|
Post by lalalaprise on May 30, 2010 15:48:02 GMT -4
Look guys, league scouting reports probably account for about 80% to 90% of how teams draft their players when and where and that because it has proven over time to work, realizing that nothing is fool proof. I rest my case. No they dont...if you think that than you are out to lunch... Why would Cam Russell, or any other GM, pay his scouts to travel all over the place, as well why would Cam spend almost a whole month on the road watching games if he was simply going to use the CSR list to draft??? Some teams dont even look at the list...you can take that to the bank. Its the equivilent of a 19th team...if Halifax got their hands on Baie-Comeau's draft rankings...would Cam throw his out the window and use Baie-Comeau's? Because thats essentially what youre implying.
|
|
|
Post by howitzer on May 30, 2010 15:50:34 GMT -4
And more thankful we could not be
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 30, 2010 15:52:26 GMT -4
Look guys, league scouting reports probably account for about 80% to 90% of how teams draft their players when and where and that because it has proven over time to work, realizing that nothing is fool proof. I rest my case. Why would they bother paying 5-6-7 scouts plus a head scout if they are just going to follow the CSR rankings??? That's one of your most ridiculous statements and you have made a lot of them!
|
|
|
Post by defresh101 on May 30, 2010 16:05:31 GMT -4
Correct me if I am wrong but the order people go gets thrown out the window very quickly. For starters you have Quebec teams jumping at Quebec born players, and Maritime teams jumping at Maritime players out of CSR ranking. Which makes perfect sense if Halifax has a choice between Taylor Burke and a Quebec forward ranked just abit higher...just take Burke, and forget the French kid. Also age of the players makes a difference. If a team is going for it now would'nt you draft a lest skilled player whos 16/17 whos ready to play now. Than a more skilled 15 year old. You also have owners like Bobby Smith and Patrick Roy drafting their own sons way out of order. These are just afew examples of things that skew the CSR ranking. If you don't believe me wait to June 5th I guarantee 100% when you hear they annoucemene The BAIE COMEAU DRAKKAR pick 1st overall Luci Caimpini. The CSR ranking will be officially out of whack. They know the best D-men won't report sooooooo they can't follow the CSR rankings.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on May 30, 2010 16:16:06 GMT -4
The CSR also doesnt take into account attitude and the way the players interview...perfect example is Fraser ranked 4th...I would wager any sum of money that there are no more than 0 teams who have Fraser ranked that high.
The kid can play...and thats why CSR has him that high...they rank based on what they see on the ice, not necessarily what is going on off the ice. They evaluate talent.
Im not harping on the CSR...and im sure some teams 'reference' it, but no one sits there on draft day with lets say pick #20 and looks at the CSR list and drafts the top kid left...they look at their own list.
Plus the CSR doesnt expect teams to do that.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on May 30, 2010 17:38:27 GMT -4
I've often thought that it would be an interesting experiment for some small market team to cut costs by severely reducing their scouting staff and drafting based on highest available player per the CSR list - maybe skip certain guys if they feel they are head cases or unlikely to report, injury plagued, etc ... Would kind of be like using the auto-draft setting on an online fantasy draft - half the time the owners that do that end up better off than the guys who think they know it all and insist on doing their own drafting.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on May 30, 2010 17:47:51 GMT -4
Remember though...these same scouts are often used during trade periods. Lets say for example Moncton wants to trade for a kid on a Quebec based team who is 17 and Danny Flynn has onky seen him once...who do you think he is going to call? Likely his scout in that players Q-home team area.
The scouts have dual roles, not only watching the new crop, but also watching players playing right now.
I remember Danny Flynn was interviewed by Les right after you guys got Wall and Tessier and he said he relied heavily on his scouts in Quebec to make those deals happen.
|
|
|
Post by MikeC on May 30, 2010 17:48:59 GMT -4
I've often thought that it would be an interesting experiment for some small market team to cut costs by severely reducing their scouting staff and drafting based on highest available player per the CSR list - maybe skip certain guys if they feel they are head cases or unlikely to report, injury plagued, etc ... Would kind of be like using the auto-draft setting on an online fantasy draft - half the time the owners that do that end up better off than the guys who think they know it all and insist on doing their own drafting. The Q site has the final Central Scouting lists as well as the draft results for the last 7 or so years. If you were really bored you could take say the 2007 draft, and see who your team would have taken if they'd drafted 'by the book' when each of their picks came up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 18:01:34 GMT -4
The thing you have to remember is that teams who are successful for the most part are the teams that draft well- case in point would be Moncton with Gormley , of course that was easy but when you look at the trades that they made for Deschamps, Tessier and Bourque, they had to have drafted well and gotten kids that those teams wanted in order to have made those trades.
Another thing as well with respect to Matheson over Ciampini- yes Ciampini is a goal scorer but I believe a case can be made not just from the best player available argument but also from the offence that Matheson could supply over the years. All teams need puckmoving defencemen and Matheson will give us that, a defenseman who will quarterback the power play as well as jump start the offence.
Defence right now is a strength but taking Matheson now will provide depth there in which to make a trade(s) down the road when it is time to go for it or just make a simple depth trade to put us over the top.
It is almost a given that our Euro will supply us with a first line forward.
|
|
|
Post by howitzer on May 30, 2010 18:23:04 GMT -4
Another thing as well with respect to Matheson over Ciampini- yes Ciampini is a goal scorer but I believe a case can be made not just from the best player available argument but also from the offence that Matheson could supply over the years. All teams need puckmoving defencemen and Matheson will give us that, a defenseman who will quarterback the power play as well as jump start the offence. Exactly. You can have all the goal scorers and playmakers you want, but if you don't have anyone to get them the puck, and get it to them in the right places, at the right time, then just how good will those forwards be?? Look no further then us in '07-'08. All the scorers we needed and then some, but nobody to get them the puck. We all saw how that worked out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 18:32:33 GMT -4
Another thing as well with respect to Matheson over Ciampini- yes Ciampini is a goal scorer but I believe a case can be made not just from the best player available argument but also from the offence that Matheson could supply over the years. All teams need puckmoving defencemen and Matheson will give us that, a defenseman who will quarterback the power play as well as jump start the offence. Exactly. You can have all the goal scorers and playmakers you want, but if you don't have anyone to get them the puck, and get it to them in the right places, at the right time, then just how good will those forwards be?? Look no further then us in '07-'08. All the scorers we needed and then some, but nobody to get them the puck. We all saw how that worked out. Exactly, Andy and Monast could be decent defencemen but they were simply overwhelmed as they were the only defencemen in that group who could move the puck/ play powerplay on a regular basis and their play suffered as a result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 18:38:02 GMT -4
Another thing as well with respect to Matheson over Ciampini- yes Ciampini is a goal scorer but I believe a case can be made not just from the best player available argument but also from the offence that Matheson could supply over the years. All teams need puckmoving defencemen and Matheson will give us that, a defenseman who will quarterback the power play as well as jump start the offence. Exactly. You can have all the goal scorers and playmakers you want, but if you don't have anyone to get them the puck, and get it to them in the right places, at the right time, then just how good will those forwards be?? Look no further then us in '07-'08. All the scorers we needed and then some, but nobody to get them the puck. We all saw how that worked out. Dead on howitzer. Which is why I am half optimisitc as to how this team is being built. It may not happen but can you imagine both Clarke and Matheson on the same team, if they both devolop as they should it would give the kind of backend impact that Moncton had this year. But you still need the puck to go in the net and any successful team needs some snipers. But good goaltending and a strong defens is a great start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 18:43:35 GMT -4
I've often thought that it would be an interesting experiment for some small market team to cut costs by severely reducing their scouting staff and drafting based on highest available player per the CSR list - maybe skip certain guys if they feel they are head cases or unlikely to report, injury plagued, etc ... Would kind of be like using the auto-draft setting on an online fantasy draft - half the time the owners that do that end up better off than the guys who think they know it all and insist on doing their own drafting. The Q site has the final Central Scouting lists as well as the draft results for the last 7 or so years. If you were really bored you could take say the 2007 draft, and see who your team would have taken if they'd drafted 'by the book' when each of their picks came up. I am not that bored but I took a quick look at the 05 to 07 drafts. 2005 Tomy Joly 3rd round #51 2006 Kelsey Tessier 4th round #66 2007 Jake Allen 3rd round #40 I lot of players who end up being Q stars did not get drafted early. Drafting midget age players is tougher then making a pick at the NHL draft, IMO. Good scouts are not always right on every pick, but I think if they hit a homerun every few years they are good at what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 30, 2010 18:48:41 GMT -4
The Q site has the final Central Scouting lists as well as the draft results for the last 7 or so years. If you were really bored you could take say the 2007 draft, and see who your team would have taken if they'd drafted 'by the book' when each of their picks came up. I am not that bored but I took a quick look at the 05 to 07 drafts. 2005 Tomy Joly 3rd round #51 2006 Kelsey Tessier 4th round #66 2007 Jake Allen 3rd round #40 I lot of players who end up being Q stars did not get drafted early. Drafting midget age players is tougher then making a pick at the NHL draft, IMO. Good scouts are not always right on every pick, but I think if they hit a homerun every few years they are good at what they do. Tessier was rated earlier(not sure where CSR had him but most teams had him top 15) but was supposed to go NCAA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2010 19:14:30 GMT -4
I am not that bored but I took a quick look at the 05 to 07 drafts. 2005 Tomy Joly 3rd round #51 2006 Kelsey Tessier 4th round #66 2007 Jake Allen 3rd round #40 I lot of players who end up being Q stars did not get drafted early. Drafting midget age players is tougher then making a pick at the NHL draft, IMO. Good scouts are not always right on every pick, but I think if they hit a homerun every few years they are good at what they do. Tessier was rated earlier(not sure where CSR had him but most teams had him top 15) but was supposed to go NCAA. Kind of my point, with the NCAA bluff, uncertainty as to how big a kid will get, what upside he has.........the Q draft is tough. The teams that do there homework have a better chance.
|
|