HFBoards

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

If we had drafted for size in the past drafts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2007, 08:24 AM
  #26
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,125
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
I am not to worried about the size, we drafted well and Hainsey was actually a decent pic and seems to have turned his career around in Columbus.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 04:47 PM
  #27
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozz View Post
It's not about drafting for size but about drafting the right players.

In 2000, Alexei Mikhnov was available... 6.05 -- 218lbs!!
So was Hugh Jessiman in 2003... 6.06 -- 231lbs!!

Size works you say?
Well, you would take the best big man available. I thought that was implied.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 04:49 PM
  #28
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,309
vCash: 500
when you draft for size you take Jason Ward over Marian Hossa and Eric Chouinard over Simon Gagne.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 04:49 PM
  #29
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
when you draft for size you take Jason Ward over Marian Hossa and Eric Chouinard over Simon Gagne.
Only if you're an idiot. Ward, Ryan and Chouinard can barely stand up on their skates. I mean, did they even have scouts back then?

In any case, it looks like Gainey is on the right track. The Red Wings made the Ducks look silly last night with their puck control. And they didn't even have Schneider (tho Chelios is playing like a young man).


Last edited by tinyzombies: 05-16-2007 at 04:59 PM.
tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 04:59 PM
  #30
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
when you draft for size you take Jason Ward over Marian Hossa and Eric Chouinard over Simon Gagne.
Just out of curiosity, did anybody anywhere rank Hossa above Ward? I don't recall. I remember Ward was rated #4 by CSB. (Hossa was highly rated too, amongst Europeans, I believe). Getting Ward at #11 seemed like a bit of a bargain at the time, despite the fact that there was general acknowledgement that he'd probably drop a bit due to his injury troubles.

Anyway, hindsighting the draft is a classic gaffe in itself. Size *is* a factor to consider in the draft. Big good players *are* better than small good players, even in today's NHL. I think it sadly underestimates the professionalism of NHL scouting staffs when yahoos on internet message boards oversimplify criticisms of draft decisions that turned out to be mistakes.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 05:11 PM
  #31
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Just out of curiosity, did anybody anywhere rank Hossa above Ward? I don't recall. I remember Ward was rated #4 by CSB. (Hossa was highly rated too, amongst Europeans, I believe). Getting Ward at #11 seemed like a bit of a bargain at the time, despite the fact that there was general acknowledgement that he'd probably drop a bit due to his injury troubles.

Anyway, hindsighting the draft is a classic gaffe in itself. Size *is* a factor to consider in the draft. Big good players *are* better than small good players, even in today's NHL. I think it sadly underestimates the professionalism of NHL scouting staffs when yahoos on internet message boards oversimplify criticisms of draft decisions that turned out to be mistakes.
I'm aware hindsight is always 20/20, BUT, the only reason guys like Chouinard and Ward were considered over Hossa and Gagne was size. Whether or not we were the only ones is irrelevant. The fact is, a huge premium was put on size and it gave the scouts tunnel vision.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 05:18 PM
  #32
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I'm aware hindsight is always 20/20, BUT, the only reason guys like Chouinard and Ward were considered over Hossa and Gagne was size. Whether or not we were the only ones is irrelevant. The fact is, a huge premium was put on size and it gave the scouts tunnel vision.
Yes, but that is why it was a mistake. You can still draft for size while factoring in other variables, including accounting for smaller players who might have more of an impact. I would assume anyway.

To my mind, we need size to win and it has to come through the draft or else it will tax our salary cap too much. (We also need puckmovers on defense, but I digress...we do have a couple now in the system...)


Last edited by tinyzombies: 05-16-2007 at 05:25 PM.
tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 05:20 PM
  #33
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I'm aware hindsight is always 20/20, BUT, the only reason guys like Chouinard and Ward were considered over Hossa and Gagne was size. Whether or not we were the only ones is irrelevant. The fact is, a huge premium was put on size and it gave the scouts tunnel vision.
So you sat in on the Habs draft meetings, then? Cool. Can you tell us more about what went on, then?

Otherwise... how do you know that a "huge premium" was put on size? For all we know, they had those players basically dead even. Then they said, well, hey, Chouinard is 3 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier. So that breaks that tie. Ward isn't much bigger than Hossa, but he brings some good character elements there, breaks that tie. That's not what I'd call a "huge premium". It's just what any scout anywhere would do. Or maybe they weren't even close in their rankings and size never even came up. Certainly in the Ward case, an awful lot of scouts liked him a lot. And he wasn't exactly a huge guy, he was a bit malnourished and fragile, but folks liked him all the same.

Scouts who get "tunnel vision" probably don't stay scouts for long. Nor for that matter do many such ever likely even reach the NHL level. Fans who get "tunnel vision"... either in fore or hind-sight... well, that's rather more common, I bet.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 05:23 PM
  #34
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
So you sat in on the Habs draft meetings, then? Cool. Can you tell us more about what went on, then?

Otherwise... how do you know that a "huge premium" was put on size? For all we know, they had those players basically dead even. Then they said, well, hey, Chouinard is 3 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier. So that breaks that tie. Ward isn't much bigger than Hossa, but he brings some good character elements there, breaks that tie. That's not what I'd call a "huge premium". It's just what any scout anywhere would do. Or maybe they weren't even close in their rankings and size never even came up. Certainly in the Ward case, an awful lot of scouts liked him a lot. And he wasn't exactly a huge guy, he was a bit malnourished and fragile, but folks liked him all the same.

Scouts who get "tunnel vision" probably don't stay scouts for long. Nor for that matter do many such ever likely even reach the NHL level. Fans who get "tunnel vision"... either in fore or hind-sight... well, that's rather more common, I bet.
This is my favorite debate.

The problem is that Gagne and Hossa are both light years ahead of Chouinard and Ward as far as skating goes. You would think that would have been the tiebreaking issue there.

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 05:26 PM
  #35
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves View Post
Yes, but that is why it was a mistake. You can still draft for size while factoring in other variables, including accounting for smaller players who might have more of an impact. I would assume anyway.

To my mind, we need size to win and it has to come through the draft or else it will tax our salary cap too much. (We also need puckmovers on defense, but I digress...we do have a couple now in the system...)
I would always put a bigger premium on speed than size. You are much more likely to be an effective nhler if you are small and fast as opposed to big and slow.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 06:03 PM
  #36
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vampiro View Post
Kyle Chipchura sucks !!

There were far better players available at this moment.

Guys like Travis Zajac, Wojtek Wolski, Dustin Boyd, Blake Comeau, David Krejci, David Bolland, Rob Schremp and Andrej Meszaros would've made a huge difference in your prospects pool !!

Instead the Habs got a turtle defensive specialist who's upside is no more than a 3rd liner Give a me a break !! This guy were made to be okay in the old NHL, but in this new game, he will be useless, leadership or not !! It doesn't matter anymore if you can't skate !!
Well he was drafted in the "old nhl" but he should be a full time nhler within 2 years. Someone has to play on the PK and Chipchura will be one of them imo. His skating isn't that bad, it's his first step quickness and mobility that need improvement, plus his shot lacks power.

The Habs have done well in the 1st round from the early looks of it. Higgins, Price, Komisarek, Kostitsyn, Fischer, Chipchura, that's a nice group of prospects and a good mix of different abilities.

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 06:28 PM
  #37
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post

Scouts who get "tunnel vision" probably don't stay scouts for long. Nor for that matter do many such ever likely even reach the NHL level. Fans who get "tunnel vision"... either in fore or hind-sight... well, that's rather more common, I bet.
that brings up an interesting question...
Who were the scouting heads for the habs in the 90's?
How long did they last with the club?
Where are they now?

though you'd think that poor drafting results = people getting fired, i don't think that is usually the case in the NHL.
I get the impression that in many cases, people often get scouting jobs because of close ties/relationships in the hockey world. It's a position that can pay well, keeps people in the loop (when they are in between coaching/management positions) and is out of the spotlight enough that the fan base/media isn't usually as critical of individuals who perform poorly (also because it takes so long for a draft to really be evaluated).

People like to categorize the draft as a pure crapshoot, which is true to a point, but i think overall, teams that have good scouting tend to draft well and make up for the "luck/unlucky" factor with at least 1 or 2 quality picks every year. I'd bet (and I have no desire to do the research involved to find out) that if you look at the 4-5teams with the best winning % over the last decade, you'll also find the best /most professional scouting groups... and conversly, if you look at the 4-5 worst, you;ll find a lot of guys in the scouting department that are there more because of their buddies then because of any history of success.

I'd make for a real interesting hockey article if anyone ever got around to digging deep enough.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 06:32 PM
  #38
tinyzombies
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Calif via Montreal
Posts: 11,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I would always put a bigger premium on speed than size. You are much more likely to be an effective nhler if you are small and fast as opposed to big and slow.
Tell that to the Buffalo Sabres.

I think puck control, vision and size is the future of the game. If you can protect the puck with your body and gain positioning, you will draw penalties. And if you can turn and use that split second to make a pass, you will be extra valuable with the new rules.

And, of course, you have to mix in other types of players, but that is the key if you use Detroit as a blueprint. They only have Lidstrom and Chelios and look what they're doing!

tinyzombies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 06:35 PM
  #39
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I would always put a bigger premium on speed than size. You are much more likely to be an effective nhler if you are small and fast as opposed to big and slow.
Work ethic/Skill/Hockey IQ > Progession > Speed/Skating > Size

that would be my order when evaluating draft prospects...

there are quality NHLers (new and old) that are small and succeeded... there are quality NHLers that weren't great skaters that succeeded...
but no one ever got anywhere without either a great work ethic or incredible talent/hockey IQ (and those with both, no matter how small or how slow, are always -at least- good players).

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 07:42 PM
  #40
Pere Noel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves View Post
Would would have:

2005: Anze Kopitar (we took Price)
2004: Kyle Chipchura (we drafted him)
2003: Ryan Getzlaf or Jeff Carter (we took Kosty)
2002: Anton Babchuk (we took Higgins)
2001: Mike Komisarek (we drafted him)
2000: Alexander Frolov and Anton Volchenkov (we took Hainsey and Hossa)

Hard to see where you would go wrong drafting for size...?
Wait a minute... you cheated a little bit here...

I just picked 2003 out of nowhere... and the best sizeable option was Hugh Jessiman at 6'06" ( selected two below Kosty - and by the way, a lot of people where saying great things about him). I prefer Kosty.



So I went ahead.. and checked 2002.. and within the first two rounds... there was Andrei Mikhnov at 6'06".... a bit low in second round... still I prefer Higgins to Anton or Andrei.

In 2001 we drafted Komisarek and Perezhogin. There was Dave Steckel 6'05"
Matthew Spiller 6'05" Martin Podlesak 6'06" Kiel McLeod 6'06"... So I still like Komisarek and Perezhogin over those guys...

By the way, in 2001... great options were Derek Roy (5'08") and Mike Cammalleri (5'09")


In 2000... you had Alexei Mikhnov at 6'05 drafted right after Hossa (6'0") and Hainsey (6'03" by the way)... And Frolov (6'02") is smaller than Hainsey (by the way Andre Savard tried to trade so to get him).... Anton is 6'01".... There was Brad Winchester at 6'05" and Kurtis Foster 6'05".... so your way would have seen us draft Brad Winchester and Foster... Hainsey and Hossa... while not stellar... are still better than those.


In 2004... Wojtek Wolski is 6'03... Jeff Schultz 6'05"... Andy Rogers was 6'05"... Logan Stephenson 6'03".... Grant Lewis 6'03"... Bryan Bickell 6'04"... Mike Funk 6'04"... Dane Byers 6'03"... Carl Soderberg 6'03"... Bruce Graham 6'06".... Victor Oreskovich 6'03"... Nicklas Grossman 6'03... Geoff Paukovich 6'04"... Kyle Wharton 6"03"... Mark Tobin 6"03"... of all of those, I still prefer Chipchura at 6'02"

In 2005, Sasha Pokulok at 6'05" (drafted #14 whereas Kopitar, smaller at 6'04" was drafted #11)... Martin Hanzal 6'05" (#17)... Joe Finley 6'07" (#27)... Vladimir Mihalik 6"08" (#30) .... Vladimir Mihalik 6'04".... Matt Kassian 6'04"... I still prefer Price (6'02") over Kopitar in the long run.... and moreso over taller ones than Kopitar as your strategy suggest....

Anyway... Montreal learned the hard way... Denis Savard at 5'10" was a better option than Wickenheiser at 6'01". (It took years for Montreal to understand though... with all that beef from the west...)

And Quebec had the nice pleasure to figure out that Forsberg 6'00" was a better alternative to Lindros 6'04".


Last edited by Pere Noel: 05-16-2007 at 07:49 PM.
Pere Noel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 08:16 PM
  #41
Ice Poutine
Photoshop Nut
 
Ice Poutine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ____
Country: Martinique
Posts: 11,663
vCash: 500
Drafting for size isnt a way to assured success. The Flyers always tried to draft big players and have always been a very big team. And all they won for that was 2 Cups in 74 and 75.

Big and fast and talented is ok, just big is no garanty of winning.

Ice Poutine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 08:46 PM
  #42
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 500
Hossa is 6-3 220 Frolov is 6-2 210
Hainsey is 6-3 211 Volchenkov is 6-0 237
Kopitar is 6-4 220 Price is 6-3 212

To me that looks like a saw-off... not much to pick and choose in terms of size.

I think we would be much better drafting the player who is going to be the best in the future rather than picking and choosing between a half inch here and five pounds there.

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 08:58 PM
  #43
Bronn
Registered Sellsword
 
Bronn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Highest Bidder
Posts: 10,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raketheleaves View Post
Would would have:

2005: Anze Kopitar (we took Price)
2004: Kyle Chipchura (we drafted him)
2003: Ryan Getzlaf or Jeff Carter (we took Kosty)
2002: Anton Babchuk (we took Higgins)
2001: Mike Komisarek (we drafted him)
2000: Alexander Frolov and Anton Volchenkov (we took Hainsey and Hossa)

Hard to see where you would go wrong drafting for size...?
2005: I admit that i was surprised at the Price pick.I wanted Kopitar too at first but seeing how things are turning out with Price i'm more than satisfied.Plus , for a goalie , Price does have size

2004 : I still think that we should have drafted Meszaros.Chipchura is not a bad pick however and yes , he does have size.

2003 : Hard to disagree there.I like Kosty but i do think that we should have drafted Getzlaf

2002 : We made the right choice with Higgins

2001 : We made the right choice with Komisarek

2000: I cannot really blame the organization for these two.Hainsey was expected to become a puck moving /PP anchor D for us and Hossa a top 2 line winger with a 30G/60-70 pts potential but no one could have predicted that they would bust like they did.Also , they both had size since this is what we are using as the basis for this thread.

So overall we may not have always drafted for size but it's not like we did pretty bad neither. In some case (Higgins) not going for size was the right thing to do while in some other (Kosty/Getzlaf) it may come back to haunt us one day.

Personally i think that we're going to be ok

Bronn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 09:50 PM
  #44
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
When will fans understand no team can draft the best player in every draft.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2007, 09:53 PM
  #45
tiredman
Registered User
 
tiredman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ville de Québec
Country:
Posts: 4,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Side View Post
2005: I admit that i was surprised at the Price pick.I wanted Kopitar too at first but seeing how things are turning out with Price i'm more than satisfied.Plus , for a goalie , Price does have size

2004 : I still think that we should have drafted Meszaros.Chipchura is not a bad pick however and yes , he does have size.

2003 : Hard to disagree there.I like Kosty but i do think that we should have drafted Getzlaf

2002 : We made the right choice with Higgins

2001 : We made the right choice with Komisarek

2000: I cannot really blame the organization for these two.Hainsey was expected to become a puck moving /PP anchor D for us and Hossa a top 2 line winger with a 30G/60-70 pts potential but no one could have predicted that they would bust like they did.Also , they both had size since this is what we are using as the basis for this thread.

So overall we may not have always drafted for size but it's not like we did pretty bad neither. In some case (Higgins) not going for size was the right thing to do while in some other (Kosty/Getzlaf) it may come back to haunt us one day.

Personally i think that we're going to be ok
Hainsey isn't a bust. He apparently developped very well in Columbus which is why he had over 30 pts this season.

tiredman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2007, 11:53 AM
  #46
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that brings up an interesting question...
Who were the scouting heads for the habs in the 90's?
How long did they last with the club?
Where are they now?
Well, one could go back through one's old Guide and Record books and dig all that out, of course, but off the top of my head I'll list the 90's progression as Andre Boudrias under Serge Savard, leading to Pierre Mondou and Pierre Dorion under Houle, then I think basically the Andre Savard/Martin Madden team had the main say until the current incumbents came along. At the top, anyway.

I think Boudrias is currently scouting for the Devils, and Dorion for the Rangers. Anyway, it's not like they're all bumbling idiots or anything, they are hockey people. Good hockey people make bad decisions, bad hockey people make good ones, I don't think anybody will find any trends worthy of criticism at the level of our past scouting staffs or directors...

Quote:
though you'd think that poor drafting results = people getting fired, i don't think that is usually the case in the NHL.
I get the impression that in many cases, people often get scouting jobs because of close ties/relationships in the hockey world. It's a position that can pay well, keeps people in the loop (when they are in between coaching/management positions) and is out of the spotlight enough that the fan base/media isn't usually as critical of individuals who perform poorly (also because it takes so long for a draft to really be evaluated).
Yes and no... I think things *are* changing (at different rates in different venues) to come more in line with professional, results-oriented business practices. But anyway, at least at the level of the top draft choices we tend to criticize, you could never pile the blame onto the scouts in the trenches. They might file reports, but it's always guys above them calling the shots.
Quote:
People like to categorize the draft as a pure crapshoot, which is true to a point, but i think overall, teams that have good scouting tend to draft well and make up for the "luck/unlucky" factor with at least 1 or 2 quality picks every year. I'd bet (and I have no desire to do the research involved to find out) that if you look at the 4-5teams with the best winning % over the last decade, you'll also find the best /most professional scouting groups... and conversly, if you look at the 4-5 worst, you;ll find a lot of guys in the scouting department that are there more because of their buddies then because of any history of success.

I'd make for a real interesting hockey article if anyone ever got around to digging deep enough.
I think it's enough of a crapshoot that you'd almost never get anything very interesting out of such work. I did some of it in the 80-90's, filling up the usenet archives with analyses and arguments. I don't know how much of it was particularly meaningful. The Habs were actually one of the better drafting teams overall. Notable failures in the 1st round, but amongst the better teams past that. Which I personally always used to further my vendetta against Serge Servard, claiming that if our scouts were so damned good past the 1st round, why is it we had so many notable 1st round failures? Could it be the GM was sticking his nose into the process too often and disrupting things? Well, who knows. The crapshoot theory works just as well, though.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2007, 12:01 PM
  #47
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,125
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABS456 View Post
Hainsey isn't a bust. He apparently developped very well in Columbus which is why he had over 30 pts this season.
I totally agree, with Souray likely gone next season Hainsey would look nice on the blueline and I would probably take him over the Cube or Dandenault.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2007, 12:03 PM
  #48
Artie
Registered User
 
Artie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Montreal, Que
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I think it's enough of a crapshoot that you'd almost never get anything very interesting out of such work. I did some of it in the 80-90's, filling up the usenet archives with analyses and arguments. I don't know how much of it was particularly meaningful. The Habs were actually one of the better drafting teams overall. Notable failures in the 1st round, but amongst the better teams past that. Which I personally always used to further my vendetta against Serge Servard, claiming that if our scouts were so damned good past the 1st round, why is it we had so many notable 1st round failures? Could it be the GM was sticking his nose into the process too often and disrupting things? Well, who knows. The crapshoot theory works just as well, though.
I think that is probably more the case with the first round pick. It's the glamour pick and maybe GM's want to make more of a splash.

While many GM's subscribe to the BPA theory, I like the teams that pick based on the clubs style of play and philosophy. IMHO it makes it easier to integrate the players as they come into your system and you get better continuity and better chance that the player will succeed. Rather than always trying to place a square peg in a round whole. (of course this excludes franchise type #1 overall picks...then you adapt to that player hehehe)

Artie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2007, 03:11 PM
  #49
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post

I think it's enough of a crapshoot that you'd almost never get anything very interesting out of such work. I did some of it in the 80-90's, filling up the usenet archives with analyses and arguments. I don't know how much of it was particularly meaningful. The Habs were actually one of the better drafting teams overall. Notable failures in the 1st round, but amongst the better teams past that. .
Really?
I know that during the 80's we had some successfull drafts, getting quality NHLers outside of the 1st round, but did we really do well in that department in the 90's? I've always equate our terrible teams of the late 90's early 2000's to a combination of Houles awful trades, bad drafting throughout the 90's and the Roy karma...

I'm curious enough that I'm going to do some digging...

the 80's:

Great years:
- 1984: Maybe the Best first 4 picks of all time- Svoboda(5), Corson(8), Richer(29), Roy(51),
- 1987: 2nd best first 4 picks of all time???- Cassels(17), Leclair(33), Desjardins(38), Schneider(44)

Good years:
- 1980: even with bust at #1 overall (wickenheiser), habs did well- Natress(27), Ludwig(61), Mcphee(124)
- 1983: bad 1st again(A. Turcotte), but Lemieux(26) was great, and Momesso (27) and Kordic (78) were decent
- 1986: terrible first (pederson), but Brunet, Lumme and Odelin were all solid NHLers (unfortunately Lumme, the best of the bunch, played his best years for another team)

Bad years:
- 1985: another bad 1st pick(charbonneau), Chorske(16) and Gilchrist(79) save it from being an awful draft
- 1989: terrrible 1st (Vallis), Brisebois(30), Racicot(83), Lebeau(167) "save" it from awful status

Awful years:
- 1982: Awful, 17 picks (7 in top 70) and not ONE solid NHLer

"1 trick pony" years (awful minus one really good/great player):
- 1981: Chelios (40), Tom Kurvers the only other "NHLer"
- 1988: Hill (167), P. Popovic the only other "NHLer"

2 great, 3 good, 2 bad, 1 awful + Chelios and Hill = 35 solid NHLers... 80's were definitely a solid overall drafting decade for the habs.

I'll do the 90's later, but I'm betting the results won't be nearly as good...


P.S thanks for the info on the 80's/90's scouts...


Last edited by Miller Time: 05-17-2007 at 03:46 PM.
Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2007, 03:35 PM
  #50
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Really?
I know that during the 80's we had some successfull drafts, getting quality NHLers outside of the 1st round, but did we really do well in that department in the 90's? I've always equate our terrible teams of the late 90's early 2000's to a combination of Houles awful trades, bad drafting throughout the 90's and the Roy karma...

I'm curious enough that I'm going to do some digging...

P.S thanks for the info on the 80's/90's scouts...
So you made me look on Google. Turns out my main recollections are from 1994-95, trying to demolish Serge Savard, and my analysis at that time seems to have been for the 1983-1991 draft period. I know I did some extensions on that subsequently, but I don't think it was the subject of as much debate, hence the results don't stick in my mind. (Of course, whatever ancient floppy-disk bearing computer of that age I used is long long dead, so I don't have any files anymore).

I could see the success rate dropping off in the 90s even outside of the 1st round, compared to '83-91. It would indeed be interesting to chart it up and see. I've made this offer a few times in the past, but if anybody wants to pay me a 6-figure salary for it, I'll happily churn it all out.

Blind Gardien 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 04:55 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.