You always go BPA. That's the rule for drafting. Most scouts believe MacKinnon will be a better player than Jones, so he'll get drafted first.
So if a team like Phoenix or Columbus, both with a very solid, young D corps with reinforcements in the prospect pool, are drafting second, so they take Jones or do they address a serious scoring deficiency with Monahan or Barkov?
So if a team like Phoenix or Columbus, both with a very solid, young D corps with reinforcements in the prospect pool, are drafting second, so they take Jones or do they address a serious scoring deficiency with Monahan or Barkov?
If they are smart they draft the best player. If the talent level is even, they you pick the best position.
You are picking 2nd in 2008, but are stacked in defense
You don't draft Doughty, and instead take the next best forward. Nikita Filatov.
2007 you want defense? Thomas Hickey over JVR or Turris
2006 defense? Don't draft Toews, Ty Wishart is available.
2005 at least is a wash Jack Johnson vs Bobby Ryan.
2004 you really want defense? You let Malkin go and draft Cam Barker
2003 you can't go wrong unless you're the Rangers
I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson here.
Except that in 04, Malkin and Ovi were clearly on another tier, just as Toews, Kessel, Staal and Backstrom were in 06 and Kane, Turris, Gagner and JVR were in 07. In 08 it was considered fairly even within the top 5 (Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian, Filatov, Pietrangelo) and Filatov just didnt pan out.
So if a team like Phoenix or Columbus, both with a very solid, young D corps with reinforcements in the prospect pool, are drafting second, so they take Jones or do they address a serious scoring deficiency with Monahan or Barkov?
I would take Jones, not sure on Barkov's ceiling as a point producer.
Also Nathan and Seth are in the top tier for Dmen and forwards in this draft, it's a small step down to the next tier IMO.
It would be shocking to not see Nathan and Seth go 1-2.
Except that in 04, Malkin and Ovi were clearly on another tier, just as Toews, Kessel, Staal and Backstrom were in 06 and Kane, Turris, Gagner and JVR were in 07. In 08 it was considered fairly even within the top 5 (Stamkos, Doughty, Bogosian, Filatov, Pietrangelo) and Filatov just didnt pan out.
Exactly, also pretty sure the OP didn't have those predictions or rankings and tiers before those drafts either.
There is a huge difference in the best Dman in any particular draft and being a generational franchise type of Dman like Jones is.
Also people sometimes forget the talent that Filitov was in the 08 draft, if anything he should have gone higher but we all know how the Hitch experiment worked with him.
Exactly, also pretty sure the OP didn't have those predictions or rankings and tiers before those drafts either.
There is a huge difference in the best Dman in any particular draft and being a generational franchise type of Dman like Jones is.
Also people sometimes forget the talent that Filitov was in the 08 draft, if anything he should have gone higher but we all know how the Hitch experiment worked with him.
Disagree with that statement but agree with the overall idea.
I think Jones is a great defenseman but not generational (even franchise is lofty goal), but neither is MacKinnion. Both are top talents this draft year, both have the potential to be top players on the team that draft them (#1 center or #1 defenseman). So, which do you choose?
Disagree with that statement but agree with the overall idea.
I think Jones is a great defenseman but not generational (even franchise is lofty goal), but neither is MacKinnion. Both are top talents this draft year, both have the potential to be top players on the team that draft them (#1 center or #1 defenseman). So, which do you choose?
Nathan is clearly #1 for me and sure generational might be a tad too strong but both are better than just franchise talents as well.
Jones is the type of guy who is going to contend for a Norris within 3 years of his draft year which makes him exceptional IMO.
Tpoint was cherry picking as well and revisionist.
Almost everyone agrees that you pick the player with more talent and ability to become the best NHL player. The only time it comes into play is when 2 guys are close.
Nathan is clearly #1 for me and sure generational might be a tad too strong but both are better than just franchise talents as well.
Jones is the type of guy who is going to contend for a Norris within 3 years of his draft year which makes him exceptional IMO.
While I'll agree 100% there is potential to be top NHL players, I think those are lofty goals and don't think they should be expected of these young kids.
Personally, I think the label franchise thrown around too often, so while I think these youngsters have a great chance of being very key players on their respective future NHL teams, I don't think they are "better" than franchise.
While I'll agree 100% there is potential to be top NHL players, I think those are lofty goals and don't think they should be expected of these young kids.
Personally, I think the label franchise thrown around too often, so while I think these youngsters have a great chance of being very key players on their respective future NHL teams, I don't think they are "better" than franchise.
I agree completely. I actually think Jones and Mackinnon are suffering from shiny new toy syndrome; I don't think either player is particularly elite as far as being top-rated draft prospects go, I don't see any signs that Mackinnon has greater potential than RNH or Hall for example, or that Jones will be better than Hedman or Larsson. I think the strength of this draft is that there is a lot of players who could be top 3 picks in another year, not that the best players are better than other years' top players
Tpoint was cherry picking as well and revisionist.
Almost everyone agrees that you pick the player with more talent and ability to become the best NHL player. The only time it comes into play is when 2 guys are close.
The OP's examples were not of close guys.
Yes, I just happened to cherry pick every draft consecutively from 2003 to 2008.
Pick the better player between a forward and a defender, compare him to the very next opposite position player drafted.
I hope now you've learned a valuable lesson.
Still did not because I think this reasoning is flawed. Just because it simple doesnt make it correct. un fact, the reason why I think its flawed is because its overly simplistic.
Position is ALWAYS a factor, however it isnt the only one.
Skill level, character, likelihood to sign, injuries, are all included factors when deciding one player over the other.
Now say, you have two prospects you simply love. Both have the potential of being key players, both have tons of character, both want to sign with your team. Now, you only have ONE pick, so how do you choose? Thats when position comes into play.
So lets take your Toews-Wishart example. If you are team that wants a defensman, sure, Wishart has Toews beat. But dont forget to consider the rest of the factors. It was clear back then that Toews skill level were a tier higher than Wishart. Put all the factors together and you gave Toews at tier one and Wishart at tier 2. Now if Wishart was at similar skill level, then position comes into play
To summarize, you are oversimplying things. you are right, position should not be the only factor teams use to pick players, but it is a factor nonetheless.
Still did not because I think this reasoning is flawed. Just because it simple doesnt make it correct. un fact, the reason why I think its flawed is because its overly simplistic.
Position is ALWAYS a factor, however it isnt the only one.
Skill level, character, likelihood to sign, injuries, are all included factors when deciding one player over the other.
Now say, you have two prospects you simply love. Both have the potential of being key players, both have tons of character, both want to sign with your team. Now, you only have ONE pick, so how do you choose? Thats when position comes into play.
So lets take your Toews-Wishart example. If you are team that wants a defensman, sure, Wishart has Toews beat. But dont forget to consider the rest of the factors. It was clear back then that Toews skill level were a tier higher than Wishart. Put all the factors together and you gave Toews at tier one and Wishart at tier 2. Now if Wishart was at similar skill level, then position comes into play
To summarize, you are oversimplying things. you are right, position should not be the only factor teams use to pick players, but it is a factor nonetheless.
Ummm yes so you are agreeing with me. Lets look back at what I posted.
Quote:
If they are smart they draft the best player. If the talent level is even, they you pick the best position.
You have thus summarized that it would be a terrible idea to pick position over ability and used Toews-Wishart as the perfect example. In the paragraph before that you confirm that when talent is even, say Jack Johnson vs Bobby Ryan, you pick by position. This is exactly what I said and then offered up a simply summary of the #2 player picked vs the next player picked at the opposite position. You then disagree with that, and summarized your disagreement by agreeing with me.
Ummm yes so you are agreeing with me. Lets look back at what I posted.
You have thus summarized that it would be a terrible idea to pick position over ability and used Toews-Wishart as the perfect example. In the paragraph before that you confirm that when talent is even, say Jack Johnson vs Bobby Ryan, you pick by position. This is exactly what I said and then offered up a simply summary of the #2 player picked vs the next player picked at the opposite position. You then disagree with that, and summarized your disagreement by agreeing with me.
I agree your first quote 100% but disagree the way you are approaching your argument. Its over-exaggeration to prove a point.
No one in this thread is arguing that position is the only factor there is when deciding between players. Absolutely no one.
The main argument throughout this thread is Mackinnon versus Jones, a debate between two equally skilled players. Position comes into play here.
But your examples have nothing to do with said argument because they aren't close. There is no, as you put it "I hope everyone learned a valuable lesson here." because the examples have no base in the underlying debate here.
