Am I the only one not excited by the 2004 draft?

I don't know, just doesn't seem to have as much substance as last year, nor as much flash & dash as 2002 or 2001.

Obviously there are great players. Ovechkin could be a top 3 draft pick in any draft year. Guys like Olezs and Barker are probobly top 10 guys most years. But the draft, in my mind, seems to be lacking two things:

#1 - Big-time top 10 talent after the first 3 or 4 guys

And,

#2 - Depth beyond the #15 spot (or so)

I'm not a professional scout, and perhaps some scouts think this draft is underrated and I've got it all wrong. But this upcoming draft, outside of Ovechkin and a couple others, just doesn't get me all that excited. Am I alone on this one?

 

It seems a bad years for Canadian but if guys like Malkin and Tukonen show good things at the WJC it could become more interesting.

The big problems with this draft is that 2005 players are already as good as 2004's ones in Canada and most of the posters here are Canadians. Also top prospect like Schremp and Maillot did'nt improve much. Last years was a specially deep draft it also make 2004 looks weaker.

 

Hard for me to comment on this. Seeing as how this is a European-dominated draft, isn't it possible that us North Americans aren't able to see these young players, not able to have N.A. media hyping up some local prospects as we've become accustomed to, and thus making this draft seem thinner and weaker than it really is?

Just a thought.

 

Its hard for North Americans to get excited about this draft, other than Shremp and Barker it is an extremely weak North American draft class, and its easy for us to call it weak because of that. Although the Europe draft class is definitely better than last year, its hard to tell if its strong or just strong looking because of the weak North American class. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

 

You may just have the 2003 hangover...it was so deep people talked about it as one of the best ever.

This year may be just a good year, as opposed to exceptional.

 

Very good point.

I do think it's clearly a European dominated draft, and I think this hurts the draft on the whole. While I think the Euro's are better than last year, I don't think they are stacked either. I think there will be about 10 guys taken in the first round this year that would have been selected in the 2nd round last year.

Still, I'll follow things closely. I usually don't get very 'prospect heavy' in terms of my hockey knowledge until around the WJC's and about 3 months preceeding to the draft. So I'm excited to see some of these kids play, I just don't see the same talent level I saw last year, the year before, or even the year before that. Hate to say it, but I think this reminds me a lot of 1999.

While I'm here, anybody want to throw me some information about Montoya (goaltender) and that Swede Tukkonen? *checks his TV-Times for WJC games*

 

Very possible, yes.

Hard to comment on a draft when you don't see the players.

Beatnik is right. We were just spoiled with a very special, very deep, very North Americanized draft. We saw and followed these youngsters, many of these 2003 prospects were dominating the 2002 draftees as far as two years ago.

It's hard to get excited for ANY draft after that, much less when it's a draft of unknown (to many of us) Euros.

But it will be like every year. Some of the unknowns will surge out of nowhere. There will be risers and there will be stock that falls. There is in EVERY draft, including 2003.

 

I disagree, I think this draft has a bunch of talent after the top 3 or so. The trouble is with studs like Malkin and Ovechkin at the top it's difficult to focus on the guys following behind them.

 

I'm not sure if this draft is weaker than 2002. I haven't seen enough of the 2004 crop first hand, but 2002 was a fairly weak draft in terms of depth after the Big Four.

BTW, Tukkonen is Finnish. The Swede to watch is Salmonsson (IMO). Good large frame, and some good puck skills, but he's fairly low ranked (late first to mid second is the projection, I think). Watch Tukkonen at 11am game time (EST) on Boxing day.

 

Oh, one more thing.

When there's a really hot draft (like 03), those that are close before or after are usually less hyped. Usually, we begin to see an identity developing (for us casual fan observers) right after the WJCs in those cases. Because the WJC is when a lot of us start paying attention to the new crop and stop focusing exclusively on how the recent draftees are doing).

I've heard from a couple of sources now that there is a a fall after the top 15 but you'll see some players pop up in scouting reports and that top 15 will grow possibly into a top 20-25.

And it will grow even further right after the draft. Remember last year: few if any sources had Brent Burns in the top 45, some even not top 60. Yet the minute he was drafted by Minnesota people started to talk and he was right away considered a risky but still solid selection.

It happens often. You'll see teams WILL find legit top 30 guys that are little known.

 

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


(by the way does anyone know how to insert a picture not as an attachment, but as an actual picture in the post?)

 

Good point on Burns, Vlad.

I must say, I've seen him play twice now, and have come away super impressed. I don't see him having top-line upside, but he IS an NHL'er to the core of his being. Reminds me of Ryan Smyth in a lot of ways. True power forward, but I don't think he has quite the moves to be a 1st liner. Just a straight away hockey player. And while I'm not pissed with Kesler in the least, I would have loved to have had Burns! Imagine had a team gotten him in the 2nd round? Wow.

 

Hmmmm, I'm not sure, but I'm going to make a bold prediction and say that Barker will be the best D-man picked in the top ten since Pronger.

 

I think you underrate the draft Mizral.

And I think its for reasons that others have listed here. 2003's draft was absolutely incredible and while a lot of people didnt really seem to want to believe it at the time, I think they are just realizing that now as they look at their teams like 6th and 7th round picks and see them producing as if they were 2nd or 3rd rounders.

The 2004 Entry Draft is just a normal draft year, it's not a bad one, it's not a great one.

The top 15 is very good and then there is a bit of a fall off in talent.

Speaking from the guys whom are located close to me, The OHL has 3 very talented players available for the draft in Schremp, Wolski and Mcgrath whom all have first line upside IMO.

 

Don't forget Kyle Chipchura...

 

Sorta like Patrice Bergeron? I'd LOVE to have him over Kesler-even though I do like Kesler.

I think Drafts in general are going to start seeing more and more depth over the years. 2003 was exceptional obviously-but considering how the game is expanding and finding talent in new places-I think the talent pool will start reflecting that pretty soon-hopefully within 7-10 years.