BurgerKing Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 This is gonna sound like an endorsement for Delorme. The number of picks we had from 2001-2010 was 68, During the same time LA had 92 Chicago had 105. Both of the latter teams have found gems in all rounds of the draft. Couple this with the fact that these teams both picked in the top 5 multiple times between 2001-2010. They are really benefitting from being crappy for so long. Perhaps it's more on the GM to accumulate more picks or at the very least avoid trading away the ones you already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 You do make a good point. I guess it's the price we pay for being good for so long but just not good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jejejester Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I can agree somewhat to your point, the thing that bothers me is that Vancouver chose to pass on some of those players when we had a chance, Saad, Toffoli and Pearson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.53 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I can agree somewhat to your point, the thing that bothers me is that Vancouver chose to pass on some of those players when we had a chance, Saad, Toffoli and Pearson hindsight is always 20/20. We're not the only ones who passed on these guys. And the thing about the draft is, it's a crap shoot. Especially when you get out of the first round, you never know how players are going to turn out. there's always going to be great players that you could have had, just like every other team. For example, Brandon Saad was taken 43rd overall. That means, even after we "passed" on Saad and picked up Nicklas Jensen at 29, still 13 more teams still passed on him. Every player you take in the draft is a gamble, and once you start getting to second round territory, it's incredibly hard to get them all right. It's impossible to win every gamble and it's impossible to know for sure which ones will turn out to be better than others. You never know who is going to turn out to be a stud. Even when we drafted Jordan Schroeder, at the time, it seemed we were getting a steal of a pick. (I encourage you to go back to his draft selection video and just here how the commentators rave about him.) Turned out we lost that gamble. It's just the nature of the draft. But anyway, no I don't think Canucks drafting has been that bad. In a few years, you could very well hear people talking about, "I can't believe (insert team here) passed on Brendan Gaunce or Hunter Shinkaruk!" Or maybe even "wow, can you believe these teams passed on a guy like Cole Cassels?" That's the thing about prospects, you never know until later and hindsight is always 20/20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250Integra Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 hindsight is always 20/20. We're not the only ones who passed on these guys. And the thing about the draft is, it's a crap shoot. Especially when you get out of the first round, you never know how players are going to turn out. there's always going to be great players that you could have had, just like every other team. For example, Brandon Saad was taken 43rd overall. That means, even after we picked up Nicklas Jensen at 29, still 13 more teams still passed on him. Every player you take in the draft is a gamble, and once you start getting to second round territory, it's incredibly hard to get them all right. It's impossible to win every gamble and it's impossible to know for sure which ones will turn out to be better than others. You never know who is going to turn out to be a stud. Even when we drafted Jordan Schroeder, at the time, it seemed we were getting a steal of a pick. (I encourage you to go back to his draft selection video and just here how the commentators rave about him.) Turned out we lost that gamble. It's just the nature of the draft. But anyway, no I don't think Canucks drafting has been that bad. In a few years, you could very well hear people talking about, "I can't believe (insert team here) passed on Brendan Gaunce or Hunter Shinkaruk!" Or maybe even "wow, can you believe these teams passed on a guy like Cole Cassels?" That's the thing about prospects, you never know until later and hindsight is always 20/20 I agree with this post, but development and opportunity is also a huge factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggs50 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The quality of prospects coming out of our organization recently has been crap. It's not that were not producing nhl players, it's that there not top 6 forwards or top 2 dmen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I can agree somewhat to your point, the thing that bothers me is that Vancouver chose to pass on some of those players when we had a chance, Saad, Toffoli and Pearson We had no chance at Saad or Toffoli, Saad was taken in the second round before Vancouver's second round pick so essentially we would of needed to draft Saad over Jensen which I highly would never of happened. Toffoli was also taken in the second round in a year that vancouver didn't pick in the first or second round and if they had I find it unlikely they would of taken Toffoli with their first round pick. Pearson had a great playoffs and yea he is looking like someone that a lot of teams may regret passing on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The quality of prospects coming out of our organization recently has been crap. It's not that were not producing nhl players, it's that there not top 6 forwards or top 2 dmen... Hodgson, Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Horvat of all those first round picks MG made I would say the only one who has no shot at being a top 6 forward is Schroeder. The drafting was getting a lot better lets just hope that Benning continues on with improving our scouts - I believe MG was doing a good job at fixing our scouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaramel MacKhiato Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Scouting's been bad until last season. Unfortunately, we made good trades until last season. Why can't we be a team that is good at trading and scouting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkstar Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The Canucks are decent at 1st round picks. Outside of the 1st round, they're probably the worst in the NHL. Only 1 player (Raymond) is a full-timer NHLer in the Canucks' post-first round draft choices from 2005 to present. Corrado will likely be number 2 next year. Connauton isn't a full-time NHLer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Yeah it is that bad. From 06-11 the only players to play a single NHL game are: Grabner, Shirokov, Hodgson, Sauve, Connauton, Schroeder, Corrado, Jensen. That is not impressive at all, that is terrible. It used to be decent but it sucks now, that's the worst in the league. 2013 looks good but not proven much yet. Thank god Delorme is gone, that guy sucks at his job, he sucks at hockey altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amitriptyline Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think some of the recent picks like Gaunce, Fox, Horvat, Shink, and Cassells are gonna turn out to be really good. Dane Fox in particular, I'm really stoked about. I know he wasnt drafted, but he was still discovered by the scouting dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckpuckluck1 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I've said it in other posts but the fact that the Canucks have had an extremely poor farm system is the major reason as to why they have produced so few quality NHLers. If you look at all the quality teams from around the globe in any sport the successful teams have one of or both of the following. A great setup for their youth it's how they manufacture talent and teach the young kids how to play the game, or they flat out have lots of money at their disposal. An example is in the English Premier League with Chelsea virtually buying the premiership, and Man United in the late 90's early 2000's building a team from the amazing youth program Alex Ferguson set up. His young players like Beckham, Scholes, Neville brothers, Butt, Giggs , Wes Brown.....all these guys came through the youth system. It helped United also had lots of money to throw around but they did build a great side that won the FA Cup, the English Premiership and the Champions League that year. The Canucks have never been in the position they are now with full control over their system which goes a long way to explaining why they have not produced enough quality players from the picks they have had. These kids are in the prime growing and learning stage of their development and the Canucks have failed to give them the tools they need to succeed. I believe this was the straw that broke the camels back as far as Torts was concerned...you build a youth team you hire great coaching staff and then the Canucks head coach doesn't talk to the coach of the youth team at all, big problem! I personally feel it's not as much about how good the Detroit scouts are as how good they are at giving them the tools to ply their trade in the NHL. Detroit obviously has a prototype/ model that they look for in a prospect and they select according to that and then they mould that talent accordingly over a good number of years ( look at Nyquivist, Shehan etc) and then integrate them into the NHL team, it's very successful and with the salary cap the best way to stay competitive or than just plain being bad and getting sure fire draft picks, but we can see that's a tough ride for fans ( hate to be an oilers fan over the last 10 years) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgerKing Posted June 23, 2014 Author Share Posted June 23, 2014 I've said it in other posts but the fact that the Canucks have had an extremely poor farm system is the major reason as to why they have produced so few quality NHLers. If you look at all the quality teams from around the globe in any sport the successful teams have one of or both of the following. A great setup for their youth it's how they manufacture talent and teach the young kids how to play the game, or they flat out have lots of money at their disposal. An example is in the English Premier League with Chelsea virtually buying the premiership, and Man United in the late 90's early 2000's building a team from the amazing youth program Alex Ferguson set up. His young players like Beckham, Scholes, Neville brothers, Butt, Giggs , Wes Brown.....all these guys came through the youth system. It helped United also had lots of money to throw around but they did build a great side that won the FA Cup, the English Premiership and the Champions League that year. The Canucks have never been in the position they are now with full control over their system which goes a long way to explaining why they have not produced enough quality players from the picks they have had. These kids are in the prime growing and learning stage of their development and the Canucks have failed to give them the tools they need to succeed. I believe this was the straw that broke the camels back as far as Torts was concerned...you build a youth team you hire great coaching staff and then the Canucks head coach doesn't talk to the coach of the youth team at all, big problem! I personally feel it's not as much about how good the Detroit scouts are as how good they are at giving them the tools to ply their trade in the NHL. Detroit obviously has a prototype/ model that they look for in a prospect and they select according to that and then they mould that talent accordingly over a good number of years ( look at Nyquivist, Shehan etc) and then integrate them into the NHL team, it's very successful and with the salary cap the best way to stay competitive or than just plain being bad and getting sure fire draft picks, but we can see that's a tough ride for fans ( hate to be an oilers fan over the last 10 years) All their RECENT draft success hasn't done much for them in the playoffs, ever since they lost to PIT in the SCF they have steadily been declining. I'm emphisizing "recent" not talking about Hudler, Filpula, Franzen et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He-Lord Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Our biggest problem is that we aren't developing our players properly. I'm hoping that all changes now since we finally own our own farm team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Difference is we've only had 5 players play a full season for us that we drafted in the last 10 drafts. That screams poor drafting/development. 5/68 is unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jab316 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 If we trade away Kesler and Schroder, we won't have a single first round draftee from 2000 to 2010 in the organization. That's kind of bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Not really. It's just that the misses have been BIG misses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The goal should be 2-3 players EACH draft eventually turning into NHL'ers. Let's hope that happens in the Benning Era. 2013 might be the only good year draft wise we've had since 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I usually don't think it is who the Canucks chose as to how they developed their young players. With the nightmare with the Minor league team this past couple of years it really is no surprise that many of our draft picks turned into flops. If you really look at it, the only coach that Vancouver really had who was really good with young players was AV. That started in the AHL, he brought up a nobody in Burrows, a late round draft pick in Hansen, Kesler and Bieska was under him in the minors, then when he became our head coach he continued that with Hodgson when he hit the NHL. Schroeder came too late. The problem was that when AV was head coach, they did not have a real solid core to bring up the young kids now. ie Schroeder etc alsp we did not have too much to work with considering the Canucks was giving up their draft picks like they were allergic to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.