I really was hoping the Oilers got Finn with their pick. I am not dissapointed with the Moroz pick just wish they traded down.
they couldn't have traded down too far for Moroz for fear he was going to be taken before they picked, so i can't blame them for not doing it. as far as Matt Finn goes, he's more of what we already have in our system, a 7.0 C d-man (according to Hockeys Future). the Oilers have no less than six d-men in the system rated at 6.5 C, one at 7.5 D and two at 7.5 C, so we really didn't need Finn. Dalton Thrower, Ville Polkka and Ludvig Bystrom are all ranked similar...we don't really need any more of these types of d-men, we have plenty in the system, so why not gamble on a few big forwards? we need them, so why not draft for need in the lower rounds.
they couldn't have traded down too far for Moroz for fear he was going to be taken before they picked, so i can't blame them for not doing it. as far as Matt Finn goes, he's more of what we already have in our system, a 7.0 C d-man (according to Hockeys Future). the Oilers have no less than six d-men in the system rated at 6.5 C, one at 7.5 D and two at 7.5 C, so we really didn't need Finn. Dalton Thrower, Ville Polkka and Ludvig Bystrom are all ranked similar...we don't really need any more of these types of d-men, we have plenty in the system, so why not gamble on a few big forwards? we need them, so why not draft for need in the lower rounds.
Because drafting need in the later rounds makes even less sense than drafting for need in the 1st round. Players drafted later are in theory further away from making the NHL (if they do at all). Thus, the need and weakness of a team now will not look the same in 5 years. Edmonton may be small up front, by the time Moroz develops, that need may concievably have been fixed.
You can draft stylistically of course. Players who fit within your ethos (I.e excellent skating) or particular brand of style that you wish your organisation to go forward with. Drafting for need, and on what current weaknesses exist on your NHL squad, is however nonsensical and entirely illogical.
IMO you take who you think is the best available player in any round. If you want to draft a particular ethos fine, but not need.
Those types of D-men ; if you think one of them has high end upside, then you take him. Missing out on an excellent player simply because you already had 4-5 players in that area in the system is simply poor management.
they couldn't have traded down too far for Moroz for fear he was going to be taken before they picked, so i can't blame them for not doing it. as far as Matt Finn goes, he's more of what we already have in our system, a 7.0 C d-man (according to Hockeys Future). the Oilers have no less than six d-men in the system rated at 6.5 C, one at 7.5 D and two at 7.5 C, so we really didn't need Finn. Dalton Thrower, Ville Polkka and Ludvig Bystrom are all ranked similar...we don't really need any more of these types of d-men, we have plenty in the system, so why not gamble on a few big forwards? we need them, so why not draft for need in the lower rounds.
Yeah makes sense. I am happy with moroz. He and Ewanyk are by far my two favorite players on the Oil kings. Can not wait for their seasons to start I think Moroz will have a big year. I guess I was just so shocked that he went that high.
they couldn't have traded down too far for Moroz for fear he was going to be taken before they picked, so i can't blame them for not doing it. as far as Matt Finn goes, he's more of what we already have in our system, a 7.0 C d-man (according to Hockeys Future). the Oilers have no less than six d-men in the system rated at 6.5 C, one at 7.5 D and two at 7.5 C, so we really didn't need Finn. Dalton Thrower, Ville Polkka and Ludvig Bystrom are all ranked similar...we don't really need any more of these types of d-men, we have plenty in the system, so why not gamble on a few big forwards? we need them, so why not draft for need in the lower rounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation
Because drafting need in the later rounds makes even less sense than drafting for need in the 1st round. Players drafted later are in theory further away from making the NHL (if they do at all). Thus, the need and weakness of a team now will not look the same in 5 years. Edmonton may be small up front, by the time Moroz develops, that need may concievably have been fixed.
You can draft stylistically of course. Players who fit within your ethos (I.e excellent skating) or particular brand of style that you wish your organisation to go forward with. Drafting for need, and on what current weaknesses exist on your NHL squad, is however nonsensical and entirely illogical.
IMO you take who you think is the best available player in any round. If you want to draft a particular ethos fine, but not need.
Those types of D-men ; if you think one of them has high end upside, then you take him. Missing out on an excellent player simply because you already had 4-5 players in that area in the system is simply poor management.
guess the Oilers respectfully disagree with you because that's exactly what they have appeared to do...draft for need in the later rounds, and i agree with what they did. and it appears initially that there are no high end d-men taken in the 2nd round, but i guess time will tell?
guess the Oilers respectfully disagree with you because that's exactly what they have appeared to do...draft for need in the later rounds, and i agree with what they did. and it appears initially that there are no high end d-men taken in the 2nd round, but i guess time will tell?
It initially appears there are no high end players full stop taken in the 2nd. A somewhat useless statement.
I'd assume they took Moroz because they liked him. The line between ethos/style and need can sometimes become blurred, but there is no question, it is fundamentally illogical to draft on need in the later rounds of the NHL draft.
^so you really believe every team in the NHL drafts the BPA in every round of the draft? now who's being illogical? i don't buy that for one second but you are entitled to your opinion.
^so you really believe every team in the NHL drafts the BPA in every round of the draft? now who's being illogical? i don't buy that for one second but you are entitled to your opinion.
I didn't say teams didn't do it, i said it's fundamentally illogical to do it.
It initially appears there are no high end players full stop taken in the 2nd. A somewhat useless statement.
I'd assume they took Moroz because they liked him. The line between ethos/style and need can sometimes become blurred, but there is no question, it is fundamentally illogical to draft on need in the later rounds of the NHL draft.
I'm still shocked that the Oilers passed on Dansk and Finn in favour of Moroz
I'll eat my words if Moroz ever becomes something but honestly did Edmonton really need to use another high pick on a forward again?
Maybe they're hoping Yakupov can play D or something?
It initially appears there are no high end players full stop taken in the 2nd. A somewhat useless statement.
I'd assume they took Moroz because they liked him. The line between ethos/style and need can sometimes become blurred, but there is no question, it is fundamentally illogical to draft on need in the later rounds of the NHL draft.
I'm still shocked that the Oilers passed on Dansk and Finn in favour of Moroz
I'll eat my words if Moroz ever becomes something but honestly did Edmonton really need to use another high pick on a forward again?
Maybe they're hoping Yakupov can play D or something?
The Oilers blueline isn't as big of a problem as people think. They have Smid, Petry, J Schultz and Klefbom which will be a very solid top 4 in the future. BTW they didn't pass on Dansk. The jackets took him at 31
Provide reasoning to support this hypothesis then.
In the first and to some degree the second round, players drafted have a higher probability of becoming solid NHLers, so you want to get the most value for your pick. In the later rounds, because it's simply a crapshoot, as vast majority won't pan out, you may as well pick based on need(such as goaltending) so on the off chance someone does break out, it may as well be a player you could use.
Not worth the time it takes to argue. Its pretty obvious to anyone who has watched how successful teams build deep prospect pools.
Maybe someone else will explain to you.
I don't know of a team that builds a deep prospect pool that drafts on the basis of need in the late rounds. For the most part, they take players they think will eventually turn into something. Sure, there are the easy counterexamples, such as Andrew Shaw, who happened to work out, but usually the late round picks are players not capable of making an immediate impact. Admittedly, Moroz wasn't a late round pick, but that's not what he was trying to say. He was trying to say that it's difficult to predict need three years in the future. Looking at the Blues even in training camp last year, we were worried about a backup goalie, and that turned out to be a-OK. This year, we're concerned about a top pairing LHD to pair with Pietrangelo (we drafted a RHD who was a project in the first round, let alone later round projects). However, if Ian Cole develops this year, that might not be a problem at all. I like to think that our prospect pool is relatively deep. Our top prospect (Vladimir Tarasenko) plays a position where we have depth now (Stewart, Oshie, D'Agostini, Langenbrunner, Reaves), and he was drafted two years ago. Schwartz was drafted two years ago, and we now have Perron, McDonald, Steen, and Sobtoka there. When we drafted them, forward depth was a huge need. Now, not so much.
In the first and to some degree the second round, players drafted have a higher probability of becoming solid NHLers, so you want to get the most value for your pick. In the later rounds, because it's simply a crapshoot, as vast majority won't pan out, you may as well pick based on need(such as goaltending) so on the off chance someone does break out, it may as well be a player you could use.
I think you pick something your prospect pool needs, not that your team needs. There's a large difference there. The breakout won't occur immediately (most likely), and so it won't immediately address team needs.
I think you pick something your prospect pool needs, not that your team needs. There's a large difference there. The breakout won't occur immediately (most likely), and so it won't immediately address team needs.
That's what I meant. But by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th round, unless there's someone who really stands out to you, there's no real BPA.
That's what I meant. But by the time you get to the 3rd or 4th round, unless there's someone who really stands out to you, there's no real BPA.
There is always a BPA. It will vary from person to person, from scout to scout and from team to team but no way that everything is equal between two players. For instance if all the skills, height/weight are equal but one player is going the college route and one in the CHL, then you may favor one or the other. There has to be one thing that makes you lean towards a player.
How could every player be equal? Maybe for you, an HF poster there is no difference. These teams scout for a reason. There might be no consensus BPA, but anyone who drafts according to the consensus BPA is an idiot anyways. You go with you and your scouts BPA. For instance the prospect rated #140 is the highest one left on your list in the 7th round, then you would draft him because he is the BPA(according to you).
The other side of it is that instead of drafting #140 who happens to be a defenseman, you draft #160 because he is a forward and you are shallow at the goalie position. I seem to favor the side of BPA but I think goalies are a different beast entirely in the later rounds.
It may seem to you like all the talent is equal but it isn't to each team. The illusion is because prospect rated #140 on team A, might be ranked #200 on team B. Same prospect, completely different views on said prospect. 90% of the time you take the player who is not yet drafted that has the lowest rank on your list IMO. Seems simple to me. Why would I risk drafting for position if the prospect is of lower quality? Maybe in the 4th round I take a defenseman over Jamie Benn because I have too many forwards at the NHL level. I do think that drafting for need according to the depth of your prospect pool is better, but still not usually the right decision. Like you said, many of the players are toss-ups so I'd take the prospect that I think has the highest chance to succeed.
Last edited by RomersWorld: 09-12-2012 at 05:36 PM.
The Oilers blueline isn't as big of a problem as people think. They have Smid, Petry, J Schultz and Klefbom which will be a very solid top 4 in the future. BTW they didn't pass on Dansk. The jackets took him at 31
Well it's not like their forwards are much of an issue either.....
Even forgetting about the big 4 they have Gagner, Lander, MPS, Pitlick, Rieder, Rajala, Hartikainen
They are wayyyyy more stocked with solid forward prospects than they are D
I like Smid but he's only had 1 good year, Schultz looks like he can be good but the jury is still out if he can be a top pairing guy or a top 4 guy, same deal with Klefbom. And other guys like Gernat, Marincin, Musil, and even Petry look decently promising but none of them are locks to be fixtures on your team in the future
