Hell the arguably greatest qb at of all time was drafted at in the 6th round by a supposedly genius organization coming out of one of the most high profile programs in the entire country.
honestly i just dont have the time or effort to do that research haha. And i would need to first come up with a quick criteria of what might be considered success for teams? Is it a cup? Cause i already pointed out that unless you were a fan of the penguins, blackhawks, or kings, nobody has been successful that way until the capitals for a while now. If anything you could just look at the top 5 finishers of points in the NHL and see that teams rise and fall so much that i just dont believe in the idea that a team has to suck for 6 years and have this big rebuild process that will magically result in dominance over an extended period of time.
There's nothing magical about it. It's just that there's so many holes to fill it's more than likely going to take 5 or so drafts. Even for the Hawks they were bad for years before Kane and toews showed up. Keith was drafted I think in 02. Kane wasn't drafted until 07. Five years apart.
love how you somehow magically know how everything will turn out. What it for example we had won the lottery and were able to draft dahlin this year? Would we still have to be bad for 4 or 5 more years "at least"? With chicago's time up, and thinking penguins are hopefully entering that stage i hope we get a bit more of the parity of teams winning cup vs dynasties. I just don't quite get people with how they think about teams and "success". Is a team not successful unless they win the cup, or have multiple cups over a period of a couple years? There are over 30 teams in the league now-every year all but one fall short of the ultimate goal. Even a team like chicago can go from 109 points to missing the playoffs the next year, as well as the canadians falling from 100 points to disaster in a year. Do people consider teams that make the playoffs but lose in round 1 or 2 as "bad"? Idk, perhaps we will be bad for several years. But for anyone to say that for 4 or 5 years "at least" is just crazy. We have a pretty good base, and as long as we stop signing over the hill vets to long ass deals think we will be back in the playoff hunt sooner rather than later. As long as our youth wave leads us there, ive got no problem with the idea of get in and see what happens.
ok, so that is one team. What about the other 30 plus teams? How does this magical 5 year timeline work for them? The kings are a team that seem to make things work without going 5 years drafting to get their cups. Before the caps finally exercised their demons, it was pretty much a 3 team dynasty going, with the bruins being the only one to crash the party until you get back to us in 08. My hope is that with the decline of the hawks, and hopefully the decline of the crosby pens we will get some good parity in the league.
Dont worry about it, some negative nancys here for sure haha. We have several youngsters who should be improving, and that will only help us moving forward. Our leading point scorer is 21 years old, and our leading scorer is 23-and both of them will more than likely improve on their numbers as larkin started slowly, and mantha had a very uneven year as well with regards to fitting in it seemed and his usage. Hopefully AA figures it out this upcoming year, and can really become a more all around threat. Add in us integrating youth with guys like bert last year, and little svech/ras this upcoming year and think we could be a very exciting team to watch. Plus we seem to be very close to getting a young group of d who can perhaps play a bit more like the modern nhl coming in with guys like hronek and cholo on the verge. God knows we should improve the more we get rid of our deadwood at Defense.You just shift more towards future watching. That can be fun at times in terms of exciting young talent taking steps. In a lot of ways it is more fun to watch that then being middling at least for me, but I like prospects and the development angle of watching players more than most so it really might be just me.
Name-calling? Where? Just saying drafting is much more complicated than finding an NHL comparable. Also Wings scout seem to see Veleno much more in the Larkin mold, which could be wrong but still makes your ”Nielsen vs. Vatanen” hypothethical invalid.
The reason why people are complaining so much is that the current Wings' defense is a pile of garbage. An over payed Danny Dekeyser is our best D right now. We will not be good for the next couple seasons because of it.
