Can anyone share some information with me? I like the guy a lot... the times I've seen him, he resembled Yorkie so much; all the tools and everything.
I wonder why he gets rated 17th in our system... I figure these HFBoard polls are pretty accurate, by-and-large. I always figured he'd be at least the 15th best pospect... at most, 8-10. He is considerably, NHL-ready, however I don't think that should have any baring whatsoever on a prospect's ranking.
Can anyone share some information with me? I like the guy a lot... the times I've seen him, he resembled Yorkie so much; all the tools and everything.
I wonder why he gets rated 17th in our system... I figure these HFBoard polls are pretty accurate, by-and-large. I always figured he'd be at least the 15th best pospect... at most, 8-10. He is considerably, NHL-ready, however I don't think that should have any baring whatsoever on a prospect's ranking.
huh????? yorkie, yeah alright, nothing alike, hes rated 17 and u are wondering why he is not 15 , like 2 notches make him that much better.. basically to your comment i say
To answer the original posters question, there's a symptom on these boards called "prospectitis". It means a newly drafted 18 year old who has proven nothing is nearly automatically given a higher rating than a 23 year old who has proven they can play at the AHL level and is due to move up, but because they didn't score at a PPG level in the AHL like the just drafted guy did in juniors, they're a worse player.
i like moore...from what i saw of him in his short NHL stint and in the AHL, he seems to be a guy with a lot of skill...and he never stops moving, never stops driving, forechecking, making things happen...but for whatever reason he doesn't seem to score quite as much as he should perhaps that has to do with his linemates in hartford, i heard he wasn't on mcgills good side for a significant part of the season...also heard after he came back from NY he seemed kind of off...or played very angry and didn't work it quite as well as he did before.
i think he has a good shot at making the team next year though, he's a good prospect IMO
Dom Moore is a solid player who showed in college that he could score, play defense and be a leader. He's undersized but bigger than York was when the latter entered the league. The comparison to York is a fair one. In their senior seasons York scored 54 points in 42 games and Moore scored 51 points in 34 games. For their college careers York averaged 1.27 points per game and Moore averaged 1.14 points per game - and Moore played in a more defensively conscious league. No one knows if Moore will cut it in the NHL but I would not bet against him. IMHO he is definitely in the Top 10 of Ranger prospects (anywhere from 5-10).
he had 3 assists in 5 games. thats pretty good. he seemed to of had a good start. Im still wondering y they didnt recall him in march for atleast a few games to see if he was on an nhl level.
huh????? yorkie, yeah alright, nothing alike, hes rated 17 and u are wondering why he is not 15 , like 2 notches make him that much better.. basically to your comment i say
Hahahahahaha! You would know, right? Have you ever seen either of the two play? I said as LOW as 15... assuming that the consensus agreed 17 was a the right spot for him. Your post was all about trying to make me look stupid, it had nothing to do with Moore, who you've quite obviously never seen, or your just dismissing the comparison because you love to disagree with me.
So many of your posts consist of nitpicks, and moreover, uninformed attempts to structurally destroy opinions. And you dare make fun of Prucha73? Plus, you attest he posts here too much? You've been here a month, and you've already got like 300+ posts!
Basically, to your nauseating punctuation, blasphemous syntax, and atrocious grammar, I say :lol :lol
Moore is one of those weird prospects who is hard to determine.
His skills are good but he didnt really show enough to project as a top six forward, but he isn't big, physical or defensive enough to be a third of fourth line player.
The biggest problem right now is that with that combination and the fact that he is now 24, he could very well be one of those players who is a very good minor leaguer but a borderline NHL'er.
He started off good, but he never really recovered from an injury. It will be interesting to see how he does in training camp. He's certainly get a long look but I have to believe that in a season in which he will be 24/25 this is going to be his legit chance to be a part of this teams future.
Just need to lift some weights and improve on standing on his feet. I think of Todd Marchant as comparable. If he was stronger on his feet, he would playin in the NHL. He is one candidate that needs to drive to the net alot to regain the coach's confidence. He tends to use his speed but backs away from driving to the net hard. So far he has been Craig Janney of the Bruins-perimeter skill forward who thrives in the open non physical game. I would say what the Rangers really lacked the last couple of years are players that drive to the net aggressively without abandon. It always seems to be the Ranger's goalie that have two opposite forwards landing on them crashing into them. Its about time ,we do the same.
York's a harder worker. York's a more skilled player. Moore can be a nice player, but he's no more than a third liner. Why are 18 year olds rated higher than hiM? Because of what they're projected to be - some are top line hopefuls. Moore's already shown that he's not that. He struggled at times in Hartford (it may've been work ethic or just problems with McGill), and just doesn't put up the points to be considered a top six forward.
Just need to lift some weights and improve on standing on his feet. I think of Todd Marchant as comparable. If he was stronger on his feet, he would playin in the NHL. He is one candidate that needs to drive to the net alot to regain the coach's confidence. He tends to use his speed but backs away from driving to the net hard. So far he has been Craig Janney of the Bruins-perimeter skill forward who thrives in the open non physical game. I would say what the Rangers really lacked the last couple of years are players that drive to the net aggressively without abandon. It always seems to be the Ranger's goalie that have two opposite forwards landing on them crashing into them. Its about time ,we do the same.
Problem is that Marchant was a much better defensive player and Janney was in a different league in terms of offense.
But therein is the problem with Moore, as of right now he just doesn't seem to have a strong enough trait on either side of the puck that translates into an NHL game.
That doesn't mean he def. won't be a player, but at 24 it will take a toll on his odds and subsequently his ranking.
I actually think he can be a fourth [or maybe even third] liner. He ain't a fighter and isn't all that tough, but I don't think it's always a bad thing to have a somewhat skilled, smart player as your fourth liner playing center to a couple grinders. In his few games in New York he didn't shy away from contact and was fine in the corners. Could be a decent change-of-pace guy on the fourth line who can kill penalties in games in which the Rangers get into penalty troubles so the starters and other killers aren't asked to kill 8 penalties, which is a disaster as we know.
York's a harder worker. York's a more skilled player. Moore can be a nice player, but he's no more than a third liner. Why are 18 year olds rated higher than hiM? Because of what they're projected to be - some are top line hopefuls. Moore's already shown that he's not that. He struggled at times in Hartford (it may've been work ethic or just problems with McGill), and just doesn't put up the points to be considered a top six forward.
If any of this is the case, Jamie Lundmark should be a career AHLer. Same goes for Chad Wiseman... and Garth Murray should never be more than a fourth line forward.
I actually think he can be a fourth [or maybe even third] liner. He ain't a fighter and isn't all that tough, but I don't think it's always a bad thing to have a somewhat skilled, smart player as your fourth liner playing center to a couple grinders. In his few games in New York he didn't shy away from contact and was fine in the corners. Could be a decent change-of-pace guy on the fourth line who can kill penalties in games in which the Rangers get into penalty troubles so the starters and other killers aren't asked to kill 8 penalties, which is a disaster as we know.
I cant really tell til i see a healthy Moore this year. That should answer questions about his subpar season after he got hurt.
I just don't see him working as a third or fourth line guy personally. I dont think his defensive is strong enough for that and i think the Rangers have centers in their system that are potentially better suited for that roll in the long run.
That's one point that's 100% correct. I was reading a Whitey Herzog book called "You're Missing A Great Game" recently. He worked in the Mets organization while Casey Stengal was the manager and he mentions how Nolan Ryan had a horrible work ethic when the Mets originally acquired him. He didn't think he'd amount to anything. Then Ryan went to spring training and was with Tom Seaver while Seaver was working out. Seaver had a superior work ethic and just being around him was all it took for Ryan to get his act together. There are so many things that affect how a player performs. It's way too early to make any call on Moore's future after only one year of Hartford hockey - especially when there were no flaws in his work ethic or performance at Harvard.
perhaps that has to do with his linemates in hartford, i heard he wasn't on mcgills good side for a significant part of the season...also heard after he came back from NY he seemed kind of off...or played very angry and didn't work it quite as well as he did before.
