View Single Post
Old
03-18-2004, 03:28 PM
  #48
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,457
vCash: 500
BigE...

I do agree on the size issue, conceptually, but not sure a 5'11 185 lbs guy is that coveted these days. 6'1, 6'2, yes, but 5'11? And I thought Dawes was 5'9 180 and didn't see much different in his size/frame to Helminen, only thinking of Mike York - at 5'9 185, and how effective he is at that size.

But I should say one thing - I'm not saying that these Rangers prospects are great and should be on the top 50, etc. What I read in regards to Tambellini from the group that ranked him where he was didn't suggest that at this point, that was anything spectacular. Declining points. -4 vs. +10. Slight frame. Top 50?

Fletch is offline