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

A Tale of Two Bennings

Rate this topic


JamesB

Recommended Posts

Everyone always brings up what a great scout Benning is but he’s whiffed on two really high draft picks (Jake at 6, Juolevi at 5). Sure Pettersson and Hughes look amazing, but top end draft picks are supposed to turn out into great players. The only players drafted by Benning in the later rounds currently playing for our team are Demko and Gaudette. I don’t feel like he’s this big draft guru that everyone is making him out to be.  

  • Haha 1
  • Wat 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Game said:

Everyone always brings up what a great scout Benning is but he’s whiffed on two really high draft picks (Jake at 6, Juolevi at 5). Sure Pettersson and Hughes look amazing, but top end draft picks are supposed to turn out into great players. The only players drafted by Benning in the later rounds currently playing for our team are Demko and Gaudette. I don’t feel like he’s this big draft guru that everyone is making him out to be.  

so your criteria for success is

every first round pick must be a star or superstar

jb has not missed on any 1st round pick

 

go look at other teams

see how many gms can say that

and the look at the home run drafts he achieved

ep40, brock, well hughes did fall in his lap

but gaudette, demko, and i'm sure i'm missing others

an no, ep40 did not fall to him, the consensus on these boards was glass

 

Edited by coastal.view
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hammertime said:

I think he's in tough (JB)

 

It takes huevos to say hey Frankie we bout to flip this switch member those top 5 picks we been playing for the bast few seasons ya were done with that sh.. And to prove it I'm a trade one of the next 2. 

 

 I still don't think this team is as good as the record suggests however where credit is due I have to respect the man and I cheer for him to succeed.    

The last two seasons they have been very competitive when they were healthy.  People are acting like this season is the outlier, when it's actually the progression of the past three seasons.

 

It's all about staying healthy, something they haven't been able to do.  If they stay healthy, they are a legitimately good team.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

so your criteria for success is

every first round pick must be a star or superstar

jb has not missed on any 1st round pick

 

go look at other teams

see how many gms can say that

and the look at the home run drafts he achieved

ep40, brock, well hughes did fall in his lap

but gaudette, demko, and i'm sure i'm missing others

an no, ep40 did not fall to him, the consensus on these boards was glass

 

Even in Jake's and OJ's draft classes, the guy taken before each was a total bust.  People complained we reached for Petey; I wanted Mittlestadt, but didn't have a problem with the pick.  Most seemed to want Vilardi or Glass, and I was definItely an outlier for wanting neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Even in Jake's and OJ's draft classes, the guy taken before each was a total bust.  People complained we reached for Petey; I wanted Mittlestadt, but didn't have a problem with the pick.  Most seemed to want Vilardi or Glass, and I was definItely an outlier for wanting neither.

My guy was Heiskanen and so I kind of pouted/lost interest after Dallas snatched him.   I didn’t know much about the other players, but recall being surprised/taken aback when we selected Pettersson.   I was fully expecting us to take Cody Glass at that point (although I didn’t really know Glass or Pettersson very well).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nucksfollower1983 said:

You should. There are a lot of bandwagon fans in any market for any sport. Never saw the ESPN article, what was their criteria?

Pretty sure this is the one, I haven't read it in a year or so, make of it what you will. I took out some teams cause it was too long but included the link in case you want to read them all. 

 

https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/25416866/nhl-homecoming-bandwagon-rankings

Quote

The Wysh List publishes every Friday.

One of the best trends in the NHL over the past decade or so are the waves of popularity created by the resurgence of the Chicago Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins and Boston Bruins during their championship runs.

Their championship contention felt like a national movement: Fans from yesteryear, fans from the region who relocated -- everyone came back to root for them. It was the Homecoming Bandwagon effect, and it was glorious.

Who might be the next team to provoke such a reaction by reversing its fortunes? Glad you asked.

Here are the current NHL Homecoming Bandwagon rankings, for the top 15 teams.

The following teams are rated on five factors: Pity, which can be everything from a championship drought to a general sadness about the team's plight; City, as in "how much does the populace like this place?" overall; Nostalgia, as in the warm fuzzies the team would create like the rise of the Blackhawks and Bruins did; National Pull, as in how big the national bandwagon would be; and Root-ability, as in whether we'd actually want this team to win anything.

If we didn't include your team it's because it won too recently or are contending too frequently or we're just apathetic to its plight.

15. Florida Panthers (21)

Pity Factor: 8

City: 1

Nostalgia: 3

National Pull: 3

Root-ability: 6

The city score would be helped if, you know, the "Miami" team actually played there. But the Panthers' playoff droughts land them a high Pity and decent Root-ability score, although the "Year of the Rat" nostalgia may have run its course.

14. Carolina Hurricanes (22)

Pity Factor: 5

City: 3

Nostalgia: 3

National Pull: 3

Root-ability: 8

We might be going a little high on the City score, because we're not sure how much national affection there is for Raleigh. Having won the Cup before also knocks down the Pity Factor. But given how they've played and celebrated this season, they've never been more likable.

13. Columbus Blue Jackets (24)

Pity Factor: 7

City: 5

Nostalgia: 1

National Pull: 4

Root-ability: 7

There's not exactly much nostalgia here, unless one yearns for the halcyon days of David Vyborny. But it's possible the Blue Jackets could capture the hockey world's affection as a small-market team making its first championship push.

12. Vancouver Canucks (25)

Pity Factor: 5

City: 6

Nostalgia: 5

National Pull: 4

Root-ability: 5

Their Root-ability has ticked up a bit thanks to an influx of great young players, but the negative sentiments about this franchise still burn like a post-Game 7 ember in some corners.

 

1. Buffalo Sabres (45)

Pity Factor: 10

City: 8

Nostalgia: 10

National Pull: 9

Root-ability: 8

C'mon now: The skate in the crease. The close-but-no-cigar runs with Hasek, and again in 2006. The existence of the Buffalo Bills. There's not but pity for this team, and nothing but a national rooting interest from both Western NY expats and people who just loved using Alexander Mogilny on "NHL 93." If the Sabres get close to winning their first Cup again, the hockey world will embrace them. Especially if they eliminate the Leafs along the way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the proof that he is actually learning is in who he let go more than who he acquired. From Gudbranson the end of last year to letting MDZ, Pouliot, Hutton and Granlund walk. Those guys were weak links and I’m sure Sutter would be gone if healthy as well even though he is playing fantastic right now. 

also drafting high skill and fallers in the draft shows he is seeing the game transition to what it is now and even if Podkolzin doesn’t pan out he was easily the best player available and hard to blame.

Edited by KyGuy123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timråfan said:

Most of CDC is clearly biased towards big NA players. Skinny foreign players is not the first picks. :bigblush:

 

I mean, we're Canadian. Obviously we like Canadian players. But Canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the world. So when it comes to hockey, we like winners. Whether you're Russian, Finish, Swedish, Danish etc, it doesn't matter. Leave it all on the ice and the fans will love you for life.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, coastal.view said:

so your criteria for success is

every first round pick must be a star or superstar

jb has not missed on any 1st round pick

 

go look at other teams

see how many gms can say that

and the look at the home run drafts he achieved

ep40, brock, well hughes did fall in his lap

but gaudette, demko, and i'm sure i'm missing others

an no, ep40 did not fall to him, the consensus on these boards was glass

 


Did you even read my post? What I said was that while Benning certainly has hit on some draft picks (mostly Elias and Brock) he’s missed on some (Jake and Olli).
 

What do you mean when you say that he hasn’t missed on any first round draft pick? Juolevi was picked at number 5 overall three years ago and has yet to play an NHL game, Matthew Tkachuk (34 goals last year) was picked right after him. That’s a miss I my book.

 

And calling Gaudette a “home run pick” seems a bit pre mature, the guy’s scored six career NHL goals. 
 

I’m not saying that Benning has done a horrible job, I’m saying that he hasn’t been as good as some people on here try say that he has. 

Edited by The Game
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Game said:

Everyone always brings up what a great scout Benning is but he’s whiffed on two really high draft picks (Jake at 6, Juolevi at 5). Sure Pettersson and Hughes look amazing, but top end draft picks are supposed to turn out into great players. The only players drafted by Benning in the later rounds currently playing for our team are Demko and Gaudette. I don’t feel like he’s this big draft guru that everyone is making him out to be.  

Yes and no.  As in yes he’s not great, but he is considered pretty good - and it’s way to early even now to know how good.   Every year THN does a ranking of the best 21 and unders and then an analysis of how well teams did compared to each other based on ADP - or average draft position over the four year period teams drafted those 21 and unders .... and Vancouver has come out in the top ten the last two years (which covers JBs draft periods only) 9 last year.   Even though we have a top two or three group.  Guy ages out each year (BB and Demko did this year), but we still have EP, Hughes Podz etc in that group and it’s enough to be ahead of almost every other team in the league.  

 

People that think teams hit on most of their second rounders need to do some research - and only 12.5% of 3rd rounders and beyond are hits (JB has two of those already, AG and Tree, one every 8 years or so is average). 

 

THN uses a varying system where the following are considered busts.  Top three picks that don’t play 700 Games, top ten picks that don’t play 400.   First rounders that don’t play 200.   This only counts for the first round.     Also they go deeper into how big the busts are and have terms for those.  Which is why I said at the beginning it’s still too early to really know exactly how well he’s done, but he’s definitely in the top third of the group REGARDLESS of where he’s drafting, add to that the high picks and it looks great so far.   Only OJ looks to be a bust so far using these metrics - but even then injuries played a lot into his development - so who really knows.  

 

As an aside despite all the tools available to them now once they make the show and the extra scouting staff,  there are still as many misses as hits looking at the guys drafted in the 90’s and 2000’s based on a recent study.   Button called it before it was done too, smart guy. 

 

Also want to add, just for fun go back and review a few of our highly lauded GMs track history’s and their drafting records.  Quin did a lot of things for the club but had his fair share of zeros on the draft board too, most notably Stajonov (7 or 8 I think) and Antoski (mid teens) in the same year.  Of course he also went after Bure and it worked.  Nedved instead of Jagr (can be forgiven for this as he did tell everyone that he wasn’t interested- except for the Pens in secret) ...  

 

Takes 10 years to mostly know what you have - and 15-20 to completely know.   

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB did have a learning curve.  He has steadily improved at his job.  

 

Hard to to say if the turn around could have been sooner.  The keys are Ep40, Hughes, Boeser, Horvat and Markstrom.  Getting Myers and Benn have been huge factors as well.  

 

Markstrom has been a welcome bit if good news and took a long time to get there.  

 

Yes we could have drafted Tkachuk and Nyalnder vs OJ and Jake.  Sure we would have been better in the last few years, not a playoff team and with hindsite Ep40 and Hughes would not have been available at our draft spot.  Yet we would've really be better. 

 

Yet both Jake and OJ are rounding into form at the right time be effective. 

 

The only season I really had an issue with not talking openly was the Mathews Draft.  I strongly felt that Hamhuis should have been dealt at the tdl.  We would have lost 3 more games and instead of drafting OJ, we could have had a shot at Mathews, Laine or PLD, which means we would have had Subban if the latter was available at our draft spot.  

 

But we would have missed Ep40.  No doubt.  Then Hughes, no doubt.  I think we could have been a playoff team, but without the depth or star players on ELC's.  

 

Love what we have now, just don't care about it taking 4 years or 3.  

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you give Benning enough credit and have recognized the patience that's involved and workarounds these guys have to deal with (injuries, players' decisions to do something different/bolt, etc.).  While having plan b's and depth is part of that....it also changes game plans at times.

 

And to be "lucky" with draft picks?  Sort of offsets some of the unluckier aspects of his tenure.  So you've actually helped highlight that, to some degree, luck is involved. That when he picks, chooses, selects, trades for players it's somewhat out of his control if they live up to things and we're quick to assign blame but, in the next breath, credit "luck" for things that do work out.  It's at both ends that some faith/luck factor in.

 

People want immediate decisions, moves and results in a deal that has ever changing parts and others who determine if we get what we want or not.  All the teams vying for the same thing.

 

I don't feel I'm qualified to assess Benning and it feels slightly ego driven to do so.  We all feel we have the answers in this world and are quick to judge and criticize others...but the only true test is walking a mile in their shoes.  And we simply don't have the ability to do so.

 

The measure in all of this will mostly be the end product/results....the beginning was just that.  Some times pieces are added/subtracted on a more temporary basis as fill gaps...but maybe aren't part of the long term picture.  Some times players will be put into place for more than just their on ice contributions...in the room and to help guide the newer guys coming in.

 

So many "moves" have been harshly reacted to initially but have really worked out well.  There will be good and bad...happens with every team that deals with not only skill but individuals who are at different levels of commitment and investment.  Work ethic is huge but you don't always see where that's set at.  A player's flexibility and cooperation....do they willingly do what's asked of them or sulk and pout and make demands?  

 

When you deal with a "team" of multiple individuals it can take time to strike the right balance.  Especially when you're adopting the team and then having to work around the restrictions noted.  The sample size wasn't there in the beginning and now is...so I'd say he's done well overall to get us to the point we're at right now.  

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RonMexico said:

Disagree on this point.

 

You learn on the job as AGM. Then when you take over, you already know all the ins and outs. Granted his mentor was clearly suspect but you don't fall backwards into a Cup.

 

I do agree that learning by doing is a fundamental aspect of human activity but in this case, I think doesn't 100% apply. There are a few things you will learn on your own but by and large you gotta have a really good idea if you were an AGM first.

 

To my eyes, I saw a team in disarray and he tried to plug the holes of a sinking ship. Sure there were more misses than hits in the early going but that's par for the course in this business.

FSKuOgb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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