HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Where do we go wrong with our 1st Rounders??????

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-13-2006, 11:24 PM
  #1
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Where do we go wrong with our 1st Rounders??????

I was glancing through my NHL Guide, and it's kinda sad to see what has become of our No. 1 picks.

2003 -- Jessiman -- Sorry guys, he's done.

2002 -- none

2001 -- Blackburn -- Sorry Guys, he's done

2000 -- none

1999 -- Brendl, Lundmark -- Jeff taffe? Is that all we have to show for these picks?

1998 -- Malhotra -- The future captain of the Rangers? It's obvious that if it weren't for expansion, he'd be out of the league.

1997 -- Cherneski -- I really really liked this pick. Sorry guys, he was done a long time ago.

1996 -- Jeff Brown -- The 1996 draft was really weak. I mean really weak.

1995 -- none. Although our 2nd Rounder, Christian Dube, was mighty fine against the Flyers in the 1997 conference finals, with fellow linemates Ken Gernander and Dallas Eakins. How did we NOT win the Cup that year, hehe.

1994 -- Dan Cloutier -- wow. Still in the league. Wait, scratch that. he's on the sofa.

1993 -- Niklas Sundstrom -- decent pick, but look who was drafted after him in the 1st round.

1992 -- Peter Ferraro -- that's what we get for drafting from Ice-lander Country

1991 -- Alexei Kovalev -- Now we're talkin'...

1990 -- Michael Stewart -- you're kidding right???

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:31 PM
  #2
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,544
vCash: 420
you lost me here

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
2003 -- Jessiman -- Sorry guys, he's done.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:38 PM
  #3
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31-
you lost me here

How many top 15 picks can you name that go from amateur elite to ECHL in just over 2 seasons? Jessiman's been on the decline since his sophomore season at Dartmouth...

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:39 PM
  #4
frohli44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to frohli44 Send a message via AIM to frohli44
you are right for the most part...but you fail to mention staal who looks like the real deal, and a lot of our better prospects come in the later round which is more impressive than first rounders...but yes, i do agree out first rounders dont have so much to show for. not yet at least

frohli44 is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:39 PM
  #5
Block More Shots
Registered User
 
Block More Shots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,355
vCash: 500
I don't see how Jessiman is done. Give the kid some time...

I just don't think our organization drafts well in the 1st round. It seems odd because there's solid talent in the 1st round but there's always a select few who aren't supposed to be there. It seems like the Rangers got unlucky a lot in the past and even though they were highly touted prospects, never got around to becoming what they were supposed to be.

Also, I think that our coaching staff is due part of the blame. IMHO Lundmark could've been something special if he wasn't getting **** minutes and wasn't playing in the shadow of all of those big stars. Not only that but we rushed him. If the Rangers wanted him on the pro team right away, wouldn't you think he'd be playing on the top 2 lines? That's the test...if he doesn't do well with a lot of playing time on those top 2 lines, you send him back to juniors/Hartford. Even when he did get time, he was playing with more individual players than team players.

Brendl, Malhotra, Lundmark, and Blackburn (partly) were our fault. I say Blackburn partly because we played him too much when he was 18 and 19 years old. Obviously, him getting injured had nothing to do with the team and was a freak accident. Still, that's pretty rough for the kid. And for Lundmark, if he was used better, he could have been a top 6 forward IMO.

Block More Shots is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:40 PM
  #6
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
It's a little early to call him a bust. We've gone on at length on this topic before.

SML is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:42 PM
  #7
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
This is New York, man. We never had a farm system. We buy superstars with cash and/or picks

94now is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:51 PM
  #8
MMMcasserole
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
You have to factor in the luck that is needed when drafting too.

MMMcasserole is offline  
Old
01-13-2006, 11:58 PM
  #9
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
However..................

I will acknowledge our excellent drafting in the lower rounds, which was even the case with Smith at the helm. I didn't mention Staal, Montoya or Korpikoski because it's still early and all three are progressing on or ahead of schedule. Jessiman is not. I am an optimist, but I am also a realist. Jessiman is so far down the depth chart, and with the new rules benefitting speed and skill, i just don't see him cutting it. Besides, he has an Ivy League education and comes from an affluent family. He doesn't need hockey. At least Dominic Moore, who I am really not too high on, contributes enough to get a fourth-line spot.

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 12:01 AM
  #10
TheZherdev
Registered User
 
TheZherdev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,351
vCash: 500
Blackburn was a VERY GOOD pick. There was no way the scouting staff coulda seen this goalie who is not injury prone get into a freak accident ultimately forcing him to retire.

TheZherdev is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 12:16 AM
  #11
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackburn2727
Blackburn was a VERY GOOD pick. There was no way the scouting staff coulda seen this goalie who is not injury prone get into a freak accident ultimately forcing him to retire.

I'm a black-and-white kinda guy, and it was not a good pick, because if it was, Blackburn would be in the NHL and one of the top young goalies in the league. I understand he made the all-rookie team playing for a poor Rangers squad, but the truth hurts. It was a good pick at the time because we needed a franchise goalie. But the purpose of this thread is to showcase how we shouldn't tout our prospects too much until they perform as expected at the NHL level. Blackburn had one decent season, but in retrospect he wasn't the next Richter as we made him out to be.

So to me, Prucha is a good pick. Lundqvist is a good pick. Tyutin is a good pick. Heck, I'll even say Moore and Hollweg are good picks. But as far as myself, I am done relying on prospects until they prove it at the NHL level.

PS...You wanna see the right way to draft in the 1st round? Check out Philly's 1st-round gems the last decade or so....

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 12:17 AM
  #12
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,728
vCash: 910
Awards:
I don't know, I think it's a combination of bad luck and bad coaching. In the cases of Brendl and Malhotra, I feel like the coaching was to blame. getting **** minutes and having Lundy play on our fourth line or with Barnaby or McCarthy or some other stiff, I really think stunted his development. Same goes for Malhotra. Blackburn would have been a great tender, IMO. That was just a freak injury.

Brendl was just bad luck. Clearly the kid didn't have the heart for the game, which is something that is really hard to get a grasp of from a scouting standpoint. In Juniors you couldn't tell he had no heart, because he could dominate simply on talent alone. Then, as he got the higher levels, he was increasingly challenged and seemingly lost interest. How do you project that? At the time he was picked, he was universally hailed as a future scoring star.

I also think that you have to keep in mind that drafting in hockey is not like drafting in the NFL- in hockey, you've got 17 year old kids playing in Russia going in the first round. It's extremely difficult to project how that player will develop. It happens in the baseball and, to a lesser extent, the NBA. That's not to say that drafting in the first round is purely a crapshoot, but when you look at some of the picks from the later rounds that we have made, it's clear that our scouts do have a good idea of what they are getting.

nyr2k2 is online now  
Old
01-14-2006, 12:49 AM
  #13
MMMcasserole
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
it was not a good pick, because if it was, Blackburn would be in the NHL and one of the top young goalies in the league.
What do you not understand about Blackburn's injury??

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
So to me, Prucha is a good pick. Lundqvist is a good pick. Tyutin is a good pick. Heck, I'll even say Moore and Hollweg are good picks. But as far as myself, I am done relying on prospects until they prove it at the NHL level.
WHY wouldn't they be considered good picks??

MMMcasserole is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 01:08 AM
  #14
filthy#20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
I'm a black-and-white kinda guy, and it was not a good pick, because if it was, Blackburn would be in the NHL and one of the top young goalies in the league. I understand he made the all-rookie team playing for a poor Rangers squad, but the truth hurts. It was a good pick at the time because we needed a franchise goalie. But the purpose of this thread is to showcase how we shouldn't tout our prospects too much until they perform as expected at the NHL level. Blackburn had one decent season, but in retrospect he wasn't the next Richter as we made him out to be.

So to me, Prucha is a good pick. Lundqvist is a good pick. Tyutin is a good pick. Heck, I'll even say Moore and Hollweg are good picks. But as far as myself, I am done relying on prospects until they prove it at the NHL level.

PS...You wanna see the right way to draft in the 1st round? Check out Philly's 1st-round gems the last decade or so....
what a ridculous thread

blackburn showed heaps of promise despite what his stats indicated when he was with the rangers. he had a very bad defense and team in front of him

if he never had this shoulder problem HE would be starting goaltender.

end of the day, no point continually looking back and arguing over the same things.

every person is going a judge a young player differently. some will give them a few years to see if they develop into the player the team projected them to be and some ppl will make a rarsh judgement after seeing them play at age of 20-22.

leave jessiman alone...every team has project players...

filthy#20 is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 01:44 AM
  #15
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMMcasserole
What do you not understand about Blackburn's injury??



WHY wouldn't they be considered good picks??



Umm, because they are fourth-liners who don't score. They play their roles well, but there is no offensive production coming from the line when teams like Philly, Ottawa, Colorado, Detroit have gotten perennial two-way production out of their fourth lines.

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 01:55 AM
  #16
Khelvan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,394
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Khelvan Send a message via AIM to Khelvan Send a message via MSN to Khelvan
Sorry, but Malhotra has played very, very well this season. He even did an adequate job when he was forced into playing above his level as the first line center for Columbus for a time, though he is back where he belongs on a checking line now.

Khelvan is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:02 AM
  #17
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by filthy#20
what a ridculous thread

blackburn showed heaps of promise despite what his stats indicated when he was with the rangers. he had a very bad defense and team in front of him

if he never had this shoulder problem HE would be starting goaltender.

end of the day, no point continually looking back and arguing over the same things.

every person is going a judge a young player differently. some will give them a few years to see if they develop into the player the team projected them to be and some ppl will make a rarsh judgement after seeing them play at age of 20-22.

leave jessiman alone...every team has project players...


What are you 10 years old? Did Danny sign a jersey of yours or something? The kid was a bust, plain and simple. I don't care if a bus rolled off cliff and landed on him while he was doing his morning stretches. He never amounted to what the organization and us fans said he would. JD is a prime, repeat offender for overhyping these kids. Blackburn was a Western Canadian goaltender. Obviously JD is going to tout him as the next Plante. And Ranger fans bought it. The guy ended his career because he was lifting weights.......Are you kidding me?

Same goes for Jessiman. Seriously. Has he given Ranger Fans any inclination that he has a chance to become what we said he would on draft day? This guy was the next John Leclair. Or so we thought. Now he's toiling in the ECHL, not even good enough to crack Hartford's roster. Obviously, Sather won't let him go because it'll make him look even more stupid because of the failure Jessiman has become. He decided to go pro, when it was clear that another year in the highly-competitive ECAC would have benefited him.

I have no sympathy for 1st-round picks who command tons of money, go pro when they aren't ready and then are forced into an early retirement because they couldn't hack it in the big leagues, if they even made it there.

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:05 AM
  #18
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,731
vCash: 500
Wow.............

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:13 AM
  #19
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,983
vCash: 500
ugh, i don't know why i'm even contributing, but you lose credibility the instant you proclaim blackburn a bust. he probably had more talent than any of the rangers goalies now (montoya, lundqvist) and the sole reason he's not in the NHL now is because he was injured and could never recover from that injury

that's not the definition of a bust.

now i'm not saying blackburn for sure would be the franchise goalie he was drafted to be...it's way too hard to project that out into the future, especially since our main exposure to him was as a 18 year old in the NHL...something that almost never happens and most people never see and therefor are not in a good position to judge. and when i say he had more talent than the current crop of rangers goalies, i don't mean to say that he for sure would have been better...but you say he's a bust and would never amount to anything without a bit of fact or analysis to back it up.

Levitate is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:21 AM
  #20
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
sole reason he's not in the NHL now is because he was injured and could never recover from that injury
Key words in said statement: "not in NHL" and "could never recover"

Bust.


20-32-4 = Bust

Yeah, maybe he was better than Henrik (drugs??) or Alvaro (hmm), but we'll never know. You know why?


BUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:26 AM
  #21
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
Key words in said statement: "not in NHL" and "could never recover"

Bust.


20-32-4 = Bust

Yeah, maybe he was better than Henrik (drugs??) or Alvaro (hmm), but we'll never know. You know why?


BUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Give it up, you don't know what a bust is.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:37 AM
  #22
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88
Give it up, you don't know what a bust is.


OK professor, explain to me how Blackburn differs from say Gord Kluzak, Brian Taylor, Tony Mandarich, Dave Chyzowski, Len Bias etc etc.

Because before or on draft day, all these players in their respective sports were synonymous with things like "upside" and "franchise" and "highly-touted" and "future star in this league".

Unfotunately, they are now described with "mistake" and "failure" and "unfortunate chain of events" and "career-ending".....

So if Blackburn isn't a bust of a 1st rounder, and he's not the goaltender the Rangers and scouts made him out to be (his performace with the Rangers was vastly inconsistent and marginal), then what would you call him?

GWOW is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 02:56 AM
  #23
Theoren Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 2,535
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Theoren Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
I'm a black-and-white kinda guy, and it was not a good pick, because if it was, Blackburn would be in the NHL and one of the top young goalies in the league. I understand he made the all-rookie team playing for a poor Rangers squad, but the truth hurts. It was a good pick at the time because we needed a franchise goalie. But the purpose of this thread is to showcase how we shouldn't tout our prospects too much until they perform as expected at the NHL level. Blackburn had one decent season, but in retrospect he wasn't the next Richter as we made him out to be.
I'm a black and white kinda guy, and you don't know of what you're talking about. Fact is Blackburn WAS in the NHL and WAS one of the top young goalies in the league. Injuries are unforeseen and a part of the game, and a injury to a player or prospect doesn't hold any merit to suggest it "was not a good pick". To even submit the notion that the Rangers should have known he'd damage a nerve in his shoulder several years after the draft is an absolutely ignorant suggestion. I understand that you likely won't agree, but the truth hurts. I hope this somewhat gives you a clearer understanding of the situation, though.

Quote:
1997 -- Cherneski -- I really really liked this pick. Sorry guys, he was done a long time ago.
Again, injured

Quote:
1994 -- Dan Cloutier -- wow. Still in the league. Wait, scratch that. he's on the sofa.
Again, injured and no you don't have to "scratch that", being on IR doesn't toss you out of the league. (BTW you're really stretching here, too. Cloutier's been the #1 goalie in VAN for years...)

It's just a matter of common sense that you just simply can not compare situations like Cherneski and Blackburn, guys who had their career's cut way too short, to guys like Brendl, Lundmark and Malhotra who just never panned out on their own end...

Theoren Fan is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 03:11 AM
  #24
Synergy27
Registered User
 
Synergy27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 4,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
OK professor, explain to me how Blackburn differs from say Gord Kluzak, Brian Taylor, Tony Mandarich, Dave Chyzowski, Len Bias etc etc.
You can throw out the names of as many obscure players you want, it does nothing to add to your credibility or to sway the opinions of those with whom you are arguing. Dan Blackburn played in the NHL and succeeded on a terrible team. Even if your reasoning that Blackburn is a bust because of his injury is valid (which is absurd by the way), it does nothing to support the supposed "point" of this thread which is to explain the ineptitude of Ranger scouts and front office. I suppose the scouts should have known that Danny was going to be injured in the weight room...

Synergy27 is offline  
Old
01-14-2006, 03:58 AM
  #25
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,081
vCash: 500
It's way to early to call Jessiman a bust. Big guys like that always take time so pronouncing him dead at 21 would be premature. I will say, however, that this is considerable reason to be concerned about Jessiman.

xander 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 09:17 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.