View Single Post
09-02-2004, 08:02 AM
Registered User
pld459666's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,917
vCash: 500

Originally Posted by melisa
What else is new. Dawes getting a pathetic 6 rating. Beranka who is a better prospect then any Devil or Islander defenseman and is on track to be a can't miss, top 4 defenseman getting a pathetic 6. God they are clueless. Wiseman a 4? :lol That was a funny one. Lundqvist a 6.5? Oh my. They are stupid aren't they.

Theygive Prucha a sad 6 and Falardeau a 6. This proves they know nothing about any of the Ranger prospects. Why did I dare to believe in these clowns.

Personally I think that Falardeau was a wasted pick as he's big body with very limited offensive potential and the fact that we have a dearth of defensive minded forwards he's going to have to possess a unique attribute to stand out amongst the others. Being big certainly helps, but his skating is suspect and he has hands of stone. If he's playing the 3rd line For Michigan State, I wouldn't put to much stock into an NHL career.

As for Weisman, what exactly has he done to warrant a higher rating? Play well in Hartford and Kentucky? Chad is already 23 years old and has been on 2 different teams and the results are the same, he's a minor leaguer. Brad Smyth was a hell of a minor league player, but I'd be steamed if he got a regular shift in the NHL for the Rangers.

As for Nigel, the ranking more than likely reflects his size and the fact that in 3 Junior seasons he has 1 full season under his belt (full season meaning 70+ games for the sake of discussion) he's small, defensively suspect and gets hurt, and you're saying that his offensive production should overshadow that and get a higher rating? we agree to disagree on that.

And as much as I like Lundqvist, ask around, the regulars here will attest to that, I agree that his rating should be tweaked, but slightly to a 7B. Until he comes over and faces some stiffer competition on the smaller surfaces of the NA game there's going to be questions about his abilities. He has to answer them, and the only way to do that is to be here playing. Until then a 6.5B-7B rating is well suited.

The one rating I question is the rating given to Darin Oliver. A 7C, the 7 is questionable, but it's tempered by the C, I'd be more inclined to rate him a 6B, but I also have to say that I don't know much more than what I've read about him. The positive is that as a Freshman he led his team in scoring, as he gets older, and more mature his overall game should develope a bit more and the ranking may be justified.

And for the overall tone of the post, I'd like to see your thoughts on where a player should be ranked and the reasoning behind the ranking.

pld459666 is offline