So, where do we find our Shea Weber ?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by moon

Looking at that defense proves that you need to draft high as that is likely the worst defensive group in the league or at least bottom 5.

No argument from me that they are one of the worst groups out there, but the point was more that you don't have to get all your pieces from high drafting. Giordano would be #3 on a championship team, Wideman #4-#5, Brodie #2-#4. Then Cundari and O'Brien can play NHL minutes without hurting your team. Smith, Butler, Russell are all adequate depth defenders yet Russell was drafted in the 3rd round.

Just saying that draft position isn't the only factor to consider when looking at defensemen.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It has already been said a few times, but I thought it best to be direct in my response to your post.

You're wrong. This is not the only option—nor is it even a good option that the Flames should consider. Teams should only very rarely draft by position to fill weaknesses in their prospect pool, and it should NEVER become a full-scale draft philosophy that replaces picking the best player available. A team like the Flames simply cannot afford to let highly skilled players pass because of a perceived need, especially since there are quite a number of highly pronounced needs to begin with.

A much better option—in my opinion, the very best option available—is for this team to simply keep doing what it is currently doing: their due diligence in scouting and drafting, and picking the best player available each year with little or no regard for his position played.

I thought that the draft videos that came out this summer somewhat debunked the idea of drafting purely based on BPA and ignoring organizational need. It seemed that all of the teams had their own list that did not line up with what McKenzie or Button published and more often than not the team lists seemed to be swayed pretty heavily by organizational need.

There seems to be very few examples of a team walking up to the podium and everyone knowing who the BPA is for that team. Even in the top 5 last draft it was a pretty big shock to see Jones drop to the Preds after being hyped up as the #1 guy for all of the previous season.

I have no problem with this. When the Flames are going up to the podium next summer and potentially have Reinhart, Nylander, Ekblad and whoever else emerges between now and then on the board, is there really a wrong choice? I would be happy if we end up picking Ekblad because of organizational need but I would also be happy if we pick Reinhart because maybe he is the pure BPA. Either way we get a great asset that should contribute to the sucess of the team or be used in a trade to make the team better.

[Enoch Root]

The thing is, it is just really hard to evaluate defensemen at 18 years of age - the learning curve is long and steep, and some guys are going to ascend it and most aren't. The problem is that it is really difficult to assess in advance who will.

The obvious solution is quantity.

I think as a general rule, top picks should focus on forwards, and centres in particular.

After that, I think you should try and acquire as many D prospects as you can in the middle rounds. Draft lots of them and develop them patiently.

The more cracks you take at it, the more likely you are to hit it big.

I love that the Flames have drafted 7 D in the last two years - I hope they keep taking 3 or 4 each draft.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Best Player Available is always according to each team's list and the attributes they are looking for in players. It is not according to a McKenzie or Button consensus poll.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

No argument from me that they are one of the worst groups out there, but the point was more that you don't have to get all your pieces from high drafting. Giordano would be #3 on a championship team, Wideman #4-#5, Brodie #2-#4. Then Cundari and O'Brien can play NHL minutes without hurting your team. Smith, Butler, Russell are all adequate depth defenders yet Russell was drafted in the 3rd round.

Just saying that draft position isn't the only factor to consider when looking at defensemen.

I don't think those guys would be as high as you have them and doubt whether SOB, Cundari or Wideman could play on Championship teams, maybe Wideman as a 6th man PP specialist playing sub 10 minutes a game ES.

SOB certainly hurts you team playing NHL minutes with his pylon defense and dumb, dumb penalties.

It is certainly possible to win the Cup without highly drafted players but looking at recent winners it sure doesn't seem likely and looking at the top defensemen in the league it looks very unlikely that you get them from the lower rounds in the draft.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

I say wait for the kids to arrive:

Tyler Wotherspoon-2nd round
Patrick Sieloff-2nd round
John Ramage-4th round
Ryan Culkin-5th round
Keegan Kanzig-3rd round
Eric Roy-5th round
Brett Kulak-4th round

There's my top 7 in about 3 years time without considering how good Brodie will be by then. That is without even considering who we could draft this year or players picked up through free agency or trade (which I am sure we will do at some point).

Back to the OPs point: I don't know if any of these current defenders are franchise defensemen, but I'm willing to wait and see for now and continue drafting and acquiring assets and let their development fall where it may.

This.

Thing is, I don't think the question is "how are we getting a Weber" but "how are we building our defence corps". Weber by himself is great, but he's not a word beater. Guys like Chara and Pronger? They're unique talent, and I can't say there is any actual "way" to go about acquiring a guy who's going to become that. Even Seth Jones might not ever get to that level, it's a really unique thing for a defenceman. If you're looking at guys like Seabrook or Weber and saying "how do we get THAT guy" I would say we potentially HAVE those guys. I don't mean that in a way the over values our prospects, but defence progresses in such a way that you really never know until your guys are in their mid-20s what exactly you have on your hands. There is no reason that Seiloff and Brodie couldn't be a Weber/Suter in 4 years. Likely? Absolutely not, but it's possible.

To my point, I don't think we need to worry about getting THAT guy, but rather getting an outfit that really compliments each other. In every successful system it's less about the one guy and more about the pairings.

Seabrook isn't who he is without Keith

You have to find two guys who really compliment each other, and the only way you do that is by drafting a variety of styles. I think we've done that, so I think we wait and see.

[Northendzone]

i think we should go down to teh corner of 8th and 19th and get him. this corner is also known as the Shea Weber district......

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Mark Giordano-undrafted signed as a free agent
T.J. Brodie-4th round
Dennis Wideman-8th round
Shane O'Brien-8th round
Chris Butler-4th round
Mark Cundari-undrafted signed as a free agent
Derek Smith-undrafted signed as a free agent
Kris Russell-3rd round

Look at that defense group and tell me you need to draft high to get NHL defensemen.

You pretty much just demonstrated the opposite to what you were trying to prove.

That defence is not going to contend for anything except a high draft position.

To answer the OP...

You will find him in Nashville. Just like the last one. Nashville is a defenceman factory.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

You pretty much just demonstrated the opposite to what you were trying to prove.

That defence is not going to contend for anything except a high draft position.

See my response to moon and you'll see what I was trying to say.

[ricardodw]

Seabrook #14 Leddy #16, Keith #54, Oduya #221, Hjalmarsson #108, Rozsival #105

Chara #56, Boychuck #61, Ferrence #208, McQuaid #55, Seidenberg #172, Bartkowski #190, Krug undrafted, Hamilton #9

so these are the guys that were playing for the SC.

3 first round picks out of 14 (only 1, Seabrook in top-4)

and 7 out of 14 drafted after #100 or undrafted.

Not counting undrafted Brookbank who was Chicago's #7 d man as he played only 1 playoff game.

[ricardodw]

The OP was not just looking for a Top 5 d-man...

He wants a monster top 5 that can physically control a game and neutralize the other teams top scorer.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Seabrook #14 Leddy #16, Keith #54, Oduya #221, Hjalmarsson #108, Rozsival #105

Chara #56, Boychuck #61, Ferrence #208, McQuaid #55, Seidenberg #172, Bartkowski #190, Krug undrafted, Hamilton #9

so these are the guys that were playing for the SC.

3 first round picks out of 14 (only 1, Seabrook in top-4)

and 7 out of 14 drafted after #100 or undrafted.

Not counting undrafted Brookbank who was Chicago's #7 d man as he played only 1 playoff game.

That pretty much sums it up - from the two SC finalists, 7 of the 14 defensemen were drafted after 100 (or weren't drafted at all).

Draft them and develop them.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That pretty much sums it up - from the two SC finalists, 7 of the 14 defensemen were drafted after 100 (or weren't drafted at all).

Draft them and develop them.

Of those 7 only 1 (Chara) is a difference maker.

Sure you can draft secondary, support guys after 100 but looking at top guys they are by large majority drafted in the first two rounds.

The Hawks are nothing without Keith and Seabrook, no matter how many post-100 draft guys they have playing the secondary roles.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The thing is, it is just really hard to evaluate defensemen at 18 years of age - the learning curve is long and steep, and some guys are going to ascend it and most aren't. The problem is that it is really difficult to assess in advance who will.

The obvious solution is quantity.

I think as a general rule, top picks should focus on forwards, and centres in particular.

Agreed. Using those top 3 draft picks to go after a franchise center seems to be the way to go. As a general rule at least. However, does a guy like Ekblad becomes the exception to the rule?

I get that it is hard to evaluate a kid and project his future but when you see someone stand out as much as this kid it does make you pause and wonder. He earns the exceptional player status to go into the OHL as an underage player, then is drafted first overall and wins rookie of the year. Sounds pretty impressive when you consider he is only the 3rd kid to earn this Exceptional Player Status ever.

Ekblad definitely appears to be contributing to his team. Coming out of his 54 game regular season as a team leading +29, he was *only* 8th on the team in points but at the same time he was 4th in PIM.

I'm no scout and I have never seen the kid play but everything I hear about him makes me think that the Flames would be lucky to land him.

Then again, maybe we end up waiting for Sean Day, who is now the 4th kid to earn this Exceptional Player Status.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by moon

Of those 7 only 1 (Chara) is a difference maker.

Sure you can draft secondary, support guys after 100 but looking at top guys they are by large majority drafted in the first two rounds.

The Hawks are nothing without Keith and Seabrook, no matter how many post-100 draft guys they have playing the secondary roles.

point 1: Chara was not 1 of the 7 drafted after #100

In 14 seasons Chara has only made it past the 2nd round 3 times in his career.

Pronger only 3 times into the 3rd round

These guys are difference makers but hockey is a team game..

[moon]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

point 1: Chara was not 1 of the 7 drafted after #100

In 14 seasons Chara has only made it past the 2nd round 3 times in his career.

Pronger only 3 times into the 3rd round

These guys are difference makers but hockey is a team game..

No they cannot win everything on their own but if you are looking for a "Shea Weber" then posting numbers of guys who are secondary types and not close to being Shea Weber doesn't really work too well.

You can build a decent defense with guys drafted later but if you want a top, elite level defender as mentioned by the OP you need to draft them earlier than later.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by moon

No they cannot win everything on their own but if you are looking for a "Shea Weber" then posting numbers of guys who are secondary types and not close to being Shea Weber doesn't really work too well.

You can build a decent defense with guys drafted later but if you want a top, elite level defender as mentioned by the OP you need to draft them earlier than later.

Which is entirely true, but OP framed it as though we NEED a top level elite guy, and I think the point attempting to be made here is simply that you don't.

There no arguing you have to draft in higher rounds to get a better shot at a Weber, but there's also nothing that suggests that have a Weber makes your team a contender.

[bubbsy]

Let's look at the top3 dmen (by toi/g) for the last 5 cup finals:

2013: Chi vs Bos
- Keith (27:37 toi/g) + Hjalmarsson (23:14 toi/g) + Seabrook (23:04 toi/g)
- Chara (29:31 toi/g) + Seidenberg (25:59 toi/g) + Ference (24:31 toi/g)

2012: LA vs NJ
- Doughty (26:08 toi/g) + Mitchell (25:19 toi/g) + Scuderi (21:44 toi/g)
- Zidlicky (23:46 toi/g) + Salvador (22:24 toi/g) + Greene (22:01 toi/g)

2011: Bos vs Van
- Chara (27:39 toi/g) + Seidenberg (27:37 toi/g) + Boychuck (20:38 toi/g)
- Bieska (25:40 toi/g) + Hamhuis (24:50 toi/g) + Erhoff (24:46 toi/g)

2010: Phi vs Chi
- Pronger (29:03 toi/g) + Timonen (26:37 toi/g) + Carle (25:53 toi/g)
- Keith (28:11 toi/g) + Seabrook (24:10 toi/g) + Hjarlmarsson (21:00 toi/g)

2009: Det vs Pit
- Lidstrom (25:38 toi/g) + Stuart (24:08 toi/g) + Kronwall (23:23 toi/g)
- Gonchar (23:02 toi/g) + Scuderi (20:29 toi/g) + Orpik (20:04 toi/g)

Only 3 of the 10 teams didn't rely on their top dog on D (Vancouver, New Jersey and Pittsburg). Only 1 of those teams won the cup. (Det does seem to lean less on Lidstrom than i would have expected, but there is little question that he was their top guy).

If you look at the top dogs on the other finalists, you just don't find these kind of Dmen easily: Keith, Chara, Doughty, Lidstrom, Pronger.

That being said, if your team can draft+develop or pick up the 2nd tier guys (hjaalmarson, seidenberg, stuart/kronwall, timonen/carle, bieksa/hamhuis/erhoff, etc, etc) i think it's a great starting point to build a contender. Ideally, if you have these kinds of guys on ur roster, you hope that you can be competitve on the backend based on sound depth, or that one of the guys grows into your #1 guy.

I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think we have the d prospects today to get it done. Brodie should round out to a good #3 guy, and the others are 4-6 type dmen (seiloff, wotherspoon, ramage, cundari, etc) that i'd be happy to see at least one of them work into a #4 guy. keep drafting dmen. Best player available has to be the motto, but at some stage, making a sacrifice in the first round to get that guy may be needed to fill the organizational gap in high end defensive prospects.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by moon

No they cannot win everything on their own but if you are looking for a "Shea Weber" then posting numbers of guys who are secondary types and not close to being Shea Weber doesn't really work too well.

You can build a decent defense with guys drafted later but if you want a top, elite level defender as mentioned by the OP you need to draft them earlier than later.

High draft pick d-men especially big ones are a crap shoot -- 2005 Pelech #26 and Baldwin #69 were both 6-5 guys that had the potential to be the big dominant players that the OP wanted ....

McQuaid #55 and Cody Franson #79 were the other big guys that needed to grow into their size and turned out so much better..... Pretty sure that in 2005 there were not a lot of people who would have said taht the Flames picked the wrong 2 big guys with their higher picks.


Of the 4 Franson turns out to be the top guy (entering dominate territory) as a 25 year old.

Two years ago Franson was basically given to the Leafs so that they would take Lombardi's contract.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by strombad

Which is entirely true, but OP framed it as though we NEED a top level elite guy, and I think the point attempting to be made here is simply that you don't.

There no arguing you have to draft in higher rounds to get a better shot at a Weber, but there's also nothing that suggests that have a Weber makes your team a contender.

We might not need an elite Dman to lead the pack but history certainly shows that having that guy certainly helps when you have all the other parts in place.

I am really hoping that in the last few drafts the Flames have acquired a lot of those other parts - Sven as a top scoring winger, Monahan as a top line center and hopefully some great depth from the lower picks. Because of all of that, I would put our top need as being a top end talent on D.

Ekblad fills that need and is putting together an argument that he is the BPA at #1. My blueprint for the Flames would definitely include trying to land him and then hope that he turns into that "Weber" talent for us. Even if he doesn't go all the way to become a true #1 Dman I would be confident that he would be contributing to the team getting closer to contention.

This pick might be overkill because it is possible to find a top end Dman with a lower pick but I still think it would be a worthwhile move to add that highend prospect to our D group. Besides, we can always go back to drafting forwards in the first round in 2015 (McDavid).