HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Notices

2012 NHL Draft: Part 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-23-2012, 09:27 PM
  #351
pman25
Registered User
 
pman25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 898
vCash: 500
Well maybe I will be watching more college hockey now, damn!

pman25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:28 AM
  #352
The Instigator
HFBoards Sponsor
 
The Instigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,791
vCash: 900
Jaynen Rissling YES!

The Instigator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:53 AM
  #353
sunnydaycrash
Registered User
 
sunnydaycrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,712
vCash: 500
Holy crap....I just watched a couple of videos of Rissling just destroying people including one of him pounding Dalton Thrower !

sunnydaycrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 08:07 AM
  #354
NobodyBeatsTheWiz
Happy now?
 
NobodyBeatsTheWiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Old Town
Posts: 18,139
vCash: 500
Yeah, when was the last time the Caps got two of the toughest players in the draft?

NobodyBeatsTheWiz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:11 PM
  #355
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,332
vCash: 500
so id be interested in seeing a synopsis from some of you that follow these guys closey on this years picks...I havent been able to keep as close an eye on that sort of thing in a while....other than just reading the scouting reports, the occasional video, and maybe some WJC games.

Seems to be some genuine excitement from this years picks. I dont mind the #16 pick, which seems to be in debate. Didnt seem that off the board to me.

Mothra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 12:27 PM
  #356
IkeaMonkey*
HF Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: derderderderderderde
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 12,073
vCash: 500
FWIW, my viewing of Barber...not as detailed as others...

=============================================

Was not going to really feature him at all, but he sort of made me take notice. Last year with Dubuque, he showed a bit of promise, this was to be expected as a top USHL futures draft pick. In this game, he was constantly creating chances in the offensive zone with his hands and ability to move at full speed. Displayed a great deking ability when pressured by defensemen. Constantly buzzing around the net and looking for chances. Skating ability is pretty good with decent top end speed and no sort of weaknesses in backwards movement or edges. Overall had great night of displaying hockey sense, offensive awareness and vision. Needs to work a bit on his play in his own end. Scored a goal in the shootout. The kind of player who might take a bit of work to make it in terms of rounding off some rough edges, but he's a very dedicated kid and should make an NHL team feel confident when they call his name. Will probably go in the middle third to early fourth, could go a bit earlier, but I don't think he is a first round talent yet.

IkeaMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:03 PM
  #357
Ovechkins Wodka
Registered User
 
Ovechkins Wodka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Does anyone know how many of our newly drafted players can play in the WJC this season. Never to early to start looking forward to the tournament.

Ovechkins Wodka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:29 PM
  #358
fedfed
Moderator
@FedFedRMNB
 
fedfed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow City
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 3,092
vCash: 500
Forsberg for sure... Kostenko too old... Stephenson - no, Wilson - unlikely... I don't know about the Americans.

fedfed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:38 PM
  #359
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovechkins Wodka View Post
Does anyone know how many of our newly drafted players can play in the WJC this season. Never to early to start looking forward to the tournament.
To answer your question, here's a list of all of the eligible prospects regardless of how much of a longshot; note '92s no longer eligible for WJC U20; have to be born in '93 or later.

Forsberg is the most obvious to watch given his overall ranking, drafting, and the fact he was on Sweden's team last year, but see the notes below for some summer evaluation camp invite info.

Sweden: Filip Forsberg, C, 8/13/94; Christian Djoos, D, 8/6/94

USA: Riley Barber, RW, 2/7/94; Travis Boyd, C, 9/14/93; Connor Carrick, D, 4/13/94; Thomas Di Pauli, C, 4/29/94; Garrett Haar, D, 8/16/93; Austin Wuthrich, RW, 8/11/93

Canada: Jaynen Rissling, D, 9/21/93; Chandler Stephenson, C/LW; Tom Wilson, RW, 3/29/94

Norway is not in the tournament being played in Ufa, Russia; set to play in France in Div I Group A in December: Steffen Soberg, G, 8/6/93


Canada

Wilson was named to the roster for the Canada Russia Challenge in August.

link to roster and other info about the games in Russia and Halifax

USA
I mentioned this yesterday, but worth noting that the Capitals have 4 prospects scheduled to attend the USA Hockey U20 Evaluation Camp in August in Lake Placid.

D (2 of 17 invited): Carrick and Haar
F (2 of 25 invited): Di Pauli and Boyd

From what I know and have read they are all on the outside looking in for spots on the expected U20 team (coached by Housley, assisted by Grant Potulny and Mark Osiecki), but still a positive that they will get the camp experience in August, which includes games against teams brought over from Finland and Sweden, and obviously many months before the tourney.

http://www.usahockey.com/Junior_Evaluation_Camp.aspx

sk84fun_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:52 PM
  #360
sunnydaycrash
Registered User
 
sunnydaycrash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk84fun_dc View Post
To answer your question, here's a list of all of the eligible prospects regardless of how much of a longshot; note '92s no longer eligible for WJC U20; have to be born in '93 or later.

Forsberg is the most obvious to watch given his overall ranking, drafting, and the fact he was on Sweden's team last year, but see the notes below for some summer evaluation camp invite info.

Sweden: Filip Forsberg, C, 8/13/94; Christian Djoos, D, 8/6/94

USA: Riley Barber, RW, 2/7/94; Travis Boyd, C, 9/14/93; Connor Carrick, D, 4/13/94; Thomas Di Pauli, C, 4/29/94; Garrett Haar, D, 8/16/93; Austin Wuthrich, RW, 8/11/93

Canada: Jaynen Rissling, D, 9/21/93; Chandler Stephenson, C/LW; Tom Wilson, RW, 3/29/94

Norway is not in the tournament being played in Ufa, Russia; set to play in France in Div I Group A in December: Steffen Soberg, G, 8/6/93


Canada

Wilson was named to the roster for the Canada Russia Challenge in August.

link to roster and other info about the games in Russia and Halifax

USA
I mentioned this yesterday, but worth noting that the Capitals have 4 prospects scheduled to attend the USA Hockey U20 Evaluation Camp in August in Lake Placid.

D (2 of 17 invited): Carrick and Haar
F (2 of 25 invited): Di Pauli and Boyd

From what I know and have read they are all on the outside looking in for spots on the expected U20 team (coached by Housley, assisted by Grant Potulny and Mark Osiecki), but still a positive that they will get the camp experience in August, which includes games against teams brought over from Finland and Sweden, and obviously many months before the tourney.

http://www.usahockey.com/Junior_Evaluation_Camp.aspx
Nice work......hope Wilson sees some ice time !

sunnydaycrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 01:55 PM
  #361
BrooklynCapsFan
Waiting on the Isles
 
BrooklynCapsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 14,042
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyBeatsTheWiz View Post
Yeah, when was the last time the Caps got two of the toughest players in the draft?
Short memory, huh?

2004: Alex Ovechkin and Jeff Schultz


BrooklynCapsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2012, 02:02 PM
  #362
sk84fun_dc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnydaycrash View Post
Nice work......hope Wilson sees some ice time !
Thanks, anyone find any birthdate typos, please let me know. Different format for Canada this summer, only 15 forwards on the roster so hopefully he will see some playing time. Obviously, Canada will be evaluating other players this Fall, too, and he is a '94.

The U18 IIHF tourney is played in the spring, so the 94s played a few months ago, along with some 95s. For the USA, mostly comprised of the NTDP players. Barber, Carrick, & Di Pauli were on the USA gold medal winning team. Forsberg and Djoos were on the silver medal team.

sk84fun_dc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 12:56 AM
  #363
Carlzner
Game of Tanks
 
Carlzner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 10,169
vCash: 500


Some great clips of Forsberg.

Carlzner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 06:29 AM
  #364
RandyHolt
Kuz My Arse Beach
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 23,861
vCash: 50
Why did Forsberg drop?

Was it high demand for defensemen - despite a strong supply?

GM's simply believed he was not the the BPA when it was their time to select?

Did they chose to not follow the take the BPA rule that many here will quickly say is THE rule because the players are so young?

The experts that had rated him much higher, were wrong?

Somebody is wrong. Maybe its a combination, of much of the above.

RandyHolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 06:48 AM
  #365
Atlas
Registered User
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 3,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyHolt View Post
Why did Forsberg drop?

Was it high demand for defensemen - despite a strong supply?

GM's simply believed he was not the the BPA when it was their time to select?

Did they chose to not follow the take the BPA rule that many here will quickly say is THE rule because the players are so young?

The experts that had rated him much higher, were wrong?

Somebody is wrong. Maybe its a combination, of much of the above.


The Grigs fall I understand. Ruskie. Rumors that he is 20. Weirdness.

Forsberg falling...up to pick 6 I understand. Burke wants Canadian boys. Lindholm was a late riser and will be anywhere from a Calle Jo to a Lidstrom. A good pick. Then, I dunno what happened. Trouba has high end potential. Koekkoek was a stab.

I think the Caps just got lucky for once.

Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 06:59 AM
  #366
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
I'm going to guess a combination of poor WJC, playing in a lower league, and teams letting their "BPA" decisions be slanted towards D. Plus a little randomness (Linholm, Koekkoek, and Pouliot would be considered stretches by most in the top 10).

The first two factors could lead you to question upside depending on how you've scouted him (so one set of scouts is wrong or the other is and he's either a top-5 talent or he isn't), the second two factors could just be questionable decision making by GMs, or GM's going for "their guy" rather than BPA. With everything after the top being such a crap shoot they may be thinking they better get the guy they want no matter where they're picking, BPA be damned.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 07:24 AM
  #367
RandyHolt
Kuz My Arse Beach
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 23,861
vCash: 50
Thanks

Hockey draft discussions seem to often be met with the take the BPA crew, the discussion over. Without really delving into who decided who is best, nor how it was decided, nor the actual difference in prospect 3 versus prospect 4. Yet it seems every year, a GM or GM's do not follow the rule of blindly picking assets. Was he consensus top 10 in every experts ratings?

Since he seems like a fine prospect, maybe it's not about why he dropped. Its more about why do GM's go off the board or take reaches when the rule is take BPA. Maybe its a not a rule after all. If the GMs do not follow it, keyboard warrior GMs should not follow it either.

Maybe the BPA crew has an answer.

RandyHolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 07:31 AM
  #368
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
BPA is generally the smart thing to do. NHL GM's often do mind-bogglingly stupid things. It's not very difficult to explain when you get down to it.

Plus, not all scouting staffs are created equal. Every GM is working off incomplete information, not to mention potential biases, so their version of "BPA" may be seriously disconnected from reality.

So, when you say "BPA," you have to trust that your GM (and the scouting staff he's set up) isn't an idiot. We're to the point where we can usually trust GMGM, Mahoney, et al in that regard. I'm glad we don't have someone like Howson to have to worry about for that kind of thing though.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 08:43 AM
  #369
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,824
vCash: 500
The 'take the best player available' philosophy means you go into the draft with a board that you and your scouts have previously put together. As each player is taken, you cross off that name. When your turn comes, you take the highest name still on your board. You do this through round seven — even if you have glaring organizational holes at a position on the NHL roster and in the system. You may never address them all draft.

Now BPA isn't a constant. Each team has its own board. Each board is different. (To wit: Evidently Montreal says that had Ryan Murray and Alex Galchenyuk both been off the board at #3, they probably would have taken Teravainen.)

Forsberg going at 11 doesn't mean every team had him at 11. All it means is that at that position where those teams drafted, they had someone remaining on their board who was at least one spot higher. Another way of saying the same thing, is that all of the following might have been true:

Edmonton could have had Forsberg as high as #2, but their top one was available and they took him.
Columbus could have had Forsberg as high as #3, but at least one of their top two was available and they took him.
Montreal could have had Forsberg as high as #4, but at least one of their three was available and they took him.
NYI could have had Forsberg as high as #5, but at least one of their top four was available and they took him.
Toronto could have had Forsberg as high as #6, but at least one of their top five was available and they took him.
Anaheim could have had Forsberg as high as #7, but at least one of their top six was available and they took him.
Minnesota could have had Forsberg as high as #8, but at least one of their top seven was available and they took him.
Pittsburgh could have had Forsberg as high as #9, but at least one of their top eight was available and they took him.
Winnipeg could have had Forsberg as high as #10, but at least one of their top nine was available and they took him.
Tampa Bay could have had Forsberg as high as #11, but at least one of their top ten was available and they took him.

Drake1588 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 08:49 AM
  #370
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Actually, every team could have had him as high as #2, if their #1 guy was still there when they picked. Obviously that's an unreasonable assumption for most but if you believe some of the bluster it might have been surprisingly mixed.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 08:54 AM
  #371
Carlzner
Game of Tanks
 
Carlzner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 10,169
vCash: 500
I doubt Tampa and Pittsburgh believed that Koekkoek and Puoliot were the BPA...

Pittsburgh probably went Puoliot because of the chemistry with Morrow. TB went KK because they desperately need defense and so many had already been taken.

Carlzner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 08:57 AM
  #372
RandyHolt
Kuz My Arse Beach
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 23,861
vCash: 50
Cool thanks.

Then going forward when we are discussing drafting of prospects, if someone suggests "no - you take the BPA", it should be understood that everyone is entitled to their own BPA list, since that is what the GM's do.

Need and other factors are taken into consideration alongside "best".

RandyHolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 09:03 AM
  #373
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyHolt View Post
Cool thanks.

Then going forward when we are discussing drafting of prospects, if someone suggests "no - you take the BPA", it should be understood that everyone is entitled to their own BPA list, since that is what the GM's do.
He expected Forsberg to be taken, but I never saw an indication that he wasn't on their list. It was Grink that they didn't have in the top 20 (which to me says they were wrong there, but it never came into play so whatever)

And it's true that everyone is entitled to their own list, but the thing is some of those lists will be unequivocally wrong (as GMs sometimes are, again due to incomplete scouting or biases etc.). The hitch being you have no way of knowing just how wrong they might be for some time.

I imagine when people (fans) say "BPA" they really mean "reasonably objective BPA" but good luck translating that into a reasonable prediction. As with most sports transactions of any kind, really.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 09:20 AM
  #374
RandyHolt
Kuz My Arse Beach
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 23,861
vCash: 50
It seems my discussions sometimes get cut short - "Take BPA - there is no debate!" conversation killers.

I know the experts themselves (the GMs) best prospect lists are littered with failure. I think we wanted a big goal scoring LW. Corriveau, Greenlaw, Halverson... was Poile dumb? Targeting for need, or making a reach occasionally; if GMs do it, don't mind if we suggest the same.

Interesting George himself was wrong as he had no scenario where Forsberg was available. It was rare and cool to see the braintrust scrambling to decide what to do.

RandyHolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2012, 09:21 AM
  #375
Drake1588
UNATCO
 
Drake1588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 27,824
vCash: 500
A BPA approach simply means following your perspective on the BPA. There is no single, overarching, inviolable list that all the clubs consider sacrosanct. That's why every team has its own scouting staff, even though NHL runs Central Scouting and third-party scouting services exist.

There are 30 draft boards and they vary widely. All a BPA philosophy means is that a team follows its draft board religiously. There is certainly room for variance between your board and his board; they are not in lockstep.

Anyway, the differences in boards can sometimes explain how players slip... and that is assuming that the teams in the aggregate actually agree with the third-party scouting reports and mocks that get released prior to the draft anyway, which drive fan expectations entering the draft.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a whit what HF or Red Line consider to be the prospect rankings, but instead the 30 scouting staffs advising the 30 GMs (who sometimes go on instinct and reject the advice of their scouts and go off board).


Last edited by Drake1588: 06-25-2012 at 09:28 AM. Reason: EDIT for missing word
Drake1588 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 11:16 AM.

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.