Where's Vantel when we're having a discussion about size

Thats a very subjective opinion - I, for one, do not believe points should dictate who you draft, especially a d-man.

I mean would you not draft Brandon Carlo in the 1st round because of his low point production? Or how about Bo Horvat? His numbers are similar to Cole Ully who was drafted in the 6th round - is Ully a better pick?
- chompsey

I'm discussing later round picks since most 1st rounders all have nhl upside so then you can start to look at what role they played on their junior team, how they project in the nhl, etc. since you figure that you're choosing between multiple nhl talents who all have a decent shot to make it.

Ully is the exact type of player I'm talking about, was the highest scoring 95 born player on his who team the year he was drafted. He has a better chance at an nhl career than Kyle Petit or Mackenzie Stewart.

Yeah. Why would you want a Brooks Orpik on your team....
- rugdnit

?

Yeah. Why would you want a Brooks Orpik on your team....
- rugdnit

I think a guy like Brooks Orpik is a very rare exception to the rule. Plus, he went the college route, so it's a little different and more defensive oriented style of hockey than is the case in junior.

I think you have to take the BPA, as a rule. I think the vast majority of data confirms that 'drafting for need' rarely works out the way it's planned. With BPA you can always try and mould the player to what sort of style you want him to play. There have been a lot of phenomenal junior stars who have been turned into defensive specialists to fill the role that is needed on their team. Conversely, I can't think of a player who was drafted out of junior who didn't put up major points, come up to the NHL to become an offensive star - or even any sort of point producer, for that matter.

I think a guy like Brooks Orpik is a very rare exception to the rule. Plus, he went the college route, so it's a little different and more defensive oriented style of hockey than is the case in junior.

I think you have to take the BPA, as a rule. I think the vast majority of data confirms that 'drafting for need' rarely works out the way it's planned. With BPA you can always try and mould the player to what sort of style you want him to play. There have been a lot of phenomenal junior stars who have been turned into defensive specialists to fill the role that is needed on their team. Conversely, I can't think of a player who was drafted out of junior who didn't put up major points, come up to the NHL to become an offensive star - or even any sort of point producer, for that matter.
- Zogg

Can't even believe that there's still a debate around this.

Dane Fox, like you said was playing with great linemates and had that monster year as an overage player. That was still a worthy gamble by Gillis though. One failed player doesn't mean you should ditch the bpa strategy. If this was the nfl I'd agree with your logic but in the nhl it's so difficult to even land a player with nhl upside after the first 3/4 rounds that drafting worse prospects that fit your nhl team's system makes no sense. Especially since he team could have a brand new coach and GM by the time that player even makes it to the pros.
- Nucker101

You are aware that Dane Fox wasn't drafted by the canucks but signed late in his 20 year old season. Started slow in the ECHL but half way through the season turned into a PPG player and rumours are that he will be in Utica next season if he continues to progress.

Dane Fox, like you said was playing with great linemates and had that monster year as an overage player. That was still a worthy gamble by Gillis though. One failed player doesn't mean you should ditch the bpa strategy. If this was the nfl I'd agree with your logic but in the nhl it's so difficult to even land a player with nhl upside after the first 3/4 rounds that drafting worse prospects that fit your nhl team's system makes no sense. Especially since he team could have a brand new coach and GM by the time that player even makes it to the pros.
- Nucker101

In the NFL, it's a little different, because you're drafting players who are 22-23 and have finished developing physically, mentally and emotionally (for the most part, there are always exceptions). Again, the thing is, points is no good indicator of skill or NHL upside. You're right in saying that finding those types of players is extremely difficult after the first couple of rounds, but this is where you need to find players who can fit the system or at least adapt to fit the system. There comes a point where development becomes more important than drafting because with the right coaching and the right system and the right fit, any player can be NHL ready.

Hey - we did draft Jordan Subban in the 4th round because of his points

Hamhuis, Bieksa & Vrbata contracts expire in 2016. Replace or re-sign?
- VanHockeyGuy

Not a chance

I think a guy like Brooks Orpik is a very rare exception to the rule. Plus, he went the college route, so it's a little different and more defensive oriented style of hockey than is the case in junior.

I think you have to take the BPA, as a rule. I think the vast majority of data confirms that 'drafting for need' rarely works out the way it's planned. With BPA you can always try and mould the player to what sort of style you want him to play. There have been a lot of phenomenal junior stars who have been turned into defensive specialists to fill the role that is needed on their team. Conversely, I can't think of a player who was drafted out of junior who didn't put up major points, come up to the NHL to become an offensive star - or even any sort of point producer, for that matter.
- Zogg

Your not going to ask MAtthew Barzal to be a power forward are you?
If you have 7 power forwards that are in your organization, most likely your going to pick the BPA out of the skill category.

Hey - we did draft Jordan Subban in the 4th round because of his points
- LeftCoaster

I think Gillis just drafted him in hopes that he turns out to be the same as his older brother.

Not a chance
- VANTEL

traded

You are aware that Dane Fox wasn't drafted by the canucks but signed late in his 20 year old season. Started slow in the ECHL but half way through the season turned into a PPG player and rumours are that he will be in Utica next season if he continues to progress.
- manvanfan

Yes, I'm aware.

Your not going to ask MAtthew Barzal to be a power forward are you?
If you have 7 power forwards that are in your organization, most likely your going to pick the BPA out of the skill category.
- manvanfan

I got a sneaky suspicion that NJ is going to draft Barzal???

I think Gillis just drafted him in hopes that he turns out to be the same as his older brother.
- manvanfan

Benning has said he's trying to sign him, not sure if it's lip service or he's really trying...time will tell.

Your not going to ask MAtthew Barzal to be a power forward are you?
If you have 7 power forwards that are in your organization, most likely your going to pick the BPA out of the skill category.
- manvanfan

7 power forwards lol

I still think you've got to go with BPA - you can always look to meet specific needs through trades or developing the player as you see fit (again, see my comment about star players in junior being groomed as shut down role players etc). However, if you draft for need and that player turns out to be a dud, you have no recourse through trade or otherwise. You will have simply wasted a pick

P.S. there is a direct correlation between a player putting up points and his skill level. Invariably, players that put up points have a quality skill set which obviously translates to success in the NHL - whether it's in a continued offensive role or, as noted, a defensive specialist etc. Whereas, say, a defensive specialist in junior doesn't necessarily have to have a high end skill set - i.e. anyone can learn to play defensively or in a shut down role

Where's Vantel when we're having a discussion about size
- LeftCoaster

Was working

7 power forwards lol

I still think you've got to go with BPA - you can always look to meet specific needs through trades or developing the player as you see fit (again, see my comment about star players in junior being groomed as shut down role players etc). However, if you draft for need and that player turns out to be a dud, you have no recourse through trade or otherwise. You will have simply wasted a pick

P.S. there is a direct correlation between a player putting up points and his skill level. Invariably, players that put up points have a quality skill set which obviously translates to success in the NHL - whether it's in a continued offensive role or, as noted, a defensive specialist etc. Whereas, say, a defensive specialist in junior doesn't necessarily have to have a high end skill set - i.e. anyone can learn to play defensively
- Zogg

I do believe in BPA to a certain point but when you come to a group of players say 20-30 in the draft that the difference between them is so minor that you draft for need.

So is Miller retiring or are we trading him for peanuts? I am fine either way

Was working
- VANTEL

that's funny but seriously where were you?

I do believe in BPA to a certain point but when you come to a group of players say 20-30 in the draft that the difference between them is so minor that you draft for need.
- manvanfan

I don't. Draft for need. Look at Oilers!

So is Miller retiring or are we trading him for peanuts? I am fine either way
- VANTEL

peanuts... but I too am fine with it either way

that's funny but seriously where were you?
- manvanfan

Working.

Draft for need early rounds (unless drafting top 3-5)

BPA later rounds

/thread

I don't. Draft for need. Look at Oilers!
- VANTEL

That's primarily due to mismanagement and not with respect to having a roster full of quality players (for the most part). They should have long ago traded for a franchise type defenseman, given all the assets they've accumulated. Hopefully they'll get it right this coming season