Do you or does anyone else have any statistical evidence regarding "drafting for need" versus "drafting for skill" versus "drafting BPA"?
It would be interesting to see the evidence/studies. I suspect there would be quite a discussion about the definitions for each type.
I have this arguement every draft mostly with Bondra Time
.
BPA - according to who? When they say they had a player ranked as BPA half the board doesn't think so & list the guys they think are better. How many ranking sites & so called experts were wrong about Batherson, Stone, Hoffman, Yakopov, Puljujarvi & Patrick? Remember when Gretsky was ridiculed for taking Wheeler so early, he turned into a pretty good player.
Whenver a team picks a guy that the ranking systems had later in the draft it causes controversy until that player proves himself in the NHL, that's just the way it is with all us couch experts at home.
Wilson, Kassian & Lawson were all 1st rd picks, but the vast majority of people considered them 4th line goons & skilless & didn't want them drafted. Wilson was an allstar this yr, Lawson is having a good season Kassian has been okay & has played in the top six occassionaly.
Once you have a cupboard full of prospects could that be the time to go for need? Most don't think so yet I have heard some experts say they would. Ottawa has a cupboard full of prospects maybe last draft they went for a need. Maybe they go for need again this yr, who knows? Who wants a cupboard full of small soft little skilled players? Re-watch the playoffs.
Like everything else there are so many variables involved & so much money put into these drafts, but it always comes down to the player & whether they have what it takes & are ready to work harder than they ever have before to make it. Logan Brown has all the skill & lacks work ethic, Parker Kelly has the work ethic, but lacks the skill. Scouts need to find the guys who have both & guys with character at the least work hard for it.