Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

Overall a meh draft in my opinion. I was fine with taking Kotkaniemi. I my wasn’t the greatest value pick, but it addresses a need, and I think it will turn out to be a good one in the end.

 

I’m fine with Ylonen at 35, though not in love with it. Time will tell here.

 

Really don’t like the Romanov reach though at all. Could have had him in the third round I feel. We could have drafted a centre like Akil Thomas I think, or d man McIssac. That would have been a solid first three picks. 

 

Liked picking up Olofsson, as well as Hillis, McShane and Fonstad.

 

Houde looks like a wasted pick to me, and Harris looks like a project that I can’t assess. Same with Gorniak and Stanley.

 

I just don’t feel like we hit the home run we needed in the early going. But I hope I’m wrong. I look at Detroit and the Islanders first 3 picks and I’m jealous. I really hope these prospects prove me wrong or we have a dark future.

 

 

I notice how the home run teams are also the ones who picked twice in the the 1st round, easy to look like the winners when you do that. 

 

This Draft is far from a failure for us, lots of forwards with upside in speed and skill, blueliners with offensive potential, mobility and puck movement. At its core, these are the elements we need and lack going forward in today's NHL. This group has at least shown me signs during this draft that they are done with the dinosaur mentality of how the game USED to be played, and are aware of how it is currently being played. 

 

Overall I think it was a pretty good draft, lots of swings, lots of players molded for today's game, if 3 or 4 of them pan out, then this was a huge success. And it certainly looks like there is a chance that could happen just with Kotkaniemi, Ylonen, and Olofsson.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

We've had drafts that looked great which ended up average and drafts that looked average which ended up great. You never know how players actually develop. 

 

But with so many reaches, if they end up busting it is on the scouts.

So many reaches? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I don't know much about him, from the comments I figured he may have been available later.

I read he had a great turnament but I didn't watch him play

Iy was more a comment in picking Oloffson who was ranked higher

OK

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DON said:

So many reaches? Really?

 

Yes, there were a number...particularly when you compare each pick at the time and what was still available.  With so many picks the odd one would have been okay but most were stretches against most ranking systems (again, even more so when compared against what was still available at those times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Link67 said:

 

I notice how the home run teams are also the ones who picked twice in the the 1st round, easy to look like the winners when you do that. 

 

This Draft is far from a failure for us, lots of forwards with upside in speed and skill, blueliners with offensive potential, mobility and puck movement. At its core, these are the elements we need and lack going forward in today's NHL. This group has at least shown me signs during this draft that they are done with the dinosaur mentality of how the game USED to be played, and are aware of how it is currently being played. 

 

Overall I think it was a pretty good draft, lots of swings, lots of players molded for today's game, if 3 or 4 of them pan out, then this was a huge success. And it certainly looks like there is a chance that could happen just with Kotkaniemi, Ylonen, and Olofsson.

 

Good point, it definitely wasn’t a dinosaur draft. And I’m not actually disappointed with the draft, I actually like a solid 4 of them a lot. 

 

I think just a couple strange picks had me not loving the draft completely. Obviously some solid ones in there too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All seems to be OK with letting Zadina pass?

 

Im a bit confused by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Habopotamus said:

Are you happy with what they did? 

 

For the most part - I think they had a solid draft.  There were some things I'd have preferred to see them do but I'm hoping to have time today to do my usual grades and evaluations where I can dig into that in some detail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ch_nl said:

All seems to be OK with letting Zadina pass?

 

Im a bit confused by this?

 

If you don't see Zadina as a clear-cut #3 pick - if you see him more as one of a number of comparable prospects bunched together after the first two picks - then you're not going to rip out your hair that the Habs passed on him in favour of a big C who has drawn comparisons to Kopitar.

 

You hear Patrick Laine brought up as a comparable in this context. But Laine was a clear-cut #2, not part of a pack of players about whom there was a lot of debate. The anxiety that we just passed on a Laine may rest on a confusion between the idea that Zadina is a Laine 'type' (a pure goal scorer) and thinking that he wil. become as good, or nearly as good, as Laine. Which is not self-evident.

 

The story of all this remains to be told. Give it about 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was funny when French media guy kept trying to ask Timmins about Q players when had 11 picks, or the lack of them. :bonk:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Commandant said:

Our Biggest, Most Comprehensive Draft Review Ever

 

http://lastwordonhockey.com/2018/06/24/2018-nhl-draft-grades/

 

Great work as always but you homered hard to give that A-. Romanov at 38 might be a reach when you ranked him 93? Oh well. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Great work as always but you homered hard to give that A-. Romanov at 38 might be a reach when you ranked him 93? Oh well. Time will tell.

 

I wouldn't say it was a hard homer at all, it has been said multiple times now since the draft was over that Romanov is ranked low because 1. He is Russian and has not commited to NA hockey programs so the KHL factor plays a part. 2. because there really wasn't much info or broad stage to watch him all that easily. Timmins mentioned there were only a few situations to really get a good look at him, and they were a part of that, what they saw from that body of work really pleased them.

 

It is important to separate a player ranked low or slipping because of character and maturity, or one of his hockey skills is so deficient it keeps his ceiling low, VS, a player who is ranked lower because people don't really know much about them. Detroit has proven this point multiple times over the years with having scouts in the right European markets at the right time, seeing excellent players in a context not too many scouts did, thus giving them a lucky informational advantage. Sounds like Timmins and the gang saw a body of work that was not on display on a grand stage, but from that, saw something many others didn't, happens all the time, in every draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Great work as always but you homered hard to give that A-. Romanov at 38 might be a reach when you ranked him 93? Oh well. Time will tell.

 

Olofsson i had at 25, Ylonen i had at 30.  Habs got 3 players i had ranked in the first round. 

 

Then with McShane, Hillis, Fonstad,... I had all three way higher than they were drafted. (44, 48, 58)

 

Romanov is a reach, yeah... but they made up for it with those five picks.

 

Overall 3 picks in my top 30... 6 in my top 60.... and 7 picks in my top 100.  Yeah, they can be forgiven for a reach in the second round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Link67 said:

 

I wouldn't say it was a hard homer at all, it has been said multiple times now since the draft was over that Romanov is ranked low because 1. He is Russian and has not commited to NA hockey programs so the KHL factor plays a part. 2. because there really wasn't much info or broad stage to watch him all that easily. Timmins mentioned there were only a few situations to really get a good look at him, and they were a part of that, what they saw from that body of work really pleased them.

 

It is important to separate a player ranked low or slipping because of character and maturity, or one of his hockey skills is so deficient it keeps his ceiling low, VS, a player who is ranked lower because people don't really know much about them. Detroit has proven this point multiple times over the years with having scouts in the right European markets at the right time, seeing excellent players in a context not too many scouts did, thus giving them a lucky informational advantage. Sounds like Timmins and the gang saw a body of work that was not on display on a grand stage, but from that, saw something many others didn't, happens all the time, in every draft. 

 

Romanov's ranking was influenced by lack of information. 

 

I also didn't hammer the Flyers for taking Jay O'Brien way higher than I had him ranked, as I had only seen him twice I put him a bit lower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Link67 said:

Detroit has proven this point multiple times over the years with having scouts in the right European markets at the right time, seeing excellent players in a context not too many scouts did, thus giving them a lucky informational advantage. Sounds like Timmins and the gang saw a body of work that was not on display on a grand stage, but from that, saw something many others didn't, happens all the time, in every draft. 

 

Right, and you use that advantage in your later rounds, not your early rounds. 

 

It was way too early to draft him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Right, and you use that advantage in your later rounds, not your early rounds. 

 

It was way too early to draft him. 

 

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Romanov's ranking was influenced by lack of information. 

 

I also didn't hammer the Flyers for taking Jay O'Brien way higher than I had him ranked, as I had only seen him twice I put him a bit lower. 

 

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Olofsson i had at 25, Ylonen i had at 30.  Habs got 3 players i had ranked in the first round. 

 

Then with McShane, Hillis, Fonstad,... I had all three way higher than they were drafted. (44, 48, 58)

 

Romanov is a reach, yeah... but they made up for it with those five picks.

 

Overall 3 picks in my top 30... 6 in my top 60.... and 7 picks in my top 100.  Yeah, they can be forgiven for a reach in the second round. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Olofsson i had at 25, Ylonen i had at 30.  Habs got 3 players i had ranked in the first round. 

 

Then with McShane, Hillis, Fonstad,... I had all three way higher than they were drafted. (44, 48, 58)

 

Romanov is a reach, yeah... but they made up for it with those five picks.

 

Overall 3 picks in my top 30... 6 in my top 60.... and 7 picks in my top 100.  Yeah, they can be forgiven for a reach in the second round. 

 

I think Montreal had a lot more opportunities. They didn't really take advantage of them. I like Ylonen, Olafsson, Hillis, and Fonstad for picks. I like Kot too. But I don't think they got the best players available at where they picked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

I think Montreal had a lot more opportunities. They didn't really take advantage of them. I like Ylonen, Olafsson, Hillis, and Fonstad for picks. I like Kot too. But I don't think they got the best players available at where they picked.

 

Could they have done more? Sure but thats why its an A- and not more.  No one else has 7 of the top 100 or 6 of the top 6.  No other team did that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sincere thanks to all you guys who actually know something! Unlike me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sell yourself short.  A dartboard with names is about as effective as nhl drafts. Google every year and browse the picks. 05 was a deep draft. The first round is total joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BCHabnut said:

Don't sell yourself short.  A dartboard with names is about as effective as nhl drafts. Google every year and browse the picks. 05 was a deep draft. The first round is total joke. 

We should have drafted Patrick Hornqvist with the 229th pick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×