The upside is obvious for most of the guys left on the list. Even Bouchard and Kugryshev have upside. I'm more concerned about guys who can translate that upside into actually playing well in the professional ranks. Flemming is certainly one of the better candidates for that, but I think Wey's skillset is a better fit to be a useful player in the pros.
For me it's about tools. I think Flemming reads the play a little bit better than Wey from what I've seen and his wheels really help him gap up. On top of that he readily engages one-on-one and plays bigger than his size. There are translation questions and he'll have to change his game a fair amount from his roving ways in junior but that was a function of confidence allowing him to take calculated risks. If he can make Hershey in the fall and remain as a regular that will say a lot about his make-up.
Flemming and Wey's respective upsides probably aren't significantly different, as they're both 5-7 types. It's a matter of preference. More of a go-to role at BC should help Wey make necessary all-around strides.
Aside from a few games and development camp exposure we're all operating under fairly limited knowledge but I'd welcome more debate.
I realize this is a discussion board and one originally about prospects so the discussion of prospects is what we do.
That said, it's pretty funny that that one article could sway so many votes. It really shows how utterly meaningless this poll is.
Well it is about opinions. Shouldn't opinions be based on information? At this point in the prospect depth I, admittedly, don't know very much about the remaining players. I remember Wey playing for the USA in the last WJ (IIRC), so I figured he had some decent potential, hence my vote.
The info given which is swaying so many votes is tangible and relevant. Had I known this stuff earlier on I wouldn't have put Flemming ahead of any of the other 6 guys (maybe Sjostrom).
We all like strong stay-at-home hard-hitting hard-working D Men. Seeing this guy ticking all those boxes gets people excited I'm sure.
If you mean the poll is pointless because it's hard to predict how these young kids will mature and a lot can change...then, yeah I see your point, but they're still fun. If you mean they're pointless because everyone involved is clueless then I respectfully disagree and still point out: it's fun.