2004 and 2005 drafts compare to 2003

2001 and 2003 were expected to be deep drafts........ can the 2004 and 2005 drafts be compared to those two?

 

I don't know for 2005, but the 2004 has a strong top 10, but after that it's not as deep as was the 2003 draft.

 

2003 was one the best ever in term of depth!!
2004 is not that bad..

 

Well the 2003 Draft was simply outstanding. People are now just starting to see how truly deep that draft was, as their respective team's mid picks are having great years, to go with their top picks.

But I think the 2004 draft is being highly underrated simply because people are looking at last years. While I agree that the talent level drops off at around 15 or so, it doesn't drop off again after that for a long time. The depth in this draft seems to really be developing, as we are seing some guys who could go anywhere from the end of the first, to the end of the second.

 

2004 draft is a solid draft. Top 5 picks well land you an elite prospect. Ovechkin,Malkin,Olesz,Barker,Schwarz, these guys are great. Then you got the other prospects who I just love in Lisin,Picard, Stafford, Pineault, ect.

2005 is shaping up to be a heck of draft class as well.

2003 well go down as one of the top 10 drafts in history possibly.
Sharks for an example, we walked away from that draft with 5 players who are having wonderfull years and 4 who are pretty safe to say they'll make the NHL. It was a great draft.

 

I really like the looks of the Canadian contingent in the 2005 draft, does anyone have any info on the European element to it?

 

I know that Andrei Kastsitsyn brother's Siarhei is supposed to be in the 2005 draft. He got 4g 4a in 5 games at the U20 WJC championship in the group B. He will probably be a 1st rounder

 

X-Sharkie

Aren't you the guy who has access to the scouting tapes? As a Ducks fan, I'm very interested in this year's draft because the Ducks seem to be a lock to draft in the top 10 or so. I noticed that you haven't mentioned Schremp. What's your opinion of him (both talent-wise and character-wise)? Do you think the fact that he demanded a trade was merely a shrewd business move by his agent or is this kid a problem? Were his moves in the Prospects game as spectacular as some have claimed? If you were drafting 5th or 6th overall (and he were still on the board), would you draft him?

Thanks and I apologize if you have provided some of this information in another thread.

 

If the Ducks are sitting at the 5th or the 6th spot. Well they'll be tempted to take O'Neil, I've seen him twice this year and alot last year when he was in Green Bay. He's an abosolute horce, who moves very very well for a man his size. I would think Anaheim would like him. I'm one of Schremps biggest fans actually on this board. In my pre-season- mock draft I had him ranked at #2, Untill the WJC's I had a tough time moving him out of there. If Schremp falls to the Ducks, they well jump on him. He's a top notch prospect, alot better then people want to realize because they think he's a problem child, HE"S NOT!! not at all. I like Schremps game, his awarness and puck skills are amazing! I would think they would take Schremp or O'Neil.

 

care to give a pronounciation key?

 

2004 is probably the 2nd strongest we have seen in a long time, there are 25 players that I think have top line potential starting out compared to about 45 last year.

 

http://www.iihf.com/hydra/tournaments/output/W20IB/BestScore.htm

 

If the development of the "depth guys" continues at the rate it is... 2005 will be one of the best drafts of all-time.

'04 isn't the worst of all time but I'd say above average and as one poster mentioned above, underrated. For example, Matt Robinson, ranked 169 by CSB... scouts are saying if he can improve the mental aspect of his game, he could easily be a solid 3rd line NHL player. Yes, a big *if* but also something that made one scout say if he was just a little smarter, he'd be no lower than a 3rd round pick.

There are tons of other stories like this regarding the lower ranking guys and this is making it underrated.

 

About 20 years ago, birth rates in Canada started to spike, which continued through the next few years. That's one of the reasons for the monster drafts we're seeing. Also, Europe is taking more control over their hockey production, so we're getting more from over there, which means more for drafts. Soon (next 50 years, which is soon, from a perspective), teams like China and Japan will start producing more, which means the draft will get that much deeper, and any spikes in birth rates will have an effect on drafts.

~Crazed.

 

Yea, the baby boomers all started having their kid 20 years ago, this is going to be the era that brings the NHL out of the defensive age.

 

The fact that I don't think he is a top 5 or even a top 10 prospect doesn't have anything to do with any perceived off ice problems he may have, I am going on purely the few games that I have seen this year. In which he did absolutely nothing and as a purely offensive player that he seems to be production is crucial. I did see talent and ability however, he skates well, great hands and offensive instincts. I am willing to accept off nights, as obviously he has put up points this year, but he is definitely not a top 5 prospect in my mind.

 

Actually the Baby boom generation started to have their kids roughly 37 years ago being that the baby boom generation is now aged 38-57. Therefore the last 15 or so years would have supported your theory.

 

That would make us (Im 22) the 'baby boom echo'... so the theory actually still applies... and surprisingly so does my sociology textbook. wow.

 

Still applies but is ending soon and it will soon be the Lost generation's kids taking over which represents a much smaller portion of the population. Pointless discusion really.