Prospect Info: Tom Willander: 11th Overall 2023 Draft (Rogle BK J20) - Part 02

[TruGr1t]

Willander finished up his NCAA regular season with 2 primary assist, 1 shot (5 attempts), and a +1 rating this afternoon.



Season statline - 32GP 4G 17A 21PTS and a +24 rating

Good opening season. He comes back next year with an improved two-way game and pushes 30+ pts and it's time to get excited.

 

[Raistlin]

He is exactly as advertised and then some. I was expecting bottom pair for half a year, but Pandolfo just put him up there 2 months in. It was a seamless transition into N.American ice. Still the same smooth skating RHD with high end defensive instincts that shot up the mocks predraft. But now after this season we know he is going to work here, and right now, be a lock at this stage.

I shook my head when some compared him to McAvoy, no one needs that comp this early, but when McAvoy came in in his D+2, most just know that he 'will' work in a top 6 capacity, not 'should', that's all. And in oct if he starts gm 1 in 24-25, I know he will be ready. He just seems very projectable, ahead for where he should be for a defenseman after his D+1. I believe this guy is the Brodin/Hamhuis mold guy that we had been hoping for on the right side. These guys cannot be acquired, only drafted directly, I hope to see him in Vancouver in 2025.

 

[StickShift]

Is the reasonable expectation that he goes back to NCAA for 2024-25, and goes pro at the end of the college season next year?

 

[LemonSauceD]

Is the reasonable expectation that he goes back to NCAA for 2024-25, and goes pro at the end of the college season next year?

Yes that would be the expectation. If he doesn’t turn pro at the end of next season for whatever reason, it will be a major disappointment considering where he was taken.

 

[credulous]

if he returns and BU makes the frozen four he'll have no opportunity to go pro next season. even if they don't make the frozen four the window for him to sign and get in games will be a few weeks at most unless BU really fall off and they miss the ecac championships which are traditionally the last weekend in march (which i guess is possible, their recruiting class isn't great and they're losing hutson and likely celebrini)

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Probably puck skills. He’s a fantastic skater with exceptional defensive IQ, he’ll almost definitely be a top 4 guy in the NHL. However, his offensive game is limited right now, doesn’t seem comfortable handling the puck.

Chris Tanev never needs too much offensive skills to be a top pair D

 

[JT Milker]

Chris Tanev never needs too much offensive skills to be a top pair D

I agree and am one of Willander’s biggest proponents. I think he could play right now.

 

[VanJack]

Looks like another solid season in the NCAA with Boston U, and likely a starring role for Sweden's World Jr. Hockey Championship team once again. Doesn't get that much better than that for a solid development path.

If he signs his ELC with the Canucks next March, it'll be interesting to see where he ends up. Lekerimakki and Wilander could be kids to get seriously excited about in Abbotsford.

But given the expected openings on the Canuck blueliner going forward, who knows? Maybe he's knocking on the door at the NHL level.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Needs to play a big time minutes in all situations next year.

Whether BU or Abby.

Can't see him being with the Nucks unless it's just for a cup of coffee.

 

[Phrasing]

I know some folks here, in retrospect, had different prospects they preferred at the 11th spot than Willander. One season later, anyone changed their mind? I know Wood and Benson were popular choices. Hindsight maybe Perrault enters the equation.

After this season I do feel more comfortable with the selection (even though I wanted Benson)— I see the kind of player he could become which is an all situation minute-muncher. Highly valuable especially on the right side.

 

[tyhee]

Can a mod please ban the previous regime talk in this thread? Jesus Christ.

I think the reference by @AwesomeInTheory was completely fair in the context of his post and don't see how anybody can find it objectionable.

People criticized Gillis for years. People still criticize Travis Green and Willie Desjardins. Here, awesomeintheory didn't even go out of his way to single out the Canucks under Benning, just mentioning the Canucks as one of three poorly run organizations raised in his non-scientific look at draft busts.

I don't understand why some posters seem to take any reference to the recent Canucks' dark days as if it was a personal slight on them and don't want to see it.

You're using a cutoff point in the draft that's fairly arbitrary and a metric for success that's almost entirely arbitrary. I don't think you'd dispute that Nail Yakupov or Cam Barker is a bust. If you're attempting a statistical analysis, then just going "hmm, I guess this category/definition is good enough, whatever," at every turn, there's not much point in calling it a statistical analysis, as you're doing the one thing you can't do if you want your conclusions to be accurate.

Your criticism of the method is of course valid, but seems to me to require a higher degree of effort than needs to be required of a poster in a forum doing some admittedly non-scientific research,

 

[bandwagonesque]

I think the reference by @AwesomeInTheory was completely fair in the context of his post and don't see how anybody can find it objectionable.

People criticized Gillis for years. People still criticize Travis Green and Willie Desjardins. Here, awesomeintheory didn't even go out of his way to single out the Canucks under Benning, just mentioning the Canucks as one of three poorly run organizations raised in his non-scientific look at draft busts.

I don't understand why some posters seem to take any reference to the recent Canucks' dark days as if it was a personal slight on them and don't want to see it.


Your criticism of the method is of course valid, but seems to me to require a higher degree of effort than needs to be required of a poster in a forum doing some admittedly non-scientific research,

That degree of effort would have been required to support the claim he made -- the venue in which he made it is irrelevant.

 

[geebster]

From watching highlights I think his potential is somewhere between Bobby Orr and Luca Sbisa.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

You're using a cutoff point in the draft that's fairly arbitrary and a metric for success that's almost entirely arbitrary. I don't think you'd dispute that Nail Yakupov or Cam Barker is a bust. If you're attempting a statistical analysis, then just going "hmm, I guess this category/definition is good enough, whatever," at every turn, there's not much point in calling it a statistical analysis, as you're doing the one thing you can't do if you want your conclusions to be accurate.

Where the f*** did I say I was doing a 'statistical analysis'?

I was very clear and up front that this was 'quick and dirty' and done in a really short period of time. Which is more than can be said of anything logan has contributed on here.

You're trying very hard to contort this into something it was not.

My point has always been that the higher you go, the less likely it is to have a pick bust. This bears out in a very quick look at shit. If you think that there is actually a very high failure rate for 'high first round picks', go nuts.

 

[VanJack]

You can teach a player skating techniques and over a number of seasons they can improve. But for elite-level skaters, it almost seems to be a God-given talent. And Wilander is no different.

The other aspects of his game, like offense and defensive positioning can all improve over time. But with skating, you either have it or you don't. And this kid definitely has it.

You can see it from those grainy highlights on 3-3 OT. At times, it isn't fair.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

From watching highlights I think his potential is somewhere between Bobby Orr and Luca Sbisa.

So his nickname will be "Flying Pizza"?

 

[sting101]

I know some folks here, in retrospect, had different prospects they preferred at the 11th spot than Willander. One season later, anyone changed their mind? I know Wood and Benson were popular choices. Hindsight maybe Perrault enters the equation.

After this season I do feel more comfortable with the selection (even though I wanted Benson)— I see the kind of player he could become which is an all situation minute-muncher. Highly valuable especially on the right side.

nah im pretty satisfied that we went after the highest value position and that Willander has the smarts drive skill and athleticism to become a top pair RD. I think of all the guys in our range he had definitely shown some of the most eye opening advancement when playing against top peers and his skating is phenomenal. Elite prospects Swedish scout had referenced Makar level a bunch of times in reading his reports which was salivating

Obviously Benson was the sexiest pick because of his incredible motor skill and being a local kid who really could have been a top3 pick in many drafts so that was tough to pass on.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Where the f*** did I say I was doing a 'statistical analysis'?

You don't think you implied it when you listed statistics and used them to analyze something?

I was very clear and up front that this was 'quick and dirty' and done in a really short period of time.

Yes -- you said that, and then you nevertheless advanced a conclusion based on it and gave the impression you were confident in that conclusion. It doesn't make sense to do those two things together.

Which is more than can be said of anything logan has contributed on here.

What does the veracity of another person's thinking have to do with yours?

My point has always been that the higher you go, the less likely it is to have a pick bust.

Well, exactly. This is obviously not a conclusion you can support without choosing somewhat reasonable and thorough parameters for determining it. If you can brush off any critique of it by complaining that the critique wasn't as casual as your analysis, then all you're really doing is insulating yourself from that critique rather than actually engaging it. In reality, anyone who looked a bit deeper for two minutes or so found other clear busts in the top-5 of drafts within the time frame you discussed and I suspect you were aware of them too.

It also isn't the conclusion you said you were trying to prove, which is that a particular management group had more draft busts in the top 5 than would be typical

 

[Raistlin]

I know some folks here, in retrospect, had different prospects they preferred at the 11th spot than Willander. One season later, anyone changed their mind? I know Wood and Benson were popular choices. Hindsight maybe Perrault enters the equation.

After this season I do feel more comfortable with the selection (even though I wanted Benson)— I see the kind of player he could become which is an all situation minute-muncher. Highly valuable especially on the right side.

I admittedly had tunnel vision, I was adamant that we draft a Dman that has potential to be elite, consider that we were looking at top 8 until the last week of the season.

I was all for Reinbacher, Simashev was to be a swing for the fence pick, and Willander was another that fits what we want like a glove, the downside is, most pencil him as a likely second pair defensiveD because of his average pick skills. Benson never entered the conversation until it's our turn to pick.

Fast forward a year, I would say Willander and Reinbacher are interchangable, Willander currently ahead because, well, Kloten is a tire fire, and Simashev while potentially being more dynamic, plays a less pressing position and is being Podkolzin'd in Russia.

All things being considered, picking between more offense/motor or a minute eating #2 ceiling, #4 floor RHD. I believe Allvin picked the right guy.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

You don't think you implied it when you listed statistics and used them to analyze something?

"Quick and dirty, I went back 18 drafts to see. What stood out was interesting.

I only looked at players who did not reach 200+ GP threshold for a top 10 pick. Not very scientific, but for spending 15 minutes looking at something, it serves its purpose."

I don't know how I could be any f***ing clearer on the matter. A quick eyeball at drafted players in the top 10 (is top 10 okay? Since you're apparently the arbiter of what is/isn't valid hockey discussion.) I sincerely doubt that things would change drastically if I did a thorough deep dive.

Yes -- you said that, and then you nevertheless advanced a conclusion based on it and gave the impression you were confident in that conclusion. It doesn't make sense to do those two things together.

If this were a peer-reviewed scientific study you might have a point. But the purposes of a very quick analysis, it served its purpose. No one was touting it as an exhaustive dive into things except you.

What does the veracity of another person's thinking have to do with yours?

Logan is notorious for pulling shit out of his ass and claiming it doesn't stink. If you want to take someone to task, you should be looking at him, not me. The level of minimal effort was done specifically because Logan doesn't do anything to support his claims and just expects people to take his idiotic statements at face value.

In other words: the quick and dirty post was done specifically because I was responding to him.

Well, exactly.

"I agree with you but you're wrong." Okay, then.

This is obviously not a conclusion you can support without choosing somewhat reasonable and thorough parameters for determining it. If you can brush off any critique of it by complaining that the critique wasn't as casual as your analysis,

I'm brushing off critique that it isn't 'scientific' or that it isn't a proper "statistical analysis" because it wasn't intended as such. Again, you're trying to contort what I said into something that it isn't.

then all you're really doing is insulating yourself from that critique rather than actually engaging it.

Aside from the fact that I'm agreeing with you that there are issues with it, sure. But again, you're holding it up to be something that it isn't.

Really f***ing curious why you're jumping down my throat and not someone who made completely unsubstantiated claims.

In reality, anyone who looked a bit deeper for two minutes or so found other clear busts in the top-5 of drafts within the time frame you discussed and I suspect you were aware of them too.

Okay, so every team consistently f***s up high level first rounders. Is that what you're saying?

It also isn't the conclusion you said you were trying to prove, which is that a particular management group had more draft busts in the top 5 than would be typical

Shoving more words into my mouth. Cool.

"I feel that this supports my claim it's very hard to f*** up a pick the higher you go, especially in the modern NHL."

I feel like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, because I didn't submit a thrice peer-reviewed study using bandwagonesque-approved methodology.

Again, I doubt very much that if you did a full deep dive the general conclusions would not change very drastically. Do you or do you not agree with that? If so, what the f*** is your point and why aren't you haranguing other people for not supporting their claims?

 

[bandwagonesque]

"Quick and dirty, I went back 18 drafts to see. What stood out was interesting.

I only looked at players who did not reach 200+ GP threshold for a top 10 pick. Not very scientific, but for spending 15 minutes looking at something, it serves its purpose."

I don't know how I could be any f***ing clearer on the matter. A quick eyeball at drafted players in the top 10 (is top 10 okay? Since you're apparently the arbiter of what is/isn't valid hockey discussion.) I sincerely doubt that things would change drastically if I did a thorough deep dive.



If this were a peer-reviewed scientific study you might have a point. But the purposes of a very quick analysis, it served its purpose. No one was touting it as an exhaustive dive into things except you.



Logan is notorious for pulling shit out of his ass and claiming it doesn't stink. If you want to take someone to task, you should be looking at him, not me. The level of minimal effort was done specifically because Logan doesn't do anything to support his claims and just expects people to take his idiotic statements at face value.

In other words: the quick and dirty post was done specifically because I was responding to him.


"I agree with you but you're wrong." Okay, then.


I'm brushing off critique that it isn't 'scientific' or that it isn't a proper "statistical analysis" because it wasn't intended as such. Again, you're trying to contort what I said into something that it isn't.


Aside from the fact that I'm agreeing with you that there are issues with it, sure. But again, you're holding it up to be something that it isn't.

Really f***ing curious why you're jumping down my throat and not someone who made completely unsubstantiated claims.



Okay, so every team consistently f***s up high level first rounders. Is that what you're saying?



Shoving more words into my mouth. Cool.

"I feel that this supports my claim it's very hard to f*** up a pick the higher you go, especially in the modern NHL."

I feel like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, because I didn't submit a thrice peer-reviewed study using bandwagonesque-approved methodology.

Again, I doubt very much that if you did a full deep dive the general conclusions would not change very drastically. Do you or do you not agree with that? If so, what the f*** is your point and why aren't you haranguing other people for not supporting their claims?

This is all just bullshit. My point is that if you are purporting to count something, you need a reasonable criteria for what that thing is. If you don't, you aren't counting it, or almost counting it, or counting it well enough for a certain purpose. It's not a matter of degree. You're either counting something or you aren't. If you aren't, the result isn't quick and dirty, or close enough -- it's nothing. You purported to count all the busts drafted in the top 5 and didn't count several of them, which if I remember correctly would have constituted a significant fraction of the final number and completely changed the result. That's not a limited or qualified success, it's misinformation. Pointing this out isn't personal, and the fact that I'm doing now and not to someone else at some other time doesn't mean anything.

 

[logan5]

"Quick and dirty, I went back 18 drafts to see. What stood out was interesting.

I only looked at players who did not reach 200+ GP threshold for a top 10 pick. Not very scientific, but for spending 15 minutes looking at something, it serves its purpose."

I don't know how I could be any f***ing clearer on the matter. A quick eyeball at drafted players in the top 10 (is top 10 okay? Since you're apparently the arbiter of what is/isn't valid hockey discussion.) I sincerely doubt that things would change drastically if I did a thorough deep dive.



If this were a peer-reviewed scientific study you might have a point. But the purposes of a very quick analysis, it served its purpose. No one was touting it as an exhaustive dive into things except you.



Logan is notorious for pulling shit out of his ass and claiming it doesn't stink. If you want to take someone to task, you should be looking at him, not me. The level of minimal effort was done specifically because Logan doesn't do anything to support his claims and just expects people to take his idiotic statements at face value.

In other words: the quick and dirty post was done specifically because I was responding to him.


"I agree with you but you're wrong." Okay, then.


I'm brushing off critique that it isn't 'scientific' or that it isn't a proper "statistical analysis" because it wasn't intended as such. Again, you're trying to contort what I said into something that it isn't.


Aside from the fact that I'm agreeing with you that there are issues with it, sure. But again, you're holding it up to be something that it isn't.

Really f***ing curious why you're jumping down my throat and not someone who made completely unsubstantiated claims.



Okay, so every team consistently f***s up high level first rounders. Is that what you're saying?



Shoving more words into my mouth. Cool.

"I feel that this supports my claim it's very hard to f*** up a pick the higher you go, especially in the modern NHL."

I feel like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, because I didn't submit a thrice peer-reviewed study using bandwagonesque-approved methodology.

Again, I doubt very much that if you did a full deep dive the general conclusions would not change very drastically. Do you or do you not agree with that? If so, what the f*** is your point and why aren't you haranguing other people for not supporting their claims?

Dude calm down. This isn't The Medical Review Board, it's a hockey forum. You are taking this stuff way too seriously.

 

[LordBacon]

Cant wait for the team to insert Willy into the gaping hole in our backend.

 

[F A N]

Show your work, please.

This wasn't directed at me.

2014: Virtanen, McCann, Demko, Tryamkin. Forsling should be considered a good draft. Obviously we didn't make the best pick there and we didn't get much from the draft apart from Demko but still that's a good draft. We did come away with a franchise goalie which has really only happened in Canucks history in 2004 with Schneider.

2015: Boeser and Gaudette. Boeser is 8th in goals scored in his draft class (those ahead were drafted ahead of him). Maybe Kaprizov and Hintz pass him eventually but they obviously ranked lower at the time.

2016: Absolutely disastrous although Lockwood should be considered a decent pick.

2017: Petey makes up for everything and is an absolute home run. There's really no way to do better here. Based on reports, if the Canucks had the #1 overall pick they would have either picked Makar or Petey. In hindsight the later picks were okay.

2018: Looks like we'll end up with only Hughes in this draft. But again, absolute home run. Best defenseman in Canucks history and one of the best Canucks ever. I know there are those who will say that the previous regime's GM wouldn't have drafted Petey but that same GM would have no doubt drafted Hughes with a higher pick.

2019: Bypassing Boldy/Caulfield for Podkolzin is a mistake. But they did draft Hoglander (despite cricitims from many posters here for changing the draft list) which is looking like a great pick. I think that overall it's a solid draft. Silovs and McDonough has/had good potential for a later round pick.

2020: A nothing draft. Guess we should have picked Laferriere? I don't think Jurmo was an unreasonable pick though.

2021: The 1st round targers were Johnson and Clarke reportedly. Wouldn't have been terrible if they were the picks. We picked Klimovich over much higher rated Stankoven and Raty. We have Raty now but Stankoven looks like a stud. I typically excuse the team for byping a 5'8" player. Sigh...

 

[Bleach Clean]

I know some folks here, in retrospect, had different prospects they preferred at the 11th spot than Willander. One season later, anyone changed their mind? I know Wood and Benson were popular choices. Hindsight maybe Perrault enters the equation.

After this season I do feel more comfortable with the selection (even though I wanted Benson)— I see the kind of player he could become which is an all situation minute-muncher. Highly valuable especially on the right side.

Changed my mind? No. I still would have preferred Benson/Perreault at 11 (no hindsight). That said, if they were going to move off of BPA/best bet to succeed, Willander was the right alternative.

I would wait on that all-situations expectation for him though (unless you meant just ES and PK).