True, I also laughed super hard when the Flyers made that pick, seemed like a big mistake to take him so early.
Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)
- Thread starter Hank Chinaski
- Start date
- Status
True, I also laughed super hard when the Flyers made that pick, seemed like a big mistake to take him so early.
Defensemen are always long term projects. People on this board are projecting 3rd pairing - I think it's too early to project, as we don't really know what we have as a player yet.
I'm patient. If he pans out: fantastic. If not: ooops.
MrBoJangelz71
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2014
- 4,948
- 6,321
4 years to develop a Dman in any round is an average amount of time and hardly considered out of the ordinary.
The perception of Stanley on this board was negative a year before he was drafted. His rookie season with the Spitfires was what rookie seasons can be for big awkward kids playing the blue line. His second season, half way thru, saw him take a fairly significant step in development, and that is what got on the radar of many scouts.
Of course, analytically, his numbers still lagged due to his first season and a half of developement. SInce those that used these numbers didnt see his jump in development, many proclaimed him as a big and slow d man with little offensive skill, bad mobility ect...
Truth is he is a very good skater for his size, he is mobile and he can move the puck, has a solid shot, and is growing into his large frame. He had a very solid draft +1 until he was injured.
Give this kid a couple of more seasons and he will be knocking on the door to being an NHL dman. From all accounts he works extremely hard, has a solid head on his shoulders, and should give him every chance to suceed in his career.
He might not be a top pair dman, but his ceiling could be a solid second pairing dman, tough physical and with some offensive upside.
Hope he can continue to develop but as you say "if not: ooops". Nice thing is he looks like he could be the only 1st rounder that is an ooops for Jets 2.0, rest of them look like they are pretty good at hockey.
I have no idea what the win rate is for other teams 1st rounders but Jets 7/8 seems pretty high.
I am assuming that based on performance in the AHL that Connor and Roslo end up being regular NHLer's in the next 18 months.
I know that defenseman take longer, But it's the final product is my issue not just the waiting time
You wait year and years to get a 3rd pair d is my issue
I hope you're right
Thanks MrBoJangelz, I 100% agree with you. Look the kid is going to do what can. His slightly more motivated than any of us to show many of you were wrong. I on the other hand chose to be positive with this kid with plenty of promise, especially those chosen after him. Sure there could be a few more surprises after him but that's the NHL draft. Get over it. Cheer him on will do more than complaining about the pick the Jets made. I think it was great! We'll see.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,655
- 34,879
I'm positive about the kid - always have been, sort of, to a point, within limitations.
It is the pick that I am so very negative about. There were plenty of better players still available at 22, much less 18. But I don't think you can accurately say things like he has "plenty of promise". He hasn't shown that. He showed improvement before his injury but only at the normal rate of progress from draft year to D+1. Progress is progress though and some of his underlying numbers hinted at better things ahead. So I'm still cautiously optimistic. About him as an individual. I continue to hate the pick.To think "it was great" is unsupportable. The simple fact is that there were lots of better players, better prospects still available at both 22 and 36. Exactly who the best ones were, who the Jets should have taken instead can be debated forever. I don't think there is any way to make a case that he was even close to the best player available. Under those circumstances it can't be a good choice, much less great.
I'm positive about the kid - always have been, sort of, to a point, within limitations.
To think "it was great" is unsupportable. The simple fact is that there were lots of better players, better prospects still available at both 22 and 36. Exactly who the best ones were, who the Jets should have taken instead can be debated forever. I don't think there is any way to make a case that he was even close to the best player available. Under those circumstances it can't be a good choice, much less great.
BPA = best player available
BPA is not literal. If it was then the first round would be full of previously undrafted 20 year olds who had big seasons in Jr.
Teams use BPAAMP
BPAAMP = best player available at maturation point
Not true. I made that up. But I'm sure you see my point.
Then it's to early to project any player. The truth is it's never to early to project someone drafted into the NHL. In fact that is a scouts job. To evaluate and project how good a player is going to be based on their skill set. If someone projects as a 4th liner or a 3rd pairing defencemen then you should probably not take them in the first couple of rounds as they are likely a role player. Role players have a high tendency to bust, which is why they should be taken in the later rounds.
People keep saying he should have gone in later rounds. How is that possible. If mckenzie had him at 22 and he polls 10 scouts. Then if 1 or 2 had him in 3rd round like so many say then 1 or 2 scouts would have to have him at 1st or 2nd oa to average out to 22. 10 scouts all didnt get it wrong he is a 1st rounder. You may not like it but he went right were he should have.
Just because a bunch of scouts loved him doesn't mean he is a first rounder, scouts aren't all knowing. That's like saying all politicians are right simply because they are politicians. It's a matter of opinion and highly subjective. It's no secret why he was ranked so high by some. It's the same reason a lot of 6'7 or higher guys go in the first round.
Of course size played a part in his ranking. It always does, otherwise Petan and Yamamoto would be top-5 picks, and Brannstrom would compete for the top D in this draft. Look at the playoff performances and you can see that size is not an irrelevant concept in the NHL.
Lots of scouts / analysts who don't just look at size (like Button, Mark Edwards, etc.) along with panels of NHL scouts had Stanley in the first round both during his draft year, and in a recent "re-draft" poll. There was no consensus about behemoths like Middleton or Niemalainen as first rounders, so clearly those who are paid to make decisions about prospects (either for teams or as independent analysts) saw something about Stanley more than just his height. I hated the pick at the time, and still think it was a mistake, but having watched him closely at the Development Camp and in a few OHL games you can see that he has assets that are important for pro success, including good decision-making with the puck, decent puck skills, and a hard and accurate shot. His mobility and skating also looks like it might become adequate for the NHL level.
Do I think he'll be an NHLer? I'm somewhat doubtful, but I also won't be surprised if he develops well and becomes a good asset to the organization.
By the way, the only reason that the Jets moved up to get him is that they had good reason to believe a team above them would take him. Detroit is the most likely. They probably thought that they could trade down from #16 to #20 and still get him (above the Jets), but the Jets made the move to get above them to thwart the Wings plans.
veganhunter
Mexico City Coyotes!
Well said. As a long time lurker and short time poster I find there are a lot of armchair quarterbacks on this site that are damn sure they know better then the people that make their living coaching, managing and scouting for NHL teams. Then again I'm just a Jet fan, what do I know.
Well for one there are people that make their living in hockey that didn't think he should've been considered in the 1st round (including at least one member of this board). Second when simply drafting the next highest scoring CHL forward nets you more successful NHL players over a period of time than about 1/2 the teams in the league it tells you scouts and all the hockey authorities probably aren't as good or infallible as you (and they) seem to think they are.
I don't think they are infallible at all. They are paid to do a job that if they do not do their job right they lose their job. Jet's 2.0 scouts have a pretty good record of success with their 1st round picks so far and I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt about Stanley. The Jet's scouts saw something in Stanley that they pushed Chevy to move up the draft to get him. If the armchair quarterbacks on this board are right and Stanley turned into a bust then someone will pay for that mistake with his job. (Chevy?) In the NHL it is success or else type business so I will wait and see what the Jet's have in this young man before I declare him a success or failure, unlike some posters (armchair quarterbacks with no stake in the success or failure of Stanley) on this board who are convince Stanley is already a bust.
Well said. As a long time lurker and short time poster I find there are a lot of armchair quarterbacks on this site that are damn sure they know better then the people that make their living coaching, managing and scouting for NHL teams. Then again I'm just a Jet fan, what do I know.
Like I said above this is like stating that all politicians are right simply because they make a living doing it. Appeal to authority doesn't justify anything, especially subjective things like prospects. When analytical models can out draft NHL teams it seems they may not be as omnipotent and omniscient as some fans seem to think they are. NHL scouts aren't immortal Gods from another dimension sent to show us who the best prospects are. They are people like you and me and just because they have a full time job watching kids play hockey it doesn't mean their opinions are worth more than anyone else who watches just as much hockey but doesn't get paid to do it.
Actually, simply drafting the next highest scoring CHL forward does worse than NHL teams unless you select from within the next 30 players on Central Scouting's list. Better scoring models (age, era adjustment, etc.) do better. Also, high scoring forwards are the easiest to peg in terms of NHL potential. It's fine if all you want to do is draft forwards, but doesn't work nearly as well for defense. In fact, wouldn't be surprised if an NHL team that just selected forwards they would out-perform teams that include defense and goalies in the mix, if you use total NHL games and total points scored as the success criteria.
Selecting D is less easy to do based purely on point production, though it is predictive. As I have pointed out previously, analytical work has found that even-strength scoring is more predictive of NHL success for CHL defensemen than PP scoring. One encouraging aspect of Stanley's performance in his d+1 season is that his even strength scoring compares well with other well-regarded D prospects. Of course, this needs to be viewed with some caution, but shouldn't be ignored. Who thought that Stanley would be very close to Juolevi in even strength production in d+1?
The bolded is where you and I disagree on Stanley I think. Jalen Chatfield, one of Stanley's teammates who is sometimes on the ice with Stanley looks like a much better player on a pretty regular basis. But no one is pining for him because he is 6'1 and low scoring. He makes better decisions with the puck, has a better stick in the defensive zone, is a better skater, makes better passes and has a more accurate but not as hard of a shot. If Stanley is so good and this kids is clearly better why does no one want Chatfield? I'll tell you why, because he isn't 6'7 and 230 pounds. If he was with his scoring he likely would have been a first rounder but his scoring isn't enough to get him noticed as a 6'1, 187 pound player. But oddly enough it's enough to get Stanley noticed with his size.
IMO the only thing Stanley has going for him over other defencemen with a similar skillset is he was drafted well ahead of guys with similar skillsets who are smaller and he has a hard shot otherwise he's really no better than a guy like 6'1 Noah Carrol playing for Sault Ste. Marie who was taken in the 6th round, 164th overall. In fact they are likely at the exact same level of ability minus Stanley's harder shot.
Sorry man but your kidding right? If the armchair quarterbacks are wrong they just get off their armchair and grab another beer. If scouts and management are wrong they could lose their livelihood. Does this mean they are never wrong? Of coarse not! Working in the NHL is not a long term carrier for most people. The difference is they have a stake in the decisions they make for the team they work for while the armchair quarterbacks are safe in their chair drinking another cold one “criticizing†the decisions of people who jobs may be on the line. If you can't see the difference I'm not sure what else to say.
I was always a bit down on Juolevi and think he was and still is massively overrated. But if you venture into Vancouver threads his season is looked at as a disappointing season compared to expectation. Obviously not many people expected Stanley to improve, including myself. And he definitely has but I wouldn't call it enough of an improvement to warrant a pass on the pick yet. He's not kicking the door down or anything. He doesn't even have his hand on the doorknob yet.
No I'm not kidding at all and an appeal to authority doesn't help your case in any way. NHL management and scouts make massively terrible decisions all the time. Just because they are paid to do this job doesn't mean they don't take risks. Everyone is out looking for the next big player so they can add that "I told you so" pick to their resume. We've already seen it happen with many of our scouts and ex-scouts in their Atlanta days with Boris Valabik. Maybe I am an "armchair quarterback" but so what. Does that mean my opinions or anyone else who enjoys watching hockey's opinion is null and void just because we aren't paid to do it? Are we not allowed to criticize people who are in a paid position? What about your government? Do you just let them do their job and never say a word about what you think they are doing wrong? Don't be an armchair politician. Fall in line and never ask questions and never criticize because these people are paid to do their jobs and their opinion is worth more than yours for that reason. See how silly that sounds?
DeepFrickinValue
Formally Ruffus
- May 14, 2015
- 5,286
- 4,857
Stanley was improving as season progressed. More points and way more shots. He started off quite slow but steadily progressed
I think we was around .6 ppg for last 20 games or so with limited pp points.
http://windsorspitfires.com/players/6833/game_by_game/56
I think we was around .6 ppg for last 20 games or so with limited pp points.
http://windsorspitfires.com/players/6833/game_by_game/56
I've watched the Spits quite a bit over the past few years, and I wouldn't say that Chatfield is in Stanley's league in terms of raw potential. He reminds me more of Nogier -- a good athlete and skater who plays a simple and generally low-risk game, works hard and at the age of 20, has achieved solidity. That's about it. Safe enough pick and Vancouver may have found themselves a 7/8 D, but not sure he makes it past the AHL.
I don't watch enough CHL outside of a few teams to be able to grasp why the Jets were so high on Stanley, except that he seems (as others have pointed out) to fit their template of a rough diamond who's willing to put in the work to become something more. Didn't love the pick but I'm not losing sleep over it, especially given the failure of other D picks in his year (outside of Chych) to eclipse him.
I don't watch enough CHL outside of a few teams to be able to grasp why the Jets were so high on Stanley, except that he seems (as others have pointed out) to fit their template of a rough diamond who's willing to put in the work to become something more. Didn't love the pick but I'm not losing sleep over it, especially given the failure of other D picks in his year (outside of Chych) to eclipse him.
They have a tendency to get it wrong an awful lot.
I totally agree with this statement.
Look: I still dislike the Stanley pick, but that's mainly due to the things that we've all discussed. At this stage, he IS our pick at that spot - now I shift to seeing if he can outperform his naysayers (which includes me).
I'm not so sure Stanley really has that raw potential either. I honestly don't think being 6'7 gives him anymore raw potential than 6'1 Noah Carrol who is at about the same level of ability. It is true that through hard work you can improve and maybe Stanley loves pushing himself to get better, which is why the Jets picked him. But just because you have the drive to get better doesn't mean you are going to improve to the point where you are a top 4 dman, there is a limit to everyone's abilities. and I don't think we should pick anyone based on work ethic alone. Ideally you want all your players to work hard and I'm sure many do. But some guys just have a natural ability. That's why I think it's nothing like Scheifele. Scheif has a boat load of work ethic to get better but he's always had a lot of natural skill to go along with it. It's not like the kid was a 30 point player in junior who could barely skate. That's why I don't think he can be used to justify the Stanley pick because IMO there was a lot more in Scheifs toolbox to build on. He definitely had raw ability. I just don't see anything in Stanley that makes me think he has anymore raw ability than many of the other middling junior dmen.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
Has Peak Prime Mcdavid Surpassed Peak Prime Crosby and Peak Prime Jagr Already (7 Viewers)
- Latest: daver
-
-
McKeen's Hockey Final Draft Rankings for 2025 and Draft Guide Released (7 Viewers)- Latest: LeProspector
-
