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

[SlafySZN]

He’ll have great success in the NHL i’m pretty sure. He’s not only scoring with his shot but he goes around the net also.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I'm sure the team who takes him in the end of the top 10 or just outside will be ecstatic to get that type of player there, but I just don't see a team taking him very high this year. Probably comes into the conversation when the top Ds are all gone.

 

[FiveTacos]

I'm sure the team who takes him in the end of the top 10 or just outside will be ecstatic to get that type of player there, but I just don't see a team taking him very high this year. Probably comes into the conversation when the top Ds are all gone.

2-12 are all pretty talented but flawed in some noticeable way. Consensus won't mean much ... a team might have one dude at #12 that another team has at #2.

Really, if a GM and his scouts are like, "this is the next Bossy/Hull" then they have to take him, even if they're at #2. Don't risk someone else seeing the same thing if you trade down and miss out.

 

[wetcoast]

2-12 are all pretty talented but flawed in some noticeable way. Consensus won't mean much ... a team might have one dude at #12 that another team has at #2.

Really, if a GM and his scouts are like, "this is the next Bossy/Hull" then they have to take him, even if they're at #2. Don't risk someone else seeing the same thing if you trade down and miss out.

I don't think flawed is the right term for 2-12 it's just that the #1 guy is basically a lock to become an NHL star, some other guys might but they aren't locks.

What about 25 with hagens what a great U-18 he is having.

 

[FiveTacos]

I don't think flawed is the right term for 2-12 it's just that the #1 guy is basically a lock to become an NHL star, some other guys might but they aren't locks.

I guess it just feels like the reason 2-12 feels so jumbled is that there's usually a tier of a couple guys above that who are missing this year. And that the group of 10-11 is usually a smaller group of 4-6 guys. The BPA doesn't usually become so murky so early.

 

[Nabrules]

This guy is going to be a faller on draft day. I expect him to go in the 12-20 range.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Really did nothing to dispel the notion his game stagnated.

 

[Corso]

Really did nothing to dispel the notion his game stagnated.

Do not disagree but the next two games could help dispel that notion. If not, and he is a non-factor or a passenger who just happened to score a goal or two, then I could see him falling out of the top ten and it wouldn't shock me to see him drafted in the teens.

 

[majormajor]

LOL he won't drop to #17. Dude just stop, you said the same crap about Michkov last year and claimed Will Smith "doesn't care about hockey."

You're taking this stuff personally. We don't agree about how good Eiserman is, that's all.

I thought some here overrated Michkov and Smith but they're both much better prospects than Eiserman, so let's leave that out of it.

I'm not attacking Eiserman by saying it seems like he'll go at pick #17, that's my sober analysis of how the players stack up and my guess as to how teams will evaluate them.

 

[Kevin Musto]

 

[coooldude]

Oh boy... "DANY F***IN HEATLEY" vibes.

 

[Michoulicious]

Talking at the 3rd person of yourself is always a great, great sign. lol

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Junoguy heart's this type of player! HEARTS!!!

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

After watching 7 games in like 10 days of him where he's really under the microscope, this is what I'm coming back to.

He's a complete black hole for his team, except he'll put some pucks in the net, mostly on the PP.

He compete level is non-existent. I didn't realize before how bad it is. He loses every single puck battle, and that's because he either won't even try or half-asses it when he does. There was one in the GMG at the end with his team down where there's almost no way the attacking player shouldn't at least tie it up or get it because of the leverage of the situation, yet he got beat clean and the zone was cleared because the Canada player was trying and he was half-assing it. In such a key moment of a game where his team needs a goal it's not in him to try to win puck battles.

His puck-control is also a lot weaker than I previously realized. I didn't think his passing was good, and you again saw it in this tournament. Misplays passes that good passers would make, and obviously he's always thinking goals so he won't pass often, but his ability to corral pucks is not that good either. The elite goal-scorers in the NHL like Matthews and Pastrnak are also elite at corralling pucks.

Yeah, he's a good skater, he has average size for pro hockey, and will occasionally throw a hit, but aside from scoring goals thats basically the only parts of his game that aren't very deficient.

When a team is basically playing 4 on 5, that's the possession results you get. You basically either got to play this guy with an elite possession driver that will always be tilting the ice to cover for that if it's a true battle on a shift for chances you are at a deficit because he's only there to score goals or you have to heavily shelter him at 5 on 5 and let him go to work on the PP. I think people who think he'll turn into like a Pastrnak or Matthews or even like a Caufield don't understand just how one-dimensional and the black hole he is when he's not attempting to score a goal. He's essentially utterly useless and an active detriment to his team when not attempting to score a goal, but then again goals are the most important part of hockey.

How much do you value that? I'm perfectly okay with him outside of the top 10 at this point. I might even be leaning towards he's not a top 20 pick anymore.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

After watching 7 games in like 10 days of him where he's really under the microscope, this is what I'm coming back to.

He's a complete black hole for his team, except he'll put some pucks in the net, mostly on the PP.

He compete level is non-existent. I didn't realize before how bad it is. He loses every single puck battle, and that's because he either won't even try or half-asses it when he does. There was one in the GMG at the end with his team down where there's almost no way the attacking player shouldn't at least tie it up or get it because of the leverage of the situation, yet he got beat clean and the zone was cleared because the Canada player was trying and he was half-assing it. In such a key moment of a game where his team needs a goal it's not in him to try to win puck battles.

His puck-control is also a lot weaker than I previously realized. I didn't think his passing was good, and you again saw it in this tournament. Misplays passes that good passers would make, and obviously he's always thinking goals so he won't pass often, but his ability to corral pucks is not that good either. The elite goal-scorers in the NHL like Matthews and Pastrnak are also elite at corralling pucks.

Yeah, he's a good skater, he has average size for pro hockey, and will occasionally throw a hit, but aside from scoring goals thats basically the only parts of his game that aren't very deficient.

When a team is basically playing 4 on 5, that's the possession results you get. You basically either got to play this guy with an elite possession driver that will always be tilting the ice to cover for that if it's a true battle on a shift for chances you are at a deficit because he's only there to score goals or you have to heavily shelter him at 5 on 5 and let him go to work on the PP. I think people who think he'll turn into like a Pastrnak or Matthews or even like a Caufield don't understand just how one-dimensional and the black hole he is when he's not attempting to score a goal. He's essentially utterly useless and an active detriment to his team when not attempting to score a goal, but then again goals are the most important part of hockey.

How much do you value that? I'm perfectly okay with him outside of the top 10 at this point. I might even be leaning towards he's not a top 20 pick anymore.

There was one period, against Finland, where I saw some positives in his decision making. Outlier.

Unfortunately I can't disagree much with this assessment. Watching him on the same ice as Iginla, who isn't a superstar prospect, made his deficiencies clearer.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

After watching 7 games in like 10 days of him where he's really under the microscope, this is what I'm coming back to.

He's a complete black hole for his team, except he'll put some pucks in the net, mostly on the PP.

He compete level is non-existent. I didn't realize before how bad it is. He loses every single puck battle, and that's because he either won't even try or half-asses it when he does. There was one in the GMG at the end with his team down where there's almost no way the attacking player shouldn't at least tie it up or get it because of the leverage of the situation, yet he got beat clean and the zone was cleared because the Canada player was trying and he was half-assing it. In such a key moment of a game where his team needs a goal it's not in him to try to win puck battles.

His puck-control is also a lot weaker than I previously realized. I didn't think his passing was good, and you again saw it in this tournament. Misplays passes that good passers would make, and obviously he's always thinking goals so he won't pass often, but his ability to corral pucks is not that good either. The elite goal-scorers in the NHL like Matthews and Pastrnak are also elite at corralling pucks.

Yeah, he's a good skater, he has average size for pro hockey, and will occasionally throw a hit, but aside from scoring goals thats basically the only parts of his game that aren't very deficient.

When a team is basically playing 4 on 5, that's the possession results you get. You basically either got to play this guy with an elite possession driver that will always be tilting the ice to cover for that if it's a true battle on a shift for chances you are at a deficit because he's only there to score goals or you have to heavily shelter him at 5 on 5 and let him go to work on the PP. I think people who think he'll turn into like a Pastrnak or Matthews or even like a Caufield don't understand just how one-dimensional and the black hole he is when he's not attempting to score a goal. He's essentially utterly useless and an active detriment to his team when not attempting to score a goal, but then again goals are the most important part of hockey.

How much do you value that? I'm perfectly okay with him outside of the top 10 at this point. I might even be leaning towards he's not a top 20 pick anymore.

Broke the scoring record.

It all comes down to development. The potential for a superstar player is there and he’s got a skill that can’t be taught.

That being said - can you teach heart? Lack of fight in the game is concerning.

I think the other aspects of the game can be taught. But is he teachable? Those are the questions that I have for him.

Those goals though. If he’s able to score that many with holes in his game, imagine if he’s developed correctly. I’d still love to draft this guy. Still think he’s got potential beyond others - I just don’t know if he can get there. He has to wind up in the right situation.

 

[Corso]

Those goals though. If he’s able to score that many with holes in his game, imagine if he’s developed correctly. I’d still love to draft this guy. Still think he’s got potential beyond others - I just don’t know if he can get there. He has to wind up in the right situation.

Exactly this. He has way to many red flags but if he ends up on a team that in the beginning only needs him to be a complimentary player then who knows?
Remember Brett Hull's career - smallish, poor skater and and a one trick pony who went on to be one of the greatest goal scorers of all time.
That's the thing with Eiserman, you see how he could turn into an elite scoring machine in the NHL....but man all those red flags......

 

[coooldude]

Exactly this. He has way to many red flags but if he ends up on a team that in the beginning only needs him to be a complimentary player then who knows?
Remember Brett Hull's career - smallish, poor skater and and a one trick pony who went on to be one of the greatest goal scorers of all time.
That's the thing with Eiserman, you see how he could turn into an elite scoring machine in the NHL....but man all those red flags......

I'm with everyone, it's possible he has an impressive career, but Hull played over 30 to over 20 years ago. If we're reaching that far for a successful comparable, then he's not a top 10 pick. Downside due to attitude and play style is too high.

 

[bert]

#teamguy

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm with everyone, it's possible he has an impressive career, but Hull played over 30 to over 20 years ago. If we're reaching that far for a successful comparable, then he's not a top 10 pick. Downside due to attitude and play style is too high.

We’re reaching that far back because that kind of talent is extremely rare. Pure snipers like Brett Hill and Mike Bossy don’t come around often.

This guy’s shot is unreal.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

I'm with everyone, it's possible he has an impressive career, but Hull played over 30 to over 20 years ago. If we're reaching that far for a successful comparable, then he's not a top 10 pick. Downside due to attitude and play style is too high.

Finally somebody with common sense.

 

[coooldude]

We’re reaching that far back because that kind of talent is extremely rare. Pure snipers like Brett Hill and Mike Bossy don’t come around often.

This guy’s shot is unreal.

Bedard had the same or better shot/goalscoring, Matthews had the same or better shot, even Laine had the shot. I simply disagree that we haven't seen a shot this good in 30 years.

What we've seen is other, more complete players with better attitudes that were drafted 1OA or top 5 because of the shot plus the other elements. We're reaching back that far for a pure goal scorer not because of the shot, but because it's very rare that a player who is so off the charts in one area is so decidedly "just OK" or even problematic in others.

Again -- I'm not projecting a bust, I'm not trying to be the smartest person in the room and call it for or against Eiserman. He could end up the 2nd best prospect in this draft and it was dumb to have all this discussion. It's definitely possible. I just don't think it's likely and I disagree that his shot is 30 years generational.

 

[Juxtaposer]

We’re reaching that far back because that kind of talent is extremely rare. Pure snipers like Brett Hill and Mike Bossy don’t come around often.

This guy’s shot is unreal.

If his shot was that good, he’d be able to score at even strength. Did he even have a single non-PP point in the whole U18?

Guy is a PP specialist, there’s just absolutely nothing going on at even strength.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Bedard had the same or better shot/goalscoring, Matthews had the same or better shot, even Laine had the shot. I simply disagree that we haven't seen a shot this good in 30 years.

I didn’t say he has the best shot in 30 years. I said he’s a pure sniper.

What we've seen is other, more complete players with better attitudes that were drafted 1OA or top 5 because of the shot plus the other elements. We're reaching back that far for a pure goal scorer not because of the shot, but because it's very rare that a player who is so off the charts in one area is so decidedly "just OK" or even problematic in others.

Right. Because it shows that if you have an elite shot, you can make a pretty good career out of that alone.

Again -- I'm not projecting a bust, I'm not trying to be the smartest person in the room and call it for or against Eiserman. He could end up the 2nd best prospect in this draft and it was dumb to have all this discussion. It's definitely possible. I just don't think it's likely and I disagree that his shot is 30 years generational.

And im not projecting a superstar. I’m simply saying the potential is there. If he’s developed properly, he could be a legit superstar. He has all the tools. I just don’t know if he has the toolbox. The red flags are there and shouldn’t be ignored. I just think you shouldn’t overlook the talent either.

 

[coooldude]

And im not projecting a superstar. I’m simply saying the potential is there. If he’s developed properly, he could be a legit superstar. He has all the tools. I just don’t know if he has the toolbox. The red flags are there and shouldn’t be ignored. I just think you shouldn’t overlook the talent either.

Your point about his needing the right environment is spot on. I am not anywhere near an expert enough to project which environment that is. I can tell you I'm not convinced it's at BU or in the Sharks system, anyway.