HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Last pick, #188 is....Louie Nanne

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-24-2012, 12:58 AM
  #76
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
We've addressed this already. A 3rd round pick is worth more than 5 times as much as a 7th round pick (round average for 3rd is approximately 15% for a 7th is about 3%). Furthermore, when rounds are broken into thirds instead of being taken as all 30, the rate in the top third of each round (excluding the first and seventh) approximately doubles. Meaning a pick taken in the first third of the third round has approximately a 25% to 30% chance of having an NHL career while a pick in the 7th still has a 3% chance.

To put that in perspective for you, in 33 years of drafting in the 7th round, you would on average draft 1 player who has an NHL career.
Well then let's address it again and get it right. The percentage of full-time NHLers who play for more than a couple years is nearly flat after the 2nd round (really about #50-60 is where most drafts become total crapshoots). I believe the numbers are around 10-15% for every round after the 2nd. A quick check of the past decade confirms that. You expect about 3-5 guys per round to make it and stick around. 3% is well below the true 7th round percentage of the past 10-15 years.

Look up every recent draft and start tallying:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG View Post
Which year?
In the past 15 years, 1999, 2000, and 2003 are three that win in either quantity or quality or both. Late rounders are still getting their feet wet from about 2005/6 and on, so those are all too young to declare a winner (like 2007 may go in favor of the 7th in the end).

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:00 AM
  #77
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Well you disagree all you want on that, but history shows that there's very little difference once you get past the 2nd round. In some years the 7th actually outproduces the 3rd. Crazy but true.
Sounds very crazy. I am getting curious now. What draft year are you referring to?

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:04 AM
  #78
Sportsfan1
Registered User
 
Sportsfan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: State of Hockey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,909
vCash: 500
I'm not losing sleep over the fact Chris Hickey didn't pan out and i won't lose any sleep over this pick not panning out if it doesn't one day. If we miss out on our 7th rounder only really then we're in very good shape.

Sportsfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:05 AM
  #79
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Well then let's address it again and get it right. The percentage of full-time NHLers who play for more than a couple years is nearly flat after the 2nd round (really about #50-60 is where most drafts become total crapshoots). I believe the numbers are around 10-15% for every round after the 2nd. A quick check of the past decade confirms that. You expect about 3-5 guys per round to make it and stick around. 3% is well below the true 7th round percentage of the past 10-15 years.

Look up every recent draft and start tallying:

http://www.hockeydb.com/


In the past 15 years, 1999, 2000, and 2003 are three that win in either quantity or quality or both. Late rounders are still getting their feet wet from about 2005/6 and on, so those are all too young to declare a winner (like 2007 may go in favor of the 7th in the end).
Interesting about 1999, 2000, and 2003.

But your argument goes faulty because in the past 15 years, 1997 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 seem that the 2nd round produced better than the later rounds.

(this is excluding 2005+ because you say its too early too tell)

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:08 AM
  #80
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Well then let's address it again and get it right. The percentage of full-time NHLers who play for more than a couple years is nearly flat after the 2nd round (really about #50-60 is where most drafts become total crapshoots). I believe the numbers are around 10-15% for every round after the 2nd. A quick check of the past decade confirms that. You expect about 3-5 guys per round to make it and stick around. 3% is well below the true 7th round percentage of the past 10-15 years.

Look up every recent draft and start tallying:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/index.html



In the past 15 years, 1999, 2000, and 2003 are three that win in either quantity or quality or both. Late rounders are still getting their feet wet from about 2005/6 and on, so those are all too young to declare a winner (like 2007 may go in favor of the 7th in the end).
Posting a bunch of raw data and declaring someone else should do the work is a clear sign of a falsified claim. Because it was the easiest to find, Draft data from 1988 through 1997 produces the following rates of success:

Position Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Total Overall
Probability          
F 0.35 0.18 0.17 0.08 0.1 0.09 0.03 306 25.00%
D 0.43 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.08 145 21.00%
G 0.33 0.25 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.08 36 19.00%

Forwards during this time period selected in the 3rd round had 6 times the success rate of those selected in the 7th round. Defensemen were just under double.

Your claim is still false and will continue to be false forever, no matter how many times you repeat it.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:15 AM
  #81
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danccchan View Post
But your argument goes faulty because in the past 15 years, 1997 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004 seem that the 2nd round produced better than the later rounds.
We're talking about 3rd-7th. The 2nd round is a lot better than the 3rd and on. Off the top of my head you expect about 25-33% to become full time NHLers with sizable careers.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:16 AM
  #82
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,968
vCash: 500
4 pages on a 7th round pick? Really guys?

TaLoN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:30 AM
  #83
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,821
vCash: 500
so his dad said he was surprise dthis picm was made? everyone is pissed we becuse we "wasted" a 7th rounder on a home kid? didn't anyone consider that maybe this was a reward for a dad who has worked for the team?

its not like there is some stud out there we passed on, its a crap shoot, sure ebert might become something but if we didn't like his attitude/work ethic it doesn't matter he isn't out pick. i don't relly care, its a great way to surprise a guy who works for you, he will always remember this moment. If the Wild wanted to the the home crowd pleasing they would have picked the state hero Besse.


To me its a nice gesture and honestly people need to just realize its the 7th ****ing round, its not like we used a 2nd.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:38 AM
  #84
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Posting a bunch of raw data and declaring someone else should do the work is a clear sign of a falsified claim.
Great, so you were go off of another person's research on a completely different data set than the one I'm using. No wonder. Scouting has improved markedly since then, and the good players are being drafted closer and closer to #1. So data for that time period is obsolete for predicting today. For example, the 1st round/200-game percentage from 1998-2004 is 65%. That's a lot different from the numbers they were getting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
4 pages on a 7th round pick? Really guys?
If he's a good one we'll get far more than 4 (Haula).

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:40 AM
  #85
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
We're talking about 3rd-7th. The 2nd round is a lot better than the 3rd and on.
I apologize.

Can I request that we extend this "past 15 seasons" because that really just limits us to 1997, and since we're not allowed to look at 2005+, its really only just 8 seasons...not a very large sample number

But based on that small sample, I have 3rd round outperforming the 7th round...barely

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
2004Sami Lepisto, Brandon Prust, Andrej Sekera, Tim Brent, Clayton Stoner, Alexei Emelin, Peter Regin, Alexander Edler, Thomas Greiss, Johan Franzen, Dustin BoydTroy Brouwer, Matt Hunwick, Chris CampoliClearly 3rd Round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
2003Colin Fraser, Daniel Carcillo, Clarke MacArthur, Ryan O'Byrne, Zack StortiniJoe Pavelski, Kyle BrodziakLean to 7th because of Pavelski

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
2002Greg Campbell, Frans Nielsen, Matthew Lombardi, Valtteri FilppulaDavid Van Der GulikClearly 3rd Round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
2001Tomas Plekanec, Jay Harrison, Aaron Johnson, Stephane Veilleux, Patrick SharpDerek Boogaard, Cristobal Huet, David Moss, Johnny Oduya, Marek Svatos3rd Round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
2000Michael Rupp, Kurt Sauer, Dominic MooreHenrik Lundqvist, Matthew Lombardi, Paul Gaustad, Antti MiettinenClearly 7th round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
1999Niklas Hagman, Frantisek Kaberle, Craig Anderson, Niclas Havelid, Mike Comrie, Branko Radivojevic, Chris KellyMartin Erat, Tom Kostopoulos, Henrik Zetterberg, Radim VrbataClearly 7th round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
1998Denis Arkhipov, Brad Richards, Jarkko Ruutu, Erik Cole, Francois Beauchemin, Brian Gionta, Matt WalkerTyler ArnasonClearly 3rd round

Year3rd Round7th RoundWinner
1997Maxim Afinogenov, Ville NieminenTodd Fedoruk, Ladislav Nagy, Mike Mottau, Shawn ThorntonEven (can't decide between Afinogenov vs. tough guys)


Last edited by Circulartheory: 06-24-2012 at 01:46 AM.
Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:45 AM
  #86
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Great, so you were go off of another person's research on a completely different data set than the one I'm using. No wonder. Scouting has improved markedly since then, and the good players are being drafted closer and closer to #1. So data for that time period is obsolete for predicting today. For example, the 1st round/200-game percentage from 1998-2004 is 65%. That's a lot different from the numbers they were getting.
Again, if you have evidence of this, provide it. Handing off a bunch of raw data is an extremely amateur way of saying "I don't have an actual argument."

Furthermore, you're even arguing against yourself. As scouting improves, the number of successful 7th rounders will decrease because they will be properly identified in the earlier rounds, increasing the success rate of early rounds while decreasing the success rate of later ones.

Your statement was false. It was false the last time you made it. It will continue to be false the next time you make it. Continuing to post it constitutes trolling.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:46 AM
  #87
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danccchan View Post
I apologize.

Can I request that we extend this "past 15 seasons" because that really just limits us to 1997, and since we're not allowed to look at 2005+, its really only just 8 seasons...not a very large sample number
No problem.

You certainly could, but things are changing so fast. I mean the times of grabbing Zetterbergs and Datsyuks from the 6 or 7th appears to be long gone. Scouting is so much better than before. So you're really limited in time frame unfortunately. And who knows, what we have just 10 years ago may not be a true representation.

Your synopsis there for those years is exactly how I'd put it.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:48 AM
  #88
Circulartheory
@danccchan
 
Circulartheory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
No problem.

You certainly could, but things are changing so fast. I mean the times of grabbing Zetterbergs and Datsyuks from the 6 or 7th appears to be long gone. Scouting is so much better than before. So you're really limited in time frame unfortunately. And who knows, what we use just 10 years ago may not be a true representation.

Your synopsis there for those years is exactly how I'd put it.
That is what I am worried about. I am 100% against your position that 7th round is just as strong (or weak) as the 3rd round.

But like you said, scouting has improved so much, developmental systems have changed, and the rounds moved from 9 to 7 rounds, not leaving much room for us to compare stats...

Circulartheory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:59 AM
  #89
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danccchan View Post
That is what I am worried about. I am 100% against your position that 7th round is just as strong (or weak) as the 3rd round.

But like you said, scouting has improved so much, developmental systems have changed, and the rounds moved from 9 to 7 rounds, not leaving much room for us to compare stats...
Well than let me clarify my position as stated at the start of this. There is a difference between the 3rd and 7th. It's pretty clear. However I believe it to be quite small. It's certainly not as large of a difference as you would think.

So that's why I'm not favor of using a 7th-rounder on a player that wouldn't sniff the draft without that last name. Take it seriously, just like you would a 3rd-rounder. I mean, Nanne was below a point per game last year in Minnesota high school. His offensive numbers aren't even in the same ballpark as other Minnesotans that have been drafted.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:22 AM
  #90
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
I don't care about previous draft statistics, Nanne was clearly not even within the top 3 available MN's available, it was a publicity pick whether the team admits it or not based on his name. The Nanne name gets you far, I watched the older ones get undeserved positions and Louie has done nothing notable worth getting drafted in his career, waste of a pick to appease a notable person in MN hockey. Lou Nanne has been so loud throughout the years that I'm not surprised but I really don't get how people respect his opinion that much, the whole state is rich but he apparently knows how to pull leverage better than anyone else, good for him, bad for the Wild IMO.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:29 AM
  #91
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by State of Hockey View Post
Well than let me clarify my position as stated at the start of this. There is a difference between the 3rd and 7th. It's pretty clear. However I believe it to be quite small. It's certainly not as large of a difference as you would think.

So that's why I'm not favor of using a 7th-rounder on a player that wouldn't sniff the draft without that last name. Take it seriously, just like you would a 3rd-rounder. I mean, Nanne was below a point per game last year in Minnesota high school. His offensive numbers aren't even in the same ballpark as other Minnesotans that have been drafted.
Points don't matter in the draft, but Nanne just wasn't that good. Hard working doesn't apply when you've already been gifted with a last name like that. Not blaming the player but you have to feel for the other guys that busted their ***** off since childhood while some guy with a golden last name passed them up.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:32 AM
  #92
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkid08 View Post
Points don't matter in the draft, but Nanne just wasn't that good. Hard working doesn't apply when you've already been gifted with a last name like that. Not blaming the player but you have to feel for the other guys that busted their ***** off since childhood while some guy with a golden last name passed them up.
Or, you know, they could have actually done something to earn an NHL draft pick. There were 187 people picked before him, and 23 picked after him. If they didn't do enough to beat out just one of those other 210 players, it's not worth commenting on whether or not they beat out this one.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:49 AM
  #93
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Or, you know, they could have actually done something to earn an NHL draft pick. There were 187 people picked before him, and 23 picked after him. If they didn't do enough to beat out just one of those other 210 players, it's not worth commenting on whether or not they beat out this one.
There's a difference between underscouting and claiming that players didn't do enough. 18 is such a young age to draft anyway that we see so many busts that usually I wouldn't care but Nanne was never even the best player on this ice in a single game this year. If we wanted a throw away pick we could have just picked a name out of a hat from the top lines in Metro teams, 95% of those would have been a better pick IMO. I saw no upside to Nanne's game and don't expect him to have a career in hockey. Call me on it in 4 years if you want but I have grown up watching hundreds of better MN players go undrafted.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:54 AM
  #94
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkid08 View Post
There's a difference between underscouting and claiming that players didn't do enough. 18 is such a young age to draft anyway that we see so many busts that usually I wouldn't care but Nanne was never even the best player on this ice in a single game this year. If we wanted a throw away pick we could have just picked a name out of a hat from the top lines in Metro teams, 95% of those would have been a better pick IMO. I saw no upside to Nanne's game and don't expect him to have a career in hockey. Call me on it in 4 years if you want but I have grown up watching hundreds of better MN players go undrafted.
I already explained why this was by far the most valuable use of the pick as far as the organization is concerned. Hockey is a business first.

The point still stands, none of those players you're so concerned about earned a top 210 spot in the NHL draft, so it stands to reason that none of them likely would have earned a top 211 spot in the draft either. Trying to make an emotional argument about them is like trying to inflate a leaky balloon, a pointless exercise that'll just leave you tired out with things exactly where they started.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:13 AM
  #95
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I already explained why this was by far the most valuable use of the pick as far as the organization is concerned. Hockey is a business first.

The point still stands, none of those players you're so concerned about earned a top 210 spot in the NHL draft, so it stands to reason that none of them likely would have earned a top 211 spot in the draft either. Trying to make an emotional argument about them is like trying to inflate a leaky balloon, a pointless exercise that'll just leave you tired out with things exactly where they started.
You don't even know what players I wanted so I don't know how you can make that statement, I wasn't happy with our 6th pick either and watched several players with upside go by. IMO, It was a political pick or the scouting staff is terrible. I loved the past two drafts and every other pick this year as well so that clears the scouting staff in my eyes...

Edit: I want to make myself clear that in my own opinion the draft is not the time to make public gestures, no matter if they appeal to your business. As a fan I don't care about the revenue, I care about the team taking the best players possible to win a cup. I understand why the move was made, but I thought that this organization was beyond the blatant pandering. You would think that we would have learned watching the Canadian teams fail consistently with the same strategy throughout the past few decades but apparently not.


Last edited by Ovechkid08: 06-24-2012 at 03:20 AM.
Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:16 AM
  #96
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkid08 View Post
You don't even know what players I wanted so I don't know how you can make that statement, I wasn't happy with our 6th pick either and watched several players with upside go by. IMO, It was a political pick or the scouting staff is terrible. I loved the past two drafts and every other pick this year as well so that clears the scouting staff in my eyes...
It's irrelevant which specific player you wanted in the 7th round. You stated they were not drafted. That means that out of 211 opportunities to be drafted, they were unsuccessful. The odds of any of your chosen prospects being "the one" if Nanne was not picked are effectively zero.

I already explained why this business pick was the most valuable use of a 7th rounder in recent memory. If you have an issue with that explanation, feel free to note why.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:20 AM
  #97
Kari Takko
Registered User
 
Kari Takko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Metro, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
If Louie was drafted as a PR move or an extension of goodwill, it wouldn't be the first time. In 2008, the Tampa Bay Lightning drafted David Carle out of Shattuck St. Mary's even though he'd never play hockey again. They wanted to give the kid the thrill of being drafted.

Instead of throwing stones at the Wild for picking the kid, why not just feel happy for Louie Nanne? Here's his quote in Russo's column...

Quote:
"People are always going to say stuff about me or any other kid my age who's got a dad or a grandfather that played in the pros," said Nanne, who scored 24 points in 20 games last year and is heading to Penticton of the British Columbia Hockey League in the fall. "I guess I've got to show those people that much more. I'm excited and just as equally motivated.

"I've always been the type of kid to never let my name get in the way and always wanted to make a name for myself."

Kari Takko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:29 AM
  #98
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
It's irrelevant which specific player you wanted in the 7th round. You stated they were not drafted. That means that out of 211 opportunities to be drafted, they were unsuccessful. The odds of any of your chosen prospects being "the one" if Nanne was not picked are effectively zero.

I already explained why this business pick was the most valuable use of a 7th rounder in recent memory. If you have an issue with that explanation, feel free to note why.
Where did I say the player I wanted went undrafted? Ebert went last pick and is the far superior player in my mind even off of a terrible year. If we want to talk undrafted I would have taken Slepyshev even if he stays in Russia, at least the guy has the talent to play at the next level.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:34 AM
  #99
Ovechkid08
Registered User
 
Ovechkid08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Freitag View Post
If Louie was drafted as a PR move or an extension of goodwill, it wouldn't be the first time. In 2008, the Tampa Bay Lightning drafted David Carle out of Shattuck St. Mary's even though he'd never play hockey again. They wanted to give the kid the thrill of being drafted.

Instead of throwing stones at the Wild for picking the kid, why not just feel happy for Louie Nanne? Here's his quote in Russo's column...
And Burke got the best player in the draft too right? Player draft quotes mean little or less, if his game had ever been worthy of his position I would have no problem, but I have seen him since peewees and unless he drastically improves his lateral mobility/all around skating to fit his shooting style, there is not much upside to his game at the AHL or NHL level.

Ovechkid08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 03:45 AM
  #100
Kari Takko
Registered User
 
Kari Takko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Metro, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkid08 View Post
And Burke got the best player in the draft too right? Player draft quotes mean little or less, if his game had ever been worthy of his position I would have no problem, but I have seen him since peewees and unless he drastically improves his lateral mobility/all around skating to fit his shooting style, there is not much upside to his game at the AHL or NHL level.
Here's the reasoning behind 3 college bound kids in the draft from Fletcher.

Quote:
"In the later rounds, I think it's advantageous to look at kids going off to college just because you get longer development," Fletcher said. "Junior kids and Europeans, you only get two years (before they have to be signed). College, it's four, sometimes five.

"We liked some other junior kids, but we'll get them (to development camp) on invites, so we'll end up looking at more players this way."
Additionally... why are you so stressed out about a 7th round pick? Most don't make the pros, and only a few actually make an impact.

Kari Takko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:53 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.