Chaotic8
Boarding Major
Why does this [2003 NHL Entry Draft] keep coming up? Let's try to keep the hindsight observations within the current decade.
SJS 2003 NHL Draft
- Thread starter AkiBerg
- Start date
vatali
Life Long Slacker
What's sad is that Suter was the one they interviewed all week. I was sure that was going to be the pick. That being said, Milan was a good pick, and had the injuries not occurred you don't know how it would have turned out. that's not on development.
Parise was dropping like a rock because he was undersized. NJ got a steal at 17, but it wasn't because the Sharks passed on , a lot of teams did.
Bergeron was an off the board pick, no one expected him where he was at. Matt Carle was a steal at 47, You can totally blame this on development (or his lack of care with both SJ and TPA).
It could be worse, the Blues intentionally traded out of both Kessler and Richards
CrazedZooChimp
Not enough guts
Tbf, Michalek was projected to be a complete BEAST.
....Until he blew out his knee in his rookie season.
It's not like he sucked afterwards. He basically averaged 60 points in SJ after his first season (I don't remember who he played with in 05-06). I wouldn't call Milan a bad pick. Now Hennessy probably could have been better.
But seriously, aren't there some more recent draft we can complain about?
hohosaregood
Banned
- Sep 1, 2011
- 32,409
- 12,619
Umm...Kopitar vs Setoguchi vs Bourdon vs Staal. Someone not named Ty Wishart. Couture vs McDonagh. Why Petrecki? Where's the 2008 1st or 2nd. Who the **** is Justin Daniels. Tatar vs Doherty. Wrenn vs anyone. Coyle vs Nelson vs Etem vs Faulk. Nieto vs Ouellet vs Kucherov I guess. Why no Teuvo?!!?!?! Why we draft 30 point Chris Tierney?? Mantha vs. Mueller vs Rychel. Boudreau vs. Heatherington vs Bowey. Fabbri vs Goldobin. Bergman vs McKeown.
I think those are all the ones that'd be worth discussing to some degree I guess.
How about Pat Falloon over Scott Niedermayer or Peter Forsberg? It's different! That was like day one of the franchise!
Now that one was a legit blunder at the time. Kopitar was ranked as the highest European player in the draft...San Jose NEEDED a prospect at center, more than another winger (no Thornton yet, Damphousse left, just drafted 2 wingers in the first round in 2003, Cheechoo was starting to hit his stride, no reason for another RW).
I am not defending the pick, just the perceived need. IMO, they may have already seen problems on the horizon with Cheech (speed) and Bernier (feeding/work habits). One way to address it was depth of competition. I do agree that the pick was one of their worst historical blunders.
210
Registered User
They had a ton of lower round picks that year and nothing in the first couple rounds, but even still, it's hard to have a draft worse than that.
LOL hindsight is 20/20...
Couple of notes...
I think it is usually a bad decision to draft a defensemen in the top ten. Sure it worked out for the Preds.... it often doesn't however. A top ten pick better count and personally I think Milan was pretty solid pick. I'd take him over Zherdev and Horton...
Back when they were prospects, I seriously doubt the differences between Carle and Weber were noticeable. The fact is it is difficult to tell how a defensemen's game will translate to the NHL; this is why you probably don't want to draft a defensemen in the top ten. Carle is no slouch, but obviously Weber adapted to the NHL in way Carle couldn't. If teams really had any idea as to what Weber would have become he would have been drafted 1st overall that year. If you look at Weber's junior stats they were far less than phenomenal.
More often than not, top ten picks used on d-men work out. I don't see a problem using it on one in that position.
You use the high picks to get franchise players. I reviewed the short list that MA did which was roughly a 10 year window. I did a rough count on the percentages. About 25% chance of a franchise dman in the top 3 picks if you picked a dman. About 50% for a franchise forward if you picked a forward. And it is much harder to get franchise forward later. Relatively easier to get a franchise dman later in the draft. In the first 10 picks, you have about a 90% chance of getting an NHL player so judging the relative skill level is more critical in the thinking at that point. The net of the stats says go with the forwards high in the draft.
I suppose it depends on your definition of working out. Here since 2003 this is the number of dmen drafted in the top ten:
03 Suter Couburn Phneauf; pretty good year perhaps less so if you consider the forwards that those teams could have drafted instead.
04 Cam Barker, Smid, and Valabick... oh the hummanity!!!
To be fair that first round was pretty bad over all...05 You had Jack Johnson at third overall... then you have had Brian Lee, and Luc Bourdon.. My opinion is this is still pretty bad...
06 You had Erick Johnson and thats it... Which wouldn't have been bad if it werent for the unfortunate fact that he went 1st overall... in a top ten that was pretty solid... My guess is St Louis regrets that one
07 You had T Hickey, K Alzner, and K Ellerby... This is one of the better years... Still doesn't quite blow me away....
08 Great year for top D picks: You had Doughty, Pertangelo, and Schenn
09 Hedman, Ekmann Larrson, and Cowen. Another pretty solid year
10 You had Gubradson and McIlrath... pretty bad...
11 You had Larsson and Hamilton... not bad
12 Last year I'll do was the year of the defensemen, which is probably why it was identified as a weak draft. You had Murray, Reinhart, Rielly, Lindholm, Dumba, Pouliot, Trouba, and Koekoek... This could turn out to be the best year... This is one of the only times I would say the 1st overall may have been better off a defensemen although in hindsight I think the Oilers would have selected Hertl if they had a time machine. They would have traded down to get him...
Out of 29 selections you have had 15 making a fairly significant impact on the league beyond an expendable bottom pairing. And some of those picks would have been better used on a forward...
It shouldn't be a surprise that the better gamble is a forward. You will generally have better depth of forwards. I don't have a problem going after a d-man in that pick range if it makes sense skills-wise. It would've made sense to go after Suter for the Sharks in 2003 over Michalek based on his skills and the connection at the time with his uncle...not that that connection matters to a great degree. I agree that you can get a franchise level d-man later and agree that it's probably only going to happen very early for a franchise forward.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Post-Game Talk: ECQF GAME 6 - TAKE IT TO THE LIMIT - THANK YOU JACK EDWARDS - Series tied 3-3- Latest: The don godfather
-
-
-
