Jimmy Devellano Dishes on the Rebuild, Teases Secret Plan

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Unless they bring in the equivalent of a Bill Belichick, there's not much else they can do. The playing field has been leveled when it comes to scouting and drafting. The only advantage that can be gained now is thru exploiting the rules, and bringing in guys who know how to "cheat" the system.

We're gonna deflate the pucks?

[kliq 3,755]

1 hour ago, rwing said:

is there any way a team could find a new way to be innovative or at an advantage in scouting like the wings were back then? Or was it a one time thing. Other than China of course. Then again the wings are winning again so everything is ok!

To the extent that it was back then, I dont think so. Though every game/system is ever evolving, and I'm sure in 2028 we will look back at 2018 and say "I wish that we did ______ first.

I don't know what _____ is, hopefully the Wings fill in the blank before the rest of the league.

[Buppy 1,720]

57 minutes ago, rwing said:

is there any way a team could find a new way to be innovative or at an advantage in scouting like the wings were back then? Or was it a one time thing. Other than China of course. Then again the wings are winning again so everything is ok!

We never had an "advantage". In 98 when we drafted Datsyuk, there were 87 Europeans drafted. 1/3rd of the total. Similar to the ratios in recent years. Do people really think teams were drafting those guys without scouting?

We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it. Getting four good players in 02 was also lucky, and none in 01 was unlucky. Our scouting was maybe a bit better in general, but this "no one else was scouting Europe" nonsense is just another myth that will never die.

[kliq 3,755]

1 minute ago, Buppy said:

We never had an "advantage". In 98 when we drafted Datsyuk, there were 87 Europeans drafted. 1/3rd of the total. Similar to the ratios in recent years. Do people really think teams were drafting those guys without scouting?

We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it. Getting four good players in 02 was also lucky, and none in 01 was unlucky. Our scouting was maybe a bit better in general, but this "no one else was scouting Europe" nonsense is just another myth that will never die.

Nobody said "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998", strawman argument Buppy.

[Dabura 12,207]

15 minutes ago, Buppy said:

We never had an "advantage". In 98 when we drafted Datsyuk, there were 87 Europeans drafted. 1/3rd of the total. Similar to the ratios in recent years. Do people really think teams were drafting those guys without scouting?

We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it. Getting four good players in 02 was also lucky, and none in 01 was unlucky. Our scouting was maybe a bit better in general, but this "no one else was scouting Europe" nonsense is just another myth that will never die.

You are like the Ryan Lambert of anti Ryan Lambertism.

[Buppy 1,720]

10 minutes ago, kliq said:

Nobody said "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998", strawman argument Buppy.

...

17 hours ago, kliq said:

Its not that our scouting has gotten bad, the issue is that the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees, now we are just 1/31 teams doing the same thing.

On 10/30/2018 at 1:35 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

... The thing that made the Red Wings not just a great team, but a powerhouse dynasty back when, was the willingness to explore untapped markets of talent in Europe back in the 90s and early 2000s. That rare advantage we had ended in the early 2000s and we started coming back down to earth around 2010.

Ok, so what exactly is this "advantage scouting overseas", that required the rest of the league to catch up, and "do the same thing".

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

42 minutes ago, kliq said:

Nobody said "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998", strawman argument Buppy.

No kidding

44 minutes ago, Buppy said:

We never had an "advantage". In 98 when we drafted Datsyuk, there were 87 Europeans drafted. 1/3rd of the total. Similar to the ratios in recent years. Do people really think teams were drafting those guys without scouting?

We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it. Getting four good players in 02 was also lucky, and none in 01 was unlucky. Our scouting was maybe a bit better in general, but this "no one else was scouting Europe" nonsense is just another myth that will never die.

I think we certainly had an advantage in Europe for a while. Detroit and New Jersey stick out in my mind as being at the forefront of trying to get players to defect from the USSR back when. We landed Fedorov and probably should have landed Bure too (arguably the two biggest fish), NJ got Fetisov, we put together the Russian 5. Hakan Anderson also came online for us in 1990 and all of the sudden we were getting very good European players outside of the 1st round. Other teams were of course also scouting/drafting Euro's and trying to defect Russians, I just think we did it a whole lot better than most.

Zetterberg went unnoticed by pretty much everyone until Jim Nill scouted him. All drafting is luck to some extent, but that's good scouting on Jim Nill's part and therefore ours.

Datsyuk went un-scouted by everyone in the league except us. Again, no one knows how any draft pick will truly turn out, but that's good scouting on our part.

25 minutes ago, Buppy said:

...

Ok, so what exactly is this "advantage scouting overseas", that required the rest of the league to catch up, and "do the same thing".

 

European scouting x 1000

I think it's almost your dinner time

Edited October 31, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[kliq 3,755]

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

Ok, so what exactly is this "advantage scouting overseas", that required the rest of the league to catch up, and "do the same thing".

Exactly.....saying "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998" is not the same thing as saying
"the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees"

To main answer your question, see what @ChristopherReevesLegs said, no point just repeating what he said.

Not sure why this irks you so much, it has been well documented via articles, interviews, documentary's etc. that the Wings put more of a priority into foreign scouting then other teams in the 80's/90's. This doesn't mean that they were the ONLY team doing it, just that they put more into it, and in turn got more out of it. Now a days its just a different animal, and if one team does have an advantage, its likely minimal.

Edited October 31, 2018 by kliq

[Buppy 1,720]

5 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

No kidding

I think we certainly had an advantage in Europe for a while. Detroit and New Jersey stick out in my mind as being at the forefront of trying to get players to defect from the USSR back when. We landed Fedorov and probably should have landed Bure too (arguably the two biggest fish), NJ got Fetisov, we put together the Russian 5. Hakan Anderson also came online for us in 1990 and all of the sudden we were getting very good European players outside of the 1st round. Other teams were of course also scouting/drafting Euro's and trying to defect Russians, I just think we did it a whole lot better than most.

Zetterberg went unnoticed by pretty much everyone until Jim Nill scouted him. All drafting is luck to some extent, but that's good scouting on Jim Nill's part and therefore ours.

Datsyuk went un-scouted by everyone in the league except us. Again, no one knows how any draft pick will truly turn out, but that's good scouting on our part.

2 hours ago, kliq said:

Exactly.....saying "no one else was scouting Europe in 1998" is not the same thing as saying
"the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees"

To main answer your question, see what @ChristopherReevesLegs said, no point just repeating what he said.

Not sure why this irks you so much, it has been well documented via articles, interviews, documentary's etc. that the Wings put more of a priority into foreign scouting then other teams in the 80's/90's. This doesn't mean that they were the ONLY team doing it, just that they put more into it, and in turn got more out of it. Now a days its just a different animal, and if one team does have an advantage, its likely minimal.

Not sure why I'm going to bother since I see this is already moving from "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good", but since you're both still kind of clinging to the idea that we were doing something other teams weren't, what the hell...

Throughout the 90's, the Wings drafted 27 Europeans in 98 picks. A little below the league average of about 31%. 21 out of 115 in the 80s. A little above average (though ironically we had little success prior to 89). I don't think there's enough difference there to say we ahead or behind any curve. Likely just the way the drafts happened to play out, which would explain why we only took 3 out of 33 from 90-92. 

More importantly is the fact that there were more than 1100 Europeans drafted in those two decades, less than 50 by the Wings. There was nothing "untapped" about that market even by the mid-90s, much less late-90/early-00s as originally stated. Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way. No doubt Hakan and our other Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions, particularly after the emergence of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but that's not doing anything different. It's doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but better. That's basically what I'm arguing. To say we were looking to Europe in a way other teams weren't is to discredit to quality of our scouting. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

56 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Not sure why I'm going to bother since I see this is already moving from "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good", but since you're both still kind of clinging to the idea that we were doing something other teams weren't, what the hell...

Throughout the 90's, the Wings drafted 27 Europeans in 98 picks. A little below the league average of about 31%. 21 out of 115 in the 80s. A little above average (though ironically we had little success prior to 89). I don't think there's enough difference there to say we ahead or behind any curve. Likely just the way the drafts happened to play out, which would explain why we only took 3 out of 33 from 90-92. 

More importantly is the fact that there were more than 1100 Europeans drafted in those two decades, less than 50 by the Wings. There was nothing "untapped" about that market even by the mid-90s, much less late-90/early-00s as originally stated. Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way. No doubt Hakan and our other Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions, particularly after the emergence of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but that's not doing anything different. It's doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but better. That's basically what I'm arguing. To say we were looking to Europe in a way other teams weren't is to discredit to quality of our scouting. 

That's not accurate. Count again. Do I bother checking the rest of your numbers or should I just assume their false now...?

"Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way" literally the next sentence: "Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions" lulz

So you've gone from "What exactly is this advantage scouting oversees?" to: I'm arguing our scouts were better (an advantage oversees)

Wild

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

We got lucky with Datsyuk and Zetterberg. That's it.

 

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

 No doubt Hakan and our other Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions, particularly after the emergence of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but that's not doing anything different. It's doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but better. That's basically what I'm arguing. To say we were looking to Europe in a way other teams weren't is to discredit to quality of our scouting. 

But I thought we just got lucky?

[Buppy 1,720]

21 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

That's not accurate. Count again. Do I bother checking the rest of your numbers or should I just assume their false now...?

"Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way" literally the next sentence: "Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions" lulz

So you've gone from "What exactly is this advantage scouting oversees?" to: I'm arguing our scouts were better (an advantage oversees)

It's accurate according to hockeydb. There were a few European players that were drafted from North American teams, but I don't think you're trying to argue that the OHL was an untapped market. But whatever, call it 30-35 if it makes you feel better. Doesn't justify calling Europe an untapped market when it had in fact been "tapped" 1100 times.

Not mutually exclusive ideas. Again, the Wings numbers align with league averages. I believe they rise in the early 2000s, but a more logical explanation behind that (if it's even true) is prioritizing individuals with a record of success, rather than a geographical region.

You're ignoring context. Again, you called it "exploring untapped markets" and then suggested China as the next hope to regain our "advantage". Pretend all you want that you weren't just repeating the same tired "Wings went to Europe before everyone else" myth, but we all know you were. 

"The thing that made the Red Wings not just a great team, but a powerhouse dynasty back when, was the willingness to explore untapped markets of talent in Europe back in the 90s and early 2000s. That rare advantage we had ended in the early 2000s and we started coming back down to earth around 2010. To boot, Nill and Yzerman both stole a lot of scouts on their departure." 

The part about losing scouts with Nill and Yzerman is an afterthought here. Pretty clear that the quality of our scouts was not the "advantage" you were referring to. 

You have noticed, I'm sure, that "What exactly is this advantage scouting oversees?" is a question. Asking what you meant by "advantage", since you were so adamant it wasn't what I inferred. I just wanted to make you lie, so I could call you on it, but we got there anyway so it's all good.

11 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

 

But I thought we just got lucky?

Again, not mutually exclusive ideas.

[kliq 3,755]

3 hours ago, Buppy said:

Not sure why I'm going to bother since I see this is already moving from "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good", but since you're both still kind of clinging to the idea that we were doing something other teams weren't, what the hell...

Throughout the 90's, the Wings drafted 27 Europeans in 98 picks. A little below the league average of about 31%. 21 out of 115 in the 80s. A little above average (though ironically we had little success prior to 89). I don't think there's enough difference there to say we ahead or behind any curve. Likely just the way the drafts happened to play out, which would explain why we only took 3 out of 33 from 90-92. 

More importantly is the fact that there were more than 1100 Europeans drafted in those two decades, less than 50 by the Wings. There was nothing "untapped" about that market even by the mid-90s, much less late-90/early-00s as originally stated. Nor is there anything to suggest the Wings prioritized Europe in any meaningful way. No doubt Hakan and our other Euro scouts were good, and that probably led to giving more weight to their opinions, particularly after the emergence of Datsyuk and Zetterberg, but that's not doing anything different. It's doing the same thing everyone else is doing, but better. That's basically what I'm arguing. To say we were looking to Europe in a way other teams weren't is to discredit to quality of our scouting. 

Nothing you have said here disproves my point, in fact IF those stats are correct and we drafted below the league average and had that level of success, I would argue that you are strengthening it. My original point, and my exact words that you took exception to were the following:

"Its not that our scouting has gotten bad, the issue is that the rest of the league caught up. We used to have such a advantage when it came to scouting oversees, now we are just 1/31 teams doing the same thing."

I never said anything about other teams not being there, this is where I will call you out for a straw-man argument. I said we had an advantage which we clearly did given our results in drafting talent oversees. Clearly other teams were not at our level in the 80's/90's which is a result of what the Wings put into that department. It didn't "just happen cause". I think what you did here was you jumped the gun and assumed I was saying something that I was not (which is reflected in your "exploring untapped markets" to "our scouts were good" comment)

I don't know why I even going back and forth with you, it doesn't matter what I say because once you are on a quest to prove someone wrong, nothing the other person says matters regardless of the strength of their argument. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by kliq

[krsmith17 7,191]

3 hours ago, kliq said:

I don't know why I even going back and forth with you, it doesn't matter what I say because once you are on a quest to prove someone wrong, nothing the other person says matters regardless of the strength of their argument. 

Also, don't forget how he always tries to put words in your mouth and spin the conversation to fit his argument...

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Also, don't forget how he always tries to put words in your mouth and spin the conversation to fit his argument...

Look at you with the gif action!

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

9 hours ago, Buppy said:

It's accurate according to hockeydb. There were a few European players that were drafted from North American teams, but I don't think you're trying to argue that the OHL was an untapped market. But whatever, call it 30-35 if it makes you feel better. Doesn't justify calling Europe an untapped market when it had in fact been "tapped" 1100 times.

Not mutually exclusive ideas. Again, the Wings numbers align with league averages. I believe they rise in the early 2000s, but a more logical explanation behind that (if it's even true) is prioritizing individuals with a record of success, rather than a geographical region.

You're ignoring context. Again, you called it "exploring untapped markets" and then suggested China as the next hope to regain our "advantage". Pretend all you want that you weren't just repeating the same tired "Wings went to Europe before everyone else" myth, but we all know you were. 

"The thing that made the Red Wings not just a great team, but a powerhouse dynasty back when, was the willingness to explore untapped markets of talent in Europe back in the 90s and early 2000s. That rare advantage we had ended in the early 2000s and we started coming back down to earth around 2010. To boot, Nill and Yzerman both stole a lot of scouts on their departure." 

The part about losing scouts with Nill and Yzerman is an afterthought here. Pretty clear that the quality of our scouts was not the "advantage" you were referring to. 

You have noticed, I'm sure, that "What exactly is this advantage scouting oversees?" is a question. Asking what you meant by "advantage", since you were so adamant it wasn't what I inferred. I just wanted to make you lie, so I could call you on it, but we got there anyway so it's all good.

Again, not mutually exclusive ideas.

Wrong, the market was not fully tapped, which is why we had so much success there. It allowed our GOOD scouts (which I acknowledged before you were very good, and you're now back peddling after calling it all luck) to make quality selections in late rounds. If the market was tapped and other teams were seeing the high level of talent we were, we wouldn't have been able to make those picks so late. Primary example being Datsyuk and us being the only team to scout him.

You also gloss over my mention of Devellano and Lamoriello being at the fore front of trying to get players from the USSR to defect. The USSR at that time was very much a market that was far from fully tapped.

You claimed we had no advantage overseas and now admit we had advantage overseas lol

What's your favorite spin doctors song?

Edited November 1, 2018 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Buppy 1,720]

hype 

 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

6 minutes ago, Buppy said:

hype 

 

/edgy

[Wing Across The Pond 196]

I don't think it's a case of "we scouted Europe first" or that we noticed skill differently to other teams, but I think it's a lot to do with scouting beyond hockey.

It's no surprise the three guys mentioned - Lids, Z, Dats - were superstars not because of their hockey play as such. but also because of attributes beyond hockey. One guy who was calm, calculated and worked to understand the game and his position better than anyone. Another who had unreal determination and "team spirit" for want of a better term. And a third who trained absolutely every aspect of his game to become a great two way player who was strong, creative, and continued to improve as he got older.

Look at guys like Ericsson and Helm. Both had good skills and were exciting younger players when they came in, a lot of "oh this guy could be something one day" but didn't have those extras and as such are in a position where they really don't do anything apart from take salary that was given to them because they were there for a long time. Crosby and Ovi will always be better than Stamkos because they have that extra little bit beyond their hockey ability.

I honestly think if we start to include personality more into our scouting we could begin to find some real gems again. I think when the rest of the league "caught up" with our scouting, we started to think "okay darn we need to really get some good players in here or other teams will take them" and we looked exclusively at hockey ability rather than the extras. Even little things like how well does a player respond to an injury? Look at Matthews; what happens if he comes back from his injury and is in his shell?

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

On 10/31/2018 at 2:37 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

We're gonna deflate the pucks?

No put them in the microwave right before faceoff.

9 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Wrong, the market was not fully tapped, which is why we had so much success there. It allowed our GOOD scouts (which I acknowledged before you were very good, and you're now back peddling after calling it all luck) to make quality selections in late rounds. If the market was tapped and other teams were seeing the high level of talent we were, we wouldn't have been able to make those picks so late. Primary example being Datsyuk and us being the only team to scout him.

You also gloss over my mention of Devellano and Lamoriello being at the fore front of trying to get players from the USSR to defect. The USSR at that time was very much a market that was far from fully tapped.

You claimed we had no advantage overseas and now admit we had advantage overseas lol

What's your favorite spin doctors song?

No complaints please.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Neomaxizoomdweebie

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

No put them in the microwave right before faceoff.

No complaints please.

You seriously dropped the ball not picking lil miss cant be wrong

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

19 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

You seriously dropped the ball not picking lil miss cant be wrong

Be honest, all of their music is just the same song recycled over and over.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Be honest, all of their music is just the same song recycled over and over.

I hate it