Orthodox Caveman
Registered User
- Sep 12, 2006
- 617
- 195
Why draft a forward at #6? So we can get dragged back in to playoff fodder status and prolong purgatory while the defense is a tire fire?
Why does drafting a forward make our team way better?Why draft a forward at #6? So we can get dragged back in to playoff fodder status and prolong purgatory while the defense is a tire fire?
Why does drafting a forward make our team way better?
More immediate impact?
I think with the way this draft is and where will be drafting next year looks, yea I really think picking a D would be the best option. But, as I've said in the past, I honestly don't care which guy they get in the top 10. If Tkachuk were to fall to 6 and we grab him I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed. TZE basically read my mind with his post about him.Just seems like adding Rasmussen and Tkachuk/Wahlstrom for example would drag this team upward prematurely assuming they make the team. I guess just make sure they stay down for a season or two?
We have some top right handed puck moving defenseman in it wheel house and the defense needs attention. We can draft a top center next year.
Take Dobson, or Bouchard, or whomever you think is your future #1/#2 blue liner. The priority is absolutely that high, and this group of prospects looks like there might be 2-3 legit candidates for the job.
If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.
If Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.
Noah Dobson – Hockey Prospects – DobberProspectsIf Dobson or Bouchard were considered future top-pairing defensemen they'd easily go in the top 3. If management passes on either of those two players it's because they believe their ceiling isn't that high. Spending your highest pick in decades just to add another Danny DeKeyser to your roster is a complete waste.
Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.EDIT: And I never meant to imply that elite defensemen cannot be found throughout the draft by other teams. Just not by Detroit, considering their track record for the last 15 years.
Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong.Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.
From 2000-2013 (unless I'm missing someone):
5 D taken in the first 2 rounds by Wings. Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Sproul,
7D taken in the first 3 rounds : Nicastro and Fournier get added.
If you look at that list, it's maybe not super impressive but it's also not complete garbage if you consider that everyone of those top 2 rounds picks got NHL time.
We've taken 3 D in the first 2 rounds since then: Cholo, Hronek, Lindstrom.
6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.
So we're close to matching the number of D taken in the first 3 rounds in 4 drafts compared the 14 drafts before that. After the '18 draft we will almost certainly be higher on both totals considering the amount of picks we have.
It still would be great to take a d-man with our #6 pick to help the odds along even further, but a track record of not taking shots can't be used to accurately predict what will happen when you actually take the shots.
Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong
Finding a warm body to stick in the NHL for a few years is a great job with a mid to late round pick, no doubt. But that's very different than being able to identify and develop a decent to good NHL player, and I don't consider any of Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, or Sproul to be decent to good NHL players.Huh?? I guess it depends on your measuring stick. Typically, a defensive draft pick that plays a few hundred games is considered average NHL player/good pick. The wings have definitely found those.
What they have found is the top line studs.
Isn't Zablocki a RW?6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.
Zablocki's a right wing.Can't find what you don't spend the picks on.
From 2000-2013 (unless I'm missing someone):
5 D taken in the first 2 rounds by Wings. Kronwall, Kindl, Smith, Ouellet, Sproul,
7D taken in the first 3 rounds : Nicastro and Fournier get added.
If you look at that list, it's maybe not super impressive but it's also not complete garbage if you consider that everyone of those top 2 rounds picks got NHL time.
We've taken 3 D in the first 2 rounds since then: Cholo, Hronek, Lindstrom.
6 D in the first 3 rounds: Saarijarvi, Kotkansalo, Zablocki get added.
So we're close to matching the number of D taken in the first 3 rounds in 4 drafts compared the 14 drafts before that. After the '18 draft we will almost certainly be higher on both totals considering the amount of picks we have.
It still would be great to take a d-man with our #6 pick to help the odds along even further, but a track record of not taking shots can't be used to accurately predict what will happen when you actually take the shots.
Just went off wiki that has it wrong, of course he is a winger now that you mention it.Zablocki's a right wing.
Smith is probably about average for a late 1st. We have a ”problem” developing D talent but even a fairly superficial analysis indicates that a major part of that was simply not having enough picks and not using enough picks on D. Won’t automatically mean more picks means we’ll find stars, but odds are a lot better. Same with using the #6 pick on a D, no guarantees but improved odds. At the same time you can’t focus blindly on D to the point where you miss out on better talent for positional need.Had at least one or two of the few shots they've taken since Kronwall been even an average NHL defenseman, I could see your argument about sample size. But even when you underdraft the position, having that long a stretch of putting out hot garbage means there's something inherently wrong.
Until a Hronek or Cholowski (or any defensemen they take this year) show some decent play at the NHL level, I stand by my belief that this organization has a real problem with developing talent on the blue line.
Just went off wiki that has it wrong, of course he is a winger now that you mention it.
Smith is probably about average for a late 1st. We have a ”problem” developing D talent but even a fairly superficial analysis indicates that a major part of that was simply not having enough picks and not using enough picks on D. Won’t automatically mean more picks means we’ll find stars, but odds are a lot better. Same with using the #6 pick on a D, no guarantees but improved odds. At the same time you can’t focus blindly on D to the point where you miss out on better talent for positional need.
I wouldn't say "can't"...I would say "haven't lately" though I have hopes for Hronek & Cholo and to a lesser extent Saar & Lindstrom.It seems most teams are able to take players that in redrafts would have been top 10 picks, and develop them from what they were into top pairing guys, and Detroit can't.
A lot of those non-top10 picks were still 1st rounders or 2nd rounders (in many cases early 2nds). There are a few exceptions of course, but still the majority of top-pairing D get taken in the first 2 rounds. When we’re talking 00-16 we’re talking years when we had maybe 1 pick in the top 50 most years. Nashville missed Karlsson the year they got Josi in the 2nd. That type of stuff can happen when you have multiple picks in a range where talent is available. Having extra picks in rounds 3-7 helps with finding late round gems too, but in most years there literally aren’t any or barely any top4D coming out of those rounds. It’s nice to hope that you can take the best players available in each round of the draft and get talent, but reality is much more about being able to draft 3 or 4 of the best guys available and maybe ONE will turn into a star. Ideally we will have multiple 1sts/2nds next year as well. Margin for error. No guarantees, but much better odds. Just like one 2nd round pick in ’16 would land us Smith, but two landed us Hronek as well.Except that it seems much more the case that people find their star D-men later in the draft than the top 10. If this were centers there would be a lot of evidence that stars tend to come out of the top 10 in the draft much more often than after pick 10. Players like Karlsson, Weber, Keith, Chara, Subban, Burns, Ellis, Klingberg, Gardiner, Byfuglienm, Fowler etc are all players that weren't taken in the top 10 but are great defenders. And I can name many, many more that would all feature in Detroit's top pairing in the last half decade that weren't taken in the top third of the first round. And that's the problem. It seems most teams are able to take players that in redrafts would have been top 10 picks, and develop them from what they were into top pairing guys, and Detroit can't.
A lot of those non-top10 picks were still 1st rounders or 2nd rounders (in many cases early 2nds). There are a few exceptions of course, but still the majority of top-pairing D get taken in the first 2 rounds. When we’re talking 00-16 we’re talking years when we had maybe 1 pick in the top 50 most years. Nashville missed Karlsson the year they got Josi in the 2nd. That type of stuff can happen when you have multiple picks in a range where talent is available. Having extra picks in rounds 3-7 helps with finding late round gems too, but in most years there literally aren’t any or barely any top4D coming out of those rounds. It’s nice to hope that you can take the best players available in each round of the draft and get talent, but reality is much more about being able to draft 3 or 4 of the best guys available and maybe ONE will turn into a star. Ideally we will have multiple 1sts/2nds next year as well. Margin for error. No guarantees, but much better odds. Just like one 2nd round pick in ’16 would land us Smith, but two landed us Hronek as well.
I wouldn't say "can't"...I would say "haven't lately" though I have hopes for Hronek & Cholo and to a lesser extent Saar & Lindstrom.
The point is Wings have sometimes had ONE pick in the range of top quality D-men. It’s just no margin for error. If that one specific player isn’t #1 on your list you miss out. If a goalie or forward is #1 on your list it’s hard to take a D just because of position with your one pick in a round (or sole pick for several rounds).And this seems a long way to say Detroit isn't good at scouting defense talent, and/or isn't able to develop it if they can scout it. Because they have had picks in the range of a lot of these picks and picked other players, most of which aren't nearly as good as what was passed.
Not too many teams have really picked up high-quality D-men while in playoff/contending positions. Maybe it happens every now and then (with 30 teams, flukes occur) but more often it’s bad teams that are stockpiling picks and/or having a better draft position (which means better position in every round) that find them. It’s a failure but a fairly predictable one. Just like I don’t see many superstars in Pittsburgh’s drafting during their playoff streak, or how Chicago can’t smoothly transition from Seabrook and Keith."Haven't in 30ish years" is functionally identical to "can't". I don't understand why you want to give them a pass on a history of abject failure that's longer than most folks on here have been alive.
Not too many teams have really picked up high-quality D-men while in playoff/contending positions. Maybe it happens every now and then (with 30 teams, flukes occur) but more often it’s bad teams that are stockpiling picks and/or having a better draft position (which means better position in every round) that find them. It’s a failure but a fairly predictable one. Just like I don’t see many superstars in Pittsburgh’s drafting during their playoff streak, or how Chicago can’t smoothly transition from Seabrook and Keith.