Mount Suribachi
Registered User
Holland does not even draft well.
He used a no. 1 pick on Sheahan, who is a journeyman.
What an idiotic list Seriously, cherry picking players from years of Ken Hollands drafting?
You do realise that if a team gets 2 NHL players from a draft, they consider it a success?
You do realise that if an team gets 3 NHL players from a draft they consider it a runaway success?
You do realise that ~50% of players drafted in the 20-30 range never establish themselves in the NHL?
You do realise that most of the players drafted in the 20-30 range who make it to the NHL go onto be "average" players of the calibre of Smith and Sheahan?
Just to use the top name on your list. Riley Sheahan (who by the way is NOT a journeyman, having only played for one team). Lets take the next 10 players drafted after him shall we? Only 2 of the 10 have played more NHL games to this point than Sheahan - Charlie Coyle, and Brock Nelson, both of whom have had similar careers to Sheahan at this point, being 30-40 point players.
The ONLY player taken with the next 10 picks that is clearly better than Sheahan that you can accuse Holland of missing out on is Kuznetzov, and that's only because he's just had a breakout season, I wonder how many would have said that 12 months ago.
I could do the same with every other player on your list, but I can't be bothered. You complain about Jurco, yet only 5 (FIVE!) players taken in the 2nd round that year have played more games than him, and yet you still complain about it. I don't think you have any clue about the odds of a late 1st or 2nd rounder being a quality NHLer.
There are many things we can be critical of Holland about, drafting and development (up till the point they should be in the NHL) isn't one of them. Neither is RFA contracts.
On the other hand - trades, the unwillingness to make trades, over-reliance on vets, over loyalty to vets who need to be ditched, too many NMC's, contract lengths and his whole ultra-conservative approach. Yes, we can be critical of them.