There's no denying the fact that some NHL Entry Draft years produce considerably more future star talent than other years.

But it drives me up the wall when people simply dismiss a draft as "weak" or say "it's just a crapshoot, anyway" when certain teams inevitably turn up future solid NHLers-- and maybe even a star or two-- after the first round of the draft.

There's a reason why a handful of organizations -- among them, Detroit, New Jersey, Colorado, Ottawa, and of late St. Louis -- repeatedly get "lucky" with picks after the first round.

The reason: These teams scout and draft for skill (which certainly includes defensive skill and hockey sense as well as offensive skill). Yes, of course, players change and develop after the draft in ways no one can predict. But if the draft were truly a pure crapshoot, there'd be no need to employ a scouting department and agonize over the priority list for months. You could just look at the Central Scouting or ISS rankings, close your eyes and point to a name at random.

Different teams have different scouting and drafting philosophies. The concern I expressed about the Philadelphia Flyers 2007 draft was that Paul Holmgren seemed to be getting away from a more recent approach to prioritize skill and going back to their approach of the mid- to late 1990s, which saw the Flyers take a succession of big-frame players in rounds two and three, sometimes to the exclusion of demonstrated skill.

The Flyers had recent success in looking more in the skill direction which is why you've seen marked improvement in their 2nd and third round draft performance from 2000 to 2006: Think Patrick Sharp (3rd round in 2001), Ryan Potulny (3rd round in 2003), Bartulis (3rd round in 2005), Andreas Nödl (2nd round in 2006).

Philly's picks this year, especially third-rounder Garrett Klotz, are more in the mold of their 1995 to 1999 post first-round picks which yielded virtually nothing.

I fully recognize the need to have an element of grit, toughness and character as a drafting priority. But unless the kid can actually play in the NHL someday, it doesn't pay off to leave higher upside players on the board.

Take a sampling of a few so-called weak drafts. You'll find that strong-drafting teams STILL produced multiple future NHLers (whether in their own organization or via trade to another organization).

For instance, in the notoriously weak 1996 draft, the Devils still managed to draft five players who had NHL careers, including Colin White. That same year, the Avs drafted six players who dressed in at least one NHL game, including Mark Parrish and Samuel Påhlsson.

The best scouting teams find ways to identify non first-round talents that others bypass. The Devils got Brian Gionta in the third-round of an overall so-so 1998 class-- gambling on his skill rather than dismissing him because of his lack of size. The Red Wings are legendary for finding a Pavel Datsyuk (6th round, 1998) here and a Henrik Zetterberg (7th round, 1999) there.

I agree wholeheartedly that teams should be leery of skill players who lack work ethic, character, and/or leadership potential. But at the end of the day, you maximize your chances for success when you aim high.

Performance in the so-called "weak drafts" is what really sets apart the best drafting teams from the rest of the pack.

Join the Discussion: » Comments » Post New Comment

» Practice Day, Ersson, Jay Greenberg, A Personal Note

» Flyers Gameday: Game 12 vs. BOS

» Wrap: Brink Lifts Flyers over Blues, 2-1

» Game 11 Preview: Flyers vs. STL

» Wrap: Flyers Earn Painstaking 2-0 Win in Boston