Why was Nikita Kucherov so overlooked?

[More 2004]

1(27) Vlad Namestnikov (AHL All Star)
2(58) Nikita Kucherov (41 points in 42 games)
5(148) Nikita Nesterov (AHL All Star, currently in NHL)
6(178) Adam Wilcox (Hobey Baker finalist)
7(201) Matt Peca (Hobey Baker finalist)
7(208) Ondrej Palat (...)

Not to mention that year we got TJ for free.

 

[zeykshade]

Even in junior he was underrated.

He reported to the Quebec Remparts in 12-13 but when Grigorenko was sent back to the Q by the Sabres, Quebec had too many import players so they got rid of Kucherov for almost nothing. He ended up in Rouyn and played Quebec during the playoffs... He returned the courtesy.

4G 5A +3 for the series(5games).

Game 5, 3G 3A +3. Stomped em out.

 

[Intact]

This is the same idea as V. Tarasenko, but lesser ranked. There was no debate Tarasenko was a top 3 talent with Seguin and Hall (read scouting reports from 2010), goes 15th overall anyways

 

[amin723]

Here is most of what you've asked for:

this is oversimplifying things a bit because as you can see teams are selecting more of the bigger players.

What this means to me is that they will only take a smaller player if he's a no doubt stud in his junior career. Otherwise they just won't "risk it" (to use a term you don't like with no intent of offense).

 

[Random Forest]

this is oversimplifying things a bit because as you can see teams are selecting more of the bigger players.

What this means to me is that they will only take a smaller player if he's a no doubt stud in his junior career. Otherwise they just won't "risk it" (to use a term you don't like with no intent of offense).

That's precisely the point. Risk what? Risk the small player busting? As if that can't happen with a big player?

Teams are passing up smaller, skilled players for bigger, "safer" picks. The problem is those "safer" picks are busting at the same exact rate (perhaps MORE frequently) as the risky ones. When in doubt, teams go for the size. And that strategy isn't exactly fruitful.

With respect, it seems as though you haven't fully understood what it is that I'm saying.

 

[Kshahdoo]

That's precisely the point. Risk what? Risk the small player busting? As if that can't happen with a big player?

Teams are passing up smaller, skilled players for bigger, "safer" picks. The problem is those "safer" picks are busting at the same exact rate (perhaps MORE frequently) as the risky ones. When in doubt, teams go for the size. And that strategy isn't exactly fruitful.

With respect, it seems as though you haven't fully understood what it is that I'm saying.

I think he means that while teams can draft some big pylons, smallish players are always drafted only if their skill is obvious. So smallish players have some advantage in such kind of statistics.

 

[STL fan in MN]

What I remember from the scouting reports leading up to the draft that year, Kucherov was said to be extremely talented but he was commited to staying in Russia for the time being (risk he would never come over), was undersized, and also avoided pretty much all physical contact. That would explain why he was passed over so much...but it sounds like he's proven a lot of his "negatives" to be incorrect and his elite skill is now shining through.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

That's precisely the point. Risk what? Risk the small player busting? As if that can't happen with a big player?

Teams are passing up smaller, skilled players for bigger, "safer" picks. The problem is those "safer" picks are busting at the same exact rate (perhaps MORE frequently) as the risky ones. When in doubt, teams go for the size. And that strategy isn't exactly fruitful.

With respect, it seems as though you haven't fully understood what it is that I'm saying.

IMO, it's probably the assumption that if the 6'2" doesn't turn into a top 6 guy, he is better suited for a bottom 6 grinder role than a 5'8" guy in the same boat.

 

[Random Forest]

I think he means that while teams can draft some big pylons, smallish players are always drafted only if their skill is obvious. So smallish players have some advantage in such kind of statistics.

Again...this is my point. That big players are drafted in high volume simply because they are big. I'm saying that these picks are no more fruitful than drafting "riskier" small players.

A team has to be smacked over the head by a small player's skill in order to draft him. That's what I consider stupid since the bar is so much lower for a 6'3 player even though there is no reason to believe the 6'3 player makes a better bet to be an NHLer.

IMO, it's probably the assumption that if the 6'2" doesn't turn into a top 6 guy, he is better suited for a bottom 6 grinder role than a 5'8" guy in the same boat.

Yes, I touched on this earlier. A talentless hack like Tyler Biggs (2011, 6'3) was a first round pick and considered a "safe" selection. Most people said even if he never reached his potential, he was still a safe bet to be a great, bottom six energy guy. Biggs is nothing now.

Meanwhile, Johnny Gaudreau (2011, 5'6) was ignored until the fourth round, and the word on him was that he was a high risk, high reward type.

My question is, if Tyler Biggs (and many more just like him) has amounted to absolutely nothing, don't you think we should reevaluate what constitutes a "safe" pick? Is that not more "high risk" than Gaudreau?

This narrative on its face seems like a highly plausible justification, but it just isn't. All players have bust potential, and size isn't what makes a player "risky" or "safe".

 

[sourdough]

Not to mention that year we got TJ for free.

Getting the entire kucherov line for a late second and late seventh is insane. That gm of yours sure knows what he is doing.

 

[Rebuilt]

I was on the fence about him all year but now its obvious the guy is the real deal. Yzerman is a genius.