didn't Patrice cormier play in world juniors. pretty sure colton parayko for example was not considered for a roster spot at world juniors neither.
Last edited:
Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)
- Thread starter Hank Chinaski
- Start date
- Status
pucka lucka
Registered User
Ahh so that means Stanley is like Parayko?
no. that means just because someone make the junior team or doesn't isn't indicative of anything.[mod]
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you not concerned that Johansen had about the same overall points/game as Stanley (after adjusting for league), lower EV points/game, with a decline in production from his draft season, while being 6 months older than Stanley? If you are going by point production metrics, it seems pretty clear that Stanley was as good or better than Johansen in the D+1 season.
Clague and Stanley had about the same EV point production in D+1 seasons, adjusting for league.
You could certainly argue for Clague and Johansen over Stanley at the draft, but the gap between them has closed considerably in D+1, and I think it's hard to argue for Johansen over Stanley based on production at this point.
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,315
- 27,537
You are just proving my point. Every Jets 1st round pick other than Laine spent atleast 1 year in the minors other than Trouba and Ehlers. All the others spent atleast 2 years or more in the minors. Logan Stanley has so far spent the same amount of time in the minors as Trouba and Ehlers. In your post you were blaming fans wanting instant gratification as the reason for the criticism of this pick. If that were true wouldn't we have seen the same critisicm of Scheifele, Trouba, Morrissey, Ehlers, Connor, Roslovic since all of them spent as much or more time in the minors than Stanley has so far?
No because we were still building where as now we should be seeing results and it shows that we have some holes in defense
So it's gonna take another 2 or 3 seasons for Stanley's development to balance out the team's issues?
It's a bad strategy to use the draft to fill out current roster deficits, unless you are drafting at the very top of the draft and you select a player like Laine. It is an especially slow and uncertain process to fill big gaps on defense through the draft.
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,315
- 27,537
I could not care less if it took Stanley 3-4 seasons to make it to the NHL, I don't think 98% of the Jets fans would care. Balancing out the team's issues now is not the purpose of the draft, that should be done by the management using Free Agency and trades.
Yup it generally takes 2 to 3 years minnimum for most defenseman to make their mark after being drafted. Nobody should be expecting anyone other than maybe Patrick in this draft to make their team out of camp and make an impact. You go to FA or make a trade to address a current hole in the lineup.
Stanley was always going to be a 3-4 year project imo. Most other dmen drafted around him are also 2 years away minnimum. Chychrun made it on a terrible team this year, had we drafted him he likely is still in the OHL.
Part of my point tho
There's holes on the left side and we traded up for a LHD
Why wouldn't we just draft the best players that were available?
I agree, but that pick looks like its supposed to fill a gap
Other than him being really big was there anything that stood out to warrant that pick?
I think you may be reading a bit too much into the pick. I doubt they had any notion that Stanley would fill a hole in the near term. I think they moved up because they liked him as a prospect and wanted to add him to the stable. It just so happened he represented an area we are thin on. Having said that I wouldnt have made the pick for him myself so I don't particularly agree with moving up to get him.
They don't make any moves to suggest otherwise
(We'll have to see after the expansion)
They same kind of incompetent at this point
In what way have they shown this? They seem quite competent at the draft table imo. Just because they make a pick I don't agree with isn't enough for me to question their competency in this regard.
Even drafting at the very top of the draft it is a bad strategy to pick for current need. Laine was by far the BPA at #2 last season. Another winger wasn't close to our biggest need.
Right after the draft just about everyone in the organization called Stanley a long term prospect, needing at least 3 or 4 years of development before challenging for a roster spot. His development prior to his injury last season was very encouraging. I'm looking forward to what kind of jump forward he can make again next season.
How we look vs how we should look
We have holes were not addressing and leaving it up to the talent we drafted to deal with it
(Goalies is a good example)
They draft great, I agree with that
Well they have tried to address goaltending albeit not near aggressively enough. They gave Hutch the number 1 spot when he performed better than Pavs, but Hutch crashed and then Pavs had the best stretch of his career. Well Pavs reverted, Hutch continued to suck and then they brought in Helle who had a tonne of pedigree. That also didn't work out.
Funny enough the Blues, Ducks and Lightning employed the exact same goaltending strategy as us this year. All four teams turned the reigns over to their young unproven highly regarded goalies. Two of them are enjoying great success doing so. The Lightning barley missed the playoffs. Clearly Helle didn't perform as expected but the strategy wasn't unheard of.
I agree with this. What I meant (but didn't state clearly) was that you seldom get a meaningful roster player unless you are drafting at the top and get a player like Laine, who could slot right into a top-6 role. The vast majority of draft picks don't change your roster depth for a few years, at a minimum.
truck
Registered User
Very encouraging? I'd lean towards "somewhat encouraging" or "not discouraging". It's not like he did anything amazing or turned any heads. He improved a little bit.
I watched quite a bit of both this season and the reason I am still on the Johansen train is he was essentially turned into a shutdown dman this season as Foote took more of the offensive time. Not only that but Johansen is about 3x the skater Stanley will likely ever be, which isn't everything but give me a smaller smooth skating defencemen over a big lumbering defencemen any day of the week and twice on sunday's. Johansen has also been a key factor in the Rockets playoff run. I'm a Rocket fan so maybe I'm biased but he's essentially completely changed his game to go from an all out offensive dman who played on the top pairing and took a tonne of chances to a defence first player who is helping carry his team through the WHL playoffs along with Hilsedinger.
Stanley produced at a 33 game pace over a 68 game season while having most of his play time increased.
Johansen produced at a 41 point pace over a 68 game season while having his play time reduced.
Clague is by far and away more improved than either of them though and produced at a 58 point pace over a 68 games season he carried that team defensively in Provorov's absence this year at least from what I saw and outside of Chabot was Canada's next best defencemen at the WJC's.
So the eye test favors Johansen. Others on this board have indicated that Clague is very weak in his own zone. I wasn't very impressed with Clague at the WJHC. He was several notches below Morrissey's performance.
Clague doesn't impress me at all. Great offensively but a mess in his own end both in terms of defense and puck management.
Morrissey is on another compared to all of them in the WHL and WJC. I loved Morrisseys game before he became a Rocket. The way he's developing any of those defencemen would be lucky to have that kind of path
Clague is pretty solid at breakouts and aside from net front abilities fairly decent at breaking up plays. It's kind of the opposite with Stanley. He's a beast in front of the net and can clear players and pucks to the corners but when it comes to executing a breakout he just doesn't have the quickness, vision and IQ to move the puck well. He's a decent rusher throught the NZ but again lacks the IQ, vision and quickness to create plays off the rush so many of them end up dead and back the other way.
lomiller1
Registered User
- Jan 13, 2015
- 6,409
- 2,968
McKenzie had him at 22 right where the Jets were picking. This isn't necessarily coincidence, McKenzie does know the final lists for quite a few teams. 2 years ago Button's mock draft was able to hit 9 of the first 10 picks and he later admitted that was because he know the lists of those teams.
It's entirely possible McKenzie had Stanley at 22 because he knew the Jets were planning on selecting him.
- Status
