Re: Drafting Bruins - A Novel
posted at 12/13/2013 4:59 PM EST
In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
In response to perrysound's comment:
It is an excellent question. I am constantly looking at the draft history, and the thing that stands out most to me is that after the first 8 to 10, the drop off from year to year is USUALLY pretty steep. Yes there are so great picks later, but trying to pick players that are 18 years old is far too difficult. That singular reason, is why I don't hold a poor drafting record over the Bruins.
Also, if you are using the Detroit RedWing model of getting great players late in the draft, such as Datysuk andZetterberg, then here's a thought. If they were so great, why didn't Detroit pick them a few rounds earlier to ensure they got them. Pure luck in my books. *** don't get me wrong, Detroit is a Class A organiztion, and they do everything really well***
The last great year the Bruins drafted was June of 2006, and PC was hired in May 2006. Since then it hasn't been very awe-inspiring. But some years Eugene Malkin is available in the #2 slot, and some years it's Tyler Seguin.
Defining success as more than X games can be misleading. Teams are going to give their 1st pick all the opportunity to succeed, because it makes the GM look good. So I don't think that is valid.
I agree. The B's didn't do a good job taking Lucic in the second round. They were lucky he was there and they're lucky for what he's turned into. In hindsight, I think it's Toews, Kessel, Lucic going 1,2,3.
As for the B's putrid drafting, I put it mostly on the scouts and slightly on the constant need to pick local players.
1- PC got hired a month before this draft, so how much of these choices were his, and what was his impact on the decision. Hard say.
2- If Lucic was so high on the list, why didn't they take him 37, instead of 50th. Taking Yuri Alexandrov before Milan doesn't look genius. He's yet to play a game in the NHL.