Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The end of the present scouting staff


PhillipBlunt

Recommended Posts

Wow....just frigging wow...the scouting and drafting the last few years has been better than ever.

It is not a new scouting staff you want OP....it is a medium that can see the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree that the scouting has been better than ever, but I would like a medium to see the future though.

Know where I can find one on the cheap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think we need to take a harder look at how we develop our picks. the carlyle/vigneault era in manitoba was really good for the team. you don't just draft and wait. these young players need to be taught and mentored. they need to play as pros and win some minor league games before they can make the jump to the show.

our truest weakness when it comes to depth is the direct result of a weak farm team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what a lot of people gloss over is the fact that the Canucks sub par record in terms of NHL talent drafted has something to do with poor player development too. You can draft the best available player and turn him into a nothing if he is not developed properly. Or you can draft a player no one sees anything in later in the draft and develop him properly into something great.

My only reason for wanting a change in the scouting department is that it is time for a new perspective on things when it comes to drafting. The Canucks record is not great but development has had a bigger part in that than many care to admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

di

I think what a lot of people gloss over is the fact that the Canucks sub par record in terms of NHL talent drafted has something to do with poor player development too. You can draft the best available player and turn him into a nothing if he is not developed properly. Or you can draft a player no one sees anything in later in the draft and develop him properly into something great.

My only reason for wanting a change in the scouting department is that it is time for a new perspective on things when it comes to drafting. The Canucks record is not great but development has had a bigger part in that than many care to admit.

ditto, posting at the same time same angle. hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once his hiring is made official, I'm hoping Jim Benning cans the entire scouting staff starting with Ron Delorme.

This was something Gillis claimed he would take a good hard look at and, I guess based on history, never got past the looking stage.

Since 2000, the Canucks have maintained an abysmal scouting record and the bleeding has got to stop at some point.

Who's with me?

Just curious here: has anyone ever seen the Canucks' draft lists as presented by the scouting staff for each year starting with 2000? And who made the big decision on the 1st pick, the head scout or the GM? Were the scouts responsible for going off the board and taking White, or was that a decision made at the GM level?

And what about selections made after the first? I'm assuming that the team management and scouts got together and talked about ranking prospects, both as BPA and positionally.

If the Canucks' drafting is supposed to have been so bad, then it seems to me the only reason that the scouting staff still have their jobs is that they were being over-ruled at a higher level, or they were in complete agreement with management. Either way, Burke, Nonis and Gillis were mostly failures.

That being said...

In 2000 the Canucks drafted Nathan Smith (23rd). Of the 22 players drafted before him, arguably 14 were "busts" in that they either never played in the NHL, or played at a level well below that which was anticipated: DiPietro (bad team, and contract issues didn't help), Torres (glorified 3rd/4th liner. Great choice for the 2nd to third round), Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev, Smirnov, Nedorost, Kryukov, Hossa, Mikhnov, Kolanos, Hale.

Certainly an argument can be made pro/con the guys on the list and the ones which I left off. Don't care, you get the picture.

In 2001 the Canucks drafted Umberger at 16th. Probably 4 of the guys drafted before could be considered busts.

The team didn't have a 1st rounder in 2002, but they eventually got two players on the roster from the 1st round that year: Ballard and Higgins.

The list for 2003 is filled with guys picked before Kesler, and they could be considered busts, or at least playing below their potential.

We could go down the entire line and find busts, diamonds in the rough, and surprising greatness. All of these can be used to support an argument one way or the other, but since the people making these points generally are working from a position of little to no actual factual information their words really boil down to nothing more than opinion.

It would be interesting to see an archive of just what people thought the Canucks should have drafted, and who they want drafted this year. Enter your selection just prior to the Canucks selection, so you don't have to go back and change anything if the guy you want is drafted higher than 6th, or maybe there's a trade. When the Canucks name is called, you hit "enter" to submit your selection. (Could crash the board, so maybe not.)

And then, in a few years we can go back and have a few laughs about it all, and wonder what all the fuss was about.

regards,

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once his hiring is made official, I'm hoping Jim Benning cans the entire scouting staff starting with Ron Delorme.

This was something Gillis claimed he would take a good hard look at and, I guess based on history, never got past the looking stage.

Since 2000, the Canucks have maintained an abysmal scouting record and the bleeding has got to stop at some point.

Who's with me?

Fire Delorme then?

I guess it should be a gradual weeding out of unsuccessful scouts

Oh great. Another holier than thou homer fan. It's detritus like you that clogs up the ability for other fans to have normal discussions.

There is no clear cut definition of what a fan is. And if you think that a fan is someone who never questions scouting, I have news for you. You got ripped off.

Whoever claimed they gave you a haircut actually performed a lobotomy.

Nuff said

Again you prove my point that you're an annoying holier than thou "fan", who refers to other posters opinions as BS.

You possess an amazing talent for copy/pasting. What a gifted individual.

You lack the maturity to have a proper discussion due to your immediate labelling and deferring.

Before you joined this discussion with your blind homerism, it was filled with comments by individuals who made great points without weakly resorting to the infantile statements and generalizations like you did.

Your actually the worst type of fan. One that believes being a fan means following rigid criteria set out in your pea brain.

Keep letting that little towel waver define who you are though....

I disagree that the scouting has been better than ever, but I would like a medium to see the future though.

Know where I can find one on the cheap?

Wow OP, you plainly ask who is with you... You post absolutely no facts to back up your premise.. Then whine like a little baby if someone posts something that you don't like. :picard:

But I believe its a country with free speech so you are entitled to your little cry. Cheer up, the sun will shine tomorrow.

and I am sure someone must be with you, or I hope at least, one person is! :wub:

Go :canucks::towel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious here: has anyone ever seen the Canucks' draft lists as presented by the scouting staff for each year starting with 2000? And who made the big decision on the 1st pick, the head scout or the GM? Were the scouts responsible for going off the board and taking White, or was that a decision made at the GM level?

And what about selections made after the first? I'm assuming that the team management and scouts got together and talked about ranking prospects, both as BPA and positionally.

If the Canucks' drafting is supposed to have been so bad, then it seems to me the only reason that the scouting staff still have their jobs is that they were being over-ruled at a higher level, or they were in complete agreement with management. Either way, Burke, Nonis and Gillis were mostly failures.

That being said...

In 2000 the Canucks drafted Nathan Smith (23rd). Of the 22 players drafted before him, arguably 14 were "busts" in that they either never played in the NHL, or played at a level well below that which was anticipated: DiPietro (bad team, and contract issues didn't help), Torres (glorified 3rd/4th liner. Great choice for the 2nd to third round), Jonsson, Alexeev, Krahn, Yakubov, Vorobiev, Smirnov, Nedorost, Kryukov, Hossa, Mikhnov, Kolanos, Hale.

Certainly an argument can be made pro/con the guys on the list and the ones which I left off. Don't care, you get the picture.

In 2001 the Canucks drafted Umberger at 16th. Probably 4 of the guys drafted before could be considered busts.

The team didn't have a 1st rounder in 2002, but they eventually got two players on the roster from the 1st round that year: Ballard and Higgins.

The list for 2003 is filled with guys picked before Kesler, and they could be considered busts, or at least playing below their potential.

We could go down the entire line and find busts, diamonds in the rough, and surprising greatness. All of these can be used to support an argument one way or the other, but since the people making these points generally are working from a position of little to no actual factual information their words really boil down to nothing more than opinion.

It would be interesting to see an archive of just what people thought the Canucks should have drafted, and who they want drafted this year. Enter your selection just prior to the Canucks selection, so you don't have to go back and change anything if the guy you want is drafted higher than 6th, or maybe there's a trade. When the Canucks name is called, you hit "enter" to submit your selection. (Could crash the board, so maybe not.)

And then, in a few years we can go back and have a few laughs about it all, and wonder what all the fuss was about.

regards,

G.

Well said, if you look at the other 29 teams drafts, over the same period they all did close to the same, with a very few doing somewhat better. Benning is high on my list mainly because he will bring us to the very top. Nice Post Thanks

Go :canucks::towel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow OP, you plainly ask who is with you... You post absolutely no facts to back up your premise.. Then whine like a little baby if someone posts something that you don't like. :picard:

But I believe its a country with free speech so you are entitled to your little cry. Cheer up, the sun will shine tomorrow.

and I am sure someone must be with you, or I hope at least, one person is! :wub:

Go :canucks::towel:

What a sad post. Even for a troll you're pathetic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a sad post. Even for a troll you're pathetic.

Well as an OP if you are going to make a post its a good idea to have at least one fact to back up your premise, instead of just whining about other posters. I guess you don't have any facts so all you can do is cry and call names, so sad!

:bored:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as an OP if you are going to make a post its a good idea to have at least one fact to back up your premise, instead of just whining about other posters. I guess you don't have any facts so all you can do is cry and call names, so sad!

:bored:

Just one infantile troll of a poster, who began calling names and making judgments. I fed you for a little while but now I realize your better served by being ignored.

I started a fruitful discussion in which many people made great points both for and against the present scouting staff.

And then there was your "input" based on the good ole "either you're with us or against us" schtick. What's next, your version of the Beer Hall Putsch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one infantile troll of a poster, who began calling names and making judgments. I fed you for a little while but now I realize your better served by being ignored.

I started a fruitful discussion in which many people made great points both for and against the present scouting staff.

And then there was your "input" based on the good ole "either you're with us or against us" schtick. What's next, your version of the Beer Hall Putsch?

My Mama always counciled that one must 'consider the source', Phil .. I just bought a new life jacket, so count me in .. just no more damn peyote!!! .. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody that actually checks the records!!!

Lets have a look, instead of just making up nonsense!!!

Drafting is often based on whether the team feels it needs a Center, L or R Winger or Dman.

Lets look back at 10 years of our 1st round draft

2003 Ryan Kesler 23: Best Available

2004 Cory Schneider 26: Best Available

2005 Luc Bourdon 10: Best Available

2006 Michael Grabner 14: Good Pick - Claude Giroux went 22

2007 Patrick White 25: Poor Pick - P.K. Subban went 43

2008 Cody Hodgson 10: Good Pick - Erik Karlsson D went 15, Jordan Eberle went 22

2009 Jordan Schroeder 22: Ok Pick - Ryan O'Reilly went 33

2010 No picks till 4th round

2011 Nicklas Jensen 29 Good Pick - Brandon Saad went 43

2012 Brendan Gaunce 26 Best Available

2013 Bo Horvat 9 Great Pick - could argue for Valeri Nichushkin 10, only time will tell

2013 Hunter Shinkaruk 24 Best Available

Most of our picks have been 20+, Our scouts have done an amazing job getting us the best picks, pretty much every year.

Its easy to look backwards and say for example P.K. Subban was available in 2007 and went 43rd. But all that means is he was passed over by everyone at least once and twice by several teams, I am sure every team wish they drafted him now.

Our scouts have been able to give us a good pick, or the best available on a consistent basis. Its a tough job trying to predict how a draftee will develop. By their record we probably have the best scouts in the league. I would like to see what other teams have done with picks below 10 never mind all the picks we had below 20.

Go Scouts :)

Don't be a crybaby and call yourself a fan.

Nuff said

Go Canucks :towel:

I do agree that the scouts get maybe too much flack but there was a 3 year stint from 2005-2007 in which I thought their drafting was brutal. If anything, they should have been fired then but since 2008, they have been picking well.

Bourdon? NOPE KOPITARZZZ (this one was obvious and he was ranked #1 for European Skaters)

Grabner? NOPE (pick one of Giroux,Lewis, Stewart, Berglund, Foligno, Lucic, McGinn, Simmons)

P White? LOLZ

They should have been canned after those 3 years but in a way, they have made up for it by picking guys like Jensen. If they can continue their recent streak, then they should stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody that actually checks the records!!!

Lets have a look, instead of just making up nonsense!!!

Drafting is often based on whether the team feels it needs a Center, L or R Winger or Dman.

Lets look back at 10 years of our 1st round draft

2003 Ryan Kesler 23: Best Available

2004 Cory Schneider 26: Best Available

2005 Luc Bourdon 10: Best Available Anze Kopitar 11th

2006 Michael Grabner 14: Good Pick - Claude Giroux went 22

2007 Patrick White 25: Poor Pick -David Perron 26th P.K. Subban went 43

2008 Cody Hodgson 10: Good Pick - Erik Karlsson D went 15, Jordan Eberle went 22

2009 Jordan Schroeder 22: Ok Pick - Ryan O'Reilly went 33

2010 No picks till 4th round

2011 Nicklas Jensen 29 Good Pick - Brandon Saad went 43

2012 Brendan Gaunce 26 Best Available

2013 Bo Horvat 9 Great Pick - could argue for Valeri Nichushkin 10, only time will tell

2013 Hunter Shinkaruk 24 Best Available

Most of our picks have been 20+, Our scouts have done an amazing job getting us the best picks, pretty much every year.

Its easy to look backwards and say for example P.K. Subban was available in 2007 and went 43rd. But all that means is he was passed over by everyone at least once and twice by several teams, I am sure every team wish they drafted him now.

Our scouts have been able to give us a good pick, or the best available on a consistent basis. Its a tough job trying to predict how a draftee will develop. By their record we probably have the best scouts in the league. I would like to see what other teams have done with picks below 10 never mind all the picks we had below 20.

Go Scouts :)

Don't be a crybaby and call yourself a fan.

Nuff said

Go Canucks :towel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The framework for improvement has been made.

We now have our own farm team. So in theory we should have more control on how are prospects are developed in the AHL.

That's a huge step. If the two head coaches can communicate, they should even be able to match systems so that players from the AHL when they are called up to the NHL, it's an easier transition.

Delorme has been stripped of his head scout duties. Although I agree a gradual weeding out of the poor scouts and bringing in better scouts should be priority. Not only do we not scout Europe very well. We don't even scout in our own backyard!!! With the Giants and a host of teams in the BCHL in close proximity we should be able to find late round picks that have a chance at being an NHL'ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the scouts get maybe too much flack but there was a 3 year stint from 2005-2007 in which I thought their drafting was brutal. If anything, they should have been fired then but since 2008, they have been picking well.

Bourdon? NOPE KOPITARZZZ (this one was obvious and he was ranked #1 for European Skaters)

Grabner? NOPE (pick one of Giroux,Lewis, Stewart, Berglund, Foligno, Lucic, McGinn, Simmons)

P White? LOLZ

They should have been canned after those 3 years but in a way, they have made up for it by picking guys like Jensen. If they can continue their recent streak, then they should stay.

So, you're at the table with Nonis for each of these drafts (the GM who drafted these guys) and he says who the 1st round picks are going to be. What does anyone have to say to him to change his mind and pick someone else?

regards,

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...