KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,330
- 10,295
RD Timothy Liljegren - Ex-Rogle BK, SHL (2017, 17th, TOR) III
- Thread starter Epictetus
- Start date
firstemperor
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 8,755
- 1,445
He was also quite good at the U18's. Why wouldn't the WJSS be weighed to some degree?
Atomos2
Registered User
Hokinaittii
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2015
- 2,497
- 1,293
Even if he looked good at the WJSS, that doesn't instantly make him the top D prospect of the draft.
firstemperor
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 8,755
- 1,445
Is that a generalization...or an inference of someone's opinion?
My personal board hasn't changed much since pre-draft.
1) Heiskanen
2) Liljegren
3) Valimaki
4) Brannstrom
5) Makar
Their production in their D+1 year (and WJC) will probably determine how the rankings change moving forward.
Before he was drafted by the Leafs, you had him in your top 10. So based on that, his stock has only risen.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 34,734
- 12,951
Mine would probably be..
1. Heiskanen
2. Makar
3. Valimaki
4. Liljegren
5. Foote
6. Hague
7. Brannstrom
I think I liked Hague more then most.
Atomos2
Registered User
It makes him look damn good regardless. Whether I care about the evaluations of the prospects around him is another story (a very short one). But from what I saw in my own viewings, I say he has the makings of a great prospect.
Atomos2
Registered User
Oh you mean in those youtube highlight videos? I guess they could be a good resource too
TDK67
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2016
- 3,261
- 969
I was referring to him still being ranked as the top D around Feb/March of this year.
Of course the WJSS doesn't instantly make him the top D prospect, but I didn't seen any of the overblown "low IQ" issues that some people insist is why Liljegren dropped. If that stuff isn't present and he played well and he was ranked as the top D ~6 months ago then maybe his performance at the WJSS was the status quo for him and what got him the top D consideration before he dropped.
I don't know and I won't claim expertise because I didn't follow this kid closely all year, but people were still pretty excited and effusive in their praise for him as recently as late March/early April of this year.
I'm not sure referring to the last 2 years helps your view of Liljegren being bad. Reports for the overwhelming majority of those two years (up until March of '17) have been glowing and adamant about Liljegren being a special talent.
You thought he looked good at the WJSS? I thought he was mediocre. Showed some skill but he needs to work on so much to round out his game. The offense has always been there but his transition play and tunnel vision was hard to watch.
I have also said that Liljegren will be considered top 5 in his draft within about 5 years. I don't put Brannstrom quite that high, but I think he will not be far behind.
In the case of Liljegren that will simply be him returning to the position he was placed in by most sources a couple months before the draft (for instance here where he was ranked 3rd in February and here where he was ranked 4th in March based on the consolidation of multiple drafting sources). The WJSS simply showed that due to his performance post-mono he was unjustly criticized and dropped in ranking by scouts. And I am pretty sure that several scouts watching the WJSS already understand that was case, others will realize that over the coming years as he outperforms most of the players they shifted ahead of him.
Regardless, I don't care much about draft position. I wanted the Sabres to pick Liljegren up 8OA if he was available, but I also did not think that Mittlestadt would still be available either, so I certainly can't fault them for picking up that kind of talent which fell to them in 8th and who would look amazing playing with Eichel.
Just as an example if one were to look at just the 15th to 17th pick: Brannstrom by Vegas, Valimaki by Calgary and Liljegren by Toronto it doesn't tell you anything except which teams prefered which players based on who was still available.
Had Calgary drafted 15th instead of 16th do you think that they would have picked Brannstrom over Valimaki? I don't think there was much of a chance Brian Burke's team would pick a small skilled D such as Brannstrom when a much bigger, but still talented, D like Valimaki was available.
Had Toronto Drafted 15th instead of 17th do you think they would have picked Brannstrom or Valimaki instead of Liljegren? I don't think there was much of a chance when both are LHD and Toronto was in the undesirable position of giving up young assets to attain a top 4 RHD.
So what does draft order indicate in terms of talent? Not as much as people feel it does. Part of that is due to the idea that most teams have helped spread that they simply draft the BPA. They don't and after the first couple players the next group is close to each other and blends into the next group and the next group. But it would simply be illogical and counterproductive for any team to say "we drafted so-and-so 11OA. He wasn't the best player available, but he fit our system, playing style and needs more than another player who was slightly better."
Last edited:
Leafs at Knight
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ehh your opinion is in the vast minority. Most people would say he looked good to great, IMO he looked great. One of Sweden's top players and probably their top D, between him and Brannstrom.
TDK67
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2016
- 3,261
- 969
I'll second this. Good to great is the perfect way to describe. Overall solid with many flashes of brilliance. More impressive than several other top prospects. Hope he builds off this and continues improving.
Nithoniniel
Registered User
What made his transition play hard to watch? I can at least see the complaint about his vision, he certainly could have used teammates better at times.
Mitchy
#HFOutcasts
X66
114-110
- Aug 18, 2008
- 13,602
- 7,490
Considering the player himself said he didn't feel he was at 100% for most of the year it is encouraging to see him play stellar now that he's completely healthy.
He was a standout at both the prospect camp and the wjss.
We'll now wait for training camp
PittsburghHustlers
Registered User
Liljegren didn't really have a good u18. He was outplayed by Brannstrom. That said, I like his tools and he has all the talent in the world to become a great player. Right now I wouldn't consider him a top 5 d prospect tho. Classic boom bust.
Yea I'm pretty sure that guys just making up **** as he goes. Genuinely no idea what he's talking about there.
Give it a rest. My mock draft is different than my top 10 rankings. Find me a post where I said he's top 10 in this draft. And that I thought he would be good. You guys and your false narratives are hysterical
Critical13
Fear is the mind-killer.
firstemperor
Registered User
- May 25, 2011
- 8,755
- 1,445
I thought the opposite actually. Brannstrom was less willing/able to engage d-men physically and I wasn't a fan of his short passes exiting the zone on the big ice. I was more optimistic about Liljegren's play (I have posted as such at the time of the U18's that I thought Liljegren was the superior talent at the time). Either way, both were impressive to me as D prospects.
Sure it is. Perhaps you should give it a rest, you've been posting incessantly about Liljegren and how underwhelming/poor he is as a player/prospect.
7even
Offered and lost
After all this, you had him going in the top 10?
Are you kidding me right now?
Well, regardless of how he might or might not feel about Liljegren, a mock draft isn't a top 10 ranking. For example, even if I felt a player shouldn't be a first round pick, if I thought a team was going to pick him in the top 15, I'd have him there for a mock draft. And for instance, the reason for that could be something like "He was ranked in the top 2 when the year started". Now, while that might not be worth very much for me personally, that would be the reason for why that team's GM might pick him.
A mock draft isn't a top 10 list for you personally, it's a prediction for how the GMs think. And it's no contradiction to consider a prospect terrible but expect them to go in the top 10.
An actual example here. I personally wouldn't have picked Logan Stanley in the first two rounds, but it was easy to predict him to go in the first round. And that's not because I was rating him highly at all. But because of how I perceived the GMs would rate him(Something I disagreed with).
AppsSyl
Registered User
- May 28, 2015
- 4,113
- 2,291
Zeke isn't the only Leaf fan that thinks Liljegren should have went top 5. Thre are fans from other fanbases that likely feel he should have as well. If one is of the belief that his lack of improvement this past season stemmed from the mono and then the hip injury shortly after, of course in their minds he is still going to be viewed as top 5 talent. Prior to those things he was ranked 2nd or 3rd on pretty much every single list.
How is this view any different from a Devils fan's view that Hischier's large drop in production was the result of a minor wrist injury? In one case it is excusable and in the other it isn't?
The fact that Liljegren in both development camp and the WJSS has shown signs of him being his old self, and playing like top 5 talent (outperforming #4 Makar, #5 Pettersson and #6 Glass at the WJSS) further supports the belief that his season was mired in a series of unfortunate events, which caused a stagnation in his progression.
We will all see this season, and I wouldn't bet against him.
Latest posts
-
Pre-Game Talk: Game 64: Canadiens @ Canucks, March 11, 10 pm ET | TSN, RDS2- Latest: Kobe Armstrong
-
-
