Lemieux tops TSN’s ranking of No. 1 picks from modern era of the draft

[Syckle78]

Seems like a very "what have you done for me lately" kind of list. With the career Thornton has had so far, no way is he #17

He did little to nothing for the team that drafted him.

 

[LeafsNation75]

He did little to nothing for the team that drafted him.

The same can be said about what Kovalchuk did when he was drafted by Atlanta.

 

[discobob]

Ovy over potvin is a joke

He's already in the conversation as the best goal scorer of all time... so there's that

 

[Syckle78]

The same can be said about what Kovalchuk did when he was drafted by Atlanta.

Ok?

 

[Yackiberg8]

Think of the ranking as "in hindsight, how well did teams do with their #1 picks? How strong of a player did they get, versus how strong of a player could they have gotten?"

It's a rather specific set of questions the list is attempting to answer, but it's at least a marginally interesting question. Of course, the fact that they made exceptions for guys like Lindros really mucks things up. "Giving" him to Philly doesn't really make any sense to given the context of what they appear to be trying to do.

Ok, hadn't really thought of it in that way. If that's what they're looking to determine then I will have to look at the list again with that in mind. Ty

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I get the sentiment. But that wasn't part of the criteria they used. Given their gidelines I don't think it is really far fetch.



Here’s the criteria TSN applied:
1. The player’s impact on the team that drafted them.
2. The player’s performance over the totality of his NHL career
3. The player’s achievements relative to those who were drafted No. 2 and 3

Come again?

Eh, he still won the Art Ross and Hart the year he was traded having played a decent amount of games for Boston.

The other two factors also favour Thornton above the other players mentioned. The achievements of reaching a Stanley Cup Final and winning an Art Ross, Hart, and putting up huge numbers (will be close to 1,500 points when he retires) all relate to his performance over the totality of his NHL career.

Assuming each criteria is given similar weight, Thornton still deserves to be placed above Tavares, Stamkos, and Kovalchuk until they prove more.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Ok?

Since you brought up Joe Thornton having little to do with success in Boston as listed by the criteria TSN mentioned. What success did Kovalchuk have in Atlanta since they drafted him 1st overall.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

The criteria they used was weird. It's almost like they picked a certain type of criteria in order to rank certain players higher than they should be and certain players lower than they should be.

Would have been a more interesting list if they simply ranked the best 1st overall picks, period, regardless of where that player had his most success.

 

[Weztex]

Eh, he still won the Art Ross and Hart the year he was traded having played a decent amount of games for Boston.

The other two factors also favour Thornton above the other players mentioned. The achievements of reaching a Stanley Cup Final and winning an Art Ross, Hart, and putting up huge numbers (will be close to 1,500 points when he retires) all relate to his performance over the totality of his NHL career.

Assuming each criteria is given similar weight, Thornton still deserves to be placed above Tavares, Stamkos, and Kovalchuk until they prove more.

Thornton is a good step above the other 3 all time, no doubt. But looking at the list it's clear that they put a lot of weight on that first criteria. Hence the numbers I posted earlier. Numbers for which you called me a troll without taking note of the article content. Not cool.

Anyway. For what it's worth he won his Hart trophy for the way he turned the Sharks around that year. Boston didn't make the playoffs so it's safe to say it didn't weight in on the Bruins side.

 

[JPeeper]

Ovy at 3rd makes sense. He's the greatest goal scorer in the history of the sport (come at me).

 

[nickdawg95]

How is Matthews above Turgeon. please can someone explain that to me ???

Turgeon should be 12th

 

[LeafsNation75]

How is Matthews above Turgeon. please can someone explain that to me ???

Turgeon only played 4 years + 8 games during the 1991-1992 season with the Sabres before he was traded, so maybe in TSN's criteria he didn't do enough with the team who drafted him.

 

[DaveG]

I was up in arms about this until I realized that one of the criteria is “impact for the team that drafted him”.

Thornton had some good seasons as a Bruin but not like what Modano did for the Stars or Lecavalier for the Lightning.

But if you're ranking the top #1 overall picks why is that part of the criteria, also why is who was selected immediately after them part of the criteria (Daigle), just... rather nonsensical reasoning on all this to come up with the list and the results are obviously slanted toward it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

But if you're ranking the top #1 overall picks why is that part of the criteria, also why is who was selected immediately after them part of the criteria (Daigle), just... rather nonsensical reasoning on all this to come up with the list and the results are obviously slanted toward it.

It really doesn’t make a lot of sense to rank #1s that way. It would be different if it were #5s or something, but at no point would any team have NOT taken Joe Thornton #1. It’s not like there was a judgment call involved where you say “wow, great pick!”. It was just THE pick for that point in the draft.

 

[HockeyFan100]

He did little to nothing for the team that drafted him.

Lol sure bud

 

[billingtons ghost]

Since you brought up Joe Thornton having little to do with success in Boston as listed by the criteria TSN mentioned. What success did Kovalchuk have in Atlanta since they drafted him 1st overall.

Uh - scored the most goals in the league over the 8 years he played in Atlanta. Led league in goal scoring in at least one of those years, scored over 40 5 out 8 years?

...but what did he ever do for them?

 

[LeafsNation75]

Uh - scored the most goals in the league over the 8 years he played in Atlanta. Led league in goal scoring in at least one of those years, scored over 40 5 out 8 years?

...but what did he ever do for them?

So one Rocket Richard Trophy and one playoff appearance where they lost 4-0, compared to years of losing.

 

[Aceboogie]

How the hell is Mackinnon above Hall, Nash and Matthews lol? Dude has one elite season. Barkov is still better over the careers

 

[CanuckCity]

Its really irritating when people just look at list and flip their beans at the author without even reading the bloody criteria

 

[TheAngryHank]

So..is Mario more important than Sid to the Penguins?
Would they still be the penguins if they didn't (tank) draft Crosby? 3 cups to Marios 2..
Mario didn't have much choice when it comes to his ownership ,it was take part of the team or lose out on 30m.

 

[fsanford]

2 very recent Oiler picks near the bottom, and traded away a 3rd one that was in the top half of the list still at a young age, that is a killer for a franchise.. Though RNH still has some rally years ahead of him.

 

[arrbez]

So..is Mario more important than Sid to the Penguins?
Would they still be the penguins if they didn't (tank) draft Crosby? 3 cups to Marios 2..
Mario didn't have much choice when it comes to his ownership ,it was take part of the team or lose out on 30m.

The Pens legitimately tanked for Lemieux. Like, traded anyone who looked like an NHLer away to make sure they came dead last. They finished with 38 points that season. And he saved their franchise.

On the ice, there's no comparison between him and Crosby. It's just not fair to Sid.

 

[Syckle78]

Lol sure bud

[mod] Do you even know who drafted him,bud?

 

[Syckle78]

Since you brought up Joe Thornton having little to do with success in Boston as listed by the criteria TSN mentioned. What success did Kovalchuk have in Atlanta since they drafted him 1st overall.

Not really much more that's why he's ranked right there with him.