HFBoards

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

Drafting by need and the "improved" Oilers scouting staff

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-29-2003, 07:57 PM
  #26
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by speeds
Do they need another small scoring C? Maybe not. But who is to say they couldn't have traded that player for something that did suit there needs?
I see what you're saying, but if you have Comrie still in the books, how do you get the small guy enough playing time to make other teams want to cough up something?

Plus, lets get a grip. Even Dan Cleary looks great in the preseason.

oilswell is offline  
Old
09-29-2003, 08:40 PM
  #27
OYLer
Registered User
 
OYLer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Win Desperate & Mad!
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
Hey lowetide, if anyone was heavy-handed that would have been me. I lurked around these boards first as a guest than as a member for quite awhile before I decided to become active. It was my passion for Oilers' Hockey that initially peeked a looksee but the quality of the posts that truly peaked my interest.

Indeed, it is through the exchange of knowledge and ideas that we grow. I too value the the ideas of others, even and maybe, especially, when these ideas differ from my own. But common sense imbued with a dollop of homour is always a winner. So oilswell made me laugh out loud with when I read: "Plus, lets get a grip. Even Dan Cleary looks great in the preseason."

OYLer is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 05:02 AM
  #28
Funkymoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
my two cents:

When small prospects bust it's blamed on them being small. When big prospects bust they just bust. Now I don't have a huge problem with passing on Hudler four times because the players we got fit needs better and seem to be good prospects.

But I do have an issue with taking guys like Stortini so early. What's his realistic ceiling? Third line. He's got goon stamped all over him.

I do think small players are often bargains. Hudler should have gone well before the Wings took him. Helminen was rated as a 2nd or 3rd rounder by the CSB, he slips to the 8th, and then people are surprised when he plays like a second or third round pick. Parise was rated a top ten talent all year, he slips to 17.

I dunno. I think the current drafting strategy has swung too far towards big guys and we're passing on better players in favor of grumpy large guys for whom a stick is basically superflous.

Funkymoses is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:16 AM
  #29
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowetide
That implies that Hudler is a better prospect than Greene. We don't know that.

Why is he a 5-6 defenseman? Is that his upside? Hudler was certainly more valued (#3CSB, #13HN), but Greene wasn't exactly a wild pick. He was rated #54 CSB and #76HN. They took him 44th.

He's described as being big, mobile, a good positional defenseman. They liked him enough to take him 44th. I don't see any evidence it was a mistake.
I was going with the fact that he is a big mobile guy that would be physical for you, play things simple and his offensive upside(Just by the numbers 4 assists in 39 games in US College doesn't point to an offensive dynamo) is quite limited. So if you end up with a Brendan Witt, Brad Ference, Stephane Robidas, Rhett Warrener, type of player then you have done extremely well with Matt Greene in his development. Going with the odds of only one or two players coming out of the draft(which is something I believe I heard Pendergast say in an interview with Guy and please correct me if I am wrong.) We already have Niinimaki, Stoll and Deslauriers as guys we feel are going to be players out of that draft. Greene's chances by the odds don't start out very good. When you take a look at Hudler since the draft, he had a point a game scoring average against men in the Czech League(46 in 46) all accounts is going to make their team this year. That in itself points to Hudler being a better prospect than Greene. I don't say that the pick is a mistake because Greene could also turn into a Matvichuk, or Jason Smith type player. But if you look at the two at this point in their development, Hudler without a doubt is the superior player.



Quote:
Well, Fedorov was entering his ufa summer, so one would think that Ken Holland's situation in this regard was a bit different than Lowe/Comrie. Fedorov had the right to move on, Comrie has no such freedom. Huge difference, and it seems to me that the GM of a 23 year old centerman would assume he'd be back, even after a prolonged negotiation.

The Comrie issue is truly unique, with two once in a lifetime (lockout season coming, unusual first contract) events driving it.
At the time of the draft Fedorov was going into the final year of his contract. I am pretty sure that it wasn't evident that he was going anywhere and I believe that they were close(as reported) to getting a contract done a couple times. So drafting Hudler a year before Fedorov was a UFA, and believing at the draft table that he wouldn't re-sign and taking a 5'9" center to replace him seems like a stretch. Our Euro scout stopped just short of begging the brass to take Hudler.

The situations to me are the same. The Wings took the best player available. The Oilers drafted for need and took the best player that they felt fit that need.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:30 AM
  #30
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Guys... until some of these guys pan out, or fall off the map, there isn't really a mistake made that can be analyzed.

If Hudler scores 50 goals, and no one the Oilers picked makes it, then yeah, booo the Oilers brass... but until we see the results of these guys, lets give a little credit to the guys who went out and saw all of these guys lots, and decided on who were the players that the Oilers needed.

And moses... give Stortini a chance. He is was a 17 year old captain who played in a defensive role on a horrible hockey team. Apparantly, he is going to get more time in an offensive role this season, and we'll see where he goes.

Not everyone gets to the OHL and has 90 point seasons. Lots of players average less that 0.5 points per game early in their career but by the time they are 19 are 80-100 point players. He has lots of room for improvement, but he also has some good tools, and a great work ethic to help him improve.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:36 AM
  #31
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Guys... until some of these guys pan out, or fall off the map, there isn't really a mistake made that can be analyzed.

If Hudler scores 50 goals, and no one the Oilers picked makes it, then yeah, booo the Oilers brass... but until we see the results of these guys, lets give a little credit to the guys who went out and saw all of these guys lots, and decided on who were the players that the Oilers needed.

And moses... give Stortini a chance. He is was a 17 year old captain who played in a defensive role on a horrible hockey team. Apparantly, he is going to get more time in an offensive role this season, and we'll see where he goes.

Not everyone gets to the OHL and has 90 point seasons. Lots of players average less that 0.5 points per game early in their career but by the time they are 19 are 80-100 point players. He has lots of room for improvement, but he also has some good tools, and a great work ethic to help him improve.
No worries dawg, this is just a little debate among friends...no malice here AT ALL.

LT is trying to defend the Greene pick as he could turn out to be a far better player than Hudler. I don't think that is the case and think that the Oilers picked by need rather than BPA.

I am not booing the Oilers brass, because I know what they were doing. They wanted to take a big defenseman at 44. I am disapppointed they don't at times take the BPA because of the size consideration.(Hudler two years ago and Parise last year)

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 08:40 AM
  #32
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
And moses... give Stortini a chance. He is was a 17 year old captain who played in a defensive role on a horrible hockey team. Apparantly, he is going to get more time in an offensive role this season, and we'll see where he goes.
For what it's worth, during a 67's broadcast vs the wolves, they said that they expect good things from Stortini this year...He'll get a crapload of icetime, play the PP and the PK...He'll be captain this year and they expect his development for skyrocket...He'll become a more complete player this year, not just a scrapper...They say anyways...

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 09:21 AM
  #33
Funkymoses
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 840
vCash: 500
didn't mean to pick on Stortini too much. But realistically if he's going to be any sort of offensive factor in the NHL he'll basically going to have to pick it all up post-draft.

I guess I disagree with the Oiler's current high-risk strategy. They're picking a truckload of guys who are big now and might play well later. It's not like the Oilers are alone, I guess.

Funkymoses is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 09:41 AM
  #34
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkymoses
didn't mean to pick on Stortini too much. But realistically if he's going to be any sort of offensive factor in the NHL he'll basically going to have to pick it all up post-draft.

I guess I disagree with the Oiler's current high-risk strategy. They're picking a truckload of guys who are big now and might play well later. It's not like the Oilers are alone, I guess.
I do understand where you are coming from... but the way I see it is this.

Stortini puts is all into it every time he is on the ice.
He'd die for his teammates.
He has good size.
He takes the suggestions coaches give him and applies them.

He has everything but the pure skill it takes to be a successful NHL hockey player. Now... we have seen this formula work countless times (i.e. Scott Ferguson), but the opposite is very rarely the formula for an NHLer. Guys with lots of skill who don't have at least some of the other things simply cannot succed in the NHL. Guys like Bonsignore, Daigle, etc... are all under that category.

Now, I am not saying this applies to Hudler or anything, I am just talking about reasons why Stortini got picked where he did. After watching him play alot last year, I am going to go out on a limb and say that at the very least, he is a career AHLer, most likely a captain, who will know that his role is to protect the future stars on the ice, as well as instill the fear of God in them to work their butts off.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 10:10 AM
  #35
oilswell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wandering the globe
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkymoses
I dunno. I think the current drafting strategy has swung too far towards big guys and we're passing on better players in favor of grumpy large guys for whom a stick is basically superflous.
Yes, I have voices in my head talking like that also. Another voice tells me that any player can be a bust for a zillion different reasons, but if you pick a 6'3" guy, at the very least he won't likely be a bust for being too small for the NHL.

I also have a suspicion that the small player angle might be overblown. Maybe someone more knowledgable can corroborate. Its clear that no GM thought Hudler was a "sure thing". Thus people might be keying in on size and making excuses. Size not important? Pick the "character" quality. Then the argument becomes "this guy cant skate worth a damn, but he has character, so why did he fall two rounds?". You see where I'm going here, I hope. Size is why Hudler dropped, but its a "strike" against him just like lack of character, skating, shooting, passing, etc. could be. I don't follow the draft too closely, but I suspect players drop for these reasons too. Why single out size as being a stupid thing to bias against?

I'm all for trying to draft home runs in the early rounds, playing conservative in the middle, and playing a guessing game in the late rounds. One thought I had was that if players A and B are roughly equal in other areas and A is bigger, you take A because even if he turns out NOT to have 1st line skills, he might make it on the 3rd or 4th line and therefore is less likely to be a total bust pick. Perhaps in the eyes of Oilers brass Parise was player B and Pouliot was player A?

oilswell is offline  
Old
09-30-2003, 10:36 AM
  #36
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilswell
Yes, I have voices in my head talking like that also. Another voice tells me that any player can be a bust for a zillion different reasons, but if you pick a 6'3" guy, at the very least he won't likely be a bust for being too small for the NHL.

I also have a suspicion that the small player angle might be overblown. Maybe someone more knowledgable can corroborate. Its clear that no GM thought Hudler was a "sure thing". Thus people might be keying in on size and making excuses. Size not important? Pick the "character" quality. Then the argument becomes "this guy cant skate worth a damn, but he has character, so why did he fall two rounds?". You see where I'm going here, I hope. Size is why Hudler dropped, but its a "strike" against him just like lack of character, skating, shooting, passing, etc. could be. I don't follow the draft too closely, but I suspect players drop for these reasons too. Why single out size as being a stupid thing to bias against?

I'm all for trying to draft home runs in the early rounds, playing conservative in the middle, and playing a guessing game in the late rounds. One thought I had was that if players A and B are roughly equal in other areas and A is bigger, you take A because even if he turns out NOT to have 1st line skills, he might make it on the 3rd or 4th line and therefore is less likely to be a total bust pick. Perhaps in the eyes of Oilers brass Parise was player B and Pouliot was player A?
I have not seen anything in print aside from size that has been suggested as a knock on Hudler(Personally at the draft I wasn't that high on him). He was 3rd Ranked by CSB and 8th by Redline Report. Alot of people liked him...but 5'9 165 really doesn't translate very well to the NHL so the player has to have superior talent to get a look. A good example of size being too much of a hinderance is Simon Gamache. Scored....184 points his last year in the Q and 327 points in his last 144 games of Junior. He was drafted 290th overall by Atlanta in 2000 and still hasn't cracked their roster.(5'10 and 170 at draft time)

Obviously there is some trepidation with small players. It is understandable.

The Oilers passed on Parise for only one reason. They went into the draft and said we have to get bigger(And I do believe that Pendergast confirmed this with Guy F). They might have thought that Pouliot could have been the better player. But all things considered equal they went for the bigger player. They also knew that everyone else probably had Parise ranked higher than Pouliot and also felt that if they dropped with the trade to Jersey that their guy would still be there. This reads to me that although Parise was ranked higher than almost everyone, the Oilers weren't biting on a small player. PERIOD.

Slats432 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 09:57 PM.

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.