So You Think You Can Draft 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,152
10,131
5.Cody Glass.
33.Kole Lind.
55.Josh Brook.
64.Cale Fleury.
95.Ian Scott.
135.Ben Jones.
181.Sasha Chmelevski.
188.Joel Teasdale.


***Though i probably would've just stood pat @ #112 and grabbed Ostap Safin or Alexey Toropchenko rather than trading down.

Really don't mind the picks they actually made with guys like Gadjovich and DiPietro either though.
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,324
14,391
Victoria
5 - Vilardi
33 - Robertson
55 - Gadjovich
64 - Gildon
95 - Shaw
135 - Aho
181 - Palmu
188 - Austen Keating

Ton of small players, which isn't surprising for me, but they are likely still undervalued picks.
 

Dreamboat

Esports Caster
Feb 1, 2009
240
3
Victoria
twitter.com
Definitely draft im least informed of, we'll see how this goes

5 - Elias Pettersson
33 - Kole Lind
55 - Jonah Gadjovich
64 - Michael Dipietro
(Holy hell I actually really like our draft through this point looking at it)
95 - Matthew Strome (Have difficulty here, also like Hoefenmayer, Elvenes and Steenbergen) (I do love Rathbone's story though)
135 - Calle Sjalin (Or Jakub Galvas, very intrigued by both personally, also if i felt like going russian Andrei Svetlakov)
181 - Petrus Palmu (KEEP THE BROMANCE ALIVE)
188 - Victor Berglund (Hon Mentions: Ville Rasanen, Skyler McKenzie or the same Brassard pick)

All in all im pretty damn satisfied.

BONUS:

Lets see how drafting by the best names works out:

5 - Kailer Yamamoto
33 - Mario Ferraro (That just rolls man)
55 - Joni Ikonen (Fabian Zetterlund)
64 - Andrei Altybarmakyan
95 - Noel Hoefenmayer
135 - Arnaud Durandeau (D'Artagnan Joly)
181 - Sasha Chmelevski
188 - Erik Walli-Walterholm (Kristian Roykas-Marthinsen)
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
wow, i don't recall the discord on this pick being this great. my vote count is

15-12-11
pettersson-glass-villardi

(there were some pettersson/villardi hedges in there that i counted only as pettersson)

so 60% were against pettersson
 

Josepho

i want the bartkowski thread back
Jan 1, 2015
14,762
8,234
British Columbia
Meh, most of the ones that picked Pettersson seemed about on par with the actual draft.

As much as I f***ing hate how the word "hindsight" is used within our fanbase, I have no problem admitting it applies to the Lind/Gadjovich picks and this is something you'll never hear me complaining about Benning/Brackett for.
 

Derp Kassian

Registered User
Jul 14, 2012
2,739
143
Vancouver
Idk about HF but Pettersson seemed way more of a consensus/relief in other informed Canucks spaces.

Hague is looking like a real player and people were complaining about them possibly going for big size bums, same thing with Michael Rasmussen.

Never got the Gadjovich love but I think hes more of a sure bet than Lind at this point if his skating improves.
 

Spectrefire

Registered User
Jan 3, 2013
1,176
1,101
Never got the Gadjovich love but I think hes more of a sure bet than Lind at this point if his skating improves.

How can you say no to this face?

sikIiTJ.jpg
 

bandwagonesque

I eat Kraft Dinner and I vote
Mar 5, 2014
7,097
5,397
That anyone could bump this thread, see that like 50% of random Joe fans could do about as well as the group of guys Getting paid millions of dollars to do this, and come away with the conclusion that this looks bad for the fans, is frankly remarkable to me.
Everyone is choosing from the same pool of players projected by a large cohort of professional scouts to be drafted approximately at the spots those fans are choosing. A fan could be expected to choose about as well as an average GM. GMs have expertise in finding talent, and so do the scouts who create the lists and scouting reports the majority of fans use to form opinions about who their team should draft.
 

Hansen

tyler motte simp
Oct 12, 2011
23,710
9,327
Nanaimo, B.C.
5 - Elias Pettersson
33 - Nic Hague
55 - Jonah Gadjovich
64 - Michael DiPietro
95 - Noel Hoefenmayer
135 - Denis Smirnov (HM Jarret Tyszka)
181 - Sasha Chmelevski
188 - Jordy Bellerive
Yeah Im content with this for me

I was really high on Bellerive from the start of the year and he was a killer signing by the Pens, hope hes recovering well from the freak campfire accident burns
 

ginner classic

Dammit Jim!
Mar 4, 2002
10,634
934
Douglas Park
5 - Glass
33 - Hague
55 - Brook (love Gadjovich, stoked we drafted him, but he was not the BPA at this spot)
64 - DiPietro (tough for me to bypass Lipanov here...undecided)
95 - Virtanen
135 - Hancock
181- Christiansen
188 - Dhillon

I can own up to the Glass vs Pettersson pick but I think I did a whole lot better with Hague and Brook over Lind and Gadjovich (who I liked). Kevin Hancock got invited to the Blues prospect camp and would still be a great AHL add. Dhillon never quite turned the corner. Big season coming up for Virtanen.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
I had Glass over Pettersson and Lipanov very high.

These exercises are fun if you're into it, but in reality you're not in the room and having the power to make a decision. What if your scouts ranked Kole Lind really highly? What if your scouts are split and you have to break the tie and Delorme is advocating for Pettersson while a scout you trust more is advocating for Glass? I'm pretty sure that if we did this exercise for Lightning picks over the years, many would have had better first picks than what Yzerman's teams came up with.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,422
Vancouver, BC
I had Glass over Pettersson and Lipanov very high.

These exercises are fun if you're into it, but in reality you're not in the room and having the power to make a decision. What if your scouts ranked Kole Lind really highly? What if your scouts are split and you have to break the tie and Delorme is advocating for Pettersson while a scout you trust more is advocating for Glass? I'm pretty sure that if we did this exercise for Lightning picks over the years, many would have had better first picks than what Yzerman's teams came up with.

I've said for years one of the biggest failings of NHL scouting departments is that there are far too many voices in the room for far too few selections being made.

In 1980 when the only way to watch players was live, you needed a lot of scouts. In 2019 every game is available to watch online. Teams should have a video staff editing these games down to 1 hr each for their core of top scouts who should be watching multiple games every day. Euro juniors are a bit different and less accessible and you'd still need extra guys there ... but if I was an NHL scouting director I wouldn't even have CHL scouts. You end up both giving too much voice to people who aren't good enough at their jobs and feeling like you have to give ol' Walt in Manitoba a pick in this year's draft because you haven't taken anyone from his region for years rather than taking the best guy.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
I've said for years one of the biggest failings of NHL scouting departments is that there are far too many voices in the room for far too few selections being made.

In 1980 when the only way to watch players was live, you needed a lot of scouts. In 2019 every game is available to watch online. Teams should have a video staff editing these games down to 1 hr each for their core of top scouts who should be watching multiple games every day. Euro juniors are a bit different and less accessible and you'd still need extra guys there ... but if I was an NHL scouting director I wouldn't even have CHL scouts. You end up both giving too much voice to people who aren't good enough at their jobs and feeling like you have to give ol' Walt in Manitoba a pick in this year's draft because you haven't taken anyone from his region for years rather than taking the best guy.

That's definitely an interesting discussion. I remember that years back Buffalo got rid of a lot of amateur scouts in favour of video scouting (I don't think that led to better drafts). At around the same time, the Canucks' amateur scouting staff grew to league leading proportions under Gillis (I don't think that led to better drafts). Benning and Brackett made it a point to have more cross-checking so that more scouts viewed the same players (did it lead to better drafts?). I do agree that it's better to have less scouts but higher quality than more scouts of varying quality.

I think that video scouting still has too many gaps. Was every one of Makar's game available on video? Did it capture what Makar was doing when he didn't have the puck or near the puck?
I think it's important to have enough scouts and budget to have extensive coverage. A player's body language I think can be a factor. Is he hustling away from the play? That's rarely captured on video. Scouts also develop relationships and get a chance to talk to players and coaches etc. At the end of the day, you're trying to get insight on a player and I think that some of these insights (how much time a player spends on the ice before and after practice) cannot be obtained through video alone.

I actually believe in having a large scouting staff but establish a hierarchy. Have foot soldiers that you send to scout but they don't exactly have a strong voice in the room. If they rave about a player have a scout that is higher up check him out. Double and triple check each other's work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sting101

xtra

Registered User
May 19, 2002
8,323
4,765
Vancouver
Visit site
I didn’t have my picks here but I’m pretty sure I was glass over pettersson - with the understanding that pettersson could have the higher upside (his size worried me) but far too many people are writing glass off this early and pettersson as the better player. It’s not like glass had a shitty season or two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->