HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL Draft - Quality Vs. Quantity a Myth?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-10-2012, 02:22 PM
  #51
Brown Dog
Registered User
 
Brown Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
We did that already with Luke Schenn, though he has been okay as a Leaf, that hasn't worked out exactly as we hoped. Leafs fans forget too easily, but that is the beauty of being a Leafs fan, opinions are scattered across the board with short memories.
With all due respect, picking Luke Schenn was not swinging for the fences. He was a safe, low-upside pick. The same can probably be said for last year's trade-up, Tyler Biggs. Trading up doesn't necessarily mean you're guaranteeing yourself an impact player (though logic says you should probably be targeting an impact player if you're trading up).

Brown Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:24 PM
  #52
EazyB97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 28,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
We did that already with Luke Schenn, though he has been okay as a Leaf, that hasn't worked out exactly as we hoped. Leafs fans forget too easily, but that is the beauty of being a Leafs fan, opinions are scattered across the board with short memories.
Schenn was a "safe" pick at #5, Kadri was more of a home run swing.

EazyB97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:25 PM
  #53
Brown Dog
Registered User
 
Brown Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamBester View Post
Doesn't matter. The percentages of picking an impact player through 3-7 is much greater than later picks. And lower 1-3 is even better.

Anyway, I too, think we can pick an impact player at 35, and should keep the pick.
I'm not convinced Yakupov is worth the assets it would take to move up to #1, but is it possible that a package of #5, #35, and Luke Schenn would be enough for the Oilers, taking into consideration their need for help on the blue line?

Brown Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:26 PM
  #54
thebluemachine*
go ahead, do it
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,193
vCash: 500
So we're supposed to trade down and find stars later in the draft because someone on the internet is using hindsight.

thebluemachine* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:26 PM
  #55
S2S
Come at me bros
 
S2S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
How about moving down and swing for the fences with 2 picks rather than 1? Better yet let's not trade our 34th pick and hope we get lucky with a Loui Ericksson at #34.

More picks we have, the more chances we have at being right. 3 strikes is better than 1 strike out, playing the odds and trusting our scouts. If Forsberg is there at #5, I would be happy with this also, from the sounds and looks of it, the kid is special. But other teams may have the same idea.
Normally I would want more kicks at the can, but this year we need the big wallop. Maybe next year, once we have an elite prospect in the system, we can do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
We did that already with Luke Schenn, though he has been okay as a Leaf, that hasn't worked out exactly as we hoped. Leafs fans forget too easily, but that is the beauty of being a Leafs fan, opinions are scattered across the board with short memories.
I wouldn't really call Schenn the home run. The top 4 were home runs. This year, there are more players projected to have more potential than Schenn, making them home runs.

S2S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:30 PM
  #56
nuck
Axis of Evil
 
nuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Greenland
Posts: 5,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapes View Post
I wanted him at 7 too, I wanted Filatov at 5
I will share the goat horns with you guys on this one.

nuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:33 PM
  #57
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Durkin67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 4,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Well you edited out the later picks in the 2nd rd, this would also illustrate trading 2nd rounders as most here are want to do, is a silly idea when you see how many impactful players have been taken 31-63. Making moving up even a more ridiculous idea this draft. While again recognizing each draft is unique and different. This draft in particular from where the Leafs are picking moving up would be incredibly shortsighted when the talent is so evenly distributed from 2-7.

I know one thing, if the Leafs were lucky enough to draft a Loui Ericksson at #34, they would forget about Gally or Grigorenko rather quickly.


Well said. There is so much solid depth to be unearthed beyond the top 10. How many 'elite' level guys can we all name that were found elsewhere in the draft? There's a ton of guys that are difference makers in the league that were drafted much lower than the top 5-10. Who among us wouldn't trade Colborne, a top 20 guy, for Lucic or even Hornqvist, for that matter? If draft position was a reliable indicator, there wouldn't be any room for discussion on this, Colborne would be the assumed better player, and that, in all likelihood, would be wrong.

Problem is, some of us think that where a player is drafted is an exact indicator of where he will net out in the long run, and that is altogether false. A first overall might not even be top 4-5 in another year. Is Kessel head and shoulders ahead of Parise as a player? no chance. But there are 12 positions separating them...

Its down to good scouting, but thats really where it starts. Good coaching, good opportunity, and a sound junior development program has as much of an impact if not more, than where a player goes, particularly in the top 2 rounds. Historically, players drafted later than 2nd round have a significantly reduced likelihood of being impact guys. But there has been lots of exceptions...

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:34 PM
  #58
Brown Dog
Registered User
 
Brown Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuck View Post
I will share the goat horns with you guys on this one.
Me too. But I don't even care. I probably would have taken Rico Fata over Bryan Allen in 1998, too. Sure, that would have been a mistake, I guess, but how much crying are you going to do over missing out on Bryan Allen? You see where I'm going with this.

Brown Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:35 PM
  #59
S2S
Come at me bros
 
S2S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,199
vCash: 500
Just can't advocate trading down for safer picks when we have plenty of safe guys about to make the team or at least have one more year with the Marlies. Would rather have an elite prospect join those safe guys rather than just cycle through safe guys year after year. Yea, those safe guys we trade down for could become studs, but you don't know that, if you did, they would be ranked in the top 5.

S2S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:43 PM
  #60
TeamBester
Debunked
 
TeamBester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Dog View Post
I'm not convinced Yakupov is worth the assets it would take to move up to #1, but is it possible that a package of #5, #35, and Luke Schenn would be enough for the Oilers, taking into consideration their need for help on the blue line?
Ya probably not. If he is anything like Bure, it would be def worth it.

TeamBester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:47 PM
  #61
nuck
Axis of Evil
 
nuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Greenland
Posts: 5,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Here is this year's top-10 in scoring, listed as their draft position:

2nd
1st
22nd
2nd
1st
5th
33rd
1st
3rd
51st
Interesting although this might indicate a higher percentage of goalies, D men, and forwards with good pro potential but low offensive upsides are taken in the 6-20th group and then its all swinging for the fences with later picks. They don't often project guys outside of the top 10 prospects as potential top 3 forwards.

Still there it is. For this season at least, it is a 70% chance that a player must be a top 5 pick to be a top 10 scorer. The 08-09 list looks a little different because some later 1sts are in there but most years does look like at least 70% first rounders in that top 10 club.

nuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 02:49 PM
  #62
TeamBester
Debunked
 
TeamBester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemachine View Post
So we're supposed to trade down and find stars later in the draft because someone on the internet is using hindsight.
Imagine all the whining there would be because it takes a few more years to develop those players, and players in the top 5 are playing?

TeamBester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 03:29 PM
  #63
Durkin67
Leaf Opinionist
 
Durkin67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada/Africa
Posts: 4,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by S2S View Post
Just can't advocate trading down for safer picks when we have plenty of safe guys about to make the team or at least have one more year with the Marlies. Would rather have an elite prospect join those safe guys rather than just cycle through safe guys year after year. Yea, those safe guys we trade down for could become studs, but you don't know that, if you did, they would be ranked in the top 5.

Man, this draft is particularly muddled in terms of where guys are going to go. Ive heard Galy ranked everywhere from 2nd OA to 14th. Some think Faksa and Gaunce could be top 10 candidates. I remember hearing couturier was a candidate to go 1st OA and PHI got him at something like 8th. Most were shocked that a big tall skilled centre would drop so low. Fowler was another guy who fell out of the top 5-10 and ANA was more than happy to grab him at 12th. Its not an exact science. Its educated guesses, consensus opinion, and a roll of the dice.

IN short, we all need to stop thinking of draft position like its cold hard currency. Because it just aint. Value fluctuates from year to year. Still, I wouldn't be contemplating trading down unless there was a coveted prospect and/or the possibility of snapping up a gem later on. If we could get our hands on Zibenijad and Lehner for 5th overall, your damn right Im going there. And if we could expand the deal to include Kadri for their 1st (15th) and look at a guy like Girgensons or even Wilson, Id be happy as a pig in poo. Not a bad haul. MZ is going to be a terror. And Lehner will be a very good goalie. Tom Wilson would also be fun as a Leaf.


Thats a deal Id be in favour of. But, we are so light at the centre position, I don't see it happening. Not sure MZ nets out as a 1c...if theres a potential (FUTURE) 1C available at 5th and he's BPA, I think thats what Burke and CO. prioritize.

Durkin67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 03:37 PM
  #64
nuck
Axis of Evil
 
nuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Greenland
Posts: 5,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
Well you edited out the later picks in the 2nd rd, this would also illustrate trading 2nd rounders as most here are want to do, is a silly idea when you see how many impactful players have been taken 31-63. Making moving up even a more ridiculous idea this draft. While again recognizing each draft is unique and different. This draft in particular from where the Leafs are picking moving up would be incredibly shortsighted when the talent is so evenly distributed from 2-7.

I know one thing, if the Leafs were lucky enough to draft a Loui Ericksson at #34, they would forget about Gally or Grigorenko rather quickly.
Okay I missed your point. I thought you were either suggesting that moving down pushes us out of range of most impact players, or than at #5 we were already almost out of that range. Dreakmur's post indicating that 7 of this years top 10 scorers were drafted #5 or higher seems to suggest staying put is the best option for landing a top 3 player. I looked at 07-08 and 08-09 and it is 70-80% those years as well, although in 08-09 Parise, Getzlaf and Iginla were top 10 representing the 11-19th picks(and incidentally the range of Washington's two picks this season). A top 5 pick resulting in a Kessel or better selection is a terrific outcome if that player is there. If the person at #5 is not so eye popping then move up to the Duchene calibre player which costs an asset but if it is the difference between a Backstrom and a Brassard how can you not justify that, especially when the club has a surplus D man or two and possible an extra young goalie? If I am BB and my player is not there at 5 and I can't get to him I would try to deal with Washington for their two firsts.

As far as 2nd round picks go, the clubs track record is weak and the good ones they have found are mostly not top 6 forwards or top pairing D men. I certainly don't like the idea of dealing 1sts for multiple 2nds but that becomes a situational thing where you make a choice because there is nobody worth taking when your selection is there. If I had a late teen pick and didn't like my options I would try like hell to swap it for someone elses pick next year rather than trade down further. I have less faith than you once past the top 25.

nuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 03:52 PM
  #65
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durkin67 View Post
Wow. We are actually about to agree on something. Cool. Ive made this argument many times in the past. Statistically, lottery picks have not won more cups or scoring races, its about 50-50 with lower first rounders.
.... 7/10 top scorers from last season were top 5 picks, 4/10 from the year before, and 8/10 from the year before that...

And considering there are only 5 lottery picks per year versus 205 other picks every year...and those 5 picks produce over half the top 10 scorers on average. Yes, statistically it does make a HUGE difference.

As for the winner of the scoring race, Martin St. Louis was the last non-lottery pick to win the scoring race, and that was in 2003-2004. Iginla and Forsberg (6th overall) are the only other non-lottery picks to win the Art Ross since Trottier in 78-79... So... When you said its "50-50" with lottery picks and lower first rounders, what you really meant was its almost never a non-lottery pick.

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:09 PM
  #66
stanleyorbust
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 886
vCash: 500
All that proves is that the draft is half luck after the first few standout players. We easily could have traded down the year we drafted Schenn and ended up with fringe NHLers just as easily as picking myers/eberle. The best strategy is to accumulate draft choices, pick the BPA according to your well paid scouting staff and spend oodles of dollars on player development. Most of these kids are on par at 18 and its what they do (train, practice, win, experience) after that matters. Thats why teams interview these players repeatedly through the season.. To ensure they draft someone with the drive/ personality to make it

stanleyorbust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:35 PM
  #67
The Mentalist
A Hockey Mentalist
 
The Mentalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 416Leafer View Post
.... 7/10 top scorers from last season were top 5 picks, 4/10 from the year before, and 8/10 from the year before that...

And considering there are only 5 lottery picks per year versus 205 other picks every year...and those 5 picks produce over half the top 10 scorers on average. Yes, statistically it does make a HUGE difference.

As for the winner of the scoring race, Martin St. Louis was the last non-lottery pick to win the scoring race, and that was in 2003-2004. Iginla and Forsberg (6th overall) are the only other non-lottery picks to win the Art Ross since Trottier in 78-79... So... When you said its "50-50" with lottery picks and lower first rounders, what you really meant was its almost never a non-lottery pick.
6/13 scorers last season were picked in the top 5 last year, 7/20 to be precise. Out of that top 20 only 3 are playing in the finals right now and only 1 a top 5 pick.

The leading scorer of the Stanley cup champs last year was 40th in NHL scoring and they had only 1 top 5 draft pick in their line up that played a prominent role.

And actually it is 7/10 for the 09-10 season not 8/10, just want to be accurate when citing stats.

The Mentalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:41 PM
  #68
robdicks
Registered User
 
robdicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Welland ON
Posts: 5,518
vCash: 500
This is probably one of the most biased statistic gathering that I have seen in a while. You are collecting data that proves your viewpoint right and omitting data that proves it wrong.

#4 in 2008 was Pietrangelo who would be better than any of those quantity picks.

In 2007 you omit Voracek, Hamill, Gagner, Ellerby, Eller, Shattenkirk, Plante, Gillies, Ian Cole, Logan MacMillan, Angelo Esposito, and Riley Nash. You even stretch it out to Wayne Simmonds and P.K. Subban and omit every pick up until them.

In 2005 you omit Carey Price who is clearly better than all of those players (except maybe Kopitar). You also omit Marek Zagrapan, Sasha Pokulok, Ryan O'Marra, and Alex Bourret

In 2004 you omit Olesz, Picard, Smid, Valabik, Tukonen, Thelan, Dubnyk, Schwartz, Chipchura, etc.

I don't care if you want to collect stats to prove a point, but don't just omit the ones that don't help your argument.

The bottom line is yes, there are guys available from 7-20 that will probably turn out to be very good, but most of them will not be stars. In the top 5 you have a better chance of drafting a star, but again there are going to be a few that just turn into average NHLers. The higher ones are the safer picks. Either way you have to draft well, and sometimes drafting well also just means getting lucky.

robdicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:44 PM
  #69
robdicks
Registered User
 
robdicks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Welland ON
Posts: 5,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
6/13 scorers last season were picked in the top 5 last year, 7/20 to be precise. Out of that top 20 only 3 are playing in the finals right now and only 1 a top 5 pick.

The leading scorer of the Stanley cup champs last year was 40th in NHL scoring and they had only 1 top 5 draft pick in their line up that played a prominent role.

And actually it is 7/10 for the 09-10 season not 8/10, just want to be accurate when citing stats.
I still don't see your point. Can you make a team without top 5 picks? Sure, there are good players out there, but 7/20 is 35%. Compare that to 2.4% of the draft being top 5 picks.

robdicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:44 PM
  #70
The Mentalist
A Hockey Mentalist
 
The Mentalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by S2S View Post
Just can't advocate trading down for safer picks when we have plenty of safe guys about to make the team or at least have one more year with the Marlies. Would rather have an elite prospect join those safe guys rather than just cycle through safe guys year after year. Yea, those safe guys we trade down for could become studs, but you don't know that, if you did, they would be ranked in the top 5.
If anything, dropping down is not playing it safer, you are taking a position that you believe that there is quality down lower and you are risking the easy way out of drafting a player that may be universally rated higher but are willing to risk drafting lower ranked players because you see potential.

Carolina took Skinner at #7 when he was rated at 32 by CSB, this can be termed risky. Rutherford could have even risked it more by dropping down, getting an asset for the #7 and still draft Skinner but he played it half safe. Just taking him off the board and not risk losing him. If it were Burke how knows how he would have approached this, but I think he would have took the risk of dropping down to max out his assets while still landing Skinner.

The Mentalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:48 PM
  #71
The Mentalist
A Hockey Mentalist
 
The Mentalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robdicks View Post
I still don't see your point. Can you make a team without top 5 picks? Sure, there are good players out there, but 7/20 is 35%. Compare that to 2.4% of the draft being top 5 picks.
The point is an argument has been made by some that Leafs should not drop down in the draft because we need quality and not quantity, now read the original post, it should be as clear as mountain water when you see the players that were drafted that are termed quantity picks given the Leafs may flop picks with TB, WASH, or BUFF.

The Mentalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 05:52 PM
  #72
Beleafer4
Registered User
 
Beleafer4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,960
vCash: 500
To be honest, this looks like a quantity year for me. None of the prospects after #1 really look like sure things. All of them have question marks. I would rather trade down and choose from the ones that drop while acquiring more picks. Last year, although not elite talent there were way more "sure things" in the top 10. I dont feel the same way about this year.

For example, I would be happy if burke traded #5 for #11 and #19. Then trade the 19th for a mid 20 and a 30-39 (if possible).

Pick whoever remains from Grigorenko/Galchenyuk/Reinhart/Reilly/Dumba/Tervainanen/Trouba with the first

Pick someone with the mid 20 and 2 others with our two relatively low seconds. Maybe one of jankowski/mccabe/sameulsson/wilson might still be there.

edit: when i mean sure things, I mean sure fire elite talents. There are sure things in this draft too, in forsberg and murray, but Im not sure how good they might become.


Last edited by Beleafer4: 06-10-2012 at 06:00 PM.
Beleafer4 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:00 PM
  #73
The Mentalist
A Hockey Mentalist
 
The Mentalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beleafer4 View Post
To be honest, this looks like a quantity year for me. None of the prospects after #1 really look like sure things. All of them have question marks. I would rather trade down and choose from the ones that drop while acquiring more picks.

For example, I would be happy if burke traded #5 for #11 and #19. Then trade the 19th for a low-mid 20 and a 30-39 (if possible).

Pick whoever remains from Grigorenko/Reinhart/Reilly/Dumba/Tervainanen/Galchenyuk/Trouba with the first

Pick someone with the low-mid 20 and 2 others with our two relatively low seconds. Maybe one of jankowski/mccabe/sameulsson/wilson might still be there

Thats how I would go about it.
I'm all for drafting Forsberg, but if he is not there, I would move down providing another team ranks a Grigorenko, Dumba, Murray, Rielly a lot higher than we do. I think inside 20, there are 20 solid prospects, all with the potential to be considered a top 5 pick when we look back years from now. Having a 10,19, 34 or a 11, 16, 34. could be a windfall in this draft. 12, 21, 34 is not out of the question either. More picks is not a bad way to go, considering there are no stand outs other than Yakupov this draft.

But most importantly we don't waste a 2nd rd pick to move up to pick up what may be a marginally better player if even at that, while spending a valuable asset instead of accumulating them.

The Mentalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:02 PM
  #74
BrannigansLaw
Registered User
 
BrannigansLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington DC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mapes View Post
I wanted him at 7 too, I wanted Filatov at 5
Who knows how Filatov would've turned out had he drafted him. I mean, is there any franchise with a worse track record of developing top prospects than Columbus?

We're probably somewhere near the bottom but Columbus easily takes the cake in that regard. Brassard, Brule, Klesa, Filatov, LeClaire, Picard..the only ones they've managed to not screw up was Rick Nash and Voracek, who they traded anyway. That organization is just a mess.

BrannigansLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2012, 06:10 PM
  #75
BrannigansLaw
Registered User
 
BrannigansLaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Washington DC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Interactif View Post
With the debate of quality vs quantity being discussed here, the question of trading up or moving down in the draft has come up a lot of late. While recognizing each draft is unique, some are deep, some are overall weak, some are top heavy in talent. I examined the past 7 drafts from 02-08. The snapshots of these are listed below, some of the results may surprise a few, they dispel the notion that staying in the top 5 is a must for the Leafs if they want to draft quality as opposed to quality. Some of the higher picks in the these drafts, have not been as impactful as players picked below them which begs the question why trade up?

With the exception of rather obvious #1 overall picks Stamkos, Kane, Crosby, Ovie, Nash or perhaps in this year’s Yakupov. A move up would only be prudent if it is to #1and possibly #2 pick when there are 2 clear standouts in the draft.

Here’s a look back starting with the 2008 draft, (09-11 were not used as a lot of players have yet to be seen in the NHL for extended looks)

2008
3 Bogosian
5 Schenn
6 Filatov
7 Wilson

Quanity picks:
__________________________
12 Myers
15 Karlsson
17 Gardiner
20 Del Zotto
22 Jordan Eberle
26 Tyler Ennis
27 John Carlson
43 Justin Shultz
51 Derek Stepan

2007
3 Kyle Turris
4 Thomas Hickey
5 Karl Alzner

Quanity picks:
________________________________
9 Logan Couture
11 Brandon Sutter
12 Ryan Mcdonagh
22 Max Pacioretty
26 David Perron
43 PK Subban
61 Wayne Simmonds

2006
Top 5 picks clearly were the BPA

2005
3 Jack Johnson
4 Benoit Pouliot
6 Gilbert Brule

Quanity picks:
_________________________________
11 Kopitar
12 M Staal
17 Martin Hanzal
21 Rask
24 Oshie
33 Neal
35 Marc-Edouard Vlasic
44 Statsny
51 Mason Raymond
62 Kris Letang

2004
3 Cam Barker
4 Andrew Ladd
5 Blake Wheeler
6 Al Montoya
7 Rostislav Olesz

Quanity picks:
______________________________
13 Stafford
15 Radulov
20 Zajac
23 Meszaros
26 Schneider
29 Green
32 Bolland
53 David Booth
63 David Krejci

2003
3 Nathan Horton
4 Nikolai Zherdev
6 Michalek
8 Braydon Coburn

Quanity picks:
_______________________________
11 Jeff Carter
13 Dustin Brown
14 Brent Seabrooke
17 Parise
19 Getzlaf
23 Kesller
24 Richards
28 Perry
33 Loui Ericksson
37 Kevin Klein
45 Bergeron
49 Weber
62 Backes

2002
3 Jay Bouwmeester
4 Joni Pitkanen
5 Ryan Whitney
6 Scotty Upshall

Quanity picks:
_______________________________
13 Alex Semin
14 Chris Higgins
24 Alex Steen
25 Cam Ward
36 Jaret Stoll
54 Duncan Keith
58 Jiri Hudler
63 Tomas Fleischmann
What's you're saying is definitely true but when you boil it all down, it comes down to whether we trust our scouts to be able to make the homerun pick in the later portions of the first round. To my knowledge this has only happened once and we pissed it on Raycroft.

Simply put, I don't trust our scouts' ability to draft high end talent late in the first round, they're great at finding potential depth NHLers but not cornerpieces. We need to give them the best chance possible and to do that we need to either stay at 5 or move up.

BrannigansLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:06 AM.

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.