You really think GM's have that much input into the draft? Im just going by what I hear GM's say when interviewed, but it seems they let the scouts do all the decision making come draft day. I recall Burke mentioning, his scouts make all the decisions, and the only way he gets involved is when they are absolutely stuck between a couple of players, and only then he just gives his 2 cents.
You could be right, though....might depend on the GM.
Usually the GM select the higher 1st rounders, and the scouting staff take care of the rest.
That is why you HIRE good scouts, unfortunately the leafs brass suck at drafting.
We have to be very lucky this time around. Do you make the safe choice? Or do you gamble?
There is so much luck in drafting. Yes there are various levels of prospects, but within each level its extremely difficult to tell which ones break through.
Detroit for example, extremely lucky.
In the leafs case they have many good scouts, maybe its a case of over analyzing players?
You really think GM's have that much input into the draft? Im just going by what I hear GM's say when interviewed, but it seems they let the scouts do all the decision making come draft day. I recall Burke mentioning, his scouts make all the decisions, and the only way he gets involved is when they are absolutely stuck between a couple of players, and only then he just gives his 2 cents.
You could be right, though....might depend on the GM.
How could you think GM's have such a minimal impact? Most GM's would absolutely weigh in on the 1st round pick. Even Burke iirc. If he didn't then why would he even bother going to scout ANY players if he was just going to sit there like a moron and let the scouts make all his decisions for him.
After the first round I'm pretty sure the scouts are more in charge because these are the rounds where guys with less exposure are picked, therefore Burke probably would not have seen many of them play. Only the scouts have for the most part and that's where I'd see them taking over and I'm pretty sure Burke has said that at some point lol.
That is why you HIRE good scouts, unfortunately the leafs brass suck at drafting.
We have to be very lucky this time around. Do you make the safe choice? Or do you gamble?
You do need a certain amount of luck when drafting, but why do you say the Leafs suck? Granted we used to be terrible in that dept, but we seem to be doing as good a job as most NHL teams the past several years. Our issue hasnt been drafting, its been trading away picks before they develop (Rask, Steen, Coliacovo, Tlusty) or trading the picks themselves.
I think the2012 draft is kinda weak, but people are overhyping 2013
Saw mackinnon a couple times this yr in the q.... was VERY unimpressed. He's be a fine nhler, and probably #1 next yr but I'd take yakupov over him anyday.
The leafs have drafted pretty well in the latter rounds in recent times I think.
Frattin, Gunnarsson, Stalberg just to name a few. It's been the lack of top picks that has hurt us. But, we have drafted some solid NHL players outside of the first round. I'm really confident in Thommie Bergmann, as the Swedish staff always seems to pick up some solid guys! If we pick Forsberg than I'd trust their assessment and hope for the best!
There is so much luck in drafting. Yes there are various levels of prospects, but within each level its extremely difficult to tell which ones break through.
Detroit for example, extremely lucky.
In the leafs case they have many good scouts, maybe its a case of over analyzing players?
I think what's changed in the scouting/drafting strategy, is that teams do a lot more background checks and psychological profiling than they did in the past. Its easy to spot how good a player can skate and shoot the puck, but its the mental side of the game they cannot see. Does a player have the character and drive to make the next level.
Ive always wondered. IF a team didnt hire any scouts and just compiled a list based on combined sources (CSB, Red Line, ISS etc). Would they have any less chance of succeeding than sending scouts out to watch every game?
Our issue hasnt been drafting, its been trading away picks before they develop (Rask, Steen, Coliacovo, Tlusty) or trading the picks themselves.
Yes, but I'm talking about TOP calibre players.
Trading Rask was dumb, really dumb. Steen & Colaicovo were not evaluated properly, and I miss Tlusty though. But the crop we have now with the Marlies are a GOOD crop... develop them!
Still believe we need some GRADE A talent to move forward.
I think what's changed in the scouting/drafting strategy, is that teams do a lot more background checks and psychological profiling than they did in the past. Its easy to spot how good a player can skate and shoot the puck, but its the mental side of the game they cannot see. Does a player have the character and drive to make the next level.
Ive always wondered. IF a team didnt hire any scouts and just compiled a list based on combined sources (CSB, Red Line, ISS etc). Would they have any less chance of succeeding than sending scouts out to watch every game?
IMO, in the first two rounds you would be fine using that approach, but after that you would suffer. Good scouts seem to see potential in late picks etc.
Trading Rask was dumb, really dumb. Steen & Colaicovo were not evaluated properly, and I miss Tlusty though. But the crop we have now with the Marlies are a GOOD crop... develop them!
Still believe we need some GRADE A talent to move forward.
I agree, grabbing one of Grigs or Gally in this draft is the perfect addition to the Leafs prospect pool. It would truly round it out in terms of depth and quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagshaw
IMO, in the first two rounds you would be fine using that approach, but after that you would suffer. Good scouts seem to see potential in late picks etc.
I recall Burke saying he generally makes the first round pick and leaves the rest to the scouts. Makes sense really.
I think what's changed in the scouting/drafting strategy, is that teams do a lot more background checks and psychological profiling than they did in the past. Its easy to spot how good a player can skate and shoot the puck, but its the mental side of the game they cannot see. Does a player have the character and drive to make the next level.
Ive always wondered. IF a team didnt hire any scouts and just compiled a list based on combined sources (CSB, Red Line, ISS etc). Would they have any less chance of succeeding than sending scouts out to watch every game?
I can confirm this is a huge part of today's scouting. Ive said it on here before, but I have worked with a PI firm that has done the background searches and the humanistic side of scouting for the blue jays. They only started doing it like 2 years ago, but the guys doing the majority of the work would go talk to guidance counselors, best friends, teachers, trainers, principals, trying to get a read on the kid as a person. Obviously not as important as their raw skills, but it shouldnt be overlooked.
LOL no. Galchenyuk > Monahan. Yakupov > Barkov and maybe Mackinnon. Jones is better than Dumba and Murray though.
They are just the shiny new toys. Just like last year where Grigorenko was touted to be wayyy better than RNH and Murray better than Larsson.
I would say the only two who could beat Yakupov are Mackinnon and Barkov possibly.
And Galchenyuk takes the cake over Shinkaruk and Monahan. Galchenyuk put up more points in his rookie season, than Monahan did in his second season. And he was only 7 points behind Shinkaruk's season this year. All while being 16.
I think Burke knows that this offseason is gonna make or break his tenure as GM of the Leafs. He has to keep this year's 1st rounder and draft a solid prospect (ie. Galchenyuk, Dumba, Trouba, Faksa, Yakupov, Grig, Frosberg to name a few) OR trade it for Getzlaf
I would say the only two who could beat Yakupov are Mackinnon and Barkov possibly.
And Galchenyuk takes the cake over Shinkaruk and Monahan. Galchenyuk put up more points in his rookie season, than Monahan did in his second season. And he was only 7 points behind Shinkaruk's season this year. All while being 16.
I don't know about that in all honesty. Shinkaruk is an absolute beast. He reminds me a lot of Skinner, Kane, and even Kessel. So talented offensively. To score 49 goals the year before you get drafted that's incredible.
I think next years high end prospects trump this years, but Yakupov, Grigorenko, Galchenyuk, Dumba, Murray, Forsberg, and Rielly all have potential to be high end guys.
Last edited by TheNorthFace: 03-29-2012 at 11:49 AM.
I would say the only two who could beat Yakupov are Mackinnon and Barkov possibly.
And Galchenyuk takes the cake over Shinkaruk and Monahan. Galchenyuk put up more points in his rookie season, than Monahan did in his second season. And he was only 7 points behind Shinkaruk's season this year. All while being 16.
5 more points in 6 more games ... big deal
and once again, 8 points behind Shinkaruk in 2 more games played
and they are only like 7 months apart ... not a big deal
and once again, 8 points behind Shinkaruk in 2 more games played
and they are only like 7 months apart ... not a big deal
As a 16 year old. Monahan did it with a full season under his belt already at 17. That's a pretty big difference if you ask me.
Monahan is talented but I don't think he's on the same level as Shinraruk, let alone Galchenyuk. Shinkaruk I could see an argument being made. 50 goals is quite impressive, but even then he did it in his second season with a full season under his belt already.
I think the2012 draft is kinda weak, but people are overhyping 2013
Saw mackinnon a couple times this yr in the q.... was VERY unimpressed. He's be a fine nhler, and probably #1 next yr but I'd take yakupov over him anyday.
Wow! Watch him again. I'm a season ticket holder for the Mooseheads and this kid is hands down the best player in the Q. He's as much as a sure thing as it gets. He's got Crosby pedigree, and is an absolute treat to watch night in, night out.
