Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)
- Thread starter Hank Chinaski
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
IMO, it was bad decision making. There is no mystery characteristic they saw in him that only pro scout eyes are capable of detecting. They drafted him because he is huge. We know this a)because it is the only outstanding characteristic he has and b)because all Hillier could do afterward was gush about his size. That is a poor criteria to use.
That doesn't mean they can't get lucky. If you want to call that a good pick, go ahead.
If they base their drafting strategy for the future on getting lucky we are in trouble.
I'm certainly not privy to the internal discussions teams have about who they draft, but I suspect a lot more went into the pick than just his size. Looking at who we've drafted it doesn't appear to me that the Jets particularly overvalue size.
Perhaps he was picked simply because he's huge. I just doubt it.
MrBoJangelz71
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2014
- 4,948
- 6,321
Your theory is weak, flawed actually.
One interview, and your judgements on it based off Hillier comments regarding Stanley's size, as well as your opinion of his only strong characteristic, means little and proves nothing.
Based off this teams successful draftting in first rounds tells me that this organization would never waste a first rounder by drafting blindly as you are suggesting.
Channelcat
Unhinged user
The size thing has been overdone. I think they liked his attitude, work ethic, studious nature etc. I'm sure they saw some of the same intangibles they saw with Scheif
Clearly they were enamoured with his size but I can pretty much guarantee that there were other attributes to his game that they liked as well. What I think they see in him is a d-man who is big and also shows the potential for being quite mobile for a big man. He also appears to be showing the emergence of some decent puck skills. The biggest criticism I am hearing from people here is his hockey IQ and ability to process the game quickly. This is an area he needs to develop if he is going to make it as a core piece on our D.
Clearly he has things to work on but he is far from a finished product so only time will tell how far he can progress. Personally I do not see him as being as big a long shot as many people do. Also given the players that were available in our draft slot I am not losing any sleep over the players that we might have drafted. Personally I do not see the pick as being a bad one if you look at the pick in isolation but the trading up to get him is what was more concerning to me at the time.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
I didn't claim it was typical of their pattern and I'm not going to get into the idea that Jets evaluation criteria have changed with the change in head scout. In this instance they got carried away with his size. It just can't be anything else.
He is not the only 18 YO kid who is improving sharply, or who has a strong work ethic. He doesn't have outstanding tools otherwise and his toolbox is suspect. What's left is size. They had to look at him and think that if he ever learns to play hockey at a high level he will be outstanding.
Did you hear the Hillier interview right afterward?
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
The Hillier interview merely confirmed what I already believed.
They have established a pattern of drafting well in the first round therefore every 1st round pick they make must be good? Even thought they make a pick that doesn't appear to match the patterns visible in all of their other 1st round picks? Nice to know they are infallible.
I didn't say size was his only strong characteristic. I said it was his only outstanding characteristic. Look at him. Look at everything you know about him, everything you have seen, heard or read. Now imagine that he is 6'2, 195. He goes in the 3rd round or later. You have to see that.
If you don't think he was taken for his size I'd like to know what you think made him a good pick at 18. Worth trading up for even.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad player. Lots of good D men come from later in the draft. It just means he was a bad pick at 18.
What characteristic does he have, or even maybe have, that plenty of other kids who were available don't also have? Work ethic, desire to succeed, hockey IQ, passing, shooting, puck handling, positioning? He has some of all of those things and so does every other kid who might have been taken where he was, or in the next 2-3 rounds.
The Hillier interview merely confirmed what I already believed.
They have established a pattern of drafting well in the first round therefore every 1st round pick they make must be good? Even thought they make a pick that doesn't appear to match the patterns visible in all of their other 1st round picks? Nice to know they are infallible.
I didn't say size was his only strong characteristic. I said it was his only outstanding characteristic. Look at him. Look at everything you know about him, everything you have seen, heard or read. Now imagine that he is 6'2, 195. He goes in the 3rd round or later. You have to see that.
If you don't think he was taken for his size I'd like to know what you think made him a good pick at 18. Worth trading up for even.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad player. Lots of good D men come from later in the draft. It just means he was a bad pick at 18.
What characteristic does he have, or even maybe have, that plenty of other kids who were available don't also have? Work ethic, desire to succeed, hockey IQ, passing, shooting, puck handling, positioning? He has some of all of those things and so does every other kid who might have been taken where he was, or in the next 2-3 rounds.
I'd say he has top 4 dmen tools.
Above average hands and puck control
Above average shot and shooting arsenal for dmen.
Good mobility
Solid first pass ability
And yes elite size
While I don't like the pick I can understand why they took a flier on him due to the wide range of tools he has. The issue is below average awareness, I think they are betting on him learning how to think the game better. I personally have no idea if he'll be able to or not
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
The whole Stanley thing has been done to death but it just won't stay down.
The size thing has been overdone but the intangibles thing hasn't? This is why I have to keep arguing the case. It is just so lame. Sorry, not intending to be disrespectful or rude but most, or at least many of the kids looking to be drafted have good attitudes, work ethics, etc. Some are even studious by nature.
Are Stanley's intangibles that out of the ordinary though? Maybe they are. Is that enough to overcome lack of talent? All those things, plus his size and all of his other characteristics combined to make him what he was. Which was a middling defenseman among his age group.
He was exactly x good. Not x + y for size, or x + z for intangibles. He had the advantages of size and intangibles to get to x.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
I'm not saying he doesn't have any tools or attributes beyond size. I don't think he has attributes that are above average - for a mid 1st round pick. Except size.
When you say above average what group are you averaging? When you say "good mobility" do you mean 'for a man his size'?
I see decent straight line speed, a long reach and a decent defensive stick. I see some other things that I would call 'decent', but only decent. I hope he develops but he has a long way to go.
I can understand why they took a flier on him. I don't like taking a flier on anybody before the 4th round.
It appears to me that they wanted a top D prospect. When all the top ones went they leaped to pick up Stanley who they liked better than any of the other remaining D. I question that assessment but the rest of them have not looked good so far so maybe they were right that he was the best left.
If that is the case they should have taken the BPA. Drafting Stanley didn't fix the weakness in the D pipeline.
MrBoJangelz71
Registered User
- Jan 14, 2014
- 4,948
- 6,321
The Hillier interview merely confirmed what I already believed.
They have established a pattern of drafting well in the first round therefore every 1st round pick they make must be good? Even thought they make a pick that doesn't appear to match the patterns visible in all of their other 1st round picks? Nice to know they are infallible.
I didn't say size was his only strong characteristic. I said it was his only outstanding characteristic. Look at him. Look at everything you know about him, everything you have seen, heard or read. Now imagine that he is 6'2, 195. He goes in the 3rd round or later. You have to see that.
If you don't think he was taken for his size I'd like to know what you think made him a good pick at 18. Worth trading up for even.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad player. Lots of good D men come from later in the draft. It just means he was a bad pick at 18.
What characteristic does he have, or even maybe have, that plenty of other kids who were available don't also have? Work ethic, desire to succeed, hockey IQ, passing, shooting, puck handling, positioning? He has some of all of those things and so does every other kid who might have been taken where he was, or in the next 2-3 rounds.
Exactly, what you believed, which has absolutely no bearing on the truth. You are plucking an interview to support you narrative, but the context of the interview made zero suggestive that his size was the top and only quality he was drafted on. Sorry you sound silly suggesting this, because its just not true.
When you draft a giant, you tend to make mention of that players size in interviews, nothing to see here.
Scheifele was drafted off a similiar thesis/trend, so there is a supporting history.
So if he had similiar traits to other players around that range, but has size over them, dont you pick size?
He was in a few mocks going in that range, he has be scouted favorably by many. This kid was not some ankle burning hack with size. Your interview and your beliefs prove zero here.
Also there were a few of similarly tall defensemen to Stanley with as good of stats, I can't remember their names. Anyways the Jets drafted Stanley with that pick over those other guys not because he's tall but something in his interview and game tape that they liked. If they only cared about height they could have drafted a bunch of super tall dudes. They ranked Stanley as one of the top defensemen for a lot of reasons, height was probably part of it but it's far from the whole story.
I dont agree on the below average awareness, he does not scream evander kane to me. He made mistakes the other day but the majority of them where not from a lack of awareness but from a lack of execution. Plus he hasn't played in 4 months and stepped in againsts one of the best team in the country.
The Hillier interview merely confirmed what I already believed.
They have established a pattern of drafting well in the first round therefore every 1st round pick they make must be good? Even thought they make a pick that doesn't appear to match the patterns visible in all of their other 1st round picks? Nice to know they are infallible.
I didn't say size was his only strong characteristic. I said it was his only outstanding characteristic. Look at him. Look at everything you know about him, everything you have seen, heard or read. Now imagine that he is 6'2, 195. He goes in the 3rd round or later. You have to see that.
If you don't think he was taken for his size I'd like to know what you think made him a good pick at 18. Worth trading up for even.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad player. Lots of good D men come from later in the draft. It just means he was a bad pick at 18.
What characteristic does he have, or even maybe have, that plenty of other kids who were available don't also have? Work ethic, desire to succeed, hockey IQ, passing, shooting, puck handling, positioning? He has some of all of those things and so does every other kid who might have been taken where he was, or in the next 2-3 rounds.
Though I didn't like the pick, I think it's highly unlikely that they abandoned their scouting approach in picking Stanley. I expect that they saw several things beyond size that they liked, though I won't be surprised if they over-valued size. I am a bit concerned that they were worried that Morrissey might not be a top D. But I expect that their perspective might have changed after his terrific rookie season.
The awareness issue isn't limited to last game, it's something I've continually noticed in his game every time I've watched him play. Go watch the shift by shift videos that have been posted in the prospect thread. He tends to lose track of the play and is slow to react when situations change in his own end.
I'm not going to really judge what he does in this tournament due to his long layoff.
Channelcat
Unhinged user
The whole Stanley thing has been done to death but it just won't stay down.
The size thing has been overdone but the intangibles thing hasn't? This is why I have to keep arguing the case. It is just so lame. Sorry, not intending to be disrespectful or rude but most, or at least many of the kids looking to be drafted have good attitudes, work ethics, etc. Some are even studious by nature.
Are Stanley's intangibles that out of the ordinary though? Maybe they are. Is that enough to overcome lack of talent? All those things, plus his size and all of his other characteristics combined to make him what he was. Which was a middling defenseman among his age group.
He was exactly x good. Not x + y for size, or x + z for intangibles. He had the advantages of size and intangibles to get to x.
I can't disagree with much of that..........although I do see talent, even with the clumsy outlet passes and questionable positioning and other issues that I always see in his game. In my experience, the big guys do require more time to mature, so I won't be too harsh....yet.
I don't want to come off as a defender of the pick, as, at the time I thought they must have been moving up to pick one of the forwards that were sitting there. It was a puzzling move, but I did like Stanley (later)
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
What made you like him later?
I'm prepared to like him (in the future). I'll never like the pick. I was hoping for more progress this year. It might have come if not for the injury, maybe. The improvement so far might have been encouraging but it wasn't enough yet.
Oddly, considering that his low scoring is a big red flag, to me he looked OK/pretty good in the O zone. It was in the D zone that he made me uncomfortable. He seemed uncertain and behind the play. That is based on very little viewing but it is what I saw.
At any rate we know he will be given every opportunity so here's hoping he can take advantage of it.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
Of course they saw other things. That has never been in doubt. Otherwise they would recruit basketball players. The question is, were those other things real? Or were they wishful thinking? Jets drafting team are human beings. They make the same kinds of mistakes as all the rest of us. If those things were real, were they as significant as they seem to have been believed to be?
I think they knowingly decided to gamble. I don't think they are stupid. But I think it is always wrong to gamble more than necessary with the high picks. Go for as much certainty as the nature of the draft will allow. The later rounds are just throwing darts anyway so it doesn't matter.
Channelcat
Unhinged user
What made you like him later?
I'm prepared to like him (in the future). I'll never like the pick. I was hoping for more progress this year. It might have come if not for the injury, maybe. The improvement so far might have been encouraging but it wasn't enough yet.
Oddly, considering that his low scoring is a big red flag, to me he looked OK/pretty good in the O zone. It was in the D zone that he made me uncomfortable. He seemed uncertain and behind the play. That is based on very little viewing but it is what I saw.
At any rate we know he will be given every opportunity so here's hoping he can take advantage of it.
I liked him with a later pick....just to clarify
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
I liked him with a later pick....just to clarify
That I agree with.
It appears from the buzz that he would have been gone before any pick I would have used for him. 
Evil Little
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2014
- 6,311
- 2,739
The Hillier interview merely confirmed what I already believed.
They have established a pattern of drafting well in the first round therefore every 1st round pick they make must be good? Even thought they make a pick that doesn't appear to match the patterns visible in all of their other 1st round picks? Nice to know they are infallible.
I didn't say size was his only strong characteristic. I said it was his only outstanding characteristic. Look at him. Look at everything you know about him, everything you have seen, heard or read. Now imagine that he is 6'2, 195. He goes in the 3rd round or later. You have to see that.
If you don't think he was taken for his size I'd like to know what you think made him a good pick at 18. Worth trading up for even.
That doesn't mean that he is a bad player. Lots of good D men come from later in the draft. It just means he was a bad pick at 18.
What characteristic does he have, or even maybe have, that plenty of other kids who were available don't also have? Work ethic, desire to succeed, hockey IQ, passing, shooting, puck handling, positioning? He has some of all of those things and so does every other kid who might have been taken where he was, or in the next 2-3 rounds.
It's only a bad pick if there were better selections still available and unless you scouted and interviewed the guys you would have taken instead you can't say unequivocally that they were better picks. Garret, Weissbock, and everyone else who've tried to develop size/scoring models have always said their findings should be used in conjunction with scouting and interviews.
Anyhow, the Jets amateur scouting department as a whole clearly see value in Stanley that you don't--nor do I--and instead of wondering what that is, I'm sensing a certainty on your part that I don't think is justified.
- Jun 10, 2014
- 57,555
- 34,709
OK, only scouts can have opinions here.
I'm not certain he is a bad player. He can develop. I'm certain they were overly influenced by size. Can I prove it? Of course not. Sorry if you don't like my certainty.
That doesn't mean there couldn't be any other factors but it makes it bad decision making. It doesn't mean he can't develop into a decent player. Pretty sure the odds are against him though.I said earlier today that I thought they leaped for Stanley when all the top defensemen were taken earlier but I had forgotten that we were warned well in advance that they liked Stanley and were leaning that way.
I found that hard to believe. I kept hoping someone else would take him off the table before us. Then came the trade. I still find it hard to believe. I hope I am wrong about Stanley's potential. Seriously. Come on Stanley! Get comfortable in that huge body and start playing really well. I would rather restore my faith in Chevy's drafting than be right about the pick.
puck stoppa
Registered User
This X 100. Some of those D's were ranked highly here around draft time and there were people that said they were a better option than Stanley. Those D's struggled this year which shows uncertainty of any drafted player not just one like Stanley. I like Stanley and think he will continue to improve every season, I don't see him getting worse but better. But I do like your point about guys like Dineen, Johansen, Cholowski et al, lots that were high on them are quiet now but still rip on Stanley.
Evil Little
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2014
- 6,311
- 2,739
OK, only scouts can have opinions here.
I'm not certain he is a bad player. He can develop. I'm certain they were overly influenced by size. Can I prove it? Of course not. Sorry if you don't like my certainty.
I said earlier today that I thought they leaped for Stanley when all the top defensemen were taken earlier but I had forgotten that we were warned well in advance that they liked Stanley and were leaning that way.
I found that hard to believe. I kept hoping someone else would take him off the table before us. Then came the trade. I still find it hard to believe. I hope I am wrong about Stanley's potential. Seriously. Come on Stanley! Get comfortable in that huge body and start playing really well. I would rather restore my faith in Chevy's drafting than be right about the pick.
You're certain that it was a bad pick. Presumably based on models, or articles about models, and maybe a couple of games.
More comprehensive scouting and interviews may have made all the 'better' picks riskier than you think, though.
It's fun to speculate and project, and I merely have a hope for Stanley instead of real expectations, but I think the 'pfft, scouting departments and big guys' hubris is a little much.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: WCF: [C2] Dallas Stars vs. [P3] Edmonton Oilers (Series tied 1-1) (100 Viewers)- Latest: Boss Man Hughes
-
-
-
