[News] Burke says he is unlikely to trade up... hasn't watched Bennett

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

There is no consensus except at the very, very top end in certain drafts (Crosby consensus #1, Ove/Malkin consensus 1/2, Stamkos consensus #1, etc.) Consensus in the draft is a myth. The "board" is a myth.

In Yakupov's year there was clearly no consensus about who the top player was. You give 10 different teams the #1 pick and you might've gotten 5 different #1 picks that year.

Clearly in this draft there is no consensus about the order the top 5-6 should go. You can find endless quotes from GM's and head scouts about it.

Last year there was a consensus group at the top, then a 2nd grouping, then a big drop off, and the draft went exactly that way.

In Yakupov's year, a weak draft year, there was also a consensus group at the top.

I've no freaking idea why you're so adamant that consensus groups don't exist when it comes to the draft. In all recent draft years, the top of the draft has more or less been decided. Yes, there are players that shift - and some players drop drastically, but that's more the exception than the rule.

Whichever order they go, who knows, but the consensus top 5 is Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett and Dal Colle. There are very few outlets that disagree with that group at the top - thus making it a consensus top 5. Everything we've heard the GMs say about the top of the draft has been based around those 5 players with the odd mention of another player from time to time, but by in large, all the GMs in the top 5 seem to be talking about those 5 players.

It's not a pointless subject - it gives us all an opportunity to look into players that our teams may be drafting. It creates discussion. It creates something for fans of awful hockey teams to talk about and get excited about. It's fandom.

[Caged Great]

Here's one bit of bad news and one bit of good news.

The bad news is that after the 25ish-30 mark (around where MacInnis' son is supposed to go), this draft's depth looks a lot like the 2012 draft (which was poor depth wise in comparison to the 2010, 2011, and 2013 drafts)

Now for the good news. There are a lot of really good bigish (6-2+) defensemen that look very good as options for our picks in those rounds.

Aaron Haydon, Travis Sanheim, Brett Lernout and a bunch of others should be available with the Av's pick (6-3, 6-4, 6-4 and they're all Sieloff type guys)

I'd personally like to get Haydon above the others. He's fast + he hits hard and can throw them.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Last year there was a consensus group at the top, then a 2nd grouping, then a big drop off, and the draft went exactly that way.

Nichushkin was in the consensus top group and went 10th. So that hurts your idea of consensus.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

In Yakupov's year, a weak draft year, there was also a consensus group at the top

Yeah? What was that group? At the time Morgan Rielly was not in the consensus top group. And yet the Maple Leafs had him rated #1. So again that blows your idea of consensus out of the water. We know some teams had Murray #1, some had Galchenyuk, some had Rielly and perhaps some had Yakupov. Quite obviously there was no consensus #1.

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Whichever order they go, who knows, but the consensus top 5 is Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett and Dal Colle. There are very few outlets that disagree with that group at the top - thus making it a consensus top 5. Everything we've heard the GMs say about the top of the draft has been based around those 5 players with the odd mention of another player from time to time, but by in large, all the GMs in the top 5 seem to be talking about those 5 players.

And yet Nylander is top 5 in some rankings. Some scouts may have Ritchie top 5. And some may have Ehlers. Doesn't that kind of hurt your idea of a clearcut consensus top 5 guys?

It's a stupid concept because it misleads some fans and then causes dramatic discussions when teams go "off the board". We shouldn't really be surprised if any of Nylander, Ehlers or Ritchie sneak into the top 5. We shouldn't be surprised if a guy like Draisaitl falls out of the top 5. So then there isn't necessarily a consensus top 5 that everybody agrees on.

If we want to handicap it and say its most likely that Bennett, Reinhart, Ekblad, Draisaitl and Dal Colle go top 5 then I'm sure we all agree on that. But lets not make the mistake of confusing ourselves into thinking that because those guys are most often seen in the top 5 that they have to go top 5 and that all teams have those guys as their top 5 because thats not how it works.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

We know some teams had Murray #1, some had Galchenyuk, some had Rielly and perhaps some had Yakupov

I believe it was reported afterwards that the Flames had Galchenyuk #1 IIRC.

Just did a quick search and found mention that "there is video on Flames site where Weisbrod says after interview they moved Galchenyuk to top of that draft (over Yakupov)."

[bucksmasher]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Nichushkin was in the consensus top group and went 10th. So that hurts your idea of consensus.



Yeah? What was that group? At the time Morgan Rielly was not in the consensus top group. And yet the Maple Leafs had him rated #1. So again that blows your idea of consensus out of the water. We know some teams had Murray #1, some had Galchenyuk, some had Rielly and perhaps some had Yakupov. Quite obviously there was no consensus #1.



And yet Nylander is top 5 in some rankings. Some scouts may have Ritchie top 5. And some may have Ehlers. Doesn't that kind of hurt your idea of a clearcut consensus top 5 guys?

It's a stupid concept because it misleads some fans and then causes dramatic discussions when teams go "off the board". We shouldn't really be surprised if any of Nylander, Ehlers or Ritchie sneak into the top 5. We shouldn't be surprised if a guy like Draisaitl falls out of the top 5. So then there isn't necessarily a consensus top 5 that everybody agrees on.

If we want to handicap it and say its most likely that Bennett, Reinhart, Ekblad, Draisaitl and Dal Colle go top 5 then I'm sure we all agree on that. But lets not make the mistake of confusing ourselves into thinking that because those guys are most often seen in the top 5 that they have to go top 5 and that all teams have those guys as their top 5 because thats not how it works.

I would bet my CP account that if you hired a statistician to do a correlation regression type plot that the theoretical top 5 or 10 would have a decently strong correlation with the actual top 5 or 10. Sure there fliers and outliers, but they don't blow away any argument that there is a "board" or a "consensus" group.

[5by5]

You guys are Off Topic? Why don't you just say drafting is objectively subjective? Here are my thoughts on how the draft will go down for Calgary. Please weigh in.

1.) Burke keeps #4 and we pick the top player available at that time. (I think we can all agree that there are 5 guys here. SR/SB/DC/LD/AE)
2.) Burke needs to Snow Garth. Getting the #5 pick would be a coup. What would it take? Rumor is Isles open to offers at this time.
3.) If Isles dont make our day then Burke will target teams with 7-14 picks. He will attempt to draft either Viraten, Tuch, Ritchie or Fluery. These players are all Burke type guys. The Leafs, Canes, Jets, Ducks, Yotes, Preds and Stars could all be trade partners. What do ya think? Any deals to be made here? All of these players fill a need we have.
4.) Will sign Cammy with the promise that he will be traded to contender at 2014 draft or 2015 trade deadline. Im bettin on the DUCKS on draft day.
5.) Dont rag on bringing IGGY back home where he belongs. He is the best RW/UFA available. If he wins the cup, why not think about it? That being said, I don't see any big UFA contracts/players being signed this year. Why? We need room for the kids and there is really not much to choose from anyways. Burke will attempt to make his roster changes via trades thru/in the draft. Callahan could be the exception, cause he fits the bill for our current Americanization. Just sayin.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Nichushkin was in the consensus top group and went 10th. So that hurts your idea of consensus.



Yeah? What was that group? At the time Morgan Rielly was not in the consensus top group. And yet the Maple Leafs had him rated #1. So again that blows your idea of consensus out of the water. We know some teams had Murray #1, some had Galchenyuk, some had Rielly and perhaps some had Yakupov. Quite obviously there was no consensus #1.



And yet Nylander is top 5 in some rankings. Some scouts may have Ritchie top 5. And some may have Ehlers. Doesn't that kind of hurt your idea of a clearcut consensus top 5 guys?

It's a stupid concept because it misleads some fans and then causes dramatic discussions when teams go "off the board". We shouldn't really be surprised if any of Nylander, Ehlers or Ritchie sneak into the top 5. We shouldn't be surprised if a guy like Draisaitl falls out of the top 5. So then there isn't necessarily a consensus top 5 that everybody agrees on.

If we want to handicap it and say its most likely that Bennett, Reinhart, Ekblad, Draisaitl and Dal Colle go top 5 then I'm sure we all agree on that. But lets not make the mistake of confusing ourselves into thinking that because those guys are most often seen in the top 5 that they have to go top 5 and that all teams have those guys as their top 5 because thats not how it works.

just to add to it not being a consensus

Canucks writers said with about a month in the season that the team thought it was a two tier in the top 8, 1-2, and then 3-8 very similar

I have seen other writers say teams have the top 3, and then a drop to 4-5, then another one to 6-8 etc.

you can pretty much guarantee someone probably has one of Reinhart/Ekblad/Bennett outside the top 5 too

[Ryan Coke]

Just to add to the idea of 'there is no board', is how it drove me nuts when people would complain about Feaster / Weisbroad 'thinking they were smarter than everyone else.'

That is the point...trying to be better than the other 29 teams. You create scouting systems and evaluations that you believe will increase your odds of finding good players in the draft, then try to draft better than the other teams. It always annoyed me that some people seemed to want Feaster to do nothing other than try to be average. Whatever you think of Feaster and Weisbroad, or Burke, they had better be trying to be 'smarter' and better than the other 29 teams, because otherwise you are trying to be at best 15th.

I hope most people, in any industry, try to be the best, and better than everyone else, and not merely aim to be average. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you have setbacks, but no person or organization ever achieves excellence if they don't try to be better than average.

[dissentowner]

It drives me nuts that people insinuate that Feaster failed on the Jankowski pick when we have no idea how good he will be yet. Guy could still blossom into a very good player.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Why help propagate a myth that confuses fans? Just because a couple scouting services seem to agree doesn't mean that the teams all agree. Pointless concept IMO.

Does anyone think that all teams agree? Its a discussion point on a message board. Be a fairly boring board if we all just sat around and said well the scouts/GM/Front office know best.

I agree that people get too enraged when a pick is made that they don't agree with when 90% of us haven't seen these players more than once or twice, but if the Flames pick a guy who is ranked 12th by Central Scouting with the 4th pick... its a fair discussion point even if there is 'no board'.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It drives me nuts that people insinuate that Feaster failed on the Jankowski pick when we have no idea how good he will be yet. Guy could still blossom into a very good player.

I think I missed something, but why is Jankow considered to be a bust at all?

Feaster made some silly comments, especially given the progress of Maata/TT.... but that I don't blame him for. Feaster's not a scout and he doesn't do any amateur scouting. This is on Weisbrod and the scouts.

[saXon]

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It drives me nuts that people insinuate that Feaster failed on the Jankowski pick when we have no idea how good he will be yet. Guy could still blossom into a very good player.

He surely could but as of today his stock has fallen to the point where he's probably not even a top 100 prospect in most circles and there are a few players in that draft the Flames could have taken that are ranked top 50/100. I wouldn't be surprised to see him suit up for the Flames one day but my expectations are very low here as we have to hope he's a late bloomer which is pretty hit and miss. I think he would have been a better pick for a team like the Wings that could have cultivated him in their system with low expectations until he's 25 or so. Not sure if he was the correct pick for the Flames who could have used the pick better on a player that could be NHL ready in the coming season or next. Time will tell....

[Zevo]

Why is he a late bloomer? Wasn't he still one of the youngest guys in the NCAA this year?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I remember that but read an article this year where they redrafted the 2012 and 2013 first rounds.

Janko was off the list and Klimchuck was bumped out I will search for the link. Pretty sure it was thn

Here is the link where Janko is still in the first but 4 spots lower

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...NHL-draft.html

What I find interesting is that just a couple of days ago the Hockey News was being panned here as not relevant as it's gone down hill so bad it isn't worth reading but now that it names Jankowski as still worthy of a first round pick as of a year ago and it suits the argument, it's gospel.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

What I find interesting is that just a couple of days ago the Hockey News was being panned here as not relevant as it's gone down hill so bad it isn't worth reading but now that it names Jankowski as still worthy of a first round pick as of a year ago and it suits the argument, it's gospel.

You have to make the distinction between The Hockey News itself and the scouts it polled to make that list. The Hockey News does suck. The opinions of the scouts they polled do have some credence. It's not like it was an opinion piece by the editor or writer.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Does anyone think that all teams agree? Its a discussion point on a message board. Be a fairly boring board if we all just sat around and said well the scouts/GM/Front office know best.

I agree that people get too enraged when a pick is made that they don't agree with when 90% of us haven't seen these players more than once or twice, but if the Flames pick a guy who is ranked 12th by Central Scouting with the 4th pick... its a fair discussion point even if there is 'no board'.

It is a fair discussion point to talk about, for sure. However, it is people who become enraged with picking so off what they consider to be the board. Instead of having an open mind and checking into that prospect more, and trying to figure out why the Flames were so high on him, they vent and spew a bunch of nonsense for days and makes the board almost unreadable.

If the Flames select someone I am not familiar with at the #4 spot, I will take my time to get to know that prospect before I decide whether it is a 'good pick' or a 'bad pick'. Even then, I would still take my time to get to know the pick. I had no idea who Poirier was last year, but boy am I happy he is in the organization.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He surely could but as of today his stock has fallen to the point where he's probably not even a top 100 prospect in most circles and there are a few players in that draft the Flames could have taken that are ranked top 50/100. I wouldn't be surprised to see him suit up for the Flames one day but my expectations are very low here as we have to hope he's a late bloomer which is pretty hit and miss. I think he would have been a better pick for a team like the Wings that could have cultivated him in their system with low expectations until he's 25 or so. Not sure if he was the correct pick for the Flames who could have used the pick better on a player that could be NHL ready in the coming season or next. Time will tell....

Jankowski was picked as a project. Everyone knew he was a project, and so him 'falling out of the top 100' really means very little and should have been expected. It was actually fairly surprising that he was re-ranked in the first round of the draft as projects usually fall.. It is what he ends up doing for the organization in a few years that really matters.

As for being more NHL ready - who really cares? I mean, of course I would love to be seeing a hot-shot rookie out there contributing at an early age, but this rebuild is going to take a few years. I want the best player for down the road, not the best player today. Is Jankowski that? Anyone that answers yes or no is speaking without knowing. Nobody really knows how good Jankowski is. He was so difficult to scout to begin with. He has the size (height), skills, IQ and speed to become an NHL player - he just needs the weight. There are not very many 6'4" centers with loads of skill in the NHL, and if he becomes that then the wait was definitely worth it. If he doesn't - it is also not the end of the world, and I would bet other teams picked players ahead of us that won't crack the NHL. Sucks, but that is part of drafting.

I just find it a bit difficult to be critical of the Flames' drafting in the last few years. They seemed to have been making a lot of good selections even with their 'surprise' picks. No team in the NHL goes 100% in any draft, and no team goes 100% with first rounders. You have to expect a miss here and there in the first round - but hopefully never when they are this high as this year's and probably next year's.

[T@T]

A scout told me all Jankowski needs is alberta beef and you'll see Eric Staal part 2. He truly thinks he can be that good.

On the negative side he said the OHL would have been better for him, he's not big on the college route to begin with for kids who need special direction on what it takes to make the pro's.

Providence isn't exactly a hockey power either.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by saXon

Sure there is and Iggy is the chairman.

Spoiler!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by T@T

A scout told me all Jankowski needs is alberta beef and you'll see Eric Staal part 2. He truly thinks he can be that good.

On the negative side he said the OHL would have been better for him, he's not big on the college route to begin with for kids who need special direction on what it takes to make the pro's.

Providence isn't exactly a hockey power either.

Providence isn't a hockey power but they've been surprising a lot of people. Nate Leaman is the head coach and thus the head hocho there and the program has done a complete 180 since he took over. Leaman was the guy who recruited the vast majority of players for recent NCAA champion Union College before he left to take over Providence.

Who knows what that means long term but Leaman is a sharp hockey mind and I wouldn't bet against that program much longer. Hopefully the Flame were ahead of the curve selecting guys Providence bound, but again, that remains to be seen.

I couldn't imagine Jankowski going from Canadian high school hockey right into the CHL, that slight frame, even slighter as a 17 year old would have been torn in two. College was the obvious and best choice. I suppose Jankowski proved some doubters wrong when making the very tough jump right to College leaping over the USHL... But the physical rigors of Major Junior could have been disastrous.