HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Is failure the key to success?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-08-2009, 06:16 AM
  #26
Jill Sandwich
Master of Unlocking
 
Jill Sandwich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arklay Mansion
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,716
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jill Sandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT2002 View Post
Very true. However, none of the new teams are 100% drafted players either are they? How many of the players on the Pens or Blackhawks were drafted by them because of tanked years? Are they?
That's the thing... when the Pens draft Kris Letang in the 3rd round in a draft where they go 1st overall... is that because of the tanking?

Chris Kunitz is there because of Ryan Whitney
Max Talbot (drafted 234th overall in the 8th round)
Marc-Andre Fleury
Evgeni Malkin
Tyler Kennedy (drafted in the 4th round)
Sidney Crosby
Kris Letang (drafted in the 3rd round)
Jordan Staal

Jill Sandwich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 06:25 AM
  #27
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveio View Post
Actually before Yzerman the Wings were one of the worst teams in the league for years. I think the stat was 17 years and only 2 playoff appearances. Either way they sucked at one point which is kind of hard to believe now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
A lot of people tend to forget those years, I believe. And while there are very few players on their current roster who made their way to Detroit during the lean years, one of them is a guy they would never win without and is easily their best player(a reason I thought it was stupid for Datsyuk to be nominated for the Hart).
i was happy that datsyuk was a hart finalist, but lidstrom is DRW's best player, and has been for over 10 years.


but DRW were a bad team for many years after yzerman joined the team in '84. only had one winning season from '74-'92, which was '88. other than yzerman, those teams were very weak.

DRW got much more talent in the early '90s, which made them an elite team, and lidstrom was the most important.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 06:32 AM
  #28
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steveio View Post
Actually before Yzerman the Wings were one of the worst teams in the league for years. I think the stat was 17 years and only 2 playoff appearances. Either way they sucked at one point which is kind of hard to believe now.
But the history of the picks shows they didn't suck enough to get a 1 or a 2 pick 4 years in a row. Here are the highest picks in my life time:

1965 #3 George Forgie
1971 #2 Marcel Dionne
1975 #5 Rick Lapointe
1976 #4 Fred Williams
1977 #1 Dale McCourt
1979 #3 Mike Foligno
1983 #4 Steve Yzerman
1984 #7 Shawn Burr
1985 #8 Brent Fedyk
1986 #1 Joe Murphy
1990 #3 Keith Primeau

44 years 2=#1's 1=#2 2=#3's 2=#4's The Pens did better then this in 4 years.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 06:48 AM
  #29
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Therrien View Post
That's the thing... when the Pens draft Kris Letang in the 3rd round in a draft where they go 1st overall... is that because of the tanking?

Chris Kunitz is there because of Ryan Whitney
Max Talbot (drafted 234th overall in the 8th round)
Marc-Andre Fleury
Evgeni Malkin
Tyler Kennedy (drafted in the 4th round)
Sidney Crosby
Kris Letang (drafted in the 3rd round)
Jordan Staal
Another high pick #5 overall in 2002.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 08:04 AM
  #30
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
No, failure is not the Key to success, otherwise Detroit wouldn't have had their sustained awesome for nearly 2 decades. Also, if failure garunteed success, my Thrashers would be popping out Cup teams on a yearly basis. Sure, failure can help, but nothing is guaranteed.

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 08:09 AM
  #31
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
A lot of people tend to forget those years, I believe. And while there are very few players on their current roster who made their way to Detroit during the lean years, one of them is a guy they would never win without and is easily their best player(a reason I thought it was stupid for Datsyuk to be nominated for the Hart).
Yeah, and he was also a third-round pick, so Detroit getting him had nothing to with finishing low in the standings. I assume here you are talking about Nicklas Lidstrom.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 08:14 AM
  #32
Brycios
Registered User
 
Brycios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Osgoode
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,644
vCash: 500
To be a successful team, a whole number of different things have to go right. You need a good coach with a good system, good players, good timing, good drafting, etc. The Pens previous failure is part of their current success, but it is only part of it.

Brycios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 08:33 AM
  #33
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Look at the teams who won the Stanley Cup over the past ten years. How many of them did so largely on the strength of resources they got as a result of being a bottom feeder previously?

Pittsburgh, obviously yes.
Detroit, obviously no.
Anaheim, no.
Carolina, largely no. (Eric Staal, but the rest of their key players were lower draft picks, signings or trade acuisitions)
Tampa Bay, largely no. (Lecavalier and ditto)
New Jersey, no (Stevens acquired for Shanahan who was a high DP, but nothing else).
Colorado, yes.

In other, most teams who win the cup doesn't do so on the strength of having been able to draft high for a long time.

Conversely, how many of the teams with at least three top 5 selections 1996-2005 have won the cup over the past ten years?

Anaheim, yes.
Atlanta, no.
Carolina, yes.
Columbus, no.
Florida, no.
Los Angeles, no.
NY Islanders, no.
Pittsburgh, yes.
San Jose, no.

3 of 9 . And with two of three, the resources they got out of their top 5 picks don't explain the cup. In Anaheim's case they had absolutely no effect whatsoever (the 3 players being Vishnevsky, Ryan and and chistov, none of whom was on the cup-winning team and none of whom had brought in anything else in return).

SO:

1 out of 9, the high DPs got you the cup.
1 out of 9, it helped you get the cup, but not as the most important factor.
1 out of 9, you got the cup, but foor entirely different reasons than stinking for three seasons
6 out 9, you stank, but didn't get the cup.

I don't know if anybody like those odds, I don't.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 10:13 AM
  #34
Adama0905
Registered User
 
Adama0905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 9,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorry View Post
But those teams already had home grown cores before they made trades to surround their talent with more talent. Colorado had Sakic and Forsberg(he counts as home grown for the Avs, IMO). Detroit had Yzerman and Fedorov.
But I know at least in the Avs' case, we never would've won those two cups without a certain trade...

Adama0905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 10:15 AM
  #35
Adama0905
Registered User
 
Adama0905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Boulder, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 9,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
Look at the teams who won the Stanley Cup over the past ten years. How many of them did so largely on the strength of resources they got as a result of being a bottom feeder previously?

Pittsburgh, obviously yes.
Detroit, obviously no.
Anaheim, no.
Carolina, largely no. (Eric Staal, but the rest of their key players were lower draft picks, signings or trade acuisitions)
Tampa Bay, largely no. (Lecavalier and ditto)
New Jersey, no (Stevens acquired for Shanahan who was a high DP, but nothing else).
Colorado, yes.

In other, most teams who win the cup doesn't do so on the strength of having been able to draft high for a long time.

Conversely, how many of the teams with at least three top 5 selections 1996-2005 have won the cup over the past ten years?

Anaheim, yes.
Atlanta, no.
Carolina, yes.
Columbus, no.
Florida, no.
Los Angeles, no.
NY Islanders, no.
Pittsburgh, yes.
San Jose, no.

3 of 9 . And with two of three, the resources they got out of their top 5 picks don't explain the cup. In Anaheim's case they had absolutely no effect whatsoever (the 3 players being Vishnevsky, Ryan and and chistov, none of whom was on the cup-winning team and none of whom had brought in anything else in return).

SO:

1 out of 9, the high DPs got you the cup.
1 out of 9, it helped you get the cup, but not as the most important factor.
1 out of 9, you got the cup, but foor entirely different reasons than stinking for three seasons
6 out 9, you stank, but didn't get the cup.

I don't know if anybody like those odds, I don't.
How is Detroit an obviously no? They didn't get good at all until they drafted Yzerman.

Adama0905 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 10:18 AM
  #36
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adama0905 View Post
How is Detroit an obviously no? They didn't get good at all until they drafted Yzerman.
See post 28. They have not had the great draft position that everyone thinks they have had. In my lifetime (44 years) 2 #1 picks.


Last edited by CC Chiefs*: 10-08-2009 at 11:20 AM.
CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 11:09 AM
  #37
SirKillalot
Registered User
 
SirKillalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 4,849
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by detredWINgs View Post
So we have teams like the Pens and Hawks who have sucked for a while, and turned it around. Maybe the Jackets can be included in this soon.

Then we have teams like Phoenix, LA, and Toronto who have sucked for a while, and still haven't done much.

Then we have teams like New Jersey and Detroit who have rarely drafted high or done poorly in the past 10, 12, or 15 years.

Then we have teams like Vancouver, Minnesota, and Boston who have done a fair amount of fluctuating in the past 5 years or so.


Honestly, I don't see any pattern here. There are cases to bat for all sides of the issue.
Organizations maybe? Someone knows what they are doing, and someone don't.

SirKillalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 11:25 AM
  #38
Tkachuk4MVP
24 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanceOfMaternity View Post
The Sharks might as well give it up and give failure a shot
Well we've given postseason failure a shot anyway, and I'm still hoping that will work out for us like it did the mid-90s Wings.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 11:34 AM
  #39
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 29,090
vCash: 500
It all depends on the franchise.

The 07 Ducks had an amazing defense and "smach your face in" playing style.

The 08 Wings had an unmatched puck-possession style.

The 09 Penguins had a great depth at center with role players on the wings to compliment those centers.

The 2010 winner will have their own system that works.

Great GMs take what their team already has and works around that. Whether it be signing free agents or drafting players to compliment the system. There is no one answer.

ArGarBarGar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 11:40 AM
  #40
Bad Will Hunting
It's my fault
 
Bad Will Hunting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Southie
Posts: 26,659
vCash: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
Conversely, how many of the teams with at least three top 5 selections 1996-2005 have won the cup over the past ten years?

Anaheim, yes.
Atlanta, no.
Carolina, yes.
Columbus, no.
Florida, no.
Los Angeles, no.
NY Islanders, no.
Pittsburgh, yes.
San Jose, no.

3 of 9 . And with two of three, the resources they got out of their top 5 picks don't explain the cup. In Anaheim's case they had absolutely no effect whatsoever (the 3 players being Vishnevsky, Ryan and and chistov, none of whom was on the cup-winning team and none of whom had brought in anything else in return).

S.
The Kings did not have at least 3 top 5 selections between 96-05. They had one.

96-no first rounder
97 3rd overall
98 21st overall
99 No first rounder
00 20th overall
01 18th overall
02 18th overall
03 13th overall
04 11th overall
05 11th overall
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/t...r00006664.html


But hey don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Bad Will Hunting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:02 PM
  #41
Jebro
Registered User
 
Jebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 92
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Jebro
Yes the Penguins went bankrupt and almost had to relocate because they 'blatantly tanked.' Great business I'd say.

Jebro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:21 PM
  #42
Ugene Malkin
ON THE WAGON TRAIL
 
Ugene Malkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 23,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yooper wings fan View Post
See post 28. They have not had the great draft position that everyone thinks they have had. In my lifetime (44 years) 2 #1 picks.
Take a look at 1989 and who they took in that year in all the rounds, just because they are not picking at #1 and picking at 11 does not mean they were not low enough to pick generational stars. Not every #1 is going to be a Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin but you can find a few strung out thru the draft over the years hiding like they did in 1989.


1st Mike Sillinger
2nd Bob Boughner
3rd Nicklas Lidstrom
4th Sergei Fedorov
5th Shawn McCosh
6th Dallas Drake
7th Scott Zygulski
they skip to 12th from there. Vladimir Konstantinov

Ugene Malkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:23 PM
  #43
FallsForItEveryYear
Registered User
 
FallsForItEveryYear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,842
vCash: 500
high draft picks don't guarantee success but they are certainly a huge advantage. luck is an important factor. management scouting and player development are also huge pieces.

with pitt it was 90% luck and sucking that got them success (second time they've pulled that trick as well.) so thats a good way to go.

detroit gets a lot of credit for management scouting and player development. but luck is certainly a factor.

in the end high drafting is probably the best easiest and fastest way. most every great team has at least one great player who was drafted early. new jersey got stevens and brodeur. pitt with malkin crosby fleury staal...and before that jagr and lemiuex. also great teams tend to get the added bonus of being able to sign big name free agents and pull of trades because players want to go to winners. look at colorado getting roy and bourque. detroit getting hossa. once youve landed your superstar through high draft (or scouting and developement) it becomes much easier to surround them with high end talent. honestly being middle of the pack is the worst. you get stuck needing to land a franchise player in middle picks and struggle to sign the great fa because your not a contender. if you do sign them its because you overpaid and good luck fitting enough talent around the overpaid stars to succeed.

FallsForItEveryYear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:34 PM
  #44
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 30,499
vCash: 500
It all depends on what the ultimate goals are for teams. While every team in the NHL will toe the company line and say they are in it to win the Stanley Cup, reality suggests otherwise.

If a franchise is truly in it to win it (the Stanley Cup, that is, not merely a playoff berth), then either you're already a contender or you have to take steps to get there. Sometimes, to get there, the steps you first have to take are backwards.

A lot of franchises are in it to make the playoffs...nothing more, but nothing less. For them, taking steps back is a foreign concept. And that's fine, as long as fans accept that limitation.

Jag68Sid87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:35 PM
  #45
CC Chiefs*
 
CC Chiefs*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 15,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by odds View Post
Take a look at 1989 and who they took in that year in all the rounds, just because they are not picking at #1 and picking at 11 does not mean they were not low enough to pick generational stars. Not every #1 is going to be a Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin but you can find a few strung out thru the draft over the years hiding like they did in 1989.


1st Mike Sillinger
2nd Bob Boughner
3rd Nicklas Lidstrom
4th Sergei Fedorov
5th Shawn McCosh
6th Dallas Drake
7th Scott Zygulski
they skip to 12th from there. Vladimir Konstantinov

Oh come on already! Your proving my point. AT THE TIME OF the draft none of those players were = to Lemiuex, Jagr, Malkin or Crosby. Other then Jagr and Washington who would have passed those guy up? Jagr was a true #1 passed up because he was thought to be a risk.

Again here are the DRW top 4 picks # since 1965: 2=#1's 1=#2 2=#3's 2=#4's. That's 7 in 44 years. While the Pens had 4 in 4 years.

The position that the Wings picked was not as good as you make it seem. All of the Draftees above had a chance to be drafted but every team in the league 4-12 times. No one is going to argue that the DRW were bad for years, but they haven't had great positions in the draft for four years straight, they just picked better players late more then other teams.

CC Chiefs* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 12:51 PM
  #46
KLM-Line
Registered User
 
KLM-Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Munich
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,587
vCash: 530
Tanking certainly helps your chances. There is no guarantee for any way that`s why I prefer to see it from a perspective of chances. Getting a shot for the top talent on draft day simply eases the path to success. I dont like the reference to cup winners alone as there are 29 other teams as well and their performance should be taken into account. Furthermore there is a trend of young talent contributing much earlier than decades before. Additionally there may occur problems with fitting FAs into a restrictive salary cap. Post lock-out I`d say the tanking-drafting route has become more favorable and gives a franchise a better chance longterm to compete. In a way it is the more stable and conservative approach versus a philosphy based on FA signings and trades.

Above all of course stands the capability of your management and coaching staff. If they s*ck any route will lead to disappointment. Now that is guaranteed!

KLM-Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 03:08 PM
  #47
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adama0905 View Post
How is Detroit an obviously no? They didn't get good at all until they drafted Yzerman.
They didn't get good until nearly a decade after they drafted Yzerman either. And apart from him, the core of their last two cup winning teams consisted entirely of lower draftees, free agent signees and players acquired through trades.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 03:11 PM
  #48
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo View Post
The Kings did not have at least 3 top 5 selections between 96-05. They had one.

96-no first rounder
97 3rd overall
98 21st overall
99 No first rounder
00 20th overall
01 18th overall
02 18th overall
03 13th overall
04 11th overall
05 11th overall
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/t...r00006664.html


But hey don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Whoa, sorry. They were one of the few teams I felt certain enough about not to bother checking. Thanks for the correction.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 03:31 PM
  #49
Wario Lemieux*
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanceOfMaternity View Post
The Sharks might as well give it up and give failure a shot
I thought that was their strategy.

Wario Lemieux* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2009, 03:37 PM
  #50
dawkins121
Registered User
 
dawkins121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephirsage View Post
Yes the Penguins went bankrupt and almost had to relocate because they 'blatantly tanked.' Great business I'd say.
Exactly. Pittsburgh didn't tank, they were just grossly incompetent for a 5-6 year stretch.

dawkins121 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 01:43 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.