If he focuses more on the D zone then his goal totals fall from last year and you would be here claiming that his production slipped. His play away from the puck is totally exagerated. Its not as bad as many are making it out to be.
LW Cole Eiserman - Boston Univ., NCAA (2024, 20th, NYI)
- Thread starter sigx15
- Start date
The thing is that teams have players with much higher projectable floors in the mid first round spot and better overall type of players.
Eiserman to me even if successful in the NHL at scoring goals will have more value in fantasy leagues than in the NHL.
I wish him luck but I'm also glad that my team won't be picking him.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
I would say he concentrated on what he is best at-which is scoring goals. He had a remarkable season in that regard. If you don't think he and his coaching staff were on the same page than I don't know what to say.
Probably not as much as you forsure but that doesn't change his skillset and NHL projection does it?
The reason I don't want my team picking him is that we already have his type of player in Boeser and even our top prospect Jonathan Lekkerimaki although all 3 players have slightly different strengths and weaknesses there just isn't room for all 3 of that type of player on a SC top 6 contender IMO.
Dead Coyote
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 2,808
- 3,361
...He didn't have a dominant season? He was a goal per game. How much more dominant do you want? It's not like he was playing with Celebrini or Smith/Leonard/Perreault or Moore or anyone either.
I've never seen a player get crucified so much for not being a two way guy. Where where these concerns about Smith or Fantilli or Bedard or Michkov or any other top prospect who wasn't immediately thought of as a two way guy?
Dead Coyote
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2017
- 2,808
- 3,361
But both him and his coaches have said there has been been improvement. His coaches have said repeatedly that he has improved. His coaches have also said he still need to improve a lot, and I don't know if he's gotten that message yet, but he has literally came into this year and said what do I need to do to become a better hockey player, and been coached and succeeded at improving that skill. No, he still isn't perfect, and he still has a long ways to go, but he's a very young 17 and you can't just say he hasn't been improving because he still sucks.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
If he's worthy of a top 5 pick, he develops his game in multiple ways. Just like the other top prospects, who developed in multiple ways. He didn't, and he seems to struggle understanding that, so he's going to drop into the teens. He's still going first round.
I only know what I read and see, mostly what I read from professionals because unlike many here, I listen to pros first rather than assuming I know best. What I read in the deep profile on Eiserman where they interviewed him and his coaches is that he was, in fact, not really on the same page as his coaches this year, who specifically said "we've had countless conversations" about developing him beyond goal scoring. And that this message was similar in the past. He's singularly minded and overly focused on goal scoring, not because he's an asshole at all, but he has shown to be inflexible.
This is why he's not a top 5 pick. He very well may go 6-10. I think it's more likely that he goes later than 15. That's still high. And spare me this nonsense that other top prospects weren't being criticized for their defensive lapses. Smith absolutely was - if he were better 2-way, he might have legitimately been considered at 2. The reason Carlsson and Fantilli went before Michkov and him is because they're centers who showed two way acumen. Bedard was and is criticized for his lack of defense but his goal scoring AND playmaking AND creativity AND offensive vision was too good to ignore - Cole's is not at that level on either element.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
Y'all need to be less dramatic. Nobody is saying he still sucks. I'm saying he has clearly struggled to develop his game outside of a very elite shot, which given his profile and the fact that everyone is trying to help him work on it, is a red flag that is going to cause him to not be picked in the top 5 (likely - who knows what will happen). He's still an extremely high talent prospect, but he comes with considerable risk because what's his B game if he's in a cold streak or the goal scoring doesn't translate? He may develop it but you're betting on him getting better at improving because he has shown himself to not be able to develop in multiple ways, to this point, versus peers who have.
If Eiserman had taken significant steps in his game outside scoring this year, every public list would have him at #2. So you can be mad at me for saying all these things, but it's most of the hockey world who is agreeing with me.
Say he did develop his game in multiple ways and his goal count drops 10 goals. Everyone would be in here saying he had a down year and wasn't as dominant of a goal scorer as he once was. Its a double edge sword.
He was playing with the playmaker who just beat Kucherov's scoring record in the U18's, and is widely considered the frontrunner for the first overall pick next year. I think that counts as anyone.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
I don't know what to tell ya, man. Take it up with all the public scouting groups and the NHL front offices.
I think folks have Wahlstrom and Bellows on their minds. Personally, I think Wahlstrom's offensive game was significantly more well rounded pre-draft (he's a good passer, especially on the PP). But Eiserman is more athletic than Wahlstrom, which is why he hasn't sunk further imo.
My point is that its just another case of over-analyzing a prospect. It happens all the time. He will end up a top 3 player from this draft
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
Looking at other recent pure sniper wingers like Eiserman...the track record isn't great. Caufield obviously looks good, but Wahlstrom, Bellows, and even Laine have been disappointing to different extents. It's a player type that looks good pre-draft as their shots make them look elite compared to other junior players, but once you get to higher/older competition it balances out.
With that said, Eiserman is also not a fast skater or physical player, so you're drafting him for his shot and shot alone.
With that said, Eiserman is also not a fast skater or physical player, so you're drafting him for his shot and shot alone.
Peasy
Registered User
I think he's significantly better scoring dirty goals than either Wahlstrom or Bellows. And while he isn't a premium skater, he moves much better than those guys.
95snipes
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2019
- 1,110
- 1,449
I don't care that much about Eiserman's defensive game. Either he can fill the net and his scoring outweighs his d zone play or he's not an NHL player. Yes, you want him to work on it of course, but no amount of improvement is going to change that.
He definitely did not have a dominant season. If you used a grading scale of
A - top 3 player on the ice
B - positive impact
C - nonfactor
D - negative impact
F - liability
How many A games did Eiserman truly have? Not too many. Probably the BU game (where half the game was unwatchable!) and maybe a few other games. I would put that number less than 10 for sure.
Stats wise, he scored the 2nd most goals ever by a U18 player. 25 of the 58 goals came on the powerplay. He's obviously a shooting threat and if this player will have any value to you in the NHL, he will play on your powerplay. Even strength, he still led the team, Eiserman had 33 ES goals and Hagens had 32. It was more of a good season than an all time season in that sense, simply just talking production.
Which leads to the linemates argument and there I agree. For the most part, he played with Bednarik and a revolving door on the other wing that settled as Max Plante. Neither Bednarik and Plante are a lock to ever play a NHL shift and probably top out as middle 6ers. None of three could drive the line, they had poor chemistry, and the line was often ineffective. So that hurt Eiserman, but you'd want a top 5 / top 10 pick to be able carry a line like that.
Development wise it's concerning. How effective is he right now and how much better do you expect him to get?
You add it all together and I think you're left with a player who will need to be a 3rd wheel finisher on a scoring line. Someone who isn't a puck carrier and focuses on finding the soft areas. He doesn't make his linemates better other than drawing attention away. He is not dominating the puck. In the right spot, he can score 35+ goals a season, no question. That's not a foundational piece, but still a valuable player. If he's not scoring, he's this line cancer player that ruins any momentum a line can sustain.
He definitely did not have a dominant season. If you used a grading scale of
A - top 3 player on the ice
B - positive impact
C - nonfactor
D - negative impact
F - liability
How many A games did Eiserman truly have? Not too many. Probably the BU game (where half the game was unwatchable!) and maybe a few other games. I would put that number less than 10 for sure.
Stats wise, he scored the 2nd most goals ever by a U18 player. 25 of the 58 goals came on the powerplay. He's obviously a shooting threat and if this player will have any value to you in the NHL, he will play on your powerplay. Even strength, he still led the team, Eiserman had 33 ES goals and Hagens had 32. It was more of a good season than an all time season in that sense, simply just talking production.
Which leads to the linemates argument and there I agree. For the most part, he played with Bednarik and a revolving door on the other wing that settled as Max Plante. Neither Bednarik and Plante are a lock to ever play a NHL shift and probably top out as middle 6ers. None of three could drive the line, they had poor chemistry, and the line was often ineffective. So that hurt Eiserman, but you'd want a top 5 / top 10 pick to be able carry a line like that.
Development wise it's concerning. How effective is he right now and how much better do you expect him to get?
You add it all together and I think you're left with a player who will need to be a 3rd wheel finisher on a scoring line. Someone who isn't a puck carrier and focuses on finding the soft areas. He doesn't make his linemates better other than drawing attention away. He is not dominating the puck. In the right spot, he can score 35+ goals a season, no question. That's not a foundational piece, but still a valuable player. If he's not scoring, he's this line cancer player that ruins any momentum a line can sustain.
You're inventing a scenario where you justify him not working on his two way play, even though that has been id'ed as his main weakness, and is the reason that he has fallen in the rankings.
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
Agreed. The problem is if you have to defend him by saying he's better than Oliver Wahlstrom and Kieffer Bellows...how high of a pick is he worth?
Wahlstrom was also 2" taller... correction, he was 6'1" at the combine, and grew 1" after that?
Bellows was quite physical at lower levels of hockey. Kind of nasty, really. Part of his problem was that he couldn't make that game work for him in the NHL. They were too tough and strong for him.
Last edited:
In his favor, Eiserman is considered to be a good skater. He is also big enough to withstand physical play, if not physical himself, but do you really want your snipers to be anything more than that?
Being ranked in the top 15 in the world as a prospect does not mean he sucks. People are getting hysterical on here, just because he has fallen in the rankings and they are attached to last year's version of him, where he was thought to be top 2 or 3 in the world. I get it. When i saw him 1 1/2 years ago he looked to be great.
I've seen some mocks having NYI taking him. How funny would that be, after their Wahlstrom and Bellows experiences(I'm guessing that NYI fans would use a different word than "funny")?
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
I've never said he sucks. I'd definitely take him around 15 or later.
I just don't think he's worth a top 10 or 5 pick.
idk, I'm a NYI fan, so I've seen all the busted goal scoring picks, including Dal Colle. Drafting at 20 is different than drafting at 11 or 4. Eiserman looks more elusive than all of them. So, I'd be fine with it. (And I'd be fine with Greentree too, despite some NYI fans comparing Greentree to MDC). But I don't think Eiserman lasts that long.
At 20, he'd be a real find if he can make his game work at the NHL level. I also really like Greentree. I get J Rob vibes from him. You might also have a shot at Solberg... he looks damn good.
