Prospect Info: 33rd overall Roby Jarventie LW FIN

[Burrowsaurus]

I'd be willing to bet that at worst they are close to the average number of games played for a player of that pick. Sure they aren't great, but far from complete failures.

Yeah. I bet ceci is way above the average games played for players picked in his position. Doesn’t make him good.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Ceci in particular will end up playing far more than an average 1st rounder

And possibly Lazar as well if he's successfully reinvented himself as a bottom 6 player

Yeah I’m sure ceci has already crossed the average. Still a horrid player tho.

 

[JD1]

I did specify "the past 10 years", so 2010-2020

I realize it's a small sample size and the 2020 players are still TBD, but if you factor in Karlsson then that is only 4 players worth mentioning in a span of 11-12 years., so my original point stands.

No I'm not sure about that. Cutting off Karlsson's year is convenient to your point. Then talking about a decade but saying 11 to 12 years sounds odd no?

Ceci has played significant time. So has Lazar. So has Colin White.

Cowen had his career derailed by injury.

Puempel flamed out. Noesen is still hanging around as an NHLer and there are 9 guys in that draft from the first round that have played less than him.

And then there is Bowers. JBD. Thomson. A little early to close the book on these 3.

I'm thinking our overall success rate is decent. Moreso with many of those oicks being in the middle to the back side of the round

 

[TheDebater]

No I'm not sure about that. Cutting off Karlsson's year is convenient to your point. Then talking about a decade but saying 11 to 12 years sounds odd no?

Ceci has played significant time. So has Lazar. So has Colin White.

Cowen had his career derailed by injury.

Puempel flamed out. Noesen is still hanging around as an NHLer and there are 9 guys in that draft from the first round that have played less than him.

And then there is Bowers. JBD. Thomson. A little early to close the book on these 3.

I'm thinking our overall success rate is decent. Moreso with many of those oicks being in the middle to the back side of the round

I do not understand what makes it convenient? I originally stated our picks in the 1st round the past 10 years have been underwhelming, you decided to bring up Karlsson, who was drafted in 2008. I do not see how that fits into my original argument.

Even if you factor in Karlsson's draft year of 2008, that makes only 4 legitimate prospects drafted in the 1st round that we can feel proud of:

Karlsson 2008
Zibanejad 2011
Chabot 2015
Tkachuk 2018

4 players out of 11 drafts, are you saying we should be proud of that? Like I said it is early for some of the ones we picked, so maybe my argument needs to be wider so say 2005-2018?

Still bad drafting in the early rounds.

 

[GCK]

I do not understand what makes it convenient? I originally stated our picks in the 1st round the past 10 years have been underwhelming, you decided to bring up Karlsson, who was drafted in 2008. I do not see how that fits into my original argument.

Even if you factor in Karlsson's draft year of 2008, that makes only 4 legitimate prospects drafted in the 1st round that we can feel proud of:

Karlsson 2008
Zibanejad 2011
Chabot 2015
Tkachuk 2018

4 players out of 11 drafts, are you saying we should be proud of that? Like I said it is early for some of the ones we picked, so maybe my argument needs to be wider so say 2005-2018?

Still bad drafting in the early rounds.

White, Thomson, Brown, JBD, Bowers, Sanderson, Stuetzle and Greig panning out would flip that POV upside down.

 

[JD1]

White, Thomson, Brown, JBD, Bowers, Sanderson, Stuetzle and Greig panning out would flip that POV upside down.

It's also a matter of perspective

If the expectation is 1st round pick = star player, well you're going to be disappointed, because that's just not overly reflective of reality

 

[GCK]

It's also a matter of perspective

If the expectation is 1st round pick = star player, well you're going to be disappointed, because that's just not overly reflective of reality

Exactly. If you get a solid top 9 F or top 4 D at 20 or later that’s great.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

It's also a matter of perspective

If the expectation is 1st round pick = star player, well you're going to be disappointed, because that's just not overly reflective of reality

 

[Burrowsaurus]

No I'm not sure about that. Cutting off Karlsson's year is convenient to your point. Then talking about a decade but saying 11 to 12 years sounds odd no?

Ceci has played significant time. So has Lazar. So has Colin White.

Cowen had his career derailed by injury.

Puempel flamed out. Noesen is still hanging around as an NHLer and there are 9 guys in that draft from the first round that have played less than him.

And then there is Bowers. JBD. Thomson. A little early to close the book on these 3.

I'm thinking our overall success rate is decent. Moreso with many of those oicks being in the middle to the back side of the round

Doesn’t really matter that other players around noesen have played less. Players taken after Noesen have had good careers.
Cowen career was derailed becuase he wasn’t very good.

 

[SlapJack]

Whenever you find yourself debating that Ottawa drafted badly, take 5 random teams and look up their draft history over the same period. If you only look at specific players that busted and who came after them, it's easy to opine that huge mistakes are made on the regular.

Every team has a wild draft history with bad picks early and gold found in later rounds. When comparing Ottawa to the league, they are most assuredly above average, but you can't see that when looking with blinders or focusing on the top drafting teams only.

 

[GCK]

The real good news is that we don’t need all of them to work out as long as 3 of them do. That tweet also didn’t mention Zub, Alsing, Kleven or even Jaros or Lajoie.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Whenever you find yourself debating that Ottawa drafted badly, take 5 random teams and look up their draft history over the same period. If you only look at specific players that busted and who came after them, it's easy to opine that huge mistakes are made on the regular.

Every team has a wild draft history with bad picks early and gold found in later rounds. When comparing Ottawa to the league, they are most assuredly above average, but you can't see that when looking with blinders or focusing on the top drafting teams only.

How do we become a top drafting team.

 

[playasRus]

Doesn’t really matter that other players around noesen have played less. Players taken after Noesen have had good careers.

That's like blaming your wife for winning $5 instead of the jack pot with the lottery ticket. She should've picked a better time to buy a ticket. The draft isn't remotely close to an exact science as these draft reviewers make it to be. Not for the NHL anyways. If it were, the Alfredsson's, Datsyuks, Pavelskis, Byfugliens, and other late round picks wouldn't happen. Or as someone mentioned, the Bergerons getting picked in the second round wouldn't either. Ottawa being 4/11 on hits in the 1st round is probably par for the course relative to the league.

If we consider their position in selection too (Bold are impact players, italics are borderline):

2011 - Zibanejad 6 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 6/11 hits (Monahan, H. Lindholm, OEL, Gagner, Brassard, Michalek). Four misses in Connolly, Filatov, Brule, Montoya. Hit rate 54%.

2011 - Noesen 21 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 7/11 hits (Jankowski, Sheahan, Moore, Riley Nash, Rask, Wolski, Stuart). Misses in Gauthier, Gustafsson, and Sanguinetti. Hit rate 63%.

2011 - Puempel 24 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 4/11 hits (Hayes, Backlund, Oshie, Richards). Hit rate 36%.

2012 - Ceci 15 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 4/11 hits (Pulock, Karlsson, Radulov, Nilsson). Six misses in J. Miller?, Holland, Plante, Helenius, O'Marra. (That's 3 other teams that managed to get a player out of 15OA in the last decade, we did it twice, with one superstar and one regular despite a weak draft year). Hit rate 36%.

2013 - Lazar 17 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 5/11 hits (Hertl, Gardiner, Hanzal, Lewis, Parise). Misses in Beaulieu, Hishon, Rundblad, Cherepanov (RIP), Swarz. Hit rate 45%.

2014 - No pick

2015 - Chabot 18 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 6/11 hits (Teravainen, Watson, Cole, Stewart, Chipchura, Fehr). Misses in Mueller, McNeill, Leblanc, Pickard, Parent. Hit rate 54%.

2015 - White 21 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 8/11 hits (Jankowski, Sheahan, Moore, Riley Nash, Rask, Wolski, Stuart, Noesen). Misses in Gauthier, Gustafsson, and Sanguinetti. Hit rate 72%.

2016 - Brown 11 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 6/11 hits (Forsberg, Ellis, Brandon Sutter, Bernier, Kopitar, Carter). Misses in Morin, Siemens, Campbell, Beach, Tukonen. Hit rate 54%.

2017 - Bowers 11 OA; Rest of the league from 2003-2013 6/11 hits (Skjei, Coyle, Foligno, Niskanen, Fistric, Perry). Hit rate 54%.

2018 - Tkachuk 4 OA: Rest of the league from 2003-2013 10/11 hits (Jones, Larsson, Johansen, Kane, Pietrangelo, Hickey, Backstrom, Pouliot, Ladd, Zherdev). Miss was Reinhart 2012.

2019 - Thompson 19 OA: Rest of the league from 2003-2013 8/11 hits (Vasilevski, Klefbom, Bjugstad, Kreider, Sbisa, Kindl, Korpikoski, Getzlaf) . Hit rate 72%.

Using definition of a hit being a player who dresses for more than 200 games. With the exception of 2019 when we picked 19 OA and league trend over the last decade is strangely high at 91%, most of Ottawa's pick spots over the last decade have trended around 54%. Excluding Brown, Thopmson, Bowers since they're too young to hit that 200 mark (e.g. Chabot being a year older than Brown and still only just hitting 200 games now, or only a handful of picks in Brown's year only hitting 200 games with most being top 10 picks), Ottawa's hit on just about every pick, except Puempel and White, every Ottawa pick has been a hit. If you expand to 300 games, the odds lean to Ottawa's favour with their picks being regulars, and the likes of Kindl, Fistric, Jankowski, Watson, Chipchura are removed from the hit list. Then if we talk only about impact players (bolded), the hit rates become around 20-30% at our pick spots, exceptions obvious at 4 OA and 6 OA (surprise!). Exception again being 19 OA which is an anomaly in that despite being a late pick, has produced an NHL player 72% of the time, with 45% of them being impact players (top 4D, top 6F, #1 goalie).

For comparisons, Ottawa's only impact player besides in the top 10 is Chabot at 18th OA, where only 2/11 of the last picks were impact players at that spot, Teureveinen and Cole.

So to some up, at our picks, we've hit (200+ games) way more than other teams do. But impact players, unless Brown, Bowers, Thompson become top 6F, 4D, we hit at 1 player/9 'drafts outside of top 6' rate, while other teams tend to hit at a 25-36% rate.

My personal conclusion: Ottawa takes safe picks instead of BPA/boom or busts. Brown is the only real disappointment (assuming he never pans out) seeing as 54% of 11 OA pan out and 4 of the last 11 have been stars. Brown's year was supposedly stacked too so hope we didn't pull a Hugh Jessiman? White is no where near a disappointment, 21OA never seemingly amount to impact players. Finally, what the hell is up with 19 OA.

 

[TheDebater]

Whenever you find yourself debating that Ottawa drafted badly, take 5 random teams and look up their draft history over the same period. If you only look at specific players that busted and who came after them, it's easy to opine that huge mistakes are made on the regular.

Every team has a wild draft history with bad picks early and gold found in later rounds. When comparing Ottawa to the league, they are most assuredly above average, but you can't see that when looking with blinders or focusing on the top drafting teams only.

No offense but that is a very defeatist perspective to have; "it is ok to suck because other teams suck too".

We want and should aim to be the best, to ultimately draft the best players and win a cup. There are always great players drafted in almost every draft, we should absolutely aim to hit on as many of them as possible.

Every team will draft a few hidden gems in later rounds, but that has more to do with a bit of luck than anything else really as those types of players are harder to project.

We need to find more success drafting in rounds 1 and especially the 2nd round, but I like where things are going the past 5 years with some of the earlier picks we have made, so time will tell.

 

[JD1]

Doesn’t really matter that other players around noesen have played less. Players taken after Noesen have had good careers.
Cowen career was derailed becuase he wasn’t very good.

You'll forever be depressed if you look at what got drafted after your pick and say that guy is better 5 years down the road. The draft simply isn't a science and development isn't linear.

Was Noesen a good pick? No, he wasn't. But if you're standard is to look at the draft years later and say, for example, we coulda had Saad, good luck in ever feeling good about the draft

 

[JD1]

One of those things is not like the other. I view Wolanin as a total wild card. At soon to be 26 two months into the next season I have no idea how to refer to him. Prospect wouldn't be a word I'd use though. He's not a reclamation project either.

 

[bert]

One of those things is not like the other. I view Wolanin as a total wild card. At soon to be 26 two months into the next season I have no idea how to refer to him. Prospect wouldn't be a word I'd use though. He's not a reclamation project either.

He basically lost 2 full seasons to covid and an injury, the last time he played we was 23, he is a prospect and likely the least 'wild' of all of them. He has shown he has NHL talent the rest of them have not. Development isn't linear, focusing on his age and the way you described him is cherry picking the situation to try and push your argument.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You'll forever be depressed if you look at what got drafted after your pick and say that guy is better 5 years down the road. The draft simply isn't a science and development isn't linear.

Was Noesen a good pick? No, he wasn't. But if you're standard is to look at the draft years later and say, for example, we coulda had Saad, good luck in ever feeling good about the draft

my point is not that we should have picked someone else... the whol crux of the original post is hindsight. thats just how it is. like or not things do get graded using hindsight.

like if we always have the 25th pick lets say. and the last ten years we pick no stars or even good nhl players. it would be fair to say "look the last ten years we havent picked a good player" it IS hindsight. and also anyone can say "well according to the average players picked 25th overall dont become stars and neither do any of the players around them" which is also true. but its not the point.

i disagree with the original ppost anyway. but i also disagree with "yeah but lazar is above the average games played for someone picked there and also there are players picked after him that didnt turn out to be good either" that doesnt matter, he wasnt a good pick. thats it. cest la vie. same with ceci.

 

[JD1]

He basically lost 2 full seasons to covid and an injury, the last time he played we was 23, he is a prospect and likely the least 'wild' of all of them. He has shown he has NHL talent the rest of them have not. Development isn't linear, focusing on his age and the way you described him is cherry picking the situation to try and push your argument.

I get all that Bert. I'm just saying i don't know what he is. His injuries are unfortunate. He's aged out of prospect status. Likely would have solidified his spot last season. He's just a wild card to me. And hopefully he is what many here hope for

 

[Hale The Villain]

One of those things is not like the other. I view Wolanin as a total wild card. At soon to be 26 two months into the next season I have no idea how to refer to him. Prospect wouldn't be a word I'd use though. He's not a reclamation project either.

Wolanin is an NHLer until he proves otherwise. Kid arguably looked like a top 4 D in his 30 game stint in 2018/19. Was on pace for 33P/82GP and was showing off his skating and poise with the puck every night.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Chabot - Zaitsev
Sanderson - JBD
Brannstrom - Zub
Wolanin, Thomson

This is probably how Sens management sees our D shaping out in a couple years. RDs are definitely weaker than the LDs.

Could see Wolanin or Brannstrom dealt in a package for a difference maker, as I think both are pretty decent bets to develop into good NHL D, and Sens management clearly isn't a fan of Brannstrom playing his off-side. Sanderson's addition may push one of them out. Thomson is a bust through-and-through but he'll probably get plenty of chances to make it just because of his draft position.

Would be nice to add a veteran top 4 RD to that group and push Zaitsev to the 3rd pair (if he's still a Senator).

 

[jhutter]

Wolanin is an NHLer until he proves otherwise. Kid arguably looked like a top 4 D in his 30 game stint in 2018/19. Was on pace for 33P/82GP and was showing off his skating and poise with the puck every night.

I personally think he's an NHLer, but I don't think that you can make the argument that a player that has played 43 games over 3 seasons is "an NHLer until he proves otherwise."

Excellent skating and poise with the puck - can't disagree there.

 

[Sweatred]

It's also a matter of perspective

If the expectation is 1st round pick = star player, well you're going to be disappointed, because that's just not overly reflective of reality

None of those picks are even good top nine players yet....

The Sens hit on EK and TC, they shouldn’t miss with top 5’s... and for the most part they missed on the rest.

 

[aragorn]

I think the RD questions should be answered in the 2021 draft when I expect that PD will draft two right shot D since they drafted two left shot D in the last draft.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Some great Jarventie content here in the event he ever decides to drop back and play D.