I didn't think it was possible but I think there's a rift between Gillis and every single prospect at camp.
He just doesn't like kids in their late-teens/early 20's
I don't know about that, but he'll be stiff, sore, and maybe grumpy if indeed
he rode in the Gran Fondo up to Whistler today as he planned to do.
I heard that AV was going to do that ride as well. There might be a a giant rift
between management and the players if they decided to buzz off on their bikes while the
prospects bused off to a tough series of games in Penticton
The rankings are strange to me as it seems to be team based, ie. how they moved Grabner up and all of our top players have a C or D. Is that really the best way to go about this?
It is about the player reaching potential not the team he has to make.
Just terrible, way worse than previous years somehow. They totally left out Tanev, Ellington above anyone is a joke, and the section on Andersson is just wrong.
Newly signed to an entry level contract, the lanky defenseman will have time to fill out his frame while adapting to the rigors of professional hockey in North America.
Penciled in for a starting role in the AHL, Andersson has shown himself to be a reliable defensive presence playing against the men of the Swedish Eliteserien. At 6’3 and 195 pounds he has a projectable frame for the NHL and although he is not likely to develop into an offensive defenseman, he has a good first pass and reads the play well. Andersson will be welcomed into a camp with a sizable Swedish contingent and given plenty of time to develop in the minors.
Rodin's is just as bad as Andersson's writeup.
A character player who shows great hustle and determination, Rodin outscored his more illustrious Swedish linemates at the WJC and potted two game winning goals in the tournament. Although slightly built at the moment, he plays a physical game, drives hard to the net and competes all over the ice.
Newly signed to a professional contract, he is thought to be able to benefit from a stint in the minors to build up his strength and adapt to the smaller ice. The Canucks won’t be too surprised however if he makes it very hard for them not to include him in their opening day lineup.
There are at least a dozen posters here could do a better job.
Last edited by Warren Piece: 09-13-2010 at 02:28 PM.
A big WTF @ Andersson's placement - Ellington at 10? I guess my mention of the fact that if he played the entire season and didn't get injured, he would likely be in the class of Rundblad and Erixon, based on PPG numbers didn't get to them. And he did so on the 3rd pairing on a worse team...
Not even a mention of Tanev. What is this!
No Lack either.
Last edited by thefeebster: 09-13-2010 at 02:29 PM.
I would probably lean towards putting Connauton ahead of Schroeder in the #2 spot. Something about Connauton's face just looks like that of a pro hockey player. How big of a stretch is it to put Connauton ahead of Schroeder?
Anthony still at #7. Seriously, can somebody make a logical argument for him being a better prospect than Sweatt, and having the same potential top end as Rodin and Shirokov? One more so-so season in the Q and he's not even going to get a contract.
All due respect, but that list is definitely a bit of a head scratcher.
MrC, that list and writeup show blatant incompetence. Is there any way we can ask whoever wrote it, or better, his supervisor, to at least get input from someone who's familiar with our prospects? That guy clearly knows **** all.
The Andersson BS is beyond belief, with Rodin, Ellington, and Anthony also being comical in their own ways. It makes the Hockey's Future writers look like morons when matters of obvious fact are dead wrong, let alone their screwy interpretations.
The poster who said we should always simply ignore HF rankings or "analysis" (at least the anal part fits) is right. But this is by far the worst I've seen in half a decade on this board.
btw shattenkirk who is considered an offensive defenseman had only 4 goals and 21 points in the year after his draft. comepared to tanevs 10 goals and i think 28 points in 41 games. Shattenkirk was also rated an 8.0 c on hf, while tanev wasn't even in our top 20.