Prospect Info: Derrick Pouliot | Defenseman | Portland (WHL) | 1st Round, 8th overall

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The whole contentious point is that the Pens rated Pouliot much higher than scouting services and a cross section of actual NHL scouts did.

Saying "but he was higher on the Pens list" is absurd. Of course he was, because that's what people are questioning.

Thinking org go by public lists is the only absurd notion here. Many of the scouts and former GMs who make these lists have had more than their fair share of mistakes.

The Pens brass have shown an eye for plucking and developing blueline talent, yet you want to put more stock in entertainment lists, that look little like true internal org rankings.

It's so silly that I can't believe you are still trying to defend it.

All it takes is one team. If Grigorenko or Forsberg become a superstar and Lindholm develops well short of that, their scouting staffs should be taken to task too.

Or 30 different lists. Hence the reasons many players were not taken in their projected slots.

Even the public rankings had no real consensus after the first 4-5 picks.

Grigs and FP threw up enough red flags to other org, besides the Pens. You continue to ignore that.

That's not the point. The circular logic being used here would justify the selection if they had. That's the point.

Of course it is the point. Just because you want to use some extreme argument to make your case, doesn't make it logical.

I can say that teams shouldn't bother investing millions of dollars into scouting, when they can just use these public rankings when making their selections.

This has as much logic behind it as your silly, extreme argument.

I've had a little trouble lately figuring out whether you're making veiled references to me or referring to other posters in your responses to my posts. Either way, I'll just clarify for posterity that I've never said Pouliot is a disappointment, and I only believe he's a bad pick in the sense that there were better options available. He's still a very good prospect.

You got defensive about me pointing a finger at you, when I never did. In fact, if I recall correctly, you referenced a post I made to someone else and got defensive about it.

What Pouliot's doing so far this season is nice, but nothing you wouldn't expect from a small, relatively one-dimensional offensive defenseman drafted in the latter half of the 1st round, playing on a powerhouse team.

Because he can't be a part of their reason for success, right? As I have already said multiple times, the W is the hardest Jr league to score in, yet he is hovering around a point a game and playing quite sound in his own end. And once again, you will be hard pressed to find any successful blueliners in the NHL that tore up the W.

It... Doesn't...Happen. The league is too defensive, too physical.

From what I recall, my stance was that the Pens had difficulty producing homegrown scoring line forwards because they didn't make drafting forwards a priority early in the draft. I don't see how any argument I'm making here contradicts that.

Are you sure about that?

Re-read what I wrote. That passage had nothing to do with whether Pouliot was a gamebreaking talent or not.

I re-read it several times and the context is the same each time. No matter how you want to spin it, the Pens grabbed the kind of gamebreaking talent that they won't have the opportunity to do again, for quite sometime.

My "deal" is that the Pens scouting staff is not infallible. They went off the board with the most important pick this team will likely have for the rest of the Crosby/Malkin era, so if they're wrong, it should call into question how they evaluate and prioritize talent when determining their BPA.

And if they picked Grigs and he busted, while DP became a star? What then? You only want to look at one side of the coin.

Once again, the Pens have an eye for blueline talent, and they know how to develop them. I'll trust the people with a track record over those making lists for pure entertainment value only.

Personally, I think their predilection for acquiring defensemen and stocking up on players from familiar programs might be symptomatic of a little tunnel vision.

Possible and I argued that very thing last year at this time. However, things change.

I saw a chance before the draft to build one of the best blueline farms if someone slipped. Little did I know Shero would build THE best blueline farm around after all was said and done. With Tangradi and BB showing promise, I'm quite content with what Shero has done.

In case you and others haven't noticed, their blueline was a mess in the playoffs. So having all of this blueline talent in the pipe and two good winger prospects, should make people happy.

But some people like to complain I suppose.

Forgetting for the moment that this has absolutely no bearing on the merit of the argument itself, if by some chance I had enough time to strike up an actual conversation with Shero, yeah, I'd like to ask him about why his staff chose Pouliot over more high profile players, particularly when the pipeline was already stocked.

The way you were framing it, I imagined a "gotcha journalism" type ambush.

You moved the goalposts, as I said. My original point was that people wouldn't be stupid enough to tell Shero DP was a bad pick and he is a disappointment this year.

I questioned the Maatta pick with Frk and Aberg still on the board, but never once called him a bad pick.

Once again, there is a difference between questioning the pick and flat out saying its a bad pick. DP is a bad pick based on what evidence?

To be honest, I'm not sure why rumours about one other team's draft order should hold more merit than the factual cross-section of actual NHL scouts, never mind how we've seen first hand that a team's pipeline strengths can have little to no effect on their draft preferences.

What "factual" evidence are you claiming here? Bmac polled a small percentage of scouts, all of whom aren't stupid enough to give true org rankings. It's comical people don't understand these scouts will never give out true rankings. How many times do I have to explain that?

This is why a number of guys jumped or fell in the draft, including the two I wanted.

And some teams draft for need, while others go BPA. From what I read, Buffalo really liked DP and MY opinion is they would have taken him.

There's also the matter of IHWR's anecdote. I know you value his opinion on prospects, and in his experience, another group of NHL scouts was straight-up laughing at the pick back at their hotel. Food for thought.

I read a number of scouting services that instantly labeled Goose a "huge reach" while deeming Barker a "can't miss prospect".

How did that work out?

 

[Shady Machine]

I get why teams wouldn't publicly release their internal scouting lists, but why would a scout be so hesitant to be honest with McKenzie in an anonymous survey? It's not like any of the results would be attributed to that organization.

I'm not saying these types of rankings are more significant than the Pen's list, but by using Jig's logic, there really is no basis for ever questioning who a team drafts because that player was BPA on their list, regardless of any public lists, polls, anecdotal evidence, etc.

I have no problem with the Pouliot pick other than preferring a winger prospect (I haven't seen enough of these guys to really comment). I'm just curious as to why these public rankings don't hold any merit.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

I get why teams wouldn't publicly release their internal scouting lists, but why would a scout be so hesitant to be honest with McKenzie in an anonymous survey? It's not like any of the results would be attributed to that organization.

I'm not saying these types of rankings are more significant than the Pen's list, but by using Jig's logic, there really is no basis for ever questioning who a team drafts because that player was BPA on their list, regardless of any public lists, polls, anecdotal evidence, etc.

I have no problem with the Pouliot pick other than preferring a winger prospect (I haven't seen enough of these guys to really comment). I'm just curious as to why these public rankings don't hold any merit.

My logic has remained the same throughout:

It's fine to question a pick (I even admitted to questioning the Maatta pick).

However, declaring a pick as a "bad one" and a "mistake" based off public lists, is idiotic. How many people called Despres, Morrow, Harrington, and most famously, Goose, bad picks? People continue to use "they were picked later in the draft" as a justification for jumping to conclusions because of public rankings.

As for the legitimacy of the public lists, I've followed them for almost 14 years, and many of the top publications have been wrong, more than they have been right.

What track record do these public rankings have, that show they know more than individual org?

And any intelligent NHL scout will drop the players his team is targeting on his list to skewer the results.

 

[JTG]

My logic has remained the same throughout:

It's fine to question a pick (I even admitted to questioning the Maatta pick).

However, declaring a pick as a "bad one" and a "mistake" based off public lists, is idiotic. How many people called Despres, Morrow, Harrington, and most famously, Goose, bad picks? People continue to use "they were picked later in the draft" as a justification for jumping to conclusions because of public rankings.

As for the legitimacy of the public lists, I've followed them for almost 14 years, and many of the top publications have been wrong, more than they have been right.

What track record do these public rankings have, that show they know more than individual org?

And any intelligent NHL scout will drop the players his team is targeting on his list to skewer the results.

Dan Marino had a drug problem

 

[Dangles78]

I get why teams wouldn't publicly release their internal scouting lists, but why would a scout be so hesitant to be honest with McKenzie in an anonymous survey? It's not like any of the results would be attributed to that organization.

I'm not saying these types of rankings are more significant than the Pen's list, but by using Jig's logic, there really is no basis for ever questioning who a team drafts because that player was BPA on their list, regardless of any public lists, polls, anecdotal evidence, etc.

I have no problem with the Pouliot pick other than preferring a winger prospect (I haven't seen enough of these guys to really comment). I'm just curious as to why these public rankings don't hold any merit.

Well, surely not after only being drafted a few months ago. Especially since DePo has progressed well and his development seems to be on course.

I think that's the point this side is trying to get across. There's clearly a division among the board. So many feel comfortable throwing DePo under the bus all because of scouting service rankings and other players.

I just think it's wise to reserve such harsh statements for later years. Then again, a lot of people will never be satisfied because "their player" wasn't chosen, which is an awful approach is basing your hate for a player.

Ignore Pouliots draft position or the players who you THINK are better and we came out of the 2012 draft with not only 2 valuable defensive assets, but very intriguing offensive assets. People forget that.

This team doesn't need a Grigs.

I mean, Maatta was ranked 10 and Grigs 12.....should we go into that...? You can have steals by picking a player earlier than expected just like you can picking them later.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Dan Marino had a drug problem

 

[#1GuinFan]

This all reminds me of those scenario's where two guys are chasing the same girl, she chooses one over the other, and the loser can't for the life of him figure out why she chose the other guy... it all comes down to preference and opinion, even if its not the prevailing popular thought. Weird analogy I know, but perhaps it will shed an alternate perspective for those who seem to know so much about the pens' scouts view of BPA and are claiming DePo is a bad pick. He was off 'the board', but that happens every draft. I suppose EVERY team in the NHL made bad picks because they let 1st round talent Kirill KABANOV fall all the way to the third round - he was ranked very highly by the same public scouting services that ranked DePo a mid to low first rounder.

Its not like this scouting staff has gone off the board with every pick they've made either, Morrow was a concensus pick, as was Bennett. Despres, Mattaa and Esposito were fallers.

DePo has had an outstanding year this season, those saying otherwise haven't seen him or refuse to acknowledge fact.

 

[Shady Machine]

My only question was why there seemed to be a notion that public rankings shouldn't be taken seriously. I was not questioning the Pouliot pick. The argument in the past few days in this thread ended up boiling down to "Pens went off the board with their pick", "no they didn't, they picked their BPA and public rankings are only for entertainment value and no scout would give their true rankings".

Those paraphrased quotes are what I'm questioning. I am pleased with how Pouliot has progressed and have been pretty moderate in my criticism of Shero and his drafting. My general point stands about public rankings. While not perfect, overall I do believe they represent a cross section of scout's opinions and serve SOME value in projecting where a player is likely to be drafted.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

My only question was why there seemed to be a notion that public rankings shouldn't be taken seriously. I was not questioning the Pouliot pick. The argument in the past few days in this thread ended up boiling down to "Pens went off the board with their pick", "no they didn't, they picked their BPA and public rankings are only for entertainment value and no scout would give their true rankings".

Those paraphrased quotes are what I'm questioning. I am pleased with how Pouliot has progressed and have been pretty moderate in my criticism of Shero and his drafting. My general point stands about public rankings. While not perfect, overall I do believe they represent a cross section of scout's opinions and serve SOME value in projecting where a player is likely to be drafted.

These public scouting reports only became popular because of pioneers like Kiper/Buchsbaum and were for entertainment/educational purposes only. Somewhere along the line, people started taking these guides, Internet rankings, etc, way too seriously. Now we have a bunch of wannabe draft gurus who don't even watch these prospects, criticizing who their favorite teams take.

If these guides were as useful as some of the misguided assume, org in the NHL, NFL, etc would simply spend $10 and use them. Instead, they spend millions of dollars on internal scouting.

There's a reason for that.

 

[Shady Machine]

These public scouting reports only became popular because of pioneers like Kiper/Buchsbaum and were for entertainment/educational purposes only. Somewhere along the line, people started taking these guides, Internet rankings, etc, way too seriously. Now we have a bunch of wannabe draft gurus who don't even watch these prospects, criticizing who their favorite teams take.

If these guides were as useful as some of the misguided assume, org in the NHL, NFL, etc would simply spend $10 and use them. Instead, they spend millions of dollars on internal scouting.

There's a reason for that.

Fair enough. You are much more versed on the history of the guides. I guess my thought was that some of these "polls" like TSN's supposedly asked scouts around the NHL their real opinion. I was speaking to the notion that somehow these scouts weren't being honest and therefore, that ranking is useless. I disagree.

Either way, it's not really important because I'm happy with Pouliot. Plus, if you really look at TSN's rankings we picked a 17th ranked prospect at 8 and a 10th ranked at 22. Averages out to be 2 solid picks. Of course, these rankings aren't indicative of the real BPA at these positions (no one truly knows that), they do have some value IMO.

 

[Valarukar]

I can see both sides arguments, but to be so upset over not getting the "better" player this soon is laughable. If Depo was doing poorly that would be one thing . . .but he isn't. It's like some of you already know beyond a doubt that people picked after him will be better NHL players. Maybe you are just doing that to support other parts of your argument, but it just sounds like a reach.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Fair enough. You are much more versed on the history of the guides. I guess my thought was that some of these "polls" like TSN's supposedly asked scouts around the NHL their real opinion. I was speaking to the notion that somehow these scouts weren't being honest and therefore, that ranking is useless. I disagree.

Either way, it's not really important because I'm happy with Pouliot. Plus, if you really look at TSN's rankings we picked a 17th ranked prospect at 8 and a 10th ranked at 22. Averages out to be 2 solid picks. Of course, these rankings aren't indicative of the real BPA at these positions (no one truly knows that), they do have some value IMO.

I'm sure the scouts give partially honest answers. However, I can't imagine a scout stupid enough not to "drop" certain players his org is targeting. There is way too much money and time invested in what they do. If their team does poorly on the floor, they become unemployed. So what motivation do they really have to release this info to any journalist?

And these guides do have value - Educational value to make you familiar with these prospects and which of them your team is most likely to pick. Taking these guides and lists as anything more is beyond silly. Every year without fail, we have people blow their gaskets about the player their team selects, because they wanted some other guy they read about.

Just gets tiresome.

 

[JTG]

My only question was why there seemed to be a notion that public rankings shouldn't be taken seriously. I was not questioning the Pouliot pick. The argument in the past few days in this thread ended up boiling down to "Pens went off the board with their pick", "no they didn't, they picked their BPA and public rankings are only for entertainment value and no scout would give their true rankings".

Those paraphrased quotes are what I'm questioning. I am pleased with how Pouliot has progressed and have been pretty moderate in my criticism of Shero and his drafting. My general point stands about public rankings. While not perfect, overall I do believe they represent a cross section of scout's opinions and serve SOME value in projecting where a player is likely to be drafted.

They should be taken seriously, but they shouldn't be taken as gospel. Anyone who follows this stuff for an extended period of time would understand this. I love looking back on teams like the Hawks in the mid-2000's, because some of their after thought prospects are some of the most productive...like Duncan Keith and David Bolland. Cam Barker, Anton Babchuk, and Igor Radulov stole those headlines.

What I think those scouting polls show is where guys could be slotted. I think McKenzie calls like 95% of all first round picks every year. And I mean, we both know a lot of those rankings of prospects year to year are 50% hype. It's the guy who is hot, or who is flashy. I also think those rankings take things in a vacuum. They look purely at skill and not much else.

And people can talk about the DP pick. I mean, I don't even know if it was the right one, the same way I don't know if it was the wrong one. I can see why he was drafted where he was though. He has a unique skillset. This past draft in particular, it was said, anything after pick 5 or so, any guy can go anywhere from 6-26...they all were that close. That's why I don't understand the upheaval surrounding the pick.

 

[Captain Hook]

You also see quite a few disconnects between public scouting services and NHL/NFL scouts/gm's etc. I can think of lots of guys public scouting services had ranked much higher than where they actually came off the board. I've even seen examples where there's literally a few rounds difference between where a kid is ranked and projected to go by public scouting services vs. where a GM actually finally picks a kid.

 

[JTG]

You also see quite a few disconnects between public scouting services and NHL/NFL scouts/gm's etc. I can think of lots of guys public scouting services had ranked much higher than where they actually came off the board. I've even seen examples where there's literally a few rounds difference between where a kid is ranked and projected to go by public scouting services vs. where a GM actually finally picks a kid.

It's notorious in the NFL, and is more a rule than an exception.

The thing with drafting is that every single board is different, and all that it takes for a guy to drop is for 1 player to be sitting there that a team likes more, or believes they can have more success with.

I think that's what gets lost in drafting a lot of times...if you don't believe you can develop them, and that said player won't fit into your team...it's more of a waste to draft them than to draft a guy who may be slotted 10-15 slots lower by the consensus, who you firmly believe you can get him to reach his potential and he'll be a contributor to your team.

That's sort of why I can see passing on Grigorenko. That guy is ****in incredible with the puck...but he's a center. People can point to him playing wing in Jr. right now, but that's like pointing to Scott Harrington and saying he'll be a top pairing big minute defenseman. Right now, Grigorenko is so talented, they could line him up at defense and he'd be effective. He's playing in a league that's below his skillset.

When the dust settles though, he'll be a top 6 center, and odds are, that's what he wants to be. He would have no place here, as he isn't a 3rd line center prospect, nor is the wing probably the best place for him.

 

[JTG]

How I view Pouliot is a guy who has shown some aggression, has withstood the most physical Jr hockey league, and has not only done so, but succeeded. He needs to put on weight, and he needs to be coached up on the defensive side of the puck.

You cannot teach his comfort with the offensive side of the game. He's going to be a fantastic puck retriever, and a guy who will be able to get that puck up to our scorers in a very quick hurry.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Thinking org go by public lists is the only absurd notion here. Many of the scouts and former GMs who make these lists have had more than their fair share of mistakes.

The Pens brass have shown an eye for plucking and developing blueline talent, yet you want to put more stock in entertainment lists, that look little like true internal org rankings.

It's so silly that I can't believe you are still trying to defend it.

The lists from scouting services, in conjunction with lists from actual scouts, anecdotal evidence from IHWR, and personal viewings, lead me to believe the Pens brass made a mistake in picking Pouliot over a couple other highly touted guys.

I've watched Pouliot play on TV for his club team and for Canada at the Super Series, and I'm probably the only one here to see him play in person this season. So I hope nobody would characterize me as judging him on "entertainment lists" alone.

Or 30 different lists. Hence the reasons many players were not taken in their projected slots.

Even the public rankings had no real consensus after the first 4-5 picks.

Grigs and FP threw up enough red flags to other org, besides the Pens. You continue to ignore that.

Oh yeah? Like where I just used the Lindholm/Ducks example? Is that where I ignored other teams passing on those two?

Of course it is the point. Just because you want to use some extreme argument to make your case, doesn't make it logical.

I can say that teams shouldn't bother investing millions of dollars into scouting, when they can just use these public rankings when making their selections.

This has as much logic behind it as your silly, extreme argument.

Yes, it does. It's a very common form of logical argument to test validity:

Because he can't be a part of their reason for success, right? As I have already said multiple times, the W is the hardest Jr league to score in, yet he is hovering around a point a game and playing quite sound in his own end. And once again, you will be hard pressed to find any successful blueliners in the NHL that tore up the W.

It... Doesn't...Happen. The league is too defensive, too physical.

You will not be hard-pressed to find small offensive defensemen producing at a PPG in their post-draft years on high scoring junior teams, late in the first round. Pouliot is doing well, he's just not doing anything that would be unexpected from a guy drafted late in the first.

Hell, we picked a guy who did it last year.

Are you sure about that?

I'm as sure as anyone with 30,000 posts can be about what they posted a year ago. You sound like you're itching to post a contradictory quote though, so let 'er rip.

I'm sure I'll be able to stand the impact of the reveal, haha.

I re-read it several times and the context is the same each time. No matter how you want to spin it, the Pens grabbed the kind of gamebreaking talent that they won't have the opportunity to do again, for quite sometime.

I did not make a personal statement on Pouliot's BPA credentials in any 3 of the sentences you originally quoted. I'll break down each sentence for you with commentary, if I have to.

We'll see whether your opinion of him is well-founded.

And if they picked Grigs and he busted, while DP became a star? What then? You only want to look at one side of the coin.

Once again, the Pens have an eye for blueline talent, and they know how to develop them. I'll trust the people with a track record over those making lists for pure entertainment value only.

Then they wouldn't have gone off the board, would they?

Possible and I argued that very thing last year at this time. However, things change.

I saw a chance before the draft to build one of the best blueline farms if someone slipped. Little did I know Shero would build THE best blueline farm around after all was said and done. With Tangradi and BB showing promise, I'm quite content with what Shero has done.

In case you and others haven't noticed, their blueline was a mess in the playoffs. So having all of this blueline talent in the pipe and two good winger prospects, should make people happy.

But some people like to complain I suppose.

With or without Pouliot, the Pens have the best blueline talent in the league. Personally, I'd like more than one forward in the entire system with the realistic potential of being able to create offense at the NHL level, particularly when they have compelling BPA arguments on their side.

You moved the goalposts, as I said. My original point was that people wouldn't be stupid enough to tell Shero DP was a bad pick and he is a disappointment this year.

I questioned the Maatta pick with Frk and Aberg still on the board, but never once called him a bad pick.

Once again, there is a difference between questioning the pick and flat out saying its a bad pick. DP is a bad pick based on what evidence?

It's the equivalent of you massaging your message board perspective for Pens brass consumption:

"I would have no problems, in a respectful way, asking DB why he isn't playing Tangradi more, picking his brain about what happened in the Flyers series, etc."

I don't remember your tone being so civil and inquisitive back then.

What "factual" evidence are you claiming here? Bmac polled a small percentage of scouts, all of whom aren't stupid enough to give true org rankings. It's comical people don't understand these scouts will never give out true rankings. How many times do I have to explain that?

This is why a number of guys jumped or fell in the draft, including the two I wanted.

And some teams draft for need, while others go BPA. From what I read, Buffalo really liked DP and MY opinion is they would have taken him.

Nobody ever said scouts were giving out organizational rankings, Jig. That is a pure straw-man. They were giving out their individual rankings, and as you know, a scout is one part of a scouting staff.

Its value lies in being able to compare a team's selection against the rankings of legitimate NHL scouts from various teams. It's not always right, but neither are organization's internal lists.

I read a number of scouting services that instantly labeled Goose a "huge reach" while deeming Barker a "can't miss prospect".

What do scouting services have to do with IHWR's experience with another contingent of actual NHL scouts?

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

What do scouting services have to do with IHWR's experience with another contingent of actual NHL scouts?

Buffalo made a good pick with Grigorenko, eh? Well they also were really high on DP. But I guess their opinion (and others') doesn't matter, just a small contingent whose point of view supports yours does. But a group of teams being really high on a player and another group being low on the same player doesn't fit the bill of all the "consensus" scouting service lists who all have everyone in the same place more or less across the board.

Maybe, just maybe, DP is 17th or whatever on one list because half the scouts polled had him at #10, and the other half at #24, so then he lands at 17th, and people just assume that everyone had him there. Whereas we have actual proof now that some teams were pretty low on him, as well as a few others (not just Pit and Buf) who were pretty high on him. I don't why only the opinion of those who didn't like him matters, but whatever.

 

[JTG]

Two HF heavyweights going at it

 

[Dangles78]

Two HF heavyweights going at it

Ya...and it's going nowhere...

Hopefully we can get back on track and discuss DePo's season and development rather than bicker about scouting.

Since, you know, THE PICK IS MADE...no changing it people regardless of how much you want to.

 

[Valarukar]

Just throwing this out there . . . Depo has a pretty early birthday for his draft year. Jan 16 of 94 to be exact

 

[SprootsMasterFlex]

I, on the other hand, would have taken Trouba over Pouliot if I had to take a D at that spot. He's having a phenomenal year, just like Pouliot but he would have really put our D over the top.

Like others have stated, its too late now and I'm rooting for DePo.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

What part of that response applies to the quote, Tasty?

Buffalo made a good pick with Grigorenko, eh? Well they also were really high on DP. But I guess their opinion (and others') doesn't matter, just a small contingent whose point of view supports yours does. But a group of teams being really high on a player and another group being low on the same player doesn't fit the bill of all the "consensus" scouting service lists who all have everyone in the same place more or less across the board.

Maybe, just maybe, DP is 17th or whatever on one list because half the scouts polled had him at #10, and the other half at #24, so then he lands at 17th, and people just assume that everyone had him there. Whereas we have actual proof now that some teams were pretty low on him, as well as a few others (not just Pit and Buf) who were pretty high on him. I don't why only the opinion of those who didn't like him matters, but whatever.

The mean average is what was important. I don't think anyone cares how it was split...I know I don't.

The same applies to every other prospect on that list.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

The lists from scouting services, in conjunction with lists from actual scouts, anecdotal evidence from IHWR, and personal viewings, lead me to believe the Pens brass made a mistake in picking Pouliot over a couple other highly touted guys.

I've watched Pouliot play on TV for his club team and for Canada at the Super Series, and I'm probably the only one here to see him play in person this season. So I hope nobody would characterize me as judging him on "entertainment lists" alone.

Once again, you are the one who got defensive about it.

Oh yeah? Like where I just used the Lindholm/Ducks example? Is that where I ignored other teams passing on those two?

Uh, more than just the Ducks passed on him.

Yes, it does. It's a very common form of logical argument to test validity:

When someone has to resort to extremes to make a point, it tells me they are reaching for straws.

Have a sip of logic....

You will not be hard-pressed to find small offensive defensemen producing at a PPG in their post-draft years on high scoring junior teams, late in the first round. Pouliot is doing well, he's just not doing anything that would be unexpected from a guy drafted late in the first.

Hell, we picked a guy who did it last year.

Find me any successful blueliner in the NHL, who put up big numbers in the W in the last dozen years.

Big, small, whatever criteria you want to use for your agenda. It is a physical, defensive league and I've yet to see any blueliner dominate it since the early 2000s when I started following the CHL.

I'm as sure as anyone with 30,000 posts can be about what they posted a year ago. You sound like you're itching to post a contradictory quote though, so let 'er rip.

I'm sure I'll be able to stand the impact of the reveal, haha.

I'm not itching for anything. I don't fully recall word for word, but it seems odd that if your position was the same as mine that we would debate about it heavily for months.

I did not make a personal statement on Pouliot's BPA credentials in any 3 of the sentences you originally quoted. I'll break down each sentence for you with commentary, if I have to.

We'll see whether your opinion of him is well-founded.

Your quote:

"Perennial contenders only get so many opportunities to inject gamebreaking talent into their systems. We spent ours on a player very few would argue was BPA material before he was picked. I like what I've seen from Pouliot, he's a very good prospect, but the issue is whether he was the best available."

I suggest being more concise next time because you continue to use the word "issue" interchangeably with your opinion.

Then they wouldn't have gone off the board, would they?

They didn't go off their board.

With or without Pouliot, the Pens have the best blueline talent in the league. Personally, I'd like more than one forward in the entire system with the realistic potential of being able to create offense at the NHL level, particularly when they have compelling BPA arguments on their side.

Uh, I said this over and over last year and I came to terms with what Shero is doing.

I'm sure you can manage as well.

It's the equivalent of you massaging your message board perspective for Pens brass consumption:

"I would have no problems, in a respectful way, asking DB why he isn't playing Tangradi more, picking his brain about what happened in the Flyers series, etc."

I don't remember your tone being so civil and inquisitive back then.

Was I one of the rare few who defended DB after the Flyer series and thought firing him wasn't the right move? Despite his insistence on ****ing over his youth and poor adjustments, which I found ridiculous? Yep.

So if I defended him on here, why would I rip him in person?

Just because I disagree with things he does, doesn't mean I'm going to rail into him over it. But I wouldn't avoid asking the questions about Tangradi, box/1 over zone, etc. Because those questions have merit to them and I wouldn't feel foolish asking.

However, telling Shero a kid he just selected is a bad pick and is a mistake, is so flat out stupid, that I'd never be idiotic enough to say it to him. I can't imagine anyone else would be, but they say it on here.

Once again, if you can't figure out the difference between opinions you can back up and ones you can't... "I can do nothin for you son".

Nobody ever said scouts were giving out organizational rankings, Jig. That is a pure straw-man. They were giving out their individual rankings, and as you know, a scout is one part of a scouting staff.

Its value lies in being able to compare a team's selection against the rankings of legitimate NHL scouts from various teams. It's not always right, but neither are organization's internal lists.

Their individual rankings play a part into the org rankings. C'mon now.

And as I keep pointing out, Bmacs list was all over the place compared to the actual selections. After the first five picks, you could of thrown the other fifteen+ into a basket and picked out the names. It was that type of draft. So this claim DP was an off the board pick is ridiculous.

What do scouting services have to do with IHWR's experience with another contingent of actual NHL scouts?

Bmacs NHL scouts had Barker ranked as the third best prospect in the 2004 draft. Green, 29th. Goose? Nowhere to be found.

Given the Pens eye for blueline talent, I think I'll trust Shero and his scouts until they give me a reason to doubt them.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

What part of that response applies to the quote, Tasty?



The mean average is what was important. I don't think anyone cares how it was split...I know I don't.

The same applies to every other prospect on that list.

It seemed like you were disregarding teams who had DePo ranked high, and just focusing on a small group of scouts who hated the pick and saying "See? How could he be worthy of a high pick when some scouts have him rated so low?" And I didn't see the merit in that at all.

And the mean is exactly what's not important -- How could he be the 17th best player in the draft if, hypothetically, nobody ever ranked him in that position? Some teams have players higher/lower than others, and vice versa. Doesn't mean the Pens were on the right or wrong spectrum when they 'reached' for Pouliot, or when Maatta 'fell.' But they're looking like good picks now, and like others have said, this really isn't going anywhere, so, yeah..