You heard it here first - 2004 is not a weak draft year

Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Jon Burke, Jun 21, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jon Burke

    Jon Burke Guest

    It seems like a lot of people consider this year a "weak" draft year. I say hogwash. Compared to last year, sure, it is "weak". But last year was a rarity in terms of the top end depth. You guys all know that. This year's draft class is actually pretty good, IMO.

    Let's look at who I would consider likely to go as the top six guys (but not necessarily in this order):

    Ovechkin - I don't like how he's been overhyped, but I have to admit he is a special player. He will be an impact player at the NHL level and soon.

    Malkin - THN said he could end up being a cross between Thornton and Sakic. If so, this guy will be a heck of a player.

    Barker - Stud two way defenseman

    Olesz - Compared to Jagr and Holik, talented offensive player who works hard in both ends

    Ladd - Speedy guy who loves the game and has a good set of hands

    Tukonen - Finn who works hard, plays solid 'd' and scores goals

    Last year's class was really no better.

    This year's draft is filled with great goalies - Schwarz, Montoya, Dubnyk, Schneider and Shantz are all potential first round picks - and good young defensemen - Barker, Thelen, Meszaros, Smid, Valabik, Green, O'Neill, Lyamin, Fransson and Hedman could all one day make up the backbone of some very nice defense corps. Plus guys like Schremp, Ladd, Ovechkin, Malkin, Tukonen, Stafford, Radulov, Wolski, Picard, Lisin, Korpikoski and Voloshenko are all great offensive prospects.

    Weak draft my foot. It's just weak in comparison to last year's draft, which was a rarity. Give these guys some time, and I'm sure they'll make us all say that wasn't such a weak draft after all. Didn't we all kind of figure that the '02 draft was weak, yet look at how it worked out. Nash led the NHL in goals this season. Lehtonen is a stud goaltender. Bouwmeester, Upshall, Lupul and Pitkanen are all great young NHL players. Players like Whitney are highly touted prospects. Didn't we all figure that the '99 draft was a great draft? I mean, Pavel Brendl was the next Mike Bossy! Yet, look how that all turned out.

    My point is, wait before judging this draft to be weak. I think these kids have the potential to be a great draft class!
     
  2. Flames Draft Watcher

    Flames Draft Watcher Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    When scouts talk about a draft year being not very deep they typically aren't talking about the top 15 guys. They're talking about the late 1st, 2nd/3rd rounds.

    2002 was EXTREMELY weak despite the great players at the top end. 2003 was amazingly deep because of the late 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounds.

    This years draft has a nice first round IMO but drops off quite a bit.
     
  3. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,606
    Likes Received:
    514
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    I agree completely. And like they said in THN, after the first 3 rounds or so, all drafts are the same anyway. I don't think this one is getting enough credit.
     
  4. Patty Ice

    Patty Ice Best in the World

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    11,025
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    OxNard
    Is the class of 04 weak? Certainly not. Its just after the top 6 or so players, the talent drops and levels off...not that its a bad thing. I see very lil discrepancy from the mid first to the end of the second round. So in a way you can say it is somewhat deep. However, its also unfortunate enough to be sandwiched between the 03 and 05 draft (both considered to be spectacular draft years).
     
  5. Dr_Chimera*

    Dr_Chimera* Guest

    It is what I would call average - maybe even slightly less than average.

    And 2003 draft is overrated... Take out the college picks and it's on par and possibly worse than this year's.
     
  6. Mr.Sinister

    Mr.Sinister Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    I definitly think that this year is just a bit below 2003 , but higher than 2002,
    you called it right Brother
     
  7. Flames Draft Watcher

    Flames Draft Watcher Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Calgary
    Home Page:
    Who are you trying to kid?
     
  8. montreal

    montreal Go Habs Go

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Messages:
    34,164
    Likes Received:
    2,250
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd say '04 is looking somewhat like the '00 draft. '05 is looking like '03 :eek:
     
  9. ginner classic

    ginner classic Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Management Consultant
    Location:
    Kitsilano
    Home Page:
    Yeah I don't see the same depth in the second and third rounds as last year but there are still going to be some interesting players available in the second for sure such as Hedman, Fistric, O'Neill etc. I think Kaspar is going to turn out to be a HUGE steal for some team late. I heard the same critique about Elias in his draft year....lacked consistent effort.....
     
  10. X-SHARKIE

    X-SHARKIE Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Janesville Wisconsin
    Home Page:
    2004 is an ok draft.

    I think some good players well emerge. 2003 blows this year away, and so well 2005, witch makes this draft look even softer.

    I'm very optimistic about the draft though, players have been only showing spirts, and the team that scouts well, and projects the players well, should have a good day at the draft table.

    I think 2004 is persumed as a weaker draft class then it really is because, alot of these 1st rounders would've been taken behind 70% of last years second and even some third rounders. 2005 is going to be a damn good year to.
     
  11. ttnorm

    ttnorm Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Home Page:
    Isn't that like saying take out the Europeans in this year's draft and it is worse than last years? :dunno:
     
  12. Dr_Chimera*

    Dr_Chimera* Guest

    Well, as an example - the Finnish and Czech classes are much, much better this year. The CHL is behind in a few places, especially the QMJHL, but there isn't a huge difference if you take out last year's college (but of course that accounted for a great percentage of last year's picks).
     
  13. Dr_Chimera*

    Dr_Chimera* Guest

    You don't have to take them out - it is worse than last year's.

    But for a draft that was supposed to be so rich (2003), it did pretty poorly with certain European countries.
     
  14. Bruwinz37

    Bruwinz37 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    27,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Sales
    What in the world does this mean? Ok, take out the Europeans this year and it is terrible.....does that make sense? The quality of the draft is based on the sum total of all of the leagues that contribute to it. It doesnt matter if the college players are better from one year to the next or if the OHL is much better than in the previous year. Last year has the makings of a very good, and deep, draft. It is probably true that there was no one of Ovenchkin's quality, but it is surely a better draft.......on paper anyway.
     
  15. Karamazov

    Karamazov Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    109
    Location:
    Edmonton
    Home Page:
    I honestly don't think 2003 blows this draft away at all. Ovechkin would certainly go #1 in either year, and I'm betting Malkin would go #2 if you combined them as well. That being said, the depth of '03 is seemingly superior unless there are some surprises.
     
  16. X-SHARKIE

    X-SHARKIE Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Janesville Wisconsin
    Home Page:
    The only way you can even begin to say the 2004 draft is equal or better....is the top 2 picks. Now Eric Staal and Malkin are both great great players, and Ovechkin would've been #1 overall in 2003. Mabey even Evgeni Malkin.

    Aside from that, the 2004 draft gets destroyed by the 2003. So many players that are 1st round worthy in 2004, wouldn't have touched the 1st in 2003, and some 2003 2nd rounders are better players durring their draft years.

    The only people saying 2004, is a draft year that compares well to 2003, even if you did take out the NCAA players....Is likely the fan of the Rangers, or Caps, or the Oilers...yada yada who have high draft picks going into the draft....so their pulling for the draft more then usual.

    2003>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one more > 2004.
     
  17. Dr_Chimera*

    Dr_Chimera* Guest

     
  18. Classic Devil

    Classic Devil Spirit of 1988

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    43,640
    Likes Received:
    5,782
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Location:
    Columbus, Ohio
    Awards:
    Boy has that changed. He's the hardest working player on NJ other than Brian Gionta and Jay Pandolfo.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"