Howson's Drafting

[Viqsi]

I guess JD decided after reading this thread, he had enough. Away with Howson! This can now be considered, the thread that got Scott Howson fired. In similar fashion to how Lori Schmidt got Scott Arniel fired

Never mind that the analysis here is (by Capn's admission) incomplete, or that it's barely two days old when we've been told JD's been looking for possible replacements for at least two months, or the implication that any front office personnel actually pay attention to this message board at all...

 

[MattTheMask]

Never mind that the analysis here is (by Capn's admission) incomplete, or that it's barely two days old when we've been told JD's been looking for possible replacements for at least two months, or the implication that any front office personnel actually pay attention to this message board at all...

You must have not either picked up on my sarcasm, and also not seen the face I put at the end. Which I deliberately put there just in case someone did not pick up on my sarcasm. It was a joke. Have a sense of humor, and chill out. You will live longer. And get down from your soapbox

 

[major major]

This is the problem with quantitative analysis of draft success. There is a big difference between playing 125 games in the NHL and being drafted and developed successfully. You can't quantify drafting success so simply. You have to analyze every pick, relative to the picks made immediately before and after that pick.

I went ahead and tried the approach recommended here, and looked at Howson's first round picks in comparison to the two players picked before, and two players picked after. Seeing where Howson's pick fits in with this group of five might be the best way to assess the quality of his choice: if his pick is the third best of the five players, then he is average.

2007
Alzner
Gagner
Voracek
Hamill
Couture

I'd say Voracek is second out of this quintet, although he isn't much ahead of Gagner or Alzner. Voracek had 4 assists today. Alzner is sometimes billed as top pair with John Carlson, but wasn't that good last year, though he still can get better. Gagner is a big scorer with the right linemates, but Edmonton fans never shutup about wanting to dump him for a bigger center.

2008

Pietrangelo
Schenn
Filatov
Wilson
Boedker

This is an easy one. Filatov is a clear bust, and fifth of five.

2009

Kreider
Josefson
Moore
Schroeder
Erixon

I would take Moore first here, although Kreider and Erixon could ultimately end up better. I wouldn't have taken Moore first before the season, but he has been the Jackets steadiest defenceman many nights, while Kreider doesn't seem to have much hockey sense.

2010

Seguin
Gudbranson
Johansen
Neiderreiter
Connolly

Is Johansen better than Gudbranson? I have no idea. I would take Johansen second here, although its too early to tell.

In sum, Howson's record is average at top picks. I haven't applied equal rigor to it, but I would guess Howson has done above average with picks outside of the first round, finding guys like Calvert, Atkinson and Jenner.

 

[Viqsi]

I went ahead and tried the approach recommended here, and looked at Howson's first round picks in comparison to the two players picked before, and two players picked after. Seeing where Howson's pick fits in with this group of five might be the best way to assess the quality of his choice: if his pick is the third best of the five players, then he is average.

2007
Alzner
Gagner
Voracek
Hamill
Couture

I'd say Voracek is second out of this quintet, although he isn't much ahead of Gagner or Alzner. Voracek had 4 assists today. Alzner is sometimes billed as top pair with John Carlson, but wasn't that good last year, though he still can get better. Gagner is a big scorer with the right linemates, but Edmonton fans never shutup about wanting to dump him for a bigger center.

2008

Pietrangelo
Schenn
Filatov
Wilson
Boedker

This is an easy one. Filatov is a clear bust, and fifth of five.

2009

Kreider
Josefson
Moore
Schroeder
Erixon

I would take Moore first here, although Kreider and Erixon could ultimately end up better. I wouldn't have taken Moore first before the season, but he has been the Jackets steadiest defenceman many nights, while Kreider doesn't seem to have much hockey sense.

2010

Seguin
Gudbranson
Johansen
Neiderreiter
Connolly

Is Johansen better than Gudbranson? I have no idea. I would take Johansen second here, although its too early to tell.

In sum, Howson's record is average at top picks. I haven't applied equal rigor to it, but I would guess Howson has done above average with picks outside of the first round, finding guys like Calvert, Atkinson and Jenner.

This is the greatest CBJ first post I've ever seen.

You don't just get a cookie. You get ALL the cookies.

 

[db2011]

This is the greatest CBJ first post I've ever seen.

You don't just get a cookie. You get ALL the cookies.

hm. consider the timing. I'll need some evidence major major isn't Scott Howson..

 

[ThisIsMyAlibi]

It's the GM's job to find good players. Doesn't matter who goes where. If Howson picked a bust, and the next good player went 100 picks later...he failed. Stop making excuses.

 

[major major]

hm. consider the timing. I'll need some evidence major major isn't Scott Howson..

I really wasn't that bad of a GM, I mean he wasn't. Dammit, so confused.

Have you ever seen us in the same place?
I guess you'll find out when Howson gets another job and I'm still unemployed and posting on here. Oh, wait, Howson is going to be unemployed for awhile.

 

[major major]

It's the GM's job to find good players. Doesn't matter who goes where. If Howson picked a bust, and the next good player went 100 picks later...he failed. Stop making excuses.

Where are the excuses?
My method was merely to determine how good/bad Howson's drafting was relative to the league average. It turns out to be average. No excuses.

And if there are 100 busts in a row in a draft, as in the scenario you propose, then all GM's are equally culpable.

I have no problem, BTW, with Howson being let go. He didn't build a winner. But I do have a problem with people making unresearched claims that Howson is an awful drafter. Its not a surprise that people are thinking like that, after all the Blue Jackets have been terrible for a long time, and something must have gone wrong. But this place reads like a lynch mob sometimes. Claims need to be researched.

 

[Viqsi]

It's the GM's job to find good players. Doesn't matter who goes where. If Howson picked a bust, and the next good player went 100 picks later...he failed. Stop making excuses.

By that definition, every single GM who participated in the 1999 draft is an epic, massive failure.

* * *​

I have no problem, BTW, with Howson being let go. He didn't build a winner. But I do have a problem with people making unresearched claims that Howson is an awful drafter. Its not a surprise that people are thinking like that, after all the Blue Jackets have been terrible for a long time, and something must have gone wrong. But this place reads like a lynch mob sometimes. Claims need to be researched.

Confirmed. I have a new favorite poster.

 

[db2011]

I really wasn't that bad of a GM, I mean he wasn't. Dammit, so confused.

Have you ever seen us in the same place?
I guess you'll find out when Howson gets another job and I'm still unemployed and posting on here. Oh, wait, Howson is going to be unemployed for awhile.

My hope is he stays on here in some way, as JD brought up. You should do that.

 

[Mayor Bee]

By that definition, every single GM who participated in the 1999 draft is an epic, massive failure.

* * *​

Confirmed. I have a new favorite poster.

 

[tdfast]

Howson's biggest problem was Columbus wasn't bad enough to get good players in the draft. Howson ran six drafts and I don't see one where there was a great player taken right away after Columbus took a bum.

In his first draft he took Voracek, who currently sits third in career points for the whole draft, with the other two guys taken before him.

Filatov was a bad pick in 2008 but there really was no star forward after that, until you get to Eberle all the way at #22. The only way to imporve on that pick was to go D with Myers or Karlsson, but those guys went at 12 and 15. They would have been a reach at 6.

2009 was a late pick and Moore was a good fit. Whether he develops is another story but we'll see.

The worst pick was probably taking Johansen over Skinner in 2010. 2011 was traded away and the jury is out on Murray.

So I don't see any problems with the picks, they were just too low to get that one or two top guys in each draft. And they didn't find any gems late. The biggest problem was they didn't build on Nash and they didn't rebuild. They got caught in the middle.

 

[Crede777]

Howson's biggest problem was Columbus wasn't bad enough to get good players in the draft. Howson ran six drafts and I don't see one where there was a great player taken right away after Columbus took a bum.

In his first draft he took Voracek, who currently sits third in career points for the whole draft, with the other two guys taken before him.

Filatov was a bad pick in 2008 but there really was no star forward after that, until you get to Eberle all the way at #22. The only way to imporve on that pick was to go D with Myers or Karlsson, but those guys went at 12 and 15. They would have been a reach at 6.

2009 was a late pick and Moore was a good fit. Whether he develops is another story but we'll see.

The worst pick was probably taking Johansen over Skinner in 2010. 2011 was traded away and the jury is out on Murray.

So I don't see any problems with the picks, they were just too low to get that one or two top guys in each draft. And they didn't find any gems late. The biggest problem was they didn't build on Nash and they didn't rebuild. They got caught in the middle.

Yep.

You can argue that Howson wasn't good at hiring professionals in terms of coaching, scouting and development.

But you can't argue he was particularly bad at trades or at actually selecting players. The only difference I would have had was that I was much higher on Fowler than Johansen at the time of the draft.

Many people see "top-10" and assume that player should be a Tyler Seguin type. In reality players drafted outside of the top-3 aren't "all that." In fact, after the first 3 you tend to get guys who have "elite skills" but need quite a bit of development or have issues that caused them to drop. Guys like Filatov who are high risk high reward. It's too high of a reward to pass on at #8 but also there is a significant degree of risk involved. Once you get to picks in the mid-teens you can safely select a guy who projects as a 2nd or 3rd liner but is fairly safe in his development.

 

[tdfast]

Yep.

You can argue that Howson wasn't good at hiring professionals in terms of coaching, scouting and development.

But you can't argue he was particularly bad at trades or at actually selecting players. The only difference I would have had was that I was much higher on Fowler than Johansen at the time of the draft.

Many people see "top-10" and assume that player should be a Tyler Seguin type. In reality players drafted outside of the top-3 aren't "all that." In fact, after the first 3 you tend to get guys who have "elite skills" but need quite a bit of development or have issues that caused them to drop. Guys like Filatov who are high risk high reward. It's too high of a reward to pass on at #8 but also there is a significant degree of risk involved. Once you get to picks in the mid-teens you can safely select a guy who projects as a 2nd or 3rd liner but is fairly safe in his development.

Yeah, if you're not picking in the top 3, all you can hope for is an NHL regular. And out of the top 10, if you get a 2nd pairing D or a top 6 forward, you got super lucky. Columbus needs to, and has, run it into the ground, go top 3 in the draft for 3 or 4 years and then we're talking.

 

[Hello Johnny]

The worst pick was probably taking Johansen over Skinner in 2010.

My one nit pick of your post. People forget that Skinner was ranked 34th by Central Scouting and 25th by THN on the final pre-draft lists. Johansen ranged from 6th to 12th and his stock was rising a whole lot. Carolina taking Skinner at 7 was considered a reach by many, it just turns out that the question marks around him turned out to be fictitious. Credit goes to Carolina for that one (not to mention, Joey still has plenty of time to hone his game).

 

[Mayor Bee]

My one nit pick of your post. People forget that Skinner was ranked 34th by Central Scouting and 25th by THN on the final pre-draft lists. Johansen ranged from 6th to 12th and his stock was rising a whole lot. Carolina taking Skinner at 7 was considered a reach by many, it just turns out that the question marks around him turned out to be fictitious. Credit goes to Carolina for that one (not to mention, Joey still has plenty of time to hone his game).

It was an incredible reach; the threads are still around here basically laughing at Carolina for taking what was thought to be a Thomas Hickey type of pick.

Personally, I don't think Skinner has progressed much at all since his rookie year. The production hasn't been quite the same, but he hasn't really come around in other areas at all. It may well be that he peaked as a rookie and will simply decline, inch by inch, over the next 15 years.

 

[tdfast]

My one nit pick of your post. People forget that Skinner was ranked 34th by Central Scouting and 25th by THN on the final pre-draft lists. Johansen ranged from 6th to 12th and his stock was rising a whole lot. Carolina taking Skinner at 7 was considered a reach by many, it just turns out that the question marks around him turned out to be fictitious. Credit goes to Carolina for that one (not to mention, Joey still has plenty of time to hone his game).

That's true. My only point was a pretty good player went right away after Johansen so there may have been something there Howson maybe should have seen. But that was the only one in his tenure that you could even question. This only makes the point that Howson wasn't really a bad drafter, just didn't have a bad enough team to get the talent.

 

[CapnCornelius]

My one nit pick of your post. People forget that Skinner was ranked 34th by Central Scouting and 25th by THN on the final pre-draft lists. Johansen ranged from 6th to 12th and his stock was rising a whole lot. Carolina taking Skinner at 7 was considered a reach by many, it just turns out that the question marks around him turned out to be fictitious. Credit goes to Carolina for that one (not to mention, Joey still has plenty of time to hone his game).

Pre-draft rankings are a crutch. It is the job of scouts to go beyond some list, actually watch players and make their own conclusions based on what they see.

Truth told, there has yet to be an NHL organization that has put a premium on scouting and development. Scouting is one of the more affordable ways to improve a team. Some team needs to get smart--more scouts, better scouts, dig deeper into statistics and evaluation metrics than the other guys. Look where they aren't looking. There is no NHL equivalent of Branch Rickey, not even the sainted Wings.

 

[bizzz*]

TSN had Johansen 6th overall and Skinner 10th.
http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=24944

ISS had Johansen 8th and Skinner 9th.
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/12191/iss_top302010_prospects_june/

Some people called that Skinner will be a biggest steal of the draft.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=782207

 

[InjuredChoker]

So early, RyJo may turn out to be the better player.

 

[EspenK]

In reality almost all GM's just go down the ranking lists. I would love to see the Jackets be able to id a guy further down the lists who would turn out to be a very productive player a la Giroux, Weber, etc.

if all we are going to do is draft off the lists why have scouts at all?

In essence, what Capn said. Maybe Jarmo is the guy.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Pre-draft rankings are a crutch. It is the job of scouts to go beyond some list, actually watch players and make their own conclusions based on what they see.

Although your premise is true, the conclusion is wrong because your target is wrong.

Prospect rankings are extremely valuable as a historical document. They're important for establishing a setting, that at a particular time a player was perceived to be this valuable in the future for this reason. No, it's not the be-all-end-all. But to deny the importance as an actual resource for analysis is similar to dismissing any other compiled secondhand contemporary source from a particular time.

Any historical account is open to analysis and scrutiny. But to simply dismiss it...where does it end?

Truth told, there has yet to be an NHL organization that has put a premium on scouting and development. Scouting is one of the more affordable ways to improve a team. Some team needs to get smart--more scouts, better scouts, dig deeper into statistics and evaluation metrics than the other guys. Look where they aren't looking. There is no NHL equivalent of Branch Rickey, not even the sainted Wings.

Well, if we scrape up enough money to buy an NHL team, I trust that you'll put this plan into action.

 

[EspenK]

Although your premise is true, the conclusion is wrong because your target is wrong.

Prospect rankings are extremely valuable as a historical document. They're important for establishing a setting, that at a particular time a player was perceived to be this valuable in the future for this reason. No, it's not the be-all-end-all. But to deny the importance as an actual resource for analysis is similar to dismissing any other compiled secondhand contemporary source from a particular time.

Any historical account is open to analysis and scrutiny. But to simply dismiss it...where does it end?

Holy BS Batman!

 

[Doug19]

Never really thought Howson was a bad drafter, he just didn't have the people in the right spots to develop the young talent. I don't know if it is his decision or not, so I won't place the blame on him, but I still can't fathom why there wasn't a defensive coach in Springfield last year when all of our defenders were making their pro debuts. Howson and the organization failed this team by not developing home grown players correctly by not putting players in positions to succeed and not providing the players with good coaching. Coaching has been a consistent issue here, even Hitch wasn't that great for us by his own admission. Following up Hitch with Arniel and Richards isn't exactly a positive move.

Overall I feel Howson did a good job stocking this team with depth going forward, now the new guy just needs to add top talent and properly develop some of our young guys into impact players rather than just depth guys. Guys like Moore, Atkinson, Goulbouf (sp), Jenner, and Johansen.

 

[Viqsi]

Some people called that Skinner will be a biggest steal of the draft.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=782207

I was quietly one of them, simply because when I heard that folks were complaining about his skating it seemed nonsensical to me. That said, I also thought that taking him at 4 was insane. And I also really wanted Gormley.

* * *​

Holy BS Batman!

Makes sense to me. Historical context is useful in judging sanity at the time. No human being is able to perfectly predict the future, after all.