Silver Seven Senators Remain at Odds with Outside Scouting Consensus

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
None of this makes Cody Ceci a bad draft pick at #15.
Kind of depends on how you define a bad pick. If McDavid went 30th in 2015, I'd probably say there were 29 bad picks in the first round.

If bad pick I'd defined as whether you got better than the expected return for a player at a position, he's likely not going to be considered a bad pick, nor would most players that aren't busts after the top 5 or so.

If you define it as no betertpicks were chosen later, very few picks would be good.

I don't personally see bad pick or good pick a useful way of looking at things. Was chosing Patrick 2nd OA a bad pick because other guys ended up better, or was it a good pick because he projected better than others at that time?

Teams are going to miss on picks, that doesn't mean it was a bad pick, that's just part of the price to play the game. With a 1st round pick, I personally like the strategy of swinging for a homerun. I'd rather strickout picking Logan Brown than hit a foul ball or a single with guys Lazar if it means every now and then I land a Karlsson.

So for me, average players that can be aquired through free agency relatively easily are essentially misses, a hit is when you get someone that can't be easily aquired through other means. But I expect teams to miss. It's part of the process.
 

JaredCowen4Norris

Registered User
Jul 9, 2020
610
634
Certain players do tend to get scapegoated but I will say, Ceci was one of the most frustrating players to watch in a Sens uniform me. Like I couldn’t stand it.

Apparently he looked more solid with the Pens in the role he had, so I’m glad for him. But to me, man was he tough to watch on most nights.

Ceci had all the tools to be a great NHL defender (great skater, decent shot, good size) but his hockey IQ was just non-existent. Zaitsev might have lapses here and there but he isn't anywhere near as bad. Ceci handled the puck like a grenade in the defensive zone making it so hard for him to run a clean break out. He'd get caught puck-watching almost every game leaving someone open in front. He might have played tough minutes but that doesn't explain the issues he had. There are plenty of defensemen in the NHL who handle heavy minutes against top lines and look much much better. It seems like the Pens are using him in a different role which has helped him, but Ceci when he was with the Sens was just bad.

I'd love to go back and watch some of his OHL games to see if that was evident back then or whether getting rushed into the NHL hampered his development. Had a bit of that shell shock you sometimes see with young defenders who get rushed. Not sure if that's because of poor development or it's just how his game translated at the NHL level.
 

TheDebater

Peace be upon you
Mar 10, 2016
6,251
6,000
Ottawa
In 2011 Scheifle was an off the board pick because Couterier was there, Zibanejad wasn't off the board but was heavily criticized for taking him over Couterier who slid past scheifle, mainly because Zibanejad was a late riser mostly pushing into the top 10 from a tournament just before the draft were as Couterier was ranked top 4 all season long and had mono which did effect his draft.


Edit; Tiffoli to Toffoli

Now Couterier to Couturier.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
He got a bad rep here in his last 2-3 seasons but it's because he was played way over his head ever since Boucher became the coach (and Dorion the GM). I mean, he was deployed as top-15 shutdown NHL D-man in ES+PK TOI/GP, which is downright crazy. Too much DZ% starts, too much QoC and not enough QoT... Talk about putting someone in a position to NOT succeed. In Toronto, it was not as bad but still a bit too much relied upon. He looked like he rebuilt confidence last year in a much more reasonable role, playing on average 18:31 per game. He was also +18, 2nd with Dumoulin in +/- behind only Kris Letang (2 really good D-men). He was on pace for 26 pts too, for only 1.25 AAV, a really great bargain.

Ceci has already played in 549 NHL GP, he's never going to be a star but if NHL teams have finally figured out the player he is and play him like the Pens did last season, he could easily carve out a 1000+ GP career, mostly as a reliable #5, adding more to a blueline depth. He just can't do much more than that and a be a top-3, not that many D-men can actually. It's a very tough job.

In relation to that 2012 draft... obviously we wished we could have picked any of the 4 guys drafted after him (particularly Vasi) but outside of that, we didn't miss on that much. Who's the next better player after these 4? Skjei? McGuinn? McCabe? Sissons at 50th overall? It would have taken a major reach like Parayko (who was drafted #86) to do significantly better

And even among players drafted BEFORE Ceci, there's maybe what? 6 guys clearly better than him. 2012 was not a really good draft* so getting Ceci at #15 wasn't bad at all. We just didn't use him correctly after 2016-17... But all that being said, he returned Nikita Zaitsev (a bit overpaid but decent D-man) and Connor Brown (exceptionnal middle-sixer IMO). Overall, Ceci clearly wasn't a bad lick at all

* Ceci currently 18th in points from this draft class (and he's a D-man) and 4th in GP



Without even looking, you need Colton Parayko, Jaccob Slavin and Matt Murray in here

I'm saying it more because the folks bringing out Ceci now certainly weren't defending the kid a few years ago.

And don't say I'm wrong about this one because I was the last person still defending the kid on HF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xspyrit

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,708
9,651
Montreal, Canada
I'm saying it more because the folks bringing out Ceci now certainly weren't defending the kid a few years ago.

And don't say I'm wrong about this one because I was the last person still defending the kid on HF.

Yeah, I know there were very few that defended him. I tried to do that at times SIMPLY based on the fact that he was NOT in the right chair, not in a position to succeed. It was very easy to see that he was miscast and that he could do reasonably well with lower responsibilities. At some point, I just gave up and decided to let things happen. At some point it's useless to argue with people, have to wait for reality to step in. Exactly like when I was saying last season that trading a 2nd for Stepan was outrageous and letting Balcers go on waivers was very stupid. A few weeks/months later it was as clear as the light of day.

Kind of depends on how you define a bad pick. If McDavid went 30th in 2015, I'd probably say there were 29 bad picks in the first round.

If bad pick I'd defined as whether you got better than the expected return for a player at a position, he's likely not going to be considered a bad pick, nor would most players that aren't busts after the top 5 or so.

If you define it as no betertpicks were chosen later, very few picks would be good.

I don't personally see bad pick or good pick a useful way of looking at things. Was chosing Patrick 2nd OA a bad pick because other guys ended up better, or was it a good pick because he projected better than others at that time?

Teams are going to miss on picks, that doesn't mean it was a bad pick, that's just part of the price to play the game. With a 1st round pick, I personally like the strategy of swinging for a homerun. I'd rather strickout picking Logan Brown than hit a foul ball or a single with guys Lazar if it means every now and then I land a Karlsson.

So for me, average players that can be aquired through free agency relatively easily are essentially misses, a hit is when you get someone that can't be easily aquired through other means. But I expect teams to miss. It's part of the process.

3 most important factors to evaluate a draft pick IMO :

- # spot of the pick
- quality of the draft
- players still available

Then you have things like longevity of the player. For example, a better player could be picked right after your choice but he could decline much faster than yours.
 

R2010

Registered User
May 23, 2011
1,913
972
Even if you're strictly a data guy, in what world did Merilainen, Sokolov and Daoust not have impressive seasons by the numbers?

Yeah I don't get that either. Production in the AHL is a better predictor of success in the NHL than Junior production. His model seems questionable if it looks at a player like Sokolov and still sees minimal chance of NHL success.
 

R2010

Registered User
May 23, 2011
1,913
972
Kind of depends on how you define a bad pick. If McDavid went 30th in 2015, I'd probably say there were 29 bad picks in the first round.

If bad pick I'd defined as whether you got better than the expected return for a player at a position, he's likely not going to be considered a bad pick, nor would most players that aren't busts after the top 5 or so.

If you define it as no betertpicks were chosen later, very few picks would be good.

I don't personally see bad pick or good pick a useful way of looking at things. Was chosing Patrick 2nd OA a bad pick because other guys ended up better, or was it a good pick because he projected better than others at that time?

Teams are going to miss on picks, that doesn't mean it was a bad pick, that's just part of the price to play the game. With a 1st round pick, I personally like the strategy of swinging for a homerun. I'd rather strickout picking Logan Brown than hit a foul ball or a single with guys Lazar if it means every now and then I land a Karlsson.

So for me, average players that can be aquired through free agency relatively easily are essentially misses, a hit is when you get someone that can't be easily aquired through other means. But I expect teams to miss. It's part of the process.

Misses definitely happen a lot. I think wanting other players instead is really normal too.

My thought process is basically that eventhough I want other players I am usually fine as long as we hit a certain baseline expectation (minimum). Here's kinda how I have thought about it...

Draft positions 1-15
Hit = Top line forward / Top Pairing D
Expectation = Top six forward / Top four D
Miss = Bottom six F / Bottom pair D / AHLer

Draft positions 16-30
Hit = Top six forward / Top four D
Expectation = Top nine forward / Top six D
Miss = Bottom line F / Bottom pair D

Draft positions 31-60
Hit = Top nine forward / Top D
Expectation = Bottom line F / Bottom pair D
Miss = Fringe NHLer / Good AHLer

Draft positions 61-
Hit = Bottom line F / Bottom pair D
Expectation = Fringer NHLer / Good AHLer
Miss = Marginal AHLer

So under these assumptions you do not expect your sixth round pick to make the NHL per se but you should expect when your drafted players to provide organizational depth. If they don't, they are indeed misses like the Loheit, Novak, Tychonick, Hollett, Burgess etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benttheknee

SensontheRush

Never said it was Sunshine
Apr 27, 2010
4,725
2,636
Ottawa
You can't possibly tell me with a straight face that Toronto's prospect pool is better than ours. Pure, banal trash fed to the ideal Maple Leafs consumer.
 

Dan Patrick

Registered User
Mar 11, 2020
1,960
1,950
A more fair take on the Sens draft

I think it's totally reasonable to wonder if they left better players on the board in the early rounds while also staying cautiously optomistic given their recent track record.

As of right now I'll give the scouts the benefit of the doubt and re-evaluate once some of these guys get a chance to play.
 

SENATOR

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
1,968
808
Ottawa
Ottawa is only good drafting third and fourth line players. Draft after draft is just unacceptable for a small market team. Look how Winnipeg does things. We have only top six in Stutzle. How is it any good? The kid will soon realize this idiocy and will ask for a trade. He will have absolutely no talent around him to play next year. Drafting Boucher is laughable, when you do not have top six players. Aiming already for playoffs. It is just so funny to watch every year. And then they will throw 7 million a year on Tkachuk, a marginal player, who does not drive a play and not good enough for a top six role.
 

FormentonTheFuture

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
7,761
3,732
Ottawa is only good drafting third and fourth line players. Draft after draft is just unacceptable for a small market team. Look how Winnipeg does things. We have only top six in Stutzle. How is it any good? The kid will soon realize this idiocy and will ask for a trade. He will have absolutely no talent around him to play next year. Drafting Boucher is laughable, when you do not have top six players. Aiming already for playoffs. It is just so funny to watch every year. And then they will throw 7 million a year on Tkachuk, a marginal player, who does not drive a play and not good enough for a top six role.
False. Tkachuk, Batherson and Norris are already top six players
 

SensontheRush

Never said it was Sunshine
Apr 27, 2010
4,725
2,636
Ottawa
Ottawa is only good drafting third and fourth line players. Draft after draft is just unacceptable for a small market team. Look how Winnipeg does things. We have only top six in Stutzle. How is it any good? The kid will soon realize this idiocy and will ask for a trade. He will have absolutely no talent around him to play next year. Drafting Boucher is laughable, when you do not have top six players. Aiming already for playoffs. It is just so funny to watch every year. And then they will throw 7 million a year on Tkachuk, a marginal player, who does not drive a play and not good enough for a top six role.

Ottawa has a rich history of drafting highly skilled players.

We're building a skilled team while keeping the playoffs in mind.

The alarmism from a perceived organizational dismissal of high-end skill is unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCraigAnderson

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,241
10,794
Ottawa is only good drafting third and fourth line players. Draft after draft is just unacceptable for a small market team. Look how Winnipeg does things. We have only top six in Stutzle. How is it any good? The kid will soon realize this idiocy and will ask for a trade. He will have absolutely no talent around him to play next year. Drafting Boucher is laughable, when you do not have top six players. Aiming already for playoffs. It is just so funny to watch every year. And then they will throw 7 million a year on Tkachuk, a marginal player, who does not drive a play and not good enough for a top six role.

Lol, such a bad take, course you’ve done it before.
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
7,994
1,897
It is kind of funny, people love to use Bowers as an example of a player we "missed" on but he was ranked 32nd on Bob McKenzie's list in 2017. We picked him 29th.

A little awkward for the "go with the consensus" group when you see that even the draft experts can be wrong too.


I’m sorry but Jonathan Dahlen would beg to differ. He was the prospect drafted by Ottawa that was going to turn this franchise around, and was going to be the centrepiece of Stanley Cup winning dynasty. Many people complained when he was traded away…. Pretty much handing the Canucks a run of three or four Stanley Cups.
 

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
22,241
10,794
upload_2021-8-1_14-42-8.png
 

BatherSeason

Registered User
Jun 16, 2009
6,640
3,702
Gatineau
I’m sorry but Jonathan Dahlen would beg to differ. He was the prospect drafted by Ottawa that was going to turn this franchise around, and was going to be the centrepiece of Stanley Cup winning dynasty. Many people complained when he was traded away…. Pretty much handing the Canucks a run of three or four Stanley Cups.
Would still much rather had Dahlen as a trade chip than the 2 years of nothing provided by Burrows.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cosmix

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,369
The graph generally aligns with my perception in terms of the data presented but gives imo a false impression that we have been elite in terms of drafting. Imo we have not and the data supports it.

The elite category is defined very generously imo, mostly this is just a matter of semantics but to me 41 pts per 82 for a forward is not exactly elite. A good pick, probably depending on the draft spot, but a low bar to be deemed elite. It is however a good threshold for quality pick.

Looking at that elite category, we appear pretty average to slightly above average. The tableau page linked above lets you do just that and we rank 13th, again, pretty much in line with my perception of average to slightly above average.

We draft a lot of NHL regulars relative to the league, some examples are Lajoie, Chlapik, Jaros, Harpur, Puempel, McCormick, Claessen, Prince, Wiercioch, Grant, O'Brien, Gryba, Daugavins, Bass, and Regin. Not sure those are the types of picks I think of as bringing a slightly above average drafting team to become an elite drafting team, yet because of those types of picks we appear at the top of the chart. These guys are good to have in a system, but bad teams can often rely on them at the NHL level moreso than good teams thus inflating their games played at the NHL level and our perceived drafting expertise.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,540
The graph generally aligns with my perception in terms of the data presented but gives imo a false impression that we have been elite in terms of drafting. Imo we have not and the data supports it.

The elite category is defined very generously imo, mostly this is just a matter of semantics but to me 41 pts per 82 for a forward is not exactly elite. A good pick, probably depending on the draft spot, but a low bar to be deemed elite. It is however a good threshold for quality pick.

Looking at that elite category, we appear pretty average to slightly above average. The tableau page linked above lets you do just that and we rank 13th, again, pretty much in line with my perception of average to slightly above average.

We draft a lot of NHL regulars relative to the league, some examples are Lajoie, Chlapik, Jaros, Harpur, Puempel, McCormick, Claessen, Prince, Wiercioch, Grant, O'Brien, Gryba, Daugavins, Bass, and Regin. Not sure those are the types of picks I think of as bringing a slightly above average drafting team to become an elite drafting team, yet because of those types of picks we appear at the top of the chart. These guys are good to have in a system, but bad teams can often rely on them at the NHL level moreso than good teams thus inflating their games played at the NHL level and our perceived drafting expertise.
Agreed. What's the measuring stick?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->