Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
What is wrong with the logic that says the 6th overall in a deep year is much more like the 3rd overall in a weak year?
I've seen some quotes recently that Monahan would've gone #1 in the last 3 drafts. And he's ranked in the 6-8 range by most.
Seems clear to me that comparing our pick to #6 picks in weak draft years doesn't make much sense.
|
Agree with this - though I only read a couple of places where some felt Monahan and Lindholm would 'arguably' be in the same conversations as Yakupov.
From what I have read:
Jones, MacKinnon, Drouin are clear 'better #1s than the last 3 years".
Barkov and Nichushkin are 'probably better'.
Monahan and Lindholm are in the same conversations.
However, your point does stand, and I think up until the 7th pick, something has to go 'wrong' on the development side of things in order for one of these picks not to become an 'impact player' in the NHL. They will not all necessarily become elite, but I strongly feel they will all become solid players.
This is what makes it such a good draft this year, as well as some scouts saying there is still plenty of 1st round talent available deep in the 2nd round. It is a high-end draft, and it is a deep draft. Truly a special draft class.
I 100% agree that you can't compare pick-by-pick from one year to another. You have to compare the quality of the prospects. To emphasize that point in a super-######ed way of looking at it - who would argue that the Lemieux, Lindros or Crosby years = this year for the first overall selection? Think MacKinnon could get the package that Lindros was offered (or even the other rumored packages that were turned down?). Of course not. Same goes for the other picks. There is a reason why this draft year is heralded as having exceptional talent at the top end - and pick #6 (though just past the 'drop-off') has talks of prospects that would at least be in the conversations in the first 3 picks of the last couple of years. Nothing wrong with saying that I think.