HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hockey Prospectus' Top 10 Rangers prospects

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-12-2011, 02:02 PM
  #51
BOXPLAY
Registered User
 
BOXPLAY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BOXPLAY
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
On what do you base that the writer is a fool and that posters here are better at predicting the future?
Like I said I follow the writer on twitter as I do with a lot of reporters and scouts and bloggers and this guy is about as accurate as eklund. He is one of the contributors to espn insider as well and do I need to remind you how accurate they are. He seems to base all his "prospectus" on nothing

BOXPLAY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 02:07 PM
  #52
BOXPLAY
Registered User
 
BOXPLAY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BOXPLAY
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
On what do you base that the writer is a fool and that posters here are better at predicting the future?
When did I say our posters are better at predicting the future?? I said that we have a decent knowledge of our prospects. Of course many here are bias and will rate them better that's what fans do.

BOXPLAY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 02:15 PM
  #53
DrSutton*
Given Up
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Chosen,
If I get a blog and start writing about prospects, will you believe every word I say as fact?

The word I've heard is that 95% of the kids he writes about he hasn't seen play.

Just look at the other organizational rankings that have been done on our team overthe last couple of years - none of them are as out of left field as this one is.

DrSutton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 02:26 PM
  #54
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Is it possible that Pronman knows more than you?

Is it possible that Detroit and the Islanders have better players coming than the Rangers?

To answer no is absurd, because none of us know.

Again, have you ever heard anyone denigrate their own prospects?

Using history as a guide it is far from impossible that Detroit has excellent players on the horizon.
When will you stop arguing?

Did I say I know more than Pronman? No I didn't, but others do, such as MANY other scouts.

Is it possible that Pronman is a god damn idiot? Yes and the possibility is more of a reality, he works for ESPN.

Again, I acknowledged the Isles have better prospects, but we are closer than #20 to #2. You keep leaving that out of your responses Any Islander fan on the Isles board will tell you that we have a very close prospect pool to their's.

Using logic as a guide is not realistic when everyone including other scouts and scouting sites have the Rangers ranked in the top 15, if not the top 10.

But yea, keep telling me that St Croix is better than Thomas. Keep telling me that the Red Wings have better prospects than the Oilers. Keep telling me all this redundant info that is purely based on your own logic, rather than majority of other peoples' opinions, purely based off the fact that he is a "scout". He isn't a scout. He is a speculative retard.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 03:00 PM
  #55
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSutton View Post
Chosen,
If I get a blog and start writing about prospects, will you believe every word I say as fact?

The word I've heard is that 95% of the kids he writes about he hasn't seen play.

Just look at the other organizational rankings that have been done on our team overthe last couple of years - none of them are as out of left field as this one is.
Where did I say I believe him?

I said that no one knows how prospects will turn out.

I am not the one calling him an idiot and explaining how it's obvious who will or will not make it.

If it was so easy to predict this stuff there would be no oplnions. Everything would be facts. People who believe they know how it will turn out are the idiots, to me.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 03:02 PM
  #56
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Where did I say I believe him?

I said that no one knows how prospects will turn out.

I am not the one calling him an idiot and explaining how it's obvious who will or will not make it.

If it was so easy to predict this stuff there would be no oplnions. Everything would be facts. People who believe they know how it will turn out are the idiots, to me.
No one knows how players will turn out, but we all know who have the "better" chances of turning out. I know I keep beating to death this one example, but St Croix and Thomas. Who do you choose for your team... I have no idea wtf this guys formula is for his rankings, but they are probably just as stupid as his rankings are. Oilers are #16, does that not say enough. They've been drafting top 5 for the last how many years...

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 03:04 PM
  #57
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HagelinForPresident View Post
When will you stop arguing?

Did I say I know more than Pronman? No I didn't, but others do, such as MANY other scouts.

Is it possible that Pronman is a god damn idiot? Yes and the possibility is more of a reality, he works for ESPN.

Again, I acknowledged the Isles have better prospects, but we are closer than #20 to #2. You keep leaving that out of your responses Any Islander fan on the Isles board will tell you that we have a very close prospect pool to their's.

Using logic as a guide is not realistic when everyone including other scouts and scouting sites have the Rangers ranked in the top 15, if not the top 10.

But yea, keep telling me that St Croix is better than Thomas. Keep telling me that the Red Wings have better prospects than the Oilers. Keep telling me all this redundant info that is purely based on your own logic, rather than majority of other peoples' opinions, purely based off the fact that he is a "scout". He isn't a scout. He is a speculative retard.
If he is a retard, what are folks that know who will make it and who won't.

Not long ago folks here were telling me that Grachev would be great, that he would be a top 6 guy here.

Will you be an idiot if Hagelin fails?

These are all just opinions.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 03:06 PM
  #58
DrSutton*
Given Up
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Where did I say I believe him?

I said that no one knows how prospects will turn out.

I am not the one calling him an idiot and explaining how it's obvious who will or will not make it.

If it was so easy to predict this stuff there would be no oplnions. Everything would be facts. People who believe they know how it will turn out are the idiots, to me.
Listen, I'm one of the dirt persons to call out the amateur scouts on this site.
However, when most sites and organizations rate the rangers very highly in terms of prospect depth, including this site we are on right now which rates it 7th, and then this guy comes out of nowhere and says pretty much the complete opposite, it raises red flags.
The guy is just flat out wrong in some instances. That's plain to see.

DrSutton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 03:08 PM
  #59
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
If he is a retard, what are folks that know who will make it and who won't.

Not long ago folks here were telling me that Grachev would be great, that he would be a top 6 guy here.

Will you be an idiot if Hagelin fails?

These are all just opinions.
Again you bring up Hagelin. I never said he was the next superstar... I don't know where you are getting that from. I already explained to you why my name is my name.

And I answered this in my last post. We don't know where a guy will end up. But we do know certain guys have a "better" chance of being better players than others based on their junior or NCAA stats, and where they were drafted.

Like I keep saying, Edmonton Oilers are ranked #16, I don't even know what to say to that. Also, if you could choose St Croix or Thomas, I think it's pretty obvious which one you would choose.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 04:17 PM
  #60
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HagelinForPresident View Post
My name? LOL cuz I was a fan of his when he was at Michigan and I like him. My name implies he is a future star?... And when it comes to Clark and Gorton's resumes, I'll take theirs over Pronman's anyday. Not that your analysis is wrong, but it isn't a little suspicious when this is the only guy who thinks Kreider has bad hockey sense, and he ranks Thomas as our 7th best, when the whole world knows he is #3

Also, the Red Wings are #1? Lmfao, they've been drafting outside the top 20 for the last decade and are easily the oldest team in Hockey.
How the Oilers aren't #1 or at least top 5 is frightening. He has them where? Outside the top 15? Jesus.

Like I said, Isles at #2 and us at #20 makes absolutely NO sense. If they are 2, we are 5. If we are 20, they are 17. I'm not just complaining about our ranking. His whole compilation is retarded as can be.
Well, I personally have no idea if the Hockey Prospectus guy is a genius or an idiot, or somewhere in between...or if all the people who are criticizing him are geniuses or idiots themselves.

But I do know your comment above about the Red Wings is a serious blow to YOUR credibility. The Red Wings can't have good prospects because they've been drafting outside the top 20? Tell me you did not just say that.

You badly need a history lesson about resumes. That's probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and makes it impossible to take anything else you say seriously.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 08-12-2011 at 04:23 PM.
Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 05:02 PM
  #61
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HagelinForPresident View Post
Also, if you could choose St Croix or Thomas, I think it's pretty obvious which one you would choose.
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...p20_prospects/

Prospect ranking from September 2006.

Ryan Callahan appears in slot 18, while Nigel Dawes appears in slot 4. If you could have chosen one of them back then, who would you have chosen? How about now?

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 05:22 PM
  #62
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Well, I personally have no idea if the Hockey Prospectus guy is a genius or an idiot, or somewhere in between...or if all the people who are criticizing him are geniuses or idiots themselves.

But I do know your comment above about the Red Wings is a serious blow to YOUR credibility. The Red Wings can't have good prospects because they've been drafting outside the top 20? Tell me you did not just say that.

You badly need a history lesson about resumes. That's probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and makes it impossible to take anything else you say seriously.
Ill say it...the Red Wings farm system isnt all that awesome. They found 2 gems in Datsyuk and Zetterberg but that was back in 1999, since then they havent been all that great...

Here are the players who scored over 40 pts last year for them.

Zetterberg, Drafted By Det in 99
Bertuzzi, Drafted by NYI
Cleary, Drafted by Chicago
Rafalski, Drafted by NJ
Franzen Drafted by Det in 2004
Datsyuk, Drafted by Det in 98
Lidstrom, Drafted by Det in 89

only 1 player produced over 40 pts by the Red Wings, was drafted since 1999...Johan Franzen. The rest of their draft picks that are on their rosters are role players who chip in 20-35 pts, and how many of those points are just the result of being on the ice when Zetterberg, Datsyuk, or Lidstrom do something great out there?

Red Wings drafting is SOOOOOO overrated its ridiculous....none of their impact players outside of Franzen have been taken in the last 11 years....

On the flip side for the Rangers the players we had over 40 pts were all drafted by us since 2004 or later sans Marian Gaborik...Thats Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky, and Callahan.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 06:06 PM
  #63
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
Ill say it...the Red Wings farm system isnt all that awesome. They found 2 gems in Datsyuk and Zetterberg but that was back in 1999, since then they havent been all that great...

Here are the players who scored over 40 pts last year for them.

Zetterberg, Drafted By Det in 99
Bertuzzi, Drafted by NYI
Cleary, Drafted by Chicago
Rafalski, Drafted by NJ
Franzen Drafted by Det in 2004
Datsyuk, Drafted by Det in 98
Lidstrom, Drafted by Det in 89

only 1 player produced over 40 pts by the Red Wings, was drafted since 1999...Johan Franzen. The rest of their draft picks that are on their rosters are role players who chip in 20-35 pts, and how many of those points are just the result of being on the ice when Zetterberg, Datsyuk, or Lidstrom do something great out there?

Red Wings drafting is SOOOOOO overrated its ridiculous....none of their impact players outside of Franzen have been taken in the last 11 years....

On the flip side for the Rangers the players we had over 40 pts were all drafted by us since 2004 or later sans Marian Gaborik...Thats Stepan, Anisimov, Dubinsky, and Callahan.
To add some perspective:

There are 3 HOFers in that Red Wings group. There is no need for or room for other players getting top ice time as long as they are around. Your counter argument are Rangers that are forced into important roles because there is no real talent ahead of them.

Even guys like Leino, and a certain defenseman who couldn't make it there are making a nice living around the league. The last good Rangers forward drafted was Kovalev and he pales in comparison to those Red Wings, so spare me that the Rangers are a comparable organization by any stretch of the imagination.

As the Red Wings superstars leave, we'll see how Detroit is doing.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 07:01 PM
  #64
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Well, I personally have no idea if the Hockey Prospectus guy is a genius or an idiot, or somewhere in between...or if all the people who are criticizing him are geniuses or idiots themselves.

But I do know your comment above about the Red Wings is a serious blow to YOUR credibility. The Red Wings can't have good prospects because they've been drafting outside the top 20? Tell me you did not just say that.

You badly need a history lesson about resumes. That's probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and makes it impossible to take anything else you say seriously.
Actually, their success being a reason for them not having a great prospect pool is not a bad reason at all. They have been drafting outside top 20 for so long now and to my knowledge, their best prospect is Jarnkrok. I think you took my post but didn't read into it enough to see what I was trying to say. I know I shouldve said it, but that's what I meant. I wasn't just stating its impossible to have good prospects drafting out top 20 for 10 years.

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 07:30 PM
  #65
Swept In Seven
Muh Offensive Talent
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country:
Posts: 9,243
vCash: 116
The Wings are on the downside of their dynasty. When their superstars start to retire and go elsewhere, they will no longer be a lock for the playoffs. They have a sub-par prospect pool because they draft 25-30 every year. I do not see any late round heros coming from their prospect pool at this time imo

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 07:42 PM
  #66
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Well, I personally have no idea if the Hockey Prospectus guy is a genius or an idiot, or somewhere in between...or if all the people who are criticizing him are geniuses or idiots themselves.

But I do know your comment above about the Red Wings is a serious blow to YOUR credibility. The Red Wings can't have good prospects because they've been drafting outside the top 20? Tell me you did not just say that.

You badly need a history lesson about resumes. That's probably the most ridiculous comment in this entire thread, and makes it impossible to take anything else you say seriously.
He was saying drafting outside the top 20 makes it hard to get good prospects, and quite frankly their prospects are most definitely average to below average.

Tatar, Smith, Jarnrok, Nyqvist, Jurco and Ferraro is hardly an impressive group.

When people make fun of the Rangers drafting poorly and signing old players, our counter is that since the lockout we have been successful as a team, so it's a poor argument. Somehow, Detroit, who hasn't produced a top players in like 8 years, lives off it's reputation. As long as Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk are there, Detroit will be competitive, but any squad led by Franzen, Hudler and Filpulla is ****ed.

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 07:50 PM
  #67
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article...p20_prospects/

Prospect ranking from September 2006.

Ryan Callahan appears in slot 18, while Nigel Dawes appears in slot 4. If you could have chosen one of them back then, who would you have chosen? How about now?
Dawes was coming off a fantastic rookie season in a professional league, while Callahan, at the exact same stage of development, wasn't even offered a contract by the organization. Dawes was a flat out better player then Callahan at that point in time, as Thomas is to St. Croix currently. The Rangers clearly saw it that way as well, as they didn't want to sign him. That ranking is very reasonable, given the credentials of those players at the time.

Unless the guy can see into the future it's absurd to rank St. Croix ahead of Thomas. In 5 years you can bump this thread and give him all the credit he wants, but he's incorrect right now. By your logic ranking Randy McNaught ahead of Thomas makes sense also.

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 08:05 PM
  #68
Swept In Seven
Muh Offensive Talent
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country:
Posts: 9,243
vCash: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
Dawes was coming off a fantastic rookie season in a professional league, while Callahan, at the exact same stage of development, wasn't even offered a contract by the organization. Dawes was a flat out better player then Callahan at that point in time, as Thomas is to St. Croix currently. The Rangers clearly saw it that way as well, as they didn't want to sign him. That ranking is very reasonable, given the credentials of those players at the time.

Unless the guy can see into the future it's absurd to rank St. Croix ahead of Thomas. In 5 years you can bump this thread and give him all the credit he wants, but he's incorrect right now. By your logic ranking Randy McNaught ahead of Thomas makes sense also.
I agree with you, but i think that St. Croix is going to end up being the steal of the draft. Prior to last season, he was being touted as the most skilled player in the draft behind RNH

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 09:36 PM
  #69
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJBergy86 View Post
The Wings are on the downside of their dynasty. When their superstars start to retire and go elsewhere, they will no longer be a lock for the playoffs. They have a sub-par prospect pool because they draft 25-30 every year. I do not see any late round heros coming from their prospect pool at this time imo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
He was saying drafting outside the top 20 makes it hard to get good prospects, and quite frankly their prospects are most definitely average to below average.

Tatar, Smith, Jarnrok, Nyqvist, Jurco and Ferraro is hardly an impressive group.

When people make fun of the Rangers drafting poorly and signing old players, our counter is that since the lockout we have been successful as a team, so it's a poor argument. Somehow, Detroit, who hasn't produced a top players in like 8 years, lives off it's reputation. As long as Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk are there, Detroit will be competitive, but any squad led by Franzen, Hudler and Filpulla is ****ed.
Thank you both. At least some people understand...

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 10:08 PM
  #70
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
To add some perspective:

There are 3 HOFers in that Red Wings group. There is no need for or room for other players getting top ice time as long as they are around. Your counter argument are Rangers that are forced into important roles because there is no real talent ahead of them.

Even guys like Leino, and a certain defenseman who couldn't make it there are making a nice living around the league. The last good Rangers forward drafted was Kovalev and he pales in comparison to those Red Wings, so spare me that the Rangers are a comparable organization by any stretch of the imagination.

As the Red Wings superstars leave, we'll see how Detroit is doing.
how this post has anything to do with how the Red Wings have drafted due to their drafting position...i will never know...

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 10:29 PM
  #71
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
how this post has anything to do with how the Red Wings have drafted due to their drafting position...i will never know...
I'm also trying to figure out how their past draftees affect their current prospect pool

Clowes Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 11:01 PM
  #72
Swept In Seven
Muh Offensive Talent
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country:
Posts: 9,243
vCash: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno272 View Post
how this post has anything to do with how the Red Wings have drafted due to their drafting position...i will never know...
What he is trying to say is that the Red Wings consistently draft 25-30 every year. They just do not have a significant chance to get a top prospect due to their draft position.

Sure they draft well, but the fact that they have been drafting so late every year, their prospect pool would not be as deep as a team that has been drafting in the top 10 consistently every year.

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 11:02 PM
  #73
Vito Andolini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
Dawes was coming off a fantastic rookie season in a professional league, while Callahan, at the exact same stage of development, wasn't even offered a contract by the organization. Dawes was a flat out better player then Callahan at that point in time, as Thomas is to St. Croix currently.
If Dawes was so flat out better than Callahan, then why did Callahan outscore him in less games in Hartford that very season?

Could it be that Dawes wasn't actually a better prospect at all, but simply had achieved more in the past than Callahan had? If all your doing with your Top Prospect list is ranking players based on their past achievements, then I see very little value in these lists. The word prospect itself is a future looking view of things. If the purpose of the list is not to project future values, then what's the point?

While it's certainly very true that the consensus by hfboards & most likely the NY Rangers was that Dawes was a better prospect at that time than Callahan, it's been proven with time to be false. Callahan was an excellent prospect...only the consensus did not know it yet.

I'll bet there were people out there who did think Callahan was going to be a great player in the NHL though. Maybe it wasn't you or Leslie, but I'm sure there were people. According to some posters here, those people would be idiots for having their opinion. Let me say it again....OPINION!


Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
Unless the guy can see into the future it's absurd to rank St. Croix ahead of Thomas.
Says you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
In 5 years you can bump this thread and give him all the credit he wants, but he's incorrect right now.
No. Unless you can see 5 years into the future, calling him incorrect is wrong. You can disagree with him all you want though.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 11:25 PM
  #74
Swept In Seven
Muh Offensive Talent
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country:
Posts: 9,243
vCash: 116
I do not agree with the person who wrote this up, but it is his opinion and there is nothing we can do about it. lol

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-12-2011, 11:38 PM
  #75
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Andolini View Post
If Dawes was so flat out better than Callahan, then why did Callahan outscore him in less games in Hartford that very season?

Could it be that Dawes wasn't actually a better prospect at all, but simply had achieved more in the past than Callahan had? If all your doing with your Top Prospect list is ranking players based on their past achievements, then I see very little value in these lists. The word prospect itself is a future looking view of things. If the purpose of the list is not to project future values, then what's the point?

While it's certainly very true that the consensus by hfboards & most likely the NY Rangers was that Dawes was a better prospect at that time than Callahan, it's been proven with time to be false. Callahan was an excellent prospect...only the consensus did not know it yet.

I'll bet there were people out there who did think Callahan was going to be a great player in the NHL though. Maybe it wasn't you or Leslie, but I'm sure there were people. According to some posters here, those people would be idiots for having their opinion. Let me say it again....OPINION!
That season, as in after these ranking occurred. And I'm sure Callahan's ranking shot up as well. But that has very little to do with the rankings you posted, in fact it has nothing to do with them at all. Otherwise you would have posted the 2007 ranking, where they likely were neck and neck in the standings. At the time of that ranking, Callahan was asked to play an overage season in the OHL to earn a contract, while Dawes was scoring at an impressive rate in a much better league. Funny you should bring up "potential", as that article clearly labels Callahan's upside as a 3rd liner, while giving a much more glowing report on Dawes. Dawes had better credential and upside then Callahan according to the writer. For that time they were very much in the majority opinion.

Like I said before, any of these prospects can turn out better then ones ranked further along, everyone knows that. But what if the guy ranked Randy McNaught ahead of Thomas, would you simply say, "oh, that's his opinion", or comment on how ridiculous it is, even if it may one day come true? Calling him incorrect is wrong, you are right, but it doesn't take away from the fact that I don't value this guys opinion higher then any poster here, especially after reading this nonsense.

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:49 AM.

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.