his offensive play.

 

[Visul]

I’m happy we drafted Bjornfot. But do I think he’s worth picking at 22nd overall? No, I do not

He went a little earlier than predicted but if Kings were originally after a forward and a defenseman with 22 and 33 selections, they made the right call. With the first 21 picks 8 defensemen were already gone and a tier of the available guys was about to drop very soon. That's debatable was there any better defensemen drafted after Björnfot. At least in most rankings he was higher than any other.

Then again there were so many quality forwards left on the table (at the time of #21) that Kings crew knew they'll get one they want at 33. Now we at least know Fagemo was on their draft list but I'm sure there were a few other players also. There's no doubt my mind that Björnfot would have been gone before 33 so I'm extremely happy about the outcome.

 

[Steve Zissou]

Good article on how Blake saw lots of leadership in Turcotte and Bjornfot



Discussing such pushes for character, work ethic, compete level and other intangibles, Yannetti and the organization hope the players they’re drafting will “affect change” from the grassroots level. By banking on such neutrino-measured constitution with the Turcotte and Tobias Bjornfot selections, and by virtue of a restocked pipeline, the team chose to use the second pick of the second round on Arthur Kaliyev, a player with the type of game-changing skill the organization needs but who has had to answer questions about his work ethic and compete level. It’s an interesting subject detailing the way players are incubated and developed and touches on a number of broad themes related to amateur scouting and the means of unearthing a player’s potential.

 

[King'sPawn]

Mark Yannetti, on when the decision to select Arthur Kaliyev was made:
I can tell you we had two guys – you’re going to need 20 minutes for me to talk. We were confident, and when I say ‘confident,’ I mean we’re not just flipping the coin and rolling the dice. Confident doesn’t mean ‘100%.’ It just means we thought there was a better-than-average chance that two guys would fall to 33, and he was a guy that we thought might fall, and like I said, if anyone wants to talk to me for a long time, it played into the Bjornfot thing. Both guys were there at 33, both guys we thought would fall there. [Reporter: Is there a five-minute version?] Yeah, I guess so. So, it’s draft strategy, right? The problem is I don’t think I can do it in five minutes because I’m one of the most verbose human beings on the planet. That’s Dean’s fault, by the way. Blame Dean for me being like this. So, what happens is you look at 22, and we had a dead heat at 22. So, you have a D and a forward that happen to be our dead heat. And then you look at the draft, and if you look at our list – not any independent list – between 22 and 32, we would’ve had two defensemen left on our list, and then between 22 and 33, we had two defensemen but we had four forwards. I know it doesn’t make sense – that’s why it’s the short version. So, the odds of there being a defenseman there at 33 were less than half of what it was with there being a forward. That’s just your numbers. Now, you look at all the independent lists, and we identified two of those forwards we thought would be the ones to fall, so now it checks another box in terms of what may be there. So, what we did is we took a slight calculation of risking maybe losing the forward because if we lose those guys, the difference in depth between the four guys that we lose and the ones that would be available at 33 was much less than what you’d lose between a defenseman. So, if the two defensemen are on a scale of 1-100, the difference is 70. If the forwards go, the next forward, it’s like 20. So we kind of took a calculated risk saying that we wouldn’t get defensive value at 33, but we could still get forward value if our list went wrong. … I can’t tell you how stressful it was watching 27, 28, 29, and then once it got to 31, then we knew we’d get one of the two, and we’re like, ‘oh yeah, we’re geniuses.’ And I’m sitting there the whole time, like, ‘don’t [go poorly].’ I’m telling Rob this is a probability, and if a probability doesn’t happen, then I’d look like an idiot.

So it appears part of the factor into the Bjornfot pick is that between 22 and 33, there were two defensemen they liked and four forwards. They took Bjornfot feeling the drop off was much bigger. For those who want to question the pick, hopefully this gives you context.

If I'm understanding him correctly, it also seems as if after 26, there were only two forwards left they would have taken at 33. So between 23 and 26, two of the forwards were taken.

These four forwards were taken:
Simon Holmstrom
Philip Tomasino
Connor McMichael
Jakob Pelletier

 

[SettlementRichie10]

You compared him to Thomas Hickey earlier. Now you say i rely on hyperbole. I think that is very strange.

Thomas Hickey might not be a black hole but he is damn close to it, unfortunately, because i seriously rooted for him. He put up some points but mostly because he got too much playing time on a horrible team and certainly isnt 2nd pairing material.

If you had an ounce of objectivity and weren’t terrified of admitting Bjornfot may not turn into a bonafide top four defenseman, you’d be able to see the near identical scouting reports and circumstances surrounding both Hickey and Bjornfot.

Both were both rated in the low first round/high second round.

They both came out of drafts with notably shallow pools of top end defensemen.

They were both lauded for their leadership abilities.

They were both captains in their draft years.

They were both considered good skaters.

They were both average sized defensemen.

They were both considered two way defensemen.

Their ceiling was/is considered top four PMD, not #1-2 defensemen.

Etc, etc. They’re not identical prospects, but they are very similar. You need to dismiss what Hickey is NOW and consider what he was in 2007.

My comparing Bjornfot to Hickey is not the indictment you’re twisting it to be. In fact, it’s the exact opposite; it’s praise. It’s a f***ing insult to Hickey’s rating as a prospect in 2007 to call this comparison “hyperbole.” Hickey was a well rated defensive prospect. So is Bjornfot now.

And the statistical f***ing reality is that Alex Turcotte will be the only 2019 Kings draftee to play more than 200 NHL games. Statistically, Bjornfot, Kaliyev, Fagemo, all of these kids will play a couple of seasons AT BEST before finishing out their short careers in Europe.

So if a 22nd overall defenseman is the hill you want to die on, so be it.

 

[BigKing]

I said it on here right when the pick was made: they went for need and not BPA.

They wanted a defenseman and correctly guessed that the ones they liked wouldn't be there at 33 but the forwards might.

That still doesn't mean that taking two forwards with those picks wouldn't have actually been BPA.

I'm totally fine with the pick because they still got AK at 33 but I'd be less enthused if it didn't work out that way. Baby Bjornfot seems like a probable NHL player while AK could bust; however, you are more likely to find someone with Bjornfot's potential in the later rounds as opposed to AK's. The whole point of taking Bjornfot in Round 1 is based on his probability to reach his potential v. what the actual potential is.

He's a safe pick which isn't terribly exciting for a prospect pool that doesn't have a lot of flash to it. When you step back and see Turcotte and then AK sandwiching the pick, you feel a lot better about it.

You want to get NHL players out of the draft, first and foremost. Kings problem is that "NHL player" has kind of been the only positive they've taken from the last few DL drafts as opposed to at least "Good NHL player". Bjornfot kind of has that Forbort feel. Boring. Will play in the NHL but how much of an impact? For a team starving for high-end prospects, it is natural that this pick fell flat around here, but now this pick makes the AK pick feel like you are playing with house money since you were able to bank what seems like, at minimum, a modest winning hand with Bjornfot and a jackpot with Turcotte before betting on AK.