FrankMTL
Registered User
- Jan 6, 2005
- 12,117
- 15,581
Disappointing U18s for Helenius. I expected a lot more.
I think a lot of us did.
A total of 1 assist against the USA and Sweden is not a great showing for a player of his skill level.
Disappointing U18s for Helenius. I expected a lot more.
Not a Helenius fan, but U18 performance is one of the worst predictors ever.I think a lot of us did.
A total of 1 assist against the USA and Sweden is not a great showing for a player of his skill level.
Agreed, but that’s doesn’t mean I wasn’t expecting more out of him.Not a Helenius fan, but U18 performance is one of the worst predictors ever.
AgreedNot a Helenius fan, but U18 performance is one of the worst predictors ever.
Look how more points someone like Hagens has than his teammates. Same with McKenna and Martone for Canada. Not like there’s 10 guys on each team with 5 or more points.Agreed
US and Team Canada are always so stacked they just run over other teams in these and the players end up with gazillion points. Try having one or two first round picks if you're lucky, a few later round picks and mostly a bunch of kids who'll never get drafted. It's a whole lot easier to look good when your team is stacked.
I think Helenius played about as well as expected. The team needed him to drag them to quarterfinals - he couldn't do it alone, no shame in that. He showed his craftiness, speed, zone-entries, forechecking, backchecking and plays mature game; all the stuff you know he excells at. He also showed that his shot or his willingess to use it aren't all there yet.
Remember that his ceiling has been projected be a second line center in the NHL, not a first pick #1 center.
It’s not a good look for any players that hope to be top 10 picks this year when Hagens, McKenna, and Martone are running up the score on them. Those guys are terrific players for future drafts, but they shouldn’t be outscored by younger players by such a margin.There’s better players with more development runway in this draft. Like I said before, I wouldn’t touch him before pick 11.
Don’t get sucked in by Stats.
Okay. Now swap McKenna or Hagens to team Finland and Konsta Helenius US/Can and see what happens. Hey man, maybe they'll perform the same, but I would not bet my money on it.Look how more points someone like Hagens has than his teammates. Same with McKenna and Martone for Canada. Not like there’s 10 guys on each team with 5 or more points.
Not a Helenius fan, but U18 performance is one of the worst predictors ever.
What? It does look special. He's 17 and reads the game better and faster than the people around him. He skates better than most. He was the best player on his Liiga team in the playoffs.Yeah but it's always.. OK he produces in the Finnish League but none of it really looks special or something that predicts he will be a high point producer in the NHL.
I'm on board with most of what you are saying, but what people are debating is whether Helenius fits into the forward tier just after Celebrini, or at least, the tier after Celebrini and Demidov. Does he belong in the group with Catton, Eiserman(who is even more controversial)and Lindstrom, which would make him a top 10-12 pick? I would say that the answer is yes. No one is calling him a mere "first rounder", and in the same tier as Parascak.What? It does look special. He's 17 and reads the game better and faster than the people around him. He skates better than most. He was the best player on his Liiga team in the playoffs.
Again, no one's projecting him to be a 1C in the NHL. That's the context.
Reading this stuff is hilarious, It feels like a bunch of people who've probably barely watched him (Based on the fact that you are not Finnish and watching the games from outside Finland is not easy or fun) trying to convince themselves that there's no elite player here, which no one even claims there is, he's just some dude who'll get picked somewhere in the first round.
Does age not matter to you in this equation? Helenius, along with Eiserman, Iginla, and Connelly are the top 10-15 picks playing in this tournament for 2024. They should all be under a big microscope.Okay. Now swap McKenna or Hagens to team Finland and Konsta Helenius US/Can and see what happens. Hey man, maybe they'll perform the same, but I would not bet my money on it.
Team USA has seven players with 7 points or more. Team Finland had two, who were the top scorers for that team. Kind of a dishonest way to frame things.
Also are Hagens and McKenna not expected to be the absolute cream of the crop in their drafts? Helenius is projected around picks 10-15. I do agree that they are having incredible tournaments, but they're also supposed to have elite ceilings.
If you really want to stare at the statsheet, then you can go check out how much Finnish NHL players have scored in their respective U18 tournaments. You'll find that the numbers are not very high. We don't tend to have 11-0 games against teams.
Ya, it's not everything, but it's a thing. A good showing with the Men's team will ease the worries of GM looking to pick him.That’s not to say this tournament is all that matters. Helenius had a good season, but he had an underwhelming U18’s. He should’ve drove the bus more.
Something you have to keep in mind is he's recently been thrown into the discussion with guys like Catton, Lindstrom, Iginla, and (recently) Sennecke as far as guys in the mix in the mid to low top 10. I think people were expecting him to demonstrate that he belongs in that group, but he didn't have a particularly convincing showing.What? It does look special. He's 17 and reads the game better and faster than the people around him. He skates better than most. He was the best player on his Liiga team in the playoffs.
Again, no one's projecting him to be a 1C in the NHL. That's the context.
Reading this stuff is hilarious, It feels like a bunch of people who've probably barely watched him (Based on the fact that you are not Finnish and watching the games from outside Finland is not easy or fun) trying to convince themselves that there's no elite player here, which no one even claims there is, he's just some dude who'll get picked somewhere in the first round.
Something you have to keep in mind is he's recently been thrown into the discussion with guys like Catton, Lindstrom, Iginla, and (recently) Sennecke as far as guys in the mix in the mid to low top 10. I think people were expecting him to demonstrate that he belongs in that group, but he didn't have a particularly convincing showing.
In that range you are hoping to bet on upside for a top line player, and I just haven't seen anything out of Helenius at any level to suggest he'd be worth taking a swing at in that range. He'd be a great pick for a bubble team looking to add a solid versatile 2nd liner though (Buffalo or NJ for example).
WTK and I (and many others since we're pretty overrepresented on the site) are coming from the Habs board where Goldenhands (who, to his credit, called the last couple top 5 picks for us) has been hyping him up as being in, or ahead of most in that group, and I think we were hoping to see something we hadn't seen in Liiga to show he belongs there.
He's obviously a very smart player and has good (not great) tools, but I just don't see anything suggesting Aho/Suzuki kind of upside.
You do realize that Aho and Suzuki weren't thought to have #1 center upside when they were picked, right? That's why Aho went 2nd round and Suzuki went outside of the top 10.
What allowed those two players to not only stick at center, despite their size, but also thrive as legit #1 centers is their tremendous hockey IQ.
Turns out players that make the right play almost every time they have the puck tend to thrive in the NHL where you need to chain together multiple good smart players with the puck to develop a scoring chance.
I agree with you that we should be careful about putting the ceiling too low on smart players like Helenius. We've (collectively) gotten this wrong many times in the past.
But it's just hard to tell upside one way or the other with a player like him. It's much easier if you have to just diagnose the physical tools.