EHM The Blue Line

I have a pretty good scouting team and I've been able to trade up to pick in the top 10 in the past 2 years. The 2nd last season I picked 1st overall and last season I picked 2,5,8.

I am still wary of picking players that are ranked 1st, have scouts gushing over them, but are small. So for my 1st overall, I picked up a 220 pound Russian 6'5 monster with 1st line potential - I thought I couldn't go wrong. He had all the right mental characteristics, too: determined, brave, high work rate, loyal, professional, ambitious - the only problem was consistency, which was 9. He's played one year in the AHL (I have control of the team and am careful with his development), but his stats barely improved, whereas other much less touted prospects are steadily becoming better. THis year with the 2nd pick, I picked a 'Rick Nash' with 1st line potential - 6'3, 190lb, very good mental + technical stats. Yet this was billed as "surprising" by the draft report and he's not doing so well this year in the juniors (regressed from last year).

So my question to you - if you're picking at the top and see many 1st line potential players - what else determines your decision? What is the ultimate 1st overall pick?

In the top 10 you really have to go best available. If you're looking for a LW and there isn't a LW ranked (ISS or by your scouts) anywhere near where you are picking, you don't want to waste a top 10 pick. You take the best guy there is at your pick.

I agree with bruins72, take the best player available (BPA).

If you can draft well enough in the late rounds ex) me. (Not bragging, I've just been doing this game for a very long time.) Then you can afford to take what you require; what your needs are.


Otherwise you best off to go BPA and trade if necessary for what you need later.

OK, but how do you know who the BPA is? Are ISS rankings good for that in this game? I generally don't really follow them, but go by what my scouts say - and there are many 1st line potential players to pick from at the beginning.

I usually go for centers in the first round.

Can never have enough depth up the middle and since many of them can play LW or RW, it's a quality pick.

Especially in the first draft, the Tavares-Hedman draft.

Schenn, Duchene, Kadri, Budish, Glennie and Josefson

Nice players

EK_ wrote:If you can draft well enough in the late rounds ex) me. (Not bragging, I've just been doing this game for a very long time.) Then you can afford to take what you require; what your needs are.


Otherwise you best off to go BPA and trade if necessary for what you need later.

So you're going to pass on a potential star C and take a RD that your scouts tell you is going to be either a depth or maybe (if you're lucky) core player just because you feel you need a RD? In most cases you don't actually use a player you draft until 2 or 3 years later (at least). Your needs can change in that time. Plus, if you're so good at drafting in the later rounds you can fill your needs then. It just seems like a waste of a top 10 pick to pass on the top talent. If you're going to do that, you're better off trading down.

If i got a top 10 pick and that a player interest me, i pick him whatever is position is. But if i can't find someone that interest me enough, i'll go with the better prospect available.

In the first couple of rounds, i draft players i need... After that, i tend to go for the Best Player Available...

bruins72 wrote:

EK_ wrote:If you can draft well enough in the late rounds ex) me. (Not bragging, I've just been doing this game for a very long time.) Then you can afford to take what you require; what your needs are.


Otherwise you best off to go BPA and trade if necessary for what you need later.

So you're going to pass on a potential star C and take a RD that your scouts tell you is going to be either a depth or maybe (if you're lucky) core player just because you feel you need a RD? In most cases you don't actually use a player you draft until 2 or 3 years later (at least). Your needs can change in that time. Plus, if you're so good at drafting in the later rounds you can fill your needs then. It just seems like a waste of a top 10 pick to pass on the top talent. If you're going to do that, you're better off trading down.

Obviously not. How often does a top 10 have his potential already set as a depth 3-4 or 5-6.

But if their potentials/overall skill are similar, I'm going to take the position that needs filled in a year or two.

EK_ wrote:
Obviously not. How often does a top 10 have his potential already set as a depth 3-4 or 5-6.

But if their potentials/overall skill are similar, I'm going to take the position that needs filled in a year or two.

In EHM? Quite often. In my current season's draft there are 2 guys ranked in the Top 10 that I wouldn't draft with a 3rd round pick. The #2 overall is a RW that my scouts say projects to be a core player but his report card is so bad that I'd be amazed if he ever made it to the NHL. He's a "skilled forward" but he's only projected to score 25 points in the OHL this year. Sounds like a dud to me. In this season, the rest of draft's top 10 are regens of European players. Any one of those guys will be a true key player. The other guy in the top 10 that wouldn't be worth a 1st round pick is a Swedish defenseman ranked 8th. His report card looks okay but he's only projected as a 7th defenseman.

I'll agree that if all of the players in the top 10 are somewhat equal, you take what you feel like you need. From my experience though, I've often found that's not the case.

That happen quite often what Bruins72 is saying. The first overall pick in 2010 in my game is a regen of somebody i don't know but he's overall suck so bad that he could be pick in the fifth round, i wouldn't even draft it. He as no potential at all and he's report card is pretty bad too. The guy i pick in my fourth round will become better than him for sure, sometimes the draft rank is weird, but it's a part of the game.

There's something instead that make me a little bit confused. When a scout said, he can make 25 pts in the OHL is this really important to watch this when you scout? Because me i don't check this i think this is useless. For my Hasek regen he said something like 25 wins in the LHJMQ and he put up 54-4-4 record and a regen i draft 3rd overall in 09 was suppose to do 30 pts in the WHL and put up like 97 pts and a 9.67 ratio. This predictions from the scout are often wrong and that's why this isn't important for me, is more confusing than helpfull.

philou21 wrote: There's something instead that make me a little bit confused. When a scout said, he can make 25 pts in the OHL is this really important to watch this when you scout? Because me i don't check this i think this is useless. For my Hasek regen he said something like 25 wins in the LHJMQ and he put up 54-4-4 record and a regen i draft 3rd overall in 09 was suppose to do 30 pts in the WHL and put up like 97 pts and a 9.67 ratio. This predictions from the scout are often wrong and that's why this isn't important for me, is more confusing than helpfull.

I tend not to pay too much attention to the points scored in current league part. It's usually way off.

I take a look at every potential draftee's report card as well as my scout's assessments of the players. I also keep an eye on their AvR, especially in the playoffs. A player with good stats but below average ratings tend to be clunkers when the chips are down.

bruins72 wrote:In the top 10 you really have to go best available. If you're looking for a LW and there isn't a LW ranked (ISS or by your scouts) anywhere near where you are picking, you don't want to waste a top 10 pick. You take the best guy there is at your pick.

I'm gonna have to disagree. If I have a plethora of C and D in my system and I need a winger, though a one is nowhere near where I'm abut to draft, I'd much rather trade down, get an extra pick and take what I need rather than what is out there.

That's always a dangerous strategy, since the CPU AI is unpredictable, and will most likely draft out of nowhere the guy you thought you could trade down to get.

I'm in my fift season and all the 4 last draft were center that were draft first!

jbsnadb wrote:That's always a dangerous strategy, since the CPU AI is unpredictable, and will most likely draft out of nowhere the guy you thought you could trade down to get.

Very true. I believe you would be better drafting the BPA and then trading for the other player.

jasonponty wrote:

bruins72 wrote:In the top 10 you really have to go best available. If you're looking for a LW and there isn't a LW ranked (ISS or by your scouts) anywhere near where you are picking, you don't want to waste a top 10 pick. You take the best guy there is at your pick.

I'm gonna have to disagree. If I have a plethora of C and D in my system and I need a winger, though a one is nowhere near where I'm abut to draft, I'd much rather trade down, get an extra pick and take what I need rather than what is out there.

Okay, you'll trade down but you're not going to take a guy ranked 32nd with the #5 pick.