His critique on Landeskog wasn't related to hockey sense, it was more questioning his long term ceiling and skill level. He said himself he thought he was going to be a good player, he just wasn't sure that he had a lot of room to grow and that other players could be better choices. Not like everybody is right all of the time anyway.
I understand that not everyone is right all of the time. What I'm saying is that hockey sense is arguably the most important aspect for any hockey player. Landeskog has sky high hockey sense and it's easy to see that makes him incredibly successful even if he doesn't have the skill of a Kabanov/Filatov.
Another guy who I think he under-rates is Ryan Murray. Guy has incredible hockey sense and in my mind will be a 1# defence almost assuredly. Just always seems to make the right decisions. That to me is more important than having the puck skills of someone like Rielly.
I understand that not everyone is right all of the time. What I'm saying is that hockey sense is arguably the most important aspect for any hockey player. Landeskog has sky high hockey sense and it's easy to see that makes him incredibly successful even if he doesn't have the skill of a Kabanov/Filatov.
Another guy who I think he under-rates is Ryan Murray. Guy has incredible hockey sense and in my mind will be a 1# defence almost assuredly. Just always seems to make the right decisions. That to me is more important than having the puck skills of someone like Rielly.
I don't think he underrates hockey sense. He explained pretty clearly on those two that he felt they may have reached their ceilings already. They think the game at an advanced level already, so there is only so much room for improvement.
Some players come into the league like Jordan Staal, pretty much a finished package with only a slight growth over their career. Other guys take a lot longer to develop but might in the long run end up a better player.
16. Teuvo Teravainen, Left Wing, Chicago Blackhawks (Previous Ranking: 11): Teravainen started off the season a little slowly, compounded by an injury, but lately has been everything you would expect out of him.
The bolded part tells me his knowledge of European prospects isn't very high. Teräväinen has not been injured this season nor last off-season. He merely got off to a slow start due to the hectic summer schedule(which limited his training), starting the season at center and the "problems" Jokerit as a team had at the beginning of the season(that minor incident in the ET).
I can't, and won't speak of the other players, since I haven't seen much of them... but I definitely agree with your assessment on Rielly and Lindholm. Rielly has absolutely game-breaking potential, and while I think he's a bit high risk/high reward, that reward could really be something. Lindholm has kind of blown away some of us in Anaheim. There's a very OEL-ish quality to his game. That smooth, intelligent game, where all the talent seems to be used in all the right ways. I'm not convinced he can ever be as good as OEL, because he(that is Larsson) just seemed to get better and better at a startling rate, but I see a special quality in him. With Lindholm, I think he's one of those "as good as he wants to be" players, and as his confidence improves, he'll continue to assert himself more and more. I'm a little nervous though, because he already had two minor concussions, and those are pretty scary. As you can tell, I'm pretty excited about that pick though. He's been very impressive. I think he's pretty quickly turned into Anaheim's best prospect.
Well from talking to NHL people last year, the main thing with Lindholm was that he was continuously on the uptick. His development really took off from January through the spring, and heard from scouts who would see him in the SEL-2 that his minutes just kept going up. In the AHL that kind of progression has continued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eerie Hurdler
I think the difference is the guys you'd have on the list (or higher on the list) aren't the kind of puck possession players Pronman puts emphasis on. His list has a style to it. It's not supposed to be an absolute-style ranking of "goodness," but a ranking according to a puck possession style of play.
While I think the core elements that I believe make up puck possession (hands, creativity, two-way sense, etc.) is really important and the #1 factor I prioritize, it is not the only one. In the column I reference to explain my methods I try to get to that. I talk more about the topic here:
Filatov had no business being on the list last year.
Pronman really doesn't take work ethic or attitude into consideration, and I'd say it's a damn important trait.
To go along with the above comment, there's a fine line between not in my top 4 in importance, and not " into consideration." I think on-ice work ethic is important.
I made a mistake on Filatov. In hindsight I probably should have jumped off the bandwagon a year or so earlier than I did. The best thing you can do in this business is learn from your mistakes, because they're going to happen often.
I don't take off-ice stuff into consideration asides from stuff like gym work and commitment to the game. The other stuff (leadership, personality) is way too vague for someone in my role to get into. I question the value of it to begin with, but one needs to be a really committed area scout to get some of those nitty gritty details to squeeze out value in that area I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xokkeu
His critique on Landeskog wasn't related to hockey sense, it was more questioning his long term ceiling and skill level. He said himself he thought he was going to be a good player, he just wasn't sure that he had a lot of room to grow and that other players could be better choices. Not like everybody is right all of the time anyway.
I admit I underrated his pure skill and even his hockey sense to some degree. I thought he would be a fringe top line player but not as good as he looked last season. That was a call I backed off moderately quickly into the NHL season. I take full responsibility for that miss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussi
The bolded part tells me his knowledge of European prospects isn't very high. Teräväinen has not been injured this season nor last off-season. He merely got off to a slow start due to the hectic summer schedule(which limited his training), starting the season at center and the "problems" Jokerit as a team had at the beginning of the season(that minor incident in the ET).
Teravainen missed 4 weeks between mid October and November with a broken finger.
I made a mistake on Filatov. In hindsight I probably should have jumped off the bandwagon a year or so earlier than I did. The best thing you can do in this business is learn from your mistakes, because they're going to happen often.
I don't take off-ice stuff into consideration asides from stuff like gym work and commitment to the game. The other stuff (leadership, personality) is way too vague for someone in my role to get into. I question the value of it to begin with, but one needs to be a really committed area scout to get some of those nitty gritty details to squeeze out value in that area I believe.
--
I admit I underrated his pure skill and even his hockey sense to some degree. I thought he would be a fringe top line player but not as good as he looked last season. That was a call I backed off moderately quickly into the NHL season. I take full responsibility for that miss.
I'm curious if you have adjusted your process of viewing/viewing players due to the Filatov and Landeskog misses. Those are two pretty against the grain stances. You stayed on after everybody got off the Filatov bandwagon and you stayed off when everyone got on the Landeskog bandwagon.
I know you say you don't compare yourself to other rankings and stuff. But RLR, ISS, Central all had Landeskog top 5 at minimum. I can do the comparing for you. Obviously quite a few NHL teams did as well, they must have seen something you didn't and am wondering if you think you've tried to determine somewhat what that was that made his junior to NHL jump so seamless, and what have you done to prevent those misses in the future.
These are the type of misses that seem to get scouting directors/GMs in trouble, like going for a guy like Chistov, Svitov or Zherdev.
I like the rankings in general and like puck possession players myself but seems like maybe a small shift in philosophy would be welcome?
I understand that not everyone is right all of the time. What I'm saying is that hockey sense is arguably the most important aspect for any hockey player. Landeskog has sky high hockey sense and it's easy to see that makes him incredibly successful even if he doesn't have the skill of a Kabanov/Filatov.
Another guy who I think he under-rates is Ryan Murray. Guy has incredible hockey sense and in my mind will be a 1# defence almost assuredly. Just always seems to make the right decisions. That to me is more important than having the puck skills of someone like Rielly.
Its fairly obvious Pronman does value hockey sense, otherwise how do you explain the placement of Granlund? The physical tools he has to work with aren't great but his Hockey IQ is near elite level.
Hey Corey, questions about a couple of guys not on the list.
#1 Stefan Noesen. What do you think of him and how he projects? About where do you figure he'd land on your list if you continued it?
#2 Ryan Murphy. Just curious since I remember many people had him in the top-5 or 6 of his year and yet his stock seems to have plummeted, including being team-Canada's designated whipping boy at the WJC. What are people saying about him now?
Its fairly obvious Pronman does value hockey sense, otherwise how do you explain the placement of Granlund? The physical tools he has to work with aren't great but his Hockey IQ is near elite level.
He has alot of puck possesion tools. His passing, hands and vision are elite.
He has alot of puck possesion tools. His passing, hands and vision are elite.
I guess it depends how you separate out the tools. To me, Vision and Passing fall under the umbrella of Hockey IQ or Hockey Sense. Tough to have the first two, without the latter.
I cannot disagree more. You vastly overestimate the ability of many Florida prospects ; something that seems to breed itself within our sub section.
Knight, Petrovic, Howden and Rau don't deserve to be close to this list IMO. Decent prospects yes ; but all have flaws/concerns inspite of being likely NHL players.
Bjugtsad at 31 seems fair. He's actually a little overhyped at this point. Yes, he has fantastic physical abilities and good skills, but we are comparing him to the absolute elite here. I'm taking prospects like Jarnkrok or Nyqvist over him without much thought for instance. Top 10 seems a little ludicrious to me.
I disagree so much, no #1 prospects pool can have just two prospects in the50. Quantity isn't close to quality. We have plenty of quality prospects, most prospects if not all have question-marks. Bjugstad at 31 is a joke to me, top15 for sure. He was considered a very raw prospects with massive upside, upside he has shown at the college levels. And there are very few question-marks around him, to me he is elite. I don't think I overrated them, I think you underrated them.
Last edited by AwesomePanthers: 01-16-2013 at 12:40 PM.
I'm curious if you have adjusted your process of viewing/viewing players due to the Filatov and Landeskog misses. Those are two pretty against the grain stances. You stayed on after everybody got off the Filatov bandwagon and you stayed off when everyone got on the Landeskog bandwagon.
I know you say you don't compare yourself to other rankings and stuff. But RLR, ISS, Central all had Landeskog top 5 at minimum. I can do the comparing for you. Obviously quite a few NHL teams did as well, they must have seen something you didn't and am wondering if you think you've tried to determine somewhat what that was that made his junior to NHL jump so seamless, and what have you done to prevent those misses in the future.
These are the type of misses that seem to get scouting directors/GMs in trouble, like going for a guy like Chistov, Svitov or Zherdev.
I like the rankings in general and like puck possession players myself but seems like maybe a small shift in philosophy would be welcome?
I think you're always to trying to learn new things, collect more information and adapt. If you're not trying to learn and improve, then I believe you're not trying. I tweak my process consistently. My goal is to get it right, not push an agenda, so I welcome all new ideas, information etc.
However I don't think it's correct to overreact to 1 or 2 players even if they are extreme examples. I project nearly 1000 players a year. I need to evaluate my body of work to properly gauge how I'm doing and if tweaks need to be done to my process. I underrated Landeskog's talent level, and overrated Filatov's ability to overcome his intangible deficiency. Both of those things are noted and incorporated into the process, but single instances can't be a driving force because I deal with way too many data points.
Unrelated but I wouldn't throw Zherdev in with those other names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasilevski
What's your opinion on Richard Panik and Alex Killorn?
Really like both. Panik's talent level speaks for itself. Tremendous skater and puck handler who deals with some consistency issues still but that area has steadily come along recently.
Killorn is a player I really like. Talked to scouts last two years who saw him more as a checker, but he's developed well and I think he can score at the top level. Good skater, fine offensive level, makes plays, good power game. He doesn't seem to have a real weakness to his game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutz
Hey Corey, questions about a couple of guys not on the list.
#1 Stefan Noesen. What do you think of him and how he projects? About where do you figure he'd land on your list if you continued it?
#2 Ryan Murphy. Just curious since I remember many people had him in the top-5 or 6 of his year and yet his stock seems to have plummeted, including being team-Canada's designated whipping boy at the WJC. What are people saying about him now?
Noesen projects as a decent top 6 power forward for me. He has the grit and toughness, but also above-average hockey sense and his skating while not great, has shown improvement to be around average.
Murphy's been very volatile for me. On the top 50 last two summers, but not in the last two midseasons. He's a really hard player to get a read on. WJC aside, he's had a rough 1st half in the OHL too. He has star level ability, but a lot of question marks on his projection.
I think you're always to trying to learn new things, collect more information and adapt. If you're not trying to learn and improve, then I believe you're not trying. I tweak my process consistently. My goal is to get it right, not push an agenda, so I welcome all new ideas, information etc.
However I don't think it's correct to overreact to 1 or 2 players even if they are extreme examples. I project nearly 1000 players a year. I need to evaluate my body of work to properly gauge how I'm doing and if tweaks need to be done to my process. I underrated Landeskog's talent level, and overrated Filatov's ability to overcome his intangible deficiency. Both of those things are noted and incorporated into the process, but single instances can't be a driving force because I deal with way too many data points.
Unrelated but I wouldn't throw Zherdev in with those other names.
Really like both. Panik's talent level speaks for itself. Tremendous skater and puck handler who deals with some consistency issues still but that area has steadily come along recently.
Killorn is a player I really like. Talked to scouts last two years who saw him more as a checker, but he's developed well and I think he can score at the top level. Good skater, fine offensive level, makes plays, good power game. He doesn't seem to have a real weakness to his game.
Noesen projects as a decent top 6 power forward for me. He has the grit and toughness, but also above-average hockey sense and his skating while not great, has shown improvement to be around average.
Murphy's been very volatile for me. On the top 50 last two summers, but not in the last two midseasons. He's a really hard player to get a read on. WJC aside, he's had a rough 1st half in the OHL too. He has star level ability, but a lot of question marks on his projection.
Scroll to the bottom for Gaudreau.
Really well done(list) love Pirri getting some recognition and the smaller flashy players that have minor league skating off the list (Gaudreau)
What do you think about Pirri contributing to the hawks as a 2nd line C for a stint? Hossa can hold the line down defensively a bit.
I wouldn't be shocked if Pronman still turns out half-right on Lando and perhaps he'll never be the superstar some expect of him.
I really don't think he will be as low as 13th best player in the draft though. Just thought that while some old-school scouts might and do place too much emphasis on those intangible aspects, Corey might be skewing the other way. The way a guy like Colton Gillies or Ben Eager gets drafted high, along with d-men like Teubert/Plante/McIlrath, I'm sure Corey hates those types of picks so early in the draft. I also think he is going to be correct on his Siemens ranking in the 60's which was VERY against the grain, same with Tom Wilson to an extent. I absolutely hate players like those high as well with such little upside and lack of possession skills.
Earlier, I was just trying to point out that Corey might have a bit of a possession-based player archetype in mind and Landeskog didn't exactly fit that mold at first glance, along with semi-dismissal of the value of intangibles/leadership, etc. Maybe it is just an aberration and single misevaluation, but I still think Corey understates the value of that character "tool." It is not as simple as the most efficient transfer of a particular a set of tools from junior to pro, I still think there's a huge mental component in young kids that are still teenagers. Really like the work though and think scouting in general needs to evolve past intuition/gut-feel evaluations grounded in no basis of process and Corey's work and processes are a step in the right direction but maybe a little too grounded in possession and pure tools.
lol it's silly to pick apart a scout or a scouting company based on cherry picked mistakes. Even if those mistakes are against the consensus at the time. I remember RLR rating JP Levasseur ahead of Carey Price in terms of goalies and that was a fair bit against the consensus and clearly a terrible mistake. I still don't mind their lists.
Pronman has made some ugly mistakes but he's also been way head of the curve on a few guys, in the end that's probably less noticeable but a few definitely stand out. It's nice to get different points of view.
I disagree so much, no #1 prospects pool can have just two prospects in the50. Quantity isn't close to quality. We have plenty of quality prospects, most prospects if not all have question-marks. Bjugstad at 31 is a joke to me, top15 for sure. He was considered a very raw prospects with massive upside, upside he has shown at the college levels. And there are very few question-marks around him, to me he is elite. I don't think I overrated them, I think you underrated them.
When i read he was a minor disapointment i was shocked. He is not the leading scorer in the nation or leading goal scorer. He has is only 3 behind the goal lead in 2 less games. He is .600 on faceoffs. 234- 156. His forecheck has really opened the door on many unassisted gopher goals. Forcing many bad passes and d men to rush, no assist but he is the reason. when he does score its all kinds og goals. Open ice moves, one timers, wristers and tips. A pain on the PK. He has done this mostly with a third liner on his wing.
Forgot about that... So used to Jokerit players being injured, I forget who's been injured.
