HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

So much for player and organizational rankings...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2004, 06:04 PM
  #51
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beukeboom Fan
I agree with your point to a certain extent. All team and player rankings need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, to say that the rankings do not matter about the future success of a franchise is a massive over-generalization.

Certain organizations seem to be able to "mine" talent from deep in the draft (COL a good example with Hejduk, Vrbata, Svatos, etc), while others seem to have the reverse Midas touch (turning gold into tin). Does that mean that COL fan's shouldn't be worried about the future? I would if I'm a Av's fan, with guys like Blake, Foote, Sakic & Forsberg all needing to be "replaced" over the next 3-4 years. That means that those guys should already be in the organization.

I also think that a team like COL is very sucessful in "developing" young talent because they can plug guys like Hejduk & Tanguay around HOF caliber talent and the young guys don't have to carry the load. Compare that to a team like CHI that has to throw the young guys into the fire, and I would expect the COL guys to be more successful over the long haul.

I do agree with you thought that an organization with a low ranking doesn't mean that the team is doomed to failure. It depends a lot on what the organizational needs are, and how young the existing "core" group of players is.
I never said the list means nothing in the future success' of the teams, but these rankings were poorly done. I suspect the top 10 were researched thoroughly, the following 10 or so were looked at with some care, and then the remaining teams were just based on reputation of past drafts and player development, as well as the names of the prospects ("no-name" players getting little attention), ignoring the current method of PD and what the team has done to improve it.

A question I pose to the commitee, is it possible to have the names of all 10 members that took part in this project made public?

Quote:
... A team like the Av's with an apparent lack of upper tier talent coming up through the system, and an older group of core players, might have more issues than a team like the Canucks whose core is much younger.
My example pointed out the Leafs/Canucks situation. It's evident the Maple Leafs have a very comparable system to Vancouver, if not better. Yet a very well know member of HFBoards.com seems to think his team is "much stronger" than the Maple Leafs.

And the NHL team has absolutely nothing to do with these rankings, except that the NHL's success is a factor in the position of the draft. But the NHL roster has nothing to do with lists like this, that's a totally different can of worms.


Last edited by leafaholix*: 10-04-2004 at 06:08 PM.
leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:10 PM
  #52
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
I never said the list means nothing in the future success' of the teams, but these rankings were poorly done. I suspect the top 10 were researched thoroughly, the following 10 or so were looked at with some care, and then the remaining teams were just based on reputation of past drafts and player development, as well as the names of the prospects ("no-name" players getting little attention), ignoring the current method of PD and what the team has done to improve it.

A question I pose to the commitee, is it possible to have the names of all 10 members that took part in this project made public?


My example pointed out the Leafs/Canucks situation. It's evident the Maple Leafs have a very comparable system to Vancouver, if not better. Yet a very well know member of HFBoards.com seems to think his team is "much stronger" than the Maple Leafs.

And the NHL team has absolutely nothing to do with these rankings, except that the NHL's success is a factor in the position of the draft. But the NHL roster has nothing to do with lists like this, that's a totally different can of worms.
I have to be careful how I respond, so I'll keep it breif.

While it may be evident to you that the Leafs have a comparable system to Vancouver, it wasn't to the group. I can't say for sure, but I think without fail, everybody had Vancouver ahead of Toronto.

If I said 'much stronger', I should probobly clarify and say while I think Vancouver's system is stronger than Toronto's, it's not by a massive margin. 'Much' can be interpreted several ways, but I'll just say this: Much enough for me to think Vancouver deserves to be 5 spots higher.

As for the members, I'm not sure so I will defer to Guy or Holly if they wish to divulge that information.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 09:31 PM
  #53
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
I have to be careful how I respond, so I'll keep it breif.

While it may be evident to you that the Leafs have a comparable system to Vancouver, it wasn't to the group. I can't say for sure, but I think without fail, everybody had Vancouver ahead of Toronto.

If I said 'much stronger', I should probobly clarify and say while I think Vancouver's system is stronger than Toronto's, it's not by a massive margin. 'Much' can be interpreted several ways, but I'll just say this: Much enough for me to think Vancouver deserves to be 5 spots higher.

As for the members, I'm not sure so I will defer to Guy or Holly if they wish to divulge that information.
To say Vancouver is worthy of being 5 spots higher than Toronto is arguable, especially when you don't care to even look over the player-by-player matchups.

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...5&postcount=89

Those are fair comparisons, I'd like to get your opinion on which matchups Vancouver has the clear advantage in talent (not draft position) and whether the advantage is so much that they deserve to be 5 spots ahead of the Leafs. It became evident that you guys didn't even bother looking into the Maple Leafs system when you (in the other thread) were comparing Ryan Kesler to Kyle Wellwood.

http://www.hfboards.com/showpost.php...1&postcount=38

Other ignorant comments on your behalf...

"However, Jeremy Williams is absolutely a future depth guy. He has scored a good in the WHL, but you watch him enough (and I have), and you see that he's a future depth guy. He's got scoring pop, but he's not going to be a top 6 player in the NHL unless something really unusual happens here."

"Bell on the other hand I personally really like. However, personal likes and dislikes on lists like this have to be left at the door, and an objective look at him makes you probobly realize his most likely potential probobly lies somewhere in between a bottom pairing NHL defenseman or a top pairing AHL defenseman."

Sometimes it is hard to believe you get any input on anything that has to do with hockey outside the Vancouver Canucks.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 10:22 AM
  #54
ZombieMatt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
Not getting into the whole Toronto-Vancouver debate, just one thing that I sort of think is important to reflect upon with the broad claim that you made along the lines of "HF will soon be proved to be totally wrong." The quotation isn't your exact words, just a paraphrase because I don't want to go back and find exactly what you said.

You may be right. HF's rankings right now may prove to be inaccurate in five years. So what? They are a guideline, not a Holy prophet. In reality, the difference between five spots or whatever it is that seperates Vancouver and Toronto on the listings is pretty negligible. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that the ratings are done on HF's Prospect Criteria. THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. I'm sorry if you feel that the Leafs are punished because Matt Stajan graduated, but what alternative is there? HF has committed to focusing on prospects on their way to the NHL, and once they make it, leave them to take their course. There has to be some line that players no longer are considered prospects. That's reality. Where should it be? Should we let players be considered prospects until they're 27 because I swear Nik Antropov is going to bust out a 70 point season any year now? Or because Brandon Reid is totally going to net 50 assists when he's 26? HF has drawn the line where it has. Next year the Canucks are going to be 'screwed' (just using them because that's the example you seem most outraged about) when Alex Auld, Ryan Kesler, heck maybe Brandon Reid, have all graduated.

The point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere and HF has decided to draw it shortly after they make the NHL, which I think is excellent because it limits how many players we need to keep tabs on and such.

However, for you to dismiss HF's credibility because of some mistakes? Come on, that's ridiculous and you know it. It's comprable to saying that the Edmonton Oilers organization is full of idiots because they chose Jason Bonsignore in 1994? Or is every team in the league incompetant because everyone took somebody that was worse than Kim Johnsson (the last player selected in '94) sometime during the draft?

Bringing up an old Top 50 list and using it to substantiate that HF was wrong then so they must be wrong now, seems like an extremely poor argument to me. The reality of the matter is not everyone (in fact many don't) develops as they are projected. That is the nature of prospects and young hockey players. Had HF NOT included Artem Kriukov at the time they would have been assaulted by Sabres fans.

You may be right. HF may be totally wrong with its organizational rankings this year. However, your argument of "their top 50 from several years ago with a completely different set of writers was wrong so their Organizations Rankings today must be wrong" is a horrendously poorly substantiated argument. It's like saying the Oilers drafted poorly in 1998 so their 2005 draft is going to suck.

You point out JM Liles as a 3 in 2000. Well, how many people expected a tiny defenceman who had just finished coming off a pretty decent freshman season, but the year before had put up relatively unimpressive numbers for an offensive d-man with the US development program, to become a top four NHL defenceman? Not many. If more expected that from him he wouldn't have been the 159th player selected. Besides, the old rating system had its issues. That "3" is very open to interpretation. Perhaps under the new system that type of prospect would receive a 7.5D rating, indicating the potential was there, but it is unlikely that he would achieve it. How many sub 190lb defencemen are there in the NHL? Not many. How many failed offensive, sub 190 lb d-men prospects are there? Hundreds.

So like I said, you MAY be right, but your method of trying to prove it is, to me, an unacceptable form of citation. Perhaps I'm looking at this too academically, but it seems like a poor methodology.

ZombieMatt is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 11:04 AM
  #55
Leaf Army
Registered User
 
Leaf Army's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Leaf Nation
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt MacInnis
Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that the ratings are done on HF's Prospect Criteria.
No they weren't.

If they had been, Pierre Hedin, Mikael Tellqvist and Roman Kukumberg all should have been considered for the Leafs. But for some reason they weren't.

All three would be listed among our top 10 prospects.


Last edited by Leaf Army: 10-05-2004 at 11:13 AM.
Leaf Army is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 11:52 AM
  #56
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf Army
No they weren't.

If they had been, Pierre Hedin, Mikael Tellqvist and Roman Kukumberg all should have been considered for the Leafs. But for some reason they weren't.

All three would be listed among our top 10 prospects.
Just because they were not listed on the writeup doesn't mean they weren't considered.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 02:28 PM
  #57
ZombieMatt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
Just to clarify, I have no problems with critisizing, complaining, etc about HF and what it does. But all I'm asking is that when making your arguments you use something that's somewhat relevant, or don't try to link things that are linked, or conduct your argument in a fashion that is disorganized.

What you're saying may indeed be true (I'm not saying it is, but for the sake of why I wrote what I did I'm explaining this), but how you wrote it was a poor way to make your case. A better format using more prevalent examples would have been far more effective.

ZombieMatt is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 05:25 PM
  #58
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevex
Enjoyable reading certainly but it doesnt prove what you clearly want it to.
it shouldn't HAVE to prove anything, as it's common sense to already know that little numbers and letters beside a guy's name mean dick

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
honestly, though...and be realistic\objective about this...

do you see the leafs as even a top 20 team, in terms of prospects? Maybe before the deadline, but all these little trades that seem them lose guys like Boyes, Kondratiev, Immonen...and so on...add up. I think that the leafs are right around where they should be, honestly.
just a tidbit, (nothing against you of course), but i just like how immonen is always mentioned now as a legit prospect, where i'm sure if he was thrown in a trade proposal a year ago it would have been crapped on...

just something i've noticed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix

"However, Jeremy Williams is absolutely a future depth guy. He has scored a good in the WHL, but you watch him enough (and I have), and you see that he's a future depth guy. He's got scoring pop, but he's not going to be a top 6 player in the NHL unless something really unusual happens here."
.
that one was great, had to read it a couple times

andora is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:03 PM
  #59
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt MacInnis
Not getting into the whole Toronto-Vancouver debate, just one thing that I sort of think is important to reflect upon with the broad claim that you made along the lines of "HF will soon be proved to be totally wrong." The quotation isn't your exact words, just a paraphrase because I don't want to go back and find exactly what you said.

You may be right. HF's rankings right now may prove to be inaccurate in five years. So what? They are a guideline, not a Holy prophet. In reality, the difference between five spots or whatever it is that seperates Vancouver and Toronto on the listings is pretty negligible. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that the ratings are done on HF's Prospect Criteria. THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. I'm sorry if you feel that the Leafs are punished because Matt Stajan graduated, but what alternative is there? HF has committed to focusing on prospects on their way to the NHL, and once they make it, leave them to take their course. There has to be some line that players no longer are considered prospects. That's reality. Where should it be? Should we let players be considered prospects until they're 27 because I swear Nik Antropov is going to bust out a 70 point season any year now? Or because Brandon Reid is totally going to net 50 assists when he's 26? HF has drawn the line where it has. Next year the Canucks are going to be 'screwed' (just using them because that's the example you seem most outraged about) when Alex Auld, Ryan Kesler, heck maybe Brandon Reid, have all graduated.

The point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere and HF has decided to draw it shortly after they make the NHL, which I think is excellent because it limits how many players we need to keep tabs on and such.

However, for you to dismiss HF's credibility because of some mistakes? Come on, that's ridiculous and you know it. It's comprable to saying that the Edmonton Oilers organization is full of idiots because they chose Jason Bonsignore in 1994? Or is every team in the league incompetant because everyone took somebody that was worse than Kim Johnsson (the last player selected in '94) sometime during the draft?

Bringing up an old Top 50 list and using it to substantiate that HF was wrong then so they must be wrong now, seems like an extremely poor argument to me. The reality of the matter is not everyone (in fact many don't) develops as they are projected. That is the nature of prospects and young hockey players. Had HF NOT included Artem Kriukov at the time they would have been assaulted by Sabres fans.

You may be right. HF may be totally wrong with its organizational rankings this year. However, your argument of "their top 50 from several years ago with a completely different set of writers was wrong so their Organizations Rankings today must be wrong" is a horrendously poorly substantiated argument. It's like saying the Oilers drafted poorly in 1998 so their 2005 draft is going to suck.

You point out JM Liles as a 3 in 2000. Well, how many people expected a tiny defenceman who had just finished coming off a pretty decent freshman season, but the year before had put up relatively unimpressive numbers for an offensive d-man with the US development program, to become a top four NHL defenceman? Not many. If more expected that from him he wouldn't have been the 159th player selected. Besides, the old rating system had its issues. That "3" is very open to interpretation. Perhaps under the new system that type of prospect would receive a 7.5D rating, indicating the potential was there, but it is unlikely that he would achieve it. How many sub 190lb defencemen are there in the NHL? Not many. How many failed offensive, sub 190 lb d-men prospects are there? Hundreds.

So like I said, you MAY be right, but your method of trying to prove it is, to me, an unacceptable form of citation. Perhaps I'm looking at this too academically, but it seems like a poor methodology.
Facts are facts, HF has made a lot of horrendous picks in the rankings of organizations and players. The point is not that I'm saying they'll be horrendously wrong again in 2005, 2006, or 2007, but there has got to be a prophetic member of the committee before HF hits a 50% success rate in their accuracy on these lists.

We're all human, we make mistakes... and that's expected. This thread was to point out to those people that have their organizations ranked very high and believe their future is "set" in stone, that their team is golden down the road because of where HF ranks them.

NEWS FLASH - Chances of your team producing more quality NHL players than the #25 ranked organization is just slightly better.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:12 PM
  #60
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,139
vCash: 500
andora- that's a fair question, and honestly...I think it's a combination of things, regarding Immonen. For one, he seemed to have really come into his own last year, solidifying his spot as a pretty solid prospect, last year was really the first time I had taken notice of him. That said, I think he's a GOOD prospect...but by no means a bluechipper or anything. I was just using him as an example because losing lots of these smaller "good" prospects will hurt a team, in the long run.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:14 PM
  #61
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
Facts are facts, HF has made a lot of horrendous picks in the rankings of organizations and players. The point is not that I'm saying they'll be horrendously wrong again in 2005, 2006, or 2007, but there has got to be a prophetic member of the committee before HF hits a 50% success rate in their accuracy on these lists.

We're all human, we make mistakes... and that's expected. This thread was to point out to those people that have their organizations ranked very high and believe their future is "set" in stone, that their team is golden down the road because of where HF ranks them.

NEWS FLASH - Chances of your team producing more quality NHL players than the #25 ranked organization is just slightly better.

It all depends on how you utilize your assets. If you're Colorado...you'd probably be ranked a lot higher if you didn't drop your prospects in every trade possible to "win now." on the other hand, the Senators are comprised of a lot of home-grown talent, and any team that can hold on to their cards that way for that long..patiently waiting for it to come to fruition...has a good chance of being "set."

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:22 PM
  #62
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
It all depends on how you utilize your assets. If you're Colorado...you'd probably be ranked a lot higher if you didn't drop your prospects in every trade possible to "win now." on the other hand, the Senators are comprised of a lot of home-grown talent, and any team that can hold on to their cards that way for that long..patiently waiting for it to come to fruition...has a good chance of being "set."
I'm talking about players that haven't played in the NHL on a regular basis (if at all), or even in the American Hockey League. I'm not talking about teams/fans that have a majority of their highly touted prospects in the NHL.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:24 PM
  #63
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
I'm talking about players that haven't played in the NHL on a regular basis (if at all), or even in the American Hockey League. I'm not talking about teams/fans that have a majority of their highly touted prospects in the NHL.

no, i realize that...but there was a time that guys like alfredsson, redden and fisher were just prospects, as well.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-05-2004, 06:31 PM
  #64
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
no, i realize that...but there was a time that guys like alfredsson, redden and fisher were just prospects, as well.
Yes, I understand that, but the organizations I'm speaking of aren't stacked with proven talent, just raw prospects in the minors and juniors.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 02:16 AM
  #65
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
andora- that's a fair question, and honestly...I think it's a combination of things, regarding Immonen. For one, he seemed to have really come into his own last year, solidifying his spot as a pretty solid prospect, last year was really the first time I had taken notice of him. That said, I think he's a GOOD prospect...but by no means a bluechipper or anything. I was just using him as an example because losing lots of these smaller "good" prospects will hurt a team, in the long run.
fair enough, thanks

andora is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 02:20 AM
  #66
hattrick74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
did anyone see the blueshirts inside out show last year (03)? it had sather saying something to the effect of only i think 6 of the 1st rd picks each year will ever play 1 game in the NHL. also i think the writers wanted to please the readers/fans. i mean would you want to read something about your team that had most or all of your prospects rated as 2's or 3's?

hattrick74 is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 02:45 AM
  #67
andora
Registered User
 
andora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illuminating Prince
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,025
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to andora
getting rid of these numbers would certainly help...

andora is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 03:30 AM
  #68
Hunter74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Unfortunatly I think I lost the point of this thread.

Obviously in regards to prospects nobody knows for sure how a young kid is gonna develope. If people new for sure how these kids would develope guys like Daigle would never have been drafted so high if at all. So anyone with half a brain would know that just b/c someone has scouted a player and projected them to be this or that doesn't mean its gonna be fact or even that huge of a probability. There in lies the beauty of scouting/following up on young prospects and seeing how they develope if at all. If they develope do they develope liek you think they will or will they fall short of expectations.

If you are argueing with someone who thinks HF.com rankings of players and organizations are facts or set in stone then you should not really waste your energy argueing wiht someone who obviously knows very little about sports.

Personnally i like reading up on prospects and seeing what scouts and others think of players. I dont by any means take it as gospel or whatever b/c its never gonna be an exact science and I for 1 am glad it never will be b/c it woudl become boreing and predictable.

A bust or boom is 1 thing that can make following up on prospects fun.

p.s Toronto's prospects suck and they deserve to be were they are ranked if not lower.

Hunter74 is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 08:10 AM
  #69
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Hunter74
Unfortunatly I think I lost the point of this thread.

Obviously in regards to prospects nobody knows for sure how a young kid is gonna develope. If people new for sure how these kids would develope guys like Daigle would never have been drafted so high if at all. So anyone with half a brain would know that just b/c someone has scouted a player and projected them to be this or that doesn't mean its gonna be fact or even that huge of a probability. There in lies the beauty of scouting/following up on young prospects and seeing how they develope if at all. If they develope do they develope liek you think they will or will they fall short of expectations.

If you are argueing with someone who thinks HF.com rankings of players and organizations are facts or set in stone then you should not really waste your energy argueing wiht someone who obviously knows very little about sports.

Personnally i like reading up on prospects and seeing what the scouts and others think of players. I dont by any means take it as gospel or whatever b/c its never gonna be an exact science and I for 1 am glad it never will be b/c it woudl become boreing and predictable.

A bust or boom is 1 thing that can make following up on prospects fun.

p.s Toronto's prospects suck and they deserve to be were they are ranked if not lower.
Point is that a lot of the committee members have seen little to no of any of the prospects that don't player in their region or belong to their NHL team.

They didn't bother consulting the people who have.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 08:34 AM
  #70
Legionnaire
Kill! Jeff, Kill!!!
 
Legionnaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA-LA Land
Country: United States
Posts: 35,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
Point is that a lot of the committee members have seen little to no of any of the prospects that don't player in their region or belong to their NHL team.

They didn't bother consulting the people who have.
That's total bull. I'd say twice as much as you; especially when it comes to specific prospects.

__________________
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Legionnaire is offline  
Old
10-06-2004, 09:02 AM
  #71
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire
That's total bull. I'd say twice as much as you; especially when it comes to specific prospects.
Right, and that's why I'm not on the committee, but I recognize from the scouting reports written by non-committee members that player A seems to have more potential than player B.

If they used a writer from all the teams, the list would be a lot more credible. But when one of the better known members of the committee goes onto another teams forum and says one of their top 10 prospects is "absolutely a depth player" and another player is "hard to take seriously" even after making the Canadian junior team at 18 years old, it puts the credibility into perspective.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 11:12 PM
  #72
Juicer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
Exactly, and time will prove HF's lists to be very inaccurate. Point is not to take these lists seriously, history has shown that teams ranked in the 20's often produce as much talent as team in the 10's.

It's not HF's fault, but it's to show the fans of low ranked teams that it's not definite that your team's future is dim, these are just rankings of how the talent stacks up at a given time (if each team is looked over and given the same consideration), players often fall and rise. Some go from first round picks to minor league regulars (if that) and some players will go from undrafted juniors to NHL regulars.

I'm not blaming the people that take all teams into consideration, giving each organization a good look and hearing out the full assessment from other knowledgable writers that follow those teams, because we're all human. I'm just pointing out the credibility of people that automatically assume this organization has no depth without looking at the complete system.

Example, a certain member of this commitee has repeatedly stated that Vancouver has more depth than Toronto. But when he's given a fair player-by-player matchup, this individual chose not to respond with a logical reason, but he repeated his previous comments about his favourite team being "much stronger" than Toronto's.
OK, we all get your agenda with this post. The problem is most teams have prospects they feel are not ranked as high as they should be, and the leafs are no different. Do you really think the leafs have all these players you think are underrated by the HF staff and PRO SCOUTS, but you have the inside track on them? Your everyone hates the leafs bit is getting rediculous and very old. Before these guys were passed up in the draft, they were not leaf prospects, so their was no bias on the pro scouts draft rankings. The leafs have two very good prospects, and a bunch of very average ones after that. Your pro leaf stance is much more out of whack than the staff members here and the pro scouts who drafted them.

Juicer is offline  
Old
10-07-2004, 11:24 PM
  #73
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juicer
OK, we all get your agenda with this post. The problem is most teams have prospects they feel are not ranked as high as they should be, and the leafs are no different. Do you really think the leafs have all these players you think are underrated by the HF staff and PRO SCOUTS, but you have the inside track on them? Your everyone hates the leafs bit is getting rediculous and very old. Before these guys were passed up in the draft, they were not leaf prospects, so their was no bias on the pro scouts draft rankings. The leafs have two very good prospects, and a bunch of very average ones after that. Your pro leaf stance is much more out of whack than the staff members here and the pro scouts who drafted them.
You obviously have no idea what's going on. The point isn't whether I think the average fan hates the Leafs or not, the point is that a key member of this committee that has put the list together has little credibility, so it's hard to really look at this list and not suspect there's others on this committee that have a certain view on the Leafs and/or any other organization.

And no, I don't have an inside track on anyone, but I do keep track of them and how they're playing. Members of this committee didn't even bother checking in with the Toronto writers for his opinion.

Another interesting and controversial ranking is Dallas, as Ott = Snott has point out in THIS THREAD. It's not that the Leafs deserve to be higher on the list, but that certain teams should be a lot closer to Toronto than they are. 65% of the neutral fans believe Dallas has a better group of prospects than Vancouver, but they're obviously not as knowledgable as this committee, I'm sure they see a lot of Loui Eriksson, Johan Fransson, and Jussi Jokinen.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-08-2004, 10:53 AM
  #74
Gwyddbwyll
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
If they used a writer from all the teams, the list would be a lot more credible. But when one of the better known members of the committee goes onto another teams forum and says one of their top 10 prospects is "absolutely a depth player" and another player is "hard to take seriously" even after making the Canadian junior team at 18 years old, it puts the credibility into perspective.
Are you suggesting all top 10 prospects for all teams must be designated as likely top six players? The Coyotes are ranked higher than the Leafs but I dont think half of their top 10 are likely to be anything more than bottom six depth players.

Justin Williams scored a lot of goals. Cool but so did Matt Foy and Kiel McLeod before him and both struggled immensely in the AHL, let alone the NHL.

Igor Knyazev captained Russia's junior team and was named top defenseman at the world tourney.. where is he now? Still struggling in the AHL.

Its just as easy to use historical examples to counter your argument as it is to support it.

Gwyddbwyll is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.