LW Cole Eiserman - Boston Univ., NCAA (2024, 20th, NYI)

[Artorius Horus T]

In 9 junior international games this season (so far), 17 goals and about 30 points..

But how much this, his production is about skill and how much its about physical matureness?
5 foot 11 and weighs around 200 lbs (195).

I mean, i'm still with the Eiserman train, fully but.. how much there is to improve,
when he is basically ready physically matured hockey player at 16?

 

[Bonin21]

Even if he is above the curve for his age physically, that shows he will be dedicated to it going forward. I don't think anyone of the top five or so teams picking will consider that as a real problem.

 

[William H Bonney]

People have been using the physical maturity argument for like 3 years. They acted like he was a giant at SSM when he was basically the same size as Celebrini, Park, etc. It's a tired argument at this point.

Of course physical maturity should be a consideration for any prospect, one way or the other, but he's been dominating for years despite not being some behemoth compared to the competition like some would have had one believe.

 

[William H Bonney]

In other news, he's up to 68 goals on the season with 2 periods to go today, plus what should be 3 more games in the U18s, barring an upset loss in the QFs. It seemed out of the realm that he could break the single season NTDP goal scoring record (Caufield with 72) as he came into the tournament with 60 (which was the U17 player record). But he's already at 8 goals (which is the record for underage Americans in the tournament) and only needs 4 now to tie Caufield, 5 to break it. It's actually possible...

 

[Mathieukferland]

Reminds me a lot of Kyle Connor, higher ceiling though

 

[Ryan Van Horne]

People have been using the physical maturity argument for like 3 years. They acted like he was a giant at SSM when he was basically the same size as Celebrini, Park, etc. It's a tired argument at this point.

Of course physical maturity should be a consideration for any prospect, one way or the other, but he's been dominating for years despite not being some behemoth compared to the competition like some would have had one believe.

Sounds familiar.

 

[mphmiles]

Thought it was cool that he called Celebrini his best friend in a recent interview dating back to their days at Shattuck. Wish we could have gotten to see them play together again in college.

 

[Bonin21]

Thought it was cool that he called Celebrini his best friend in a recent interview dating back to their days at Shattuck. Wish we could have gotten to see them play together again in college.

Guess Hagens will just have to fill that gap at the U.

 

[William H Bonney]

Sounds familiar.

Yeah, the difference is Wright's performance has dropped off a cliff as he faced more physically mature competition. Eiserman's has not. If it does, people should certainly consider if he was an early developer or not. Hence my second paragraph.

 

[wetcoast]

Reminds me a lot of Kyle Connor, higher ceiling though

I like Kyle Connor a lot but defensively and aside from his production he can be a real downer for a top line top 10 player at his position in the league IMO.

Hopefully Eiserman can be better in this aspect of his game in the NHL.

 

[Ryan Van Horne]

Yeah, the difference is Wright's performance has dropped off a cliff as he faced more physically mature competition. Eiserman's has not. If it does, people should certainly consider if he was an early developer or not. Hence my second paragraph.

The numbers don't support that claim -- at least not yet.

Cole Eiserman at age 14: 3.08 ppg in 14U
Cole Eiserman at age 15 in USHS Prep: 1.62 ppg
Cole Eiserman at age 16 in world under-18s: 2.25 ppg

Shane Wright at age 14: 2.08 ppg in 16U
Shane Wright at age 15 in OHL: 1.14 ppg
Shane Wright at age 16 in world under-18s: 2.8 ppg

Looks to me as though they both saw a decline in production when they made a big jump in competition during their 15-year-old season. (This is an expected decline, mind you, not a hyperbolical "drop off a cliff.")

During Wright's 16-year-old season, he didn't play in the OHL because of the pandemic and his only action that year was at the world under-18s, where he scored more ppg than Eiserman has so far at the current tournament. It's a small sample size, I realize, but nothing to warrant your claim.

 

[William H Bonney]

The numbers don't support that claim -- at least not yet.

Cole Eiserman at age 14: 3.08 ppg in 14U
Cole Eiserman at age 15 in USHS Prep: 1.62 ppg
Cole Eiserman at age 16 in world under-18s: 2.25 ppg

Shane Wright at age 14: 2.08 ppg in 16U
Shane Wright at age 15 in OHL: 1.14 ppg
Shane Wright at age 16 in world under-18s: 2.8 ppg

Looks to me as though they both saw a decline in production when they made a big jump in competition during their 15-year-old season. (This is an expected decline, mind you, not a hyperbolical "drop off a cliff.")

During Wright's 16-year-old season, he didn't play in the OHL because of the pandemic and his only action that year was at the world under-18s, where he scored more ppg than Eiserman has so far at the current tournament. It's a small sample size, I realize, but nothing to warrant your claim.

I'm not comparing Wright to Eiserman. They're not in comparable scenarios and are at very different stages of the development lifecycle where people would draw different conclusions (right or wrong). I'm comparing Wright to Wright as he's moved through the ranks. And folks should compare Eiserman to Eiserman as he does the same.

If a player is physically mature at a young age, it's less likely to surface as an issue when said player is still playing against a lot of teenagers or players who themselves are still physically immature. It's not surprising that Wright and Eiserman had elite #s while they were U17. They were elite players at that age.

The point you're missing from my quote:

Of course physical maturity should be a consideration for any prospect, one way or the other, but he's been dominating for years despite not being some behemoth compared to the competition like some would have had one believe.

Wright is older and has played at the professional level where it's more likely to see a sharp decline in production relative to expectations. He's reached the point where he's not a dominating player or prospect, at least for now. We've seen him at more levels to make more judgments, right or wrong.

I personally think Wright's early physical maturation is a reason (among others) why he's struggled in the professional ranks. You don't, and that's okay. Neither of us have proof; both of our opinions are subjective. It's not as easy to discuss like when it's physical immaturity a la Jack Hughes.

But folks have been bringing up physical maturity as a reason for Eiserman's success since he was a U14 like he was some 6-2, 200 outlier when he was very similarly sized to his other top peers on his teams like Celebrini and Park. It's one of the first things people started bringing up in this thread in 2020. It's a tired argument because it's (a) hyperbolic as if he's some behemoth; (b) there's been no evidence that it's been an issue as his competition has become older and more physically mature. As I said, if evidence surfaces on point B (whether NCAA or professional), potential physical maturation should be a consideration.

Celebrini and Eiserman are basically the same size. And have been similarly sized. But it only comes up for one of them.

 

[Postulates]

I'm not comparing Wright to Eiserman. They're not in comparable scenarios and are at very different stages of the development lifecycle where people would draw different conclusions (right or wrong). I'm comparing Wright to Wright as he's moved through the ranks. And folks should compare Eiserman to Eiserman as he does the same.

If a player is physically mature at a young age, it's less likely to surface as an issue when said player is still playing against a lot of teenagers or players who themselves are still physically immature. It's not surprising that Wright and Eiserman had elite #s while they were U17. They were elite players at that age.

The point you're missing from my quote:



Wright is older and has played at the professional level where it's more likely to see a sharp decline in production relative to expectations. He's reached the point where he's not a dominating player or prospect, at least for now. We've seen him at more levels to make more judgments, right or wrong.

I personally think Wright's early physical maturation is a reason (among others) why he's struggled in the professional ranks. You don't, and that's okay. Neither of us have proof; both of our opinions are subjective. It's not as easy to discuss like when it's physical immaturity a la Jack Hughes.

But folks have been bringing up physical maturity as a reason for Eiserman's success since he was a U14 like he was some 6-2, 200 outlier when he was very similarly sized to his other top peers on his teams like Celebrini and Park. It's one of the first things people started bringing up in this thread in 2020. It's a tired argument because it's (a) hyperbolic as if he's some behemoth; (b) there's been no evidence that it's been an issue as his competition has become older and more physically mature. As I said, if evidence surfaces on point B (whether NCAA or professional), potential physical maturation should be a consideration.

Celebrini and Eiserman are basically the same size. And have been similarly sized. But it only comes up for one of them.

I believe the thing with Celebrini is he has some growth left and could reach 6'1"-6'2" because of his dad (6'1") Chris Peters talked about it on a Talking Hockey sense

 

[ponder]

Celebrini and Eiserman are basically the same size. And have been similarly sized. But it only comes up for one of them.

They're both 5'11", but Celebrini is listed at 181 lbs, Eiserman 192 lbs. I agree they're similar size, but Eiserman is certainly stronger, more physically developed.

However, I think the bigger thing is skillset - is Eiserman closer to his ceiling than Celebrini? When taking a forward 1st overall, you want a guy who is really dynamic, a star who can create offence out of nothing and break down defences on his own. Celebrini is that - the speed, the hands, the elusiveness, the offensive creativity, he's so dynamic, his game screams "star." Eiserman is a great skater too, but IMO doesn't have the deceptiveness of Celebrini. He's a bit more of a north/south player with an elite shot, strong on the puck, nice puck protection, very polished/NHL ready game. The eye test for Eiserman is "this guy looks like a man amongst boys, borderline NHL ready today", but he doesn't necessarily wow you with dynamic moves. Celebrini wows you.

Eiserman is terrific, but does he have the same pure upside as Celebrini? My gut says no, personally, but I could be wrong (I often am). IMO when ppl say "Eiserman might be an early developer", they mean both physically, and in terms of polish to his game, with not as dynamic a play style as you might like in a 1OA forward. Sometimes these types turn out - for example Tavares became a franchise C with this profile, Hischier is becoming very good. But there's also guys like Slaf, Shane Wright, Laff, Kakko, who are all certainly very young with uncertain futures (could become stars!), but there's some concerns they were early developers, who were ahead of their peers in physicality/polish/maturity, but won't be NHL stars.

 

[95snipes]

They're both 5'11", but Celebrini is listed at 181 lbs, Eiserman 192 lbs. I agree they're similar size, but Eiserman is certainly stronger, more physically developed.

However, I think the bigger thing is skillset - is Eiserman closer to his ceiling than Celebrini? When taking a forward 1st overall, you want a guy who is really dynamic, a star who can create offence out of nothing and break down defences on his own. Celebrini is that - the speed, the hands, the elusiveness, the offensive creativity, he's so dynamic, his game screams "star." Eiserman is a great skater too, but doesn't have the pure speed or deceptiveness of Celebrini. He's a bit more of a north/south player with an elite shot, strong on the puck, nice puck protection, very polished/NHL ready game. The eye test for Eiserman is "this guy looks like a man amongst boys, borderline NHL ready today", but he doesn't necessarily wow you with dynamic moves. Celebrini wows you.

Eiserman is terrific, but does he have the same pure upside as Celebrini? My gut says no, personally, but I could be wrong (I often am). IMO when ppl say "Eiserman might be an early developer", they mean both physically, and in terms of polish to his game, with not as dynamic a play style as you might like in a 1OA forward. Sometimes these types turn out - for example Tavares became a franchise C with this profile, Hischier is becoming very good. But there's also guys like Slaf, Shane Wright, Laff, Kakko, who are all certainly very young with uncertain futures (could become stars!), but there's some concerns they were early developers, who were ahead of their peers in physicality/polish/maturity, but won't be NHL stars.

I literally feel the exact opposite. To me, Celebrini looks like a standard top 5 pick who's smart and good at everything, but I don't see any superstar aspect of his game. With Eiserman, I see this game breaking offensive talent who's a threat to score at any moment on a shift by shift basis. I've said it before and I'll say it again, besides Bedard, Esierman's the best goal scoring prospect I've seen since Laine. He's got the hands, the shot, the skating, the hockey sense - everything there to be a premiere NHL goal scorer.

Thought it at the Under 17 Challenge and that has only been reinforced at the U18s so far.

 

[ddlennon]

I literally feel the exact opposite. To me, Celebrini looks like a standard top 5 pick who's smart and good at everything, but I don't see any superstar aspect of his game. With Eiserman, I see this game breaking offensive talent who's a threat to score at any moment on a shift by shift basis. I've said it before and I'll say it again, besides Bedard, Esierman's the best goal scoring prospect I've seen since Laine. He's got the hands, the shot, the skating, the hockey sense - everything there to be a premiere NHL goal scorer.

Thought it at the Under 17 Challenge and that has only been reinforced at the U18s so far.

Yeah eiserman is really good and only reason he didnt play wjc is because usa forward group is mega stacked

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I like Celebrini better if I'm being honest.

 

[ponder]

I literally feel the exact opposite. To me, Celebrini looks like a standard top 5 pick who's smart and good at everything, but I don't see any superstar aspect of his game. With Eiserman, I see this game breaking offensive talent who's a threat to score at any moment on a shift by shift basis. I've said it before and I'll say it again, besides Bedard, Esierman's the best goal scoring prospect I've seen since Laine. He's got the hands, the shot, the skating, the hockey sense - everything there to be a premiere NHL goal scorer.

Thought it at the Under 17 Challenge and that has only been reinforced at the U18s so far.

Hah, scouting/projection is absolutely an art, not a science, different ppl can see very different things Eiserman has certainly been CRUSHING it in international comps this year. There's no question he's a natural/pure goal scorer, agreed he's one of the best pure goal scorers I've seen since Matthews/Laine. Probably #2 after Bedard? Arguable with Michkov. Shane Wright was also looking like a goal scoring machine at the same age (D-2 and D-1, it was his draft year where his goal scoring fell off more), but I think Eiserman is ahead of same-age Wright. He's significantly ahead of the next best goalscoring prospect in that span - Svechnikov maybe? Or Celebrini!

Personally, I feel Celebrini is more dynamic. Just how elusive/deceptive he is with the puck, the dangles, the lateral movement, he regularly creates offence out of nothing. Is a major threat shooting or passing the puck, very creative with his 1:1 moves or his passes. Eiserman has outplayed him very significantly at international tourneys, but I don't wanna over-index on a small number of games. Eiserman has the better shot and more effective north/south game, but I like Celebrini's elusiveness and creativity.

 

[JiggsNY]

Don’t think you can really fault anyone for preferring either at this point. Good thing we get another year to evaluate. Will be an interesting discussion with Celebrini at BU and Eiserman back in the NTDP. We had it easy with both in the USHL last year lol, get ready for the arguments across levels.

 

[William H Bonney]

They're both 5'11", but Celebrini is listed at 181 lbs, Eiserman 192 lbs. I agree they're similar size, but Eiserman is certainly stronger, more physically developed.

However, I think the bigger thing is skillset - is Eiserman closer to his ceiling than Celebrini? When taking a forward 1st overall, you want a guy who is really dynamic, a star who can create offence out of nothing and break down defences on his own. Celebrini is that - the speed, the hands, the elusiveness, the offensive creativity, he's so dynamic, his game screams "star." Eiserman is a great skater too, but doesn't have the pure speed or deceptiveness of Celebrini. He's a bit more of a north/south player with an elite shot, strong on the puck, nice puck protection, very polished/NHL ready game. The eye test for Eiserman is "this guy looks like a man amongst boys, borderline NHL ready today", but he doesn't necessarily wow you with dynamic moves. Celebrini wows you.

Eiserman is terrific, but does he have the same pure upside as Celebrini? My gut says no, personally, but I could be wrong (I often am). IMO when ppl say "Eiserman might be an early developer", they mean both physically, and in terms of polish to his game, with not as dynamic a play style as you might like in a 1OA forward. Sometimes these types turn out - for example Tavares became a franchise C with this profile, Hischier is becoming very good. But there's also guys like Slaf, Shane Wright, Laff, Kakko, who are all certainly very young with uncertain futures (could become stars!), but there's some concerns they were early developers, who were ahead of their peers in physicality/polish/maturity, but won't be NHL stars.

It depends on what source you believe.

If you go by the IIHF they're both 6'0 and Eiserman is 9 pounds heavier (194 vs 185).

If you go by their regular teams then Celebrini is nearly 6'0, Eiserman 5'11, and Eiserman 2 pounds heavier (191 vs 189).

And they were similarly sized to each other while at Shattuck together.

Neither is substantial enough to determine which is "certainly stronger, more physically developed" based on their measurables. Nor is it the point.

The point isn't that they'll forever be similarly sized, but that the early posts that "Yeah, he’s had a crazy size advantage for a couple years" were always framed in a way like he was this huge dude dominating his peers because of his size, and it'd catch up to him as he played bigger and older players. It hasn't (so far) and he wasn't demonstrably bigger than other top peers then or now.

I'm not bringing up Celebrini to argue who is better. Not relevant whatsoever. Just pointing out that this legacy physical maturity notion that gets brought up is selectively applied. They're both elite prospects and favorites to be in the running for #1 overall next year. I don't care about prognostication beyond that. I'm just excited that (at least for now) it looks like we have some more elite prospects to look forward to as fans and a potential battle for top draft position again, which is fun compared to drafts where the #1 is a foregone conclusion during the draft season (i.e., Bedard this year).

I will say though that you should watch Eiserman more though if you thinks he lacks dynamic ability.

Yeah eiserman is really good and only reason he didnt play wjc is because usa forward group is mega stacked

Not really. While he could have maybe played at the WJC, USAH has never selected an U17 player for the WJC in my 20 years following the tournament. They don't even really consider them, regardless of their forward group options.

 

[ponder]

It depends on what source you believe.

If you go by the IIHF they're both 6'0 and Eiserman is 9 pounds heavier (194 vs 185).

If you go by their regular teams then Celebrini is nearly 6'0, Eiserman 5'11, and Eiserman 2 pounds heavier (191 vs 189).

And they were similarly sized while at Shattuck together.

Neither is substantial enough to determine which is "certainly stronger, more physically developed" based on their measurables. Nor is it the point.

The point isn't that they'll forever be similarly sized, but that the early posts that "Yeah, he’s had a crazy size advantage for a couple years" were always framed in a way like he was this huge dude dominating his peers because of his size, and it'd catch up to him as he played bigger and older players. It hasn't (so far) and he wasn't demonstrably bigger than other top peers then or now.

I'm not bringing up Celebrini to argue who is better. Not relevant whatsoever. Just pointing out that this legacy physical maturity that gets brought up is selectively applied. They're both elite prospects and favorites to be in the running for #1 overall next year. I don't care about prognostication beyond that. I'm just excited that (at least for now) it looks like we have some more elite prospects to look forward to as fans and a potential battle for top draft position again, which is fun compared to drafts where the #1 is a foregone conclusion during the draft season (i.e., Bedard this year).

I will say though that you should watch Eiserman more though if you thinks he lacks dynamic ability.



Not really. While he could have maybe played at the WJC, USAH has never selected an U17 player for the WJC in my 20 years following the tournament. They don't even really consider them, regardless of their forward group options.

Yeah, I was going by eliteprospects.com, you're right than on ushl.com they're listed as essentially the same size - that's probably the more reliable listing, though nothing is particularly great at this age. Eiserman just looks a bit bigger/stronger/more powerful on the ice to me, but it's so hard to judge.

Both are elite prospects with elite skill. I do think Celebrini is more dynamic - more elusive/deceptive, more creative/unpredictable, mixes in more east/west elements to his game. While Eiserman is a better goal scorer with a better shot, more powerful, better north/south game. But it's all just personal opinion, they're both terrific and I totally agree with this:

I'm just excited that (at least for now) it looks like we have some more elite prospects to look forward to as fans and a potential battle for top draft position again, which is fun compared to drafts where the #1 is a foregone conclusion during the draft season (i.e., Bedard this year).​

 

[NTDP]

Just watching the game from today and one the things about him that separates is his ability to create that extra space for himself. Example is at the end of the 2nd he takes a pass and curls on the half wall - then attacks the Swiss D and makes a little head fake and moves slightly to the left to get a better look on net and fires a shot. Sure it went into the goalies butterfly but the skill set for the next level is there habitually

 

[Postulates]

They're both 5'11", but Celebrini is listed at 181 lbs, Eiserman 192 lbs. I agree they're similar size, but Eiserman is certainly stronger, more physically developed.

However, I think the bigger thing is skillset - is Eiserman closer to his ceiling than Celebrini? When taking a forward 1st overall, you want a guy who is really dynamic, a star who can create offence out of nothing and break down defences on his own. Celebrini is that - the speed, the hands, the elusiveness, the offensive creativity, he's so dynamic, his game screams "star." Eiserman is a great skater too, but IMO doesn't have the deceptiveness of Celebrini. He's a bit more of a north/south player with an elite shot, strong on the puck, nice puck protection, very polished/NHL ready game. The eye test for Eiserman is "this guy looks like a man amongst boys, borderline NHL ready today", but he doesn't necessarily wow you with dynamic moves. Celebrini wows you.

Eiserman is terrific, but does he have the same pure upside as Celebrini? My gut says no, personally, but I could be wrong (I often am). IMO when ppl say "Eiserman might be an early developer", they mean both physically, and in terms of polish to his game, with not as dynamic a play style as you might like in a 1OA forward. Sometimes these types turn out - for example Tavares became a franchise C with this profile, Hischier is becoming very good. But there's also guys like Slaf, Shane Wright, Laff, Kakko, who are all certainly very young with uncertain futures (could become stars!), but there's some concerns they were early developers, who were ahead of their peers in physicality/polish/maturity, but won't be NHL stars.

They have him at 6'0 199 so basically 6'0" 200

 

[Postulates]

Its obvious he is probably a lot more physically mature in terms of strength and conditioning then his peers considering it was mentioned in a previous page at what was he 14? he had power output similar to the NHL and College guys on the list in the Becoming Wild video on Matthew Boldy

 

[Kibe]

I tought he had already accelerated and going to college next year. I guess i was thinking about Celebrini then. So for Eiserman it's most likely the Jack Hughes route from NTDP straight to NHL right?