HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2016, 11:04 PM
  #76
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaximusPrimus View Post
Just because there are other ways doesn't mean we will get one. Ask Edmonton how that search has gone. And banking on drafting a safer pick now makes it another year down the line that the kid can make an impact on the roster if there is even one available. It's not life or death but I just don't feel you should take unnecessary risks when you haven't even won a playoff game yet.
We could have had two dmen and played the numbers game. And at least the difference between Stanley and Johansen is Johansen actually has some skill to build on. I mean if Logan Stanley is 6'3 we likely pay no attention to him. But because he's 6'7 he has a boat load of potential according to our scouts. Some of the same scouts that said Valabik had a boat load of potential.
The Jets management shouldn't and won't get a free pass on their decision making just because they have made some good decisions in the past because they've also made questionable decisions in the past as well. Maybe it's just my opinion but we aren't in the position yet to be hedging our bets on the next Chara. We should be hedging our bets on gathering enough defencemen to build a pool that rivals our forward pool to prepare us for the coming years of being a contender because our current top 4 won't last forever.
We will agree to disagree then. The Jets felt he was the best defenseman available period. I don't understand why this concept is hard to grasp. Thats who they wanted. Thats who they had most confidence in that range. Thats what they -as professional scouts thought was the right guy. The dont see it as an "unnecessary" risk. They see it as a necessary risk (if even they see it as a risk at all). Rumor has it the Wings would of picked him up. If true, it is not mind boggling that the Jets would echo a team who has successfully drafted in the past.

I would actually have less respect for them if they ignored what they believed and simply played it by the numbers. Craig Button was on 1290 and also had no issues with the jets going after their guy and is fine with the pick they made. Allot are acting like the Jets went waaaay off the board. People are reacting like we picked someone at 18 who was ranked 123rd. We didn't. We are all allowed to have opinions but we are not scouts. For this reason, and since Stanley was within the ballpark where he was taken, we shouldn't complain too heavily until at least we see what we have. I'm ok with a "Thats not what I would of done" kinda stance but I disagree with poo pooing the jets pick out of hand.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:14 PM
  #77
JetsFan815
It can't be done :(
 
JetsFan815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
We will agree to disagree then. The Jets felt he was the best defenseman available period. I don't understand why this concept is hard to grasp. Thats who they wanted. Thats who they had most confidence in that range. Thats what they -as professional scouts thought was the right guy. The dont see it as an "unnecessary" risk. They see it as a necessary risk (if even they see it as a risk at all). Rumor has it the Wings would of picked him up. If true, it is not mind boggling that the Jets would echo a team who has successfully drafted in the past.
I feel like I should go out to the casino this Friday and gamble 10k. I feel I should put another 5k into the Sterling pound and hope to make double in the recovery. I feel like I should buy 2k worth of lottery tickets hoping to become a multi millionaire by winning one. Just because I feel like doing those things and feel that those things might make me money, it doesn't mean that each of those things aren't objectively bad investments where one stands to lose a lot of money.

JetsFan815 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:15 PM
  #78
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
By the way, if the Jets "played it by the numbers" they wouldn't have drafted Scheifele . And talk about risks - that was a big one since our prospect pool was virtually non existent at that time. TNSE was rolling out a brand new team to a city starving for NHL hockey. If you want to talk abut risks -that was a big one. This one is small potatoes compared to that.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:15 PM
  #79
Daximus
Aces Charles
 
Daximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Five Hills
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,636
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
We will agree to disagree then. The Jets felt he was the best defenseman available period. I don't understand why this concept is hard to grasp. Thats who they wanted. Thats who they had most confidence in that range. Thats what they -as professional scouts thought was the right guy. The dont see it as an "unnecessary" risk. They see it as a necessary risk (if even they see it as a risk at all). Rumor has it the Wings would of picked him up.

I would actually have less respect for them if they ignored what they believed and simply played it by the numbers. Craig Button was on 1290 and also had no issues with the jets going after their guy and is fine with the pick they made. Allot are acting like the Jets went waaaay off the board. People are reacting like we picked someone at 18 who was ranked 123rd. We didn't. We are all allowed to have opinions but we are not scouts. For this reason, and since Stanley was within the ballpark where he was taken, we shouldn't complain too heavily until at least we see what we have. I'm ok with a "Thats not what I would of done" kinda stance but I disagree with poo pooing the jets pick out of hand.
That's the point we are trying to make though. Just because they say something doesn't make it the word of God. Everyone understands the concept that they feel he was the best defencemen available but why doesn't anyone grasp the concept of "we don't think he was." We might not be professional scouts but that doesn't mean our opinions aren't valid. I question any professional who watched Boris Valabik play and thought "Wow, this guy is going to be good!' because many many people who aren't professional scouts said he has a very low shot of being anything resembling an NHL defencemen.
I'll always question anything the Jets do that I don't agree with. And everyone else should do the same. It's how you make them accountable for their actions.

Daximus is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:18 PM
  #80
JetsFan815
It can't be done :(
 
JetsFan815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
By the way, if the Jets "played it by the numbers" they wouldn't have drafted Scheifele . And talk about risks - that was a big one since our prospect pool was virtually non existent at that time. TNSE was rolling out a brand new team to a city starving for NHL hockey. If you want to talk abut risks -that was a big one. This one is small potatoes compared to that.
If Jets played by the numbers they would have drafted Dougie Hamilton and Filip Forsberg. Not losing any value there. Scheifele pick is not even comparable to this one in any case as has been pointed out in this thread and its predecessor multiple times.

Edit: If you notice there are many people who are critical of the trade move for 18th who were also the same people who defended the Scheifele pick for years (including yours truly). That should tell you a lot about the wide gulf between the two picks

JetsFan815 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:24 PM
  #81
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFan815 View Post
I feel like I should go out to the casino this Friday and gamble 10k. I feel I should put another 5k into the Sterling pound and hope to make double in the recovery. I feel like I should buy 2k worth of lottery tickets hoping to become a multi millionaire by winning one. Just because I feel like doing those things and feel that those things might make me money, it doesn't mean that each of those things aren't objectively bad investments where one stands to lose a lot of money.
So your saying Jets fans are more qualified to make draft picks than NHL pro scouts? By feel I mean thats their professional and objective appraisal of the player they selected. The jets didnt pull his name out of a hat. They scouted the guy. They saw something they like about him and his ratings are within the ballpark of where he chosen. Wreckless would be to draft Stanely and # 2. If the Jets drafted him at # 2, your analogy would be dead on.


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-28-2016 at 11:30 PM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:31 PM
  #82
Daximus
Aces Charles
 
Daximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Five Hills
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,636
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
So you saying Jets fans are more qualified to make draft picks that NHL pro scouts? By feel I mean thats their professional and objective appraisal of the player they selected. The jets didnt pull his name out of a hat. They scouted the guy. They saw something they like about him and his ratings are within the ballpark of where he chosen. Wreckless would be to draft Stanely and # 2. If the Jets drafted him at # 2, your analogy would be dead on.
We're saying that it's not like Professional Scouts aren't prone to making horrible draft day decisions. We see it literally every year. They fell in love with his size. Again I'll say if the kid was 6'3 he would have been paid no attention. Every other year there is some 6'7 or taller kid who gets ranked high because he is tall and not because he's talented. And every other year that guy fails because he had no talent past being tall.

Daximus is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:36 PM
  #83
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
The irony of this is that I would not have chosen Stanley either. But where the Jets took him and where he was ranked is not enormous enough for me to actively poo poo the pick yet. We will see in a few years. We picked Laine, we have possible superstar, I'm just slightly saddened this whole thing has put a damper on it.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:39 PM
  #84
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mortimer Snerd View Post
Yes I know. See my last sentence. I like big players if they are good. There are positives I have heard about Stanley in the last few days. Native athleticism (I saw no sign of that in the videos I watched), great character and work ethic for example. That combined with his size might give him a decent chance of developing into a good player. Apparently his skating has improved. It still needs work. Skating techniques can be taught and developed through practice. Mentally processing the game at high enough speed is harder to teach and harder to learn. Hockey sense and anticipation, I don't know if they can really be learned at all beyond a certain point. From watching some video of him I got the impression that he knew intellectually where to be but was having to think about it too much. So he was doing the right things but too late. That is based off of a pretty small sample but that's what I saw. Or part of it. At one point I thought I was watching Jay Harrison.

Will he turn out to be a good player? I don't know. I hope he does.
I saw him as actually processing the game quite quickly in his own zone. Apparently he tested well at the combine in agility for a big guy.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:42 PM
  #85
JetsFan815
It can't be done :(
 
JetsFan815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 7,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
So your saying Jets fans are more qualified to make draft picks than NHL pro scouts? By feel I mean thats their professional and objective appraisal of the player they selected. The jets didnt pull his name out of a hat. They scouted the guy. They saw something they like about him and his ratings are within the ballpark of where he chosen. Wreckless would be to draft Stanely and # 2. If the Jets drafted him at # 2, your analogy would be dead on.
Were Jets fans more qualified than Bruins professional scouts who have been doing it for years when they were telling everyone how much the Bruins screwed up by passing on Connor? Or were the Jets fans more qualified than the Canucks scouts when thanking the Canucks scouts for passing over Ehlers?

Perhaps this shows us that professional scouts are prone to mistakes and letting their biases get in the way of making an objectively good and reasonable choice. Every team that doesn't make a great pick thinks that they are doing the right thing, what they think is completely irrelevant to what the right thing to do actually was. Jets are no different.

If the Flyers had given us 22 and 36 for 18th and 78 and then drafted for size, they'd be the target of relentless mocking here. Sadly it was the Jets who did that

JetsFan815 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:45 PM
  #86
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaximusPrimus View Post
We're saying that it's not like Professional Scouts aren't prone to making horrible draft day decisions. We see it literally every year. They fell in love with his size. Again I'll say if the kid was 6'3 he would have been paid no attention. Every other year there is some 6'7 or taller kid who gets ranked high because he is tall and not because he's talented. And every other year that guy fails because he had no talent past being tall.
There have been a boatload of larger players the Jets have passed over drafting in the past. Here is where we will disagree:

I believe the Jets took him for more than just his size. They see untapped skill in additional to that size. I'm not saying they are right. I'm not saying they are wrong. I actually think (in my laymen opinion that they are probably wrong) But I'm not going to poo poo the pick yet and I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now especially since his rankings are within the ballpark of where the jets chose him.


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-29-2016 at 12:23 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-28-2016, 11:57 PM
  #87
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFan815 View Post
Were Jets fans more qualified than Bruins professional scouts who have been doing it for years when they were telling everyone how much the Bruins screwed up by passing on Connor? Or were the Jets fans more qualified than the Canucks scouts when thanking the Canucks scouts for passing over Ehlers?

Perhaps this shows us that professional scouts are prone to mistakes and letting their biases get in the way of making an objectively good and reasonable choice. Every team that doesn't make a great pick thinks that they are doing the right thing, what they think is completely irrelevant to what the right thing to do actually was. Jets are no different.

If the Flyers had given us 22 and 36 for 18th and 78 and then drafted for size, they'd be the target of relentless mocking here. Sadly it was the Jets who did that
Heres the difference, we don't yet know the Jets made a mistake. Your argument has the convenience of hindsight. I can use the same argument with Scheifele . In that case the Jets went against what the fans wanted and it worked out for them. Sometimes the fans get it right and the scout gets it wrong. Sometimes the scout gets it right and the fans get it wrong. What breaks the tie? Wait a few years and see what we have. Not saying we can't voice our opinions in the meantime and play the guessing game though. Not saying scouts cant make mistakes. I just wish some Jets fans would temper some of those negative, (and valid) opinions just a tad until we know for sure.


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-29-2016 at 12:31 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:40 AM
  #88
Sweech
Alles zu seiner Zeit
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 5585
I love all the appeals to authority in here.

I wonder if all the same people here realize that their arguments mirror the exact same arguments people used to use to justify Pavelec as a #1 goalie.

Also the Scheifele comparisons are laughable. Those two selections and scenarios are nothing alike.

Sweech is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:40 AM
  #89
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetsFan815 View Post
Were Jets fans more qualified than Bruins professional scouts who have been doing it for years when they were telling everyone how much the Bruins screwed up by passing on Connor? Or were the Jets fans more qualified than the Canucks scouts when thanking the Canucks scouts for passing over Ehlers?

Perhaps this shows us that professional scouts are prone to mistakes and letting their biases get in the way of making an objectively good and reasonable choice. Every team that doesn't make a great pick thinks that they are doing the right thing, what they think is completely irrelevant to what the right thing to do actually was. Jets are no different.

If the Flyers had given us 22 and 36 for 18th and 78 and then drafted for size, they'd be the target of relentless mocking here. Sadly it was the Jets who did that
Jumping the gun, I think. This post will seem a bit odd if Stanley turns out to be a good pro. It makes the assumption that all that needs to be known is already known by fans. This is the same fanbase that was keen on Gauthier, and Couturier over Scheifele, so maybe a bit of humility is in order. Scouting 17 year olds is an inexact science.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:44 AM
  #90
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
I love all the appeals to authority in here.

I wonder if all the same people here realize that their arguments mirror the exact same arguments people used to use to justify Pavelec as a #1 goalie.

Also the Scheifele comparisons are laughable. Those two selections and scenarios are nothing alike.
Fred Gauthier. Remember when this board though he would be a good choice?

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:48 AM
  #91
truck
Registered User
 
truck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 9,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Fred Gauthier. Remember when this board though he would be a good choice?
I remember. I didn't get it. He was big and he didn't score. I generally don't believe in that type. I find that people (GMs included) fall in love with the fantasy about what that player can be. They also tend to equate size to a high floor - even though the pudding usually proves otherwise.

I wanted Wennberg.

truck is online now  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:50 AM
  #92
Sweech
Alles zu seiner Zeit
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 5585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
Fred Gauthier. Remember when this board though he would be a good choice?
I remember arguing vehemently against him with Holden.

Sweech is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:58 AM
  #93
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweech View Post
I love all the appeals to authority in here.

I wonder if all the same people here realize that their arguments mirror the exact same arguments people used to use to justify Pavelec as a #1 goalie.

Also the Scheifele comparisons are laughable. Those two selections and scenarios are nothing alike.
They are very comparable. When the Jets selected Scheifele, it was not a popular pick and it went against the consensus of the fan base. When the Jets selected Stanley it was not a popular pick and went against the consensus of the fan base. Both are considered by most as "reaches". I was listening to some commentary and interviews on 1290 last couple days and many people in the hockey circles are making that comparison as well. At the very least, there are some parallels when it comes to the expectation factor with those picks.

Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 12:59 AM
  #94
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
By the way, if the Jets "played it by the numbers" they wouldn't have drafted Scheifele . And talk about risks - that was a big one since our prospect pool was virtually non existent at that time. TNSE was rolling out a brand new team to a city starving for NHL hockey. If you want to talk abut risks -that was a big one. This one is small potatoes compared to that.
I do want to point out two big problems with your argument.

1) Stanley and Scheifele are not comparable AT ALL.

Scheifele was not the statistical darling, but he was still in that tier. No one uses blind numbers or suggests to use blind numbers only, so really if Jets used numbers with scouting, the numbers would just say Scheifele is in the tier but maybe not the best, then your scouts deal with things within that.

Numbers with Stanley says that Stanley was taken a couple rounds early.

Maybe not the best pick but in the wheelhouse != not the right round.

BIG difference.

2) Despite everyone talking about how Jets are masterful drafters, they would have done pretty damn well if they went by numbers instead.

a) If the Jets decided to play by blind numbers using a PCS like model, which again no one suggests, they lose Copp and Lowry, and fodder. They gain Gostisbehere, McCabe, Shore, and Bjorkstrand (which I would def rather have) and fodder.

b) If the Jets used numbers with scouting, they'd still probably have Lowry and Copp with those added four, as Lowry had a down year from the season before due to mono and Copp numbers were deflated from starting on fourth line but he'd be drafted by numbers if you did his stats with him on the top line.


I work with teams and when I start, I always say the numbers are not there to make decisions for you, but to give you information to make better decisions. Draft theory is about combining the information gained with numbers AND scouts to make the best decisions possible. They both have their strengths, and they are different strengths.

Scheifele and Stanley are different.


Last edited by garret9: 06-29-2016 at 01:05 AM.
garret9 is online now  
Old
06-29-2016, 01:00 AM
  #95
Sweech
Alles zu seiner Zeit
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,792
vCash: 5585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
They are very comparable. When the Jets selected Scheifele, it was not a popular pick and it went against the consensus of the fan base. When the Jets selected Stanley it was not a popular pick and went against the consensus of the fan base. Both are considered by most as "reaches". I was listening to some commentary and interviews on 1290 last couple days and many people in the hockey circles are making that comparison as well. At the very least, there are some broad parallels when it comes to the expectation factor.
The parallels are so broad you may as well compare Stanley to just about every other first rounder then. "Not popular pick" and "against fanbase" don't make for parallels especially when you're looking at success. Especially if you ask the question, "why?" for any of the comparables. When you answer that question you quickly realize it's not similar at all.

Sweech is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 01:18 AM
  #96
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 27,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by truck View Post
I remember. I didn't get it. He was big and he didn't score. I generally don't believe in that type. I find that people (GMs included) fall in love with the fantasy about what that player can be. They also tend to equate size to a high floor - even though the pudding usually proves otherwise.

I wanted Wennberg.
Actually, he was big and he did score (60 points in 62 games). He was just bad at hockey because he couldn't skate or think or handle the puck. Good scouts probably figured that out while a lot of fans were deceived by the numbers. The stats based approach would take him well ahead of Lowry or Copp. Sometimes live scouting is helpful.

Whileee is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 01:31 AM
  #97
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I do want to point out two big problems with your argument.

1) Stanley and Scheifele are not comparable AT ALL.

Scheifele was not the statistical darling, but he was still in that tier. No one uses blind numbers or suggests to use blind numbers only, so really if Jets used numbers with scouting, the numbers would just say Scheifele is in the tier but maybe not the best, then your scouts deal with things within that.

Numbers with Stanley says that Stanley was taken a couple rounds early.

Maybe not the best pick but in the wheelhouse != not the right round.

BIG difference.

2) Despite everyone talking about how Jets are masterful drafters, they would have done pretty damn well if they went by numbers instead.

a) If the Jets decided to play by blind numbers using a PCS like model, which again no one suggests, they lose Copp and Lowry, and fodder. They gain Gostisbehere, McCabe, Shore, and Bjorkstrand (which I would def rather have) and fodder.

b) If the Jets used numbers with scouting, they'd still probably have Lowry and Copp with those added four, as Lowry had a down year from the season before due to mono and Copp numbers were deflated from starting on fourth line but he'd be drafted by numbers if you did his stats with him on the top line.


I work with teams and when I start, I always say the numbers are not there to make decisions for you, but to give you information to make better decisions. Draft theory is about combining the information gained with numbers AND scouts to make the best decisions possible. They both have their strengths, and they are different strengths.

Scheifele and Stanley are different.
My comparison with Stanley and Scheifele is mainly in terms of the general expectation factor and the fan fallout after the pick happened. Both were considered "reaches." Both have generated considerable fan debate. It has been echoed by alot of hockey people in the media as well so I'm not alone. Yes - Scheifele was in that same tier in terms of stats but I would argue that gap can be comparable in Logan's case if the Jets decision matrix on him relayed more heavily on intangibles or qualities that can only be witnessed when scouting him live at a game. Like you said the numbers are not the only metric in evaluating a player. I have a feeling Stanley was off the charts when it came to those unmeasurable qualities in the Jet's eyes. In the same vein of Scheifele , maybe they see Stanley as a possible student of the game and can become a better player with a dedicated work ethic.

So yes maybe Stanley is considered a much bigger "reach" than Scheifele. I was just making the point that the Jets picking a player outside of the perceived consensus is not without precedent.


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-29-2016 at 01:56 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 01:52 AM
  #98
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
My comparison with Stanley and Scheifele is mainly in terms of the general exception factor and the fan fallout after the pick happened. Both were considered "reaches." Both have generated considerable fan debate. It has been echoed by alot of hockey people in the media as well so I'm not alone. Yes - Scheifele was in that same tier in terms of stats but I would argue that gap can be made up in Logan's case if the Jets decision matrix on him relayed more heavily on intangibles or qualities that can only be witnessed when scouting him live at a game. Like you said the numbers are not the only metric in evaluating a player. I have a feeling Stanley was off the charts when it came to those unmeasurable qualities in the Jet's eyes. In the same vein of Scheifele , maybe they see Stanley as a possible student of the game and can become a better player with a dedicated work ethic.

So yes maybe Stanley is considered a much bigger "reach" than Scheifele. I was just making the point that the Jets picking a player outside of the perceived consensus is not without precedent.
I think the reaches are too far different for it to be a precedent.

Reaching a few spots because of things that cannot be measured is not the same as reaching a few rounds.

garret9 is online now  
Old
06-29-2016, 02:02 AM
  #99
Jetsfan79
Registered User
 
Jetsfan79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by garret9 View Post
I think the reaches are too far different for it to be a precedent.

Reaching a few spots because of things that cannot be measured is not the same as reaching a few rounds.
Ellite prospects.com:

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=240108

Ranked #30 by Hockeyprospect.com ROUND 1
Ranked #25 by ISS Hockey ROUND 1
Ranked #42 by Future Considerations ROUND 2
Ranked #34 by McKeen's Hockey EARLY ROUND 2
Ranked #19 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters)
Ranked #22 by TSN/McKenzie ROUND 1
SOCIAL - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player....nNXQvUHL.dpuf

The jets did not reach "a few rounds". He was projected in round 1 or 2 in most lists. He was a riser:

Rising:
Logan Stanley (Windsor) — Humongous, mean, and now … he can skate. Who knew? The physical tools alone give him huge upside.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...leod/77883912/



Bob Mckenzie, who knows something about hockey prospects had him at 22. 4 picks difference than where the Jets got him. Jets took Scheifele 5 picks from TSN's list at the time back in 2011. http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=47549


Last edited by Jetsfan79: 06-29-2016 at 02:30 AM.
Jetsfan79 is offline  
Old
06-29-2016, 02:34 AM
  #100
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 19,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsfan79 View Post
Ellite prospects.com:

http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=240108

Ranked #30 by Hockeyprospect.com ROUND 1
Ranked #25 by ISS Hockey ROUND 1
Ranked #42 by Future Considerations ROUND 2
Ranked #34 by McKeen's Hockey EARLY ROUND 2
Ranked #19 by NHL Central Scouting (NA Skaters)
Ranked #22 by TSN/McKenzie ROUND 1
SOCIAL - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player....nNXQvUHL.dpuf

The jets did not reach "a few rounds". He was projected in round 1 or 2 in most lists. He was a riser:

Rising:
Logan Stanley (Windsor) — Humongous, mean, and now … he can skate. Who knew? The physical tools alone give him huge upside.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...leod/77883912/



Bob Mckenzie, who knows something about hockey prospects had him at 22. 4 picks difference than where the Jets got him. Jets took Scheifele 5 picks from TSN's list at the time back in 2011. http://www2.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=47549
We were arguing against where statistically he would be suggested to go. Statistically speaking, Stanley is a 3rd round pick.

Stanley did have a LARGE difference in opinion on where he should go. I knew one team that had him in the third round, and another that had him later 120.

Also, Bob Mckenzie doesn't rank anyone. He asks 6-10 scouts for their own personal list, which is fewer scouts than you'd have
It's good, but it, and the other rankings you have, also would fall to the same size bias that were discussing on Stanley, if that bias is not justifiable.


Last edited by garret9: 06-29-2016 at 02:43 AM.
garret9 is online now  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.