Dan Sallows Mock Draft

[Bjorn Le]

Haha We don't take Murphy at 3. Perhaps we would at 8 or 9.
Imagine Landeskog and RNH are available and we take Murphy. What a horror scenario.
Nothing against the kid, but if we draft in the Top 4 I am sure we take one of Larsson, Landeskog, Couturier or RNH.

Except its not a bad pick. Murphy at 3 would be far from a bad pick, especially since he fills a need in Edmonton.

 

[Qvist]

Pff, it's chock full of just the sort of idiot reasoning that makes most mock drafts a waste of time.

"New Jersey has gone by the old saying that “defense wins championships” for so long now it just seems to make sense they’d pick the 6-foot-3, 201-pound blue chip defender"? Sure, that's why nearly all the good players they've signed, traded for or drafted for the past few years have been blueliners. You know, such as...um....And anyway, it's well known teams generally think positionally when they have the 1st overall pick.......

The Oil are already stocked up on talented young forwards, and as good as Landeskog’s game is, Ryan Murphy has unbelievable ability and offensive prowess that hasn’t been seen in Edmonton since the days of Paul Coffey.

...........or the 3rd overall pick.

Out with Alfredsson and in with Landeskog, in Canada’s capital.

Of course. That really makes sense. You drop a Swede, you draft a Swede, stands to reason.

Thanks to the Leafs, Boston got a quality centre last season in Tyler Seguin, and it only makes sense that the big bad Bruins took a chance on 6-foot-2, 200-pound right winger Tyler Biggs from Cincinnati, Ohio. He has good bloodlines, and is a Cam Neely-type of player, which should excite the fans in Boston and anger those in Leaf Nation. The Bruins will be good for years to come on the shoulders of the two Tyler’s.

He's called Tyler, and can also be called "A Cam Neely type of player". What more could you possibly ask for by way of reasoning?

The Panthers have accumulated some really nice defensemen over the past couple drafts, along with a few good goaltending prospects, so Ryan Nugent-Hopkins could be the obvious choice as he is Sakic-like in the way he plays the game.

Wow! Another positionally motivated top ten pick! What a year!

Buffalo has had success with drafting talented french forwards in the past, so history may just repeat itself.

This one really deserves some special award or something. "They've done well with talented french forwards in the past"? Classic. How about "they've had some luck with players whose first name begins with a "D" in the past"? Let's not overlook the key aspects here.

And so on. Totally worthless.

 

[SDig14]

Except its not a bad pick. Murphy at 3 would be far from a bad pick, especially since he fills a need in Edmonton.

Well, the pick wouldn't really be going off the board too much, but a pmd that can be a PP QB in the NHL isn't really our biggest need at the moment

We need a number one centre, preferably with size, or a potential top pairing d-man, preferably with a 2-way game or slightly more defensive like Larsson.

I think if we somehow started to heat up and picked at 5, I would be fine taking Murphy because he would be a great addition...but with the skill left on the board at 3, I would think they would take a centre or Landeskog as the BPA according to rankings.

 

[OilerOlli*]

Except its not a bad pick. Murphy at 3 would be far from a bad pick, especially since he fills a need in Edmonton.

We have everywhere needs, but I think the managment is mainly looking for a #1 Center a franchise D who is physical, or generally a physical forward (Landeskog)

I think Murphy fits better with a team that is already pretty good, and has the biggest holes filled already. Like Boston. They have enough promising Center, they have a Chara, they have a lot of physical guys. They could really use something extra like an offensive D Man who can run the Powerplay etc. A Rafalski/Campbell guy, something Murphy could turn into.

 

[Foppa]

I can't really critique on the reasoning he gives but I will say I do think the actual draft will produce about the same variety of surprises he has given us in his mock. If Blake Wheeler can shock everyone and go 5th overall, why can't Tyler Biggs? Not saying he will but the final actual draft will not simply be a replicate of a composite of the most popular 'mock' drafts available.

 

[Qvist]

I can't really critique on the reasoning he gives but I will say I do think the actual draft will produce about the same variety of surprises he has given us in his mock. If Blake Wheeler can shock everyone and go 5th overall, why can't Tyler Biggs? Not saying he will but the final actual draft will not simply be a replicate of a composite of the most popular 'mock' drafts available.

Agreed, but 2004 was an exceptional year - really no consensus at all, outside of the top 3-4. I seem to remember Wheeler wasn't even in the top 60 in the THN DP that year, and much of the 1R was all over the place relative to expectation.

 

[Qvist]

We have everywhere needs, but I think the managment is mainly looking for a #1 Center a franchise D who is physical, or generally a physical forward (Landeskog)

I think Murphy fits better with a team that is already pretty good, and has the biggest holes filled already. Like Boston. They have enough promising Center, they have a Chara, they have a lot of physical guys. They could really use something extra like an offensive D Man who can run the Powerplay etc. A Rafalski/Campbell guy, something Murphy could turn into.

Doesn't matter. Nobody drafts for position third overall.

 

[OilerOlli*]

Doesn't matter. Nobody drafts for position third overall.

You could think, and I also think drafting bpa is mostly the right decision, but I say you draft for needs when you want to create a new team and are missing something very much and you see it in the draft.
Of course you don't draft a Centre only to have a Center. But when you believe he could be your #1 Center you take him before a small offensive D when you are in Oilers position.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Oil will pick BPA at 3...which means Landeskog or RNH

 

[mps91]

I agree. Plus I would be sorely dissapointed if the oilers took Murphy. It could turn into being a scenario thats exactly the same that the Kings have with hickey. I hope we can get Landeskog. It's what the oilers need.

I wouldnt say thats what the oilers need. They need a quality center or d man. If oilers do get 3rd pick I agree they take Landeskog over RNH but if Larsson or Couturier are available they need to choose them because that is what the oilers really do need (#1 center/#1 D). Unfortunately IMO if we dont get a top two pick I dont think oilers will be getting Larsson or Couturier... but then again, nothing in the top 5 picks are that unfortunate.

 

[OilerOlli*]

I wouldnt say thats what the oilers need. They need a quality center or d man. If oilers do get 3rd pick I agree they take Landeskog over RNH but if Larsson or Couturier are available they need to choose them because that is what the oilers really do need (#1 center/#1 D). Unfortunately IMO if we dont get a top two pick I dont think oilers will be getting Larsson or Couturier... but then again, nothing in the top 5 picks are that unfortunate.

I believe there will be swedish Duo at the Top2 at this years draft.

 

[mps91]

I believe there will be swedish Duo at the Top2 at this years draft.

Interesting... I think that NYI will definatly take Larsson if they get the chance. I just dont see Landeskog picked 1st over Couturier.... but then again I havent had a chance to watch very much of Landeskog.

 

[OilerOlli*]

Interesting... I think that NYI will definatly take Larsson if they get the chance. I just dont see Landeskog picked 1st over Couturier.... but then again I havent had a chance to watch very much of Landeskog.

I think New Jersey pick Larsson at #1 and then the Islanders Landeskog at #2. We don't know when which team will pick of course. But I can imagine the same with the Islanders pick first and the Devils second. 1 Larsson 2 Landeskog...

 

[Made Dan]

I'd be ecstatic if the Rangers wound up with Puempel

 

[Made Dan]

I think New Jersey pick Larsson at #1 and then the Islanders Landeskog at #2. We don't know when which team will pick of course. But I can imagine the same with the Islanders pick first and the Devils second. 1 Larsson 2 Landeskog...

I can't see either team passing up on Larsson. If the Islanders pick second I think they'd take Couturier over Landeskog.

 

[Qvist]

You could think, and I also think drafting bpa is mostly the right decision, but I say you draft for needs when you want to create a new team and are missing something very much and you see it in the draft.
Of course you don't draft a Centre only to have a Center. But when you believe he could be your #1 Center you take him before a small offensive D when you are in Oilers position.

I'm not arguing that drafting BPA is the right decision. I'm pointing out that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that suggests teams with top picks usually think positionally when they draft. How many top 3 picks from the past decade can you think of where you can make a reasonably supported case that the player was chosen for positional reasons rather than because he was regarded as BPA? It just doesn't happen. "Drafdt for need" is what you can begin considering to do if you have many roughly equivalent options, which generally only starts happening once you get further down in the first round.

 

[OilerOlli*]

I'm not arguing that drafting BPA is the right decision. I'm pointing out that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that suggests teams with top picks usually think positionally when they draft. How many top 3 picks from the past decade can you think of where you can make a reasonably supported case that the player was chosen for positional reasons rather than because he was regarded as BPA? It just doesn't happen. "Drafdt for need" is what you can begin considering to do if you have many roughly equivalent options, which generally only starts happening once you get further down in the first round.

BPA is a very theoretically thing. How do you compare a Center with a small D? It is all not so easy, and I think the current Roster and Prospect pool is mostly always in mind of the management when they draft in the first round.

 

[OilerOlli*]

I can't see either team passing up on Larsson. If the Islanders pick second I think they'd take Couturier over Landeskog.

Yes, I said on the Oilers Board too, that I think #1 is the only Position in the Top 10 that should be pretty clear, with Larsson.
The rest is everything but safe. But at the moment I think Landeskog has the best chance getting picked 2nd.

 

[Robert604strom]

I still see the oilers taking my cousin Sean Couturier

 

[S E P H]

I wouldn't laugh at the Biggs pick. He might not be a big name amongst a lot of the posters here, but he's got a pro-style game (along with the requisite "intangibles") that scouts drool over. He could very well go in the top ten.

I've seen him play a few times and I think he's going to go between 11-17. He's a great player, but I prefer 10 players more.

 

[Epsilon]

The first overall pick would go to the dreadful 12-29-2 New Jersey Devils, who could use just about everything seeing how there is a good chance they will lose restricted free agent Zach Parise this summer. The long time guaranteed playoff bound Devils may just be feeling the effects of numerous successful seasons followed by late picks in the draft, an aging goaltender in Martin Brodeur, and of course a salary cap stranglehold brought on by the Ilya Kovalchuk signing.

This is like a bad HFBoards post.

 

[Qvist]

BPA is a very theoretically thing. How do you compare a Center with a small D? It is all not so easy, and I think the current Roster and Prospect pool is mostly always in mind of the management when they draft in the first round.

Really? And do you have anything to support that assumption? Because as far as I can tell, there's a consistent lack of any such correlation in the top end of pretty much any draft I can think of.

2010. Positional needs, was it? The Oilers, whose two best prospects were wingers, taking Hall? The Bruins, completely loaded at center, taking Seguin? the Panthers, whose previous two 1st rounders were defensemen and who hardly have anything serious up front either in the squad or among their prospects, Gudbranson was their logical "team needs" choice?

2009. Tavares-Hedman-Duchene. Funny, that seemed to be the expectation all year long, irrespective of which teams ended up with those picks. And what do you know, that's how it panned out.

2008. Stamkos-Doughty-Bogosian. Consensus lineup, nobody made any unexpected choice over "team needs".

2007. Ditto. Kane-Vanriemsdyk-Turris, none of whom particularly responded to any clear "team needs" and none of whom were the least bit unexpected.

2006. Johnson-Staal-Toews. Johnson was the consensus number 1, for the next four there was no clear pre-draft order. But was another center really the obvious choice for the Penguins need-wise, rather than for example a goal-scoring winger like Kessel? And did Toews at that time fit the Hawks "team needs" in a way that f.e. Backstrom didn't?

More importantly, can you point to anyone from the management of any of the drafting teams saying anything in retrospect along the lines that they made their choice because their guy was the type of player they were looking for?

Fans love the notion that teams draft according to need. They love it because it enables them to pretend that drafting decisions take place according to a logic that they can take part in, discuss and predict. Mock drafts feed that illusion, because they argue as if that was true. But the fact is that if you look at actual drafting decisions in the first round, they more usually than not fail to make any sense from that perspective. Sometimes a certain philosophy plays into it and sometimes teams are looking for specific things (if not neccessarily in the first round), but by and large I would argue that there is no discernible rational pattern to drafting that allows anyone to form any meaniingful prediction or expectation without knowing in detail and specifically how each team sees each individual prospect - that's what it ultimately comes down to, which is of course no fun at all. Every year you read how this or that player is exactly team x's kind of guy, and every year, team x pass him over nine times out of ten. Every year, there are quite a few first-round picks that not only fail to address the obvious needs, but which fails to make any sense at all from that perspective. Was another skilled Russian forward really the Caps biggest need last year? LA really needed to supplement the league's best young defense with yet another blueline prospect? The Blues and Rundblad? They needed him so much they traded him a year later, citing the reason they had no room for him. Sit down if you like and sort the first round, matching each team to likely available players and according to their "team needs". You're not going to get much of a correlation with the actual result. The main correlation you're going to get is with pre-draft ranking, and the second strongest you're going to get is with nothing predictable at all. The first of these is "BPA" insofar as general rankings manage to predict who that is, the second is individual team assessment that none of us essentially can know anything about.

"How do you compare a Center with a small D"? I'm pretty sure that what you at least don't do is say "Aw shucks, there's no good way to compare physical domination and offensive production anyway, let's just take the one that makes positional sense". However difficult and imperfect the comparison of different kinds of players are, it is and remains what scouting and drafting comes down to in the end.

 

[Bjindaho]

I'm not arguing that drafting BPA is the right decision. I'm pointing out that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - that suggests teams with top picks usually think positionally when they draft. How many top 3 picks from the past decade can you think of where you can make a reasonably supported case that the player was chosen for positional reasons rather than because he was regarded as BPA? It just doesn't happen. "Drafdt for need" is what you can begin considering to do if you have many roughly equivalent options, which generally only starts happening once you get further down in the first round.

Previous drafts for need include Victor Hedman, Marc-Andre Fleury, Kari Lehtonen, Alexandr Svitov

HMs to Klesla and Hickey (both 4th overall)

 

[OilerOlli*]

Really? And do you have anything to support that assumption? Because as far as I can tell, there's a consistent lack of any such correlation in the top end of pretty much any draft I can think of.

2010. Positional needs, was it? The Oilers, whose two best prospects were wingers, taking Hall? T

I said it is in their mind. And of course it is. Do you think the Oilers would had think that long if they shall take Hall instead of Seguin if they were full of good Centers and had no good wingers?

But of course you always try to take the bpa.

 

[Qvist]

Previous drafts for need include Victor Hedman, Marc-Andre Fleury, Kari Lehtonen, Alexandr Svitov

HMs to Klesla and Hickey (both 4th overall)

How the hell was Viktor Hedman at 2nd overall "draft for need"? He was the total consensus pick for that position, no matter which team had held the pick. Hickey was a classic example of a BPA pick, and also of how unpredictable that can be. The Kings drafted him because they really loved him as a player, not because they really lacked a small, skilled defenseman. As far as I can recall, Klesla was hardly much of a surprise - and what exactly was the acute team need Tampa Bay had to fill by drafting Svitov? That third offensive center every good team needs?

The goalies I'll grant, and goalies are indeed a general exception. Much more difficult to rate against skaters than skaters are to rate against each other. Also, there seems to be more pronouncedly different general philosophies as to how high you're prepared to draft them.