The Kings have drafted 3 forwards they have developed into top-6 forwards in the past decade. I am concerned that the current arrangement is in charge of developing Kaliyev, Byfield, Turcotte, etc, considering there's not a great history.
People make plenty of jokes how there's an "offense tax" when on the Kings. It's not like Sutter or Murray are the coaches anymore. So where is the lack of offense coming from?
And as pointed out by Redcard, that's basically 3 out of 4, or 75%, of those normal picks.
There's not a 'great history,' but there's also not a BAD history. Is it fair to have concern? 100%. I've said as much before. Is it fair to act as if the development team sucks? Not at all. But that's the implication--it's not that folks are giving them an incomplete, they're giving them an F preemptively. It's the cynicism spilling over.
Some of the offense tax was almost certainly on team 'vision', ie. DL-style draftees, too. And trying to add guys to a competitive roster vs. drafting for the future.
Now these idiots are playing a 1-3-1 too, but I digress.
As
@Mats26 points out, and I'm sure you're well aware and I"M sure most of the forum agrees, there was a VAST change in philosophy with the organizational changeover to just an insane volume of 'skill' forwards. Now we will see what the development staff can or can't do--because while most everyone would agree the Kings didn't have many chips in play before, most everyone would agree now that the Kings are
loaded on the farm at forward. If they mostly fizzle out? Well, it will be pretty clear where the issue is (and unfortunately too late). But
thus far it's hard to be too mad at them.
Here's a sad reality, name all the best centers the Kings drafted from 2006 to 2016.
You'll come to the realization that this team really placed no emphasis on skill. The lack of productive forwards to come from within during that time frame outside of two names is enough proof. Two top six forwards drafted in a decade, not a single top six center.
Then you look at the back-to-back Cup champs and observe their top six forwards.
Kucherov, 58th overall.
Point, 79th overall.
Killorn, 77th overall.
Palat, 208th overall.
Cirelli, 72nd overall.
Their top six scoring forwards in the playoffs all drafted outside of the first round and outside of the top 50, and their only forward in their top six drafted in the first round is Steven Stamkos.
Let's hear the laundry list of excuses of why the team couldn't draft well after the Cup wins, and even without the first round selections, how they blew so many second round picks.
That's something we all used to lament about Dave Taylor, but Lombardi had quite a few of faults at the draft table as well. Seems like his draft magic wore off, along with his decision making.
This is a grass is greener thing.
Killorn is a 44-point pacer, most recent season 48 point pace.
Palat is a career 55-point pacer.
Cirelli is certianly an up and comer, his most recent season is a 36 point pace.
You know who matches Alex Killorn step for step? Alex Iafallo. Or if it has to be a 'draftee,' Tanner Pearson.
Palat's numbers are a little bit wonky because he can't stay healthy, but we had Brown. Or "good" Tyler Toffoli.
Cirelli...was outscored by such luminaries as everyone's favorite punching bag Adrian Kempe, AA, Trevor Moore, Gabe Vilardi.
These numbers are all on a top-flight Stanley Cup winning offense vs. a bottom of the barrel Kings offense.
Kucherov and Point were absolute drills....but guess what? That's the edge Tampa has on EVERYONE, that's not a "Kings fault" as you're painting it. Why is everyone's illustration TBL? I dare anyone to pick another top team and take a look.
This all goes with this forum's long-standing inability to realize what 'depth' on other teams actually looks like and frankly why I hardly participate in this discussion anymore.
