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

[coooldude]

“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

I'm sorry you can't read. You've misunderstood every one of my posts in the last few pages. I'm going to block you now because you're wasting my time.

 

[majormajor]

“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

Bob Mckenzie and Corey Pronman and others have been talking to scouts and telling us what they think, and not many are that high on Eiserman. He didn't get a single top 5 vote in Bob's poll of scouts. He ranked 13th in total.

 

[bigdog16]

I'm sorry you can't read. You've misunderstood every one of my posts in the last few pages. I'm going to block you now because you're wasting my time.

Did I not just quote exactly what you said lol

 

[Ryan Van Horne]

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.

I'll tell you why.

Teaching a hockey player how to check or be defensively responsible is possible. It's happened thousands of times throughout the history of the game.

By contrast, teaching a defensively responsible player how to score is IMPOSSIBLE. You can get them to work on their shot, or teach them to go to places where they are more likely to score, you cannot teach the anticipation, the patience, the hands and the sense of knowing where to be.

Cole Eiserman screams "the next Mike Bossy" to me. Back in 1977, the Montreal Canadiens scouts didn't like Mike Bossy who played in their backyard in Laval. They were concerned about his two-way play and skating so they took some guy named Mark Napier instead at No. 10

Bossy fell until the New York Islanders were on the board at No. 15 and then-GM Bill Torrey asked his scouts about the Bossy kid that was falling. "He can't check" the scouts told him.

Not keen about the upside of the other players near the top of the Islanders list, Torrey said "Give me the scorer, we'll teach him how to check."

 

[Michael Farkas]

People really overstate the "you can just coach defense" thing. It assumes a lot of things...not the least of which is: "are you telling me not one coach ever has tried to tell him to check?"

It's not some automatic thing, it's not a slider you can set. Not all players have the mental capacity to handle that, not all players develop the determination to check, not all players develop the technique to check, etc.

And there's a lot of different avenues within each of those umbrellas too. Hockey sense isn't a 1 or 0 thing. It's on a spectrum. And within that spectrum there are different things that make it up...anticipation, risk mitigation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, etc. etc. And depending on where a player's strengths and weaknesses are within those sub-categories will produce certain results.

And similarly, there are different types of defense too...there's mental defense based around anticipation, there's technical defense based around proper technique - usually stick-led these days, there's physical defense, there's effort defense - where a player is working really hard, which can be useful, until he overplays it...etc.

Effort defense is the only one that's probably always there. But it's not the most effective. Look at the DPE 2.0 when we had guys buzzing around at a zillion miles an hour, sliding across the ice with their mouths open blocking shots and what not...they were the 6'5" hookers and holders of 2003. It manifested itself differently because the game changed, but it netted the same result: garbage.

I'm not saying things aren't teachable, I'm not saying that a player at 17 is serving a life sentence on his flaws, but it's so nuanced that you really want to be careful just throwing it around because that's exactly why we see busts in the top portions of the draft. Exactly that attitude.

You don't think anyone asked Nail Yakupov to remove his head from his ass? No one thought of that? haha they just silently went, "well, this isn't gonna work...too bad. Did we keep the receipt on him?"

And yes, Eiserman has a shot that's difficult to teach at this point. I agree. But you can improve your shot too. And that's a technical development piece, which can have a little bit more wiggle room. "You can't teach that shot!" Yeah, maybe not. But have you spent a day with Tim Turk? He'll change your life in a week haha

 

[57special]

People really overstate the "you can just coach defense" thing. It assumes a lot of things...not the least of which is: "are you telling me not one coach ever has tried to tell him to check?"

It's not some automatic thing, it's not a slider you can set. Not all players have the mental capacity to handle that, not all players develop the determination to check, not all players develop the technique to check, etc.

And there's a lot of different avenues within each of those umbrellas too. Hockey sense isn't a 1 or 0 thing. It's on a spectrum. And within that spectrum there are different things that make it up...anticipation, risk mitigation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, etc. etc. And depending on where a player's strengths and weaknesses are within those sub-categories will produce certain results.

And similarly, there are different types of defense too...there's mental defense based around anticipation, there's technical defense based around proper technique - usually stick-led these days, there's physical defense, there's effort defense - where a player is working really hard, which can be useful, until he overplays it...etc.

Effort defense is the only one that's probably always there. But it's not the most effective. Look at the DPE 2.0 when we had guys buzzing around at a zillion miles an hour, sliding across the ice with their mouths open blocking shots and what not...they were the 6'5" hookers and holders of 2003. It manifested itself differently because the game changed, but it netted the same result: garbage.

I'm not saying things aren't teachable, I'm not saying that a player at 17 is serving a life sentence on his flaws, but it's so nuanced that you really want to be careful just throwing it around because that's exactly why we see busts in the top portions of the draft. Exactly that attitude.

You don't think anyone asked Nail Yakupov to remove his head from his ass? No one thought of that? haha they just silently went, "well, this isn't gonna work...too bad. Did we keep the receipt on him?"

And yes, Eiserman has a shot that's difficult to teach at this point. I agree. But you can improve your shot too. And that's a technical development piece, which can have a little bit more wiggle room. "You can't teach that shot!" Yeah, maybe not. But have you spent a day with Tim Turk? He'll change your life in a week haha

Absolutely, there are some excellent shooting coaches, just like there are excellent skating coaches. Here it's Scott Bjugstad, but there are many others. It's not like it's some impossible voodoo. IMO, improving skating is much harder. Anyway, all of this is somewhat missing the point, in Eiserman's case. No one is disputing that he can score at the USHL level. What some are questioning is whether he will be effective enough of a scorer at the NHL level to make up for his deficiencies elsewhere. That's why he has dropped from top 2 or 3 last year, to 10- 20 in the eyes of many scouts. It's not like he has no value.... a mid round first is a vg prospect.

I don't normally focus on B days too much, but he has a VERY late Bday, Aug 29. That should be taken into account at least a little bit. He is almost a full year younger than a player like Yakemchuk.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Sure, you can improve your shot. Ask Jack Hughes. That doesn't mean it's easy to replicate Eiserman's shot which is elite by NHL standards. I still think he'll go top 10 and the team who drafts him will bank on him shoring up some of his weaknesses in college.

 

[Tatar Shots]

One thing I will say is I wonder if we give enough grace to high-end shooters at the junior level who overshoot the puck? When a junior player has a tendency to over stickhandle or over pass the puck, it is generally glossed over as experimenting and learning their limits. On the flip side, a shooter like Eiserman gets questioned about his hockey sense and selfishness. I think he has pretty good passing and playmaking skills, but he defaults to trying to get the job done and is over reliant on his shooting ability. I think he gets criticized a bit too much on this end and when we talk about coachability, I think ironing out his offensive game is not nearly the issue as ironing out the defensive side.

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

He probably goes to the sharks at 14

 

[WeThreeKings]

He probably goes to the sharks at 14

They gonna run 0 defenseman?

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

They gonna run 0 defenseman?

They’ve got plenty of years of stinking ahead of them to get defenseman

 

[CaptainShark]

Chris Peters was interviewed in the most recent San Jose Now Podcast and he said that a lot of scouts are not (too) high on him cause they see a lack of self awareness / reflection, basically the same troubling impression that @cooldude and me got from reading the Athletic piece.

 

[biturbo19]

I think the biggest thing Eiserman is fighting uphill against, is that the closest and most recent, obvious comparable is Oliver Wahlstrom. Who hasn't really worked out. A lot of people are looking very right on his "weaknesses" being a major achilles heel for him at the NHL level...and there's a lot of the same stuff with Eiserman. Even some of the same sort of "attitude" or "demeanor" stuff.


I think Wahlstrom was more dynamic with the puck on his stick even, though also more of a "puckhog" wanting to stickhandle his way around everywhere. Eiserman is a bit more, "opportunistic". To where...maybe the better comparable is actually "bigger Cole Caufield". But it's not a stretch to see parallels between Eiserman and Wahlstrom.


The biggest question is really, how many top offensive players do we even have in the NHL today, who are heavily "goal skewed" as Eiserman projects?

There's a few. Matthews. Guys occasionally have a wildly unsustainable career year playing on a line/powerplay as a triggerman, or guys like Kreider/Connor/Tippett who have the sort of elite speed and mentality to generate their own goals that way, and/or with extremely niche puck-tipping netfront powerplay skills or things like that. Boeser is maybe one of the closest comparables and even he tends to play a lot more "in sync" with his linemates offensively as at least a decent passer and facilitator. There just aren't a lot of real Dany Heatley "shot cannon" types anymore. Marchenko has a bit of that too him i guess. But more often the lower end ones end up like Wahlstrom, or Victor Olofsson for example, or out of the league altogether.


Eiserman just has a lot of that sort of "all or nothing" boom/bust factor to him. Where teams only really value those types highly if they score at an elite rate. Because there really isn't a lot else to their game. There's very little versatility or room for finding a niche elsewhere in the lineup. Very Top-6 + Top PP Unit, or bust.


But then...guys who just naturally understand how to score goals and have the primary tools to do so, are so important to have when they "hit".

 

[WeThreeKings]

They’ve got plenty of years of stinking ahead of them to get defenseman

Do they?

Next draft is notoriously light on defenseman. Year 2 of Celebrini, Smith - more experience for Eklund. Add some veterans around that group to make sure they're not drowning.

I can't see them eschewing a defenseman like Solberg or Jiricek after their pretty much sole investment in Forwards over the last 4 drafts.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

They gonna run 0 defenseman?

Not unreasonable to think that the 6 worthy ones could be gone by then. Or the 1 remaining is one they don't like all that much.

 

[coooldude]

Do they?

Next draft is notoriously light on defenseman. Year 2 of Celebrini, Smith - more experience for Eklund. Add some veterans around that group to make sure they're not drowning.

I can't see them eschewing a defenseman like Solberg or Jiricek after their pretty much sole investment in Forwards over the last 4 drafts.

This is the debate on the boards. There's a group (including me) that wants to draft Solberg (or if the scouts like him better, Jiricek), or if we're lucky one of the big 6 drops. Solberg is exciting enough to me personally and we are so thin on D. It's not really going off the board but it's a very late riser pick so some would see it as a reach.

There's a group that thinks if Catton/Helenius drop we HAVE to take them, or else MBN is a great fit (big RW who isn't creative but has a shot and a 200ft game, like a taller Zetterlund).

There's a group that wants or is OK with Eiserman and thinks he'll be able to build out a more complete game in BU and the scoring upside is too high to pass up, plus he's best friends with Celebrini from their time at Shattuck. I'm not in this group but it does seem like there's smoke around us taking him if he's there. So if we do pick him, we'll all have to start hoping that the interviews and articles don't tell the full picture and the kid's going to start playing a more complete game so he can create goals when the game is harder, and add to the team when he's not scoring.

We mostly all agree that Sharks will still be playing for last place even WITH the "big step forward" we would need to take through FA, and maybe we're bottom 5 in 2026, so there is time to build out the D pool but since D take longer than F typically, we risk becoming top heavy like TOR (IF these prospects hit).

All to say they very well may take Eiserman and he'll be huge upside risk and huge bust risk to me.

 

[BuiumSaveUs]

Do they?

Next draft is notoriously light on defenseman. Year 2 of Celebrini, Smith - more experience for Eklund. Add some veterans around that group to make sure they're not drowning.

I can't see them eschewing a defenseman like Solberg or Jiricek after their pretty much sole investment in Forwards over the last 4 drafts.

They iced one of the worst rosters I’ve ever seen last year. It’s going to be at least 3 years before they even sniff the playoffs but probably even longer

 

[PattyLafontaine]

Do they?

Next draft is notoriously light on defenseman. Year 2 of Celebrini, Smith - more experience for Eklund. Add some veterans around that group to make sure they're not drowning.

I can't see them eschewing a defenseman like Solberg or Jiricek after their pretty much sole investment in Forwards over the last 4 drafts.

The value for D men in this draft is late first early mid 2nd. The top 6 D men are being overrated. If someone like Sennecke, Catton, Helenius et al fall to 14 you have to take them. I am praying that someone else goes with Yakemchuk before the Sharks at 14.

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

Read the last two pages of this thread figuring there'd be some type of update or information to learn about his game.

I aimed too high.

Can't imagine he lasts to pick 10. And if he did would Devils still take him despite the pressing need for defending defenseman in the pipeline?

 

[bigdog16]

I think the biggest thing Eiserman is fighting uphill against, is that the closest and most recent, obvious comparable is Oliver Wahlstrom. Who hasn't really worked out. A lot of people are looking very right on his "weaknesses" being a major achilles heel for him at the NHL level...and there's a lot of the same stuff with Eiserman. Even some of the same sort of "attitude" or "demeanor" stuff.


I think Wahlstrom was more dynamic with the puck on his stick even, though also more of a "puckhog" wanting to stickhandle his way around everywhere. Eiserman is a bit more, "opportunistic". To where...maybe the better comparable is actually "bigger Cole Caufield". But it's not a stretch to see parallels between Eiserman and Wahlstrom.


The biggest question is really, how many top offensive players do we even have in the NHL today, who are heavily "goal skewed" as Eiserman projects?

There's a few. Matthews. Guys occasionally have a wildly unsustainable career year playing on a line/powerplay as a triggerman, or guys like Kreider/Connor/Tippett who have the sort of elite speed and mentality to generate their own goals that way, and/or with extremely niche puck-tipping netfront powerplay skills or things like that. Boeser is maybe one of the closest comparables and even he tends to play a lot more "in sync" with his linemates offensively as at least a decent passer and facilitator. There just aren't a lot of real Dany Heatley "shot cannon" types anymore. Marchenko has a bit of that too him i guess. But more often the lower end ones end up like Wahlstrom, or Victor Olofsson for example, or out of the league altogether.


Eiserman just has a lot of that sort of "all or nothing" boom/bust factor to him. Where teams only really value those types highly if they score at an elite rate. Because there really isn't a lot else to their game. There's very little versatility or room for finding a niche elsewhere in the lineup. Very Top-6 + Top PP Unit, or bust.


But then...guys who just naturally understand how to score goals and have the primary tools to do so, are so important to have when they "hit".

He is a nearly identical player to Phil Kessel who had a good career I'd say

 

[Michael Farkas]

He plays nothing like Kessel, of course.

 

[Tatar Shots]

He plays nothing like Kessel, of course.

Eiserman himself and Button have both compared him to Kreider. Would you say this is a fair comparison? I know you guys mentioned in the Black Book that he needs to play inside more. From what I've seen he is pretty comfortable attacking the net and the slot and he does a pretty good job keeping his feet moving looking to position himself for passes and rebounds.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Eiserman himself and Button have both compared him to Kreider. Would you say this is a fair comparison? I know you guys mentioned in the Black Book that he needs to play inside more. From what I've seen he is pretty comfortable attacking the net and the slot and he does a pretty good job keeping his feet moving looking to position himself for passes and rebounds.

He's so tough to pin down in terms of a comparable for me. Kreider is a lot closer than Kessel. I don't mind Eiserman's interior game actually. I don't view that aspect of his exactly the same as our HP team does. I think he can and does play inside, I think he's in such a hurry to try to snipe that it costs him better opportunities inside.

Ya know, you look at someone like John Mustard and I was a little disappointed in where his game ended up - as I noted in that thread. I still like him. But if you look at Mustard, you come away saying, "if nothing else, at least he took the space available to him. At least he improved the condition of the play, so to speak." With Eiserman, you don't always come away with that feeling. You can. But not always.

Kreider was a better skater than Eiserman for my money. And my memory of young Kreider was that he was generally going to hole with it, right? Eiserman just grips it and rips it a lot.

I'm not married to this, but I was sitting with some scouts at the Fall Classic (I think it was) and I was really disappointed in Eiserman's game and I said something along the lines of "I was promised Ilya Kovalchuk and instead I got super Geoff Courtnall" and some of the older guys thought about it for a second and went, "wow...nice. Harsh, but nice pull." haha

But it's not lost on me that saying Geoff Courtnall on the prospects board is basically like this Simpsons joke where Ernest Borgnine asserts that these 4th graders know him best from a 1953 film haha

 

[bigdog16]

He plays nothing like Kessel, of course.

Do you remember Kessel as a prospect? They are the exact same flaws that Eiserman is being accused of. They can both score, but they lack game awareness.

 

[Tatar Shots]

He's so tough to pin down in terms of a comparable for me. Kreider is a lot closer than Kessel. I don't mind Eiserman's interior game actually. I don't view that aspect of his exactly the same as our HP team does. I think he can and does play inside, I think he's in such a hurry to try to snipe that it costs him better opportunities inside.

Ya know, you look at someone like John Mustard and I was a little disappointed in where his game ended up - as I noted in that thread. I still like him. But if you look at Mustard, you come away saying, "if nothing else, at least he took the space available to him. At least he improved the condition of the play, so to speak." With Eiserman, you don't always come away with that feeling. You can. But not always.

Kreider was a better skater than Eiserman for my money. And my memory of young Kreider was that he was generally going to hole with it, right? Eiserman just grips it and rips it a lot.

I'm not married to this, but I was sitting with some scouts at the Fall Classic (I think it was) and I was really disappointed in Eiserman's game and I said something along the lines of "I was promised Ilya Kovalchuk and instead I got super Geoff Courtnall" and some of the older guys thought about it for a second and went, "wow...nice. Harsh, but nice pull." haha

But it's not lost on me that saying Geoff Courtnall on the prospects board is basically like this Simpsons joke where Ernest Borgnine asserts that these 4th graders know him best from a 1953 film haha

I agree he has a tendency to shoot the puck instead of looking for or allowing a better play to develop. One thing I previously noted on Eiserman is I wonder if we are too critical on elite shooters who are overly reliant on their shot at the junior level? When a guy with really good stickhandling skills has a tendency to over stickhandle and cough up the puck, he is given quite a bit of grace that he is experimenting and learning his limits.

I don't like a lot of the comparables I see for Eiserman because his size and frame never seem to be considered. He is barely draft eligible and he is about 6'0" 200 lbs. I checked eliteprospects and two of his older brothers are listed at 6'2". He may realistically end up around 6'2" 215-220 lbs. I think it gets glossed over that he may end up at that size with an elite shot and knack for finding open ice around the net.