Why were Strome, Huberdeau and Scheifele drafted ahead of Couturier
I had the feeling that Couturier would definitely go top 5 in 2011, and ahead of those 3 centres especially. Why were the drafted ahead of him? Do they project to be better than him long term? No disrespect to them as players, but I though Couturier was the consensus best centre after RNH.
Don't know why....but I do believe that Couturier should have been selected 5th overall. Islanders pick off the wall and Winnipeg took a gamble that Scheifele would be better. The Strome pick wasn't unreasonable as he had great stats and played v well this year. Hopefully they don't screw with the kids development like they did Nieder's.
I hated Winnpegs pick, but Philly loved it. LOL Schiefele wasn't rated as high as they picked him.
Don't wanna comment on the other two, but Jonathan Huberdeau has "franchise player" potential. Not Couturier. I would take Huberdeau over Yakupov..same age..and he's Quebecois...can play either center or wing. But he does need to get stronger..still weak on skates.
Florida - desperate for elite offensive talent as they had none. Bjugstad on the other hand could play Couturier's role.
Islanders - desperate for playmaking winger for Tavares or playmaking #2 center since Bailey didn't seem like he would cut it. Strome fits both better than anyone left. Also relying on Nielsen for shutdown duties long term, though I'm not sure he's all that.
Winnipeg - Little, Burmistrov and Cormier all project to have Couturier-like skillsets if not his size. Namely, Winnipeg does not have one elite passing center. Burmistrov is closest to it but he's not the pure playmaker type. They're gambling that Scheifele will be that Spezza-ish passer even if the rest of his game isn't up there, since they have 3 defense/intangibles guys to compensate.
Ottawa is the one that really ****ed up. Couturier could have replaced both Fisher and Kelly. Spezza-Turris-Couturier would give them exceptional matching options.
You'd think after Fowler and Getzlaf they'd learn that player interviews are worthless.
Because SC just doesn't have that great of offensive upside.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
I believe that SC's has v. good poteintial, but has to fight a tough line up. Better than Schiefele and Stome. It is hard to rate players who have similier potintial. SC had a good year this year and showed it when he was moved up a feww lines this year.
Florida - desperate for elite offensive talent as they had none. Bjugstad on the other hand could play Couturier's role.
Islanders - desperate for playmaking winger for Tavares or playmaking #2 center since Bailey didn't seem like he would cut it. Strome fits both better than anyone left. Also relying on Nielsen for shutdown duties long term, though I'm not sure he's all that.
Winnipeg - Little, Burmistrov and Cormier all project to have Couturier-like skillsets if not his size. Namely, Winnipeg does not have one elite passing center. Burmistrov is closest to it but he's not the pure playmaker type. They're gambling that Scheifele will be that Spezza-ish passer even if the rest of his game isn't up there, since they have 3 defense/intangibles guys to compensate.
Ottawa is the one that really ****ed up. Couturier could have replaced both Fisher and Kelly. Spezza-Turris-Couturier would give them exceptional matching options.
You'd think after Fowler and Getzlaf they'd learn that player interviews are worthless.
They're happy with their pick and their centre depth.
What's so good about Fowler? The guy is horrible defensively.
Ottawa is the one that really ****ed up. Couturier could have replaced both Fisher and Kelly. Spezza-Turris-Couturier would give them exceptional matching options.
Except a few things come into play. The Sens did not have Kyle Turris at the time, and did not know they'd have him six months later. Turris can't be taken into account due to the fact he wasn't a Senator at the time.
Also, the rumor was the Sens didn't like Couturier's compete level. They got many viewing of him and didn't like what they saw. Plus, on top of that, our scout highly recommended Zibanejad. This was the same scout who told Murray to move up and select Erik Karlsson, who told us to trade the 17th overall for David Rundblad (and predicted his offensive outburst in the SEL), and also convinced Murray to pick Robin Lehner and Jakov Silfverberg in the second round in 2009. I'm completely confident Zibanejad will turn out fine, especially if he gets a job next to Spezza.
Also, the rumor was the Sens didn't like Couturier's compete level. They got many viewing of him and didn't like what they saw.
It's hard to knock a guy's compete level when he plays 25 minutes a game(as he did in the Q). When a guy gets counted on playing that much time he has to learn how to turn the tempo up and down to pace himself
It's hardly fair to make a comparison when the other 3 have yet to play in the NHL. Couturier was always said to be amongst the most NHL ready of the 2011 class, but you don't necessarily draft for readiness.
Simple...the teams picking the other players thought they would end up better than Couturier long term. And guess what, they may very well be right. Couturier was good for a rookie, but it isn't like he put up Crosby numbers. You don't draft the player who will be the best the next year, you draft the player you think will be the best in the long run.
a) they saw a stagnation in Couturier's offensive potential. He's clearly skilled, but didn't really look like he was ever pushing himself out there on the ice. There wasn't a serious jump in his production from his draft year to the year prior.
Scheifele was the opposite. Kid came out of nowhere and put up solid offensive numbers on a team that didn't really have any solid offensive players to work with. To them Scheifele had a much higher ceiling than Couturier.
The Jets management said they really wanted to target players who made some clear progression. Scheifele did in spades and Couturier did not.
b) Winnipeg puts a massive premium on character. If you're potentially a first round selection and you absolutely bomb an interview, it could kill your chances of getting drafted to the Jets. Rumour is that Couturier bombed a few interviews and with my aforementioned lack of drive Couturier showed it would give some major red-flags to Winnipeg management in the "character" department.
They do have to be careful with the character of players. They want to add players who have a large drive to win and succeed. They want to build a "winning attitude" in the organization. That's what they believe will build a franchise that will make Winnipeg a desirable place to play. Recently head coach Claude Noel made it a comparison to Green Bay of the NFL. The city itself doesn't have a whole lot to offer and the weather isn't too great either. Yet Green Bay has built a winning culture and that's what attracts players. The right players IMO, you want guys who are interested in winning the ultimate prize and being a part of a strong team, not worried about beaches and sun.
That's what I think is what won Scheifele over for them. The kid has tons of potential and he absolutely loves the game and has tons of drive to improve. I approve of their pick. In 5 years, we'll see if it was the right one.
The other thing to note is each teams scouting staff. Winnipeg has no dedicated QMJHL scout and therefore their viewings of Couturier were limited. On the other hand they probably had tons of viewings and material to work off of for drafting Scheifele.
