2011 Draft Deeper than 2010 Draft?

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
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?


OK, sorry if I jumped the gun a little there. To your last point: I'm sure a pretty good answer could be formulated to that question actually, if one took the trouble to compile the results.

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)?

Yes, that is a very relevant point: It's not just a headcount, obviously some sortof qualitative grading plays into it as well. That could probably be done though. But in any event, I think one would be forced to accept that there are several angles to look at it from. Not that that neccessarily is a critical analytical obstacle.


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 have a bit of a heretical view on that point: Who cares? Firstly, it does not seem to me that the number of good players who get coughed up out of the lower rounds really varies very fundamentally from year to year, and they are generally a minority of the good players the draft produces. Secondly, given the extremely low probablity for success that below-1st round-selections have, I strongly doubt that any scout is in much of a position to really judge the depth of a draft in that sense. Typically, a second round produces maybe 5 or 6 decent or better NHL players. Can scouts tell that this year there's likely to be 7 or 8 instead? Or 3 or 4? That's about the scope of variation.

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?

As above. The insecurity with these prospects is already so overwhelming that it hardly makes a lot of sense to talk about depth one year compared to another in advance of the draft.

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 itTHAT 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..

Well, I'm not sure I share your positive assessment. There are some good players out of the draft yes, but that is true of any draft. The number of good NHLers the first round produced is actually well below standard, and also the average quality of that group is by any reasonable assessment not very high. I would have to say that right now it looks like clearly the weakest of the past five or six drafts. When all's said and done, it probably won't have a very greatly lower number of good NHL players out of the first rounds than most of those drafts, but the number will be on the low side. But more importantly, it simply lacks top end quality. In terms of players who can be regarded as more or less having established their credentials as better than above-average players - credible first line centers, top pairing defensemen and so on - 2007 is 1 deep: Patrick Kane. Most drafts produce maybe 6-7 such players. The next tier in 07 are the likes of Gagner, Voracek, Vanriemsdyk. They simply don't compare to Johnson, Kopitar, Toews, Doughty, Schenn etc etc. Good players, but not on that level. In short, they way things look now, 07 is not great in terms of depth and decidedli weak in terms of top end talent. It's not a disaster draft like 96 or 04, but then it never was regarded as that either. I must confess that I was rather among the optimists ahead of the draft, but I think what we're seeing now is pretty much what reflects the main weight of opinion at the time.

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.

I agree that this will generally increase the output of players, but I don't think it will remove the differences between drafts. Another thing is that scouting seems to have improved - clubs seem better able than before to identify the best players. I also suspect that the new rules have some effect - that the kind of hockey that was prevalent pre-lockout distorted prospect evaluation because it was so difficult to succeed on the basis of scoutable things like talent. :) Teams would rather take a gamble on a 6-6 lumbererer who might learn to play hockey than on a 5-11 skills whiz who was tearing up junior.
 

Chapin Landvogt

Registered User
Jul 4, 2002
19,878
5,931
Germany
OK, sorry if I jumped the gun a little there. To your last point: I'm sure a pretty good answer could be formulated to that question actually, if one took the trouble to compile the results.

...

Teams would rather take a gamble on a 6-6 lumbererer who might learn to play hockey than on a 5-11 skills whiz who was tearing up junior.

Good stuff Qvist.

All sound and interesting points/thoughts.

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.
 

Pyke*

Guest
This draft is very weak. Not a chance it's as deep as 2010, which is fairly mediocre as it is.

Thanks for the clarification. It's nice to know that a Toronto fan (with no first round pick of their own) has developed extensive knowledge of the drafting class and it's comparative last season. It's even more awesome to know that said insight has allowed you to indicate not only your opinion on the draft, but that it is frankly impossible ("not a chance") that the Director of Player Personnel would have any idea what he was talking about.

The point of this thread was to see if any other scouts - not armchair gms - had expressed opinions.
 

FiveAndGame

Registered User
Apr 29, 2009
1,465
0
I recall Gillis stating at last year's draft that he felt 2011 was a deeper pool. I think he meant that the quality of player's between 15th-45th didn't drop off as significantly as last years.
 

Pyke*

Guest
I recall Gillis stating at last year's draft that he felt 2011 was a deeper pool. I think he meant that the quality of player's between 15th-45th didn't drop off as significantly as last years.

So that's conceivably 2 "expert/professional" sources. Of particular interest I guess is that Gillis wouldn't be drafting high in 2011 so, his opinion is less tainted by bias.
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
So that's conceivably 2 "expert/professional" sources. Of particular interest I guess is that Gillis wouldn't be drafting high in 2011 so, his opinion is less tainted by bias.

Heh, that's rich. :) The guy had just traded his 2010 late first-rounder. If anyone at that point had a direct incentive to play down the depth of the 2010 draft in favor of 2011, it's Gillis.
 

Chapin Landvogt

Registered User
Jul 4, 2002
19,878
5,931
Germany
It surely doesn't have to mean anything, but I feel like I knew MUCH more about later round possibilities in the 2010 draft than I do this year for this summer's draft.

Anyone here have any examples of guys who should be real interesting as of round 3???
 

Qvist

Registered User
Apr 14, 2009
2,357
0
Whenever a post to the extreme about how weak 2011 is, it's always a Leaf fan. Not even just on the boards either.

No, it isn't. Why would it? If the draft is shallow that just makes the Kessel trade look even worse, since that puts a premium on the high picks the Leafs gave up.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->