Enough With The Detroit Way Myth!!

[Sorge Georos]

Isles prospect pool is stacked. Yes. But it should be.

I acknowledge that, but I don't think they're successful because of any "Detroit Way" shenanigans over the past decade. They had a great core in Yzerman, Shanahan, and Lidstrom to carry them through the 90s and as those players got older they were replaced or supplemented with guys like Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Kronwall, and Franzen.

However as we saw this year with Lidstrom's retirement, those guys were barely good enough to get Detroit into the playoffs. Do they have another star in their system to shift the burden from the 32+ guys? Like when the Canucks went from Naslund/Bertuzzi/Jovo to the Sedins? It's possible but unlikely. I mean we can think that Zetterberg and Datsyuk were just mid-round prospects who were molded into stars by the DRW, but they also showed far more overseas than Jurco, Tatar, or Nyquist ever did.

I can't really fault Detroit for failing to develop a star with their consistently low draft positions. But once the stars are gone we'll see if their magical development process is the real reason they've been a contender for so long. I predict that they're just like most teams, and won't last forever without picking in the lottery.

 

[Stercrazy]

you also have to look at where detroit was drafting and where the islanders were drafting. odds are the islanders top five pick will emerge as a better player and do so quicker than detroits 28th or 29th or 30th pick.

its an unfair comparison if you ask me.......

I agree. I think Detroit did an excellent job with managing their system. What's important is the effort prior to the draft. I said in 2008 that the Isles should put a premium on scouting.

 

[bluechipbonzo]

Yeah, this whole Detroit method was overblown. Let's face it, they exploited an underexplored and undervalued market for European players. That market was also favorable in terms of team rights, which made the strategy very low risk and high reward. That opportunity is now over, and their advantage is gone. Time to move on from this.

Not only overblown, but perpetuated by the nature of the internet an the HF boards.

There are plenty of people who have nothing better to do, who have never set foot on the ice, or inside an arena- NHL or otherwise- who simply come to forums like this because it is a form of entertainment for them. What happens is they gather their knowledge- in this case, about the Red Wings, and parrot it.

Now there are a few uninformed hockey fans who do this too, but you get the idea.

 

[InformTheMasses]

Not only overblown, but perpetuated by the nature of the internet an the HF boards.

Yeah, it's urban legend, or mythology as the OP would like you to believe. But I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that busts this so called 'myth'.

Like I said in 2000-2005 the average NHL team produced 7 full time NHL players per 50 selections in rounds 2 thru 9.

The Red Wings produced 11. (10 of the 11 developed for 4-7 years after being drafted and establishing a full time role in the NHL) The 11th was Johan Franzen who was drafted as a 24 year old and came over as a 26 year old rookie.

The Average NHL team turns 2 out of every 3 1st round picks into full time NHL players.

The Red Wings only had 2 selections in the first round (both in the second half of the first round where those success rates drop even further) and both of them (Kindl and Kronwall developed into NHL players. Both players were brought along slow (4 or 5 seasons before being asked to contribute in the NHL full time).

BTW The 4 Islanders players that became full time NHL players from the 2000-2005 NHL drafts (rounds 2-9) Nielsen, Comeau, Campoli, Gervais...... None were asked to contribute full time in the NHL until age 22. Some were overage drafts, but all maxed out their junior eligibility and saw plenty of time in Bridgeport before getting a full time shot on Long Island.

So out of the 17 players that managed to play in at least 150 NHL games from the Red Wings and Islanders drafts in 2000-2005 from picks #19 overall to #298.... Every single one of them was brought along slowly and played multiple professional seasons in Europe, maxed out Juniors eligibility and played at least a full season (in most cases multiple seasons) in the AHL before making it to the NHL. Personally I find that interesting, and exactly the opposite of the intended purpose of the original post.

Now, that being said. There is the old saying in statistics and science, that correlation does not imply (or equal) causation. Meaning that just because there is a correlation between two variables (full time NHL Players produced, Method by which they were developed) does not prove that one caused the other.

But before someone just dismisses this theory as fallacy or myth or Urban legend, they are going to have to do a much better job at proving their case..... For starters, give me a team in those years that produced more NHL Players (150 or more games) on a percentage basis from rounds 2-9 and DID NOT have a majority of those players develop until at least the age of 22 before having them play in the NHL. Until then we are just ignoring the facts and creating the reality we want to be true (delusional).

 

[kasper11]

During all that time, I can't every recall a single incident of a player whose development was hurt by extra time in the CHL and AHL.

How do you know?

Plenty of players have been given time in the CHL and AHL and never made it. How do you know that they wouldn't have succeeded if given a shot in the NHL at an earlier age? Maybe they weren't challenged enough and picked up bad habits, maybe the coaching wasn't good, maybe being able to score at will meant never learning how to play d, maybe they weren't able to adjust to the speed of the NHL after so many years in lesser leagues.

Why is it that we all assume that Josh Bailey would be better had he been given more time to develop, but everybody just assumes that Kyle Beach was a bad pick?

I believe that for 99% of the players, they will reach the same result regardless of how quickly they are brought up. If the player has the right makeup to succeed, they won't get ruined by being brought up too soon. If Nino is unable to grow up and deal with adversity, it wouldn't matter if he stayed in juniors. And he may still succeed despite playing in NY two years ago. It is up to him.

 

[kasper11]

BTW, one big reason that Detroit has success in the draft has nothing to do with development time...

They have had stability throughout the organization. This allows them to draft players that will fit their system of play.

Teams that consistently change coaches cannot do this, by the time the drafted player is ready to contribute, the system has changed.

 

[Riseonfire]

This is the problem with sports; you cannot isolate any of the variables. So trying to find a single cause for either success or failure is futile.

Player A and B are the same in every single way. Let's pretend they're clones.

Player A is brought into the NHL after 1 year. Player A does not succeed, team is blamed for rushing the player.

Player B is brought into the NHL after 4 years. Player B does not succeed, player B just didn't have what it takes. Poor drafting.

There is no way to prove that a players failure is a result of being rushed. That same player could have just never panned out to begin with. Sure it makes sense for a player to physically develop in the minors or AHL but the point is the same. There is no way to pinpoint the cause of the failure.

Who was the AHL coach at the time? What was the system like? How were the players around him? What about that knee injury in Juniors? Too many questions, no way to tell.

 

[Darth Milbury]

How do you know?

Plenty of players have been given time in the CHL and AHL and never made it. How do you know that they wouldn't have succeeded if given a shot in the NHL at an earlier age? Maybe they weren't challenged enough and picked up bad habits, maybe the coaching wasn't good, maybe being able to score at will meant never learning how to play d, maybe they weren't able to adjust to the speed of the NHL after so many years in lesser leagues.

Why is it that we all assume that Josh Bailey would be better had he been given more time to develop, but everybody just assumes that Kyle Beach was a bad pick?

I believe that for 99% of the players, they will reach the same result regardless of how quickly they are brought up. If the player has the right makeup to succeed, they won't get ruined by being brought up too soon. If Nino is unable to grow up and deal with adversity, it wouldn't matter if he stayed in juniors. And he may still succeed despite playing in NY two years ago. It is up to him.

Fair enough. You can't know for sure, in a scientific sense.

But, you can see a lot of telltale signs, the lack of confidence, for example. The delayed development of fundamentals. A player who has been handling the puck on the first line of a CHL team tends to have skills at a later date that you don't see in a guy who was languishing on the fourth line in the NHL.

No doubt that you make convincing point though.

 

[TW]

Is the consensus opinion believe that Detroit's success has mostly been due to their ability to develop late round talent? While this is true, it certainly isn't the whole story.

First of all, Detroit was terrible in the 80's to early 90's, so they most certainly rebuilt during this time. They drafted well mostly due to being terrible and having great picks, but they were also early adopters of Europeans, especially Russians. This fueled their late 90's run.

Remember, this is pre-cap and they had the resources to keep all their talent indefinitely. And they did. They always spent the most in the league and never looked back. One time, Federov signed an offer sheet with Carolina that would give an extra 12 million if the team made the finals. Carolina had no chance, but was something Detroit was likely to do. Detroit matched and won the cup that year.

So then the last few years came along and some of the superstars of the 90's were slowly replaced by the Datsyuks and Zetterburgs and still had success, but after the 1st lockout, Detroit still had the luxury of being the kings of the front loaded contract. I don't think that will happen with any regularity any more.

Now, if the new crop of late rounders start popping up to be superstars, I'll be proven wrong. Until then, my contention will be that Detroit's success is mostly due to a very successful rebuild, followed by a very successful flow of cash. Something I hope the Isles can emulate.

 

[OlTimeHockey]

Is the consensus opinion believe that Detroit's success has mostly been due to their ability to develop late round talent? While this is true, it certainly isn't the whole story.

First of all, Detroit was terrible in the 80's to early 90's, so they most certainly rebuilt during this time. They drafted well mostly due to being terrible and having great picks, but they were also early adopters of Europeans, especially Russians. This fueled their late 90's run.

Remember, this is pre-cap and they had the resources to keep all their talent indefinitely. And they did. They always spent the most in the league and never looked back. One time, Federov signed an offer sheet with Carolina that would give an extra 12 million if the team made the finals. Carolina had no chance, but was something Detroit was likely to do. Detroit matched and won the cup that year.

So then the last few years came along and some of the superstars of the 90's were slowly replaced by the Datsyuks and Zetterburgs and still had success, but after the 1st lockout, Detroit still had the luxury of being the kings of the front loaded contract. I don't think that will happen with any regularity any more.

Now, if the new crop of late rounders start popping up to be superstars, I'll be proven wrong. Until then, my contention will be that Detroit's success is mostly due to a very successful rebuild, followed by a very successful flow of cash. Something I hope the Isles can emulate.

A lot of it was due to the above. Ilitch had an about face and demanded the best staff be hired and success paramount because he didn't want to see an empty arena ever again.

And Detroit was horrible in the early eighties. They were NOT horrible in the late eighties and nineties...only missing the postseason twice since Yzerman was drafted.

See: http://www.hockeydb.com/stte/detroit-red-wings-5492.html

Why are they so good at drafting? Their scouting is well paid and researched.

Why do their prospects pan out more often? They are patient when necessary and have good vets to guide kids and coaching is a priority....though I think Babcock sucks/is way overblown.

So is it a myth? Nope. They do better than most teams if not all. Something tells me this angry retort is a refusal to admit Garth is doing it right FINALLY and our past prospects have been rushed and/or we drafted poorly.....though I myself think we've drafted pretty damned well in recent years.

And Nino is not gonna be better than Clutterbuck

Can we admit they get the right coaching, the right talent and draft well and develop VERY well and all combine for their better years? And honestly, I would fault Babcock for recent years for his stiffened phallic adoration of Howard and a few other yes men while abandoning some skilled vets not sold on his coaching for recent malaise......and it's not gonna get better. Very reminiscent of the dismantling of the Dynasty team by one cheap John Pickett in results, but it was the faith in the coach, not the miserly owner that's doing Detroit in.

I'd love to see him axed......if not for the fact that they're conference rivals now.

 

[Strummergas]

They are patient when necessary

I think this a very important line. There's not one correct way to develop a prospect. Some players are NHL ready right out of the draft. Most take longer to be NHL players and should be afforded the opportunity to grow and develop in juniors and in the AHL.

The whole point is, prospects shouldn't be playing in the NHL until they have demonstrated that they are ready. They shouldn't be forced into the line-up due to payroll concerns or because a desperate team is looking for publicity and headlines to build up the hopes of a downtrodden fanbase before their dreams are shattered once again when the prospect doesn't live up to expectations (sound familiar?)

Detroit has been excellent in prospect assessment. They were able to correctly assess when their prospects are NHL ready. There has been an excellent mix of players being ready "right out of the box" and "needing time to ripen" on their squads since the days of Fedorov. THAT'S the Detroit way; excellent prospect assessment.

 

[rikker]

I think this a very important line. There's not one correct way to develop a prospect. Some players are NHL ready right out of the draft. Most take longer to be NHL players and should be afforded the opportunity to grow and develop in juniors and in the AHL.

The whole point is, prospects shouldn't be playing in the NHL until they have demonstrated that they are ready. They shouldn't be forced into the line-up due to payroll concerns or because a desperate team is looking for publicity and headlines to build up the hopes of a downtrodden fanbase before their dreams are shattered once again when the prospect doesn't live up to expectations (sound familiar?)

Detroit has been excellent in prospect assessment. They were able to correctly assess when their prospects are NHL ready. There has been an excellent mix of players being ready "right out of the box" and "needing time to ripen" on their squads since the days of Fedorov. THAT'S the Detroit way; excellent prospect assessment.

should be the end of discussion, right there...

i will add, that if someone declares that it was done wrong (or right, for that matter), they are making a claim that has absolutely no factual basis. there is NO way of knowing how it would have turned out, had the organization taken a different route.

it's not so much a clashing of philosophies, as it is a clashing of egos...

 

[HyeDray]

There is more than one way to build a team — an entire team. But time and again, drafting well and developing home grown talent has proven to be pretty effective. And not just with hockey.

Yes — no question that the Wings are living off of the 1990s more so than before, and perhaps they are beginning to slide some. That is only natural. Teams can't remain on top forever. The "Detroit Way" is not a myth however. Having a 15-18 year run of being a top 10 team in the league with a few championships? I am not sure how that is a "myth" or not considered a valid method.

When I look to the Wings as a method of building a team for the long haul, I am not citing the last 5-10 years of drafting and building but rather that they had been a pretty weak team during a stretch of time, and it took some patience and building through the draft primarily, and than adding players as they became more and more competitive.

When looking at the Islanders — they have drafted reasonably well. The prospect pool is quite deep even after dealing Nino. Snow's waiver pick-ups have also fared well. And while not big splashy names, Moulson, Parenteau, Boyes, Streit have done well as free agent signings. He traded for Visnovsky who has done well. He retained Nabokov who has done well.

But the CORE of the team — as with Detroit for many years — has come from within, and many of those players I think are yet to arrive on Long Island. With Detroit, that core is getting old. Yzerman and Lindstrom have already retired. Zetterberg and Dytsuk are near the end. The prospect pool is average. They will need to rebuild at some point, and perhaps make some decisions about older players. But to suggest that the method used by the Wings is only myth is not fair. Jimmy D. who helped Bill Torrey build the Islander championships was a key part of installing a similar program in Detroit and it worked — on Long Island and in Detroit.

Garth Snow is simply using that program and while slower than most may like, it is beginning to bare fruit. I don't believe for a moment that we will see every prospect that Snow has drafted in an Islander uniform. I also believe some players are ready and some take longer.

I have said many times that I would guess Strome will play a season in Bridgeport, I can also say, with confidence, he can prove that he is ready and make the team this season. But those who are saying he should be ready now, and have him as the second line center now, are making the same misguided call as someone saying without reservation that he MUST play a season in Bridgeport. Until the young man steps onto the ice and completes training camp, there is no way to make a determination. Further — unless we are at camp and watching every moment of camp and these players skate and play, we have no real information other than what the coaches and management have to say.

At some point, we are amateurs and they are the pros. It's their call. The rest of it is wishful thinking on our part that every pick is the next Trottier, Bossy, Gillies, Potvin, Langevin. With last year's results, and the way our drafts have begun to show promise on NHL ice, there is an element of trust that Snow has earned with me. He will make mistakes, and he will succeed. But trust is earned. And with a largely draft-built team, the Isles made the playoffs. This is Snow's success. You want to say it was "not real" because of the shorter season? Anyone is entitled to that. But the Islanders and Snow, Capuano and his staff.... they deserve some of the credit.

And that has been the Detroit way... the proper level of patience. They come in dead last next year — which still does not take away the last decade plus of success. I don't call that a myth.