His coaches who worked with him everyday claimed otherwise.
I'm really not worried about the defensive play. It is the most coachable aspect of the game. He will never be a defensive stalwart, but he is the best goal scorer in the draft.
LW Cole Eiserman - Boston Univ., NCAA (2024, 20th, NYI)
- Thread starter sigx15
- Start date
I'm really not worried about the defensive play. It is the most coachable aspect of the game. He will never be a defensive stalwart, but he is the best goal scorer in the draft.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
Read this exchange from The Athletic article and tell me that this sounds like someone who is self aware.
“Cole, what’s wrong?” he [Coach Fohr of the NTDP] asked.
“Ah, it’s just a hard day,” Eiserman said. “I’m just frustrated.”
“OK, well, what did we do today?” Fohr followed up.
“Well, everything was play away from the puck,” Eiserman answered.
“Correct. Cole, that’s hard for you,” Fohr explained. “For a lot of your teammates, it’s easy for them. When we do the other stuff, when we do line rushes and all the offensive stuff, you like those days, those days are easy for you aren’t they?”
“Yeah,” Eiserman said, understanding where his coach was going.
“Those days are hard for your teammates because they’re not as good at scoring as you are. This is just a weakness of yours. And it’s going to be hard. And it’s OK to be frustrated with it a little bit, but understand that this is just something that we’re working on. You’re going to continue to make mistakes but that’s how you learn,” Fohr finished.
~~~~
So yeah, I think it's fair to say that Eiserman's biggest weakness is working on anything other than his #1 best skill, and that weakness is identified by his coaches, and it's even the second defining feature to him after his goalscoring. NHL clubs value coachability and growth mindset because none of these players are a good top draft pick if they're already done developing. Cole is still working on growth mindset and coachability on his play away from the puck, which is a very important part of hockey.
I can't understand why someone would be able to brush all this away with a simple "that's easily coachable." If that were the case, nobody would ever value 2-way play.
As it is, Eiserman is likely to drop and IF he figures out how to grow and value play away from the puck, THEN he has a chance to develop into a value creating goal scorer in the NHL. Since that critical outcome has some warning signs, and his peers in the top 5-15 have shown growth, he may fall and he may fall far.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Not that I’m an Eiserman fan, but he hardly played with Hagens at all this year.
Washed Up 29YearOld
Bro Do You Even Hockey?
It’s one thing to have a great shot, quite another to create space to get your shot off at the NHL level. This player might be the next Zadina. Hope that’s not the case so we see more talent in this league
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
Here's a good interview with Eiserman: Mark Masters: Draft prospect Eiserman inspired by Matthews' Selke style | TSN
You are really spinning this to suit your narrative.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
What the hell kind of narrative do you think I have? I am interested in the draft and I read the articles and watched that interview, too. I love how everyone thinks it's "me" who is saying all these things... it's the majority of the public scouting world and most of the NHL teams that are anonymously on record with all the insiders. Like, I get that it's easy to think it's some poster that's the cause of the opinions you don't like, but I am literally just regurgitating what everyone else is saying.
Your problem is with all of their opinions.
Saga of the Elk
Honoured Person
- May 31, 2008
- 3,298
- 1,118
That conversation with his coach is one of the funniest things I've ever read. There are 2nd grade teachers out there expecting more maturity from their students.
“he may fall and he may fall far” were your words. And there isn’t a reputable source who has him worse than 15. And his aggregate average of all the main scouting services is 11.
This is very much your opinion.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
I don't know what it is about you rangers fans. 1) That's literally what scouts have said anonymously on multiple insider articles, 2) fall far in this context is to like 20. He's likely great value at 20. I have also said that. I don't know what you assumed I meant, that he would fall to the third round? There's no way he's falling to 30, which is what you said hoped happen, which I actually thought was a joke.
Again, I guess since you're so insistent, I'm happy to be the face to the massive groundswell of opinion that has collectively dropped Eiserman from #2OA to a likely pick in the 10-15 range or lower. You're welcome, I guess.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I consider reputable the 19 outlets EP lists. If you have him greater than 15 you are just trying too hard.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Don't tell me, tell the NHL teams that are "trying too hard"...
And I'm not saying he will or won't go in a spot...he's one of the more polarizing players out there depending on how much you value the one elite skill that he offers. It just takes one team to pull the trigger. You're obviously welcome to feel how other pubic lists feel, but in a draft with a lot of tough evals at the top, this is a particularly tough eval from a "where do I put him on the list" perspective...it can cause wonky results...
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
I agree with alot of the critics about his overall game & how well his 5v5 offense will translate.
The problem with his 'two way game' isn't just that he doesn't know defensive details, it's that he's not connected with his teammates on the ice & often doesn't look like he's even trying to be. And it's not just in the defensive zone, it's everywhere on the ice. He plays like he's subbing for someone's beer league team, floating around waiting for an opportunity to get the puck & shoot.
Even offensively when he has the puck he'll often opt for nothing shots rather than moving the puck & maintaining possession for the team.
I dunno. There's alot of work to do and some of the things you read from him aren't reassuring. Maybe worst case he bounces around on bottom feeders for awhile & scores some goals.
The problem with his 'two way game' isn't just that he doesn't know defensive details, it's that he's not connected with his teammates on the ice & often doesn't look like he's even trying to be. And it's not just in the defensive zone, it's everywhere on the ice. He plays like he's subbing for someone's beer league team, floating around waiting for an opportunity to get the puck & shoot.
Even offensively when he has the puck he'll often opt for nothing shots rather than moving the puck & maintaining possession for the team.
I dunno. There's alot of work to do and some of the things you read from him aren't reassuring. Maybe worst case he bounces around on bottom feeders for awhile & scores some goals.
WeThreeKings
Demidov is a HAB
I think what hurts his stock more than just what is absent in his game is that he doesn't seem to get 'it'. He thinks his defensive game and implication in the play is better than it is. He talks about himself a bit too highly.. you gotta wonder if he's coachable enough to fix those flaws.. if not, then how playable is he for a coach?
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 78,749
- 50,175
Definitely a concern. His interviews don’t help him in my opinion. Doesn’t seem to understand that he’s got a lot to work on. There’s a sense of defiance when I hear him talk.
Last edited:
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
Fohr is out there doing his best to try to combat the coachability narrative. He is trying. On ice results just didn't really show the results "yet"/"as much".
www.sportsnet.ca
The bull case would say, "he's got a great situation at BU brewing to round out his game for 2-3 years."
I'm still not there, but I'll have to be hopeful if the Sharks take him.
Can the draft's best pure goal-scorer embrace a more complete game?
U.S. winger Cole Eiserman chose to devote his draft year to improving the weaker parts of his game, rather than going all-in on his otherworldly offensive skill. Will that work pay off on draft night?
The bull case would say, "he's got a great situation at BU brewing to round out his game for 2-3 years."
I'm still not there, but I'll have to be hopeful if the Sharks take him.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
Combat the coaching narrative? He is the coach!Fohr is out there doing his best to try to combat the coachability narrative. He is trying. On ice results just didn't really show the results "yet"/"as much".
Can the draft's best pure goal-scorer embrace a more complete game?
U.S. winger Cole Eiserman chose to devote his draft year to improving the weaker parts of his game, rather than going all-in on his otherworldly offensive skill. Will that work pay off on draft night?
The bull case would say, "he's got a great situation at BU brewing to round out his game for 2-3 years."
I'm still not there, but I'll have to be hopeful if the Sharks take him.
The "narrative" is weird. Eiserman's coach seems to imply that his draft stock is falling because he he neglected scoring in order to work on his two way game this year, but almost everything I've read about him says the opposite. Am i just misreading the article?Fohr is out there doing his best to try to combat the coachability narrative. He is trying. On ice results just didn't really show the results "yet"/"as much".
Can the draft's best pure goal-scorer embrace a more complete game?
U.S. winger Cole Eiserman chose to devote his draft year to improving the weaker parts of his game, rather than going all-in on his otherworldly offensive skill. Will that work pay off on draft night?
The bull case would say, "he's got a great situation at BU brewing to round out his game for 2-3 years."
I'm still not there, but I'll have to be hopeful if the Sharks take him.
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
The coach is trying to come to Eiserman's aid in saying that he's working hard to get better at his off puck play, and that they committed to that together this year even at the expense of his scoring. That's what the interview from the article is saying.
In contrast, the on ice evidence is that he didn't improve much this year in his off puck play. The coach is saying "at least he's trying and committed" and in most interviews Eiserman is saying "yes I did improve my off puck play."
But not enough for most scouting services and apparently NHL teams to keep him in the top 5, where he was at the beginning of the season. Instead, he's mostly listed 6-15, really mostly 11-15, and there's an outside chance he drops to 19-20. The "narrative" that seems so difficult for some people to understand is that NHL teams don't think he's improved his off puck game enough to justify a top 10 pick, despite being the best pure goal scorer in the draft. And because of that, they are concerned he won't be able to improve his off puck play enough to translate his goal scoring to the NHL, and doesn't have a well rounded game to contribute if he's not scoring.
For all you Rangers fans (I still don't get it): don't @ me, go look at all the lists and see where he's ranked and read the write ups. I'm summarizing them for you. My last post was trying to describe a path to him succeeding through a few good years at BU, but apparently that post was hard to read.
Lol you have no idea where NHL teams have him ranked. For all we know he could go at 2
- Jul 25, 2007
- 4,563
- 5,648
“NHL teams don’t have him in their top 5”
“NHL teams don’t think he’s improved his play away from the puck”
You literally just made both of those statements up. Because you have zero clue what NHL teams think of him
