The Importance of Drafting a Defenceman With the 6th OA?

[Ishad]

Give Nashville a 3rd rounder to tell us which defenseman to pick with our 1st.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Just pick whatever player the team thinks has the highest probability of being a front line impact player in the NHL. If you start predicating the importance of this pick hitting a positional need because "the centers look better next year and D takes longer to develop" you're just creating an escape from picking a more talented player on a subjective criteria or unsupported belief.

Does anyone remember where Bouchard or Dobson or Kotkaniemi were ranked at the beginning of this season by the major scouting sources? They might have been little blips on the radar, but they were more likely to be second round picks than they were to be in the conversation for a team picking #6; yet, now we have seen all of them linked to Detroit from a variety of sources. Next year's draft is going to look completely different than it does now, and we can't lock in on the players who appear to be the lottery prizes. Anyone looking at potential picks in ~54 weeks as a reason to make a particular pick in 2 weeks is letting fantasy influence reality.

The reality is favorable for us, though. We are virtually guaranteed to be sitting at #6 with 3 to 4 extremely talented defensemen that are more than justifiable to select. We just shouldn't expect the team to skip down their list to pick Bouchard if they like Kotkaniemi more, or if Zadina magically falls.

 

[jkutswings]

We are virtually guaranteed to be sitting at #6 with 3 to 4 extremely talented defensemen that are more than justifiable to select. We just shouldn't expect the team to skip down their list to pick Bouchard if they like Kotkaniemi more, or if Zadina magically falls.

It depends on your board. If you think a Zadina or a Kotkaniemi is head and shoulders a more impactful player than a Bouchard or Dobson, then I can understand your decision. But personally, I don't think anybody after Dahlin and Svech are noticeably above the rest of the top 10 prospects, so I'd take the best defenseman available and not think twice...assuming I don't have a ridiculous trade offer staring me in the face (like dropping 1-2 slots for a late 1st or early 2nd).

 

[Frk It]

Give Nashville a 3rd rounder to tell us which defenseman to pick with our 1st.

orrrr we could have hired the guy who drafted all of them.

 

[Hen Kolland]

It depends on your board. If you think a Zadina or a Kotkaniemi is head and shoulders a more impactful player than a Bouchard or Dobson, then I can understand your decision. But personally, I don't think anybody after Dahlin and Svech are noticeably above the rest of the top 10 prospects, so I'd take the best defenseman available and not think twice...assuming I don't have a ridiculous trade offer staring me in the face (like dropping 1-2 slots for a late 1st or early 2nd).

Absolutely it depends on the board, but that scenario was more of an example than a prediction. I would hope that the board for #6 is assembled in a fashion that it just list names in the order that they would select them. I am assuming that if Zadina is essentially equal to Bouchard across all analysis, then maybe position is the kicker, but that would be reflected in the board. (Again, this was just an example)

If you want to shift names around at 30 based on the position you pick at 6, that's something I would be open to, but at #6 you have to take the player you believe in the most to be a difference maker.

 

[ricky0034]

Just pick whatever player the team thinks has the highest probability of being a front line impact player in the NHL. If you start predicating the importance of this pick hitting a positional need because "the centers look better next year and D takes longer to develop" you're just creating an escape from picking a more talented player on a subjective criteria or unsupported belief.

Does anyone remember where Bouchard or Dobson or Kotkaniemi were ranked at the beginning of this season by the major scouting sources? They might have been little blips on the radar, but they were more likely to be second round picks than they were to be in the conversation for a team picking #6; yet, now we have seen all of them linked to Detroit from a variety of sources. Next year's draft is going to look completely different than it does now, and we can't lock in on the players who appear to be the lottery prizes. Anyone looking at potential picks in ~54 weeks as a reason to make a particular pick in 2 weeks is letting fantasy influence reality.

The reality is favorable for us, though. We are virtually guaranteed to be sitting at #6 with 3 to 4 extremely talented defensemen that are more than justifiable to select. We just shouldn't expect the team to skip down their list to pick Bouchard if they like Kotkaniemi more, or if Zadina magically falls.

good point about projection at this point and how much things can change in a year but I think it's more than just that that suggests that next years draft will be more forward heavy than this one

it's also just kind of the default state of things,if you look at the past 2 decades of drafts literally every single one of them has had 1-3 defensemen in the top 10 with the exception of this year(probably),2012 when there was 8,and 2008 when there was 4

 

[raymond23]

BDA. Best defenseman available.

 

[Frk It]

We have two 1sts, so we could take a forward at #6 and still get a D in the 1st, trading up is an option too.
10-15 is also pretty early. Takes plenty of guys 5+ years to become legit top-pair D.

That said, I definitely feel like on paper our best option is to take one of the available D-men at #6..

The defenseman picked in the end of the 1st round do not have the best track record. There is a massive difference between your odds of getting a good defenseman at #6 and #30.

 

[Flowah]

Give Nashville a 3rd rounder to tell us which defenseman to pick with our 1st.

Ducks aren't bad at it either. Let's send them a 4th.

 

[Hen Kolland]

good point about projection at this point and how much things can change in a year but I think it's more than just that that suggests that next years draft will be more forward heavy than this one

it's also just kind of the default state of things,if you look at the past 2 decades of drafts literally every single one of them has had 1-3 defensemen in the top 10 with the exception of this year(probably),2012 when there was 8,and 2008 when there was 4

This draft had Dahlin, so it will warp perception, but coming into this year it looked forward heavy at the top as well. Maybe not to the extent of next year, but defense is a fickle position to scout and see development (as we know). I would not hesitate to select Dobson or Bouchard personally, but I also hold Kotkaniemi and Wahlstrom in high regard and fully understand why some people would have them ranked over the defensemen in the draft.

If this team was in the position that Carolina is, I would be more receptive to drafting to hit a position. They have a king's ransom on defense, so targeting best forward available is a legitimate option for them to get to competing sooner rather than later (Dahlin being the exception). But the Wings don't have elite center prospects, don't have elite wing prospects, don't have elite defense prospects, don't have elite goalie prospects. It's a team with a few really good, young pieces in the NHL, or soon to be, but there's no sense to be picky when every position is a need.

 

[Frk It]

This draft had Dahlin, so it will warp perception, but coming into this year it looked forward heavy at the top as well. Maybe not to the extent of next year, but defense is a fickle position to scout and see development (as we know). I would not hesitate to select Dobson or Bouchard personally, but I also hold Kotkaniemi and Wahlstrom in high regard and fully understand why some people would have them ranked over the defensemen in the draft.

If this team was in the position that Carolina is, I would be more receptive to drafting to hit a position. They have a king's ransom on defense, so targeting best forward available is a legitimate option for them to get to competing sooner rather than later (Dahlin being the exception). But the Wings don't have elite center prospects, don't have elite wing prospects, don't have elite defense prospects, don't have elite goalie prospects. It's a team with a few really good, young pieces in the NHL, or soon to be, but there's no sense to be picky when every position is a need.

Bob Mckenzie had half of the top 10 as defenseman in his pre-season rankings.

 

[Hen Kolland]

Bob Mckenzie had half of the top 10 as defenseman in his pre-season rankings.

Okay, so Bob had a few defensemen that ISS did not include. All of this will vary from source to source. But you just proved my main point, why are you making decisions in the present based on something that is just a flat out guess on what might happen a year from now? Hayton, McLeod, Kupari, Veleno, Smith, Merkley, Wilde, McIsaac were all included in the discussion in the top 10 at the beginning of the year, and most of them don't look like top 10 picks at this point, and a good chunk might fall to the end of the first.

So I'm supposed to pick a defenseman this year based solely on the fact that the rankings for next year have high ranked centers? Rankings that will probably have 50% turnover by this time next year

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

Best player available.

I happen to think of the players that are bound to be there at 6, all but one of the best to be available will be a defenseman... but I think that Oliver Wahlstrom will be a hell of a player too.

I'm a big fan of best player available with any pick in the top 10, with need being a tie-breaker and ONE of the considerations I take into account but not the only one.

I want Hughes at 6, but if Wahlstrom is there, I think long and hard on that. They need elite talent everywhere, not just on the blue line.

 

[njx9]

Name me that great defensemen Edmonton drafted since taking Smith in 1981.

Ah, yes, that's a good franchise to compare us to. Decades of success.

Name me that great defensemen Chicago drafted since taking Seabrook in 2003.

Hjalmarsson is far better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.

Name me that great defensemen San Jose drafted since taking Vlasic in 2005.

Jason Demers is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.

Name me that great defensemen Pittsburgh drafted since taking Letang in 2006.

Olli Maatta is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.

Name me that great defensemen Los Angeles drafted since taking Doughty in 2008.

Colin Miller is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.

Is there a point to this? Should we just throw up our hands, admit we'll never draft anyone good because LA couldn't find a way to draft two top 5 D-men in the league in the last decade?

Or, you know, maybe you look at the teams who have found consistent success at the position and ask what they're doing that we're not, instead of looking at bloody Edmonton and wondering why they haven't won a cup after two decades of taking basically nothing but forwards with their first rounder.

It's so odd how many Wings fans, who deplore tanking, want to emulate that model under the mistaken, ridiculous belief that BPA is a viable draft strategy in all cases.

 

[Frk It]

Okay, so Bob had a few defensemen that ISS did not include. All of this will vary from source to source. But you just proved my main point, why are you making decisions in the present based on something that is just a flat out guess on what might happen a year from now? Hayton, McLeod, Kupari, Veleno, Smith, Merkley, Wilde, McIsaac were all included in the discussion in the top 10 at the beginning of the year, and most of them don't look like top 10 picks at this point, and a good chunk might fall to the end of the first.

So I'm supposed to pick a defenseman this year based solely on the fact that the rankings for next year have high ranked centers? Rankings that will probably have 50% turnover by this time next year

Bob Mckenzie's list >>> ISS

I agree that it is hard to project a draft a year out. But there is strength in numbers. Between Dahlin, Boqvist, Hughes, Merkley, Smith, McIsaac, Wilde it was pretty safe to assume this year would be strong at defenseman. Even if some of them faltered, which they did (Merkley, McIsaac).

Next year it's a similar story. Between Hughes, Lavoie, Turcotte, Cozens, Dach, Suzuki, odds are pretty strong 2019 will be a good center class. Even if a few falter.

 

[snailderby]

In favor of drafting a defenseman in the first round:

1. Development time. Defensemen typically take longer to develop than forwards, peak later than forwards, and decline more slowly than forwards. See Hockey metrics: Measuring when and why NHL players peak | CBC News. So all else being equal, if we're committed to a full rebuild, it might make sense to focus on drafting defensemen first, continue tanking for a few years, draft a few forwards, and then hit the ground running with our defensemen and forwards at the same time.

2. Team need.

3. Draft peculiarities. This draft has an unusually high number of defensemen (and comparatively few centers) in the top 10.

In favor of drafting a forward in the first round:

1. Statistical analysis. To be sure, it's harder to find good forwards and defensemen in the later rounds. (See Analyzing the value of NHL draft picks - Sportsnet.ca and https://www.tsn.ca/playing-the-percentages-in-the-nhl-draft-1.206144.) But comparatively speaking, it's generally easier to find a good defenseman than a good forward in the later rounds (see https://curve.carleton.ca/system/fi...n-miningnhldraftdataandanewvaluepickchart.pdf and the picture below).

This is especially true of European defensemen who are taken in the later rounds:

2. BPA. If the best player available is a forward, you can always trade for other needs later (ignoring any transactional friction / inefficiency). Or so the argument goes.

As a counter to this, though, the appeal of the BPA approach depends on how big the difference is between the two players we are considering. If our choice is between, say, a Connor McDavid and a Noah Hanifin, then sure, by all means, take the best player available, no matter what our team needs are. But if our choice is between someone like Aleksander Barkov and someone like Seth Jones, and we're not sure which player is better, perhaps team needs should play a bigger factor in the decision.

 

[snailderby]

[deleted] [accidentally posted twice]

 

[Hen Kolland]

Bob Mckenzie's list >>> ISS

I agree that it is hard to project a draft a year out. But there is strength in numbers. Between Dahlin, Boqvist, Hughes, Merkley, Smith, McIsaac, Wilde it was pretty safe to assume this year would be strong at defenseman. Even if some of them faltered, which they did (Merkley, McIsaac).

Next year it's a similar story. Between Hughes, Lavoie, Turcotte, Cozens, Dach, Suzuki, odds are pretty strong 2019 will be a good center class. Even if a few falter.

ISS is just the easiest list to find, and they publish a full, monthly top 31; I do agree with the fact that Bob is a better source. I just don't subscribe to the quantity in the future > quality in the present argument. I understand what the appeal is with how much we need D, but I personally don't like the logic.

1. Defensemen typically take longer to develop than forwards. They typically peak later than forwards and decline more slowly than forwards. See Hockey metrics: Measuring when and why NHL players peak | CBC News. All else being equal, then, if we're rebuilding, it makes sense to draft defensemen first, continue tanking for a few years, draft a few forwards, and then hit the ground running with your defensemen and forwards at the same time.

I would contend just one thing with this point. Everyone has been linking Bouchard to the Wings, and Bouchard is probably the most NHL ready defenseman (not including Dahlin). If the alternative option is drafting someone like Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi (assuming Zadina and Tkachuk are off the board), you're talking about a forward that needs a minimum of one more year before even trying to break into the NHL compared to a defenseman that can start day one. That doesn't align with the belief in drafting defensemen early in a rebuild.

If we look at recent trends, I don't think we are seeing big development curves if you aren't drafting projects (e.g. Boqvist). Look at defensemen from the last few drafts like Provorov, Werenski, Sergachev, McAvoy, Chychrun; drafting a physically NHL ready defenseman around the top 10, the development curve was significantly lesser for those guys.

 

[Rzombo4 prez]

In favor of drafting a defenseman in the first round:


In favor of drafting a forward in the first round:

1. Statistical analysis. To be sure, it's harder to find good forwards and defensemen in the later rounds. (See Analyzing the value of NHL draft picks - Sportsnet.ca and https://www.tsn.ca/playing-the-percentages-in-the-nhl-draft-1.206144.) But comparatively speaking, it's generally easier to find a good defenseman than a good forward in the later rounds (see https://curve.carleton.ca/system/fi...n-miningnhldraftdataandanewvaluepickchart.pdf and the picture below).

This is the classic argument for taking forwards with early picks. It is not easy to find top-pair defensemen outside of the first round (and no one suggests this is the case). It is even more difficult, however, to find top-line forwards outside of the top of the first round.

 

[Frk It]

This is the classic argument for taking forwards with early picks. It is not easy to find top-pair defensemen outside of the first round (and no one suggests this is the case). It is even more difficult, however, to find top-line forwards outside of the top of the first round.

Forwards at the top of the draft are more "sure things". Defenseman are more erratic in their development. However, I don't think this is a good reason to forego drafting defenseman at the top of the draft, when the top 10 still yields out considerably better.

The issue is people are lumping all picks from like 11-210 together and trying to say it is a viable route, when that's really just a misrepresentation of the draft and how it works.

 

[Reddwit]

This organization could probably use Jake Muzzin more than they could use a prime Kovalchuk - thats how important it is for this organization to draft a defenseman with that pick (especially considering we aren't talking about any major reaches to do so). I'm not sure where people think we're going to get the defenseman we need to rebuild this organization.

 

[Hen Kolland]

This organization could probably use Jake Muzzin more than they could use a prime Kovalchuk - thats how important it is for this organization to draft a defenseman with that pick (especially considering we aren't talking about any major reaches to do so). I'm not sure where people think we're going to get the defenseman we need to rebuild this organization.

The Wings need a 40 point #2/3 defenseman over a 50 goal/100 point winger? The Wings need Jake Muzzin over Ovechkin? Yikes, agree to disagree.

 

[Pavels Dog]

orrrr we could have hired the guy who drafted all of them.

Is that the same guy who has zero cups and drafted Colin Wilson and Chet Pickard over Erik Karlsson?
Same guy who essentially got nothing or close to nothing out of 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 (outside of a top 5 pick who was traded for another player), and maybe 2015 (not looking great) drafts?

The defenseman picked in the end of the 1st round do not have the best track record. There is a massive difference between your odds of getting a good defenseman at #6 and #30.

Not as massive as the difference is for forwards. But I generally agree. Was just pointing out to the OP that we can take someone in the 1st no matter if it's at #6 or at #30.

Hjalmarsson is far better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.



Jason Demers is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.



Olli Maatta is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.



Colin Miller is better than anyone we've drafted in the same time span.

We've done bad, but I 100% guarantee that all of those guys would be hated or rated very low if they belonged to us. I don't think anyone around here would be much happier with one of those guys on the roster. It would make our history of D drafting a little nicer, but the main problem would remain which is lack of top-pairing D.

This organization could probably use Jake Muzzin more than they could use a prime Kovalchuk - thats how important it is for this organization to draft a defenseman with that pick (especially considering we aren't talking about any major reaches to do so). I'm not sure where people think we're going to get the defenseman we need to rebuild this organization.

It's not like Washington, Vegas or Pittsburgh are full of early drafted D. Muzzin was drafted in the 5th round. We absolutely need a Kovalchuk more, but unless Svech falls to us I think a D will be our best option.

 

[MikeyDee]

This draft had Dahlin, so it will warp perception, but coming into this year it looked forward heavy at the top as well. Maybe not to the extent of next year, but defense is a fickle position to scout and see development (as we know). I would not hesitate to select Dobson or Bouchard personally, but I also hold Kotkaniemi and Wahlstrom in high regard and fully understand why some people would have them ranked over the defensemen in the draft.

If this team was in the position that Carolina is, I would be more receptive to drafting to hit a position. They have a king's ransom on defense, so targeting best forward available is a legitimate option for them to get to competing sooner rather than later (Dahlin being the exception). But the Wings don't have elite center prospects, don't have elite wing prospects, don't have elite defense prospects, don't have elite goalie prospects. It's a team with a few really good, young pieces in the NHL, or soon to be, but there's no sense to be picky when every position is a need.

Assuming Tkachuk is not available at 6th, I'd take Bouchard or Dobson. Both are the very good right handed dman, which are hard to come by.

 

[MikeyDee]

I'm seeing several posts about the RW drafting D-men very poorly. Is that the problem, or is it just the RW developing D-men poorly?