Toggle sidebar

RW Oliver Bjorkstrand (2013, 89th, CBJ)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
MatthewFlames said:
So a random fan who has never watched any of the players live but read a couple threads on HF should be in the actual ones picking future players for NHL teams?

People who think this have no idea what is involved in scouting or evaluating players. This is a profession which involves an incredible amount of knowledge and experience and understanding of hockey and hockey players, the science and art of the sport, the development of players in the future. They earn a living trying to predict the future, an incredibly difficult thing to do (unless you are a keyboard warrior who can see the future like you suggest.)

To suggest that random fans are better than professionals is demeaning to those who make a living doing it. And you are very, very wrong.

Bjorkstrand has developed tremendously and has a ton more opportunity than in his draft year. He's now fully adapted to North America and not a timid 17 year old anymore. Drafting is not just about skill. Its also about the ability to perform and to handle playing in the NHL. At 17, there were many negatives to consider. That has more to do with his draft position than scouts de-valuing his skill level.
Click to expand...

So if they now are so good, why are their success rate so low outside 2nd round?

I looked at the draft 2006, I got it to that the 3-4 round had about 8 fairly regular NHL players, 6-7 round had 7 fairly regular NHL players. This is just one draft, but I would guess it is about the smiliar in most other drafts. Overall the 3-4 rounds have better players, but not by as much as you could expect.

Then we also have alot of undrafted players, like Johnson, MSL, Krug, Bäckström, Hiller, Bobrosvky, Niemi, Girardi, Bourque, Burrows, Giordano, Gorges, Penner, Kunitz, Michalek, Fiddler, Dupuis, Boyle etc. pretty much a whole team from just undrafted players. How can the scouts be happy about that, when they can draft over 200 players every year, and if they happen to miss one, they can draft him next year or the year after that, but still miss out so many in just this current generation.

It is not as hard as you claim, and I think that is part of the problem. They are over analyzing it, so in the end they will only see flaws on a good talent, and forget to see the whole picture.

It becomes even more weird when you look at individual players, many can have been dominating as juniors but be overlock by the scouts that are to focus on locking a minor flaws so they do not see the whole picture, and in the end they become superstars? How is that hindsight
 
Last edited:
R S said:
Eh...not sure I agree with that in the slightest.

Sure, there is a lot of room for improvement in scouting and drafting but I think you are very much oversimplifying the job a scout does.
Click to expand...
I don't.

I think you like to under simplify it.

The system is broken when NHL teams draft chl 7th defensman and chl 4th liners in hopes they can develop into those roles in the NHL.

It's a fools game. Most 4th line NHLers were scorers in the chl.

Fans who watch can easily be as knowledgeable as a paid scout. Easily.

Half the scouts paid in the NHL are just there because their buddies hired them.

Also the system of weeding out bad scouts is slow. Guys who haven't had a "hit" in a decade plus still have jobs.


You're an on dependant and is probably pay you and trust you more than 90% of the Canucks staff.

Unearthing gems is tough. But fans can identify good players too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ulvvf said:
I totally agree, as you said you do not know how a player will developed, but it is not very hard to see the skills. It feels like they trying to be to smart. I think a random fan would do just as good if not better then most of the scouts.

The worst in my mind is that a team and their scouts get credits when they drafting a player in the late rounds (even if he show up a lot of talent before the draft), that later becomes a success. The scouts should see it as a failure when the low drafted become much better then most of the ones above him, because then they where wrong. After all, most do not get even close to NHL, so picking some player in the late rounds do give the signals that they do not really believe in him as NHL player in the future or even close to it.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. There is a negative correlation between someone's knowledge of player development and amateur hockey with how much time they've spent watching games and being involved in the sport.:laugh:
 
ulvvf said:
So if they now are so good, why are their success rate so low outside 2nd round?

I looked at the draft 2006, I got it to that the 3-4 round had about 8 fairly regular NHL players, 6-7 round had 7 fairly regular NHL players. This is just one draft, but I would guess it is about the smiliar in most other drafts. Overall the 3-4 rounds have better players, but not by as much as you could expect.

Then we also have alot of undrafted players, like Johnson, MSL, Krug, Bäckström, Hiller, Bobrosvky, Niemi, Girardi, Bourque, Burrows, Giordano, Gorges, Penner, Kunitz, Michalek, Fiddler, Dupuis, Boyle etc. pretty much a whole team from just undrafted players. How can the scouts be happy about that, when they can draft over 200 players every year, and if they happen to miss one, they can draft him next year or the year after that, but still miss out so many in just this current generation.

It is not as hard as you claim, and I think that is part of the problem. They are over analyzing it, so in the end they will only see flaws on a good talent, and forget to see the whole picture.

It becomes even more weird when you look at individual players, many can have been dominating as juniors but be overlock by the scouts that are to focus on locking a minor flaws so they do not see the whole picture, and in the end they become superstars? How is that hindsight
Click to expand...

HaHa. You're picking children and trying to decide what they'll be like when they are grown men. Its not the scouts that are bad - it is the time when players are drafted, before they are fully realized, that makes it incredibly difficult.

So few players even make the NHL full time each year, probably way less than 50. So when you pick more than 210 a year, yes, 190 of those won't make the NHL. What's so hard to understand about that? Only the best of the best players ever make it and when players are 17 you can't tell who that will be in almost all cases.

If you are so good at it, then why are you not a billionaire selling your secrets to NHL teams? You think they intentionally not doing everything they can to draft what they think are the best players? Intentionally not hiring the very best scouts available?

You're dramatically under-estimating dominating in junior and whether that player will make the NHL. Go back and look at the top 10 in scoring every year in all the CHL leagues and tell me how many became NHL superstars? Not many. A stat line of points is not a total indicator of future NHL performance.

You're also forgetting how much players change, improve or even get worse after they turn 18. How many players get too big for their britches and won't learn the NHL game. How many players who have tremendous skill but never skate well enough, or can't score in the NHL because they shy away from the physical game. 99% of players who can't skate well enough or play in the dirty areas NEVER make the NHL.

I watched the Winterhawks in person in Bjorkstrands draft year. He was a player who wasn't an agile skater (he probably still isn't but he's improved a lot) and he was happy to play on the perimeter. Add to that the tremendous talent he played with, it was easy to say (and also correctly say) that there were severe detriments to him eventually becoming a player who could express his skill in the NHL. In fact, he is no slam dunk now. He still has to bulk up and continue to improve.

I drafted him in my fantasy league 55th overall (we draft a week before the NHL, http://hfnhl.org/draft/2013Draft.htm) - but in no way do I think that I am a better scout than a real NHL scout because of that. I got lucky. Just like the Columbus Blue Jackets. Because for every Bjorkstrand that makes it there are a 100 who will not. And that has nothing to do with the fact that scouts suck, or that scouting 17 year olds is easy, because they do not and it is not.
 
Last edited:
arsmaster said:
I don't.

I think you like to under simplify it.

The system is broken when NHL teams draft chl 7th defensman and chl 4th liners in hopes they can develop into those roles in the NHL.

It's a fools game. Most 4th line NHLers were scorers in the chl.

Fans who watch can easily be as knowledgeable as a paid scout. Easily.

Half the scouts paid in the NHL are just there because their buddies hired them.

Also the system of weeding out bad scouts is slow. Guys who haven't had a "hit" in a decade plus still have jobs.


You're an on dependant and is probably pay you and trust you more than 90% of the Canucks staff.

Unearthing gems is tough. But fans can identify good players too.
Click to expand...

Just like with any job in life, there are people who are good at what they do and people who are bad at what they do.

And I never said a fan can't identify good players. That's not what I'm saying.

I just think it's easy for a fan to watch a junior game and pick the 10 best players. Sure, anyone can do that. But picking the 10 guys who will be the best at 25 is where the separation happens.

And I don't disagree with you regarding the faulty way teams are built. I'm fully on board there. The fact that the Canucks drafted a player like Mackenze Stewart last year is absolutely laughable. A good kid, hard worker and a great story, but it's a joke that some team would waste a draft pick on him...an overage player no less.


I guess I just get over-sensitive sometimes when people attack scouts. I think it's more a product of the system rather than the performance of individual guys. Lumping all scouts into one basket is what pushes me over the edge a bit. I think I am very progressive in the way I think the game and assess players so it bugs me when people have negative things to say that try to blanket the entire system and paint every scout with the same brush.
 
i came here to see a run down of this kid and figured id give my 2 cents about the scouting discussion.

Back during the 2012 draft most fans on the edm board had Teemu Hartikainin pencilled in next to hall(C at the time)as our #1LW. Hes not even in the NHL anymore. Hell some of our fans think Nurse will be a 40-50 point shutdown dman. I think it takes a pretty observent person to really know whether that player will turn out based on games and their interview.

I think it was said but a lot of the poor drafting teams have a lot of scouts that are doing a poor job, edmontons scouts are all 80-90s oilers with a few exceptions, just a bunch of buddies they hired. I bet if you looked at NHL players drafted per team and checked who hired/scouted who youd find a correlation
 
vogeezy said:
Hopefully he can put It together, the skill is there.

can someone give me an nhl player he relates to? ex. dano to marchand.
Click to expand...

Not saying this is his upside, but i think he plays like Datsyuk. Medium to small build, great on the puck, just as good off the puck and in his own zone. I think if he can add another 20 lbs Bjorkstrand could base his game off of Datsyuks
 
CHL Player of the Year, IMO.

He is easily the top player in the Dub. As for the OHL, I think Marner likely takes it because McDavid missed time, combined with Strome being a top player.
 
Scott Wheeler ‏@scottcwheeler 9h9 hours ago
Oliver Bjorkstrand is going to finish well over a goal per game with Portland. Columbus bound next year, Calder talk wouldn't surprise me.
 
SpinTheBlackCircle said:
Scott Wheeler ‏@scottcwheeler 9h9 hours ago
Oliver Bjorkstrand is going to finish well over a goal per game with Portland. Columbus bound next year, Calder talk wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

I personally still think that's a stretch, but I also am always cautious with players. Still see zero reason why Columbus should have him in the NHL next year.

For me, he's the kind of player that absolutely excels in junior but will need to learn a few things in pro before making the jump. That, plus get stronger and faster.
 
R S said:
I personally still think that's a stretch, but I also am always cautious with players. Still see zero reason why Columbus should have him in the NHL next year.

For me, he's the kind of player that absolutely excels in junior but will need to learn a few things in pro before making the jump. That, plus get stronger and faster.
Click to expand...
All depends on how his offseason goes. I think he should be in the AHL too, at least to start the season, but we've seen guys like Boone Jenner come into camp and absolutely deserve a spot. Obviously different builds/playing styles but still. Young guys shouldn't be ruled out just for being young.
 
WannabeFinn said:
All depends on how his offseason goes. I think he should be in the AHL too, at least to start the season, but we've seen guys like Boone Jenner come into camp and absolutely deserve a spot. Obviously different builds/playing styles but still. Young guys shouldn't be ruled out just for being young.
Click to expand...

I never said it was because he was young.
 
Oliver named WHL player of the month for March (to go along with his February and January honors). I don't know if I've seen someone awarded this for three consecutive months before.
 
He looked phenomenal at the WJC. CBJ have a stacked prospect pool and an upcoming top 10 pick. Very envious of that organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom