Great analysis in the article, thanks for posting OP.
mars_titties
Daniel Gee does good work and his reports are always detailed. It’s valuable to hear about the parts of Willander’s game that need work. If he’s having trouble with pass receptions and puck retrievals on the smaller ice then it definitely sounds like he’ll be in the NCAA for at least another season after this one before turning pro. I hope our development staff get a lot of time with him.
SnooOnions5029
Well written articles still exist?
YelloBrickRoad
Sounds like Willander has a really high floor as a transitional 2-way defender. Has all the tools to be good offensively (break out passes, getting shots on net) and defensively (rush defense), but perhaps not the IQ that allows him to dominate in-zone offense or defense, yet. Can’t wait to see him develop.
SpectreFire
Just looked at his numbers, 7 points in 11 games for an 18 year old rookie D in the NCAA isn’t bad at all.
But holy fuck at Macklin Celebrini.
22 points in 11 games as an undersized 17 year old in NCAA hockey.
What the actual fuck.
Faldarian
Based on the article if he focuses on his strengths of being that strong net front defender and overall good in his own end then that feels like Hughes pairing in the making.
His offensive tools being less than stellar mean a lot less if he can make a good breakout pass to our forwards or quick cross ice to Hughes.
Does seem odd the article describes him as “not cerebral” when a lot of his draft hype was around his intelligence, and even in interviews the kid’s clearly smart. Given that the team we are building seems built around smart players, we’ll have to see how this plays out.
arazamatazguy
* The single most proficient area of Willander’s performances this fall has been centred around his defence of the rush.
This is all I need to know.
YouCanFucough
If most of the defensive concerns are that he’s a bit too liberal with trying to disrupt plays, I can live with that.
Our coaching staff can teach him some patience in a day or two, and given how well spoken he is at his age, I don’t doubt for one second he’s smart enough to adapt his game however he needs to
ToyStrecher
We can teach him defence. I don’t see that being an obstacle. Really hope we take our time with him to get it right. The puck skills are a little surprising, as that was one of his own mentioned strengths that he brings as an ex-forward. But mobility is a plus, and defensive mindset can be taught.
21marvel1
Probably on the original draft timeline of this year and potentially next season in NCAA. Honestly not the worst thing. First year: adjust to smaller ice and that style. Second year: play a top role then if all goes well, sign him toward the end of the year, after his college season is over
Amish_Sex_Toys
sounds like a young Bret Hedican
flamingdragonwizard
Really hope I’m wrong and I know this will disappoint many but I don’t see Willander as top 4 level in future. Maybe bottom pairing or AHL level. I’ll get down voted but those that watch his game know. If we develop him well I can absolutely be wrong.
12 Comments
Great analysis in the article, thanks for posting OP.
Daniel Gee does good work and his reports are always detailed. It’s valuable to hear about the parts of Willander’s game that need work. If he’s having trouble with pass receptions and puck retrievals on the smaller ice then it definitely sounds like he’ll be in the NCAA for at least another season after this one before turning pro. I hope our development staff get a lot of time with him.
Well written articles still exist?
Sounds like Willander has a really high floor as a transitional 2-way defender. Has all the tools to be good offensively (break out passes, getting shots on net) and defensively (rush defense), but perhaps not the IQ that allows him to dominate in-zone offense or defense, yet. Can’t wait to see him develop.
Just looked at his numbers, 7 points in 11 games for an 18 year old rookie D in the NCAA isn’t bad at all.
But holy fuck at Macklin Celebrini.
22 points in 11 games as an undersized 17 year old in NCAA hockey.
What the actual fuck.
Based on the article if he focuses on his strengths of being that strong net front defender and overall good in his own end then that feels like Hughes pairing in the making.
His offensive tools being less than stellar mean a lot less if he can make a good breakout pass to our forwards or quick cross ice to Hughes.
Does seem odd the article describes him as “not cerebral” when a lot of his draft hype was around his intelligence, and even in interviews the kid’s clearly smart. Given that the team we are building seems built around smart players, we’ll have to see how this plays out.
* The single most proficient area of Willander’s performances this fall has been centred around his defence of the rush.
This is all I need to know.
If most of the defensive concerns are that he’s a bit too liberal with trying to disrupt plays, I can live with that.
Our coaching staff can teach him some patience in a day or two, and given how well spoken he is at his age, I don’t doubt for one second he’s smart enough to adapt his game however he needs to
We can teach him defence. I don’t see that being an obstacle. Really hope we take our time with him to get it right. The puck skills are a little surprising, as that was one of his own mentioned strengths that he brings as an ex-forward. But mobility is a plus, and defensive mindset can be taught.
Probably on the original draft timeline of this year and potentially next season in NCAA. Honestly not the worst thing.
First year: adjust to smaller ice and that style.
Second year: play a top role then if all goes well, sign him toward the end of the year, after his college season is over
sounds like a young Bret Hedican
Really hope I’m wrong and I know this will disappoint many but I don’t see Willander as top 4 level in future. Maybe bottom pairing or AHL level. I’ll get down voted but those that watch his game know. If we develop him well I can absolutely be wrong.