TheRebuild
Bold as Boognish
Funny how it actually works out with other teams sometimes. Not so much with the Oilers. Not once in fact.
Prospect Info: Oilers TOP prospects through the years here at HF (1998 to current)
- Thread starter Jumptheshark
- Start date
character issues is the most overrated thing ever. at the end of the day 99% of the time its because the guy simply wasn't good enough.
The draft age should be 20 at the earliest, would let more guys realize sooner that they aren't cut for pro hockey as well.
Mr Forever
The Oilers :(
Hahaha oh man, I've never actually seen them use that rating. Not even for *eerie music plays* Troy Hesketh.
NewBoysClub97*
All-Star
Of course raising the draft age to 20 opens another can of worms with regards to the really really good 18 and 19 year olds playing in the NCAA and CHL essentially for free when they could be earning money. But all that out the window and I think its a solid plan
You know how a 30% success rate isn't that impressive, but as soon as you say .300 batting average, you know it's actually quite good, because of how difficult it is to register a hit?
The problem scouting has is that we don't have an established, consensus line in the sand for what impressive is. NOBODY makes more good picks than bad picks. Unless you are Stu MacGregor after the first round in 2008, and your only pick as head scout is Jordan Eberle, but you don't even know you hit a homerun off your first pick until years later. Besides, later, you just end up drafting Johan Motin...
The quality of each year matters. Where you pick in the draft matters. And the worst part is that you don't get immediate feedback--if you suck, you don't know until it's YEARS too late.
Does the draft record look poor on the whole? Yes, it seems substandard. But if there's been a turnaround since, say, MacTavish took over (don't laugh--for all his shortcomings as a GM, it is possible that the changes he described to the scouting have had a positive effect--it's possible MacTavish can be a poor GM overall and still have an effective drafting philosophy), we won't know it until several years down the line. By which point it will be too late... again.
And it gets worse. The drafting may be fine--it may actually be due to poor player development policies.
It's entirely possible that if Tyler Pitlick and Curtis Hamilton had been taken by the Red Wings (for instance), they would be in the NHL right now having success, and we would be lamenting that the Oilers didn't draft those two. There is nothing in the results that would intrinsically instruct you as to whether it's a problem with scouting, player development or both.
So we know it has been a mess, but what we don't know is if they have got at the source of this mess or not. Which means further changes to how scouting is done could be either destructive or pointless, because we might be reversing positive change OR it could be problems in player development anyway.
In short, we're doomed.
The problem scouting has is that we don't have an established, consensus line in the sand for what impressive is. NOBODY makes more good picks than bad picks. Unless you are Stu MacGregor after the first round in 2008, and your only pick as head scout is Jordan Eberle, but you don't even know you hit a homerun off your first pick until years later. Besides, later, you just end up drafting Johan Motin...
The quality of each year matters. Where you pick in the draft matters. And the worst part is that you don't get immediate feedback--if you suck, you don't know until it's YEARS too late.
Does the draft record look poor on the whole? Yes, it seems substandard. But if there's been a turnaround since, say, MacTavish took over (don't laugh--for all his shortcomings as a GM, it is possible that the changes he described to the scouting have had a positive effect--it's possible MacTavish can be a poor GM overall and still have an effective drafting philosophy), we won't know it until several years down the line. By which point it will be too late... again.
And it gets worse. The drafting may be fine--it may actually be due to poor player development policies.
It's entirely possible that if Tyler Pitlick and Curtis Hamilton had been taken by the Red Wings (for instance), they would be in the NHL right now having success, and we would be lamenting that the Oilers didn't draft those two. There is nothing in the results that would intrinsically instruct you as to whether it's a problem with scouting, player development or both.
So we know it has been a mess, but what we don't know is if they have got at the source of this mess or not. Which means further changes to how scouting is done could be either destructive or pointless, because we might be reversing positive change OR it could be problems in player development anyway.
In short, we're doomed.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
Hey, another second round pick quite literally flushed down the toilet.
We would have the same amount or more NHL talent in the organization drafted from the 2nd round if our head scout turned up drunk with a paintball gun and fired into the crowd and we drafted whoever he shot.
This isn't a new problem. Two decades of drafting and development ineptitude.
Guy Flaming
Registered User
I remember exactly why this was done. Caron had actually retired by then, he went into financial planning, but I was told he had to stay on the Oilers prospects page so I naturally gave him the worst rating that I could next to being dead.
This thread brought back a lot of memories for me. I think I was in charge of this for about 5 years from about 2004-2009.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
just for you
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/eddie_caron/
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=56787
the fact he was on the list for so long is what cracks me up
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
GDT: WCQF G3 | Winnipeg Jets @ Colorado Avalanche | 8pm MT | TNT/Max- Latest: Colorado Avalanche
-
