Strange that you don't see the point 'cause that's exactly what we judge Timmins on. I keep hearing how Timmins can't do miracles if he only has 4 picks to work with. Yet, Lefebvre was supposed to turn those 4 picks into something great. Double standards? Why does it work with scouting but doesn't work with coaching? And personnally I don't see the point in games played for acknowledging the scout work. There is no way people will convince that AKost was a great pick while we missed so many others game changers. Frankly, based on quality of draft, AKost was probalby more a mistake than Galchenyuk was. If you look at quality of drafts. You compared first rounders. Out of 03-07, there were 1 top 10, 1 top 5, and 2 first rounders from 10 to 25. From 08-15, there was 1 top 3. If your idea is to look SOLELY at success rate, well shouldn't you be taking that into consideration? Where the picks were PLUS quality of draft? But then, I do use the % of players 'cause people start talking about Streit, Grabovski, D'Agostini and SKost as a proof of how much better it was before. Well those picks were because we had a lot of picks to work with. And because the more you have players that reach the AHL, the more you have chances to say that the AHL coaching staff had a chance to turn something into this. I'm sorry, but you say, if we only have 2 players that played for Lefebvre, and he'd turn them into solid NHL'ers, that would be great, do you imagine if Timmins only had 2 prospects to choose during those year? How would have appreciated me coming on strong against Timmins saying that even if we only drafted 2 players in 8 years, he should have done better? My method is just to proove that the AHL coaching staff THEN had more to work with than the coaching staff since 08. You can't blame Lefebvre if players never reach the AHL. You can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players only stayed 1 year with him. And you can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players went directly to the NHL. That's my point.