I feel that the Oilers are unfairly criticized for their drafting

[Fourier]

If we are only going to to the 2010 draft, then here is my assessment of the oilers.

2010 - the hype machine surrounding Taylor vs Tyler, was also known as the fall for Hall. So, that made it harder for the oilers to select seguin. Both players had similar builds and size. Both were skilled. One a center one a winger. Almost equal like ovechkin vs Malkin was almost equal. Can understand the selection of Hall, but hockey values centers and defense over wingers.

2011 - rnh, this one was a pick em draft. Landeskog, hubudeau, Larsson were in the mix. Rnh was logical since they took a winger in hall, thus need a center. If they opted for seguin the prior year then they open themselves up to taking landeskog who would have complimented seguin.

2012 - yak, well, given how horrendous the oilers backend and overall defensive play was, dropping in a winger who wasn't known for decent defensive zone coverage was going to be a nightmare. Yak had talent, but he needed structure early in his career. Too late for him now imo. Galchenyuk was a legit option since he played some.center, as was Murray.

2013 - no issues with nurse. Ristolinen has some issues too.

2014 - Leon was the bpa at the time. Couldn't draft Bennett, another smaller non physical forward.

It's really the three first overall years that are in question. Legitimately could have taken seguin since he was a center. Would have taken stones to pass on the fall for Hall. That would have changed how they viewed the 2011 draft and where rnh, fit into the roster. 2012, yak was never going to survive the hot mess in Edmonton. Hes a scorer and views that as his only way to help the team.

This is quite fair. But Hall's tremendous playoff run was probably the deciding factor. He was a force in the series against the Rangers and after surviving the hit from Hamonic then gong on to score that great goal I am sure that he showed a lot of qualities that made hum the choice that year.

Nuge was for me a clear choice, and as you say choosing Hall the year before made this more obvious. The Oilers center depth was terrible. And it was aging. I watched Landeskog's whole career and I don't think I could make any case for him over Nuge at the time.

The real killer was Yak's year. But his previous year was spectacular. And it was a very challenging draft class to assess because of the number of really significant injuries. I wanted Galchenyuk until the minute they won the lottery, Then it was Yak all the way for me because I had little faith that Murray was going to be a high impact defender. Plus for all the Oilers skill Eberle was really the only goal scorer and Yak looked like a guy who might be able to do that in spades. In hindsight trading this pick may have been the very best option.

 

[lightstorm]

The Oilers were victims of the drafts and what was available, but it's their own fault they drafted "BPA" aka off of THN lists, and then developed their kids poorly afterwards.

lol Oilers are victims all right. I love how they get a pass just because "Yak and RNH weren't true number 1 players" - they were still BPA which means every other team drafted a worse guy, or at best even.

Edmonton took BPAs year in year out and stayed at the bottom of the league until NHL gift wrapped a generational player for them and - who woulda thunk it - they are spiraling downwards yet again.

 

[KlefDown]

Just read this whole thread and there are some really insightful thoughts from other fan bases but some people are either very uneducated about the Oilers or just very ignorant. Cringeworthy.

In hindsight, we CHOULD have been better off taking Seguin, Schiefele, Lindholm etc etc. but knowing our development, we probably could have ruined them too and we'd be here talking about why we didn't draft 80 point winger Hall, 70 elite C RNH or 40 goal scorer Yak.
Our development has been atrocious and feel we've done a lot of injustice, especially to plYers like Yak and Gagner.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I think it's fair to criticize their drafting when they picked 1st overall 4 times and netted 2 elite players, 1 good player and 1 bust. Anyone on this message board could use the #1 overall pick to draft the player rated #1 by Central Scouting.

 

[Lunatik]

Good post, nice to see other fans realizing we took BPA every time in those situations (Nurse is debatable).
Really our development has been lacklustre, people dont realize the negative effect Dallas Eakins had on this club, EVERYBODY regressed under him. Hall was the only one who improved/stayed consistent.

Except the problem isn't your plethora of top 10 picks or even your first round picks. The last NHL regular the Oilers drafted outside of the 1st round was Reider in 2011 and the one before that was Petry in 2006. Davidson may elevate to that status but even with him that a very putrid drafting/development record out of the 1st round.

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

Lets start off by saying I am NOT talking about the poor drafting after the first round. This thread is specifically about their first rounders over the last several years. I will also not include any picks from McDavid - present as it defeats the purpose of this thread.

So it seems to be a common theme in the hockey world whenever the Oilers got a draft pick it was "Another forward? When are they going to take a defensemen??". Yes the most common thing we here "You always take the BPA regardless of need".

I want to make the argument that in theory, their drafting choices were fine, because had their picks developed as they planned, their current situation would be a lot different.

I started thinking about this with the Leafs. A young team, lots of young forwards and forward depth, lacking high end D. They do not look to be in a spot to draft a top D in the first few picks yet barring a lottery win. If you are the GM, if you do not feel there are any D better than the forwards, does it not make sense to take another forward and hope to move them later?

So lets look at how these guys were viewed.

Hall was going to be a top of the league winger.
RNH was looked to be a #1 C
Yakupov was looked at to be a 35 goal scoring winger in the mold of an Ovi-lite.
They then took a D in Nurse when they felt the potential was there
Draisatl had far more potential than the next projected D in Fleury and looked like a top C.

I don't feel that there were any different draft moves they could have made here aside from these picks. Sure, an argument can be made that development caused them to not reach their potential, but to say they drafted wrong like it seems to be as common " You will be the next Oilers" is unjustified.

Had these picks hit their projections, not only would they be a better team, but they would also have gotten a better return for D than Larsson for Hall (Not trying to open this can of worms, but it was rumored a Jones for RNH was rumored, which was turned down by the preds.)

So I question those of you critical of their drafting strategy, what more could they have done? At the times, they made all the appropriate picks, they did everything right. Why is there a seemingly double standard towards them for drafting mostly forwards with high picks vs other teams who do not get this treatment?

Does anyone believe if they reached for D, they would have been better? No one will trade a young top pairing potential D for a draft pick. So it's not like they could have moved the pick for a player who fit their rebuild.

Please keep in mind hindsight is not helpful in saying they should have drafted someone else. I believe they took the consensus guy each and every year.

You changed mate. Great post.

 

[EdmFlyersfan]

They throw rookies into the fire and expect them to play against men, that's the problem...lack of patience and development. Then add in poor management Lowe, Chiarelli, etc...it's a dumpster fire.

 

[Oilers Propagandist]

They throw rookies into the fire and expect them to play against men, that's the problem...lack of patience and development. Then add in poor management Lowe, Chiarelli, etc...it's a dumpster fire.

 

[Slyfox]

Its always been the picks after the first round that's been the issue.

 

[2023FriendshipTour]

Its always been the picks after the first round that's been the issue.

And in the first round they're generally picking first overall and still have a few misses.

 

[Eric Robson]

What a thread to come back from the depths of HF

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

True to an extent. 25+ teams would have taken both Yakupov and RNH at the time.

 

[HolyJumpin]

treated unfairly for their first round drafting? sure.
treated unfairly for their inability to manage the team successfully and squandering talent? absolutely not.

 

[Stephen]

The fact that the OP didn't mention rounds 2-7 between the years 2010 and 2014 inclusive of the Hall-Draisatl years would kind of indicate the drafting was that terrible. That's about 30 draft picks gone to waste.

 

[613Leafer]

Their top 5 non-1st round drafted players since 2005 are something likee:

Jeff Petry
Riley Nash
Tobias Rieder
Chris VandeVelde
Khaira/Gustfsson (still a bit young to really judge, though were drafted 6 years ago).

Yes, they absolutely deserve major criticism for their drafting.

 

[These Are The Days]

I hate to say it but no.... the scrutiny is well deserved. They took who they did at the top because they were the players deemed best. No one should fault them for that. But when Toby Rieder (who didn't even play for them) is arguably the big success outside of the 1st round you have done a bad job of drafting.

 

[puckpilot]

Why was Dallas Eakins so bad?

His defensive system in a nutshell.

 

[King In The North]

Yakupov hype during the shortened season was real. 35 goals was his floor.

 

[McDNicks17]

I think it's fair to criticize their drafting when they picked 1st overall 4 times and netted 2 elite players, 1 good player and 1 bust. Anyone on this message board could use the #1 overall pick to draft the player rated #1 by Central Scouting.

Are you not criticizing the available talent instead of the team drafting though?

Even if they drafted a close alternative(Landeskog, Huberdeau, Larsson, Murray, Galchenyuk, etc.) are they in a much different spot?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I don't think many people think that they chose the wrong people in the spots that they did. I think people have an issue with the failure in managing and developing those assets in pretty much every way possible. They picked things they didn't need and never maximized the value of their assets, they rushed them, they got a rookie coach to develop them, they never established a culture or identity, they signed them to big deals early, they had HORRIBLE drafting outside of the obvious 1st round picks, they traded away the best non-McDavid pick after finally developing him at the time they needed him most for relative scraps, etc.

His defensive system in a nutshell.

There is absolutely zero chance that that is what the coach was telling them to do. Edmonton fans use Dallas Eakins as a scapegoat for everything, but at some point you have to realize that the players were just not doing things the way they were supposed to. They were not following game plans or executing plays or systems properly. That's more on the players (for not doing what they're supposed to) and the management (for hiring an unproven rookie coach to develop rookies) than it is on the coach.

Once Eakins was fired, the 2014-2015 Edmonton Oilers essentially played the remaining 51 games at the same pace as the 2013-2014 Edmonton Oilers, which was coached by Eakins. They also played at pretty much the same pace the following year in 2015-2016 without Eakins, despite having McDavid (and Draisaitl). That's 3 different coaches.

 

[Critical13]

OP doesn't talk about their drafting outside the 1st round. There's some real problems there, as well.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Pretty sure there's 6 other rounds you could potentially draft players that help your team. You can't ignore those if you're going to talk about drafting. Look at the Oilers if they didn't have McDavid. Full of has beens or never weres. Clear sign of bad drafting and development. That's with having the best relative draft position of any team in the last decade.

If anything they deserve more criticism on how they've drafted.

 

[Volica]

Oilers are one of the worst drafting/development teams ever.
Post lockout, the biggest name they drafted out of the first round is Petry. Let that sink in. Jeff Petry is far and away the most talented player drafted from the past, what 14 years? Brutal.

It's clearly a managerial/systemic issue. They grabbed good players in their draft years... surrounded them by nothing and had them plateau as players far below what they should have been. This team is lucky that it flopped back into McDavid, because I'm not sure how they'd even have fans left if they didn't.

 

[belair]

They should have taken Murray over Yakupov. Apprently the club wanted to do just that but were vetoed by the owner, Katz.

A fair argument can be made that they should have taken Larsson instead of RNH as well, that would of been a bit of a reach but they sorely needed D men at the time (But yes, they also did need centers).

They should have traded the pick outright. They had no need for a winger and if they were taking a defenseman with first overall, their scouting team was fully committed to Griffin Reinhart, which would've brought the same results.

 

[JarvisFunk]

There is absolutely zero chance that that is what the coach was telling them to do. Edmonton fans use Dallas Eakins as a scapegoat for everything, but at some point you have to realize that the players were just not doing things the way they were supposed to. They were not following game plans or executing plays or systems properly. That's more on the players (for not doing what they're supposed to) and the management (for hiring an unproven rookie coach to develop rookies) than it is on the coach.

This literally is what he had them doing, it was known as the "Eakins swarm" for a reason, he even spoke highly of it.