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

[JPeeper]

People just overthink it too much with Eiserman.

The goal for any team is to win. It is as simple as that. The way that you win is that you outscore your opponents. It’s that simple. With Eiserman you know what you are going to get and that is goals.

We can all debate the rest of his game and how he hasn’t evolved too much. I get that. But for any team who is looking for a goal scorer then look no further. I can see a team in the picking him early with how open the draft is after Celebrini.

The Leon Draisaitl special, 4 point -4 night resulting in a loss.

 

[ZYXWVUT]

Gonna be fascinating to see where this guy ends up going.

 

[Xirik]

Gonna be fascinating to see where this guy ends up going.

I'm guessing in the 11-16 area of the 1st round.

 

[scoutman1]

I think all of those players you named as alternatives except Catton actually do have questions on their hockey sense. Eiserman probably also does, to be fair to the point you’re making.

i watched Connelly at the world Jr A tournament here in a few games, his IQ was great...again that said, i know what your saying about Eiserman....it would drive someone nuts thinking but he could be fine....that is why i would stay away from him with a top 10 pick though his talent is top 10 and that could come back to bit me in the butt.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

i watched Connelly at the world Jr A tournament here in a few games, his IQ was great...again that said, i know what your saying about Eiserman....it would drive someone nuts thinking but he could be fine....that is why i would stay away from him with a top 10 pick though his talent is top 10 and that could come back to bit me in the butt.

Connelly has a habit of driving into traffic with his great skating and puck handling and throwing the puck aimlessly into dangerous areas without a real target. I think if he had great hockey sense he'd be a top 2 or 3 prospect in the draft. The off ice stuff doesn't even effect that. People were able to separate off ice stuff for plenty of players in the past. He has things to work on. I wouldn't call him dumb, but I think his feet often move faster than his processing.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

While TSN and HF will make a big deal about Eiserman breaking Caufield's USNTDP goal scoring record, scouts don't care about goal scoring numbers at the junior level, they care about projection.

If they project Eiserman as an elite goal scorer at the NHL level then he'll go high in the draft, but I doubt they will for a variety of reasons.

His game has kind of stagnated and his numbers haven't improved from last year. Scouts love a sharp upward development curve, as it tends to carry forward into future years.

It's also worth noting that most of the goal scoring leaders in the NHL are dual-threats and were considered playmakers at lower levels. The track record for pure snipers over the years has been pretty bad.

It's harder to score goals at the highest level of hockey if you are a one-trick pony and goalies know you're shooting the puck when you get it. Need to be a threat to set up teammates to be an elite level goalscorer, and Eiserman hasn't shown the ability to do that at the junior level.

One of the youngest players in the draft and there’s no way you can ignore the shooting ability. That can’t be taught. Bossy and Hull have both shown you can make a good living off a shot alone.

He’s got good size, skates well and has all the tools.

Yes, he’s got work to do but he’ll have an extra year over most of these players to do it. I think he’s got incredible potential but he has to go somewhere with a strong development program. He’s not a player I’d start my franchise with but if you’ve got a good core group of players with a good center I think this guy can develop into a superstar. The potential for a killer player is there.

He doesn’t have the finished game that others do but the potential is huge.

 

[FissionFire]

I just wanna see Yzerman walking up to the podium to draft Eiserman for nothing else but the great memes it will create.

 

[coooldude]

Bossy and Hull have both shown you can make a good living off a shot alone.

I'm not an Eiserman fan, but it's clear he has amazing goal scoring skill and he'll likely get drafted 5-15. He could then either bounce around like Mike Hoffman for a bunch of years (goal scoring winger, not bringing much else), or he could be a critical and dangerous part of a winner (like maybe Cole Caufield is on the path to being -- needs the winner part but certainly a great start).

I just don't think referencing these two historical figures is particularly helpful in today's NHL, where the "pure scoring winger" archetype hasn't really been all that successful of late. And I don't think Eiserman has a claim to "having good size" as a 6'0" guy. He's thick at 196lbs, but I'd stop at "OK size" or "dense" rather than "good size." Maybe a minor nit.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm not an Eiserman fan, but it's clear he has amazing goal scoring skill and he'll likely get drafted 5-15. He could then either bounce around like Mike Hoffman for a bunch of years (goal scoring winger, not bringing much else), or he could be a critical and dangerous part of a winner (like maybe Cole Caufield is on the path to being -- needs the winner part but certainly a great start).

I just don't think referencing these two historical figures is particularly helpful in today's NHL, where the "pure scoring winger" archetype hasn't really been all that successful of late. And I don't think Eiserman has a claim to "having good size" as a 6'0" guy. He's thick at 196lbs, but I'd stop at "OK size" or "dense" rather than "good size." Maybe a minor nit.

By good size I mean it’s not an issue. He’ll probably be 215 or 220 lbs at his playing weight down the road.

And Eiserman’s shooting is exceptionally good. Mike Hoffman’s goalscoring was nowhere near where Eiserman is.

That said, I get the concern. And you may be right. Maybe he doesn’t pan out or turns into a 20 something goal guy.

I’m simply saying the tools for a great player are there. He’s really young and if he’s developed properly he could be something special.

 

[Petes2424]

You don’t pass up on a player who can score from so many different areas. He’s still really young, and whoever drafts him will put him in a position to succeed over the next couple of years.

Does he have some things to work on? Absolutely, but he’s a pure goal scorer. Not a kid with just a great shot like Martin Frk. Big difference. He’s a natural goal scorer, and scouts have been dissecting his game far too long for such a young player, finding everything he does wrong. It’s almost not been fair to the kid, compared to other kids, who are being looked at for everything positive they do, heading into draft season.

There is something to that. This isn’t a Shane Wright thing.

If he falls to 15, it would actually be funny if he ends up in Detroit, but he should still go 7-10. Just way too much upside.

 

[57special]

Great shot, scores a ton, decent skater, decent size. He's been downgraded a lot from last year where some thought he might rival Celebrini for the 1st oa pick, but he certainly seems to be worth a top 12-13 pick. Many here are referencing Caufield, and it's true he'd be a great pick if he was a bigger version, but keep in mind he could also be the next Wahlstrom or Bellows, both of whom had very impressive D year stats with the USNTDP U 18's.

He is very young, which is a mark in his favor, and implies that he might have more room to mature than others. Still, he's not alone in that. Iginla is an August bday, Celebrini a June one, as is Dickinson, and Helenius is a May bday.

 

[Andre Palot]

Fitz has good Holtz example on his table. In the same time he has Nico, Jack, Jesper, Timo and Dawson - players who can score 25-30 or more. He doesn't need to draft for pure scoring. And he should have a brain and experience to not draft a player with bad compete level and below average iq.

I think Eiserman is a better prospect than Holtz. I was strongly against the Holtz draft pick when it happened.


I think it's fair to call Eiserman a better version of Holtz but to directly compare the two like it's a parallel pick, I think that's a mistake, if that makes sense.

 

[Guadana]

I think Eiserman is a better prospect than Holtz. I was strongly against the Holtz draft pick when it happened.


I think it's fair to call Eiserman a better version of Holtz but to directly compare the two like it's a parallel pick, I think that's a mistake, if that makes sense.

Eiserman is below average in compete level, not great skater, not fast skater, he isnt big, losing his position in D zone. He is good at scoring in different ways - better than Holtz, but still lack of different elements of the game from technical and positional sides. His scoring IQ is good but overall IQ is average at best. Even if he is a better prospect, he still isnt what this team needs. At all. If Fitz will draft him(even if Eiserman will develop into good NHL scorer) its a mark that Fitz doesnt learn from his mistakes and dont clearly understand problems of this roster. Devils used Toffoli this year who was consistent scorer. It doesnt help. Devils have enough scoring from their core.
And players with average IQ often dont develop into the best players of the draft, especially without great skating. This draft is full of great players with good IQ, good skating and good shot. Helenius, Nygard, Chernyshov, Iginla are on the level or better skaters with much better all around game, with better or much better IQ and decision making, compete level, physical game, decision making and still good or very good shooters.

And Its not about Holtz only, its about many other prospects and young players who were very scoring only on junior levels. Even Caufield who was better player in different aspects than Eiserman, but still he isnt what Devils organisation needs. Eiserman should NOT be the Devils pick and I hope Fitz will not be bait by his pure scoring production.

 

[MNRube]

Eiserman is below average in compete level, not great skater, not fast skater, he isnt big, losing his position in D zone. He is good at scoring in different ways - better than Holtz, but still lack of different elements of the game from technical and positional sides. His scoring IQ is good but overall IQ is average at best. Even if he is a better prospect, he still isnt what this team needs. At all. If Fitz will draft him(even if Eiserman will develop into good NHL scorer) its a mark that Fitz doesnt learn from his mistakes and dont clearly understand problems of this roster. Devils used Toffoli this year who was consistent scorer. It doesnt help. Devils have enough scoring from their core.

And Its not about Holtz only, its about many other prospects and young players. Even Caufield who was better player in different aspects than Eiserman, but still he isnt what Devils organisation needs.

Always go BPA. By the time Eiserman is ready to be a fixture, the Devils could look totally different. Nemec, Hughes, Hughes, Hischier is their core and none of them are pure goal-scorers. If the GM believes in Eiserman’s talent, take him. Drafting for need is rarely (if ever) a good idea

 

[Guadana]

Always go BPA. By the time Eiserman is ready to be a fixture, the Devils could look totally different. Nemec, Hughes, Hughes, Hischier is their core and none of them are pure goal-scorers. If the GM believes in Eiserman’s talent, take him. Drafting for need is rarely (if ever) a good idea

Eiserman isnt BPA. He could be "need" but Devils with all their injuries and bad season were top-12 in scoring so his scoring isnt a "need". From BPA there will be a lot/enough of better players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

If he can ride shotgun on a team with a strong center that can carry the puck and another guy that does the dirty work well then watch out, may never be a superstar but that sort of player is still very useful.

 

[MNRube]

Eiserman isnt BPA. He could be "need" but Devils with all their injuries and bad season were top-12 in scoring so his scoring isnt a "need". From BPA there will be a lot/enough of better players.

That’s something we will have to wait on. I think they need a shutdown D more than anything. But it’s not hard to envision Eiserman being a perennial 30 G scorer and an absolute menace on a PP unit loaded with skilled puck-movers

 

[Guadana]

That’s something we will have to wait on. I think they need a shutdown D more than anything. But it’s not hard to envision Eiserman being a perennial 30 G scorer and an absolute menace on a PP unit loaded with skilled puck-movers

This type of players are not BPA. They are less important than 1st-2nd and often 3rd line centers or top-4 defensemen or two way forechecking top-6 forwards who is capable to play two way game and score 20-25. Or more.

We will not have to wait on draft, Devils should make a decision before the draft. And be smart.
There were enough examples of those capable one way wingers. In the end there are not so many examples of the modern pure scorers from the draft with bad two way game, average skating and average size, who was consistent NHL player.

 

[57special]

I think Eiserman is a better prospect than Holtz. I was strongly against the Holtz draft pick when it happened.


I think it's fair to call Eiserman a better version of Holtz but to directly compare the two like it's a parallel pick, I think that's a mistake, if that makes sense.

We say that now, but back in 2020 Holtz was highly regarded, and thought to be quite the sniper. Pronman had him 6th oa, Mackenzie 9th, in a draft that was stronger for forwards. Picking him at 7th didn't raise any eyebrows at the time.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

There is definite appeal to Eiserman, but I think it's tough to argue that some of the concerns aren't valid. He's selfish, takes bad shots, has tunnel vision, can't really set up his line-mates, does not drive play, and doesn't play much defense.

Those things can all be true, and you can justify why he's a very good player and the goalscoring matters more than all of that.

 

[57special]

There is definite appeal to Eiserman, but I think it's tough to argue that some of the concerns aren't valid. He's selfish, takes bad shots, has tunnel vision, can't really set up his line-mates, does not drive play, and doesn't play much defense.

Those things can all be true, and you can justify why he's a very good player and the goalscoring matters more than all of that.

If he scores 30+ goals per year in the NHL then you can live with it(though 30 goals isn't as impressive as it used to be). If he is scoring 17-24/yr, and has to be sheltered defensively, you'd be better off taking a player like Iginla, Yakemchuk, etc.

That's why the scouts get paid the big bucks(not really). Is he the next Debrincat, Caufield, Wahlstrom, Bellows, or Holtz? That's a wide variation of outcomes.

 

[scoutman1]

Connelly has a habit of driving into traffic with his great skating and puck handling and throwing the puck aimlessly into dangerous areas without a real target. I think if he had great hockey sense he'd be a top 2 or 3 prospect in the draft. The off ice stuff doesn't even effect that. People were able to separate off ice stuff for plenty of players in the past. He has things to work on. I wouldn't call him dumb, but I think his feet often move faster than his processing.

I probably have not seen him as much as you maybe...but the 3 games i watched of him he created on the ice every time and hardly wasted an opportunity...besides Frondell there he was amazing at driving the offense.

 

[FiveTacos]

If he scores 30+ goals per year in the NHL then you can live with it(though 30 goals isn't as impressive as it used to be). If he is scoring 17-24/yr, and has to be sheltered defensively, you'd be better off taking a player like Iginla, Yakemchuk, etc.

I keep thinking back to the 02 draft. A couple nice prospects at the top, then a whole lot of question marks. In the end a one dimensional Lupul went 7th and ended up with a decent career. Some would say disappointing for his draft position, but relative to the rest of the class he was good.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the guys in this draft fizzle. And in such a case, the flawed one trick pony might make for a good pick even if you don't think he's going to be a star.

 

[coooldude]

I keep thinking back to the 02 draft. A couple nice prospects at the top, then a whole lot of question marks. In the end a one dimensional Lupul went 7th and ended up with a decent career. Some would say disappointing for his draft position, but relative to the rest of the class he was good.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the guys in this draft fizzle. And in such a case, the flawed one trick pony might make for a good pick even if you don't think he's going to be a star.

God if this top 15 ends up generating a lot of fizzle and Joffrey Lupul, I want my money back. You very well may be right but how disappointing if so.

 

[FiveTacos]

God if this top 15 ends up generating a lot of fizzle and Joffrey Lupul, I want my money back. You very well may be right but how disappointing if so.

It happens, not every draft is going to be 2003. Some years, just getting one or two above average NHLers is a win. Taken a peek at 1996 lately?