Crazy theory time:
All this Phillips talk has got me thinking. His draft class was unusually awful, while 2003 and possibly 2015 are unusually strong.
I wonder, if something like a "golden year" exists. By golden year, I mean a specific age where (generally) kids have a pivotal change in their development. Whether it's suddenly better hand-eye coordination, or suddenly able to grasp concepts and looking at the game differently, or simply developmentally the kids are much more open to learning something new and being a sponge.
The reason I wonder, is that something happened to mess up that 1996 draft class. My best guess is that Hockey Canada made a significant rule/policy change that took effect at the start of the '96 class golden year. (You know how big changes often have a 'transition' year where people are trying to go from one system to another and there's a lot of confusion and chaos). Conversely, a really great change or quick fix occurred during the golden year of the 2003s and 2015s.
Now if somehow Hockey Canada could go through their archives and take a look at all the changes they make and the age the 1996, 2003 and 2015s were, I'll bet they could find a trend in there somewhere.
If a kid has a strong golden year, it's like compound interest...that strong first deposit just multiplies years down the road. So, if we could figure out what age that golden year happens to be, and put a bit more emphasis on development and really working with the kids in that year....we might just have something very special down the road.
It sounds crazy, but it really feels odd there could be such a variance in overall quality of drafts when there are so many kids playing this game. There's got to be something else to it.