HFBoards

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

Prospect Thread XIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2012, 08:14 PM
  #526
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Hard to get a read on Mallet, but I'd say he actually is smart. That he actually does have a good hockey IQ. As for the skill side - he put up 81 points in his draft year, so there's something to work with there. Actually, I'd say Mallet is pretty versatile actually, it's just that he's having a hard time producing at the moment.
His draft year also happened to be two years after he first became draft eligible. His first year as a draft eligible he put up 19 points in 65 games, and the second he put up 19 in 60. He finally had his breakout year last year, but he was a man among boys by this point.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 08:20 PM
  #527
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
His draft year also happened to be two years after he first became draft eligible. His first year as a draft eligible he put up 19 points in 65 games, and the second he put up 19 in 60. He finally had his breakout year last year, but he was a man among boys by this point.


Have to remember too though that his role changed the last year. So which is it? Was he given more ice, better linemates and he showed what he could actually do? Or that he was able to impose his physical will better?


Tanner Pearson also had a similar breakout after being passed over. It happens.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
12-20-2012, 08:37 PM
  #528
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Pearson as a first time draft eligible when he was passed over still put up 2x as many points as Mallet did at the same age. Then, in their first years as overagers, Pearson put up 5x as many points as Mallet did.

There's a reason why Pearson is having a successful season in the AHL this year while the older Mallet struggled mightily and had to be sent down. Pearson is simply a much better hockey player; one who wasn't picked on a reach due to his fighting ability.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 08:57 PM
  #529
B-rock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
Pearson as a first time draft eligible when he was passed over still put up 2x as many points as Mallet did at the same age. Then, in their first years as overagers, Pearson put up 5x as many points as Mallet did.

There's a reason why Pearson is having a successful season in the AHL this year while the older Mallet struggled mightily and had to be sent down. Pearson is simply a much better hockey player; one who wasn't picked on a reach due to his fighting ability.
Mallet didn't play his overage year in the Q. He's currently playing it in the AHL/ECHL. Overage year is typically as a 20yr old.

B-rock is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 09:05 PM
  #530
StringerBell
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-rock View Post
Mallet didn't play his overage year in the Q. He's currently playing it in the AHL/ECHL. Overage year is typically as a 20yr old.
Sorry, I meant overager in terms of being over the age when you first become draft eligible. Poor choice of wording on my part.

StringerBell is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 09:27 PM
  #531
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StringerBell View Post
Pearson as a first time draft eligible when he was passed over still put up 2x as many points as Mallet did at the same age. Then, in their first years as overagers, Pearson put up 5x as many points as Mallet did.

There's a reason why Pearson is having a successful season in the AHL this year while the older Mallet struggled mightily and had to be sent down. Pearson is simply a much better hockey player; one who wasn't picked on a reach due to his fighting ability.
And the cycle continues.....

You have to wonder about our affiliate here.

Not discounting Pearson (although it wouldn't take much digging to seem I'm not a fan), but I definitely don't think he would have 15 points on the Wolves.

I think mallet should finish the year in junior.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:06 AM
  #532
TwoHeadedBoy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Scouting/Development Success

I don’t think the Canucks have been quite as bad at drafting as many of you claim.

One metric I think would be useful in determining a team’s long term scouting/developing success would be to see what their team of drafted players (along with undrafted discoveries) would look like. In theory a team that is average at this would have a full complement of players. I have based this roster on players that played a fair number of games (25+) in the NHL last season. Players with italics split their time with the AHL.

Sedin(1-2)-Sedin(1-3)-Burrows(U)
Raymond(2-51)-Kesler(1-23)-Umberger(1-16)
Cooke(6-144)-Hodgson(1-10)-Grabner(1-15)
Brown(5-159)- -Hansen(9-287)

Edler(3-91)-Bieksa(5-151)
Allen(1-4)-Tanev(U)

Schneider(1-26)

As you can see, the Canucks are about 4-6 players short of a full team. So they are below average. However, I think part of this is to do with Vancouver’s lack of draft picks (they love to trade them away )

Let’s contrast this with what many consider a fairly good drafting team in Nashville:

Erat(7-191)-Legwand(1-2)-Hartnell(1-6)
Bourque(5-132)-Wilson(1-7)-Upshall(1-6)
Tootoo(4-98)-Santorelli(6-178)-Hornqvist(7-230)
Hall(2-52)-Hendricks(5-131)-Smith(4-98)

Weber(2-49)-Suter(1-7)
Hamhuis(1-12)-Franson(3-79)
Klein(2-37)-Spalling(2-58)
Josi(2-38)-Ellis(1-11)

Rinne(8-258)
Lindback(7-207)

As you can see, Nashville appears about average. They have a far superior defense and have the slight edge in goal, but the Canucks are the better team up front.

Let’s look at the two teams drafting success between 1998 (Nashville’s first draft) and 2009 (when the youngest NHL player of either of these teams was drafted):

First Round Picks: NAS - 7/12, VAN - 8/12
Second Round Picks: NAS - 5/17, VAN - 1/8
Third Round Picks: NAS - 1/17, VAN - 1/11
Remaining Rounds: NAS - 9/83, VAN - 3/59
Undrafted: NAS - 0, VAN - 2

Based on this it appears the teams are about the same at drafting first rounders. Both teams have been poor at selecting third rounders, but the Canucks have selected far less. In the later rounds Nashville outperforms. However, if you include undrafted players in the statistics of the later rounds both teams are shooting around a respectable 10%. The one area where Nashville far exceeds Vancouver is when it comes to second round picks. However, they have selected over twice as many. Therefore, I do not believe Nashville’s scouting/developing has been as superior to Vancouver’s as many would claim (although it has been better for sure). The discrepancy is also an issue of the number of draft picks.


Last edited by TwoHeadedBoy: 12-21-2012 at 03:12 AM.
TwoHeadedBoy is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 05:19 AM
  #533
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,169
vCash: 500
A very informative post, TwoHeadedBoy. Thanks for doing this. And welcome to HF!

vanuck is online now  
Old
12-21-2012, 05:21 AM
  #534
Wilch
Unregistered User
 
Wilch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Under your bed
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 10,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadedBoy View Post
I don’t think the Canucks have been quite as bad at drafting as many of you claim.

One metric I think would be useful in determining a team’s long term scouting/developing success would be to see what their team of drafted players (along with undrafted discoveries) would look like. In theory a team that is average at this would have a full complement of players. I have based this roster on players that played a fair number of games (25+) in the NHL last season. Players with italics split their time with the AHL.

Sedin(1-2)-Sedin(1-3)-Burrows(U)
Raymond(2-51)-Kesler(1-23)-Umberger(1-16)
Cooke(6-144)-Hodgson(1-10)-Grabner(1-15)
Brown(5-159)- -Hansen(9-287)

Edler(3-91)-Bieksa(5-151)
Allen(1-4)-Tanev(U)

Schneider(1-26)

As you can see, the Canucks are about 4-6 players short of a full team. So they are below average. However, I think part of this is to do with Vancouver’s lack of draft picks (they love to trade them away )

Let’s contrast this with what many consider a fairly good drafting team in Nashville:

Erat(7-191)-Legwand(1-2)-Hartnell(1-6)
Bourque(5-132)-Wilson(1-7)-Upshall(1-6)
Tootoo(4-98)-Santorelli(6-178)-Hornqvist(7-230)
Hall(2-52)-Hendricks(5-131)-Smith(4-98)

Weber(2-49)-Suter(1-7)
Hamhuis(1-12)-Franson(3-79)
Klein(2-37)-Spalling(2-58)
Josi(2-38)-Ellis(1-11)

Rinne(8-258)
Lindback(7-207)

As you can see, Nashville appears about average. They have a far superior defense and have the slight edge in goal, but the Canucks are the better team up front.

Let’s look at the two teams drafting success between 1998 (Nashville’s first draft) and 2009 (when the youngest NHL player of either of these teams was drafted):

First Round Picks: NAS - 7/12, VAN - 8/12
Second Round Picks: NAS - 5/17, VAN - 1/8
Third Round Picks: NAS - 1/17, VAN - 1/11
Remaining Rounds: NAS - 9/83, VAN - 3/59
Undrafted: NAS - 0, VAN - 2

Based on this it appears the teams are about the same at drafting first rounders. Both teams have been poor at selecting third rounders, but the Canucks have selected far less. In the later rounds Nashville outperforms. However, if you include undrafted players in the statistics of the later rounds both teams are shooting around a respectable 10%. The one area where Nashville far exceeds Vancouver is when it comes to second round picks. However, they have selected over twice as many. Therefore, I do not believe Nashville’s scouting/developing has been as superior to Vancouver’s as many would claim (although it has been better for sure). The discrepancy is also an issue of the number of draft picks.
Best first post of all time

Wilch is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 05:42 AM
  #535
ImGoingNucks
A.K.A VikingNuck
 
ImGoingNucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coquitlam BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Another goal for Jensen in AIK's very important 4-3 win over Rögle which puts AIK above relegation for now.

http://www.elitserienplay.se/video.1873643851001


Last edited by ImGoingNucks: 12-21-2012 at 09:59 AM.
ImGoingNucks is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 09:29 AM
  #536
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,171
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingNuck View Post
Another goal for Jensen in AIK's very important 4-3 win over Rögle witch puts AIK above relegation for now.

http://www.elitserienplay.se/video.1873643851001
So for those of us keeping track at home Jensen is:
Tied for 6th in goals scored
Tied for 2nd for GWG
Leading all "juniorers" in goals (twice the second place guys' goals)
Second in "juniorers" points

Cool

PRNuck is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 09:51 AM
  #537
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadedBoy View Post
I don’t think the Canucks have been quite as bad at drafting as many of you claim.

One metric I think would be useful in determining a team’s long term scouting/developing success would be to see what their team of drafted players (along with undrafted discoveries) would look like. In theory a team that is average at this would have a full complement of players. I have based this roster on players that played a fair number of games (25+) in the NHL last season. Players with italics split their time with the AHL.

Sedin(1-2)-Sedin(1-3)-Burrows(U)
Raymond(2-51)-Kesler(1-23)-Umberger(1-16)
Cooke(6-144)-Hodgson(1-10)-Grabner(1-15)
Brown(5-159)- -Hansen(9-287)

Edler(3-91)-Bieksa(5-151)
Allen(1-4)-Tanev(U)

Schneider(1-26)

As you can see, the Canucks are about 4-6 players short of a full team. So they are below average. However, I think part of this is to do with Vancouver’s lack of draft picks (they love to trade them away )

Let’s contrast this with what many consider a fairly good drafting team in Nashville:

Erat(7-191)-Legwand(1-2)-Hartnell(1-6)
Bourque(5-132)-Wilson(1-7)-Upshall(1-6)
Tootoo(4-98)-Santorelli(6-178)-Hornqvist(7-230)
Hall(2-52)-Hendricks(5-131)-Smith(4-98)

Weber(2-49)-Suter(1-7)
Hamhuis(1-12)-Franson(3-79)
Klein(2-37)-Spalling(2-58)
Josi(2-38)-Ellis(1-11)

Rinne(8-258)
Lindback(7-207)

As you can see, Nashville appears about average. They have a far superior defense and have the slight edge in goal, but the Canucks are the better team up front.

Let’s look at the two teams drafting success between 1998 (Nashville’s first draft) and 2009 (when the youngest NHL player of either of these teams was drafted):

First Round Picks: NAS - 7/12, VAN - 8/12
Second Round Picks: NAS - 5/17, VAN - 1/8
Third Round Picks: NAS - 1/17, VAN - 1/11
Remaining Rounds: NAS - 9/83, VAN - 3/59
Undrafted: NAS - 0, VAN - 2

Based on this it appears the teams are about the same at drafting first rounders. Both teams have been poor at selecting third rounders, but the Canucks have selected far less. In the later rounds Nashville outperforms. However, if you include undrafted players in the statistics of the later rounds both teams are shooting around a respectable 10%. The one area where Nashville far exceeds Vancouver is when it comes to second round picks. However, they have selected over twice as many. Therefore, I do not believe Nashville’s scouting/developing has been as superior to Vancouver’s as many would claim (although it has been better for sure). The discrepancy is also an issue of the number of draft picks.
I'm tired of looking back 14 years to make our drafting seem average.

Start your analysis after the Sedin's and it looks considerably worse, agreed?

We can talk about this discrepancy of picks, and while it's a factor it doesn't carry that much weight.

Look at the AHL roster of The Wolves and Admirals, for the most part Nashville's affiliate is almost ALL predator drafted players. And not players drafted 10-14 years ago, mostly within the last half dozen years.

They have more picks but they are at least finding more players that are ahl caliber than we are.

I don't think it's fair to say we're average and base it on the Sedin's. Look at us after 2003 and we're hella bad.

*edit* by quick glance nashville's ahl affiliate has over 15 predator drafted players on their roster.

The wolves has about 6 draftees and a bunch of hit and signings (for every lack/Tanev there's a Schneider/Sweatt.

Good first post though, definitely helps add context to the discussion.


Last edited by arsmaster: 12-21-2012 at 10:00 AM.
arsmaster is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 11:18 AM
  #538
IComeInPeace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
By the numbers, I'd like to see how we compare to other teams that are consistently drafting where we are over the last 5 years. Don't pick and choose 1 team (Detroit) to compare us to, but a broader comparison of the other consistently good teams drafting where we are.

I agree, I don't think our drafting is anywhere near as bad as some suggest. There have been some picks (Honzik) that leave me scratching my head, but at the same time I never saw him play before he was drafted. They projected where he could be, and he failed to get there.

Grenier was at the time a great pick. Obviously now he may be a mistake, but a guy with great size, skill, and seemed to be a late bloomer. You swing for the fences where he was drafted. More otfen than not its not going to work out, but when it does, you'll look like a genius. But it's not that you're a genius; you got lucky.

Mallet is a great pick. We are half a season into his first pro year (when he could still be playing junior), and some people are ready to right him off?

We don't have many prospects bc of our success, not bc our GM and scouts are idiots.

I think we could definitely do a better job of developing our kids in the minors though. Not sure what the deal is on the farm, but while I agree it is critical to teach the youngsters how to play defense, you also have to nurture their offensive game, and development at that end of the ice. That is something we seem to be doing a horrible job of. We bring guys in who are otherwise established offensive players in the AHL, and once they are brought into the system, they seem to have zero offensive instincts or skills. I think that is where our focus should be directed: figuring out how we can nurture the offensive instincts for the few offensive players we have, while maintains a winning environment.

Look at Kassian in his first pro AHL season and compare to this yr. He has the benefit of an additional season of experience, he's reportedly in the best shape of his career...yet instead of his numbers going up like you'd expect, they are actually down. That makes me wonder what kind of numbers Schroeder would be putting up if he was playing in another system (like Rochester)?

IComeInPeace is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 11:29 AM
  #539
bobbyb2009
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IComeInPeace View Post
By the numbers, I'd like to see how we compare to other teams that are consistently drafting where we are over the last 5 years. Don't pick and choose 1 team (Detroit) to compare us to, but a broader comparison of the other consistently good teams drafting where we are.

I agree, I don't think our drafting is anywhere near as bad as some suggest. There have been some picks (Honzik) that leave me scratching my head, but at the same time I never saw him play before he was drafted. They projected where he could be, and he failed to get there.

Grenier was at the time a great pick. Obviously now he may be a mistake, but a guy with great size, skill, and seemed to be a late bloomer. You swing for the fences where he was drafted. More otfen than not its not going to work out, but when it does, you'll look like a genius. But it's not that you're a genius; you got lucky.

Mallet is a great pick. We are half a season into his first pro year (when he could still be playing junior), and some people are ready to right him off?

We don't have many prospects bc of our success, not bc our GM and scouts are idiots.

I think we could definitely do a better job of developing our kids in the minors though. Not sure what the deal is on the farm, but while I agree it is critical to teach the youngsters how to play defense, you also have to nurture their offensive game, and development at that end of the ice. That is something we seem to be doing a horrible job of. We bring guys in who are otherwise established offensive players in the AHL, and once they are brought into the system, they seem to have zero offensive instincts or skills. I think that is where our focus should be directed: figuring out how we can nurture the offensive instincts for the few offensive players we have, while maintains a winning environment.

Look at Kassian in his first pro AHL season and compare to this yr. He has the benefit of an additional season of experience, he's reportedly in the best shape of his career...yet instead of his numbers going up like you'd expect, they are actually down. That makes me wonder what kind of numbers Schroeder would be putting up if he was playing in another system (like Rochester)?
The only issue with the bolded that I think we should consider is the fact that this year, he is playing in an entirely different looking AHL. Each team is made up of 4-6 guys that would be playing in the NHL- much better competition than last year at this time!

bobbyb2009 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 11:30 AM
  #540
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingNuck View Post
Another goal for Jensen in AIK's very important 4-3 win over Rögle which puts AIK above relegation for now.

http://www.elitserienplay.se/video.1873643851001
That video is from another game against Rögle in October. Yesterday Jensen didn't score, as his goal was called off for kicking the puck.

Jevo is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 12:46 PM
  #541
604
Registered User
 
604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,129
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoHeadedBoy View Post
Let’s look at the two teams drafting success between 1998 (Nashville’s first draft) and 2009 (when the youngest NHL player of either of these teams was drafted):

First Round Picks: NAS - 7/12, VAN - 8/12
Second Round Picks: NAS - 5/17, VAN - 1/8
I think people underestimate the difference in drafting position early in the draft. Usually the difference between picking 1st overall and 2nd overall is huge with the difference getting smaller and smaller as you move down the draft...honestly I don't think the difference between 7th and say 10th is usually that big a deal as the players in that range are usually very comparable.

Over the time span here, the Canucks picked in the top 5, 3 times (Sedin, Sedin, Allen) and Nashville only picked top 5, 1 time (Legwand). The Sedins are basically the only thing that make the Canucks drafting look respectable.

Nashville in general IMO hasn't done that well in the draft - Weber in the 2nd round makes up for a lot of not that great picks - Weber was their 4th pick in that draft which tells you that they weren't that sure he was going to be a great player.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its good to compare the teams against who they were supposed to pick, especially early where there is a consensus:

1998 - both drafted who they were supposed to (Allen / Legwand).
1999 - both did as well as they would have if they drafted who they were supposed to (Sedin + Sedin / Finley) - NSH were suppposed to pick Lundmark/Beech/Pyatt)
2000 - Nashville got who they were supposed to while Vancouver reached and missed (Smith / Hartnell) - VAN were supposed to pick Boyes/Ott/Sutherby
2001 - Both teams got who they were supposed to (Umberger / Hamhuis)
2002 - Nashville got who they were supposed to while VAN traded their pick (nobody / Upshall)
2003 - Both teams got who they were supposed to (Kesler / Suter)
2004 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to, Vancouver reached and it worked out ok (Schneider / Radulov) - Van supposed to pick Green given needs and draft lists
2005 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to, Vancouver reached and it didn't work out (Bourdon / Parent)
2006 - Nashville traded their pick, Vancouver reached and ended up ok to bad (Grabner / no one) - Vancouver was supposed to pick either Stewart/Berglund/Latendresse
2007 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to while Vancouver reached and lost big (White / Blum) - Van was supposed to draft Perron while Nashville had either Blum/Backlund at their draft spot
2008 - Nashville and Vancouver both drafted who they were supposed to (Wilson / Hodgson)
2009 - Both teams drafted guys they were supposed to...neither has worked out yet (Schroeder / Ellis)
2010, 2011, and 2012 - Too early to tell

Basically Nashville always picks who they are supposed to while Vancouver does a little more "scouting" and have picks away from the norm in the 1st round.

Nashville literally has no reaches in the first round (maybe Finley over Beech/Pyatt/Lundmark and Blum over Backlund) and whereas Vancouver has:
-Smith over Ott/Boyes/Sutherby
-Schneider over Green
-Bourdon over Kopitar
-Grabner over Stewart/Berglund/Latendresse

I'd say in general when Vancouver "reaches" for a pick that is a little off the board they do not do well while Nashville simply does not really reach at all.

604 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 01:34 PM
  #542
racerjoe
Registered User
 
racerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
I think people underestimate the difference in drafting position early in the draft. Usually the difference between picking 1st overall and 2nd overall is huge with the difference getting smaller and smaller as you move down the draft...honestly I don't think the difference between 7th and say 10th is usually that big a deal as the players in that range are usually very comparable.

Over the time span here, the Canucks picked in the top 5, 3 times (Sedin, Sedin, Allen) and Nashville only picked top 5, 1 time (Legwand). The Sedins are basically the only thing that make the Canucks drafting look respectable.

Nashville in general IMO hasn't done that well in the draft - Weber in the 2nd round makes up for a lot of not that great picks - Weber was their 4th pick in that draft which tells you that they weren't that sure he was going to be a great player.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its good to compare the teams against who they were supposed to pick, especially early where there is a consensus:

1998 - both drafted who they were supposed to (Allen / Legwand).
1999 - both did as well as they would have if they drafted who they were supposed to (Sedin + Sedin / Finley) - NSH were suppposed to pick Lundmark/Beech/Pyatt)
2000 - Nashville got who they were supposed to while Vancouver reached and missed (Smith / Hartnell) - VAN were supposed to pick Boyes/Ott/Sutherby
2001 - Both teams got who they were supposed to (Umberger / Hamhuis)
2002 - Nashville got who they were supposed to while VAN traded their pick (nobody / Upshall)
2003 - Both teams got who they were supposed to (Kesler / Suter)
2004 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to, Vancouver reached and it worked out ok (Schneider / Radulov) - Van supposed to pick Green given needs and draft lists
2005 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to, Vancouver reached and it didn't work out (Bourdon / Parent)
2006 - Nashville traded their pick, Vancouver reached and ended up ok to bad (Grabner / no one) - Vancouver was supposed to pick either Stewart/Berglund/Latendresse
2007 - Nashville drafted who they were supposed to while Vancouver reached and lost big (White / Blum) - Van was supposed to draft Perron while Nashville had either Blum/Backlund at their draft spot
2008 - Nashville and Vancouver both drafted who they were supposed to (Wilson / Hodgson)
2009 - Both teams drafted guys they were supposed to...neither has worked out yet (Schroeder / Ellis)
2010, 2011, and 2012 - Too early to tell

Basically Nashville always picks who they are supposed to while Vancouver does a little more "scouting" and have picks away from the norm in the 1st round.

Nashville literally has no reaches in the first round (maybe Finley over Beech/Pyatt/Lundmark and Blum over Backlund) and whereas Vancouver has:
-Smith over Ott/Boyes/Sutherby
-Schneider over Green
-Bourdon over Kopitar
-Grabner over Stewart/Berglund/Latendresse

I'd say in general when Vancouver "reaches" for a pick that is a little off the board they do not do well while Nashville simply does not really reach at all.
Not fair to call this a miss. He was looking really good, like a stud dman. Can't say it would have worked or not worked, but he was looking very good.

Yes Kopitar turned out well, but their is simply no reason to say Luc would not have turned out better. IMO I would take a stud dman before a solid 2 way center. This is not to take away from Kopitar, just to point out its not fair to call this one a miss based on tragedy.

racerjoe is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 01:57 PM
  #543
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,851
vCash: 457
You guys are arguing in circles. We're below average(20-25) at drafting. No one here is arguing and saying we are the worst in the league.

shortshorts is online now  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:05 PM
  #544
BerSTUzzi
Registered User
 
BerSTUzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,994
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
You guys are arguing in circles. We're below average(20-25) at drafting. No one here is arguing and saying we are the worst in the league.
You know this is going to go around and around until we pull off another 2004 and produce 3-4 legit NHL players out of a draft.

2004:

Schneider
Edler
Mike Brown
Hansen

That was a pretty awesome year, #1 goalie, #2 D man, solid 4th liner, solid 3rd liner.

BerSTUzzi is online now  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:45 PM
  #545
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Basically Nashville always picks who they are supposed to while Vancouver does a little more "scouting" and have picks away from the norm in the 1st round.

Nashville literally has no reaches in the first round (maybe Finley over Beech/Pyatt/Lundmark and Blum over Backlund) and whereas Vancouver has:
-Smith over Ott/Boyes/Sutherby
-Schneider over Green
-Bourdon over Kopitar
-Grabner over Stewart/Berglund/Latendresse

I'd say in general when Vancouver "reaches" for a pick that is a little off the board they do not do well while Nashville simply does not really reach at all.



In the last 5 years, well 4 and including the 2008 1st round, VAN has picked who they were "supposed to" in the 1st round. Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen and Gaunce were all BPAs at the time of their draft position. Jensen was arguable as Saad was still there, but they were close.



It's after the 1st round that's the problem. Specifically, the 30-100 range. As TwoHeadedBoy mentioned too, the dearth of picks have a huge impact, and the disparity is mostly in the 2nd round selections.



Meaning, keep your picks, don't reach in the 30 to 120 range, and you should see the drafting pick up. Regardless of if they take some projects like Grenier every once in a while.

Bleach Clean is online now  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:46 PM
  #546
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
The only issue with the bolded that I think we should consider is the fact that this year, he is playing in an entirely different looking AHL. Each team is made up of 4-6 guys that would be playing in the NHL- much better competition than last year at this time!
People exaggerate how much of a difference this is making. Kassian and Schroeder are still putting up the expected point totals at even strength, it's the PP where these players are lacking points. Both guys have like 3-5x less PP points than other top scorers in the league, yet they have as many ES points.

Wolves have so far scored 20+ goals less than most teams that have PPG players. What they lack is PP goals.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:51 PM
  #547
pahlsson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 7,652
vCash: 500
nvm.

pahlsson is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 02:55 PM
  #548
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjoe View Post
Not fair to call this a miss. He was looking really good, like a stud dman. Can't say it would have worked or not worked, but he was looking very good.

Yes Kopitar turned out well, but their is simply no reason to say Luc would not have turned out better. IMO I would take a stud dman before a solid 2 way center. This is not to take away from Kopitar, just to point out its not fair to call this one a miss based on tragedy.
I don't recall him ever looking like a stud, or ever being better than Kopitar. My memories may be faded but they seem to invoke a lot of chasing people behind the net and getting out of position. I'm not saying he didn't have potential, he just needed more seasoning, but he hadn't show stud level play yet.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:00 PM
  #549
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 17,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
We can talk about this discrepancy of picks, and while it's a factor it doesn't carry that much weight.
It carries more weight than anything else.

Picks Gillis hasn't had in his 5 drafts-

1st- 1
2nd- 2
3rd- 2
4th- 1

His 1st pick in the last 4 drafts - 22, 26, 29, 115

That's 5 prospects in the 1st 3 rounds we don't have in our system - the void of top 20 picks also plays a HUGE part in the lack of high end talent.

Take all this into consideration and it's easy to see why the prospect pool is lean. Looking at each pick individually and the results aren't awful. Yann Sauze is the only real poor pick that stands out...

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 03:03 PM
  #550
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 17,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I don't recall him ever looking like a stud, or ever being better than Kopitar. My memories may be faded but they seem to invoke a lot of chasing people behind the net and getting out of position. I'm not saying he didn't have potential, he just needed more seasoning, but he hadn't show stud level play yet.
Your memory isn't fading. This player didn't look like a 'stud' in the making at all IMO.

The only question I have is, how many Stanley cups did this 1 pick cost us? Henrik, Kopitar, Kesler...

Drop the Sopel is offline  
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 08:58 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.