Goaltenders Drafted 1st Overall | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Goaltenders Drafted 1st Overall

hockeydude1

#CatsAreComing
Mar 9, 2008
3,498
1
Florida
I'm just being curious what your thoughts to goalies being drafted 1st overall. Obviously, if the team desperately needs a goalie than its a high priority. Though, is it really worth the risk?

Goalies drafted 1st Overall

  • 1968: Michel Plasse (Montreal Canadiens)
    GP: 299
    Record: (92-136-54)
    GAA: 3.79
    S%: N/A

  • 2000: Rick DiPietro (New York Islanders)
    GP: 318
    Record: (130-136-36)
    GAA: 2.87
    S%: .902

  • 2003: Marc-Andre Fleury (Pittsburgh Penguins)
    GP: 467
    Record: (249-151-41)
    GAA: 2.66
    S%: .910
 
I don't think any goaltenders should be drafted in the 1st round. Nevermind 1st overall.

Goalies are almost a pure crapshoot.
 
I don't think any goaltenders should be drafted in the 1st round. Nevermind 1st overall.

Goalies are almost a pure crapshoot.

The second half of the 1st round is probably an alright place to pick a goalie, if you need one (Rask, Schneider, Brodeur, Ward all came from the 20-30 range). However, top forwards are just too rare not to take one in the early 1st round if you have a chance. I can really only list two early goalie picks that don't look bad in hindsight: Barrasso at 5th overall in 1983 (won the Vezina in his rookie year), and Luongo at 4th overall in 1997 in a weak draft (although Milbury still found a way to make himself look bad three years later).

IMO, you should never, ever take a goalie at 1st overall. Goalies just take longer to develop than other players, so you're much safer going with a forward.
 
The Rangers drafted Blackburn 10th, Montoya 6th and Lunqvist 205th in a 4 draft span. I would never waste a 1st or high 2nd round pick on a goalie (barring something like a projected top 10 pick falling to 30th).

If there is one part of hockey that deserves to be called "enigmatic", it is goaltending and goaltender development.
 
Goaltenders are rarely worthy of top picks because of the relative unpredictability of their position. And I think GMs around the league have finally learned that it's not worth it to gamble taking a goalie in the top half of the first round.

For young players playing against similarly aged peers, it's much, much easier to get by on skill alone. However, unlike players, skill alone for goalies only takes you so far. Especially when you get to the pro leagues, the difference in pure talent between a quality starter and a backup is very, very small. At that point, it comes down to having exceptionally high competitiveness, elite mental toughness, and supreme confidence-- three qualities that are extremely hard (impossible, almost) to judge when observing teenagers playing against their peers.

For example, I consider Fleury to be among the NHL's most talented netminders. However, the difference in talent between him and a less talented starter is more than made up by the mental aspect. For skaters, the same is true but to a much lesser extent. Supremely talented players are still effective because they are just so much more skilled than other players. Of course, you still have many skaters who are extremely talented but still never overcome that mental barrier; that's what busts are made of.

So I think GMs are starting to come around on this realization, and I think that contributed to Fucale's fall. Not many would question his talent level, but does he have the elite mental ability that it takes to succeed in the NHL as a goaltender? We won't know for a little while.

So for me, I will never be excited by a goaltender who dominates in juniors. Until he proves his worth against professionals, my expectation of any goaltender will be tempered. So unless there is a teenage goaltender playing lights out hockey in the KHL, Swedish league, etc., I'd refrain from using a first round pick on him.


EDIT: This would also explain why it takes longer to "develop" goaltenders. It's not so much that there aren't 18 or 19 year olds who could step in right away; it's that you just don't know which ones those are until those mental abilities manifest themselves. That doesn't happen until they are playing consistently at the higher levels.
 
I don't think any goaltenders should be drafted in the 1st round. Nevermind 1st overall.

Goalies are almost a pure crapshoot.

I'd pick Lundqvist, Price, Quick, in the first round.
 
I'd pick Lundqvist, Price, Quick, in the first round.

Would you honestly have drafted some Swedish kid playing in U20 and posting a .904 in the first round? It wasn't until 2002-03 that he started producing the type of results that people think of when you mention Lundqvist.
 
I'd pick Lundqvist, Price, Quick, in the first round.
In hindsight of course. But at the time they were drafted only one of those goaltenders was taken in round one. Look at which goalies were taken ahead of Lundqvist and Quick in their draft years and it proves the point of them being a crap shoot.

Ahead of Quick in 2005 saw big names like Tyler Plante, Jeff Frazee, Pier-Olivier Pelletier and Kristopher Westblom. The only good goaltender picked ahead of Quick were Price, Rask & Pavelic.

In Lundqvist's draft year there was Rick DiPietro, Brent Krahn, Mathieu Chouinard, Dan Ellis, Mikael Tellqvist, Peter Hamerlik and Jean-Francois Racine just taken in the first 3 rounds. The only goaltender to have any real success in the top 3 rounds that year was Bryzgalov of all people.

This is exactly why I agree that no one should take a goaltender in round 1. Hell maybe not even round 2.
 
This is exactly why I agree that no one should take a goaltender in round 1. Hell maybe not even round 2.

I think their is a time and a place in the first round that you can start drafting goalies but when you have a high pick your best bet is to go forward unless their is a defenseman who is just that much better. I think around mid to late first round it starts getting a crapshoot in terms of getting high end players, that if you think a goalie has star #1 potential it an ok pick

All that being said I think Price is the perfect example why you might draft higher.

On the negative side the only guy rated to go in that area was Kopitar(and a case could be made for Marc Staal) and I much rather have him but if the Habs drafted any other player rated to go in that area at 5 they would be worse off now.
 
The Rangers drafted Blackburn 10th, Montoya 6th and Lunqvist 205th in a 4 draft span. I would never waste a 1st or high 2nd round pick on a goalie (barring something like a projected top 10 pick falling to 30th).

If there is one part of hockey that deserves to be called "enigmatic", it is goaltending and goaltender development.

It's tough because we always remember the goalies that didn't pan out and make the assumption that the players taken behind them would have been automatic.

The players taken immediately after Blackburn: Freddy Sjostrom, Dan Hamhuis, Ales Hemsky, Chuck Kobasew, Igor Knyazev. The five players taken immediately after Montoya: Rostislav Olesz, Alex Picard, Ladislav Smid, Boris Valabik, Lauri Tukonen. Obviously in hindsight, Hamhuis and Hemsky would have resulted in better returns, but the other three not as much. Plus I hate to call Blackburn a bust; He looked pretty good before his freak injury. Similarly, Smid was the only above average NHLer after Montoya.

One big issue is that not many goalies are even starting goalies when their draft year rolls around.
 
One big issue is that not many goalies are even starting goalies when their draft year rolls around.

That's really the heart of the issue, both for drafting and for making the NHL. Kids don't get enough minutes to demonstrate their abilities and then as young pros the margin between success (starter/backup, 2 roster spots) and failure is narrower than it is for forwards (4 roster spots per position) or defence (3 roster spots per position).
 
The second half of the 1st round is probably an alright place to pick a goalie, if you need one (Rask, Schneider, Brodeur, Ward all came from the 20-30 range). However, top forwards are just too rare not to take one in the early 1st round if you have a chance. I can really only list two early goalie picks that don't look bad in hindsight: Barrasso at 5th overall in 1983 (won the Vezina in his rookie year), and Luongo at 4th overall in 1997 in a weak draft (although Milbury still found a way to make himself look bad three years later).

IMO, you should never, ever take a goalie at 1st overall. Goalies just take longer to develop than other players, so you're much safer going with a forward.
I'd add Price at 5th overall in 2005.
 
The Rangers drafted Blackburn 10th, Montoya 6th and Lunqvist 205th in a 4 draft span. I would never waste a 1st or high 2nd round pick on a goalie (barring something like a projected top 10 pick falling to 30th).

If there is one part of hockey that deserves to be called "enigmatic", it is goaltending and goaltender development.

In the Rangers defense, Blackburn was looking pretty good until his shoulder exploded.

But, I agree with you. I wouldn't really consider any goalie until 10th or so at very, very earliest. I think late first through the early 2nd is the perfect spot to draft them -- low risk, high reward. See a lot of talented guys go around there like Rask, Gibson, Markstrom, Dansk, etc.
 
I think choosing a forward would be best. They are usually the most ready out of any position. Defensemen even take longer to develop. If you can pick up a second first rounder though and theirs a high goaltender pick, than that could be a wise decision.

Overall though, drafting a goalie at #1 hasn't been the best option. Sure Plasse and Fleury have 1 cup each. They surely aren't "Elite" goaltenders like a Marty Brodeur or Patrick Roy.
 
Taking a goalie in the first round is a big enough risk, anyway. 1st overall? I'd never do it.

You never know how they're going to turn out. Fluery was supposed to be the next Roy, wasn't he? He turned out as an NHL caliber goalie, but on the lower end of the scale...
 
there seems to be a lot of ways to get good goalies other than using a first overall pick. Trade, free agency, Europe, late in the draft. You are almost guaranteed to pass up the BPA drafting a goalie first. Goalies do not show a first overall level of talent until much later in their development so a first overall pick or even first round for that matter is a huge gamble. I don't know if we will ever see a clear first overall goalie.
 
I would never take a goalie first overall either. I don't think taking goalies in the top 10 is a good idea either, sometimes you might end up with the better player, but I think it's something is fairly unreliable. For instance, the habs took Price 5th overall. I didn't like it, but they likely wouldd have chosen Brule anyways, so in this instance it turned out, but I don't agree with the philosophy.
 
In today's NHL, I don't think any goalies should be drafted ever. It's always a gamble anyway. "Elite" goalies have bad years as well, it seems.
 
Goalie is a weird situation when it comes to the draft. I can't fault anyone for having an attitude of not wanting a goalie any time in the first round, though I honestly disagree. But my criteria for drafting a goalie in the first is quite tough in its own right.

It has to be the absolute right situation. Weak positional pipeline with no heir apparent in place, aging or mediocre starter, goalie is easily the best player on the board, lack of significant holes elsewhere that can be addressed with the pick. Basically all 4 of that criteria, or at least 3 of 4 must be met before I'd select a goalie in the first.
 
Kari Lehtonen at 2nd overall was a pretty good pick if you look at the rest of the '02 first round.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Ad

Ad