HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Draft By Need ? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=924275)

nyhabsfan 06-11-2011 06:00 AM

Draft By Need ?
 
I have never bought into the philosophy to draft the best player available. Yes, I've heard that you take that asset and then move him for another need, but seriously how many top end prospects do you see traded for each other.

The Habs need grit and scoring depth as their main need. So I hope on June 24th we go after a Tyler Biggs who is a natural RW a north south player and gets the majority of his goals in the tough areas around the net, somewhere that we currently don't do well .

Here's the lowdown of Biggs:

Draft Information:
Big three zone, mean wing who will probably have to continue to upgrade his quickness to be a force at the next level. He is a tough, on-ice leader/protector and will lay heavy checks within the rules in almost every game he plays. He has nice balance, a wide skating base and a solid quick stride. Yet Biggs is basically a North-South guy who has an accurate shot, soft hands, and a pro-style build. Thus his goals will come in the crease area where he will cause major disruptions when he anchors down in front and on passes he unearthed along the wall. His father (Don) was a longtime minor pro player. There really is little to not like about him if he is given a slower track to continue his improvement.

pc_md 06-11-2011 06:51 AM

1- Teams needs change quickly especially in the salary cap era and prospects take a long time to make it to the NHL.

2- We have needs pretty much everywhere. There is not one single position that is set for the future. Our deepest position might be RW, but we don't have a blue chipper to rely on. For any other position, our prospect system depth is average at best. We do lack size and grit, but we also lack offensive talent and skills (remember we are talking about the prospect system, not the NHL).

3- Only two times I remember Timmins mentionning a specific quality he was looking for. In 2004, he said before the draft he was looking for size because it had been neglected by the previous head scout. In 2006, after the draft, he said they really needed to draft defencemen. Turns out those draft were his worst.

Monctonscout 06-11-2011 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyhabsfan (Post 33566694)
I have never bought into the philosophy to draft the best player available. Yes, I've heard that you take that asset and then move him for another need, but seriously how many top end prospects do you see traded for each other.

The Habs need grit and scoring depth as their main need. So I hope on June 24th we go after a Tyler Biggs who is a natural RW a north south player and gets the majority of his goals in the tough areas around the net, somewhere that we currently don't do well .

Here's the lowdown of Biggs:

Draft Information:
Big three zone, mean wing who will probably have to continue to upgrade his quickness to be a force at the next level. He is a tough, on-ice leader/protector and will lay heavy checks within the rules in almost every game he plays. He has nice balance, a wide skating base and a solid quick stride. Yet Biggs is basically a North-South guy who has an accurate shot, soft hands, and a pro-style build. Thus his goals will come in the crease area where he will cause major disruptions when he anchors down in front and on passes he unearthed along the wall. His father (Don) was a longtime minor pro player. There really is little to not like about him if he is given a slower track to continue his improvement.

If we need scoring depth why would we draft a guy that projects as a 15 goal scorer and 3rd liner?

Anksun 06-11-2011 07:30 AM

Drafting by needs make some sense these days imo. The new comers are making their respective teams youngers. Having a young kid capable of growing his game in the nhl at a younger age makes sense, thus going for a need also do.

Granted most players will take a few years to reach the nhl, if you picked to fill a void, some of those 1st rounders might make it a year or 2 faster.
_________




That said, we saw what can happen with young kids making the habs too fast.

TheBuriedHab 06-11-2011 07:31 AM

Best player every freaking time. People were shocked when we picked Price. When we picked Subban people wanted us to go center and some were not happy with it. Well both turned out to be awesome picks. Always Always go with BPA.

Captain Smurf 06-11-2011 07:46 AM

Always BPA. Drafting by need gets you Tinordi. Drafting by BPA gets you Price. 'nuff said.

Monctonscout 06-11-2011 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBuriedHab (Post 33566964)
Best player every freaking time. People were shocked when we picked Price. When we picked Subban people wanted us to go center and some were not happy with it. Well both turned out to be awesome picks. Always Always go with BPA.

Yup, drafted Fischer and Chipchura because of need...Giroux or Berglund and Zajac Schultz Schneider or Green would all look better.

Monctonscout 06-11-2011 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Smurf (Post 33567042)
Always BPA. Drafting by need gets you Tinordi. Drafting by BPA gets you Price. 'nuff said.

How do you know Tinordi won't be the best pick out of who was available. Let the kid play and develop...he'd 6'7", smart, tough and moves very well for his size. If he becomes the 07-08 version of Komisarek(at 6'7") nobody will be complaining.

BLONG7 06-11-2011 09:05 AM

BPA...always...

Markowicz 06-11-2011 09:05 AM

My thinking is more "don't draft too much of what we already have" and that's smaller puck moving D and smaller skilled forwards. I still like the BPA concept, but i agree that teams rarely just unload a BPA they drafted because he ended up being superfluous, or get good value for him if they do. Tyler Biggs, from all indications, does not project to be a top 6 forward. Taking him here would be like taking Akim Aliu or Milan Lucic in the same spot: risky. sure it could work out, or it could be a total bust. I'd rather just take someone who might not already have the physical attributes of a power forward, but at least looks to be more of a bonafide NHLer. Just taking a look at the last ISS report, quite a few big bodied forwards have moved down into our zone, guys like Mark McNeill and Mark Schiefele come to mind.

Marchy79 06-11-2011 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre Jr (Post 33567570)
My thinking is more "don't draft too much of what we already have" and that's smaller puck moving D and smaller skilled forwards. I still like the BPA concept, but i agree that teams rarely just unload a BPA they drafted because he ended up being superfluous, or get good value for him if they do. Tyler Biggs, from all indications, does not project to be a top 6 forward. Taking him here would be like taking Akim Aliu or Milan Lucic in the same spot: risky. sure it could work out, or it could be a total bust. I'd rather just take someone who might not already have the physical attributes of a power forward, but at least looks to be more of a bonafide NHLer. Just taking a look at the last ISS report, quite a few big bodied forwards have moved down into our zone, guys like Mark McNeill and Mark Schiefele come to mind.

Sciefele out of the big bodies I would take over McNeill & Biggs...

Zach Phillips FTW :yo:

Ohashi_Jouzu 06-11-2011 09:47 AM

Since every team's "BPA" list is tempered and molded by organizational need, of course you "draft by need". You just don't draft purely on the lines of overly specific needs such as 6'2"+ 200 lbs+ RHS centre with a mean streak. All that extra criteria is just "tie-breaker" material. If you have 3 guys available at your pick that you'd be happy with either way, you look at your team, how players are developing in your farm system, and you pick the guy that has the best chance of plugging into any hole(s) you might forecast, getting a chance to prove himself (ice time/opportunity), and potentially moving up into the NHL ranks quickly.

If you pick a guy and he ends up behind a backlog of other players at a certain position and never gets an opportunity to play, his trade value just drops the older he gets without having had a chance to show his value.

Markowicz 06-11-2011 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu (Post 33567960)
Since every team's "BPA" list is tempered and molded by organizational need, of course you "draft by need". You just don't draft purely on the lines of overly specific needs such as 6'2"+ 200 lbs+ RHS centre with a mean streak. All that extra criteria is just "tie-breaker" material. If you have 3 guys available at your pick that you'd be happy with either way, you look at your team, how players are developing in your farm system, and you pick the guy that has the best chance of plugging into any hole(s) you might forecast, getting a chance to prove himself (ice time/opportunity), and potentially moving up into the NHL ranks quickly.

If you pick a guy and he ends up behind a backlog of other players at a certain position and never gets an opportunity to play, his trade value just drops the older he gets without having had a chance to show his value.

There you go. Everybody just read this entry, it makes the most sense. Nobody just blindly takes the BPA--it isn't like you have a monkey with a list picking players (insert joke here).

But seriously, i agree with every single thing in this post. Very well thought out and written!

shamrun 06-11-2011 10:47 AM

We need the best player available that should solve any issue. We can always move them around as assets in trades. It's very difficult for a team to predict needs 4 to 5 years from now. I remember when we drafted a really tall goalie the reasoning i heard at the time was that maybe the nhl was going to make the nets bigger and that did not pan out.

Monctonscout 06-11-2011 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamrun (Post 33568583)
We need the best player available that should solve any issue. We can always move them around as assets in trades. It's very difficult for a team to predict needs 4 to 5 years from now. I remember when we drafted a really tall goalie the reasoning i heard at the time was that maybe the nhl was going to make the nets bigger and that did not pan out.

They made the equipment smaller. I don't think we have seen a sub 5'11" goalie in the NHL in the last 4-5 years.

onemorecup* 06-11-2011 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nyhabsfan (Post 33566694)
I have never bought into the philosophy to draft the best player available. Yes, I've heard that you take that asset and then move him for another need, but seriously how many top end prospects do you see traded for each other.

The Habs need grit and scoring depth as their main need. So I hope on June 24th we go after a Tyler Biggs who is a natural RW a north south player and gets the majority of his goals in the tough areas around the net, somewhere that we currently don't do well .

Here's the lowdown of Biggs:

Draft Information:
Big three zone, mean wing who will probably have to continue to upgrade his quickness to be a force at the next level. He is a tough, on-ice leader/protector and will lay heavy checks within the rules in almost every game he plays. He has nice balance, a wide skating base and a solid quick stride. Yet Biggs is basically a North-South guy who has an accurate shot, soft hands, and a pro-style build. Thus his goals will come in the crease area where he will cause major disruptions when he anchors down in front and on passes he unearthed along the wall. His father (Don) was a longtime minor pro player. There really is little to not like about him if he is given a slower track to continue his improvement.

take the best player available all times ....unless you have a top 5 pick this player is 2-4 years away

with free agency ...cap .etc... needs will be created every year and hopefully your player is ready to play

if you are Tbay if you had the need for a franchise D man you take Doughty

if you wan`t the forward you take Stamkos

the only thing we dont need now or 4 years down the road in anotehr MIDGET upfront to go with lack of size we are stuck with

Zaide 06-11-2011 11:55 AM

I think we should try to move up a few spots to draft Mark McNeil. Not only would he fill a huge need (Big left-handed center), but he would also be the BPA.
IMO, we should draft by BPA, and not by need however, unless you can have both.

WeThreeKings 06-11-2011 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaide (Post 33569483)
I think we should try to move up a few spots to draft Mark McNeil. Not only would he fill a huge need (Big left-handed center), but he would also be the BPA.
IMO, we should draft by BPA, and not by need however, unless you can have both.

The need is a big RH center.

bcv 06-11-2011 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeThreeKings (Post 33569522)
The need is a big RH center.

McNeil is RH anyway..

WeThreeKings 06-11-2011 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcv (Post 33569537)
McNeil is RH anyway..

I'd take him if he fell to us. I am not in favor of trading up for any prospect this year unless it's Mika Zibanejad.

I am hoping we trade down if Scheifele isn't available at 17. I'd rather move down a couple slots, grab a JT Miller or a Puempel and be able to have a crack at someone like Joachim Nermark in the 2nd round.

bcv 06-11-2011 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeThreeKings (Post 33569564)
I'd take him if he fell to us. I am not in favor of trading up for any prospect this year unless it's Mika Zibanejad.

I am hoping we trade down if Scheifele isn't available at 17. I'd rather move down a couple slots, grab a JT Miller or a Puempel and be able to have a crack at someone like Joachim Nermark in the 2nd round.

Same here, altough Miller might go earlier than we think he might go.

As for Joachim Nermark, like I previously said, my favorite pick in the 2nd round would be Adam Lowry. But, I haven't seen enough of Nermark to say what I really think about him, he had great U18, but that's the only place I say him play.

WeThreeKings 06-11-2011 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcv (Post 33569624)
Same here, altough Miller might go earlier than we think he might go.

As for Joachim Nermark, like I previously said, my favorite pick in the 2nd round would be Adam Lowry. But, I haven't seen enough of Nermark to say what I really think about him, he had great U18, but that's the only place I say him play.

I like what I hear about Adam Lowry as well. I am just throwing around Nermark because he's a smart center who's shown he has the offensive abilities to carry his team. His consistency is the issue, but the talent and smarts is undeniable. The point is, I like trading down and getting a 2nd rounder. As it stands, any 2nd rounder we pick could be better then our 1st rounder.

Tiger Svoboda 06-11-2011 01:01 PM

My knowledge is limited, but it seems to me that it's wide open after pick no 15. Maybe a bit before that. There is a chance Nathan beaulieu might be available at 17 and I think we should draft him if it's the case. But otherwise, i would prefer a forward with skills. On the organisation needs, i think we have a hole at LW.

habs possible pick, from what i read could be:

Mark Scheifele
Matt Puempel
Jonathan Miller
Niclas Jensen
Tomas Jurco

I don't know much about Puempel and Jensen. Do you think they can become impact players for the habs? How would you describe their skillset? Thanks

MathMan 06-11-2011 01:20 PM

BPA. Always.

This is not the NFL. Rookies do not have an immediate impact. If you Draft by Need then you need the prescience to identify your needs 4-5 years down the line when the draftee is ready to make an impact.

Em Ancien 06-11-2011 01:26 PM

Nothing wrong with targetting a specific type of player as the draft goes on, but it shouldn't become an obsession.

Pretty sure, for example, Burke takes a few swings at guys that brings physicality in hopes of getting some NHLers, hopefully some offensive contributors (e.g. Ryan, Ross, etc.).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.