Bryan Murray: "We Have To Make A Tweak"

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

@shabbs> as you know, it takes more than "Top 5" picks to make a difference.

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall

All important players, and some of them key players.

While the Blackhawks have some first round picks on the roster, it is management's ability to select and develop starting players from later rounds that gives the team depth and balance.

If you do some research, you can probably find a number of other teams who have had similar results with their draft picks.

IMHO Ottawa's seeming inability to re-stock its roster since its run to the Cup, has been the root cause of the team's decline in the standings.

Murray's been doing it but it will take, 3, 4, even up to 4 or 6 years to really notice it.

Chris Wideman, 4th round pick, could be on team USA for the WJC this year
Robin Lehner, 2nd round pick who looks to be an absolute stud
Andre Petersson, 4th round pick who made Sweden's WJC team as an 18 year old
Karlsson, Cowen both drafted outside of the top 5
Silverberg who will be on Sweden's WJC team this year.
Wiercoich who was the best freshman in the NCAA last year
Derek Smith who was a 3rd round pick has already played an NHL game
Regin in making an impact now (even though it was Mucklers pick)
Elliott was a 9th rounder.
Derek Grant a 5th rounder (I think) who is tearing up the NCAA as a freshman.

Those are the picks that IMO will eventually make some sort of impact in Ottawa, 3 or 4 of them with the potetial to be franchise players. It's going to be a long process in Ottawa, people need to be patient just like they were in Chicago.

Cowen is our Seabrook, Wiercoich is our Keith, and Karlsson may very well be our Campbell but we had a chance to draft him. Lehner is our.... well, Lehner is rob better then anyone they have there right now (no offense DTR and a little sarcastic on my part).

Ottawa needs to draft a guy like Toews in short order to really build a team that will compete hard in the future. They need that young, character guy who is a solid player. That's all that's missing in Ottawa's system right now, I think Derek Grant may turn into something special.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

@shabbs> as you know, it takes more than "Top 5" picks to make a difference.

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall

All important players, and some of them key players.

While the Blackhawks have some first round picks on the roster, it is management's ability to select and develop starting players from later rounds that gives the team depth and balance.

If you do some research, you can probably find a number of other teams who have had similar results with their draft picks.

IMHO Ottawa's seeming inability to re-stock its roster since its run to the Cup, has been the root cause of the team's decline in the standings.

DTR, not a single one of the guys you mentioned above were drafted in the past three years. The closest is Hjalmarsson in 2005. The rest were all 2002, 2003 or 2004.

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

O'Reiley was drafted in the 2nd round and leads the league in +/-. David Parron, Sam Gagne, Myers, Bailey, Wilson, Del Zatto, Sbisa, Benn, Kulikov, Mason, there are tons.

Middle of the pack is BS.

Gagner went 5th over-all. O'Reilly is a completely unique situation. A few of these other guys were drafted because they were ready to go, like Kulikov.

Anyway, we took defencemen, which take longer to develop but pay off tremendously.

IMO it's incredibly stupid to make NHL-readiness a big factor on your pick. Otherwise the Lightning would have taken Schenn over Stamkos.

Point being is there are other guys outside of the top 5, even the top 10 that make an impact in their first 3 years. If you are looking for a guy to step in from right out of the draft, no, prob wont happen, in 2 or 3 years though... it comes down to drafting and the organization. Muckler screwed the pooch hard as we are seeing it now in Ottawa.

asq2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

Precisely. It's incredibly infrequent that teams stumble across prospects outside of that top area with both long-term potential and the ability to step in immediately.

The reason Karlsson wasn't a top-5 pick was because his physical dimensions prevented him from being a guy able to step in immediately, and Cowen's injury had the same effect.

Anyway, Murray can hardly be evaluated for 2007. That was all on the scouts, and our scouting has changed since then (dramatically for the better, IMO).

@ASQ> Nobody's talking about 'immediately'.

Of the Senators picks in the last five drafts, only two have become regulars.

You seem to be well versed on draft picks and prospects. How does Ottawa's record with developing its picks compare with other teams?

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall 2004
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall 2004
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall 2002
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall 2003
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall 2005
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall 2002
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall 2003

All important players, and some of them key players.

You're misinterpreting Shabbs here. No one is going to argue that you can only get top players from top-5 picks - the greatest player in the history of our franchise was selected in the sixth round.

What we're saying is that it's very rare to have non-top-5 picks step in and make a big impact right after being drafted. Even more rare is the case of defencemen, unless they're drafted for almost specifically that reason.

Your comment serves more to highlight the miscues of the later Muckler era of drafting, rather than what Murray's done.

I'm sorry Dave, I think you're way off here. The drafting is the best part of our franchise at the moment.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

@shabbs> as you know, it takes more than "Top 5" picks to make a difference.

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall

All important players, and some of them key players.

While the Blackhawks have some first round picks on the roster, it is management's ability to select and develop starting players from later rounds that gives the team depth and balance.

If you do some research, you can probably find a number of other teams who have had similar results with their draft picks.

IMHO Ottawa's seeming inability to re-stock its roster since its run to the Cup, has been the root cause of the team's decline in the standings.

DTR, not a single one of the guys you mentioned above were drafted in the past three years. The closest is Hjalmarsson in 2005. The rest were all 2002, 2003 or 2004.

So what? I'm making a point about the importance of developing prospects.

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

@shabbs> as you know, it takes more than "Top 5" picks to make a difference.

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall

All important players, and some of them key players.

While the Blackhawks have some first round picks on the roster, it is management's ability to select and develop starting players from later rounds that gives the team depth and balance.

If you do some research, you can probably find a number of other teams who have had similar results with their draft picks.

IMHO Ottawa's seeming inability to re-stock its roster since its run to the Cup, has been the root cause of the team's decline in the standings.

DTR, not a single one of the guys you mentioned above were drafted in the past three years. The closest is Hjalmarsson in 2005. The rest were all 2002, 2003 or 2004.

His point was good drafting will eventually show it's worth down the road. They obviously needed Kane and Toews to really move forward but they have drafted well outside of the 1st round in the last 6 or 7 years and you are seeing the results with their depth.

Conracts aside, Chicago is in fantastic shape and has more coming althogh I still think there will be a Beach and a 2nd for A Train deal coming if Ottawa is out and Chicago is looking to add a piece. A Train is more then a perfect fit there.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

@shabbs> as you know, it takes more than "Top 5" picks to make a difference.

Starting players can come from 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even later rounds.

And while I can't rattle off examples from other teams, I will tell you about examples of Chicago draft picks outside the Top 5, on the Hawks' starting roster:

Bolland, 2nd round, 32nd overall
Brouwer, 7th round, 214th overall
Burish, 9th round, 282nd overall
Byfuglien, 8th round, 245th overall
Hjalmarsson, 4th round, 108th overall
Keith, 2nd round, 54th overall
Seabrook, 1st round, 14th overall

All important players, and some of them key players.

While the Blackhawks have some first round picks on the roster, it is management's ability to select and develop starting players from later rounds that gives the team depth and balance.

If you do some research, you can probably find a number of other teams who have had similar results with their draft picks.

IMHO Ottawa's seeming inability to re-stock its roster since its run to the Cup, has been the root cause of the team's decline in the standings.

DTR, not a single one of the guys you mentioned above were drafted in the past three years. The closest is Hjalmarsson in 2005. The rest were all 2002, 2003 or 2004.

So what? I'm making a point about the importance of developing prospects.

This started off as being a judgment of the past three years of Sens drafting, and I questioned how many non-Top 5 picks in the past three years are making an impact.

Your reply didn't even come close to addressing my question as you cited draft pics from well beyond the range we were talking about.

Go back and read it if you like.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

Precisely. It's incredibly infrequent that teams stumble across prospects outside of that top area with both long-term potential and the ability to step in immediately.

The reason Karlsson wasn't a top-5 pick was because his physical dimensions prevented him from being a guy able to step in immediately, and Cowen's injury had the same effect.

Anyway, Murray can hardly be evaluated for 2007. That was all on the scouts, and our scouting has changed since then (dramatically for the better, IMO).

@ASQ> Nobody's talking about 'immediately'.

Of the Senators picks in the last five drafts, only two have become regulars.

You seem to be well versed on draft picks and prospects. How does Ottawa's record with developing its picks compare with other teams?

Foligno then I struggle to really call anyone else a regular.

@Shabbs> you want to include Ottawa's drafts going back to 2002?

One more starter, Brian Elliott.

Just so we're talking about a level playing field.

Meszaros?

davetherave wrote:@Shabbs> you want to include Ottawa's drafts going back to 2002?

No I don't.

shabbs wrote:This started off as being a judgment of the past three years of Sens drafting, and I questioned how many non-Top 5 picks in the past three years are making an impact.

Your reply didn't even come close to addressing my question as you cited draft pics from well beyond the range we were talking about.

Go back and read it if you like.

@Shabbs> it's not a judgement, and you missed my point.

My point being Ottawa hasn't drafted enough players who make the starting lineup, to replenish their roster over the past few years.

The ones they had, are gone.

Go back and read my post again.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:This started off as being a judgment of the past three years of Sens drafting, and I questioned how many non-Top 5 picks in the past three years are making an impact.

Your reply didn't even come close to addressing my question as you cited draft pics from well beyond the range we were talking about.

Go back and read it if you like.

@Shabbs> it's not a judgement, and you missed my point.

My point being Ottawa hasn't drafted enough players who make the starting lineup, to replenish their roster over the past few years.

The ones they had, are gone.

Go back and read my post again.

I did... this is what I was responding to.

davetherave wrote:Looking at the Senators' draft record since BM has taken over, and from the three drafts he has managed, not one player is starting with the Sens.

If you want to change the parameters... go right ahead.



Muckler's drafting was not great and we're paying the price for sure, I agree there, but Murray's drafting will take a bit more than three years to see the impact. And we really can't count Murray's first draft... that was a "Muckler" draft really.

davetherave wrote:@Shabbs> you want to include Ottawa's drafts going back to 2002?

One more starter, Brian Elliott.

Just so we're talking about a level playing field.

Is your backup really a regular? Debatable. A 9th round pick as your full time backup though is a great draft pick. I wouldnt call him a regular just yet. Regin is basically a regular, I would put those 2 on the same level IMO.

There will be more Murray draft picks here in the next 2 or 3 years then Mucklers combined picks in The NHL. Just a guess.

davetherave wrote:

shabbs wrote:This started off as being a judgment of the past three years of Sens drafting, and I questioned how many non-Top 5 picks in the past three years are making an impact.

Your reply didn't even come close to addressing my question as you cited draft pics from well beyond the range we were talking about.

Go back and read it if you like.

@Shabbs> it's not a judgement, and you missed my point.

My point being Ottawa hasn't drafted enough players who make the starting lineup, to replenish their roster over the past few years.

The ones they had, are gone.

Go back and read my post again.

Muckler traded picks and drafted poorly, beyond poorly really. That's the problem in Ottawa right now, Dave. It's not complicaed. Muckler really screwed this team.

Dave, if you want proof of how little faith Murray had in Mucklers scouts, look at the 3 draft picks he dealt in the 5th, 6th, and 7th round to Tampa for a 4th the next year.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

shabbs wrote:When was the last time we had a Top 5 draft pick? How many young draft picks outside of the Top 5 are starting with their teams from the past three years?

We've got that silly "middle of the pack" pick syndrome going on...

Precisely. It's incredibly infrequent that teams stumble across prospects outside of that top area with both long-term potential and the ability to step in immediately.

The reason Karlsson wasn't a top-5 pick was because his physical dimensions prevented him from being a guy able to step in immediately, and Cowen's injury had the same effect.

Anyway, Murray can hardly be evaluated for 2007. That was all on the scouts, and our scouting has changed since then (dramatically for the better, IMO).

@ASQ> Nobody's talking about 'immediately'.

Of the Senators picks in the last five drafts, only two have become regulars.

You seem to be well versed on draft picks and prospects. How does Ottawa's record with developing its picks compare with other teams?

If you're going to criticize Murray (which may be misreading and misinterpreting on my part) then it follows that it's immediately.

Definitely, our drafting from 2002 to 2007 was pretty bad.

2002: Klepis, Kaigorodov, Luttinen, Dobben, Bjork, Hooten, Vavra, Atyushov
2003: Eaves, Mirnov, Seydoux, M. Karlsson, Cook, Gimayev, Colbert, Louhivaara, Elliott (good pick)
2004: Meszaros (good pick), Lyamin, Weller, Regin (good pick), Glass, Nikulin, McKenzie, Wick, Cooper, McIlvane, Wikner
2005: Lee, Anikeyenko, Bass, Zubov, Kolehmainen, Kudelka, Megalinsky, Greening (give him time)
2006: Foligno (good pick), Gryba (give him time), Daugavins, Lessard, Daniels, Koopman, Condra (give him time)
2007: O'Brien, Bashkirov, Caporusso (give him time), Blood

If you were to identify a problem, it would be Muckler's infatuation with Russians. In Mirnov, Lyamin, even arguably Kaigorodov, he got some pretty awesome talent, but obviously the relationship between the NHL and Russia has deteriorated.

This is a far cry from when Ottawa was walking out with Havlats, Hossas, etc. But with the influx of new scouts, and Anders Forsberg running the show in Sweden, even preliminary results show that this isn't a problem any more.

2008: Karlsson, Wiercioch, Smith, Petersson, Grant (wow!), Borowiecki, Sandin

That's five straight players who should see some time in the NHL, all possessing quite a bit of potential, then a local kid, then an under the radar guy who actually has a game that could translate nicely into the NHL.

2009: Cowen, Silfverberg, Lehner, Wideman, Hoffman, Costello, Cowick, Peltz, Sdao

Not quite as impressive, but you've walked away with two almost surefire terrific NHLers in Cowen and Lehner, a secondary scorer in Silfverberg and two guys who are longshots but with the potential to make the NHL in Wideman and Hoffman.

So yeah, no concern in the drafting department. It's the best thing going for the team. We're suffering quite a bit for the Muckler era in regards to drafting, and trading for prospects (Barinka and Hennessy, for two), but to identify the problem as occuring after the Cup Run isn't accurate, unless you're saying its only manifested itself after the Cup Run.

But, going by the parameters of the three (more accurately two) drafts that Murray's managed, you're not at all illustrating your point by identifying names like Keith and Seabrook.