HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

HF ratings a joke again.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2004, 06:44 AM
  #1
melisa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 88
vCash: 500
HF ratings a joke again.

What else is new. Dawes getting a pathetic 6 rating. Beranka who is a better prospect then any Devil or Islander defenseman and is on track to be a can't miss, top 4 defenseman getting a pathetic 6. God they are clueless. Wiseman a 4? :lol That was a funny one. Lundqvist a 6.5? Oh my. They are stupid aren't they.

Theygive Prucha a sad 6 and Falardeau a 6. This proves they know nothing about any of the Ranger prospects. Why did I dare to believe in these clowns.

melisa is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 06:55 AM
  #2
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,007
vCash: 500
I do not understand it. They let people go because they according to HF did not qualify as professionals, at the same time put up content so obviously done quickly without much time or research put into it just as satisfication to having content there on the site, as unprofessional as that is but of course that becomes irrelevant since then in this situation where they are getting backlash they can "cheat" their own professionalism. Use the prospect rankings done on the board atleast. They have a thousand times more credability then one or a group of staff members that are not familiar with this organization. Another idea how about posting poll rankings on this board to see where prospects should be rated.

in the hall is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 07:03 AM
  #3
melisa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 88
vCash: 500
Couldn't have said it better Hall.

I mean, Lundqvist a 6.5? Scouts, GM's, the Hockey News are going off on this guy and he gets a 6.5. Mind boggling. I think Beranka had one of the best years for any defenseman in the minors last year. He basically gets a rating that states he might get lucky and be a 6th defenseman.

Wiseman a 4.5? Are they nuts? I did think Pock was rated too high which shows they read this board and made the ratings based off of garbage posted here. Prucha having the same rating as Falardeau? That is incredible.

melisa is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 07:13 AM
  #4
TKLOOCH22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nueva York
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
Couldn't have said it better Hall.

I mean, Lundqvist a 6.5? Scouts, GM's, the Hockey News are going off on this guy and he gets a 6.5. Mind boggling. I think Beranka had one of the best years for any defenseman in the minors last year. He basically gets a rating that states he might get lucky and be a 6th defenseman.

Wiseman a 4.5? Are they nuts? I did think Pock was rated too high which shows they read this board and made the ratings based off of garbage posted here. Prucha having the same rating as Falardeau? That is incredible.
Listen, I dont have a problem with you giving heat about the prospects and their rankings...but you do it in a way that is too much like an ass.

First off, for someone that goes and bashes about a prospect...Its BARANKA.

Second, he's playing for Everett of the WHL...Its Canadian JUNIORS, not minors.

A guy that played 6 more NHL games than a PROSPECT is definately worthy of a higher ranking than a guy who hasnt touched pro ice yet. Not to mention the fact that he produced and played well.

Lol, on Chad Wiseman.

Once again, I dont agree with some of the rankings either. But to get your underwear in a bunch over something that is understandable is retarded. Prucha, Lundqvist and Baranka could all fall of the face of the earth, because they are, as of now, just prospects that havent played a game in the NHL/AHL.

TKLOOCH22 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 07:21 AM
  #5
TKLOOCH22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nueva York
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
I think Beranka had one of the best years for any defenseman in the minors last year.
58 games 3 goals 12 points 15 points 69 pim

In a time where a prospect is basically judged by the amount of points he puts up in juniors, that is FAR from having the best years for a defenseman. That just shows you like to spew **** that isnt true. You cant even say that it was an honest mistake, because 15 points is horrendous compared to someone who did have a career year.

TKLOOCH22 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 07:33 AM
  #6
L.I.RangerFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Enemy Land - Long Is
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKLOOCH22
58 games 3 goals 12 points 15 points 69 pim

In a time where a prospect is basically judged by the amount of points he puts up in juniors, that is FAR from having the best years for a defenseman. That just shows you like to spew **** that isnt true. You cant even say that it was an honest mistake, because 15 points is horrendous compared to someone who did have a career year.

Offensive stats mean nothing in regards to Baranka's potential. He is more of a defensive d-man, who knows how to take the body and clear the crease. He does have some offensive upside, but those points totals are not bad considering what his strengths are.

Do I believe he will pan out and be a good player. Yes, I do but he must be given the time to do it. He has to get stronger and continue to develop. Keeping him in Everett with the coach he has (Constantine) is IMO the best way to develop his potential at this stage.

L.I.RangerFan is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 08:02 AM
  #7
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,233
vCash: 500
well,

Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
What else is new. Dawes getting a pathetic 6 rating. Beranka who is a better prospect then any Devil or Islander defenseman and is on track to be a can't miss, top 4 defenseman getting a pathetic 6. God they are clueless. Wiseman a 4? :lol That was a funny one. Lundqvist a 6.5? Oh my. They are stupid aren't they.

Theygive Prucha a sad 6 and Falardeau a 6. This proves they know nothing about any of the Ranger prospects. Why did I dare to believe in these clowns.

Personally I think that Falardeau was a wasted pick as he's big body with very limited offensive potential and the fact that we have a dearth of defensive minded forwards he's going to have to possess a unique attribute to stand out amongst the others. Being big certainly helps, but his skating is suspect and he has hands of stone. If he's playing the 3rd line For Michigan State, I wouldn't put to much stock into an NHL career.

As for Weisman, what exactly has he done to warrant a higher rating? Play well in Hartford and Kentucky? Chad is already 23 years old and has been on 2 different teams and the results are the same, he's a minor leaguer. Brad Smyth was a hell of a minor league player, but I'd be steamed if he got a regular shift in the NHL for the Rangers.

As for Nigel, the ranking more than likely reflects his size and the fact that in 3 Junior seasons he has 1 full season under his belt (full season meaning 70+ games for the sake of discussion) he's small, defensively suspect and gets hurt, and you're saying that his offensive production should overshadow that and get a higher rating? we agree to disagree on that.

And as much as I like Lundqvist, ask around, the regulars here will attest to that, I agree that his rating should be tweaked, but slightly to a 7B. Until he comes over and faces some stiffer competition on the smaller surfaces of the NA game there's going to be questions about his abilities. He has to answer them, and the only way to do that is to be here playing. Until then a 6.5B-7B rating is well suited.

The one rating I question is the rating given to Darin Oliver. A 7C, the 7 is questionable, but it's tempered by the C, I'd be more inclined to rate him a 6B, but I also have to say that I don't know much more than what I've read about him. The positive is that as a Freshman he led his team in scoring, as he gets older, and more mature his overall game should develope a bit more and the ranking may be justified.

And for the overall tone of the post, I'd like to see your thoughts on where a player should be ranked and the reasoning behind the ranking.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 08:04 AM
  #8
Evil Sather
Registered User
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
There are exceptionally poor defensemen putting up 40+ points in juniors regularly. The fact that Baranka can't put up 20 says something...

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 08:25 AM
  #9
JJ68NYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 139
vCash: 500
The rangers defenseman are rated to low.

Montoya should be a 9, the guy has 30 win season under his belt, he was the sixth pick in the draft and he has a gold medal as the starter for USA.

Korpikoski should be a 7.5 or 8

Dawes is way too low.

The most dissapointing one was Lundqvist. 6.5?????? This guy is amazing and is soo good he made the Swedish world cup team as the third goaltender.

This site or at least the guy ranking our prospects are just horrible. I think this Rangers board is really good because we get a lot of posters every day, i mean one thread was started like yesterday and its already on page 5. The site is going down the drain, just the rankings or should i say rankers are.

JJ68NYR is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 09:32 AM
  #10
303Joe
Registered User
 
303Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,288
vCash: 500
Whats the big deal what 1 Hockey board...

ranks your prospects. This has nothing to do with how the player is going to play. Who cares if Dawes is a 6.5 yes the guy has put up big #'s in the juniors but hes small and has been injured. Weisman is 23 yrs old and has been in the minors his whole career what should he get. Don't worry so much where these guys are ranked and worry more about how these guys are gonna actually play for the repsective teams.

303Joe is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 09:40 AM
  #11
kazo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
Couldn't have said it better Hall.

I mean, Lundqvist a 6.5? Scouts, GM's, the Hockey News are going off on this guy and he gets a 6.5. Mind boggling. I think Beranka had one of the best years for any defenseman in the minors last year. He basically gets a rating that states he might get lucky and be a 6th defenseman.

Wiseman a 4.5? Are they nuts? I did think Pock was rated too high which shows they read this board and made the ratings based off of garbage posted here. Prucha having the same rating as Falardeau? That is incredible.
Once again, Ranger fans notoriously overrate Ranger prospects. For instance, Prucha isn't a can't miss prospect and Wiseman is an AHL'er.

kazo is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 09:48 AM
  #12
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
What else is new. Dawes getting a pathetic 6 rating. Beranka who is a better prospect then any Devil or Islander defenseman and is on track to be a can't miss, top 4 defenseman getting a pathetic 6. God they are clueless. Wiseman a 4? :lol That was a funny one. Lundqvist a 6.5? Oh my. They are stupid aren't they.

Theygive Prucha a sad 6 and Falardeau a 6. This proves they know nothing about any of the Ranger prospects. Why did I dare to believe in these clowns.
And why is Nigel Dawes far superior than the two time Player of the Year Corey Locke?

As far as Baranka goes, projecting a player with his stats and ability as a primarily defensive defensman to a #5 spot in the NHL doesn't seem out of line with me.

But since we are stupid, I should probably leave you to your opinion, because obviously you know far better than anyone at HF.

Edit:
One other thing, I am sure that anyone considering writing for the Rangers at HF is encouraged at the type of feedback they will get, and their quality will reflect the quality and integrity of their posters.


Last edited by Slats432: 09-02-2004 at 09:59 AM.
Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 10:23 AM
  #13
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
Edit:
One other thing, I am sure that anyone considering writing for the Rangers at HF is encouraged at the type of feedback they will get, and their quality will reflect the quality and integrity of their posters.
A handful of children with too much time on their hands DOES NOT represent the feelings of the board as a whole. Unfortunately, their incendiary remarks tend to hijack what would otherwise be constructive and informative discussions. Luckily, most of them won't be here much longer at this rate, at least not under their current user names.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 10:38 AM
  #14
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,251
vCash: 500
How is it possible that Korpikoski gets 7A(!) and Immonen 6B???

Doesn't make any sense, first of all what the hell has Korpikoski done to deserve A for being a sure-fire 2nd round forward without playing a full season in the FEL while Immonen has only lead his whole team in scoring and been a top5 scorer leaguwide??

So while Immonen's B is probably close to truth, Korpikoski's A is not even funny.

IMHO Korpikoski should be 7C and Immonen 7B but that's just me.

Pepper is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 10:48 AM
  #15
Olorin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
My personal feelings:

I'd rank Korpikoski a 7.5B (1st/2nd line winger with a decent chance of reaching the top end, but more likely to fall into 2nd line status)

Jessiman should be an 8C or so. I don't think anyone can argue that his high end potential is a first line player, but again the C reflects the likelihood of that possibility.

I'd give Garth Murray a 6A. He's virtually a lock to be a third liner, a 6.5 would suggest possible second line upside but I think his offense isn't going to develop enough for that.

Graham, Prucha, and Immonen I'd move up slightly by .5 each to 2nd/3rd line potential.

I think it's interesting that Petterstrom was ranked a 6. He's been decent with Skelleftea judging by stats and I think it was reported that he showed well at a prospects camp in Calgary a while back. I'm not arguing with the ranking, but I'd be interested in an explanation if possible.

I'd lower Tyutin to an 8. I interpret 8.5 as suggesting he'll be a number one defenseman, and as much as that would be a great thing for the Rangers, I feel he's a more likely better than average number two.

I'd also switch the rankings of Baranka and Taylor. Lundqvist I'd leave at a 7.

Olorin is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:15 AM
  #16
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 32,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Mods and writers are to take this to PM....

enough...

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!

Go Team Hoyt !
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:18 AM
  #17
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,322
vCash: 500
No worries, Wally, I deleted my post.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:32 AM
  #18
L.I.RangerFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Enemy Land - Long Is
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
There are exceptionally poor defensemen putting up 40+ points in juniors regularly. The fact that Baranka can't put up 20 says something...

What does it say? That he concentrates on the defensive aspect more than the offensive. Isn't that what a defenseman is suppose to do?

He still plays the PP and PK and is a top defenseman for the Tips

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...1_birds14.html

Quote:
It was obvious the Silvertips missed Ivan Baranka on the power play and were 0 for 8 with a man advantage.

Baranka left Friday for the World Junior Championships, where he will play for Slovakia
He plays with an edge, sometimes more than he should

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...27_bird29.html

Quote:
Ivan Baranka, one of Everett's top defenseman, received a match misconduct for intent to injure during a fight with Steven Goertzen. The penalty carries an automatic one-game suspension unless Everett appeals. Constantine said he would look at a tape of the fight before making a decision.
Is he going to be a star, who knows. But just because the kid doesn't put up tremendous numbers, doesn't mean he is a bust. He adjusted quite well to NA last year and IMO this year he will be even better.

I would rather at this point in time see him develop into a tough, crease clearing, defensive d-man who can handle himself well in the offensive zone. But give the kid a chance.

L.I.RangerFan is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:37 AM
  #19
NYRfan68
Registered User
 
NYRfan68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,738
vCash: 500
I'd give Nigel Dawes a 7.5 C or D. Cuz his potential is really high but the size barrier is huge.

Lundqvist is definately vastly underrated because he is called the best goalie out of sweden since Pelle Lindburgh


7.5
B for Lundqvist.

With guys like Baranka its hard to tell.... He could end up a flop, Spacek type or a hatcher type its hard to say.


Last edited by NYRfan68: 09-02-2004 at 11:54 AM.
NYRfan68 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:43 AM
  #20
gkrangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 180
vCash: 500
I think those rankings are fair.

gkrangers is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 11:55 AM
  #21
Russian_fanatic
Registered User
 
Russian_fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ68NYR
The rangers defenseman are rated to low.

Montoya should be a 9, the guy has 30 win season under his belt, he was the sixth pick in the draft and he has a gold medal as the starter for USA.

Korpikoski should be a 7.5 or 8

Dawes is way too low.

The most dissapointing one was Lundqvist. 6.5?????? This guy is amazing and is soo good he made the Swedish world cup team as the third goaltender.

This site or at least the guy ranking our prospects are just horrible. I think this Rangers board is really good because we get a lot of posters every day, i mean one thread was started like yesterday and its already on page 5. The site is going down the drain, just the rankings or should i say rankers are.
Now THAT is overrating your prospects. Another thing who cares what the ratings are? As long as you know they're good then everything is fine. Lower ratings kill off their potential?

Russian_fanatic is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 01:41 PM
  #22
BobMarleyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alphabet
Country: Iraq
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BobMarleyNYR
Quote:
Originally Posted by melisa
What else is new. Dawes getting a pathetic 6 rating. Beranka who is a better prospect then any Devil or Islander defenseman and is on track to be a can't miss, top 4 defenseman getting a pathetic 6. God they are clueless. Wiseman a 4? :lol That was a funny one. Lundqvist a 6.5? Oh my. They are stupid aren't they.

Theygive Prucha a sad 6 and Falardeau a 6. This proves they know nothing about any of the Ranger prospects. Why did I dare to believe in these clowns.
Yeah, Dawes should have a 7 at least. As for Baranka, you said yourself he's a future 4th de-man... check the criteria for the numbered rankings... a 6 indicates a 3rd-4th d-man,

Wiseman is too early to tell. IMO, it's looking like a 4 is pretty accurate. Like I've said before, he's as soft as they come, he has no defensive instincts and he can't pkay in traffic. I'm not writing him off, but for now, a 4 (which is a future top-end AHL player) seems very logical to me.

Lundqvist should definitely be a 7 or a 7.5.

I think Prucha has enough talent to be rated a 7 (2nd liner), but no one knows because he's small and he plays that characteristric finesse, "soft" European game.

I think a 5.5 is more accurate for Falardeau (meaning he's a 4th-3rd liner). And he'll likely be good at what he does. But any more than a 6 for him just wouldn't make sense.

A lot of people attack HF writers, but the truth is it's really the ranking system that's bad. Everyone's gotta keep the given standards in mind, or you'll never be happy. Right now the only prospect with a 9 is Ovechkin, who is undoubtedly the no. 1 NHL prospect. They don't reate players based on talent, they rate them on where they'll most likely fit. Agree with it or not, that's how it is... if they rated prospects the way we wanted them to (by talent/potential) it would probably look something like this:

Tyutin - 8.5
Jessiman - 8.5
Montoya - 8.5
Balej - 7.5
Korpikoski - 8
Dawes - 7.5
Prucha - 7.5
Kondratiev - 7
Lundqvist - 8
Baranka - 7
Murray - 6

Etc...

BobMarleyNYR is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 02:39 PM
  #23
AJ1982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,812
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AJ1982
I don't understand all the fuss, ratings are highly subjective things and they also change as time goes by. Deal with it!

Oh and George, I think it's well-established that Dawes is a better player and probably a better prospect than Locke. Locke hasn't even been able to crack the line up of the WJC team even when he was putting up 150 points in the OHL, yet Dawes not only made the team but shined last year. Dawes is also younger and plays in the slightly more physically demanding WHL. Just my humble, and subjective, opinion .

AJ1982 is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 03:24 PM
  #24
icthelight
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 282
vCash: 500
Here are my ratings and i think im pretty objective:

Korpikoski--7 to 7.5--up
Jessiman--7.5 to 8--up
Helminen--5.5 to 6--up
Psurny--6.5 to 5.5--down
Walsh--6 to 5--down
Wiseman--4 to 5.5--up
Murray--6.5 to 6--down
Prucha--6 to 6.5--up
Balej--7.5 to 8--up
Immonen--6 to 6.5--up
Falardeau--6 to 4.5--down
Graham--6 to 6.5--up
Rawlyk--5 to 6--up
Montoya--8 to 8.5--up
Lundqvist--6.5 to 8--up

Everything else is fine

icthelight is offline  
Old
09-02-2004, 05:53 PM
  #25
majicpixie
Registered User
 
majicpixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Tardis
Country: United States
Posts: 1,571
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to majicpixie Send a message via AIM to majicpixie Send a message via MSN to majicpixie
Chad never played in Kentucky, he played in Cleveland before Hartford. San Jose moved the Kentucky Thoroughblades to Cleveland and renamed them the Barons in the off-season before his rookie year.

I'm really surprised Chad's rating is lower than it was before the update. His game improved so much last season. He was much more confident, grittier, better on defense, etc. His rating was low before because the head Sharks writer seems to only promote his favorite players, but I thought writers of the Rangers would have a different opinion.

I think this new rating system is ridiculous. People are going to be fighting about combinations of letters and numbers, and soon it'll look like we're talking and fighting in code, LOL. But, I do know that GM's, coaches, and players don't think too much of what is said on HF. Besides, ratings and rankings on a fan-based website don't have anything to do with how a player develops.

majicpixie 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 10:01 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.