Havre
Registered User
- Jul 24, 2011
- 8,459
- 1,733
It's not confirmation bias. The argument put forth used average draft rankings to say one player was a bigger reach than the others. What that did not show is that using those same average draft rankings there are also clear breaks in players that are (nearly) universally ranked higher than others. If you are using average draft rankings as the crux of the argument then you have to be prepared to also use the other details of those rankings.
It is not revisionist history. You can go back to draft threads and see that isn't the case. You can also watch the video of that pick and hear the gasps around the arena when if was Juolevi's name called and not Tkachuk. Tkachuk was a consensus top 5 pick...that is not a revisionist look at things. Juolevi appeared to be a near consensus top 10 pick but he was nowhere near a consensus top 5 pick and there was one such player still on the board when Juolevi was taken. The same can not be said, for say, Pettersson who was the comparative used. There you had a consensus top 10 pick and no consensus pick higher than him on the board. It's a great pick and clearly the consensus on where he should have been appears to be wrong but that wasn't the argument being used.
I am not denying that Tkachuk was the consensus pick - so I´m not sure what the argument is? I am saying GMs go passed those "consensus" all the time. Yzerman just did and he is generally seen as one of the better GMs around. And when the argument is that it was a "clear" drop in quality that is just false. The top 5 proved not to be the top 5. So whoever thought the "consensus" was wrong was actually right - just not on which player that shouldn´t belong to the top 5 (Blue Jackets not taking the third guy among the consensus top 3 certainly seems to be a excellent decision).
I have also argued that GMs shouldn´t really reach for these things. That the "accumulated" scouting done on top picks are probably the best way to go. So I don´t disagree that Benning should have taken Tkachuk (obviously he would have missed out on EP - but in the long run I believe you are better off taken the consensus pick). But to make this some sort of "Benning-thing" and a huge mistake I can´t agree to. In hindsight - sure, but when it happened I disagree it was necessarily such a big blunder. Even Sergachev or Chychrun would have been perfectly acceptable picks compared to Tkachuk and might even still prove to have better careers. So the part of the argument that it was only Tkachuk to take I cannot agree to either.
I also think, even if you disagree, that when things are close you go for D or C. Juolevi was seen as a guy with 1D upside.