Player Discussion: Stanley

[Gabe Kupari]

Perhaps ppl need to chill... Stanley has been good but at the same time he's being sheltered... Big time so far. Plus we are just playing the same 6 or so teams over and over...

I wish they would play him more cuz unless they do.. I don't know how you can protect him... Play on the pk more.. give him some top 4 shifts with Pee ONK. Forbort isn't exactly miro Heiskanen... So give him a shot just to see what the big man can do.

Cuz he could be a stud or he could be a dud still. With Morrissey Heinola Samberg... Is Big Stan just depth? Or can he play with the top 4.

 

[DRW204]

Problem on the draft and I'll be honest.. didn't hate the pick... The hfboards draft guys who think they are actual scouts thought he wasn't worth moving up from 22 to 18.

Picks 22 and 36 got Stanley.

German Rubstov and a French guy with concussion problems for Stanley.

yup for all the talent that was available like hronek, dcat, girard, kyrou etc. that we could have drafted, could have also easily drafted a bust.

nevertheless, pick 22+36 for us stanley+luke green.

 

[Scheifele55]

I remember the massive meltdown here the day Stanley was drafted. At least 95% of the posters were all over Chevy for "wasting" the pick. My attitude at the time was let's wait and see. And now, unless his play completely implodes, I'd be pissed off if he's taken out of the lineup when #88 is healthy. He's been way more effective than I think most fans expected. I didn't think he'd be this good at this point. What impresses me the most is that he's made very few mistakes. I've noticed more gaffes from Morrissey this year than Stanley.

"This thread proves that alcohol is a depressant. Glad I stopped a year ago... I hope this player proves all of the naysayers wrong." That is what you said about the pick

 

[Gabe Kupari]

yup for all the talent that was available like hronek, dcat, girard, kyrou etc. that we could have drafted, could have also easily drafted a bust.

nevertheless, pick 22+36 for us stanley+luke green.

All those guys you mentioned... They haven't really done much besides the tiny winger who got to play with the greatest American born NHL player ever.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

All those guys you mentioned... They haven't really done much besides the tiny winger who got to play with the greatest American born NHL player ever.

Girard is a #1 d man, you probably just haven't noticed yet.

 

[Scheifele55]

Just looked back at the Stanley thread from when he was picked in 2016, which was in a post that may have been removed.

Anyway--the funniest thing about the first few pages was not how many people thought it was a bad pick, but how they took solace in the incontrovertible prediction that (to paraphrase), even if Stanley never makes it to the NHL, at least we have a sure-fire Jets star for years to come in Laine at #2 OA !

oops.

DO YOU remember what you said?

"It was just a really bad draft choice IMO"
"This may go down as the worst draft move in Jets 2.0 history, worse than Lukas, in that we sacrificed both a first and early-second for grit/size, rather than skill. "
"Keep drafting Valabiks, Jets.....one...of...these...years...you will succeed."
"Stanleyophiles should file this post so they can call me to account in 2026! "

Pot calling the kettle black!

 

[DeepFrickinValue]

DO YOU remember what you said?

"It was just a really bad draft choice IMO"
"This may go down as the worst draft move in Jets 2.0 history, worse than Lukas, in that we sacrificed both a first and early-second for grit/size, rather than skill. "
"Keep drafting Valabiks, Jets.....one...of...these...years...you will succeed."
"Stanleyophiles should file this post so they can call me to account in 2026! "

Pot calling the kettle black!

the original draft thread.
Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) (Mod warning in OP)

 

[Whileee]

Problem on the draft and I'll be honest.. didn't hate the pick... The hfboards draft guys who think they are actual scouts thought he wasn't worth moving up from 22 to 18.

Picks 22 and 36 got Stanley.

German Rubstov and a French guy with concussion problems for Stanley.

Jets also got Luke Green, who probably balances out Laberge.

Obviously, there were a few players drafted after Stanley that have been better, and Girard and DeBrincat much better. But many had those two ranked in the 2nd round or later.

Within the HF Jets forum, I recall a lot of love for Dineen, Johansen and Cholowski.

So, hindsight is closer to 20:20. I'm just glad that Stanley has worked hard to improve, and make himself into a bona fide NHL level talent.

 

[Evil Little]

Girard is a #1 d man, you probably just haven't noticed yet.

And maybe he interviewed horribly.

It's pointless to play this game.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

And maybe he interviewed horribly.

It's pointless to play this game.

I'm not playing any game, he said that none of the players have done much.

Girard is a number one defensemen, that's doing quite a bit actually.

 

[Guffman]

Like I said in the draft thread:

I have no idea whether to like the pick or not. I have never watched him play. I doubt most of you have either. I leave the judgement to the professionals...our scouting department, to prognasticate on his development. We won't know if it was a good pick or not for awhile.

It seems that teams are more comfortable taking chances with their second picks. If this is a risky pick with high upside/bust potential, so be it. You can't always stuff your team with boring, safe mediocre players.

Best wishes to Stanley and welcome to the Jets

I continuously find it HILARIOUS that the pseudo-scouts here think they are more knowledgable than the Jets scouting department.

I always seem to be in the 5% viewpoint on a lot of things but I don’t have to eat crow at all.

 

[Evil Little]

I'm not playing any game, he said that none of the players have done much.

Girard is a number one defensemen, that's doing quite a bit actually.

Sorry, I didn't see a quote. Carry on.

 

[scelaton]

DO YOU remember what you said?

.......Pot calling the kettle black!

Of course I do and have referenced it on multiple occasions, most recently here:

Consider me pleasantly surprised and humbled, just like most of the rest of you experts.

So many were wrong about Stanley, me included, but most of us have taken great pleasure from his development, while learning something about the limitations of pooled probabilities and the value of lived scouting experience.

Read my posts again and maybe you'll put away the pointed finger--the post you referenced was simply intended as collective self-deprecating humour.

As an afterthought: There are multiple opportunities on (and off ) this board to admit error and learn new things. I find that to be far more rewarding than gloating about other people's mistakes.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Like I said in the draft thread:

I have no idea whether to like the pick or not. I have never watched him play. I doubt most of you have either. I leave the judgement to the professionals...our scouting department, to prognasticate on his development. We won't know if it was a good pick or not for awhile.

It seems that teams are more comfortable taking chances with their second picks. If this is a risky pick with high upside/bust potential, so be it. You can't always stuff your team with boring, safe mediocre players.

Best wishes to Stanley and welcome to the Jets

I continuously find it HILARIOUS that the pseudo-scouts here think they are more knowledgable than the Jets scouting department.

I always seem to be in the 5% viewpoint on a lot of things but I don’t have to eat crow at all.

Alright everyone should just have no opinion ever and trust the scouts! Wooo should be a fun message board. Never criticize Chevy or Maurice either, you don't know better!! No criticizing players either, don't see you in the NHL huh!

 

[garret9]

stanley was rated a top 20-35ish prospect from most rankings i saw around that time.

the problem which a lot of people have is the trade up to move him. which stanley unfortunately has no control over

from what i understand, a specific individual(s) or scout(s) were pushing hard for stanley, hence the aggressive trade up (pick 36 was a pretty good quality pick given the talent available). Detroit apparently wanted stanley, whether it was smokescreen or not, who knows. but apparently the stanley pick shifted the Jets' outlook on drafting Dmen of Stanley's ilk and moving up in the draft.

IIRC, that is close to what I heard happened: that the Stanley pick influenced things but IIRC the bigger one was the Cederholm pick. Cederholm was also headed by the same 2 people that pushed heavily for Stanley, but on top of it the Jets European scout(s) was(were) NOT a fan of Cederholm. The scouts who were against those picks also have said those two picks and the discussion surrounding them have indeed influenced how they look at players now.

I did indeed here some scouts were dissapointed by the draft process those two days, but that dissapointment has since left so either it was just emotions running when it happened or things have since improved.

So there's conflation about it being Stanley but when actually it was less him and more general procedure and overall valuation of things. A completely normal evolution in all war rooms.

A reminder that all scouts, fans, GMs, etc. value good things as good and bad things as bad. The discussion/arguments come from where you relatively value each aspect relative to others. So Stanley turning out to be a NHL player doesn't really prove one of those groups wrong or right, nor does Cederholm not. That's just how she goes.

I also want to point out that arguing over draft picks (and other decisions in hockey) is COMPLETELY normal for war rooms. I had another Canadian team executive once say to me "if you had to agree with the war room to be employeed none of us would have jobs." hahah

 

[Adam da bomb]

IIRC, that is close to what I heard happened: that the Stanley pick influenced things but IIRC the bigger one was the Cederholm pick. Cederholm was also headed by the same 2 people that pushed heavily for Stanley, but on top of it the Jets European scout(s) was(were) NOT a fan of Cederholm. The scouts who were against those picks also have said those two picks and the discussion surrounding them have indeed influenced how they look at players now.

I did indeed here some scouts were dissapointed by the draft process those two days, but that dissapointment has since left so either it was just emotions running when it happened or things have since improved.

So there's conflation about it being Stanley but when actually it was less him and more general procedure and overall valuation of things. A completely normal evolution in all war rooms.

A reminder that all scouts, fans, GMs, etc. value good things as good and bad things as bad. The discussion/arguments come from where you relatively value each aspect relative to others. So Stanley turning out to be a NHL player doesn't really prove one of those groups wrong or right, nor does Cederholm not. That's just how she goes.

I also want to point out that arguing over draft picks (and other decisions in hockey) is COMPLETELY normal for war rooms. I had another Canadian team executive once say to me "if you had to agree with the war room to be employeed none of us would have jobs." hahah

What makes picks fall. Like fox was picked in the 3rd was it huge improvement or not seeing them enough. How do so many picks fall through the cracks? Still too much bias against short guys and ideas of what a hockey player should look like? No way Stanley can be good how many 6’7 d can you name etc.

 

[DRW204]

thanks for clarifying & awesome insight. always appreciated.

can you say how confident you were that Detroit was going to select Stanley?

IIRC, that is close to what I heard happened: that the Stanley pick influenced things but IIRC the bigger one was the Cederholm pick. Cederholm was also headed by the same 2 people that pushed heavily for Stanley, but on top of it the Jets European scout(s) was(were) NOT a fan of Cederholm. The scouts who were against those picks also have said those two picks and the discussion surrounding them have indeed influenced how they look at players now.

I did indeed here some scouts were dissapointed by the draft process those two days, but that dissapointment has since left so either it was just emotions running when it happened or things have since improved.

So there's conflation about it being Stanley but when actually it was less him and more general procedure and overall valuation of things. A completely normal evolution in all war rooms.

A reminder that all scouts, fans, GMs, etc. value good things as good and bad things as bad. The discussion/arguments come from where you relatively value each aspect relative to others. So Stanley turning out to be a NHL player doesn't really prove one of those groups wrong or right, nor does Cederholm not. That's just how she goes.

I also want to point out that arguing over draft picks (and other decisions in hockey) is COMPLETELY normal for war rooms. I had another Canadian team executive once say to me "if you had to agree with the war room to be employeed none of us would have jobs." hahah

 

[Whileee]

IIRC, that is close to what I heard happened: that the Stanley pick influenced things but IIRC the bigger one was the Cederholm pick. Cederholm was also headed by the same 2 people that pushed heavily for Stanley, but on top of it the Jets European scout(s) was(were) NOT a fan of Cederholm. The scouts who were against those picks also have said those two picks and the discussion surrounding them have indeed influenced how they look at players now.

I did indeed here some scouts were dissapointed by the draft process those two days, but that dissapointment has since left so either it was just emotions running when it happened or things have since improved.

So there's conflation about it being Stanley but when actually it was less him and more general procedure and overall valuation of things. A completely normal evolution in all war rooms.

A reminder that all scouts, fans, GMs, etc. value good things as good and bad things as bad. The discussion/arguments come from where you relatively value each aspect relative to others. So Stanley turning out to be a NHL player doesn't really prove one of those groups wrong or right, nor does Cederholm not. That's just how she goes.

I also want to point out that arguing over draft picks (and other decisions in hockey) is COMPLETELY normal for war rooms. I had another Canadian team executive once say to me "if you had to agree with the war room to be employeed none of us would have jobs." hahah

Interesting.

Having watched Stanley and Cederholm since then, I would say that they are very different players other than size (and maybe skating). Stanley is much smarter and quicker with the puck, and his passing is a strength (as is his shot). Cederholm is big and a decent skater, but he is very sluggish and ineffective with the puck, and really can't process what to do with it under pressure. That's actually been a strength for Stanley.

Regarding the draft itself, off the top of my head I think Stanley would probably go somewhere in the mid- to late-20s in a re-draft of 2016. There are probably 8-9 players drafted behind him that are clearly ahead now, and maybe 2-3 drafted ahead of him that I would rank Stanley ahead of, all things considered. So, in the end, if I had known that Stanley would be a top 25-30 talent in the draft, I would have been happy.

It's true that a few players selected after Stanley had better production and projected value, but there were also a few that were really liked on this board (Clague, Dineen, Cholowski) that I think have fallen behind Stanley at this point.

 

[DRW204]

All those guys you mentioned... They haven't really done much besides the tiny winger who got to play with the greatest American born NHL player ever.

girard has been arguably one of the best Dmen in the NHL this year

Kyrou 24 pts in 35 gp this year t-3rd in team scoring

i havent followed Hronek this year much, but last year id label his game as sort of like Pionk, maybe a bit more grit to his game. His timing into the nhl would have been perfect given the trouba and myers departures. he's hovering 0.5 ppg as a dman on a terribad team.

not sure if you're serious with that post or not tbh

didnt even mention guys in later rounds like fox or bratt.

 

[Scheifele55]

Of course I do and have referenced it on multiple occasions, most recently here:

So many were wrong about Stanley, me included, but most of us have taken great pleasure from his development, while learning something about the limitations of pooled probabilities and the value of lived scouting experience.

Read my posts again and maybe you'll put away the pointed finger--the post you referenced was simply intended as collective self-deprecating humour.

As an afterthought: There are multiple opportunities on (and off ) this board to admit error and learn new things. I find that to be far more rewarding than gloating about other people's mistakes.

"Anyway--the funniest thing about the first few pages was not how many people thought it was a bad pick, but how they took solace in the incontrovertible prediction that (to paraphrase), even if Stanley never makes it to the NHL, at least we have a sure-fire Jets star for years to come in Laine at #2 OA !

oops."

I was the first to come to the defense of the Jets when they signed Brossoit and when you look back at what I stated, it was only positive. The lesson I take from all of this is to be optimistic about the selections because sometimes negative statements can come back to bite you.

 

[KingBogo]

the original draft thread.
Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) (Mod warning in OP)

I’m comfortable with my posts in that thread. Was willing to give the scouts the benefit of the doubt and wait and see how the kid developed.

 

[garret9]

What makes picks fall. Like fox was picked in the 3rd was it huge improvement or not seeing them enough. How do so many picks fall through the cracks? Still too much bias against short guys and ideas of what a hockey player should look like? No way Stanley can be good how many 6’7 d can you name etc.

Lots can cause a fall. Generally speaking, size and biases won't cause falls because those things existed in the rankings too. The biggest thing is difference in lists from team to team. Consensus usually isn't even close from team to team.

Just for a little example. Let's pretend we have 5 players left: A, B, C, D, E.
Now let's say the next team ranks B 2nd or 3rd best on all their lists...

Team 1: A, B, C, D, E
Team 2: C, B, A, D, E
Team 3: A, D, B, C, E
Team 4: A, E, B, C, D
Team 5: A, B, C, D, E

Then the draft will go:
Team 1 - A
Team 2 - C
Team 3 - D
Team 4 - E
Team 5 - B

Team B on average was ranked 2nd best if you polled those teams, but he went 5th. I'm being a bit extreme here but this legit happens.

thanks for clarifying & awesome insight. always appreciated.

can you say how confident you were that Detroit was going to select Stanley?

I had heard nothing about Detroit from my circles about selecting Stanley. That doesn't mean it's true but I heard nothing of it. I did know that Stanley had the largest standard deviation of ranking when I polled some industry people. Some really liked him, some had 3rd round, one team had him as DND as they thought by the time it got to where they would he wouldn't be there.

Interesting.

Having watched Stanley and Cederholm since then, I would say that they are very different players other than size (and maybe skating). Stanley is much smarter and quicker with the puck, and his passing is a strength (as is his shot). Cederholm is big and a decent skater, but he is very sluggish and ineffective with the puck, and really can't process what to do with it under pressure. That's actually been a strength for Stanley.

Regarding the draft itself, off the top of my head I think Stanley would probably go somewhere in the mid- to late-20s in a re-draft of 2016. There are probably 8-9 players drafted behind him that are clearly ahead now, and maybe 2-3 drafted ahead of him that I would rank Stanley ahead of, all things considered. So, in the end, if I had known that Stanley would be a top 25-30 talent in the draft, I would have been happy.

It's true that a few players selected after Stanley had better production and projected value, but there were also a few that were really liked on this board (Clague, Dineen, Cholowski) that I think have fallen behind Stanley at this point.

I think a lot of Stanley's skills that separate him from Cederholm developed later than were there before, but I mean obviously the 1st round pick has more than the 4th round pick. I just know that the two were championed by the same two people, doesn't mean the same player haha.

I don't want to use the term dissapointed, because I don't think Stanley has been remotely one nor do I think teams really get "dissapointed" like fans do. But, I do think that the ones that championed Stanley pre-draft were hoping for someone more of the Morrissey player arc/development; not in terms of player style/type but in thinking he'd be a major player at this point.

 

[Whileee]

Lots can cause a fall. Generally speaking, size and biases won't cause falls because those things existed in the rankings too. The biggest thing is difference in lists from team to team. Consensus usually isn't even close from team to team.

Just for a little example. Let's pretend we have 5 players left: A, B, C, D, E.
Now let's say the next team ranks B 2nd or 3rd best on all their lists...

Team 1: A, B, C, D, E
Team 2: C, B, A, D, E
Team 3: A, D, B, C, E
Team 4: A, E, B, C, D
Team 5: A, B, C, D, E

Then the draft will go:
Team 1 - A
Team 2 - C
Team 3 - D
Team 4 - E
Team 5 - B

Team B on average was ranked 2nd best if you polled those teams, but he went 5th. I'm being a bit extreme here but this legit happens.



I had heard nothing about Detroit from my circles about selecting Stanley. That doesn't mean it's true but I heard nothing of it. I did know that Stanley had the largest standard deviation of ranking when I polled some industry people. Some really liked him, some had 3rd round, one team had him as DND as they thought by the time it got to where they would he wouldn't be there.



I think a lot of Stanley's skills that separate him from Cederholm developed later than were there before, but I mean obviously the 1st round pick has more than the 4th round pick. I just know that the two were championed by the same two people, doesn't mean the same player haha.

I don't want to use the term dissapointed, because I don't think Stanley has been remotely one nor do I think teams really get "dissapointed" like fans do. But, I do think that the ones that championed Stanley pre-draft were hoping for someone more of the Morrissey player arc/development; not in terms of player style/type but in thinking he'd be a major player at this point.

I think Stanley might have developed a bit faster without a couple of significant injuries, but who knows. He clearly has been a bit of a project. What seems clear is that this year he's stronger, faster, and fitter, and that's made him more effective. I do recall some pre-draft scouting reports praising Stanley for decision making, puck movement, and passing. In the first couple of development camps you could already see that he had better puck skills and decision making than Cederholm.

 

[kylbaz]

I love Stanley, turning into a bit of a Buff. Another year of confidence I think he'll be on another level.

 

[Gabe Kupari]

Got better as the game went on did big Stan... Really does bring an element of size and strength along with a great shot and very good passing. Jets lack his grit. I saw a bit of buff with hymen tonight.

Morrissey. Pionk. Stanley.