Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Rangers Prospects Thread (Stats in Post #1; Updated 5.29.18)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
WeNeverGetaGoodCoach said:
no, it will not mask it completely, we need to draft a winger or 2 or 3 in the 1st round (preferably 2 wingers and 1 Dman). All we have is Ronning, Gettinger, and Morgan Barron(long shot). Defense is also a position that is often easier to fill with a good veteran than develop your own.
Click to expand...
Meant to quote this... been a while since I posted but I’ll try that again: You never draft for need. Thats how you end up drafting a mcilrath instead of a tarasenko. You can always move other players/prospects in the future. Always go bpa
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrmovies779, haveandare, Rangers_23 and 5 others
WeNeverGetaGoodCoach said:
I don't care what the odds are over the years, I look at top 10 and I see only 4 wingers and chances are they are all gone by #9, and Dobson and Dahlin are the only Dmen I would feel comfortable drafting in the top 10. And we need wingers a lot more than Dmen.
Click to expand...

how can you at the same time claim that all our dman are matt gilroys and the reason we became terrible but also we don't need dmen
 
surlysailor said:
Meant to quote this... been a while since I posted but I’ll try that again: You never draft for need. Thats how you end up drafting a mcilrath instead of a tarasenko. You can always move other players/prospects in the future. Always go bpa
Click to expand...

you never draft for a need on the NHL roster, but you definitely draft for one in the pipeline.
 
No, draft BPA regardless of your pipeline tol. With how inconsistent prospects timelines are for getting to become regular NHLers, for the limited amount of roster spots to begin with, you just go for BPA and fill in the gaps later.

The goal is to get the best players onto the roster, regardless of position.

Don't lose out on better talent just because your farm team/pipeline/reserve list doesn't have as many quality players at LW (for example) as they do at C.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare and surlysailor
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Stahl, Stall, McDonough, Krieder, Vessey, Straalman, Lundquist, Stephan, Zibenajad, Lindbergh, Stahlberg, Pavelech. I can go on and on. I've seen it all. Apparently it is REALLY difficult to spell the names of our players.
Click to expand...

I can't say anything, I struggle with Rick/Rich Nash and Brendan/Brandon Smith... ;)
 
surlysailor said:
Meant to quote this... been a while since I posted but I’ll try that again: You never draft for need. Thats how you end up drafting a mcilrath instead of a tarasenko. You can always move other players/prospects in the future. Always go bpa
Click to expand...

Always go BPA -- but chuck away 15% of the value from any LD. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: surlysailor
WeNeverGetaGoodCoach said:
no such thing as BPA really.
Click to expand...

942.gif
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
942.gif
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with him. I’m not a huge fan of going off the board. But in most cases, there not a fundamental quality difference between the guy you draft at 12 because you needed a center in the organization and the defenseman drafted at 14 you didn’t take because you felt better about the organization depth there.
 
If BPA doesn't exist, why do your chances of drafting a career NHL-er get smaller the further you get in the draft? It's a ridiculous statement (Not his first today) without any context.

The way you put it, Tawnos, yes. I agree. In hindsight, BPA isn't always BPA but that has more to do with the consensus being wrong. Different scouting staffs have different lists. A player could be as high as 8th on a team's list, despite falling all the way to 20.
 
I take the NFL POV. If there are two players and they are close in grade say a 9.2 vs 9.1 but we need the position that the 9.1 graded, then we draft him, however if the 9.1 was really an 8.5, then draft the 9.2
 
If there is no such thing as BPA and you need to draft by positional need for the pipeline, Hanifin goes 1OA to the Oilers in 2015.

Oops
 
i can't believe people are even entertaining this nonsense. you can debate what criteria makes someone the best player available but to say that there is no best player available might be one of the dumbest thing ever written on these boards. by default someone has to be the top guy on your list. your top guy might not be the same as my top guy but someone has to be at the top of the list...

you might choice to draft based on need or there might be little separation between guys on your list but that doesn't change the fact that someone MUST be, in your eyes, the best player avaiable
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bozle, Berserk and nyr2k2
BPA should always be the choice.

By that, I mean, when you ask an organization why they took a player it should be "because we have him rated as the best player on the board, all things considered."

A team should not answer that they took a player because he is the best Dman/Center/Winger/Goalie available.

The Rangers can say they took Lias because all things considered they had him rated as the best player. They should not say that they thought there was a player who would be a better NHL player but they liked Lias' personality more.

This sounds convoluted, but it makes sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haveandare
1. teams often lie and say "because we have him rated as the best player on the board, all things considered."
2. some scouts are incompetent and that messes up your rankings
3. you can't have same scouts scout all leagues and tournaments, so you get 1 scout saw player a, b, c another scout only saw players x, y, z so you can't really compare them that well
4. then there are extra factors like attitude, age, reputations, Russian factor, injury history, terrible or amazing performance at the combine
5. then there are teams that don't want to draft anybody who is not a very good skater or does not have very good work ethic

you take NHL players and have 20 analysts make their BPA lists and you will have 20 completely different lists. And with young prospects it is even more difficult.

So basically no such thing as BPA, each team has their pipeline/organizational needs and their ideas of how to pick out talent.

Rangers as well as many other teams often use a tactic where they pick from players that were recognized as top young players by being picked to various U18 or U20 tournament rosters. They concentrate on scouting those tournaments.
 
WeNeverGetaGoodCoach said:
no such thing as BPA really.
Click to expand...

I think most people would be surprised to learn that BPA is really more of a grouping for many (but not all) teams.

A team ranking a player clearly above his peers is not as common as you'd think --- specifically when you get outside the top two or three picks. Many times you have a few names on the board who are ranked about the same, or scored about the same, and the organization debates about the pick prior to the draft. And yes, in those cases, position depth is something discussed.

I think we tend to think of it as being more black and white than most teams do. But just like we see on here, BPA is a fairly subjective term that will vary from person to person.
 
bl02 said:
Doesn't look good for Regina down 2-0 with 5 minutes but Hajek has looked really good in the third.
Click to expand...

Hajek looked better in previous games. Some of it was because the whole team was struggling against quicker Titans, some of it was due to being moved around by coaches trying to find D-pairs that would work (Hajek was moved from playing with Fleury - his regular partner to playing with Mahura - Pats' default #1D), and some of it was due to Hajek's own play (mostly cost/benefit decisions / reads on whether to jump into a play or not).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom