Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 6,287
- 5,816
LW Cole Eiserman - Boston Univ., NCAA (2024, 20th, NYI)
- Thread starter sigx15
- Start date
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
Sounds awfully high for a guy who was a black hole in junior when he wasn’t finishing chances.
I would put his ceiling as 30 goals in his absolute best season.
Langway
In den Wolken
- Jul 7, 2006
- 32,967
- 10,158
Vatrano just put up 37 on a poor team. Eiserman with a feature PP role could do the same or better. It's fair to wonder just how competitive a team may be with him in a feature role if he doesn't branch out his game further but it's not like he's a pure beer leaguer when not finishing. He's got some other elements. There's some quick touch playmaking and physicality at times. Certainly not the most explosive or dynamic player but there still could be a niche for him.
Maybe not the quickest guy on the uptake so we'll see just how far a more one-dimensional finisher slides these days. I think Washington at 17 may be his floor. They need selfish, confident finishers with Ovechkin nearing the end...and know pretty well how to feature such a player's stronger suits. Probably not a foundational talent but not everyone develops a well-rounded, polished game as quickly. But if he can pass muster to the point of a 2LW and PP1 feature role, sure, why not 40? It's more whether that necessarily ends up being a net plus type central addition for a team or not.
Maybe not the quickest guy on the uptake so we'll see just how far a more one-dimensional finisher slides these days. I think Washington at 17 may be his floor. They need selfish, confident finishers with Ovechkin nearing the end...and know pretty well how to feature such a player's stronger suits. Probably not a foundational talent but not everyone develops a well-rounded, polished game as quickly. But if he can pass muster to the point of a 2LW and PP1 feature role, sure, why not 40? It's more whether that necessarily ends up being a net plus type central addition for a team or not.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
His charts that I've seen are pretty putrid. Like the actual definition you'd give of a player who is a blackhole outside of scoring goals.
At the World U18's, his line was the least effective of the top 3 USA lines. The other two guys have plenty of chemistry and usually play well together. Interesting that they had a lot more success with Brodie Ziemer on their line over the last two years than Eiserman.
Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,875
- 15,780
Anyone else feel like his draft stock is super reflective of Wahlstrom and his struggles so far?
I think hockeyprospect.com had some quotes from NHL scouts that echoed that, if I’m not mistaken (still waiting to pick up my print copy)
I just wonder if Wahlstrom was a success how that might change the perspective on Eiserman. I know when I rank him I have a really hard time not thinking about Wahlstrom and his struggles despite being a prolific scorer for the program.
I think hockeyprospect.com had some quotes from NHL scouts that echoed that, if I’m not mistaken (still waiting to pick up my print copy)
I just wonder if Wahlstrom was a success how that might change the perspective on Eiserman. I know when I rank him I have a really hard time not thinking about Wahlstrom and his struggles despite being a prolific scorer for the program.
Bellows, too... to a lesser extent, Wright(not really the same type of player, but similar pre draft trajectory).
About 1 1/2 years ago he looked great, to me.
Dead Coyote
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 2,808
- 3,361
Somewhere between Kreider and Bossy.
You don't seem very high on him, but he's a goal scorer through and through. I don't think he'll have the longevity and talent Ovi does/did, but a Kreider is on the low end of his upside.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
I’m not after this season. I think he has flaws in his game that aren’t like “aw shucks, Cole needs to back-check a little harder” or something to that effect that some see it as.
After I saw one of those fancy charts where his defense was like single digits percentile in junior hockey, it was a wake up call and then I started watching for these flaws and saw he’s good at 1 thing (putting puck in net) and not an NHL prospect if he was like an average goal scorer. I think he’s incredibly one-dimensional and can only fit as a PP specialist or with a driver who can carry play to such an extent that their team will always have the puck.
You can’t teach goal scoring. He will be a good player
What I seem to be hearing is that he will be a bad player who can score goals, IF that goal scoring ability translates to the NHL.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
I mean, he has a bomb for a shot and has excellent goal-scoring instincts. Does he have tunnel vision at times? Sure. Is he well-rounded right now? No. Can those things be improved on? Absolutely.
Exactly. You can teach how to be responsbile in the D zone. You can’t teach how to score
Would you rather a guy who is good in his own zone but no offensive ability, or the guy who doesn’t know how to play in his own zone but has the ability to put up 50. You take the goalscorer 100 times out of 100
He's a boom or bust prospect, simple as that.
There are major flaws to his game and it's a bit concerning he wasn't able to make big adjustments and have a dominant season. But the upside is there as a lot of his flaws are fixable. It just depends if a team believes that his flaws can be fixed.
There are major flaws to his game and it's a bit concerning he wasn't able to make big adjustments and have a dominant season. But the upside is there as a lot of his flaws are fixable. It just depends if a team believes that his flaws can be fixed.
Pavel Buchnevich
"Pavel Buchnevich The Fake"
I guess my thing with Eiserman is that I'm not sure he has as much ability as people say.
Like if a guy is an amazing skater and mediocre at the rest of the game, do people say he's extraordinary gifted? No, they say he can fly, but can't play hockey.
I feel like with Eiserman it's like that but his attribute is his goal scoring. Somehow through this (and I fully understand some also disagree on the evaluation) people say he's got great potential. I'm not seeing the great potential. I see a player who does one thing at an elite level, and then the rest is like sub-NHL tools level. I don't see the potential in these other parts of the game that makes me think he's dripping with upside and need to be coached up.
I'm sure he can be coached up. I don't hate Eiserman or think he shouldn't be a first round pick. Goals carry real value that teams need to be looking for, but I think a mistake being made is that thinking because he scores a lot of goals that you just need to coach him up and then you have Matthews or Pastrnak. Taking the goal scoring ability away, there's a major gap in hockey ability for the other areas of the game that I'm not sure is registering for some people.
Like if a guy is an amazing skater and mediocre at the rest of the game, do people say he's extraordinary gifted? No, they say he can fly, but can't play hockey.
I feel like with Eiserman it's like that but his attribute is his goal scoring. Somehow through this (and I fully understand some also disagree on the evaluation) people say he's got great potential. I'm not seeing the great potential. I see a player who does one thing at an elite level, and then the rest is like sub-NHL tools level. I don't see the potential in these other parts of the game that makes me think he's dripping with upside and need to be coached up.
I'm sure he can be coached up. I don't hate Eiserman or think he shouldn't be a first round pick. Goals carry real value that teams need to be looking for, but I think a mistake being made is that thinking because he scores a lot of goals that you just need to coach him up and then you have Matthews or Pastrnak. Taking the goal scoring ability away, there's a major gap in hockey ability for the other areas of the game that I'm not sure is registering for some people.
Last edited:
spfan
Registered User
- May 4, 2009
- 1,862
- 540
I feel he's showing improvements in the other parts of his game. He obviously is no longer that #2 guy, but I think people have overcorrected now. I still take a chance around 10. He could be the next Wahlstrom, he could be the next Caufield or he could be the next Hoffman(the good and the bad).
CaptainShark
Registered User
To all the people that say the other aspects of the game can be taught:
While partially true, it’s not as easy as it sounds. What concerns me is that Eiserman came into those season knowing what he has to do to solidify his draft stock and that he just didn’t do it. He even was quoted by the Athletic saying he thinks the criticism of his all-around-abilities is unfair and that his coach assured him he is playing good defensive hockey (I am wildly paraphrasing from memory, but I was really irked by the lack of self-awareness/Reflection)
While partially true, it’s not as easy as it sounds. What concerns me is that Eiserman came into those season knowing what he has to do to solidify his draft stock and that he just didn’t do it. He even was quoted by the Athletic saying he thinks the criticism of his all-around-abilities is unfair and that his coach assured him he is playing good defensive hockey (I am wildly paraphrasing from memory, but I was really irked by the lack of self-awareness/Reflection)
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
Your memory is correct. The main thing that keeps standing out for me is his lack of self awareness. He did indeed say his coach has told him he's playing a complete game, his coach said he has made strides but also that they've had "countless" discussions about this through the season, the whole quote where he referred to himself in the third person... You have to be self aware to have a proper growth mindset and you need a growth mindset to jump to the NHL (or any elite level of anything). I don't think he's worth the risk of a draft pick until the late teens, and only in an org that has faith in their development staff.
Brock
Registered User
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
No, what can't be taught is his shot and goal.scoring ability. The rest can come if he is in fact coachable.
Eiserman is certainly worth drafting high(top 10) even as a one dimensional scorer, if it is believed that his one talent will translate to the NHL. What some scouts seem to be saying is that they don't think that it will. The minor leagues are littered with scoring phenoms who can't score in the NHL.
It will be interesting to see how he turns out. On some rankings he is sinking like a stone, others, he is still top 10, even top 5.
It will be interesting to see how he turns out. On some rankings he is sinking like a stone, others, he is still top 10, even top 5.
CaptainShark
Registered User
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
I did. You are saying that he lacks "humility" and self-awareness. I'm saying he's confident in his abilities and is in constant contact with his coaching staff on what he can do better. Nothing has indicated Eiserman isn't coachable. He may need to be brought down a peg, but that happens with virtually all prospects. The stuff he needs to work on is in fact coachable. The stuff he is great at is not. It's that simple.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
You don't this this is evidence he's not very coachable? An entire year of being in constant contact with your coaches, about areas everyone knows you need to improve, yet there is no improvement in a year where everyone else around you improved in areas they needed to improve in? He's very literally the standout prospect who failed to improve for a year in areas he ostensibly wanted to improve in and we know he was talking to his coaches about. That's kind of amazing evidence that he's not very coachable.
