Looks like Locke is going to win this poll, but I am surprised there is no love for Milroy, this guy was the best player in the Memorial Cup twp years ago so I see great potential in him. ( Even if it's as a third liner)
Svatos was by far the best player there... Milroy did'nt impress me!
the eleventh prospect will be korneev for sure he got 40 votes for the #10 prospect but Corey Locke win this one with 49 votes , no surprise here he has a lot of the talent and he got a good season in the OHL, he was the MVP in the OHL.
Just an opinion but Danis, Urquhart, Lapierre & soon Locke before Korneev is just INSANE !!!!!
I know we are in the North America & we see those players more often but Locke even with his CHL success CAN'T BE a top 10 prospects !!
We are not the top 5 organization so many claim us to be if Corey Locke is our top 10
What are you base your comments on, have you seen Danis play yet? What makes you think Korneev is better then Urquhart and Lapierre? What makes you think Locke isn't a top 10 prospect? (I dont think he is, just wondering why you are saying these things. I've only seen Korneev 5 times, and I like him a lot, but his size and strength are going to be a problem for him. I love the fact that he made the National team at 19, although he didn't play much (4th pairing, I got the Russian/Finland game on tape) it's still a great vote of confidence for him to play for the junior and senior national teams.
Another writer at HF interviewd him, he says that Korneev doesn't know any English yet, but that's only a minor problem. I was just thinking that if he was really thinking of coming over, he'd be trying to learn some English. I can only assume the guy was right when he told me this, I never talked to Korneev myself.
He also said that the players for the U-20 team were telling him Korneev should have been the captain of the team, which says a lot for Korneev as well. I saw him with AK Bars, and although he didn't play too much, he looks solid over there, just that I think he could have a big problem translating to the North American game. While he is a strong stick checker and so was Markov, he'll have to become more physical, and that is the tough part to figure out how much success he will have. It didn't look like he grew much at all from last year to this year, but since he's just turning 20, he'll have a few years to add some weight/muscle.
Another writer at HF interviewd him, he says that Korneev doesn't know any English yet, but that's only a minor problem. I was just thinking that if he was really thinking of coming over, he'd be trying to learn some English. I can only assume the guy was right when he told me this, I never talked to Korneev myself.
I don't know much about when they learn english but I am pretty certain that many have come over to North America without speaking a word of english and having to learn from a teacher while they play. That might be what Korneev plans to do.
What are you base your comments on, have you seen Danis play yet? What makes you think Korneev is better then Urquhart and Lapierre? What makes you think Locke isn't a top 10 prospect? (I dont think he is, just wondering why you are saying these things. I've only seen Korneev 5 times, and I like him a lot, but his size and strength are going to be a problem for him. I love the fact that he made the National team at 19, although he didn't play much (4th pairing, I got the Russian/Finland game on tape) it's still a great vote of confidence for him to play for the junior and senior national teams.
Another writer at HF interviewd him, he says that Korneev doesn't know any English yet, but that's only a minor problem. I was just thinking that if he was really thinking of coming over, he'd be trying to learn some English. I can only assume the guy was right when he told me this, I never talked to Korneev myself.
He also said that the players for the U-20 team were telling him Korneev should have been the captain of the team, which says a lot for Korneev as well. I saw him with AK Bars, and although he didn't play too much, he looks solid over there, just that I think he could have a big problem translating to the North American game. While he is a strong stick checker and so was Markov, he'll have to become more physical, and that is the tough part to figure out how much success he will have. It didn't look like he grew much at all from last year to this year, but since he's just turning 20, he'll have a few years to add some weight/muscle.
Well the prospect ranking are always a big debate on how would we rank them. I'm just hoping you didnt think, I was attacking you or anyone else who did some hard work.
I just found it hard for a player that was signed a few weeks ago suddenly a #7 pick. I never seen him though. A 23 years old player (23 on june 21st) just signed who got great stats im sure but Im more of a conservative type of guy. He should be include in the top 20 but #5-6-7 ? I think he's still got a lot to prove to be there. I think it's putting too much hype like Olivier Michaud a few years ago after playing close to 1 period in the NHL @ 19 & doing well. I dont think he should be that high since I don't think he is that much better of Halak who put some good numbers too in his league.
As for Corey Locke, I think people put too much emphasis on his stats. Though I understand that we see many CHL games on TV & not at all from Europe. But Corey Locke is far from a lock to be an NHLer. He got some tools that could make him an NHLer but he also got many weaknesses that could make a him a AHLer for life. I dont know how the future will turn out for Locke but history tell us that lighting the CHL in stats doesn't mean anything. (Turner Stevenson got 61 pts in 62 gp in his draft year).
Only Corey Locke himself can prove me wrong but as of today I dont think he's worth a top 10 pick in our organization that is suppose to be ONE OF THE BEST regarding our prospects.
Korneev maybe doesn't have the upside of a #1-2 defenseman but he looks more & more of a sure NHLer as #4-5 instead of Locke who still got a lot to prove to not be called the next..............PIERRE SEVIGNE (it's not a joke, Sevigny was a good player but not at the NHL level).
Well the prospect ranking are always a big debate on how would we rank them. I'm just hoping you didnt think, I was attacking you or anyone else who did some hard work.
I just found it hard for a player that was signed a few weeks ago suddenly a #7 pick. I never seen him though. A 23 years old player (23 on june 21st) just signed who got great stats im sure but Im more of a conservative type of guy. He should be include in the top 20 but #5-6-7 ? I think he's still got a lot to prove to be there. I think it's putting too much hype like Olivier Michaud a few years ago after playing close to 1 period in the NHL @ 19 & doing well. I dont think he should be that high since I don't think he is that much better of Halak who put some good numbers too in his league.
As for Corey Locke, I think people put too much emphasis on his stats. Though I understand that we see many CHL games on TV & not at all from Europe. But Corey Locke is far from a lock to be an NHLer. He got some tools that could make him an NHLer but he also got many weaknesses that could make a him a AHLer for life. I dont know how the future will turn out for Locke but history tell us that lighting the CHL in stats doesn't mean anything. (Turner Stevenson got 61 pts in 62 gp in his draft year).
Only Corey Locke himself can prove me wrong but as of today I dont think he's worth a top 10 pick in our organization that is suppose to be ONE OF THE BEST regarding our prospects.
Korneev maybe doesn't have the upside of a #1-2 defenseman but he looks more & more of a sure NHLer as #4-5 instead of Locke who still got a lot to prove to not be called the next..............PIERRE SEVIGNE (it's not a joke, Sevigny was a good player but not at the NHL level).
Just a matter of philosophy maybe.
Well I was never high on Michaud, and I don't have high hopes for Locke or Korneev making a big impact in the NHL, but the skill is there and thats why I put them as high as I did. Both guys could end up being very good NHLers, but they also have some areas of concern that keep them out of the top 10 imo.
As for Danis, what's the difference between signing a guy and putting him in the top 10 or drafting a player and putting him in the top 10 right away. Neither has proven anything at the pro level yet, but all of them have to be ranked somewhere. Danis and Halak I've seen both, but in very limited viewing. Halak put up great numbers, but so did Danis, who was the best goalie in the NCAA this year, imo, whereas Halak was the best goalie in the Slovak junior league. I can't coment on how good the Slovak junior league is, but I have followed the NCAA very closely which gives me a much better idea of what it takes to play at that level.
Danis is that good, so he should be ranked where his talent puts him. I'm very impressed with him although he is a tad small, I has a ton of skill. I rank them based on skill and upside, and I feel Danis's skill level is tops almong our goalies and his upside is NHL starter, imo. We'll see next year what he does in Hamilton, a bad year and he'll be moved down, a good year and he could be moved up, thats how I do it. I always take into consideration what a player did, is doing and what they might do in the future.
Well I was never high on Michaud, and I don't have high hopes for Locke or Korneev making a big impact in the NHL, but the skill is there and thats why I put them as high as I did. Both guys could end up being very good NHLers, but they also have some areas of concern that keep them out of the top 10 imo.
As for Danis, what's the difference between signing a guy and putting him in the top 10 or drafting a player and putting him in the top 10 right away. Neither has proven anything at the pro level yet, but all of them have to be ranked somewhere. Danis and Halak I've seen both, but in very limited viewing. Halak put up great numbers, but so did Danis, who was the best goalie in the NCAA this year, imo, whereas Halak was the best goalie in the Slovak junior league. I can't coment on how good the Slovak junior league is, but I have followed the NCAA very closely which gives me a much better idea of what it takes to play at that level.
Danis is that good, so he should be ranked where his talent puts him. I'm very impressed with him although he is a tad small, I has a ton of skill. I rank them based on skill and upside, and I feel Danis's skill level is tops almong our goalies and his upside is NHL starter, imo. We'll see next year what he does in Hamilton, a bad year and he'll be moved down, a good year and he could be moved up, thats how I do it. I always take into consideration what a player did, is doing and what they might do in the future.
Like I said, I was talking about the Habs prospect voting on this board. I know you put him #5 on the HF web site. We agree to disagree but I still respect very much what you do & still think you do a marvelous job with it.
Like I said, I was talking about the Habs prospect voting on this board. I know you put him #5 on the HF web site. We agree to disagree but I still respect very much what you do & still think you do a marvelous job with it.
Thanks, I didn't pickup on the difference between the page and the polls, my bad. But I am using these polls to help me in the future to rank the players, so it's hard for me to seperate the two. It's all in good fun to discuss the prospects and what others think of them.
Thanks, I didn't pickup on the difference between the page and the polls, my bad. But I am using these polls to help me in the future to rank the players, so it's hard for me to seperate the two. It's all in good fun to discuss the prospects and what others think of them.
Exactly , I love to give my input on prospect , when I know a guy such as Kastsitsyn that I got a lot of viewing from the 2002-03 season, I can easily be more objective. Most of the rest of our prospects , I saw them between 0 time to 3-4 times. I heard about them a lot so most of my input is to analyze all the information I can get like you.
That doesn't make me an expert but at least like I said on the 1st round 2004 thread, I think I talk to/with people with respect & even if we agree or disagree people in the end know a lot more about our prospects.
Let me tell you that the thing you did agree or not , is not a small thing to do alone & still you do it like 1 man. You are the GUY in the line of fire, being scrutinize by everyone who can easily say like I would this guy higher & that guy lower. You expose your view & it's very appreciate even though I dont see that much of a difference between Halak & Danis in potential as of today. I think if Halak played in N.A & Danis in europe the ranking would be the same but Halak would be your #5 & Danis your #16. It's normal after because we tend to be more subjective/appreciate with players that we see in N.A. It's always has been the case in HF & wont change anytime soon (See Crosby N.A vs Ovechkin EURO less viewing)
Exactly , I love to give my input on prospect , when I know a guy such as Kastsitsyn that I got a lot of viewing from the 2002-03 season, I can easily be more objective. Most of the rest of our prospects , I saw them between 0 time to 3-4 times. I heard about them a lot so most of my input is to analyze all the information I can get like you.
That doesn't make me an expert but at least like I said on the 1st round 2004 thread, I think I talk to/with people with respect & even if we agree or disagree people in the end know a lot more about our prospects.
Let me tell you that the thing you did agree or not , is not a small thing to do alone & still you do it like 1 man. You are the GUY in the line of fire, being scrutinize by everyone who can easily say like I would this guy higher & that guy lower. You expose your view & it's very appreciate even though I dont see that much of a difference between Halak & Danis in potential as of today. I think if Halak played in N.A & Danis in europe the ranking would be the same but Halak would be your #5 & Danis your #16. It's normal after because we tend to be more subjective/appreciate with players that we see in N.A. It's always has been the case in HF & wont change anytime soon (See Crosby N.A vs Ovechkin EURO less viewing)
Oh I agree 100%, it's only common to see North Americans rated higher on these boards due to a lack of exposure. As for Halak/Danis, it's hard for me to say since I only saw each one time, and there's a very big age difference (4 or so years). One thing I noticed about Halak that was a concern was that in the game I saw he was always staying very deep in his crease which could just be his style, but I think he's going to have to learn to come out a little more and take on the shooter, but again that's from one game.
It's easier for me and less of a risk to put Danis higher cause of what I've seen and what I know of the league he plays in. I think both are very skilled, but since I've never seen a game from the Slovakia juniors, and from what I saw of Halak, I rated him lower then Danis. I had Halak at our #1 goalie prospect, now I have Danis there, Halak #2. I don't think Halak has the skill level of Danis, but that's based off 1 game which makes my job very hard to do, but I just go with what I know, it really doesn't mean a whole lot, just one mans opinion.
I enjoy talking about the prospects with all the guys/gals here.
Something i can't understand is how our 3rd rounder (O'Byrne) can be rated lower than our 4th round pick(Locke). Specially that Locke did'nt make better than last year.
Something i can't understand is how our 3rd rounder (O'Byrne) can be rated lower than our 4th round pick(Locke). Specially that Locke did'nt make better than last year.
Well I think the fact that O'Byrne played in the BCJHL and then not many saw much of him at Cornell, while Locke has put up an impressive resume so far. I do think that Locke had a better season this year then last year. Every game I saw Locke play he had Mancari on his wing, a big step down from Matt Foy, yet he was still able to rack up the points, led a less skilled team in scoring despite not too much help, and led the OHL in scoring as well.
I personally think highly of both, but O'Byrne has a great package of size/skating/speed/physical play, just needs a few years to learn his position. Locke I think has great offensive abilities, but until I see him in the AHL I am very skeptical of what he can do. I remember seeing Thinel put up 282 points in his final 2 seasons, but was concerned about his size/strength/defensive play/lack of physical game. I'm not saying Locke is anything like Thinel, but that high scoring CHLers can decieve fans then the flaws in their game are exposed against better competition.
