Our top 37 prospects...

Der Schweinehund
10-03-2003, 01:33 PM
So here is our top 37 prospects as we voted on:
1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Ryan Whitney
3. Brooks Orpik
4. Tomas Surovy
5. Michal Sivek
6. Ramzi Abid
7. Noah Welch
8. Konstantin Koltsov
9. Sebastien Caron
10. Matt Murley
11. Erik Christensen
12. Patrik Bartschi
13. Ben Eaves
14. Ross Lupaschuk
15. Colby Armstrong
16. Maxim Talbot
17. Ondrej Nemec
18. Ryan Stone
19. Bobby Geopfert
20. Shane Endicott
21. Alex Rouleau
22. Guillaume Lefebvre
23. Rob Scuderi
24. Jonathan Filewich
25. Paul Bissonnette
26. Daniel Fernholm
27. Ryan Malone
28. Vladimir Malenkykh
29. Drew Fata
30. Tomas Duba
31. Daniel Carcillo
32. Andy Schneider
33. Michel Ouellet
34. Cam Paddock
35. Andy Chiodo
36. Stephen Dixon

After coming down from the excitement of the waiver draft, here's a little something I floated a couple weeks ago. Based on the performance in training camp, who falls, who rises, and if you really want, re-rank some of them. (Maybe keep it to top 20 so we don't K.O. the board.)

Der Schweinehund
10-03-2003, 01:39 PM
For me... (some obviously not affected by not being at camp)

1. Fleury
2. Whitney
3. Koltsov
4. Orpik
5. Surovy
6. Welch
7. Sivek
8. Caron
9. Murley
10. Armstrong
11. Lupaschuk
12. Bartschi
13. Bissonette
14. Eaves
15. Lefebvre

I will stop at 15.

john g
10-03-2003, 02:55 PM
damn after all my suggestions on who to add, I didnt make the list :p

GoPenguins
10-03-2003, 03:44 PM
Here's my top 20 revised after TC. Some dropped like a stone (Abid, Sivek) but I didnt drop them too badly as they still have the chance to fulfil their potential. My high movers were Bissonnette, Malone, Armstrong and Chiodo. Bartschi also moved up but mostly due to a couple of others having disappointing camps (though reading all of the comments in the Patrik Bartschi thread on this board has me getting more and more excited about him)

1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Ryan Whitney
3. Brooks Orpik
4. Konstantin Koltsov
5. Noah Welch
6. Tomas Surovy
7. Matt Murley
8. Patrik Bartschi
9. Colby Armstrong
10. Ross Lupaschuk
11. Sebastien Caron
12. Michal Sivek
13. Ben Eaves
14. Ryan Stone
15. Paul Bissonnette
16. Rob Scuderi
17. Ramzi Abid
18. Ondrej Nemec
19. Ryan Malone
20. Andy Chiodo

Evilo
10-03-2003, 09:45 PM
Mine :
1- Fleury
2- Whitney
3- Koltsov
4- Orpik
5- Welch
6- Murley
7- Bissonnette
8- Armstrong
9- Lupaschuk
10- Surovy
11- Sivek
12- Abid
13- Bartschi
14- Malone
15- Eaves
16- Caron
17- Scuderi
18- Endicott
19- Nemec
20- Stone

Koltsov71
10-04-2003, 06:40 AM
I'd certainly move Bissonnette and Lefebvre up.

#1GuinFan
10-04-2003, 07:20 AM
1. Marc-Andre Fleury - G
2. Ryan Whitney - D
3. Brooks Orpik - D
4. Konstantin Koltsov - LW
5. Matt Murley - LW
6. Tomas Surovy - LW
7. Noah Welch - D
8. Ramzi Abid - LW
9. Michal Sivek - C
10. Sebastian Caron - G
11. Paul Bissonnette - D
12. Ross Lupaschuk - D
13. Colby Armstrong - RW
14. Ben Eaves - C
15. Patrik Bartschi - C
16. Erik Christensen (drops becuase he quit with little effort) - C
17. Ryan Stone - C
18. Ryan Malone - LW
19. Shane Endicott - C
25. Andy Chiodo - G

Evilo
10-04-2003, 10:55 AM
I'd certainly move Bissonnette and Lefebvre up.
Why Lefebvre?
He didn't show much in camp.
He didn't crack my top 20.
I like him, but I don't see him with a big future in Pittsburgh.

Alex Kovalev
10-04-2003, 11:52 AM
1. Marc-Andre Fleury - G
2. Ryan Whitney - D
3. Brooks Orpik - D
4. Konstantin Koltsov - LW
5. Matt Murley - LW
6. Tomas Surovy - LW
7. Noah Welch - D
8. Ramzi Abid - LW
9. Michal Sivek - C
10. Sebastian Caron - G
11. Paul Bissonnette - D
12. Ross Lupaschuk - D
13. Colby Armstrong - RW
14. Ben Eaves - C
15. Patrik Bartschi - C
16. Erik Christensen (drops becuase he quit with little effort) - C
17. Ryan Stone - C
18. Ryan Malone - LW
19. Shane Endicott - C
25. Andy Chiodo - G


Nice list though I would have liked to see Sivek a tad higher.

Big McLargehuge
10-04-2003, 01:47 PM
Taking camp into thought...
1. Marc-Andre Fleury
2. Ryan Whitney
3. Brooks Orpik
4. Konstantin Koltsov
5. Noah Welch
6. Tomas Surovy
7. Michal Sivek
8. Ramzi Abid
9. Sebastien Caron
10. Matt Murley
11. Ben Eaves
12. Patrik Bartschi
13. Ross Lupaschuk
14. Colby Armstrong
15. Erik Christensen
16. Maxime Talbot
17. Ryan Stone
18. Paul Bissonnette
19. Ondrej Nemec
20. Shane Endicott

gousa
10-04-2003, 02:48 PM
Nice list though I would have liked to see Sivek a tad higher.


PADDOCK SHOULD BE HIGHER, HE PROVED HIMSELF BIG TIME AND EARNED A CONTRACT WITH THE BABY PENS

Jacob
10-04-2003, 03:31 PM
Say it, don't spray it.


1. Fleury
2. Whitney
3. Orpik
4. Welch
5. Koltsov
6. Bartschi
7. Duba
8. Talbot
9. Malone
9. Murley
10. Schneider
11. Armstrong
12. Goepfert
13. Eaves
14. Bissonnette
15. Stone
16. Kostopoulos
17. Christensen
18. Lupaschuk
19. Filewich
20. Rouleau
21. Chiodo
22. Lannon
23. Endicott
24. Nemec
25. Paddock

Players inelligible for the Calder I didn't include in the list, with the exception of Caron.
I factor in upside and NHL-readiness, and try to find a middle ground. Because of this, there are guys that may be high because they are closer to becoming NHL regulars (Malone, Murley) than guys with more upside that may be still be a couple years away from turning pro (Stone).

Don'tcry4mejanhrdina
10-04-2003, 04:08 PM
Welch is looking pretty good. I see him becoming better than Orpik and Whitney and suprising a lot of non penguins fans.

Robert Paulson*
10-04-2003, 06:25 PM
I'd certainly move Bissonnette and Lefebvre up.

Me too.

thecanucker
10-06-2003, 04:43 PM
How many games will Orpik play this year or will he play this year?

Big McLargehuge
10-06-2003, 06:43 PM
baring injury or massive suckitude he'll be with us all season.

DJ Spinoza
11-16-2003, 01:33 PM
I'm bumping this to see if anyone's opinions have been changed.

I was away when we all posted our lists vs the ones everyone voted on...

Props to Jacobv2 for having Schneider where he belongs. I advocated for him in the voting threads, but nobody listened much.:p

I'll get around to doing a top 15 or 20 soon, just thought it'd be interesting to redo this.

Seabass
11-16-2003, 02:07 PM
27. Ryan Malone

Yikes.

Evilo
11-16-2003, 07:36 PM
What has Schneider done to warrant being higher??? :dunno:

spence___
11-16-2003, 09:16 PM
What has Schneider done to warrant being higher??? :dunno:

http://pittsburghpenguins.com/team/features/arts/536.0.php

Jacob
11-16-2003, 11:01 PM
What has Schneider done to warrant being higher??? :dunno:
Point per game defenseman in the NCAA? Not bad for a guy recruited for his defensive qualities.

Evilo
11-17-2003, 09:05 AM
Point per game defenseman in the NCAA? Not bad for a guy recruited for his defensive qualities.
Well so far this season he hasn't been that impressive (and so shouldn't ranked higher) and to boot, it's COLLEGE for god's sake!!!!
When in hell you guys are going to give more credit to pros than juniors???
Until Schneider proves himself in the AHL or NHL, I don't consider his college career as a perfect indication of what he's going to be.
Until he's there I give more credit to guys like Endicott or Lupaschuk.
I also claimed for oh so many months that Lupaschuk was developing nicely, only to be flamed by some posters (if not most).
And now everyone is on the bandwagon.
I see no reason to jump on Schneider's right now.

GoPenguins
11-17-2003, 10:42 AM
Well so far this season he hasn't been that impressive (and so shouldn't ranked higher) and to boot, it's COLLEGE for god's sake!!!!
When in hell you guys are going to give more credit to pros than juniors???
Until Schneider proves himself in the AHL or NHL, I don't consider his college career as a perfect indication of what he's going to be.
Until he's there I give more credit to guys like Endicott or Lupaschuk.
I also claimed for oh so many months that Lupaschuk was developing nicely, only to be flamed by some posters (if not most).
And now everyone is on the bandwagon.
I see no reason to jump on Schneider's right now.

It might seem that everyone is aboard the Lupaschuk bandwagon (except sadly the Pens coaching staff). However, it is only recently that he has shown the improvements a lot of us were hoping he would. His improved play, especially in his own zone, has almost all of us thinking his next stage of improvement is at the NHL level.

As for Schneider, I too feel he has some promise. I cannot say I have seen him. My opinion is solely from articles, info, and from other posters comments. I think he has a decent chance to turn into a NHL blueliner but he may lose out in a numbers game, as Whitney, Welch, Orpik, Lupaschuk, Bissonnette, Rouleau, Melichar, Roszival and Nemec all may be fighting for Pens defenseman jobs in the next year or two.

Of course, some may be viewing our defensive prospects as saviors to the rather woeful unit we currently are fielding.

Robert Paulson*
11-17-2003, 11:12 AM
Well so far this season he hasn't been that impressive (and so shouldn't ranked higher) and to boot, it's COLLEGE for god's sake!!!!
When in hell you guys are going to give more credit to pros than juniors???
Until Schneider proves himself in the AHL or NHL, I don't consider his college career as a perfect indication of what he's going to be.
Until he's there I give more credit to guys like Endicott or Lupaschuk.
I also claimed for oh so many months that Lupaschuk was developing nicely, only to be flamed by some posters (if not most).
And now everyone is on the bandwagon.
I see no reason to jump on Schneider's right now.

Whitney and Welch are in the same position, and a lot of people (maybe you too, but not sure exactly) are already saying that they will be very good, so why can't we say the same for Schneider? Because he's not as highly touted? :dunno:

Evilo
11-17-2003, 07:33 PM
It might seem that everyone is aboard the Lupaschuk bandwagon (except sadly the Pens coaching staff). However, it is only recently that he has shown the improvements a lot of us were hoping he would. His improved play, especially in his own zone, has almost all of us thinking his next stage of improvement is at the NHL level.

As for Schneider, I too feel he has some promise. I cannot say I have seen him. My opinion is solely from articles, info, and from other posters comments. I think he has a decent chance to turn into a NHL blueliner but he may lose out in a numbers game, as Whitney, Welch, Orpik, Lupaschuk, Bissonnette, Rouleau, Melichar, Roszival and Nemec all may be fighting for Pens defenseman jobs in the next year or two.

Of course, some may be viewing our defensive prospects as saviors to the rather woeful unit we currently are fielding.
No. Lupaschk has improved ever since he went from -25 or something to -2 last year (can't remember the exact numbers).
He didn't improve magically this summer.

GOPENS 63 : Nope. Whitney and Welch have some pedigree. Whitney especially. Schneider was a late pick for a reason, and while I hope he gets to the NHL, odds are against him.
Welch and Whitney on the other hand are expected to be studs.
Right now, I'd rather have a Scuderi than a Schneider. One is an established pro, while the other is playing well in college. And to project Schneider as high as Whitney or Welch is really premature.

Jacob
11-17-2003, 07:47 PM
Well so far this season he hasn't been that impressive (and so shouldn't ranked higher) and to boot, it's COLLEGE for god's sake!!!!
When in hell you guys are going to give more credit to pros than juniors???
Take it easy, big guy. It's just a few people's opinions. I know for a fact that you don't know any more about Schneider than I do. I'm guessing, like me, you can just go by stats.

Until Schneider proves himself in the AHL or NHL, I don't consider his college career as a perfect indication of what he's going to be.
I never said it would. I just find his production, his scouting reports, and his pedigree to be impressive.

Until he's there I give more credit to guys like Endicott or Lupaschuk.
Fine by me. Usually guys that have been around and that are already in the system have less upside but are more likely to make the NHL, while the younger guys that are still in juniors have more upside (for instance; Schneider's stats alone annihilate Scuderi's) but are further from making it to Pittsburgh. Apples to oranges.

I see no reason to jump on Schneider's right now.
No problem. I do.

No. Lupaschk has improved ever since he went from -25 or something to -2 last year (can't remember the exact numbers).
Hey, Berehowsky is amongst our leaders in +/-. Modano is the worst in the league. All stats, and especially plus minus, can be misleading.

Schneider was a late pick for a reason, and while I hope he gets to the NHL, odds are against him.
So that's your argument? I shouldn't need to tell you that being picked late doesn't seal a prospect's fate. Especially kids drafted out of high school, which is more or less what Schneider was.

And to project Schneider as high as Whitney or Welch is really premature.
Funny, I consider valuing Scuderi over Schneider is pretty premature also.

Der Schweinehund
11-18-2003, 03:25 AM
Call me Captain Obvious here, but the moral of the story is just how much of a crapshoot this is. We have seen some players' values plummet like a sinking stone thus far - most notable on that list might be Abid who probably isn't worth a 6th vote. On the other hand, some have just skyrocketed when not much, if anything, was expected of them - see Malone at #27 and Chiodo at #35.

There are so many arguments this way and that way about each player. I mean at one point, Daniel Fernholm was considered to be a challenger for Jay Bouwmeester for best defenseman in the '02 crop. Knock on wood, hopefully his injury days and work ethic questionmarks are behind him as he has now put in three games in a row for Djurgardens. So who knows - toss a coin - might be heads, might be tails, might land on it's edge too.

Quite frankly, were all not very learned in this business. So some of these arguments are really moot points. If I have seen a player play 12 games and someone else has seen a player play the same 12 games and we disagree on their merit, then we have a valid debate. Until then, it's all statistical supposition.

Evilo
11-18-2003, 07:34 AM
Call me Captain Obvious here, but the moral of the story is just how much of a crapshoot this is. We have seen some players' values plummet like a sinking stone thus far - most notable on that list might be Abid who probably isn't worth a 6th vote. On the other hand, some have just skyrocketed when not much, if anything, was expected of them - see Malone at #27 and Chiodo at #35.

There are so many arguments this way and that way about each player. I mean at one point, Daniel Fernholm was considered to be a challenger for Jay Bouwmeester for best defenseman in the '02 crop. Knock on wood, hopefully his injury days and work ethic questionmarks are behind him as he has now put in three games in a row for Djurgardens. So who knows - toss a coin - might be heads, might be tails, might land on it's edge too.

Quite frankly, were all not very learned in this business. So some of these arguments are really moot points. If I have seen a player play 12 games and someone else has seen a player play the same 12 games and we disagree on their merit, then we have a valid debate. Until then, it's all statistical supposition.
Captain Obvious...
;)
:joker:

Evilo
11-18-2003, 07:37 AM
Take it easy, big guy. It's just a few people's opinions. I know for a fact that you don't know any more about Schneider than I do. I'm guessing, like me, you can just go by stats.


I never said it would. I just find his production, his scouting reports, and his pedigree to be impressive.


Fine by me. Usually guys that have been around and that are already in the system have less upside but are more likely to make the NHL, while the younger guys that are still in juniors have more upside (for instance; Schneider's stats alone annihilate Scuderi's) but are further from making it to Pittsburgh. Apples to oranges.


No problem. I do.


Hey, Berehowsky is amongst our leaders in +/-. Modano is the worst in the league. All stats, and especially plus minus, can be misleading.


So that's your argument? I shouldn't need to tell you that being picked late doesn't seal a prospect's fate. Especially kids drafted out of high school, which is more or less what Schneider was.


Funny, I consider valuing Scuderi over Schneider is pretty premature also.
Still you can't argue that odds are against a guy drafted that late.
Scouts saw flaws in his game. That he seems to have progressed is a good thing.
But as of right now I give more credit to what is actually played on the ice (Scuderi) than what could be (Schneider).

Once again, to answer MrKnowNothing, I see no reason why Schneider should be ranked above pros making impacts (Malenkhyk comes to mind).

Jacob
11-18-2003, 09:30 AM
But Scuderi was also a 5th round pick. :dunno:

Sometimes kids fall in the draft for reasons other than their play on the ice. Schneider was already a 20 year old, like Scuderi in his draft year, who had committed to UND. It seems teams will pass on those guys that are 4 years away and take the junior kids that are 1-2 years away (from turning pro). Experience is a factor, also. Schneider had only played in the USHL, which doesn't give him a snowball's chance of world competition and is not up to the level of play of juniors or NCAA.

Maybe size was an issue? On draft day, he was listed at 6'0" 200. He's now 6'1" 215. Maybe he had injury problems? Who knows, all I know is that I'm glad he did fall so far, and I'm sure scouts are already kicking themselves for not picking him higher, even though he has yet to play a single pro game.

Evilo
11-18-2003, 09:41 AM
Oh make no mistake. I'm also glad with the way he's developping.
But let's not get overboard and say one was right because he ranked him higher than others because the guy is having decent numbers in college.

Right now, I'd say the people that put Sivek, Abid or Surovy high and Endicott, Lupaschuk and Arsmtrong low are the ones making mistakes AS OF RIGHT NOW.
We can't judge Schneider until he's proven something at the pro level.

Der Schweinehund
11-18-2003, 10:38 AM
Once again, to answer MrKnowNothing, I see no reason why Schneider should be ranked above pros making impacts (Malenkhyk comes to mind).

But even comparing pro-to-pro, you still have discrepancy. If Bartschi is putting up the same numbers in the top Russian or Swedish leagues, I guarantee you the guy is our number two prospect, after only Fleury. So even pro-to-pro comparisons aren't entirely accurate.

While a pro/semi-pro league might be more conducive to preparing someone to play in the NHL, it's not the hard-and-steadfast rule. In fact, while this argument has been going on, we have a great example staring us in the face - Ryan Malone. Did anyone give the guy a chance prior to training camp without, at very least, some 'conditioning time' in the AHL? And this guy isn't just a warm body either - he is an effective NHLer and arguably the biggest surprise on this team.

Ultimately, is this really worth getting hot-under-the-collar for though? We won't have an answer until when/if they hit the NHL. And then at that point, I am very happy for one or both sides of the debate to come and say "I told you so!" :bow:

DJ Spinoza
11-18-2003, 10:46 AM
^ Beat me to it, Der..

Guys like Malone and Orpik looked to have sealed up jobs for the longterm, quicker than many guys who went to Juniors or elsewhere that are still working their way 'up the ladder' so to speak. Maybe the NCAA helps you get ready quicker?

Evilo, I didn't bump this to call you out for ranking Schneider so low.

I just thought it'd be interesting for us all to redo the list (or some to do original lists since some of us didn't and we have new posters who didn't vote before) and see what we think now in comparison.

Not trying to start a debate here.

Der Schweinehund
11-18-2003, 11:01 AM
Maybe the NCAA helps you get ready quicker?

Despite my love for Canadian Major Junior, I have long felt that the best route is for NCAA. I like the extended time and maturing process (not to mention alternate career preparation) that comes with the college route. When players come out from a full four years in the NCAA, their bodies, minds, and attitudes are so much more ready to adapt to NHL life. That's not to say there aren't exceptions of course.

I have friends/aquaintences who have made it to pro-hockey (AHL, NHL, Europe) through the varying routes. The ones who were most prepared (and will say it) went through the NCAA. Also, for the ones who made it and had just a taste, the ones who are best-off post-hockey are also NCAA trained. My disappointment lies in the CIAU (Canadian University) not being very solid in it's hockey development in comparison.

Personally, if I have a son who enjoys and is gifted in hockey, I will very strongly encourage them to go the US college hockey route.

Evilo
11-18-2003, 11:23 AM
^ Beat me to it, Der..

Guys like Malone and Orpik looked to have sealed up jobs for the longterm, quicker than many guys who went to Juniors or elsewhere that are still working their way 'up the ladder' so to speak. Maybe the NCAA helps you get ready quicker?

Evilo, I didn't bump this to call you out for ranking Schneider so low.

I just thought it'd be interesting for us all to redo the list (or some to do original lists since some of us didn't and we have new posters who didn't vote before) and see what we think now in comparison.

Not trying to start a debate here.
I don't mind bumping it.
I just see no reason why Schneider has proved he belongs higher.
That was my point.
On the other hand, guys like Lupaschuk, or even more Endicott and Armstrong were ranked lower than they should have based on a bad year at the PRO level.
I felt that was not merited then and I certainly feel it also now that they seem to find their game back.