HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   HF top 100 prospects (Tjutin #17, Jessiman #78) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=23391)

#37-#93-#27* 10-27-2003 06:37 PM

HF top 100 prospects (Tjutin #17, Jessiman #78)
 
http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1790038

Quote:

17. Fedor Tyutin D N.Y. Rangers An aspect of Tyutin's package that makes him very attractive is that he is more of a sure thing than some other players as he has already been battle-tested on a very high level.
Quote:

78. Hugh Jessiman LW N.Y. Rangers A playmaking power forward that likes to go to the net to score goals. Good skater for a big man but needs a little refinement.

I think Tjutin should be higher but I can live with 17. Jessiman at 78 is not encouraging. Although I feel there were too many of the recent draftees rank, 10 of the 2003 draftees that ranked ahead of him that were picked after him including the Devil's Zach Parise and NYI's Robert Nillson, that doesn't make me feel any better about our prospects.

Skroob* 10-27-2003 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1790038






I think Tjutin should be higher but I can live with 17. Jessiman at 78 is not encouraging. Although I feel there were too many of the recent draftees rank, 10 of the 2003 draftees that ranked ahead of him that were picked after him including the Devil's Zach Parise and NYI's Robert Nillson, that doesn't make me feel any better about our prospects.

Hugh is another Manny Malhotra. He's a project. Hes either going to be a high-impact player on a #1 line causing all kinds of trouble for whoever is playing on a line against him, or he will be somewhere between AHL-er and 3rd/4th line role player.

At least we arent killing his chances (yet) like we did with Manny.

Son of Steinbrenner 10-28-2003 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1790038






I think Tjutin should be higher but I can live with 17. Jessiman at 78 is not encouraging. Although I feel there were too many of the recent draftees rank, 10 of the 2003 draftees that ranked ahead of him that were picked after him including the Devil's Zach Parise and NYI's Robert Nillson, that doesn't make me feel any better about our prospects.

i think its just more anti-ranger anti-sather bias thats all over these boards and this site.

nervousranger 10-28-2003 04:43 AM

I think Jessiman needs to work more on becoming an in your face player than he does on working on any refinement. He's got all the tools but how far he goes will depend on him blossoming into more of a physical player than he is now. Needs to grow into that big body of his. The question with him is does he have the commitment to do that?

I like Tutin. He seems to work real hard and he's got good puck moving ability along with great hockey sense. The only thing that worries me about him is his skating which I think could be his only weak point but they'll work on that in Hartford.

RGF 10-28-2003 05:31 AM

jessiman has scored goals in alll his preseason games..dartmouth has lost the games because of freshman goaltending, but the forwards have looked great...tanner glass a 9th rd pick outta florida is sick with it...hes good..theyll play well this well

JCProdigy 10-28-2003 12:59 PM

Ranking prospects is a funny thing because in less then half a season you can see a prospects rating dramatically rise or fall. It's all opinion anyways and I'm not getting down because Jessiman was ranked so low. Remember a year ago he wouldn't even be in the top 300.

Fletch 10-28-2003 01:11 PM

I think ranking prospects is near impossible...
 
and is an exercise in futility.

JCProdigy 10-28-2003 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
and is an exercise in futility.

Yep, like somebody trying to defend sather on these boards.....or somebody trying to teach Poti defense....or me trying to pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time....

#37-#93-#27* 10-28-2003 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch
and is an exercise in futility.

That may be true but 50 spots is a pretty big difference when compared to players you're supposed to match up favorably or equally.

JCProdigy 10-28-2003 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
That may be true but 50 spots is a pretty big difference when compared to players you're supposed to match up favorably or equally.

Yes and no. For example, if you asked these same evaluators to rank this same prospect pool a year ago then you'd proabably see a 100 spot difference between a guy like Jessiman and Parise. So in essence you can say that Jessiman gained 50 spots on Parise in one year. Maybe by the time they reach the NHL Hugh will have surpassed Zach, maybe not, thus the futility issue.

#37-#93-#27* 10-28-2003 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCProdigy
Yes and no. For example, if you asked these same evaluators to rank this same prospect pool a year ago then you'd proabably see a 100 spot difference between a guy like Jessiman and Parise. So in essence you can say that Jessiman gained 50 spots on Parise in one year. Maybe by the time they reach the NHL Hugh will have surpassed Zach, maybe not, thus the futility issue.

Obviously prospects get better and worst but what I'm saying is we picked a guy who people (not only HF) feel should've gone much later in the draft. When I see names like Fritsche (already in the NHL), Seabrook, etc etc ahead of him it doesn't make me feel good about it right now.

JCProdigy 10-28-2003 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
Obviously prospects get better and worst but what I'm saying is we picked a guy who people (not only HF) feel should've gone much later in the draft. When I see names like Fritsche (already in the NHL), Seabrook, etc etc ahead of him it doesn't make me feel good about it right now.

We'll I wouldn't say much later as he wasn't dropping out of the first round. I heard alot of people saying he should've been taken later but I also heard about a lot of teams wanting to take him in the teens. It all can be because of lack of exposure. Remember, he just burst onto the scene this past year. The time to worry is when he stops progressing in his career on the ice rather then when some sports outlet, that probably hasn't seen him much, ranks him low on their list.

Fletch 10-29-2003 04:02 AM

37-93-27...
 
three years ago Brendl was probably top 3. Now is he top 100? The draft's a crapshoot and raking these players, right after the draft, too is a crapshoot. And heck, Tjutin's got two more years' experience on Jessimnan...is it fair to compare?

Bure9* 10-29-2003 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
I really don't like what I see with Jessiman, rangers should have went out and got a sure thing like Nillson or Parise. Jessiman has a chance to be better then both but I wouldn't count on it.

Rangers don't need any more third or fourth liners. That's what your getting with the sure things. They need top line players. I like what I've heard from the reports already. He's a good skater, he works hard, and has good hockey sense. The fact that he possesses those three attributes lowers his bust potential significantly. He will need a few years, though. Big men like Jessiman need time to put it together.

#37-#93-#27* 10-29-2003 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bure9
Rangers don't need any more third or fourth liners. That's what your getting with the sure things. They need top line players. I like what I've heard from the reports already. He's a good skater, he works hard, and has good hockey sense. The fact that he possesses those three attributes lowers his bust potential significantly. He will need a few years, though. Big men like Jessiman need time to put it together.

Nillson and Parise both project to be first line players.

NYR469 10-29-2003 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
Nillson and Parise both project to be first line players.

as has been said a million times since the draft, the rangers have needed a power forward for 7-8 years (when graves hurt his back)...so even if parise and nillson are more talented players, jessiman fills a need

it really is humorous though how everyone for years ripped neil smith for drafting 'smurfs' when we needed a power forward...now sather picks the big power forward and people are complaining that we didn't take the 'smurfs'

#37-#93-#27* 10-29-2003 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR469
as has been said a million times since the draft, the rangers have needed a power forward for 7-8 years (when graves hurt his back)...so even if parise and nillson are more talented players, jessiman fills a need

it really is humorous though how everyone for years ripped neil smith for drafting 'smurfs' when we needed a power forward...now sather picks the big power forward and people are complaining that we didn't take the 'smurfs'

You don't draft players for your current needs.

Barnaby 10-29-2003 11:45 AM

I'm not critizing the Jessman yet. I'll wait four or five years. If he looks like Tkachuk then I'll be happy... if he looks like Scott Thornton Ill be pissed, especially if Parise is putting up 70 point seasons. Its too early to critize this pick.... altho I REALLY would have liked them to move up and get Phaneuf but the point is you cant judge a draft yet. Who knows maybe Ken Roche will be a great player.... maybe Baranka will be a Norris Winner.... or maybe none of them will play a single NHL game... we shall see...

SingnBluesOnBroadway 10-29-2003 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR469
as has been said a million times since the draft, the rangers have needed a power forward for 7-8 years (when graves hurt his back)...so even if parise and nillson are more talented players, jessiman fills a need

it really is humorous though how everyone for years ripped neil smith for drafting 'smurfs' when we needed a power forward...now sather picks the big power forward and people are complaining that we didn't take the 'smurfs'

I kind of think the Rangers need everything save a goalie.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 10-29-2003 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
I really don't like what I see with Jessiman, rangers should have went out and got a sure thing like Nillson or Parise. Jessiman has a chance to be better then both but I wouldn't count on it.


Disagree. The Rangers filled a need (one of many). And most of all, the kid wants to play for this team. I think that means something.

NYR469 10-29-2003 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #37-#93-#27
You don't draft players for your current needs.

but you do draft for future needs and this is a need that the rangers have had for 7 years with NO possible solution anywhere in the foreseeable future...

#37-#93-#27* 10-29-2003 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR469
but you do draft for future needs and this is a need that the rangers have had for 7 years with NO possible solution anywhere in the foreseeable future...

I was under the impression teams draft who they feel is the best players available, specially in the first round. Actually I'm pretty sure that's what the Rangers did, why else would they have MA Fleury third on their rankings.

Bird Law 10-29-2003 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
I really don't like what I see with Jessiman, rangers should have went out and got a sure thing like Nillson or Parise. Jessiman has a chance to be better then both but I wouldn't count on it.

Common, Jason. Have you even seen him play? He is much better than Nillson. Parise and him are on the same plane...

Kodiak 10-29-2003 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
Putting all these reports together he looks either like a young Isbister or a young Bertuzzi.

So? You could say the same thing about any power forward prospect drafted recently.

Quote:

He is a smooth big skater with soft hands, defense is a liability and work ethic has been a flaw. Fairly good to coach and is a fast learner.
Work ethic? This only thing I see in any of those articles that mentioned Jessiman's work ethic is this quote...

Quote:

Hugh Jessiman, a right winger who shows great skills and work ethic at a questionable level of competition.
...which is actually complimenting his work ethic. I'm no big Jessiman supporter. In fact, a number of posters can tell you I was railing against this pick on draft day, but you're going to need better reasons than that to bash him.

didjuicythat 10-29-2003 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonMacIsaac
I can't say that I have but here is a load of reports I read on him.

http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/7...raft5_0135.htm

http://www.nhl.com/futures/2003draft...man062303.html

http://mckeenshockey.rivals.com/draft.asp?Draft=32

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hocke...forwards_x.htm

http://www.stlouisblues.com/columnists/lw_030619.html

http://msn.espn.go.com/nhl/draft2003/s/bios21-30.html


Putting all these reports together he looks either like a young Isbister or a young Bertuzzi. He is a smooth big skater with soft hands, defense is a liability and work ethic has been a flaw. Fairly good to coach and is a fast learner.

Your opinion based on what you've read about him isn't what's most realiable as far as I'm concerned. If you had seen the guy play, it would have been a different story. But pretending to know exactly what kind of player he is, without even using terms such as "IMO" is pretty cocky. I haven't seen the guy play, therefore I won't make any statement about his future. That's what all ordinary hockey fans should do, if you ask me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.