ESPN: Draft Blazers if you can (top dev teams for the NHL)
- Thread starter danishh
- Start date
Balls Mahoney
2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Color me shocked that the Thunderbirds are a top ten team. That team has consistently underachieved and missed the playoffs in it's history. Even now I can only think of maybe two or three NHLers who spent time in Seattle. I'm excited for Hickey though, that kid is going to special once he solidifies his place in the NHL.
BeardyCanuck03
@BeardyCanuck03
Zaphod
Registered User
One first round pick since the lockout - Ellerby.
I guess guys like Doan, Iginla and Regher are pretty big NHL stars, but there's not a large group of Blazers in the NHL, unless I'm mistaken.
BeardyCanuck03
@BeardyCanuck03
Its a flawed list, as the teams who were good in the early 90's are gonna look a lot better as they will have players who have played a lot of games, while say a team like the Vancouver Giants who have produced a bunch of very good players lately, are not shown because all their players are still young and developing.
A better breakdown (and no don't ask me to do this) would to break it down into 5 year segments.
Zaphod
Registered User
Well, as a Rockets fan and given the sheer numbers of quality defensemen who have come out of their system lately, seeing the dread Blazers at the top of any list makes me balk.
Trot
Registered User
While it's a little surprising I wouldn't say I'm shocked. Russ Farwell may have his faults as the GM (though to be fair they've only missed the playoffs twice in the last 20 years) but you can't argue how many players he's had drafted by NHL teams. Unfortunately for Farwell (and Seattle fans) very few of those have been high NHL draft picks or even in the first couple of rounds. As the article points out less than 1/5 of the picks have over a season in the NHL. I'd guess the vast majority of the NHL games counted toward this list are played by Marleau, Nedved, Witt, and Stevenson.
For recent picks, you end up just saying "so and so has more high draft picks", which is pretty flawed. I think a 10 year window may be more appropriate, but 5 year windows means that the most recent 5 years is completely useless data.
PensFan101
Forever Champions.
I guess the list is trying to quantify quality here... But wouldn't a much more subjective list rank the number of players each team has produced that are active (home team would be where player spent most of his pre-draft time with so John Tavares would be with Oshawa for example), then look at the average games played of those players? Or simply players produced in 20 years and then do the math.
Then break it into 5 year segments, so we can see how was the best, and who is really starting to rise.
Then break it into 5 year segments, so we can see how was the best, and who is really starting to rise.
BeardyCanuck03
@BeardyCanuck03
Then put a disclaimer then, its hard to find a perfect system, the 5 year segments are the best I think because of what you said, the last 5 years will screw up a lot of the stats.
SeenSchenn2
Itchin' For Mitch
Most of those guys have only been in the NHL for a 2-3 years. This poll benefits the clubs that produced the most NHL talent 15-20 years ago.
This is an example of why Brian Kilrea is in the Hall of Fame. You may not see a boatload of NHL stars coming out of the 67s, but Kilrea has taught kids how to be pros for a long long time. Doug Wilson knows, he was one of them.
Wonder why they left off the NCAA teams?
MI with
John Madden 838
Mike Knuble 937
Brendan Morrison 880
Mike Comrie 584
Mike Cammelari 473
Mike Komisarek 440
Marty Turco 534
Aaron Ward 839
Going for 7868. I am sure i missed a few in there too.
BU at 6616 Should be there as well.
MI with
John Madden 838
Mike Knuble 937
Brendan Morrison 880
Mike Comrie 584
Mike Cammelari 473
Mike Komisarek 440
Marty Turco 534
Aaron Ward 839
Going for 7868. I am sure i missed a few in there too.
BU at 6616 Should be there as well.
Last edited:
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
Flawed metric based upon a few players skewing the totals. It would be better to look at a baseline number of minimum NHL games played and then look at quantity of those players. For example, 200 NHL games being the high water mark and seeing how many hit it. One guy playing 1,621 games like Mark Recchi has for Kamloops really makes it hard for other teams to catch up. That's about 3 solid careers worth of games.
leoleo3535
Registered User
Keep in mind most of these players also played junior hockey so you could classify them as from their junior league as well as the NCAA....
Comrie - AJHL , WHL
Madden - COJHL
Morrison - BCHL
Komisarek - USHL, NAHL
Ward- CJAHL
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
things shift and change through processual relations.
sticking to that list as destiny is dumb. what was this list like in the first 5 years? 10 years? what will it look like in 40 years?
not to mention, circumstances can change for anyone regarding injuries, etc.
this should only be looked at as a hindsight tool and drafting for skill is more important than "where" you come from.
the fact ESPN makes people pay for that type of article is ridiculous
have someone look over hockeyDB with a calculator for GP's and throw it on a pay site.
hot journalism.
sticking to that list as destiny is dumb. what was this list like in the first 5 years? 10 years? what will it look like in 40 years?
not to mention, circumstances can change for anyone regarding injuries, etc.
this should only be looked at as a hindsight tool and drafting for skill is more important than "where" you come from.
the fact ESPN makes people pay for that type of article is ridiculous
have someone look over hockeyDB with a calculator for GP's and throw it on a pay site.
hot journalism.
