2011 Draft Deeper than 2010 Draft?

Discussion in 'NHL Draft - Prospects' started by Pyke*, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Pyke*

    Pyke* Guest

    Not sure if anyone else is saying this... Pierre Dorion commented that he felt the draft was deeper than last year (conversation at 7:00-8:30ish of video).
    http://video.senators.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=1141&id=99282

    Now, obviously Ottawa has a vested interest in towing that line - and it's worth noting earlier in the video he comments that when they traded #16 overall last year for David Rundblad, they did it because they felt no one else in the draft would be as good as him... he also cites it as the reason they ditched their two second rounders last year.

    Anyone else heard similar reports?
     
  2. Thrillingbroom

    Thrillingbroom Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    64
    I was under the impression that the top end of the draft was supposed to be as good as year's past but getting into the later rounds it wasn't as deep as others
     
  3. R S

    R S @avs_tweets

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    scout
    I think there is more balance and depth, especially in the first two rounds this year than last year.

    But there was higher end talent last year.
     
  4. oilsands

    oilsands dirty oil, comin 4 u

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,071
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Halland
    This is also my understanding. Based on pedigree at the draft (and not accomplishments after):

    Hall
    Seguin
    Larsson
    Fowler
    Gudbranson
    RNH/Couturier
    Johanson/Landeskog
     
  5. Pyke*

    Pyke* Guest

    I'm not really sure what you're basing this on.

    Hall and Seguin were consensus top of their class, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're consensus better players.
     
  6. oilsands

    oilsands dirty oil, comin 4 u

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,071
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Halland
    Re-read the post.
     
  7. Pyke*

    Pyke* Guest

    I did read it. You specifically said, "pedigree", not "skill", but the general point remains the same.

    The fact that Hall and Seguin were consensus ahead of their peers says nothing about how they would compare this year - they might be #1/2 again - or they might not be.
     
  8. oilsands

    oilsands dirty oil, comin 4 u

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,071
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    Halland
    Sorry, maybe pedigree isn't the right word. Nonetheless, it's more than skill that determines selection number... rather the whole package. I tried to label it with the word pedigree. All I did was roughly aproximate the selection order if all players were in the same draft. That selection order being "what we know of the player at draft time". So not considering Hall, Fowler, Seguin, etc... NHL accomplishments.
     
  9. Zach and Slater

    Zach and Slater Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    5,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Consultant
    Location:
    Alberta
    I think it's clear. Last year 1st round picks weren't getting tossed around, this year they are. The last time that happened...07, a weak draft. Pierre gets stuff in his head though and he just refuses to change his opinion. He claimed on Dan Tencer's show here in Edmonton a few weeks ago that the Oilers would never get a 1st round pick for Dustin Penner...this is because he doesn't like Dustin Penner.

    And look I try damn hard not to be a homer and be realistic, but Penner would fetch a 1st for sure. Probably not a top 10 pick, but if LA came to the Oilers asking for Penner I don't think they would say no if the asking price was only there 1st round pick. You can't tell me that a team wouldn't value Dustin Penner more than they value Kris Versteeg and that's not to knock Versteeg but Penner is just simply a better player. I've watched a lot of both guys and it's not that close. Penner is a top 6 forward and Versteeg is not. Penner is 6'4, Versteeg is 5'10. Penner is on pace for another 30 goal campaign, Versteeg has never got there. And I like Versteeg! :laugh:
     
  10. R S

    R S @avs_tweets

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    scout
    I think that just goes to show how much of a crap shoot it is in the standings right now. It's wide open in regards to who could go all the way. Teams are doing what they can to gain that edge.

    It happens to be trading first round picks.

    That doesn't mean those picks carry less weight this year then they do any other year.
     
  11. Zach and Slater

    Zach and Slater Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    5,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Consultant
    Location:
    Alberta
    I don't disagree that it could be, but I just look at the year's 1st round picks seem to get tossed around and I don't think it's any conincidence they are in weak draft years. 07 nobody seemed to care about giving up a 1st (of course Shane O'Brien going for one was a bit of a ridiculous move no names mentioned Jay Feaster). It's not like they are going around like THAT year, but they are getting moved more easy than in the past 3 years and the most connected man in the business (Bobby Mac) continues to insist this draft is a top 15 and then it's a crap shoot.

    I'm one of the few people that actually likes McGuire although I do understand why many don't, but he will talk out his a** a lot on matters that he has no idea what he is talking about. He thinks EVERY kid is the second coming so it should be no suprise that he thinks this draft is deep...somebody alert me when he doesn't think a draft will be deep. Don't get me wrong, as an Oiler fan I pray he is right! We need another deep draft. If this year's draft is deeper than last year's look out! You all seen what McGregor and his staff did with last year's group :yo:
     
  12. Ward Cornell

    Ward Cornell Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,374
    Likes Received:
    504
    Trophy Points:
    139
    It also goes to show in general the lack of regard a GM has for future picks.

    He's only concerned for this year since he probably won't be around with his present team when that traded pick becomes a NHL player.
    Geesch...he may actually become the GM of the team he traded the pick to!!
    A GM is rated on and keeps his job by the "here and now"!
     
  13. Chapin Landvogt

    Chapin Landvogt Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Occupation:
    Translator
    Location:
    Germany
    Home Page:
    Every draft can be deep. The question is, how many of the kids have shown a good likelihood and propensity for a high end pro career by the time that big weekend in June swings around?

    Some draft groups include a number of kids who show these things in addition to the necessary tool kits. That draft then gets a good amount of respect as being deep.

    A weaker group is simply one where a lot of the kids haven't yet started to bloom enough to indicate that they'll be future NHLers. But just about every class brings about a variety of future NHLers.

    You can find gems in every draft. If one is weak, it could mean that there are a number of gems in later rounds just waiting to flourish.

    As for comparisons, this draft looks like it'll feature a more highly touted 1st round than 2007 did, but what comes after the first 40 or 60 players is anyone's guess. And while I'm at it, that 07 first round has already produced a NUMBER of NHLers.

    Like just about every year, eh?
     
  14. S E P H

    S E P H @SEPH_WHL

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    14,310
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Occupation:
    WHL
    Location:
    Toruń, PL
    The first two rounds are very deep. Most importantly the top 30 this year is much better than 2010.
     
  15. boredmale

    boredmale Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    36,570
    Likes Received:
    2,009
    Trophy Points:
    186
    I have to agree with this, I think the way first rounders are being tossed around says what scouts think of the draft. I think by next Monday(the tradeline) we'll have a much better idea what the scouts think when we see how much players go for(how many marginal players will be traded for second rounders basically)
     
  16. R S

    R S @avs_tweets

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    scout
    GM's trade picks, not scouts.
     
  17. arsmaster*

    arsmaster* Guest

    So lets see here....3 2011 1st round picks have been moved.

    1. Was more of a public relations move than it was a legit hockey trade, but it does improve Nashville as a two-way hard to play hockey team. Nashville has a pretty damn deep system and can afford to make a push through to finally win a playoff round.

    2. Boston and Philly are poised to meet in the conference finals. I am not discounting the Flyers or the Penguins, but the East is as rype for the taking as it has been in years for the Flyers and Bruins.....The first round picks could very well be 30th and 28th. It isnt like Boston doesnt already have a top 10 pick, and Philly seems to like not having a 1st rounder anyways. Both these teams have enough good young players not to need a 1st rounder this year, especially with the odds to come out of the east being as high as they are for their deep teams.

    3. I just remembered now that St Louis dealt there pick (it is top 10 protected).

    When EJ Maguire says upwards of 8 guys could go #1, and the 8th guy taken may end up being the best player speaks to the depth of this draft. It may not have a Crosby, but the top 60 looks solid, at the very least.
     
  18. Faryn

    Faryn Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2009
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Calgary AB
    ya but the scouts let the gm's know what is going on in the draft class. Therefor it really comes down to what the scouts think eh.
     
  19. R S

    R S @avs_tweets

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    scout
    Yeah, but maybe the scout says....hell we will get the same tier of player at 45 as we would at 15....go ahead and trade that first rounder!!

    That would show how DEEP the draft is, not how shallow it is.

    Everything can be looked at 2 ways people.
     
  20. Qvist

    Qvist Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it doesn't, that is a clear sign that the draft is shallow. There has never in the history of hockey been a draft that produced 45 hockey players of legitimate mid-1st round quality. If you're looking at same tier players well into the second round, that means the guys you are looking at in the mid first are inferior.

    The ratings tell the same story. There's a top group of maybe 12-13 players who are up there in nearly all rankings, and after that there's zero consensus. There are guys in some agencies' top 1o who don't make the first round in others. And while it is logically possible for that to be consistent with enormous depth, there is in practice and actual experience unfailingly a strong connection between little consensus and weak draft. In my recollection, there are two drafts that above all others were marked by lack of consensus up ahead - the 1996 and 2004 drafts. And look at how those turned out in terms of depth.
     
  21. Qvist

    Qvist Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, no.The reality is that there are very major contrasts between different drafts, both in terms of the quality of the first round and also in the total number of good players the drafts produce in the end. The 2007 draft at this point has clearly yielded significantly weaker results than 06 and 08, and is showing every sign of continuing to defend its rightly earned reputation as a weak draft. "Every draft can be deep" is in essence little more than a platitude that obscures the clear fact that drafts differ in quality.
     
  22. R S

    R S @avs_tweets

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    25,468
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    127
    Occupation:
    scout
    First of all, 45 was an arbitrary number. It was merely an example of my point.

    Secondly, I still stand by that point.

    It doesn't mean the draft is shallow. It would show that it's balanced. That after the first 10 or so pick, there is no set consensus. The next 30-40 picks could really go in any order.

    Why does that mean it's a weak draft?

    Consensus (everyone agreeing and rating players a certain way) doesn't necessarily mean that a draft is weak or strong....
     
  23. Qvist

    Qvist Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have already answered that question, and the answer is "because every draft who has had that outlook has turned out to be weak". See also below.


    Yes, it does. OK, theoretically, it could be that there's a lack of consensus due to there being 30 or 40 players who would all be surefire top 15 picks in a normal draft, but what do you think are the odds for that? And in any case, in such circumstances you would see the kind of thing you now see in the Saad-Armia-Siemens-Hamilton-Huberdeau segment: Same group of players everywhere, just in different order.

    That's not the kind of lack of consensus that we're seeing. What we're seeing is stuff like Jensen or Zack Phillips top 10 in some places, second round elsewhere. Khoklachev, top 15 to late second round. Also, huge variations in short periods: Players jumping from nowhere one month to high in the first in the next. Precious few players with any significant stability in where they place. Players where the scouts think they have a good reading and feel confident this is a strong, solid prospect don't fit that picture - they stay much more stable. And drafts that have great depth of quality do not work that way either - you see much less movement than this, and you don't get players jumping 40 spots to 10th overall after a strong month.

    This is how every draft works. A rough consensus is only there for the top group of prospects, between 5 and 30 deep. After that, there's little or no consensus at all because you're into players where you simply have too many uncertainties, too much scope in variable projection. Already the second round is pretty much a waste of time to try to predict, and the lower you get the worse it is. The higher the talent level, the stronger the consensus. This is why it is normally entirely predictable who goes 1st-2nd-3rd, and beyond imagination for anyone to predict who gets drafted and in what order in the 7th. Conversely, lack of consensus is indicative of a deficiency of quality.

    Entirely reasonable, and also solidly backed by experience. I've already mentioned this twice I believe, without registering much of an effect, but again: Historically, the drafts with least consensus have also been the weakest drafts. Take 1996. All over the place, once you were outside the top 4. Players taken in the top 15 who weren't projected to go in the first two rounds. Top ten selections who were pure projects, and would not have been surprising to see go in the second round. And the ********* first round in the history of the entry draft. 2004, much the same thing.

    By all indications, the reasonably high end of this draft is shallow, and skids to an abrupt and early halt somewhere between 10 and 15. After that, it's players who do not command a broad support in the scouting community as prospects who justify that kind of selection, which is unusual that early - and which devalues second half 1RPs.

    On the other hand, while there might not be a Hall or a Seguin in this draft class, the top 10 as a whole might not be weaker than last year's (which was not overly impressive).
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2011
  24. Chapin Landvogt

    Chapin Landvogt Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Messages:
    14,430
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Occupation:
    Translator
    Location:
    Germany
    Home Page:
    Certainly a draft is called strong, weak, deep, etc. in its actual year for good reason.

    I didn't mean to sound as if I was disuading from that. I do believe the organizations and pro scouts know enough about what they're talking about to make that assessment in the actual draft year.

    When all is said and done though (i.e. 5-10 years down the line), how many NHLers of what quality does it take to say that a draft was or was not as poor or strong as it was hailed to be in its draft year?

    Another serious question I have is if this draft is seen as 'good' and if so, is that because it's top-heavy? Is it 30 or 60 or 90 players deep (as is often mentioned when referring to how many kids actually show NHL-possible tendencies)? Is a draft good because Ovechkin and Malkin come of it, even if there's a lack of players after that (not a statement about their actual draft year)?

    My impression to date is that things looked very meek for this year in 2009, but that over that two year span obviously some kids have jumped onto the scene. Aside from that, to date there's been a top 4 and now we're seeing a bit of a top 7-9, but there's more talk than in years before about how generally similar the prospects are for kids ranked no less than 8-20/25. What about after that?

    I mean in every draft there's talk about kids who 'could' be good as of rounds 2 or 3 or 4, etc. How is this year in comparison to the past two, for example?

    At the moment, I'm understanding that this is a weak year from a depth standpoint.

    2007:
    Weaker than some of the stronger recent draft years perhaps, but it was talked about very poorly. There was also a lot of movement of picks and there were unexpected picks (Hickey at 4?) as well as players dropping fairly heavily from pre-draft rankings (Cherepanov and Esposito), but the reality is that 4 years later, alone the 1st round has already produced 5 top 6/7 forwards including - in Kane - one of the NHL's top 15 offensive players. Perron, Gagner, Sutter, Van Riemsdyk, Voracek, Couture... all excellent young NHLers. Throw in guys currently establishing themselves like Shattenkirk, Eller, Ellerby, Pacioretty, Backlund and Blum and that's turning into a wonderful first round. There are several other kids there who are fully expected to become NHLers in the next 1-3 years.

    Then there are other guys who are already playing important regular roles who came in round 2 (like Simmonds, Galiardi and Subban). Heck, even Benn, Harju and Gunnarsson came in rounds 5-7. I didn't bother to mention the other dozen mid-rounders like Omark and Weber and Martinez, etc. who are all playing to some degree at the NHL level or are very close to it.

    THAT was considered a very weak draft, but in actuality, it's been just fine. Just fine. Heck, maybe even 'deeper' than some of the other 'strong' drafts.

    This is my point. Just because a draft is considered weak in its actual draft year, it can still end up being A OK.

    Hockey development:
    In fact, I truly believe that the advances made the past 25 years in coaching techniques and the provision of ice time at every level, in addition to more areas actually practicing ice hockey at a better level (i.e. California, western Pennsylvania, Germany, Denmark, etc.) are currently ensuring that each class of players will make a healthy contribution to the NHL - whether that class is deemed a weak class or not.

    We've just reached a strong and solid point in overall development.
     
  25. Minister of Offence

    Minister of Offence Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    24,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Pierre Dorion (Sens Dir. Player Personnel), not McGuire...come Draft day the latter may be relevant to us also though.

    And I heard the Penner thing, it surprised me that he'd say that....he didn't seem to like the radio host much, sounds like he has a better rapport with ours lol. Someone posted a link to that exact segment a couple weeks ago. Would like your host to get that free meal.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"