No. The pipeline at forward was not awful in 2018 at that draft. We already had Larkin on the roster. Mantha had just scored 24 goals and 48 points as a 23 year old. AA scored 18 goals, then 16 goals and was showing more promise as a 2nd line forward. Bertuzzi joined the roster that year and produced 24 points in just 48 games. At the time there were still high hopes for Svech, and we had just drafted Rasmussen who was going to be our 2C and net front PP guy. Sure some of these guys didn't pan out, but at the time we seemed to have some nice potential top 6 wingers. On defense we had pure trash on the roster - Kronwall, Green, Ericsson, Daley and a pipeline of Cholowski, Hronek, and total garbage.
- HockeyBuzzed

Rasmussen was a bad pick from the beginning -- he was a mediocre 5 on 5 player even in juniors. Bertuzzi at that point was still projected as a third-line shift disturber with above-average hands for a grinder, not a core piece. Svech had just had a disastrous season in the AHL that was a big step backward from his rookie pro year. AA was less than two months from turning 24 and had never even finished better than half a point per game in the NHL.

You could argue that the defense pipeline was even worse, but there were no obvious future stars up front either. Taking the consensus BPA over a defender was an entirely reasonable decision under the circumstances.

You might have chosen differently, which is valid, but portraying the Zadina pick as some kind of boneheaded move that only an idiot GM would make requires quite a bit of revisionist history.

Rasmussen was a bad pick from the beginning -- he was a mediocre 5 on 5 player even in juniors. Bertuzzi at that point was still projected as a third-line shift disturber with above-average hands for a grinder, not a core piece. Svech had just had a disastrous season in the AHL that was a big step backward from his rookie pro year. AA was less than two months from turning 24 and had never even finished better than half a point per game in the NHL.

You could argue that the defense pipeline was even worse, but there were no obvious future stars up front either. Taking the consensus BPA over a defender was an entirely reasonable decision under the circumstances.

You might have chosen differently, which is valid, but portraying the Zadina pick as some kind of boneheaded move that only an idiot GM would make requires quite a bit of revisionist history.
- Sven22

Rasmussen was a bad pick from the beginning -- he was a mediocre 5 on 5 player even in juniors. Bertuzzi at that point was still projected as a third-line shift disturber with above-average hands for a grinder, not a core piece. Svech had just had a disastrous season in the AHL that was a big step backward from his rookie pro year. AA was less than two months from turning 24 and had never even finished better than half a point per game in the NHL.

You could argue that the defense pipeline was even worse, but there were no obvious future stars up front either. Taking the consensus BPA over a defender was an entirely reasonable decision under the circumstances.

You might have chosen differently, which is valid, but portraying the Zadina pick as some kind of boneheaded move that only an idiot GM would make requires quite a bit of revisionist history.
- Sven22

Larkin and Mantha were viewed as future top line players. You cite AA point totals, but his goals were impressive, considering limited minutes. He would score 30 the next year. Svech had a tough year recovering from injuries, but hopes were still high. I agree Rasmussen was a stupid pick, but obviously the brass viewed him as a key piece. Nobody viewed Bert as a top line winger but he was clearly on track to be a versatile middle-6 winger. Nyquist was still on the roster to bridge. They viewed the future so promising that they traded away Tatar that deadline. Adding yet another skilled winger should have been the last priority. Again, if the skill gap is wide you take BPA. But we're not talking about passing on an Ovechkin or Kane to take Quinn Hughes. Zadina had question marks and were seeing that now. The gap was narrow, well at least a smart GM would have concluded that. So you should have placed a bit more importance on organizational need. Notice Yerman came in and went Seider over forwards like Cozens and Zegras. Seems like need played a bigger factor there. Smart. Added two more d-men in round 2. This last draft he continued that with Edvinsson over Eklund. Moves up to draft Cossa, addressing another need. Takes Buium at 36 to add another top defense prospect. But you're off course going to sayvtgey just happened to be BPA like Zadina was...

No. The pipeline at forward was not awful in 2018 at that draft. We already had Larkin on the roster. Mantha had just scored 24 goals and 48 points as a 23 year old. AA scored 18 goals, then 16 goals and was showing more promise as a 2nd line forward. Bertuzzi joined the roster that year and produced 24 points in just 48 games. At the time there were still high hopes for Svech, and we had just drafted Rasmussen who was going to be our 2C and net front PP guy. Sure some of these guys didn't pan out, but at the time we seemed to have some nice potential top 6 wingers. On defense we had pure trash on the roster - Kronwall, Green, Ericsson, Daley and a pipeline of Cholowski, Hronek, and total garbage.
- HockeyBuzzed

No

Rasmussen was a bad pick from the beginning -- he was a mediocre 5 on 5 player even in juniors. Bertuzzi at that point was still projected as a third-line shift disturber with above-average hands for a grinder, not a core piece. Svech had just had a disastrous season in the AHL that was a big step backward from his rookie pro year. AA was less than two months from turning 24 and had never even finished better than half a point per game in the NHL.

You could argue that the defense pipeline was even worse, but there were no obvious future stars up front either. Taking the consensus BPA over a defender was an entirely reasonable decision under the circumstances.

You might have chosen differently, which is valid, but portraying the Zadina pick as some kind of boneheaded move that only an idiot GM would make requires quite a bit of revisionist history.
- Sven22

No reason to spend time arguing with captain hindsight.

Been some really interesting back n forth today. And some pretty insightful comments.

I’m not against Zadina, I like the guy and how he’s worked to mould his game to meet the needs of the organization. That shows maturity and talent. I think he needs work, for sure. My question is: With whom does he work to improve his game?? There’s some decent dudes; Zetterberg, hell even The Captain. But the core training team seems to be Blash/Tanguay, etc… And, for me, that’s a big zero. He’s got talent, just needs a really good mentor to help him. I think, once he gets it, he’ll be really good…maybe not super-star talented, but really good.

The burning question about drafts is, has been, and always will be; what if we got “X”? It’s such a hard call to make. Bouchard’s good. Hughes is good. Dats was good. Vladdy was good. The point is, gotta have a team of folks to mould young players. And I don’t know if we have them.
For what’s it’s worth; I like Bouchard and wanted us to take him. “Life is lack a boax uv chokolats.”
- mcmastermike1968

Outside of usage and deployment coaching has such a small impact on a players development.

No reason to spend time arguing with captain hindsight.
- Feds91Stammer

No reason to spend time arguing with captain hindsight.
- Feds91Stammer

How can things be hindsight when they were expressed live? The moment Cholowski was drafted I said it was a huge error. The moment Rasmussen was drafted I said he was scoring goals at will due to a size advantage that would not be as prevalent in the NHL. He would be a bottom 6 player at best. The moment Zadina was drafted I said Hughes was the far better pick. The moment Suter was signed I said he'd suffer without Kane and DeBrincat. So when you say it live you are just too negative. When you bring it up later you are just using hindsight. Can't win.

Before you say I'm negative on everything...not true. Loved the Seider pick. Loved the Cossa pick. Hated Bertuzzi pick but was wrong. Loved the trade for Nedjelkovic. But that doesn't fit your narrative so just ignore that...

How can things be hindsight when they were expressed live? The moment Cholowski was drafted I said it was a huge error. The moment Rasmussen was drafted I said he was scoring goals at will due to a size advantage that would not be as prevalent in the NHL. He would be a bottom 6 player at best. The moment Zadina was drafted I said Hughes was the far better pick. The moment Suter was signed I said he'd suffer without Kane and DeBrincat. So when you say it live you are just too negative. When you bring it up later you are just using hindsight. Can't win.

Before you say I'm negative on everything...not true. Loved the Seider pick. Loved the Cossa pick. Hated Bertuzzi pick but was wrong. Loved the trade for Nedjelkovic. But that doesn't fit your narrative so just ignore that...
- HockeyBuzzed

Nobody cares

How can things be hindsight when they were expressed live? The moment Cholowski was drafted I said it was a huge error. The moment Rasmussen was drafted I said he was scoring goals at will due to a size advantage that would not be as prevalent in the NHL. He would be a bottom 6 player at best. The moment Zadina was drafted I said Hughes was the far better pick. The moment Suter was signed I said he'd suffer without Kane and DeBrincat. So when you say it live you are just too negative. When you bring it up later you are just using hindsight. Can't win.

Before you say I'm negative on everything...not true. Loved the Seider pick. Loved the Cossa pick. Hated Bertuzzi pick but was wrong. Loved the trade for Nedjelkovic. But that doesn't fit your narrative so just ignore that...
- HockeyBuzzed

It is not all about "winning" it is more about "getting along" . Many of us made the same predictions you did, and some of us were wrong at times, even you (though this was the first time I recall you admitting that) . It's all in the delivery, (Should be a Grub Hub slogan)