HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Colorado Avalanche
Notices

2012-13 Colorado Avalanche Prospects Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 11:54 PM
  #551
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 08:49 AM
  #552
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
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.
Exactly where I was going. I don't mean to be critical of anyone's specific post (as this is a fun discussion), but when we call Aittokallio - who has never touched NHL ice - a fantastic 5th round pick, what are our criteria?

Bieksa, Ryan Miller, Mikael Samuelsson, Jamie Benn - those guys I would describe as "fantastic" 5th round picks. Based wholly on their NHL pedigrees.

Perhaps here's a line of thought: Is it reasonable to describe draft success based up how many years after the draft we're looking at a player? In other words, looking at Aittokallio two years after his draft at age 20, we can say that this was a good pick? But if his ceiling is the AHL 6 years from now, perhaps we change that to a poor pick?

ABasin is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:07 AM
  #553
Zih
Dater's Gonna Hate
 
Zih's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 2,295
vCash: 140
This has been bugging me. Aittokallio was a 4th round draft pick (107th overall). I think people are getting confused because of Silas, but we traded for the pick we used on Silas (IIRC we traded the next year's 3rd for the Islanders' 4th).

Zih is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:25 AM
  #554
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABasin View Post
Exactly where I was going. I don't mean to be critical of anyone's specific post (as this is a fun discussion), but when we call Aittokallio - who has never touched NHL ice - a fantastic 5th round pick, what are our criteria?

Bieksa, Ryan Miller, Mikael Samuelsson, Jamie Benn - those guys I would describe as "fantastic" 5th round picks. Based wholly on their NHL pedigrees.

Perhaps here's a line of thought: Is it reasonable to describe draft success based up how many years after the draft we're looking at a player? In other words, looking at Aittokallio two years after his draft at age 20, we can say that this was a good pick? But if his ceiling is the AHL 6 years from now, perhaps we change that to a poor pick?
I think the Aittokallio pick is a good example. I think the reason as to why he's being 'heralded' as a great pick is because of what he's done since being drafted. He was lights out at the WJC last year and has played fairly well as a 1st year pro thus far for Lake Erie (last night's game notwithstanding).

Some players stagnate or even regress after being drafted (Silas/Rutkowski) and they don't end up looking like shrewd picks at all.

In the end though, you are essentially correct. There is a long list of players who have progressed well in junior, made a good transitions over the pros only to never be able to successfully crack an NHL squad. After all, TJ Hensick was considered an excellent 3rd round pick way back when and is an excellent example in this case.

But this is HFboards and isn't it essentially what this entire forum is all about? Speculation on draft picks and what they will become?

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:45 AM
  #555
Drizzt1
Registered User
 
Drizzt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 359
vCash: 500
All I know, is that in the past 4 years, we have come 28th, 12th, 29th & 20th, and that doesn't bode well with me, especially considering the teams current salary provisioning.

Whether it be coaching, drafting, trade, injury, whatever......it's just not good enough. I think it's a mixture of all of the above. The biggest concern for me in all of that though, is the acceptance level by everyone involved with Avs, and the support of it all.

It's almost become far too against the grain to critique the current situation, because "every" club just has to go through a "rebuild", which I think is laughable.

My opinion is that if Pracey drafted Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Giroux etc etc etc and we continued to come in the bottom 10% of the league, he, along with the other staff at Pepsi Center just ain't cutting the mustard.

Now, as a point of "difference", I love listening to Peter Forsberg's commentary about the mentality of the team / players / coaches when HE was playing consistently with us. Gives me goose bumps ! (I also love the reaction of fans to when Kroenke is mentioned)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bgMJEs2nsc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euxUR_hNOc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1nW3rDAev4

Drizzt1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:56 AM
  #556
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,864
vCash: 239
Pracey has nothing to do with where we come in the standings. He doesn't coach the players, he doesn't acquire the players, he just scouts them and shares his input.

Ultimate responsibility is always on the GM for hockey-related moves and the Coach for player responsibility. The President somewhat too, but everyone knows that is a fairly superfluous position in most franchises.

Now if after 8-10 years we've never developed anyone... that's when you start questioning him. You can't judge a scout that has less than 5 years on this resume imo.

Lonewolfe2015 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:13 AM
  #557
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drizzt1 View Post
All I know, is that in the past 4 years, we have come 28th, 12th, 29th & 20th, and that doesn't bode well with me, especially considering the teams current salary provisioning.

Whether it be coaching, drafting, trade, injury, whatever......it's just not good enough. I think it's a mixture of all of the above. The biggest concern for me in all of that though, is the acceptance level by everyone involved with Avs, and the support of it all.

It's almost become far too against the grain to critique the current situation, because "every" club just has to go through a "rebuild", which I think is laughable.

My opinion is that if Pracey drafted Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Giroux etc etc etc and we continued to come in the bottom 10% of the league, he, along with the other staff at Pepsi Center just ain't cutting the mustard.

Now, as a point of "difference", I love listening to Peter Forsberg's commentary about the mentality of the team / players / coaches when HE was playing consistently with us. Gives me goose bumps ! (I also love the reaction of fans to when Kroenke is mentioned)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bgMJEs2nsc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euxUR_hNOc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1nW3rDAev4
I think it has more to do with your understanding of the game of hockey than anything else.

Oh yeah, and our blind optimism isn't shared by fans of other teams at all on this teams' future : http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1265699&page=2

You want to talk about our glory years, with Hall-of-Famers like Roy, Bourque, Sakic and eventually Forsberg (and possibly even Blake & Foote), ask yourself why those teams actually UNDERACHIEVED only winning 2 Stanley Cups when they SHOULD have won 4 or even 5 during that span.

You can't compare our current team to those teams, it's ridiculous. First of all the salary cap (and floor) has leveled the playing field, so 4-5 hall-of-famers on the same team probably won't happen again, unless they are taking a major discount.

At minimum, you need to be able to appreciate our current team for what they currently are: a team comprised of a very good core of young players, who are only going to get better. You need to compare them to the rest of the 2012-13 NHL, not to the 1995-2003 Avalanche.

Most of the Avs fans on here 'get it'...as well as fans of OTHER TEAMS who voted the Avs by more than 50 votes (I'd love to believe that it's all Avs fans voting here, but we just don't have that many supporters) so what exactly is it that you can't grasp??

Show me one team that has never rebuilt or gone through lean years before rising up again....just ONE. If you mention the Red Wings than clearly you didn't follow the 1982-1987 piss-poor Wings before they drafted one of the best d-men of all time.

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:52 AM
  #558
Drizzt1
Registered User
 
Drizzt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 359
vCash: 500
I'll try and address each comment

I think it has more to do with your understanding of the game of hockey than anything else.

Don't really get what you are trying to say here? That I don't understand / get hockey, because I'm disappointed with our present situation, regardless of what others think? Each to their own, but I stand by my comment, that we have now been in a state (by my reckoning) of rebuilding for four years - that's getting on (almost 1/2 a decade).

Oh yeah, and our blind optimism isn't shared by fans of other teams at all on this teams' future : http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1265699&page=2

"Our" is such a big and generalistic term mate. I also see plenty who are erring on the side of caution (like me, yeah) when claiming things will just "get better" at some point, and we will contend.

You want to talk about our glory years, with Hall-of-Famers like Roy, Bourque, Sakic and eventually Forsberg (and possibly even Blake & Foote), ask yourself why those teams actually UNDERACHIEVED only winning 2 Stanley Cups when they SHOULD have won 4 or even 5 during that span.

Whole heartedly agree in that statement (especially Granato's 1st stint in the chair), BUT I also disagree to an extent, and want to clarify that I originally stated that it's many elements that go into the success of the team, not just drafting (Pracey). I think it's a scout's job to find a few diamond's in the rough, but more so, I'm a firm believer in character, which leads to chemistry, and that IS something Pracey may be building well in my opinion, with the Landeskog, O'Reilly (I hope), Duchene (remembering his home town discount contract). BUT, I also think at the end of the day, regardless of an individual's ability and level of play, it's the team's end of season position that determines the scouts, coaches, players, ownerships ability, and for mine, four years of grinding up and down, isn't that fantastic in a very fickle world. Plus, I'm not keen on suggesting we can re-build for X number of years, because others have. All I really want and care about, is that we contend here and now, plus into the future. Remember, the future is always unknown, the here and now is something we CAN control.

You can't compare our current team to those teams, it's ridiculous. First of all the salary cap (and floor) has leveled the playing field, so 4-5 hall-of-famers on the same team probably won't happen again, unless they are taking a major discount.

Unless for example your a team like the Penguins, and I know the stank for ages, but I also wrote above why I think that means nothing when relating that to us.

At minimum, you need to be able to appreciate our current team for what they currently are: a team comprised of a very good core of young players, who are only going to get better. You need to compare them to the rest of the 2012-13 NHL, not to the 1995-2003 Avalanche.

Point of conjecture. Are we all show sure we "are" going to get better? No-one "really" know that mate, and to suggest it as fact, is pretty daring. I don't compare them skill wise to the teams of the past, but I'm sure they could learn plenty about commitment and attitude from those champions. I mean, a lot are still around the current team and could have influence.

Most of the Avs fans on here 'get it'...as well as fans of OTHER TEAMS who voted the Avs by more than 50 votes (I'd love to believe that it's all Avs fans voting here, but we just don't have that many supporters) so what exactly is it that you can't grasp??

I grasp what your trying to suggest I do, but we have different outlooks (which is healthy). You, and others as you have stated, are claiming Avs are on the improve, and will continue to do so. Projecting the future is always difficult. Who would have thought O'Reilly would be our top scorer, Hejduk would have a shocker, and Duchene would need a rebound year this year? I on the other hand, have reservations, and think a lot needs to change for that to occur.

Show me one team that has never rebuilt or gone through lean years before rising up again....just ONE. If you mention the Red Wings than clearly you didn't follow the 1982-1987 piss-poor Wings before they drafted one of the best d-men of all time.

Understand what your saying, but just because other teams have gone through lean years, for mine anyways, doesn't mean we have to, because that is "just what happens". Nah man, turn it around pronto. Make it happen. Invest in the team. Be on the front foot - don't leave our better players unsigned etc etc etc.

So, to summarize, I'll be looking at the standings, the chemistry, the trends and ALL that when I consider if Pracey is doing an ok job. For mine, with a team that started with the likes of Varlamov, Giguere, Quincey, Johnson, McClement, Stazz, Duchene, Mueller, O'Reilly, Landeskog etc is better than 20th overall, but I won't just blame Sacco (who I actually like !!!), but focus on all the elements, including Pracey, because as good as Duchene (as an example only) IS, maybe he wasn't the right piece in order for our group as a whole to improve.

[/QUOTE]

Drizzt1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:07 AM
  #559
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drizzt1 View Post
I'll try and address each comment

I think it has more to do with your understanding of the game of hockey than anything else.

Don't really get what you are trying to say here? That I don't understand / get hockey, because I'm disappointed with our present situation, regardless of what others think? Each to their own, but I stand by my comment, that we have now been in a state (by my reckoning) of rebuilding for four years - that's getting on (almost 1/2 a decade).

Oh yeah, and our blind optimism isn't shared by fans of other teams at all on this teams' future : http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1265699&page=2

"Our" is such a big and generalistic term mate. I also see plenty who are erring on the side of caution (like me, yeah) when claiming things will just "get better" at some point, and we will contend.

You want to talk about our glory years, with Hall-of-Famers like Roy, Bourque, Sakic and eventually Forsberg (and possibly even Blake & Foote), ask yourself why those teams actually UNDERACHIEVED only winning 2 Stanley Cups when they SHOULD have won 4 or even 5 during that span.

Whole heartedly agree in that statement (especially Granato's 1st stint in the chair), BUT I also disagree to an extent, and want to clarify that I originally stated that it's many elements that go into the success of the team, not just drafting (Pracey). I think it's a scout's job to find a few diamond's in the rough, but more so, I'm a firm believer in character, which leads to chemistry, and that IS something Pracey may be building well in my opinion, with the Landeskog, O'Reilly (I hope), Duchene (remembering his home town discount contract). BUT, I also think at the end of the day, regardless of an individual's ability and level of play, it's the team's end of season position that determines the scouts, coaches, players, ownerships ability, and for mine, four years of grinding up and down, isn't that fantastic in a very fickle world. Plus, I'm not keen on suggesting we can re-build for X number of years, because others have. All I really want and care about, is that we contend here and now, plus into the future. Remember, the future is always unknown, the here and now is something we CAN control.

You can't compare our current team to those teams, it's ridiculous. First of all the salary cap (and floor) has leveled the playing field, so 4-5 hall-of-famers on the same team probably won't happen again, unless they are taking a major discount.

Unless for example your a team like the Penguins, and I know the stank for ages, but I also wrote above why I think that means nothing when relating that to us.

At minimum, you need to be able to appreciate our current team for what they currently are: a team comprised of a very good core of young players, who are only going to get better. You need to compare them to the rest of the 2012-13 NHL, not to the 1995-2003 Avalanche.

Point of conjecture. Are we all show sure we "are" going to get better? No-one "really" know that mate, and to suggest it as fact, is pretty daring. I don't compare them skill wise to the teams of the past, but I'm sure they could learn plenty about commitment and attitude from those champions. I mean, a lot are still around the current team and could have influence.

Most of the Avs fans on here 'get it'...as well as fans of OTHER TEAMS who voted the Avs by more than 50 votes (I'd love to believe that it's all Avs fans voting here, but we just don't have that many supporters) so what exactly is it that you can't grasp??

I grasp what your trying to suggest I do, but we have different outlooks (which is healthy). You, and others as you have stated, are claiming Avs are on the improve, and will continue to do so. Projecting the future is always difficult. Who would have thought O'Reilly would be our top scorer, Hejduk would have a shocker, and Duchene would need a rebound year this year? I on the other hand, have reservations, and think a lot needs to change for that to occur.

Show me one team that has never rebuilt or gone through lean years before rising up again....just ONE. If you mention the Red Wings than clearly you didn't follow the 1982-1987 piss-poor Wings before they drafted one of the best d-men of all time.

Understand what your saying, but just because other teams have gone through lean years, for mine anyways, doesn't mean we have to, because that is "just what happens". Nah man, turn it around pronto. Make it happen. Invest in the team. Be on the front foot - don't leave our better players unsigned etc etc etc.

So, to summarize, I'll be looking at the standings, the chemistry, the trends and ALL that when I consider if Pracey is doing an ok job. For mine, with a team that started with the likes of Varlamov, Giguere, Quincey, Johnson, McClement, Stazz, Duchene, Mueller, O'Reilly, Landeskog etc is better than 20th overall, but I won't just blame Sacco (who I actually like !!!), but focus on all the elements, including Pracey, because as good as Duchene (as an example only) IS, maybe he wasn't the right piece in order for our group as a whole to improve.
[/QUOTE]

Good rebuttal. I understand more where you're coming from.

For me, the deal is this. Our young players ARE going to get better. I can say that with enough certainty based on 30 years of watching NHL hockey and seeing young star players play at age 21 and then seeing them at age 27...it's just not the same thing. I haven't done the math, but I can safely say that over 80% of the players who play in the NHL at age 18-21 just get better as they gain experience. That's just a universal FACT. Sure, you can choose to believe that 50% of our core will stagnate or get worse but that would go against the odds. (Please note, I'm not talking about 3rd/4th liners or depth players)

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:17 AM
  #560
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Also wanted to address the 'Duchene' wasn't the right piece comment.
(Sorry I'm on my iPhone)

I disagree. Just because he had a tough season last year, it doesn't mean he won't figure things out over the next few years. He's still very young. Over the years, I've heard similar criticisms of Steve Yzerman and Jason Spezza (both also drafted as pure offensive players) and it certainly did take both those guys a long time to 'figure things out'. Duchene is no different.

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:35 AM
  #561
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post

Good rebuttal. I understand more where you're coming from.

For me, the deal is this. Our young players ARE going to get better. I can say that with enough certainty based on 30 years of watching NHL hockey and seeing young star players play at age 21 and then seeing them at age 27...it's just not the same thing.
See, here's the leap of faith that I have difficulty navigating sometimes. A lot of times, young players do improve. No question. However, just because players are 21, does not in and of itself mean that they will improve by age 27, or more to the point, that they will markedly improve. In fact, they may regress. The Avs own recent history shows this.

In early 2006, the Avs had 3 pretty exciting young forwards named Stastny, Wolski, and Svatos - aged 20, 20, and 24 - who were very nicely productive offensive players - Stastny and Wolski were rookies who put up points, and Svatos was coming off a 32 goal season. Those players are now 26, 26, and 30. How many of those three 'got better' between then and now? Not only are none of them 'better', I believe all three regressed between those ages and now, two of them markedly so (yes, I understand Svatos had injuries). If Stastny hasn't regressed, he certainly hasn't gotten much better either. He's simply been the same.

So, just coming to the sweeping conclusion that young players will improve through osmosis leaves a lot of open space for error, IMO.

ABasin is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 11:51 AM
  #562
Drizzt1
Registered User
 
Drizzt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABasin View Post
See, here's the leap of faith that I have difficulty navigating sometimes. A lot of times, young players do improve. No question. However, just because players are 21, does not in and of itself mean that they will improve by age 27, or more to the point, that they will markedly improve. In fact, they may regress. The Avs own recent history shows this.

In early 2006, the Avs had 3 pretty exciting young forwards named Stastny, Wolski, and Svatos - aged 20, 20, and 24 - who were very nicely productive offensive players - Stastny and Wolski were rookies who put up points, and Svatos was coming off a 32 goal season. Those players are now 26, 26, and 30. How many of those three 'got better' between then and now? Not only are none of them 'better', I believe all three regressed between those ages and now, two of them markedly so (yes, I understand Svatos had injuries). If Stastny hasn't regressed, he certainly hasn't gotten much better either. He's simply been the same.

So, just coming to the sweeping conclusion that young players will improve through osmosis leaves a lot of open space for error, IMO.
I really agree with this statement, but I do so from lesson's I have learned on three players I "projected" were just going to get better, and better, being T J Hensick, Kyle Cumiskey & Ryan Stoa.

I used to beat their drum pretty repetitively, until egg was thrown on my face three times, and it made me look non-sensicle.

I also held pretty lofty thought's for Wolski, Svatos & Quincey. I still think Wolski / Quincey will do quite a bit (I'm really in Wolski's corner, and hope he exceeds).

I'm also really worried about Chris Stewart. I hope he rebounds. I hope he doesn't drift out of the game, because when he shows tenacity, he is one of the better finishers in the game today.

But yeah, there are so many players who look like they ooze potential, for one reason or another (see Mueller), get forced to regress game-play wise.

I think (just my opinion) we have needed to draft a few "bigger & attitude" forwards (Landeskog is a FINE start). I think we need more wingers. I think we need a number one D-man still. I think we have one of the best goalie tandems in the league. I think we have at center one of the best "potential" types of groups in the league. I think we have excellent 3rd and 4th line depth players. I think our coach is good. I think our defense is deplorable. I think our ownership is slow, inefficient, and lack communication skills.

RE Pracey: I think drafting could be more role specific, rather than "best player available" as is the strategy I believe is adhered to. Actually, I'm spewing we missed out on Douggie Hamilton. He and Johnson going forward would have been outstanding.

Drizzt1 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:02 PM
  #563
Lonewolfe2015
Registered User
 
Lonewolfe2015's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,864
vCash: 239
You don't draft for need, because needs change by the time the player is ready. 3 years ago people were upset we drafted more PMD... look where we're at now.

Lonewolfe2015 is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 12:28 PM
  #564
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABasin View Post
See, here's the leap of faith that I have difficulty navigating sometimes. A lot of times, young players do improve. No question. However, just because players are 21, does not in and of itself mean that they will improve by age 27, or more to the point, that they will markedly improve. In fact, they may regress. The Avs own recent history shows this.

In early 2006, the Avs had 3 pretty exciting young forwards named Stastny, Wolski, and Svatos - aged 20, 20, and 24 - who were very nicely productive offensive players - Stastny and Wolski were rookies who put up points, and Svatos was coming off a 32 goal season. Those players are now 26, 26, and 30. How many of those three 'got better' between then and now? Not only are none of them 'better', I believe all three regressed between those ages and now, two of them markedly so (yes, I understand Svatos had injuries). If Stastny hasn't regressed, he certainly hasn't gotten much better either. He's simply been the same.

So, just coming to the sweeping conclusion that young players will improve through osmosis leaves a lot of open space for error, IMO.
I understand what you're saying but in the case of Svatos, he was 24 and not between 18-21 when he started. We was a good goalscorer but did every Avs fan seriously consider him an untouchable part of the core? I'm not so sure. He was a nice player who had a knack for finding the back of the net...the rest of his game, yeesh...wasn't anything to write home about.

For Wolski, I had extremely high hopes for this guy, I thought he was finally putting it all together when he was traded and it's been all downhill since then. Extremely talented - poor drive/motivation/work ethic. He's part of that 20% that doesn't improve and goes downhill. Was interested to see how he was going to do in Washington this year, would be surprised if anything changed though.

For Stastny, I actually believe that he can be that player again and more. We'll see.

But again, I guess I wasn't really clear. The guys that I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about here are our CORE, specifically: Johnson, Varlamov, Duchene, O'Reilly, Landeskog and Stastny.

All of these players made their NHL debuts between the ages of 18-21 AND not only did they make the NHL, they played a pivotal role on the team at that age. So, top-6 forward, top pairing d-man, starting goaltender (playoffs for Varly).

I'd also like to mention that it's NOT just all about points. Did Joe Nieuwendyk suddenly regress after his 50+goal 100+point rookie season? Or did he learn different and more important aspects of the game (DEFENSE) that ended up making him a key component of what 3 Stanley Cups?! THIS is what I'm talking about guys. As I alluded to with the Yzerman and Spezza references, sure those guys put up points but it wasn't until they 'bought-in' to what their coaches were trying to drive through their heads that they needed them to be great defensively AS WELL!

Usually, that kind of stuff doesn't show up on the scoresheet. But if you keep ignoring it, you'll end up on the bench.

Players like RoR who just seem to understand this concept from the 'get-go' are the rare exceptions...generally, especially for players like Duchene who have played full-out offense from the first time they laced up skates until their final year of junior, it just takes longer for them to buy-in.

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:32 PM
  #565
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I understand what you're saying but in the case of Svatos, he was 24 and not between 18-21 when he started.
He started at 23, and was finished with the Avs at 27. So this really only shaves a couple of years off your example. I would put forth that in that time, he regressed in every single aspect of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
For Wolski, I had extremely high hopes for this guy, I thought he was finally putting it all together when he was traded and it's been all downhill since then. Extremely talented - poor drive/motivation/work ethic.
Right. He looked great offensively, lousy defensively, and had poor work ethic. Between the age of 19 and 26, what got better? Nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
For Stastny, I actually believe that he can be that player again and more. We'll see.
But he's 26 now also. So between 20 and 26, what part(s) of his game markedly improved? Not his scoring, not his ability to set up others, not his defense (he came into the NHL defensively capable). Perhaps faceoffs? In any case, he's been either steadily doing the same thing, or he's tailed off a bit. But he hasn't gotten markedly better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
But again, I guess I wasn't really clear. The guys that I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about here are our CORE, specifically: Johnson, Varlamov, Duchene, O'Reilly, Landeskog and Stastny.
That's fine, but the statement you made that I am questioning, is where you said "after watching 30 years of hockey, I tell you our young 21 year old guys will get better"(sic). In my opinion, this is really as much faith as it is historically supportable. Or at least there's a lot of faith in there.

ABasin is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 02:33 PM
  #566
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolfe2015 View Post
You don't draft for need, because needs change by the time the player is ready.
Agree.

ABasin is online now  
Old
12-14-2012, 06:21 PM
  #567
Zandar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
Here's another list going back to 95 of the forwards taken. I think we should discount slam dunk #2 and #3 overall picks like Landeskog and Duchene. They're major success are Tanguay in the 1st round, Stastny and O'Reilly in the 2nd, and a bit of a lucky one with Jones in the 9th. Vrbata seems to have rebounded from being almost out of the NHL so that's a success. Wolski and Svatos looked promising as high end players but Wojtek has taken a nose dive out of the NHL, and Marek had too many injuries with his size and style of play. Stewart like Wolski went from a questionable risky pick, to a really good one, and then back to a possibly bad one though they did trade him when his value was at it's highest and get EJ. He's got about one more year before he's in Wolski territory career wise though. Mark Parrish was also a success but that was almost 20 years ago. The rest of the guys are 3rd or 4th line checkers.

That's pretty much what you'd expect though after the 1st and 2nd rounds

C
Heard, Mitchell
Clarke, Michael
Blandisi, Joseph
Smith, Colin
Nermark, Joachim
Meurs, Garrett
Hishon, Joey
Bournival, Michael
Moffat, Luke
Duchene, Matt
O'Reilly, Ryan
Olver, Mark (on the fence between being an NHL regular and AHL jouneyman)
Condon, Nathan
Malone, Brad
Carey, Paul
Carman, Michael
Stoa, Ryan
Stastny, Paul
Hensick, T. J.
Richardson, Brad
McCormick, Cody
Hahl, Riku ( I still consider him an NHL caliber player)
Tanguay, Alex
Moore, Steve
Pahlsson, Samuel

W
Parshin, Denis
Videll, Linus
Walker, Luke
Stewart, Chris
Oreskovich, Victor
Yip, Brandon
Jones, David
Svatos, Marek
Radivojevic, Branko
Vrbata, Radim
Parker, Scott
Willsie, Brian
Hinote, Dan
Bourke, Troy
Landeskog, Gabriel
Galiardi, T. J.
Wolski, Wojtek
Abid, Ramzi
Nieminen, Ville
Larsen, Brad
Parrish, Mark
Kallio, Tomi
Not sure why some are bold but there are others on this list that had more than a brief stop in the NHL. The Avs biggest issue in the past was drafting a lot of non-NA or putting an emphasis on size with their earlier picks. Hard to turn out top players when you do that. There are a some nice players who the Avs have drafted that have had success outside the NHL but never came over and played during their prime. If those same players were NA born then the Avs would have had a few more quality NHLers.

Zandar is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:07 PM
  #568
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABasin View Post
He started at 23, and was finished with the Avs at 27. So this really only shaves a couple of years off your example. I would put forth that in that time, he regressed in every single aspect of the game.



Right. He looked great offensively, lousy defensively, and had poor work ethic. Between the age of 19 and 26, what got better? Nothing.



But he's 26 now also. So between 20 and 26, what part(s) of his game markedly improved? Not his scoring, not his ability to set up others, not his defense (he came into the NHL defensively capable). Perhaps faceoffs? In any case, he's been either steadily doing the same thing, or he's tailed off a bit. But he hasn't gotten markedly better.



That's fine, but the statement you made that I am questioning, is where you said "after watching 30 years of hockey, I tell you our young 21 year old guys will get better"(sic). In my opinion, this is really as much faith as it is historically supportable. Or at least there's a lot of faith in there.
No problem. Clearly, I am wrong. The Avs suck and are in no better position now than when they had Tyler Arnason on their team.

There is NO hope for the future and everything is just a big giant pile of crap and it will always be that way.

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 09:19 PM
  #569
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
It is both refreshing and SO surprising that you would argue such a universally accepted concept such as 'players tend to get better as they get older and gain experience'

Please note since you don't appear to agree with this, then you actually believe that players get WORSE as they get older and gain experience. I am going to call you on this at every turn and be extremely annoying with this since, for some unknown reason (ill assume boredom), you feel like debating to death even a universally accepted concept such as this one.

Bender is offline  
Old
12-14-2012, 10:14 PM
  #570
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,356
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
Please note since you don't appear to agree with this, then you actually believe that players get WORSE as they get older and gain experience. I am going to call you on this at every turn and be extremely annoying with this since, for some unknown reason (ill assume boredom), you feel like debating to death even a universally accepted concept such as this one.
With regard to defensemen and goalies, they clearly get better as they age. The lack of star D/G between the ages of 18 and 25 in the league, especially compared to the bevy of star forwards, is quite clear. Yet since we're talking about forwards (as it has been pretty conclusively proven they are what Colorado is best at drafting and development), there is a far more limited time frame for production. If the Avs cannot get their collective **** together by the time that Duchene and Landeskog turn 25, they may need to bring in younger forwards to be their impact offensive scorers.

WarriorOfGandhi is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 11:17 AM
  #571
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandar View Post
Not sure why some are bold but there are others on this list that had more than a brief stop in the NHL. The Avs biggest issue in the past was drafting a lot of non-NA or putting an emphasis on size with their earlier picks. Hard to turn out top players when you do that. There are a some nice players who the Avs have drafted that have had success outside the NHL but never came over and played during their prime. If those same players were NA born then the Avs would have had a few more quality NHLers.
Because outside of Svatos due to injuries, those other guys were or are clear cut NHLers. I don't consider guys like Larsen or Willsie NHL regulars, because they have trouble finding NHL teams when they're UFA's, and bounce between the AHL and NHL all the time. Radivojevic had a good run but couldn't carve out a niche either and is playing in the KHL.

I consider a draft pick a good success if they stick in the NHL, or played a decent sized role over a medium amount of time like Niemo, who could probably still play in the NHL.

Foppa2118 is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 01:09 PM
  #572
Zandar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
Because outside of Svatos due to injuries, those other guys were or are clear cut NHLers. I don't consider guys like Larsen or Willsie NHL regulars, because they have trouble finding NHL teams when they're UFA's, and bounce between the AHL and NHL all the time. Radivojevic had a good run but couldn't carve out a niche either and is playing in the KHL.

I consider a draft pick a good success if they stick in the NHL, or played a decent sized role over a medium amount of time like Niemo, who could probably still play in the NHL.
I'm not sure how you can use Nieminen as an example and leave out some of the others. Granted you are using a lot of opinion in the matter which unfortunately results in selective comparison. Nieminen was one of my favorite Avs and Bears players but he bounced around 6 NHL teams after winning the cup his rookie season. Do you think he would have that many opportunities if he was not on the team when they won? Guys like Willsie, Radi, etc put up similar scoring as Nieminen & Richardson. Then you have Larsen who put in the time on the Avs 4th line for years until moving to Atlanta and ending up getting more ice time.

Plain and simple the Avs are good at finding quality bottom 6 players with their later picks...or better yet NHL role players. That is a lot more than most teams. Just because they never solidified themselves as a scoring line forward or a premiere checking line player doesn't mean they weren't NHL level players. Kind of like the concern with the lockout and which players are really being hurt or overlooked.

Zandar is offline  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:09 PM
  #573
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
No problem. Clearly, I am wrong. The Avs suck and are in no better position now than when they had Tyler Arnason on their team.

There is NO hope for the future and everything is just a big giant pile of crap and it will always be that way.
A disappointing response.

ABasin is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 03:20 PM
  #574
ABasin
Viva "Our Structure"
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
It is both refreshing and SO surprising that you would argue such a universally accepted concept such as 'players tend to get better as they get older and gain experience'

Please note since you don't appear to agree with this, then you actually believe that players get WORSE as they get older and gain experience.
Are you referring to me? I'll respond with the assumption that you were.

If you look a couple of posts back, I very explicitly wrote "A lot of times, young players do improve. No question." I've never once said that all young players always get worse. But the simple fact is that some players do get worse, others simply coast at their current level, and others get better as they gain experience. My point is that it isn't a given - or even "likely" - that that third option is the one that will happen, which is how I interpreted your original statement. It might happen that way with the Avs young players, and that would be great. But it also might not, and I simply put forth a trifecta recent example that occurred on our own team as evidence that 'getting better' isn't a given, and that some of us are going to need more than blind faith to believe it. I'm particularly concerned about it here and now, given the team's coach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender View Post
I am going to call you on this at every turn and be extremely annoying with this since, for some unknown reason (ill assume boredom), you feel like debating to death even a universally accepted concept such as this one.
I can't have an opinion and respectfully discuss it without being targeted?

A perfectly reasonable debate flushed away for no apparent reason. Yes, a very disappointing response.........especially given its author.


Last edited by ABasin: 12-15-2012 at 05:28 PM.
ABasin is online now  
Old
12-15-2012, 08:01 PM
  #575
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,593
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandar View Post
I'm not sure how you can use Nieminen as an example and leave out some of the others. Granted you are using a lot of opinion in the matter which unfortunately results in selective comparison. Nieminen was one of my favorite Avs and Bears players but he bounced around 6 NHL teams after winning the cup his rookie season. Do you think he would have that many opportunities if he was not on the team when they won? Guys like Willsie, Radi, etc put up similar scoring as Nieminen & Richardson. Then you have Larsen who put in the time on the Avs 4th line for years until moving to Atlanta and ending up getting more ice time.

Plain and simple the Avs are good at finding quality bottom 6 players with their later picks...or better yet NHL role players. That is a lot more than most teams. Just because they never solidified themselves as a scoring line forward or a premiere checking line player doesn't mean they weren't NHL level players. Kind of like the concern with the lockout and which players are really being hurt or overlooked.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to nitpick at the players selected. I'll take Niemo or Richardson (who is still in the NHL) over 4th line role players that couldn't stick in the NHL like Willsie and Larrsen any day of the week. I don't consider them anything other than injury plug ins, where as Niemo and Richardson played specific roles and did them well.

Niemo has a cup, and played very well with Forsberg and Drury against LA, and later on with Drury and Hejduk where he made contributions on the line rather than just being a winger riding the coat tails of two great players.

Radi probably should have been bolded based on the sheer number of games he played despite never really settling into a consistent role, but other than that I don't see any players you should be up in arms about not being included. Feel free to point them out and make a case for them if you feel strongly.


Last edited by Foppa2118: 12-15-2012 at 08:10 PM.
Foppa2118 is online now  
Closed Thread

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 12:27 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.