Redpath
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2011
- 3,250
- 4,870
Then wait until the 4th round, where there is minimal NHL talent.
Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.
Then wait until the 4th round, where there is minimal NHL talent.
I've already answered your question a few times. I think they usual thing happened: they saw a goon and they overvalued him, like they have for years and years. They made a mistake. It's that simple.
That's the problem...not that they determined he sucked and drafted him anyways; I don't know where you're getting that garbage. The problem is that, by all sources available to us, from the pre-draft guides put together by professional scouts to Goul himself, there was no good reason to take him in the 3rd round. As I've said, it's indicative of a flawed mindset.
Oh, and since they compare him to Rinaldo...let's see where Rinaldo was drafted: 178th. So...they see a guy with his upside and instead of waiting until the 5th or 6th round, they take him immediately. They choked.
Hell, eyeballing their stats it looks like Goul even produces at about the same rate Rinaldo did. So it's not like he's even a great improvement on him.
Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.
What, that the Flyers said that? I mean...of course they will. They're not going to say "yeah, we thought we could get him later but drafted him early on just because."
So that means that not even a single other team was considering taking Ghoul in the 4th, just because the Flyers said that there was interest?
Don't get me wrong, I do not like the Ghoul pick. Like many others, I would have much preferred picking Lodge, Subban, or Bjorkstrand. That being said, clearly the Flyers think Ghoul has a better shot at making the NHL, albeit in a limited roll.
DFF: Do you deny that the Flyers have a long history of overrating and overvaluing goon-type players? Do you deny that such a bias could affect how they view such players in the draft?
Because, that's pretty much the whole issue here. The Flyers' continued love of goons, even when better talent is available.
Again, I recall an article saying that was not an option either.
For me, the uproar isn't about him. It's the continued questionable asset management. Using a 3rd round pick on him is questionable.
Their use of draft picks and prospects in the cap era has been questionable in general. As I've said several times, it's a symptom of a larger problem.
Meh. I think calling any draft pick a good or bad pick two months post-draft is silly. There is no possible way to do it until they get on the ice. Even if, let's say in a parallel universe, Nurse went higher than Jones, you can't call it a bad pick until they get on the ice. You don't know how these guys will turn out and you don't know what information the drafting teams had. You can say up and down you don't like the pick, that's fine. I'll be right there, I didn't want Ghoulbourne in the third round or at all. But I'm not going to call it a bad pick and question the Flyer's asset management before the guy does anything.
I'm not questioning their asset management because of this pick. I questioned it long before this, and it just happens to fit the pattern.
Ok, well then I wouldn't put this in the category of poor asset management that you are concerned about for the same reasons that I wouldn't question their asset management because of this pick.
Well, have you ever questioned their asset management? Serious question, not sure I've ever seen you do it, so I'm not sure what it would take to make you start.
They made me skeptical long ago.
2:15 p.m. -- More often than not, the scouts always spend extra time discussing those mid- to late-round players that aren't as highly touted as some of the big names on the board. When the Central Scouting staffers began talking about center Tyrell Goulbourne of the Kelowna Rockets in the WHL, they were doing just that.
The 5-11, 195-pound Goulbourne had just 14 goals and 27 points in 64 games, but all the scouts were in agreement that he can slug it out when given an opportunity. He totaled 19 fights during 2012-13 regular season and racked up 135 penalty minutes. However, he also had a plus-7 rating, meaning he was more than just a one-dimensional player.
#44 - Tyrell Goulbourne - Kelowna Rockets - CL - 5'11 - 195 - Goulbourne is a physical force for the Rockets. He's not the biggest guy, but he hits very hard, plays a rugged game and is one of the leagues more dangerous scrappers. Improved his puck handling ability this season and saw a solid increase in his offensive production because of it. Could draw interest late in the draft as he also had a good postseason for Kelowna.
I think the study was based on big picture drafting, not just comparing two players. I would say that number of NHL games of all your draft picks is a pretty good indicator of a good drafting team. If you don't like this measure, what would yours be? Guys drafted from HFBoards list?
if he pick a center with 1st or 2nd pick next year i will throttle him
if he pick a center with 1st or 2nd pick next year i will throttle him
Number of minutes played per game per draft pick (seperate forward and defense)
Games won/SV%/GAA for goalies
Goals per draft pick
Assists per draft pick
Points per draft pick
Awards won
I would also seperate by round.
The Flyers by their own admission take safer forward picks over other positions so I would expect them to have a fairly high GP rate. I would put the GP into context to see how well the picks did in those games.