Dash wrote: Those guys are good and all - but they aren't elite. How do you get elite players? Well you either draft them (which means winning the lottery) or in the rare occasion, sign one. But teams rarely let their stars go to free agency.
The problem is we have no 1st line Fs in the system, we have some nice 2nd liners and as many 3rd/4th liners as you could possibly ever need, but now the focus is on whether we have enough top line talent up front or not IMO.
Lots of guys like Karlsson that were drafted in the later picks. But you're right we need a forward. Apparently Spezza can't cut it, Alfie will be gone sooner than later, Michalek is/has been inconsistent and unhealthy, and if he plays like he is now, he is a decent top line guy, but he's not that young. Zibanejad is an unproven prospect, same with Puempel, Silfverberg, Prince, Stone, Noesen.
Lots of similar guys on other teams that have done nothing (Nemisz, Tangradi, etc).
Edmonton has had two guys in 2 years that have made a huge impact.
I'm not arguing that Edmonton got some pretty major players, but they don't 'even' have a Karlsson, let alone a Karlsson and a Rundblad, perhaps they have a Cowen, but the jury's still out. So they went at it from a different direction, forwards instead of D (and Lehner), I'm not sure they're in a better or worse position than we are, are you?
I'd also say that Karlsson is not just a 'nice pick with 15' kind of player, he has the potential to be the single best offensive D-man in the league, so the elite is right there, right?
Pitts - Fluery - good goaltender, nothing you couldn't find in the next 300 picks, too mario taking over to turn organization around.
Washington- Ovechkin -ONLY example of a player turning a franchise around on his own.
Crosby would have done the same as Ovi. Pitt still won a lotto, nothing on ice had anything to do with it.
So on and on. chicago's owner had to die otherwise they would be the same loser organization they were for a decade too.
1st overall gaurantees NOTHING. you get that Dash? If you were any more wrong in your approch to things you would fall below loser.
I'm not saying I want the team to lose - I cheer for them regardless though. I do want Yakupov though, who wouldn't? I don't believe the Sens will get him, cause that would be too good to be true.
How do I not see that a poor team off ice = poor team on ice. I'm pretty sure I said that. Doesn't mean they lack good players. In a few years they will be amazing.
You are taking this way too personal. You have serious anger issues.
I can see thigns from every point of view, and yet you go to extremes and fail to see that even players like Doughty, Stamkos, etc.
So you are so blinded by rage and all that, but you don't have any suggestions how Ottawa can improve for the future? You also love to criticize what they do have.
Thats just because they took forwards. They already have their two 1st overalls making a huge difference. Sens have Rundblad who still is far away form ready. Karlsson yes is awesome.
Dash wrote: I'm not saying I want the team to lose - I cheer for them regardless though. I do want Yakupov though, who wouldn't? I don't believe the Sens will get him, cause that would be too good to be true.
It's about the organization and nothing else. It's starts at the top, down to the ice. you try and win every night, period. Saying losing is a good thing is wrong. Losing is never a goo thing. Ever. If it happens because a team isn't that good, so be it, it's the way it is, someone is always the best, someone is always the wiorst. Saying being the worst is a good thing is wrong.
If Ottawa was a good enough team then we wouldn't be discussing this. Unfortunately for them other teams are much worse.
For the record, I woudl love Yakupov in a Sens uni. Not at the exspense of flushing a season down the drain or bailing on the organizations plan or standards.
I'll ask this. How many 1st overall picks will win Stanley Cups with the teams that drafted them? Since 1979 there has been 5. In over 30 Cussing years of NHL hockey, there have been 5 players that went 1st overall that won a cup with that team. Awesome odds there, right?
I pretty much just put to rest what the 1st overall gaurantees an organization.
Can someone actually tell me the exact number of 1st overasll picks to win a cup with the team that drafted them?
SpezDispenser wrote: I'd also say that Karlsson is not just a 'nice pick with 15' kind of player, he has the potential to be the single best offensive D-man in the league, so the elite is right there, right?
Looks more and more like it with each passing week.
NEELY wrote: Can someone actually tell me the exact number of 1st overasll picks to win a cup with the team that drafted them?
That should be extended to the top 3 picks. Those are usually where the elite players are from what I recall.
This is an unfortunate discussion on a night where winning couldn't be sweeter. For shame.
For the record I think the 1st overalls of the past few years (let's say 5-6) and for the next few years will be stars. I think scouting and training are a lot easier now.
That being said, I also believe building a Stanley Cup team without a top 3 pick, ever, is also much easier because of the same reason. Just look at Rundblad, Cowen and Karlsson.
A top 3 pick is not worth tanking a season, not even 1. Winning is a habit and talent is just an ingredient of the soup, and as long as it is possible to get the Cup without a top 5 pick we shouldn't even think about getting 1.
Boston's progression over the past 5 years is a testament to that. Same thing for a team like Philly. Their best player has been drafted in the 20's.
Seguin may lead his team in scoring, but for every guy like that, there's a Jamie Benn or a Claude Giroux.
Lots of teams have drafted top 5 and haven't done Dung. There are more of those than Winners.
Don't let Edmonton's pts total fool you, their goalie is playing over his head. They're 26th in goals scored per game, RNH and Hall are not "winning" them games yet. They have a very long way to go and would probably need 3 Playoffs runs to even get there. By that time they will be close to 20 years of mediocrity.
The convo was about the lottle pick. For the most part, unless it is a generational talent, they won't be the best player from the draft.
La Femme wrote: For the record I think the 1st overalls of the past few years (let's say 5-6) and for the next few years will be stars. I think scouting and training are a lot easier now.