Drafting Philosophy

[Vankiller Whale]

I hope it's okay to make a thread like this to continue the discussion of weighing the pros and cons of different types of players without clogging up player-specific threads.

I was going to bump the Horvat vs the World thread, but it's locked, and I figured a more general thread title might be better suited anyways.

With how this season has gone, would you still take Domi over Horvat right now?

As to the 2nd point, yes, it absolutely does mean dmen are harder to project if so many elite dmen are being drafted outside the 1st rd. With forwards, drafting early plays a HUGE role in finding impact players - much moreso than with dmen.

And I never said don't draft defensemen in the 1st rd. Like I said, you make exceptions if you have a special talent on the board and think the value is there. Seth Jones at 4th overall looked like a no-brainer for example...

I'm on the fence. I don't regret having taken Horvat over Domi, specifically, given Horvat seems to have taken the next step developmentally while Domi had a lousy start and only now is starting to play better. But if we had taken Domi I wouldn't have regretted not taking Horvat either.

Finding elite defensemen in the later rounds doesn't mean it's worse to find defensemen in the first round.

In fact based on this: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1298875 50.5% of forwards taken in the first round failed to become top-6 players while only 46.8% of defensemen failed to become a top-4 player.

Click to read more...

 

[Royal Canuck]

I'm not regretting the Horvat pick at all, I'd contemplate Nicushkin over Domi to be honest.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

The Jensen and White picks still mystify me.

 

[vancityluongo]

The Jensen and White picks still mystify me.

Jensen was a good pick at the time. White...yeah.

 

[Royal Canuck]

The Jensen and White picks still mystify me.

White more than Jensen.

Jensen wasn't a "Are you kidding me" pick, but with Ty Rattie and Tomas Jurco on the board it hurt a bit. I was extremely confident in Vancouver drafting Rattie when he was still available at #29.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

I'd be curious to know what the approach is for later rounds considering we just seem to draft garbage europeans or kids out of second tier junior leagues who never translate.

 

[DennisReynolds]

I'd be curious to know what the approach is for later rounds considering we just seem to draft garbage europeans or kids out of second tier junior leagues who never translate.

throw **** at the wall hoping it sticks

 

[Drop the Sopel]

In fact based on this: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1298875 50.5% of forwards taken in the first round failed to become top-6 players while only 46.8% of defensemen failed to become a top-4 player.

So it is easier to project forwards. You're cut off is top 50% of forwards and top 66% of a teams defense.

Make a list of your top 10 forwards in the NHL, then make a list of your top 10 dmen in the NHL and look at their draft position. This should make it abundantly clear why it's easier to project forwards at the age of 17-18 than it is with dmen.

 

[Taelin]

I'd be curious to know what the approach is for later rounds considering we just seem to draft garbage europeans or kids out of second tier junior leagues who never translate.

Corrado, Hutton, Cannata to name a few from the current organization.

 

[Royal Canuck]

I'd be curious to know what the approach is for later rounds considering we just seem to draft garbage europeans or kids out of second tier junior leagues who never translate.

We've had a few late round successes: Hansen, Corrado, Archibald.

Our organization is better at dumpster diving to find good players.

 

[Taelin]

We've had a few late round successes: Hansen, Corrado, Archibald.

Our organization is better at dumpster diving to find good players.

Quick correction: Archibald was signed as a free agent out of major junior.

 

[Bgav]

We've had a few late round successes: Hansen, Corrado, Archibald.

Our organization is better at dumpster diving to find good players.

Archibald was a signing but replace him with that beauty of a pick, hutton

 

[Royal Canuck]

Quick correction: Archibald was signed as a free agent out of major junior.

Archibald was a signing but replace him with that beauty of a pick, hutton

Right, my bad.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

We've had a few late round successes: Hansen, Corrado, Archibald.

Our organization is better at dumpster diving to find good players.

Two players in a decade?

I am really psyched for Subban though, I think that will be the steal of the 2013 draft.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Two players in a decade?

I am really psyched for Subban though, I think that will be the steal of the 2013 draft.

Most teams get the bulk of their roster from the first three rounds.

Besides Detroit, there isn't many teams who have had those "diamond in the rough" picks.

 

[MegaSpiderman66]

As far as drafting philosophy goes didn't GMMG admit that after the 2011 stanely cup finals he thought the league had changed and the emphasis was on longer on up-tempo skilled hockey (see Detroit and Chicago), but rather on bigger, heavier, two-way play (see Boston and LA).

I think you can still win with either, evidenced by Chicago's cup last year; however, GMMG probably thinks it's easier with a higher probability of success, to build a team based on big, heavy two way forwards with an emphasis on team defensive rather than a fast and skilled team, as elite level skill is so hard to come by.

I personally think it is not a bad strategy, I mean you can never really have to many Keslers on a team, and I think MG thinks that the Keslers of the world are easier to find and develop than say the Henrik and Daniel Sedins of the world.

 

[Taelin]

Two players in a decade?

I am really psyched for Subban though, I think that will be the steal of the 2013 draft.

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2006/06/24/draft-schmaft-from-draft-pick-to-nhler/

Less than 10% of #80+ picks become NHL regulars, and less than 20% of #80+ picks become depth/utility players.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

So it is easier to project forwards. You're cut off is top 50% of forwards and top 66% of a teams defense.

Make a list of your top 10 forwards in the NHL, then make a list of your top 10 dmen in the NHL and look at their draft position. This should make it abundantly clear why it's easier to project forwards at the age of 17-18 than it is with dmen.

You're missing the point.
How about this, a list of my top-10 two-way forwards in the NHL: (not really in order but whatever)

Datsyuk(171st)
Bergeron(45th)
Toews(3rd)
Zetterberg(210th)
Kesler(23rd)
Richards(24th)
Backes(62nd)
Hossa(12th)
O'Reilly(33rd)
Plekanec(71st)

Compare that to:

Karlsson(15th)
Suter(7th)
Keith(54th)
Chara(56th)
Weber(49th)
Pietrangelo(4th)
Subban(43rd)
Doughty(2nd)
Ekman-Larsson(6th)
Phaneuf(9th)

So obviously it's better to take defensemen than two-way forwards, right?
(hint - it doesn't mean anything)

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'd be curious to know what the approach is for later rounds considering we just seem to draft garbage europeans or kids out of second tier junior leagues who never translate.

Or Mallet with a 2nd which seemed a real reach at the time and still does to me.

Sure drafting is a crapshoot but until this most recent draft the Canucks have been pretty horrible at it, like almost forever.

Everyone says that they take the best player available but it seems to be that everyone in the NHL has a different standard of best as well.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

http://hockeyanalysis.com/2006/06/24/draft-schmaft-from-draft-pick-to-nhler/

Less than 10% of #80+ picks become NHL regulars, and less than 20% of #80+ picks become depth/utility players.

So in twelve years we've had five players drafted beyond the first round out of 68 draft picks who've played more than 20 games in the NHL which is 7%.

Those players five players?

Mason Raymond (2nd round, 415 games)
Alex Edler (3rd round, 458 games)
Mike Brown (5th round, 309 games)
Jannik Hansen (9th round, 349 games)
Nathan McIver (8th round, 36 games)

And we haven't had a late round pick break through since 2005. That'll change with Corrado, but still that's pretty bad.

 

[arsmaster*]

Anyone ragging on the Jensen pick is hilarious. He was the BPA on many a list at that point in the draft.

I hardly researched the kid pre-draft as many expected him to go in the teens.

Calling it a poor pick at the time is just silly.

Jaskin as the guy I wanted all season in 2011 though.


Drafting philosophy. Take the best player. Not the most talented, the fastest skater, or the fanciest dangler.

This topic has been discussed so many times. Skill, hockey sense and competitiveness are my 3 keys factors when assessing draft talent.

 

[The Big Foot]

1 25 Vancouver Patrick White C Tri-City Storm [USHL]
2 33 Vancouver Taylor Ellington D Everett Silvertips [WHL]
5 145 Vancouver Charles-Antoine Messier C Baie-Comeau Drakkar [QMJHL]
5 146 Vancouver Ilya Kablukov W CSKA Moscow [Russia]
6 176 Vancouver Taylor Matson C Des Moines Buccaneers [USHL]
7 206 Vancouver Dan Gendur R Everett Silvertips [WHL]

Combined NHL appearances : 0 games.

Our draft philosophy should just be the opposite of that.

 

[Verviticus]

You're missing the point.
How about this, a list of my top-10 two-way forwards in the NHL: (not really in order but whatever)

Datsyuk(171st)
Bergeron(45th)
Toews(3rd)
Zetterberg(210th)
Kesler(23rd)
Richards(24th)
Backes(62nd)
Hossa(12th)
O'Reilly(33rd)
Plekanec(71st)

Compare that to:

Karlsson(15th)
Suter(7th)
Keith(54th)
Chara(56th)
Weber(49th)
Pietrangelo(4th)
Subban(43rd)
Doughty(2nd)
Ekman-Larsson(6th)
Phaneuf(9th)

So obviously it's better to take defensemen than two-way forwards, right?
(hint - it doesn't mean anything)

he didnt say "top ten two way forwards". what kind of horrible argument are you even making here?

'your reasons are silly because here's an unrelated thing'

 

[Vankiller Whale]

he didnt say "top ten two way forwards". what kind of horrible argument are you even making here?

'your reasons are silly because here's an unrelated thing'

He's claiming in general it's better to draft a forward than a defenseman in the first because almost all the best forwards are drafted early in the first whereas the best defensemen are drafted all over.

But it's meaningless to try and base it on average draft position, unless you want to say that it's always better to take a defenseman over a two-way player, using the same(faulty) logic.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

So obviously it's better to take defensemen than two-way forwards, right?
(hint - it doesn't mean anything)

Not if more picks have been spent on defenemen than they have on strictly defensive forwards.

My top 5 dmen in the league list doesn't have a top 5 draft pick in the bunch - my top 5 list of forwards are all either 1st or 2nd overall picks.

IMO the Canucks top 5 on the backend is the strength of the team. And it took next to nothing in assets/draft picks to assemble.

Hamhuis- 12th
Garrison- undrafted
Edler- 91st
Tanev- undrafted
Bieksa- 151st

I think it would be very difficult to assemble a handful of equally valuable forwards with a 1st, 3rd, 5th rd pick and couple of free agent signings.