LW Cole Eiserman - USNTDP U18 (2024, 20th, NYI)

[bigdog16]

It drives me crazy when i hear, " Skating is the easiest thing to improve", or "Defense is the easiest thing to teach."

No, no they aren't. 99% of these players have been coached extensively on both things since they were 6-8 yo. These are not kids found out on the river or pond at the age of 14. That just doesn't happen anymore. If the kids are poor at defense by the time they are 18, then odds are they will always be poor at defense.

Forwards are not taught how to play in the D zone until they are like 14-15 years old. It is a much easier concept to teach/learn than skating.

 

[DollardStLaurent]

Forwards are not taught how to play in the D zone until they are like 14-15 years old. It is a much easier concept to teach/learn than skating.

I don't think defense is ever taught in CHL.

 

[Oak]

It drives me crazy when i hear, " Skating is the easiest thing to improve", or "Defense is the easiest thing to teach."

No, no they aren't. 99% of these players have been coached extensively on both things since they were 6-8 yo. These are not kids found out on the river or pond at the age of 14. That just doesn't happen anymore. If the kids are poor at defense by the time they are 18, then odds are they will always be poor at defense.

I disagree with the bolded statements. Neither one of those are easy fixes.

The only thing that has ever been said is that your shot is the easiest thing to fix, but that doesn't mean you will ever be an elite goal sniper just because you work on it.

 

[Oak]

Forwards are not taught how to play in the D zone until they are like 14-15 years old. It is a much easier concept to teach/learn than skating.

Attacking from the correct side on the boards, or attacking forehand to force the weaker backhand play, are taught at squirt level nowadays. So is who you are supposed to pick up as a winger. Teaching centers is a lot harder but basic concepts are absolutely taught. Some of the things young centers are capable of processing in the GTHL are phenomenal.

Some kids have blinders on well into their bantams but that's when you start to question hockey IQ or concede late mental bloomer. Frontal lobe development would be the proper term. Takes reaching midgets for some kids to start having things click.

Also some kids just dont care, and if they have elite goal scoring ability most youth coaches will not bother because they want the goals so the kids just do whatever they want. Feels like this was the case with Cole coming up through youth.

 

[bigdog16]

Attacking from the correct side on the boards, or attacking forehand to force the weaker backhand play, are taught at squirt level nowadays. So is who you are supposed to pick up as a winger. Teaching centers is a lot harder but basic concepts are absolutely taught. Some of the things young centers are capable of processing in the GTHL are phenomenal.

Some kids have blinders on well into their bantams but that's when you start to question hockey IQ or concede late mental bloomer. Frontal lobe development would be the proper term. Takes reaching midgets for some kids to start having things click.

Also some kids just dont care, and if they have elite goal scoring ability most youth coaches will not bother because they want the goals so the kids just do whatever they want. Feels like this was the case with Cole coming up through youth.

Sure simple concepts are taught but its a very different game in the dzone once you get to junior hockey. And like you said the best players typically ignore it all anyways because they are good enough to get away with it.

Thinking back I wasn’t even really taught dzone hockey until I got to NCAA. Junior hockey was all run and gun for us.

 

[bringbacktheskate604]

2 of his brothers are also around 6’2. He’s already good size at 6’0 195lbs.

Hes one of the youngest in this years draft class. Still just 17. Even if he grows another inch. By the time he’s 22 he could be playing at 6’1 205lbs-210lbs

I think this is a great pick for you guys. I get he has flaws but you can't teach goal scoring and a good example or template is Boeser.
He was flawed but could snipe and if not for early injury history I'm convinced hed be a guy with a 50 goal season on his resume.

More importantly, he's turned into a hell of a complete two-way player out protecting leafs and scoring clutch goals.
No reason there can't be a similar trajectory here.

 

[saintunspecified]

I think this is a great pick for you guys. I get he has flaws but you can't teach goal scoring and a good example or template is Boeser.
He was flawed but could snipe and if not for early injury history I'm convinced hed be a guy with a 50 goal season on his resume.

More importantly, he's turned into a hell of a complete two-way player out protecting leafs and scoring clutch goals.
No reason there can't be a similar trajectory here.

Perhaps there are some similarities. Eiserman has been on everyone's radar for far longer before the draft than Boeser. I also think if Eiserman came off like Boeser personally, he'd have been a higher pick, even with all the off-the-puck limitations.

Eiserman comes off kind of... prickly. I'm not saying that won't serve him well! It might! But I suspect it was a factor.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Imo, Eiserman has been unfairly sold as a one-dimensional player. He has what it takes to develop the other parts of his game.

What makes you think that?

I don’t know Cole Eiserman and what type of attitude he has towards improving. It’s possible he will get better at hockey, but I don’t know how one can possibly watch him play hockey and think he’s anything other than a black hole other than the few times a game he’s attempting to score a goal.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

This is the correct take, he has a weird stride sometimes but skating isn’t an issue. Whally just isn’t a smart hockey player

I was never a big fan of him for this reason. Wahlstrom isn’t small, doesn’t skate bad, has okay puck skills and can absolutely hammer the puck when he catches one, but the NHL isn’t a practice game against Latvia when you have the puck all game and your team basically has a PP type of possession advantage every shift with no real pressure on the puck. It’s competitive, fast, and back and forth. Wahlstrom can’t keep up with all of that. He needs to play in a slower pace league where quick decisions aren’t required and players give him time and space to hammer the puck on net.

I think Eiserman isn’t as dumb as Wahlstrom, but I also don’t think he’s necessarily a smart player. He’s a selfish player and has tunnel vision. I wouldn’t call him overly smart, but I think those are his two main hockey sense problems, which may be closer to lack of maturity than hockey sense. I also don’t think he’s anywhere near as bad of a skater as Bellows.

So he doesn’t have the same notable deficits as Bellows or Wahlstrom, but he’s very one-dimensional and has to be used as a complimentary player. He’s never going to drive play. It’s just not his style. Put him with Barzal and a strong defensive, physical, boards presence, and maybe it can work having a dirty work player alongside a player who can drive things for him in Barzal and make his job only about getting open to score goals. The biggest issue with Eiserman becomes he’s a very difficult player to make his role work because he has absolutely no B game. He’s worse than useless (an active detriment) if it’s not PP or with the exact right linemates. Risky pick, but one with real goal scoring upside in the NHL.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

2 of his brothers are also around 6’2. He’s already good size at 6’0 195lbs.

Hes one of the youngest in this years draft class. Still just 17. Even if he grows another inch. By the time he’s 22 he could be playing at 6’1 205lbs-210lbs

It’s possible, but he’s also been this height and probably close to weight for like two years. He was physically mature earlier than most. Typically when someone has that type of plateau around the years he did with height it’s because they are done growing taller. Not like I’m his doctor and have examined him, so I’m only speculating, but I’d suggest he’s probably going to end up where he is and not grow taller.

 

[TopC0rner]

What makes you think that?

I don’t know Cole Eiserman and what type of attitude he has towards improving. It’s possible he will get better at hockey, but I don’t know how one can possibly watch him play hockey and think he’s anything other than a black hole other than the few times a game he’s attempting to score a goal.

For example, later in the year, he would look up for his teammates more often and show a developing playmaking game. Also, I've seen him try on defense, and even though he doesn't always defend properly (like many other players his age), it's something that his coach can work with.

He never really had to work on other aspects of the game because so far it worked, but I think he improved towards the end of the year as the comments about his games became persistent (and his draft ranking started going down).

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

For example, later in the year, he would look up for his teammates more often and show a developing playmaking game. Also, I've seen him try on defense, and even though he doesn't always defend properly (like many other players his age), it's something that his coach can work with.

He never really had to work on other aspects of the game because so far it worked, but I think he improved towards the end of the year as the comments about his games became persistent (and his draft ranking started going down).

We can agree to disagree because I did not even come close to seeing that.

 

[wickedwitch]

I think Eiserman isn’t as dumb as Wahlstrom, but I also don’t think he’s necessarily a smart player. He’s a selfish player and has tunnel vision.

What about his play to you indicates he's selfish? I agree with the tunnel vision (at times) and the not super smart with regards to playmaking, but nothing in his play to me has indicated selfishness. For example, I don't see plays where he clearly sees a better options and chooses to shoot anyway.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

What about his play to you indicates he's selfish? I agree with the tunnel vision (at times) and the not super smart with regards to playmaking, but nothing in his play to me has indicated selfishness. For example, I don't see plays where he clearly sees a better options and chooses to shoot anyway.

That’s what I see. Not always bad for a goal scorer, but of course you want a player to make the right decision.

 

[Michael Farkas]

For example, I don't see plays where he clearly sees a better options and chooses to shoot anyway.

I don't sit around and count these. But conservatively, this happens at least three times per game. Five? His calling-his-own-number-to-shoot-from-anywhere/60 is probably the highest I've seen in a while...

 

[boredmale]

Not saying this is the case but what are the chances of Eiserman dropping because of recent cases of other USNDT high picks being an issue wanting to call their own shots(see Cutter Gauthier and Rutger McGroarty). Maybe if teams were deciding between 2 players they rated closely that may have made them lean towards the non USNDT guys

 

[thedjpd]

Not saying this is the case but what are the chances of Eiserman dropping because of recent cases of other USNDT high picks being an issue wanting to call their own shots(see Cutter Gauthier and Rutger McGroarty). Maybe if teams were deciding between 2 players they rated closely that may have made them lean towards the non USNDT guys

Also possible. Same with Buium.

Fans (particularly this site) always clamor for best player available regardless of risk profile. Pretty easy to do when you don’t personally have to face the consequences of that risk not working, as they’ll be the first ones shouting from rooftops to fire the GM for taking it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Was it five NCAA/NCAA-bound and two Russian players that went in the 19 spots ahead of him...? I think I'm fairly close without looking it up...

 

[boredmale]

Was it five NCAA/NCAA-bound and two Russian players that went in the 19 spots ahead of him...? I think I'm fairly close without looking it up...

So looks like 2 USNTD players and 2 USHL players going to college(or currently in college). In the case of Mack Celebrini, I would assume he was heads and shoulders above pick #2, the other USNTD player as mentioned above fell a bit(Buium).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right, so Eiserman fell because he's a "flight risk" or whatever...but the 6 or 7 other guys that went ahead of him are not...?

I'm not saying there isn't risk management and other things to consider with the source of a draft pick...but the selective application of it (and the selective application of the "flight risk" part) I think needs some refining...

 

[SI90]

Always a risk with college draft picks but usually first rounders aren’t a problem to sign. Gauthier and McGroarty are kind of unique cases. McGroarty didn’t want to play/live in Winnipeg and Gauthier reportedly didn’t like the Philly hierarchy

But guys drop all the time. Draft boards are all different and if the dominoes fall into place guys can drop. We see it all the time. All it takes is a team to like 1 guy more than you.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Always a risk with college draft picks but usually first rounders aren’t a problem to sign. Gauthier and McGroarty are kind of unique cases. McGroarty didn’t want to play/live in Winnipeg and Gauthier reportedly didn’t like the Philly hierarchy

But guys drop all the time. Draft boards are all different and if the dominoes fall into place guys can drop. We see it all the time. All it takes is a team to like 1 guy more than you.

Think you have it wrong about McGroarty. It’s been said consistently that the issue was that he wanted to play NHL immediately, wasn’t anything about the city of Winnipeg.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is gonna be a little tough to express and I'm about to step out, but I challenge the notion that Eiserman "fell". One, I don't really believe in that concept because as SI90 mentioned and hopefully most folks know by now - draft boards are way different from people on the inside. People that are actually doing the work, wildly different. For some reason, the misguided idea of "consensus" rules here - or is at least at the podium - and it doesn't make much sense. Now, yes, Celebrini was the consensus #1 - that's not what I'm talking about.

It's part of the danger of making a list too early. Putting a number value to the left a guy in September has no benefit. I know he was really high on Bob's pre-draft list and all that. It's fine, I get that. But I don't think he ever belonged there. And then some folks got stuck in the anchoring bias of that and couldn't get off of it.

There were very few instances in the season where I had Eiserman as a first round pick and I'm not alone in that. I will say that I'm in the minority with that, but not alone. So from that perspective, the Isles "reached" (another fun term used sometimes) haha

I just don't think Cole Eiserman possibly staying out of the pros for half a decade or whatever was a factor in him "falling" (allegedly) - I think he went where he went and it's about right.

 

[SI90]

Think you have it wrong about McGroarty. It’s been said consistently that the issue was that he wanted to play NHL immediately, wasn’t anything about the city of Winnipeg.

They weren’t willing to let him? I apologize if I got that wrong. Could have sworn he wasn’t thrilled with going all the way to Winnipeg. Can’t imagine why they would sign him to ELC? Unless he wanted assurances he would be in the NHL and not AHL if he signed?

 

[Juxtaposer]

This is gonna be a little tough to express and I'm about to step out, but I challenge the notion that Eiserman "fell". One, I don't really believe in that concept because as SI90 mentioned and hopefully most folks know by now - draft boards are way different from people on the inside. People that are actually doing the work, wildly different. For some reason, the misguided idea of "consensus" rules here - or is at least at the podium - and it doesn't make much sense. Now, yes, Celebrini was the consensus #1 - that's not what I'm talking about.

It's part of the danger of making a list too early. Putting a number value to the left a guy in September has no benefit. I know he was really high on Bob's pre-draft list and all that. It's fine, I get that. But I don't think he ever belonged there. And then some folks got stuck in the anchoring bias of that and couldn't get off of it.

There were very few instances in the season where I had Eiserman as a first round pick and I'm not alone in that. I will say that I'm in the minority with that, but not alone. So from that perspective, the Isles "reached" (another fun term used sometimes) haha

I just don't think Cole Eiserman possibly staying out of the pros for half a decade or whatever was a factor in him "falling" (allegedly) - I think he went where he went and it's about right.

I would agree on this. As early as Spring 2023 when he was called up to the U18, I never felt like he was a top-10 pick. I watched a lot of the U18 NTDP team last year and all through his call up to the U18 tourney, there was no point at which I thought "this is a guy I'm comfortable drafting top-10". Until a guy's draft year, rankings are usually the product of counting stats, hype, and exposure. I would suggest that Eiserman was overrated coming into his draft season because of Shattuck and the goal totals, and even the folks that actually watched him assumed "he'll clean up the details of his game next season" when ranking him high.