View Single Post
12-13-2012, 11:54 PM
Release Evertroll
Foppa2118's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 22,872
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
I totally agree that we cannot justify a player as great picks when they haven't touched the NHL ice and majority of them are 3rd and later. But if someone is able to watch a certain player play like Hishon more than ten times or so. Then that person should have the knowledge of what to expected in that player. Things can change like Sgarbossa not getting drafted to him becoming a top 6 forward in the AHL, but I don't think it's wrong to have "hype" for our 1st and 2nd round picks
I don't think it's wrong to have hype either. It's natural to be hopeful for a prospects chances, and watching a player closely in junior absolutely gives you a better perspective on them but I think it's worth noting every now and then that the real evaluation lies in the end results. I think we all realize this anyway, but sometimes we need to be reminded to balance out the hope with a little objective reality.

Originally Posted by S E P H View Post
There is a golden rule that some teams follow, that rule is never drafted a defensive-defenseman in the first round(s). Besides Siemens and Gaunce I can't remember the last time we drafted a DFD in the top 2 rounds! Each draft does vary from one another, but one reason the Avs sucked at developing a solid shutdown-defenseman is because we kept drafting them in the later rounds (4+). You know this, but as the later rounds occur, the draft talent gets weaker and weaker. Yes there are darkhorses in all of them, but majority of those players do not become anything special. Another reason could be that other teams draft them higher than they should go. EX: I am a big fan of Tyler Wotherspoon of Calgary. If we didn't draft Siemens he would've been an amazing replacement, as he has really good shutdown talent and has developed nicely. I swear I thought he would've gone in 3rd to 4th round, but Calgary drafted him much higher at 57th spot in the second round.
Definitely and I agree with that approach as well. I hate the idea of drafting a defensive D in the first round. I liked the Siemens pick but I admit I wasn't really looking at it objectively. I liked the possibility of him and Elliott making a good duo on the Avs and thought their proven chemistry gave a little added bonus to the pick. I also think I based a lot of it on need which is usually a bad approach, but we basically never had a strong prospect like that in the pipeline and had desperately needed it on the big club for years. I think there were a lot of question marks around the guys left on the board too so that made me favor it as well.

I'll take it a step further and say that I usually don't like to pick a D with one of the first three picks, unless the forwards are really uninspiring. I generally feel the same way about the top 5 and usually prefer a forward in the first round anyway. It's just so hard to accurately prognosticate the career of a defenseman based on junior or collegiate success. It's just so different from pros and a lot of times you end up with a really solid two way guy with these top 5 or 10 picks, but he doesn't rack up the kind of points needed out of a true #1. Combine that with the lengthy time needed for them to develop and I personally would rather take the forward unless something really sways me toward or away from guys. You end up waiting on them until they're UFA's because some D dont start to shine until their mid 20's, and you don't want to trade away a potential stud. EJ's trying to prove he doesnt fit into that category. Brewer fell victim to it, so did Bouwmeester. Possibly Hedman and Larrson too though the jury is still out. There's so many good forwards coming out of the 1st round these days anyway and they can usually step in right away and play a big role if you picked the right guy.

I'm ok with taking a D in the 2nd but I still generally prefer trying to find a good winger or top checking center because as Bender alluded to its much easier to supplement your lineup with defensive D outside the organization than other positions.

Originally Posted by Bender View Post
It's not like the Avs have been drafting these reputable defensive d-men with their 1st and 2nd round picks and aren't able to develop them or aren't having them pan out. They just aren't drafting those types of players that high. So to say they've been unable to produce that kind of d-man IS accurate but you need to look further and see why.
No I agree. I actually think they've probably had about equal success between offensive and defenive defenseman. I'd give a slight edge to the defensive ones actually but you just end up picking way more of those guys, or they just turn into that anyway. It's near impossible to compare the success between the two anyway unless there are really strong numbers in favor of one or the other. There's just way too many elements in play and you and SEPH alluded to a few of them.

My issue is more with their success coming from the defensive position as a whole.

Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
lol, why
There's a bit of a minority here that always thought Hahl was a good checking line winger, and was forced into a role he wasn't really suited for, and then given up on. I think this also hurt his confidence in his overall game and it became a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy to where he wasn't playing as well as he was capable towards the end either.

I thought the same exact thing about Richardson when he was shipped out too but I think I was in a smaller minority there. Gali suffered a bit from the same thing as well IMO, though I'm very happy with the return they got.

Last edited by Foppa2118: 12-14-2012 at 12:08 AM.
Foppa2118 is offline