old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,802
- 5,898
I thought I read somewhere that Rosen had long-haul covid, but now I can't find any reference to it, so maybe it was someone else.
And Jack QuinnIt wasn't long ago everyone was shitting on Dahlin.
And Tage ThompsonIt wasn't long ago everyone was shitting on Dahlin.
And Josh Allen. People judge athletes way too early in their careers/development. Don't give up on 19 year olds.And Tage Thompson
Is the reward on Rosen much higher than the other guys selected around him?This was always a long haul project pick. Everyone knew it because we were explicitly told so.
Patience young Padawans, Patience.
I like that they were willing to go out and take a high risk, high reward player. Now we need to wait and see.
This is correct. Measured and concerned. I think it’s reasonable to be pessimistic about Rosen working out based on historical data. It’s also reasonable to be frustrated that the Sabres, who haven’t drafted a 1st round goalie since Mika Norenen, and whose biggest organizational weakness is in goal, didn’t take either of two high probability goalies with a free pick in a weak draft. That is a legitimate gripe.The point remains, most productive NHLers are typically productive in their draft year. I don't know if Rosen will be good or not, but it would be nice to have that production rather than having to wait for it, and hoping for another exception to the rule.
Is the reward on Rosen much higher than the other guys selected around him?
The point remains, most productive NHLers are typically productive in their draft year. I don't know if Rosen will be good or not, but it would be nice to have that production rather than having to wait for it, and hoping for another exception to the rule.
Is the reward on Rosen much higher than the other guys selected around him?
I was able to get the article (I emailed the author who was very nice) - I did the best I could trying to find a translation but it's still not perfect. Seems like his finger injury was worse than we thought, plus he had some illness. If anybody else can get a better translation I attached the original file as well.
>>which head scout Jerry Forton said recentlyInteresting. And if you couple injury, illness and him not being on the optimal team/league for his development (which head scout Jerry Forton said recently), I think there's enough reason there to give Rosen the benefit of the doubt for one more season before we start solidifying our judgement of him.
>>which head scout Jerry Forton said recently
Do you happen to remember where you heard that? I believe you - I just want to listen to it myself.
It really does seem like everything that could've gone wrong for him this year, did. The D+1 season is so important in my opinion, so a shame that he missed out on a lot of it. Here's to hoping he can rebound in a big way.Yup, it was in this episode.
Puckfeed: Home
Discover the latest videos on Puckfeed, your best resource for NHL video content.www.puckfeed.com
The best part (I think I read this right) was that the injury time gave him an opportunity to gain strength that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to do in-season.Interesting. And if you couple injury, illness and him not being on the optimal team/league for his development (which head scout Jerry Forton said recently), I think there's enough reason there to give Rosen the benefit of the doubt for one more season before we start solidifying our judgement of him.
So William Eklund scored 1 goal in 28 SHL games this year compared to Rosen’s 2 in 28 games.So, I’m not saying that he’s a bust. I’ll reserve judgement, because it’s been a weird couple years and he was injured and I’ll.
I also don’t love NHLe, but just so I understand the argument, you can’t compare Isak Rosen, to say, all the high pick Swedes of the past 20 or so years, because he didn’t earn enough minutes to produce? That argument is pretty thin. NHLe isn’t great at deciding between two similar prospects, but historically, 19 year olds that couldn’t score in the SHL didn’t miraculously get better at scoring in the NHL. Whether they didn’t score because they didn’t have the skill, or because their coach didn’t play them is, honestly, irrelevant.
Raymond, Eklund, and Anderson all produced at higher than .5 ppg pace. Holz was just under at .45.So William Eklund scored 1 goal in 28 SHL games this year compared to Rosen’s 2 in 28 games.
Lucas Raymond had 6 in 34 games in his D+1 year. Alexander Holtz had 9 in 40. Lias Anderson had 9 in 42.
Those guys were all top 7 NHL picks.
I guess my question is what 19-year-olds are you talking about? Elias Petterson is the only one I could find recently who could score consistently in the SHL.
Sure, but compared to who?Raymond, Eklund, and Anderson all produced at higher than .5 ppg pace. Holz was just under at .45.
Rosen was at .14
Don’t do this. You can make the argument that his historically bad production is the product of things outside his control and about which we shouldn’t be worried, but you CANNOT make the argument that his production wasn’t abnormally poor for his draft slot. It was.
I’m not so sure this is the take you think it is. A quick search of recent drafts do show quite a bit of first rounders playing in the SHL in their D+1 year and performing better than Rosen. I don’t have time at the moment to compile all of the stats but if I get a chance later on I’ll try to do that.Sure, but compared to who?
How many mid-1st forwards spend their D+1 year in the SHL?
The sample size is minuscule. It’s like comparing Alex Nylander to all the other D+1 AHL seasons by top 10 picks in the past 10 years.
Rosen’s so hard to quantify because he’s an outlier.
So William Eklund scored 1 goal in 28 SHL games this year compared to Rosen’s 2 in 28 games.
You can make the argument that his historically bad production is the product of things outside his control and about which we shouldn’t be worried,
whether or not there are legitimate explanations
This is correct. Measured and concerned. I think it’s reasonable to be pessimistic about Rosen working out based on historical data. It’s also reasonable to be frustrated that the Sabres, who haven’t drafted a 1st round goalie since Mika Norenen, and whose biggest organizational weakness is in goal, didn’t take either of two high probability goalies with a free pick in a weak draft. That is a legitimate gripe.
That doesn’t mean I hate Rosen or think he’s a bust already. But he was a low probability pick at the time. And his D+1, although interrupted by illness and injuries (which also isn’t irrelevant for a small player), was by all historical measurements, pretty bad.
So, pessimistic but undecided seems like a fair stance.
Eklund was the first guy whose stats I checked after that comment and thought it was pretty funny.
Also hear this in my head everytime I read Rosén's name
Um... sorry guys that's actually the entire point.
"Historically bad" is also going overboard again.