GDT: Draft Day

[obey86]

Not to be naive but man, it actually seems rather easy to be a chief scout

With all the video and literature and multiple expert rankings who are all fairly similar, all you have to is follow them for the most part

It's when people try and get too cute in the first three rounds that teams make mistakes.

Keep it simple stupid and you will always be alright.

This is kind of silly. The "expert rankings" are usually wrong much more than they are right. Outside of the top few picks it usually comes down to style of play, luck, chemistry, team needs, etc. That's where scouts come in.

 

[obey86]

In a few years, the Wings are going to be very big and nasty up front.

Good too? Who knows, lol.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

In a few years, the Wings are going to be very big and nasty up front.

Good too? Who knows, lol.

It is the wrong couple off-seasons to do it. When LA, Boston or Anaheim were winning everyone was getting bigger.

They said they had small offensive D-man they liked running into the draft they didn't want more. That is how we knew they were leaning forward in the first round. In any event we will see what comes of this.

The Wings have spent decades valuing leagues that other teams aren't and playing styles that other people aren't. I don't think it is an accident that they have gone with size, it isn't being valued as much as it was in years past. We will find out if that is a good strategy. I do think if Rasmussen can improve his initial quickness the nasty part is him and Mantha would be able to scoot, AA would be one of the fastest players in the league along with Larkin and both over 6' and 200 lbs. They would be big and fast, they are going to need to find playmaker wingers if Larkin and Rasmussen are their future down the middle more than likely.

 

[Frk It]

In a few years, the Wings are going to be very big and nasty up front.

Good too? Who knows, lol.

We dominated as a puck possssion team with skill up and down the lineup. Could care less how big and nasty we are, we need to get back to that.

Penguins won back to back being soft as ****.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

Pronman gave the Wings a B- for the draft.

"Organizational assessment: There was criticism, some of it warranted, directed to Detroit for the Michael Rasmussen pick. I don't hate the pick -- he's a good player, after all -- but I wouldn't have taken him that high based on his pure upside. Gustav Lindstrom was a riser this season and is skilled, but No. 38 also seemed generous to me. In the middle of their class they targeted a lot of boring low-upside types that just doesn't do a lot for me. For the amount of picks the Wings had, they could have done more, and they don't seem to be drafting like the skill/IQ Wings of the days of yore."

 

[Leronziia]

Draft enough (10-20+) 6'2"+ defensive defensemen types in the 2nd and 3rd rounds and eventually you'll find a 2nd pairing/Hjalmarsson.

That's the draft strategy.

 

[Pavels Dog]

More general consensus Wings are the biggest losers of the draft.

https://sports.yahoo.com/winners-losers-nhl-draft-2017-211925333.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

This either means it was a genius draft, an okay draft, or a terrible draft.

So, same as if we had been the consensus "winner" really.

 

[Heaton]

This either means it was a genius draft, an okay draft, or a terrible draft.

So, same as if we had been the consensus "winner" really.

How do you figure? I'd say the most praise for this draft would be a grade of average. I know many want to just say you never know, but I'm pretty sure the people grading the drafts are you know, experts in their field since they do it for a living.

There's always players that end up being better than people think but I think it's pretty safe to say that the Wings draft doesn't look great from what we really need which is skill and offense.

 

[Unfriendly Ghost]

https://soundcloud.com/officialredw...uthority-episode-4-red-wings-2017-draft-picks

Haven't listened yet.

 

[HockeyinHD]

We dominated as a puck possssion team with skill up and down the lineup. Could care less how big and nasty we are, we need to get back to that.

Penguins won back to back being soft as ****.

... and then traded for Ryan Reeves because they enjoyed the experience so much.

 

[Pavels Dog]

How do you figure? I'd say the most praise for this draft would be a grade of average. I know many want to just say you never know, but I'm pretty sure the people grading the drafts are you know, experts in their field since they do it for a living.

There's always players that end up being better than people think but I think it's pretty safe to say that the Wings draft doesn't look great from what we really need which is skill and offense.

If you have some genius draft picks, most people won't know it until much later and are likely to call your picks bad early on. And on the opposite end, a lot of "sexy" picks just end up being busts. The experts can be good at what they do but it's far from an exact science, one good scout that sees something others don't can make all the difference.

I think we added a lot of interesting guys even if it wasn't a true boom/bust type of draft where we only take 4-5 year projects.

 

[HockeyinHD]

I think we could all agree our goal with this draft was to accelerate the re-build process and find folks that will outperform their draft position.

What was Detroit's goal?

I really don't understand these draft picks, feels like a Jim Nill draft class from like 2005 or something.

Enh. They went BPA (in their opinion) at 9, then went D, D, F, F, G. Seems like they were trying to add real depth to the blue line. They also seemed to focus on well-rounded forwards (Rasmussen, Zablocki, Gallant) that are more likely NHL players than transcendant talents.

IMO, looked like Detroit is trying to create a team that plays the whole ice, rather than trying to land on specialists. Add in the the Nielsen signing and the Abby and Helm contracts, and I'm seeing an organizational trend.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

This is kind of silly. The "expert rankings" are usually wrong much more than they are right. Outside of the top few picks it usually comes down to style of play, luck, chemistry, team needs, etc. That's where scouts come in.

I guess so

just seems when teams go off the board early(or against the general consenus) they mess up more then they hit the jackpot

 

[Heaton]

If you have some genius draft picks, most people won't know it until much later and are likely to call your picks bad early on. And on the opposite end, a lot of "sexy" picks just end up being busts. The experts can be good at what they do but it's far from an exact science, one good scout that sees something others don't can make all the difference.

I think we added a lot of interesting guys even if it wasn't a true boom/bust type of draft where we only take 4-5 year projects.

Okay... but there hasn't been any genius picks in 15 years, so expecting them seems kinda weird.

You have to evaluate it at face value and dismissing any negative evaluations seems counterproductive.

 

[Mijatovic]

Watching this board meltdown on a topic they know nothing directly about is quite amusing.

 

[Frk It]

What was Detroit's goal?



Enh. They went BPA (in their opinion) at 9, then went D, D, F, F, G. Seems like they were trying to add real depth to the blue line. They also seemed to focus on well-rounded forwards (Rasmussen, Zablocki, Gallant) that are more likely NHL players than transcendant talents.

IMO, looked like Detroit is trying to create a team that plays the whole ice, rather than trying to land on specialists. Add in the the Nielsen signing and the Abby and Helm contracts, and I'm seeing an organizational trend.

Do you think we need depth or high end talent? Do you think we need 200 foot players or dynamic playmakers?

 

[Pavels Dog]

Okay... but there hasn't been any genius picks in 15 years, so expecting them seems kinda weird.

You have to evaluate it at face value and dismissing any negative evaluations seems counterproductive.

If your bar for genius is "elite superstar" then no, but we've still made plenty of picks that the time looked strange, unimpressive or even bad and then ended up really good. There's little reason to think our scouts are just completely off their rocker and made 11 whiffs here. Lack of in-your-face offensive upside may be slightly disappointing right now but the d+1 year is really when you start to see if there's more to a pick than met the eye pre-draft. The experts "consensus" have changed dozens of times in the last year, it will continue to do so going forward.

 

[Shaman464]

If you have some genius draft picks, most people won't know it until much later and are likely to call your picks bad early on. And on the opposite end, a lot of "sexy" picks just end up being busts. The experts can be good at what they do but it's far from an exact science, one good scout that sees something others don't can make all the difference.

I think we added a lot of interesting guys even if it wasn't a true boom/bust type of draft where we only take 4-5 year projects.

Actually they added a lot of character guys who are categorized as safe. Literally they added what they already have: Bottom 6/pairing players who if they make the NHL will likely only have niche impacts. The biggest problem with this strategy is it is one of team that thinks its about to contend, not a team that is laughably untalented.

 

[Zetterberg4Captain]

Watching this board meltdown on a topic they know nothing directly about is quite amusing.

true, but who knows about it and where is the proof?

its not like the front office was busy drafting subban, benn and keith while the fans were demanding that they should have drafted josephs, alexanders and pillars these last 15 years

 

[jkutswings]

Yep, based by the experts it was a really bad draft. I'm sure more optimistic people will want to wait to see what happens (not like we have a choice), but if by the time we find out that these are just more of the same role players, we'll just continue into the dark depths.

Hopefully the majority of scouts and draft experts are wrong.

I certainly don't hope that. Unless an elite player comes out of nowhere, pulling an occasional rabbit from the hat just keeps everybody in place, and keeps the hamster wheel going.

I want as close to a barren cupboard and 0-82 as possible this season, to help hasten a much needed change in regime.

 

[Bench]

Well, the luster of Detroit drafting is long gone. I remember writers and fans used to say, "Well Detroit saw something in the kid so..."

All I can do is go from the expert opinions and we're being told it's a very safe and lackluster draft. Of course that could change, but I'm so sick of that being used as armor for everything.

We've waited. We've seen. For many years. The current Wings prospects aren't that great so we're not expecting miracles suddenly this year. That's the only reasonable stance, I feel, but maybe your whiskey and Zoloft works better than mine.

 

[Spitfire11]

We dominated as a puck possssion team with skill up and down the lineup. Could care less how big and nasty we are, we need to get back to that.

During the period the Wings were "dominating" post-lockout, they managed to win just one Cup while being lucky enough to miss the biggest test that year in the Ducks. They were eliminated multiple times in physical matchups to bigger teams, and their star players were always dealing with injuries. For years we heard Devellano and the front office saying what everyone knew to be true, that they needed to get bigger and tougher to play against. It looks like they've committed to it. This team is still going to be bad, and will hopefully get a chance to add the 'elite talent' in the next couple drafts while these players develop.

 

[jkutswings]

... and then traded for Ryan Reeves because they enjoyed the experience so much.

That's the retort? That, after WINNING BACK TO BACK CHAMPIONSHIPS with a lineup heavy on skill and light on physicality, Pittsburgh traded for a guy to add size and toughness...so that means that Detroit, who just ended their playoff streak, and has nothing in place for a core...is clearly on the right track by prioritizing size over talent ceiling?

 

[jkutswings]

During the period the Wings were "dominating" post-lockout, they managed to win just one Cup while being lucky enough to miss the biggest test that year in the Ducks. They were eliminated multiple times in physical matchups to bigger teams, and their star players were always dealing with injuries. For years we heard Devellano and the front office saying what everyone knew to be true, that they needed to get bigger and tougher to play against. It looks like they've committed to it. This team is still going to be bad, and will hopefully get a chance to add the 'elite talent' in the next couple drafts while these players develop.

Thank you for distilling 10-15 years of historic hockey down to the one Cup with the least talent of the four, then further down, as if they won it all in spite of themselves.

Small players with high skill can still do very well in today's NHL. (Just watch Pittsburgh, Columbus, and Minnesota this year.) Big guys with questionable skill turn into pylons very quickly.

 

[Mijatovic]

Feel free to go listen to Tyler Wright talk about our draft.

https://soundcloud.com/officialredw...uthority-episode-4-red-wings-2017-draft-picks