2014 Draft

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So you agree with everyone that you would still take Bennett, but you felt the need to call everyone else butt-hurt princesses for thinking the same thing.

Solid post.

You don't see a difference between my reply and those saying that the conversation shouldn't even take place? Guess what it's a discussion forum and people will have different opinions.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. You did a great job.

[JiriHrdina]

Can we all just agree the Canucks f'd up and none of us would take Jake Virtanen?

[AC]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Can we all just agree the Canucks f'd up and none of us would take Jake Virtanen?

Looks like Craig Button was closer to reality when he had Virtanen ranked 43rd on his list that draft.

I believe he compared Virtanen to Raffi Torres more than a top 6 power forward.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Can we all just agree the Canucks f'd up and none of us would take Jake Virtanen?

Craig Button must take some guilty pleasure in Virtanen's struggles thus far. While most (all?) other publications had Virtanen ranked top 12, Button had him mid-40s. He didn't believe Virtanen's game would translate to the NHL.


Edit: beaten by AC

[Bear]

Originally Posted by AC

Looks like Craig Button was closer to reality when he had Virtanen ranked 43rd on his list that draft.

I believe he compared Virtanen to Raffi Torres more than a top 6 power forward.

This bodes well as if my memory serves Button was higher than most on Jankowski. Hopefully he's right on both.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Craig Button must take some guilty pleasure in Virtanen's struggles thus far. While most (all?) other publications had Virtanen ranked top 12, Button had him mid-40s. He didn't believe Virtanen's game would translate to the NHL.


Edit: beaten by AC

Honestly I don't know how anyone that watched him regularly (as Craig did) wouldn't arrive at the conclusion. Virtanen's game always reeked of junior level offense and that his very poor hockey IQ would be an issue.
I think he'll end up being a solid 3rd liner but the warts were really obvious and I think if he got past the Canucks you would have seen him drop like a rock to the late teens at minimum
And then the Canucks made it worse by rushing him to the NHL for no reason at all.
If they were intent on drafting this type of player they should have taken Nick Ritchie

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Bear

This bodes well as if my memory serves Button was higher than most on Jankowski. Hopefully he's right on both.

he was, he had Jankowski at 14. Not sure anything automatically bodes well here though, he still had Yakupov at 1, Reinhart at 6 and Finn at 9.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120625...ture/?id=49649

[calgaryblood]

If definitely still take Bennett if the order was the same before the Flames.

He has a lot to learn but he's still young and I think will be better than Monahan in a few years and take over the number 1 center position. All he lacks is good defensive positioning which can be taught. He has all the other tools to be a very good player.

[theg69]

I absolutely hate these threads.. As a fun exercise take any of the drafts and try evaluating the players 2-3 years later - it's absolutely impossible... I give you the 2011 draft for example - possibly the two best players in the draft - Johnny and kucherov were still in college and the minors respectively. Baertschi was trending towards bust territory - not sticking in the NHL, and nugent hopkins/landeskog looked like they were trending to be superstars.

Give it another 4-5 years - and then you can make a possible argument that flames should've drafted someone other than Bennett. It is way too early.

Even the Taylor hall and Tyler seguin draft year - hall outscored seguin significantly during their rookie year and still had a higher ppg their second year.. But I know who I would pick today if there was a redraft.

[MarkGio]

Even 4-5 years from now and let's say Bennett becomes a full bust, doesn't mean you still don't take him using hindsight. When you draft, you have only have 3 clues about a player:
1) Performance history (ie, junior points and play)
2) Attitude based on a trained interviewee
3) Physical condition

From there you have to project how this player pans out. Now I don't how many of you ever hired a person, but I can tell you first hand it's hard and a crapshoot. I've hired guys I absolutely love and feel great about based on their attitude and qualifications, and they turn out to be a WCB fraud or lazy or always late or otherwise a bad hire. I've hired guys I'm not super excited about because they're not most qualified or give the best interview, but my pickings are slim and I need someone right away, and they prove my gut wrong and become a fantastic piece. That's just the way it goes.

If you believe in your draft system you have to follow through. Yes, Bennett hasn't been the most outstanding from his class and people don't need to get butthurt about it, but if you don't draft him, there would have been a lot of angry people on draft day. He started the year as CSS #1 guy and played very well to solidify himself as at least #3 OA, but fell because Oilers wanted size. So yeah, you take him at #4 and you don't take a Pastrnak or Nylander because that means you don't believe in your draft system.

[MarkGio]

And seriously people, if you find yourself angry or attacking people because they brought up a reasonably good point, then maybe you watch too much hockey and care too much. It's at that point you should speak to your doctor or something

[Bear]

To my mind you can't always expect to pick the best player (in hindsight) every time you step up to the podium. If the guy you draft at 4 ends up being the 7th best player from that draft I'd consider that a pretty big win.

Where you get in trouble is if you miss all together when picking early. Reinhart etc.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bear

To my mind you can't always expect to pick the best player (in hindsight) every time you step up to the podium. If the guy you draft at 4 ends up being the 7th best player from that draft I'd consider that a pretty big win.

Where you get in trouble is if you miss all together when picking early. Reinhart etc.

Not at all. All you have to do is give Chiarelli a call, and he will fix that mistake for you in a jiffy!

[Hockeyfan92]

I feel he's the 6th best forward from the draft now. I could see him passing Reinhart and Nylander since he's high risk high reward. But on draft day he was the last one left out of that 2nd tier of players so you can't be mad at taking him. 99% of GM's would have.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Hockeyfan92

I feel he's the 6th best forward from the draft now. I could see him passing Reinhart and Nylander since he's high risk high reward. But on draft day he was the last one left out of that 2nd tier of players so you can't be mad at taking him. 99% of GM's would have.

Actually I feel he was the last one in the top tier. While obviously Wlblad is the best player he was not a consensus number 1. Bennett was the top rated skater by central scouting. Ekblad, Reinhart, Draisaitl, Bennett were at the top and then the big drop off

[Bingo]

haven't read this whole topic yet, but my view on things like this have always been ...

hindsight doesn't work, it's too easy. So throw the guys deeper down the draft out of it. Bennett was on the cover of the Hockey News with Ekblad, Reinhart and Draisaitl. Any team would have taken any of them over any one else in that draft.

And ... Bennett will be fine.

As a rule I've always looked back at each draft and the player the Flames took vs the next two guys on the board. It's not perfect, but it's a better indication than reaching way down the first round and saying "they should have taken Hossa!"

But in this case it works ...

Bennett
Dal Colle
Virtanen

take Bennett

Monahan
Nurse
Ristolainen

take Monahan, though Ristolainen would look great in Calgary

Jankowski
Maatta
Matheson

Maatta, but Jankowski is making a late charge