HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

Hockey's Future Fall 2004 Org Rankings 1-10

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-30-2004, 09:04 PM
  #76
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
My goal was not to slander him in the first place, merely pointing out how the bar for judging a player should not be HF rankings alone.
Actually, I think most of the Oiler fans here don't put too much stock on Schremp's ratings here either. If you go to the Oiler's page, you can see that our writers have actually gone and talked to him on several occasions and many of our posters have seen him play during the rookie camp. Given not all of them are real scouts or anything but I think they've seen enough hockey to know a gifted player when they see one.

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:09 PM
  #77
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
Schremp comparable to Malkin's offensive game? Maybe, but Malkin is about 4 inches taller and in general a lot bigger, which will help him put up more points in the NHL likely.
Generally...perhaps. But see Martin St. Louis and Brad Isbister for exceptions. And its not like Schremp is a shrimp...he's 5'11" and is close to 200 lbs. That's similar to Doug Weight's size, which I think is where people got that comparison.

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:48 PM
  #78
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,654
vCash: 500
Is it just me, or is Anaheim a bit low? I'm obviously a Duck fan so my opinion is biased, but their prospect group really looks good.


As for this whole Schremp thing, the best comparison I've made is Mike Comrie. I pray to god he doesn't end up like Comrie, but when I first read about him, that's the first thing that popped up. Small, attitude, all he needs is a signature deke, which'll be the only move he uses to score goals, and he'll be all set. Schremp, IMO, is alot more gritty than Mike, though.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 09:53 PM
  #79
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
What????!!!! NO LEAFS????? FOR SHAME!!! FOR SHAME!!!

After all they have JUSTIN POGGE!!!! :lol
and KYLE WELLWOOD

FOR SHAME!!!!!!

in all honesty for that guy who compared the rangers depth to the leafs... I beg you compare both teams prospect player for player and draw your own conclusion

For example Tyutin>Coliacovo

ChrisKreider20 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:23 PM
  #80
Guy Flaming
HFB Partner
 
Guy Flaming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Press Box & on Air
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,249
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Guy Flaming Send a message via Skype™ to Guy Flaming
I started the Schremp = Weight comparisons after watching the rookie camp and the two games they played (Flames and UofA). The similarities to me began on the power play, he controls everything from the half boards and is a remarkable passer, just like Weight. He's got a laser beam shot just like Weight. His stride is also quite a lot like Weight's.

I would not compare him to Comrie at all. The new guy, Martin St. Pierre, is much more like Comrie than Schremp is.

As for the indivdual player ratings that Enoch brought up, you have to remember that in 99% of the cases the team pages are done by different people. However, in the case of Edmonton and Colorado... I happened to have done both teams.

Why do I have Schremp as a 9? In my opinion, he's the most naturally gifted playmaker the Oilers have in their entire organization, maybe only challenged by Ales Hemsky. The difference between them, again in my opinion, is that Schremp will shoot the puck! If Ales would take a shot half the time he'd be a 30 goal scorer. If Schremp can reach his potential, he'll be the top centre on the squad and likely top 15 in the league... that's All-Star range. Doug Weight isn't a perennial All-Star but he's been one a few times, that's how I think Schremp could top out.

Guy Flaming is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 10:54 PM
  #81
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Flaming
Why do I have Schremp as a 9? In my opinion, he's the most naturally gifted playmaker the Oilers have in their entire organization, maybe only challenged by Ales Hemsky. The difference between them, again in my opinion, is that Schremp will shoot the puck! If Ales would take a shot half the time he'd be a 30 goal scorer. If Schremp can reach his potential, he'll be the top centre on the squad and likely top 15 in the league... that's All-Star range. Doug Weight isn't a perennial All-Star but he's been one a few times, that's how I think Schremp could top out.
9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender -- possesses the potential for greatness, a likely Hall of Fame candidate once his playing days are over. Think Mark Messier, Guy Lafleur, Niklas Lidstrom, Denis Potvin, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur - definite Hall of Fame players that displayed great talent early on

8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender -- players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing Hall of Fame potential. Think Brian Propp, Larry Murphy, Tom Barrasso - players that display talent early on, but may not be the game-breakers that the elite players can be

To me it sounds like you are describing an 8

Mothra is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:25 PM
  #82
Hemskyfanboy83
Registered User
 
Hemskyfanboy83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender -- possesses the potential for greatness, a likely Hall of Fame candidate once his playing days are over. Think Mark Messier, Guy Lafleur, Niklas Lidstrom, Denis Potvin, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur - definite Hall of Fame players that displayed great talent early on

8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender -- players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing Hall of Fame potential. Think Brian Propp, Larry Murphy, Tom Barrasso - players that display talent early on, but may not be the game-breakers that the elite players can be

To me it sounds like you are describing an 8

i don't think being a 9 makes u a likley hall of famer

Hemskyfanboy83 is offline  
Old
09-30-2004, 11:46 PM
  #83
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
i don't think being a 9 makes u a likley hall of famer
Read the hf boards ranking criteria. He simply quoted what the rankings said a player with 9 potential should have...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
9 - Elite forward / defenseman / goaltender -- possesses the potential for greatness, a likely Hall of Fame candidate once his playing days are over. Think Mark Messier, Guy Lafleur, Niklas Lidstrom, Denis Potvin, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur - definite Hall of Fame players that displayed great talent early on

8 - First line forward / No. 2 defenseman / No. 1 goaltender -- players with definite skill that might be just a cut below elite status, but still possessing Hall of Fame potential. Think Brian Propp, Larry Murphy, Tom Barrasso - players that display talent early on, but may not be the game-breakers that the elite players can be

To me it sounds like you are describing an 8
Agreed. Although, I'll give Guy the benefit of the doubt, while completely disagree with the 9 assesment. He is one of the best here at HF .

__________________
- Enoch -

Last edited by Enoch: 09-30-2004 at 11:54 PM.
Enoch is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 12:37 AM
  #84
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Flaming
I started the Schremp = Weight comparisons after watching the rookie camp and the two games they played (Flames and UofA). The similarities to me began on the power play, he controls everything from the half boards and is a remarkable passer, just like Weight. He's got a laser beam shot just like Weight. His stride is also quite a lot like Weight's.

I would not compare him to Comrie at all. The new guy, Martin St. Pierre, is much more like Comrie than Schremp is.

As for the indivdual player ratings that Enoch brought up, you have to remember that in 99% of the cases the team pages are done by different people. However, in the case of Edmonton and Colorado... I happened to have done both teams.

Why do I have Schremp as a 9? In my opinion, he's the most naturally gifted playmaker the Oilers have in their entire organization, maybe only challenged by Ales Hemsky. The difference between them, again in my opinion, is that Schremp will shoot the puck! If Ales would take a shot half the time he'd be a 30 goal scorer. If Schremp can reach his potential, he'll be the top centre on the squad and likely top 15 in the league... that's All-Star range. Doug Weight isn't a perennial All-Star but he's been one a few times, that's how I think Schremp could top out.
The Comrie comparisons don't have anything to do with style of play. When I saw Schremp, I thought he looked a bit like Weight, but if he doesn't pan out, and keeps his bad attitude, he could end up like Comrie(dear god I hope not, though).

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:05 AM
  #85
Oiltalk
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
The Comrie comparisons don't have anything to do with style of play. When I saw Schremp, I thought he looked a bit like Weight, but if he doesn't pan out, and keeps his bad attitude, he could end up like Comrie(dear god I hope not, though).
What "bad" attitude do you distinctly know of? His cockyness? If that's all, I'm sure most Oiler fans are for it.

Oiltalk is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:26 AM
  #86
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiltalk
What "bad" attitude do you distinctly know of? His cockyness? If that's all, I'm sure most Oiler fans are for it.
I really like Schremp, and like his cockiness, but I guess he's had other attitude problems. I've heard of stories where he'd blow up in minor hockey games because his team gave up one goal in a blow-out game, and Hunter didn't bench him in the playoffs for no reason. If there was no attitude problems, he'd have been a top 10 pick, and Devan Dubnyk wouldn't have been picked ahead of him.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:34 AM
  #87
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
I really like Schremp, and like his cockiness, but I guess he's had other attitude problems. I've heard of stories where he'd blow up in minor hockey games because his team gave up one goal in a blow-out game, and Hunter didn't bench him in the playoffs for no reason. If there was no attitude problems, he'd have been a top 10 pick, and Devan Dubnyk wouldn't have been picked ahead of him.
Reading his interviews, it just seems like he's just a confident player...nothing wrong with that. It really sounds like he'd be a media's dream with some of the things he says in interviews. And as for him blowing up on his team, well, I'd like to call that competitiveness.

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 01:36 AM
  #88
Winston Wolf
Registered User
 
Winston Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller
I've heard of stories where he'd blow up in minor hockey games because his team gave up one goal in a blow-out game
Sounds like the type of player a coach would love to have on his team.

Winston Wolf is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 02:40 AM
  #89
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,229
vCash: 500
all these rating systems kind of prove to me the need for rating by committee. i know that it's not realistic in terms of time\plausibility, but ideally it's what we need. what one person sees as a nine, another may see as a six, depending on how harshly he judges that particular player. I personally like George Bachul's system for the Preds(though i enjoy razzing him about it ) in he admittedly lowballs in rating, because it's better to be surprised than to overhype. He's also a good writer for us because he's not "first and foremost" a Preds fan, unlike many of the other team writers. That element of objectivity is refreshing, and if the access were possible, it would be a cool if there were more of it.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 04:00 AM
  #90
Winston Wolf
Registered User
 
Winston Wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
all these rating systems kind of prove to me the need for rating by committee. i know that it's not realistic in terms of time\plausibility, but ideally it's what we need. what one person sees as a nine, another may see as a six, depending on how harshly he judges that particular player.
I completely agree. It's impossible to compare players by their individual ratings because there is such a big difference on how a person rates a player. Not saying bias, but just simple natural tendencies which skew how a team is rated compared to another. Some people will tend to overestimate almost every player's rating by 1 or 2 points, while some tend to underestimate another team by the same difference. When you compare the two you're left with a pretty big gap, even though the two teams should probably be closer to even.

Having more than one person see more than one team (strictly for individual # rankings, anything else would be far too time consuming) would also let the rankers compare their own rankings to a far broader base of players than just that of their own team. For example, I highly doubt Parise would be ranked an 8.5A and Ovechkin a 9A if the same people had impact on their ratings. Perhaps Parise is too high, or Ovechkin too low, but nonetheless I think most would agree that the difference between the two players' potential is more than .5. I think this is pretty widespread when comparing two players from separate teams by their rating.

Perhaps if the writers each set up some sort of private poll for individual players and each writer (or writer within a certain group) could vote from 1-10 on what they felt the player's potential was. That or another sort of efficient, time-friendly way of ranking a large group of players would certainly improve the overall accuracy and comparative value of players on opposing teams, IMO. I give out thanks and kudos to all the writers because I know it's a tedious process, but I think it would be well worth it to them as well, knowing that the players' rankings are the result of a widespread average, rather than the thoughts of one person. I know if I spent as much time on this as the writers do, I would certainly want my work to be as accurate as possible.

Winston Wolf is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 07:15 AM
  #91
hunter1909*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
personally i think shremp has the potential to become a star nhl player...

what a lot of people misconceive as inability to get along with others...i believe comes down to the fact that shremp simply comes from another nation than canada...which...as the current world hockey ruler has never encountered a player quite like him...

shremp has shown incredible courage...choosing the OHL(a very tough league)...rather than the usual ncaa route...it takes a hell of a lot of courage to leave your country of origin as a teenager...

it is basically up to the player...its character in the end that determines how high shremp is going to be at the end of the day...

but as a betting man...my money definitely goes on shremp succeeding big time...

cudos to the oilers for grabbing the steal of the draft

hunter1909* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:00 AM
  #92
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
you need to come up with a bit more than "well his brother isn't currently succeeding...and...oh I haven't heard him making waves so he must be bad".
Please don't put words to my mouth, I never said those things. If you can't keep this argument above schoolyard -level you're better off not replying in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
So you like Edmonton's prospects more, good for you.
Wait a sec, where did I even mention Edmonton here? You really need to start paying attention before humiliating yourself with nonsense like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
just so I can make my own teams prospect pool look better.
I haven't even mentioned my team in this thread, in fact you probably don't even know what my favorite team is!

How on earth do you expect me to even bother arguing with you when you're so totally out of grasp of reality? You saw someone saying that Predators prospects are overrated and simply lost it from there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
OTOH, Nashville actually does have quite a bit of top-end offensive talent. Radulov, Glazachev, Shishkanov, along with Upshall are all very impressive offensive prospects.
How many times you have seen those players play? Of those players only Upshall is likely to reach his potential, unfortunately that potential seems to be a marginal 2nd liner/good 3rd liner. The rest are huge question marks all the way.

Pepper is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 09:25 AM
  #93
Mothra
Registered User
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilerlova
i don't think being a 9 makes u a likley hall of famer
I didnt say "likely"........I said "definite Hall of Fame player"......which is exactly what HF says.....


http://www.hockeysfuture.com/playerprojections.php

Mothra is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 10:51 AM
  #94
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Please don't put words to my mouth, I never said those things. If you can't keep this argument above schoolyard -level you're better off not replying in the first place.
You didn't? Go back and read your posts because you indeed DID say those things.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Wait a sec, where did I even mention Edmonton here? You really need to start paying attention before humiliating yourself with nonsense like that.....I haven't even mentioned my team in this thread, in fact you probably don't even know what my favorite team is!
Humiliating myself? Hardly. I made an assumption based on the few posts you have made that you are an Edmonton fan. If that is wrong, so be it. It really has no bearing on the mainstay of my post in reference to you. My main point is that you have absolutely no substance to your reasons....just merely personal opinion (which to me in regards to the argument was biased).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
How on earth do you expect me to even bother arguing with you when you're so totally out of grasp of reality? You saw someone saying that Predators prospects are overrated and simply lost it from there.
Whoa, slow down now. I don't have a grasp on reality because I assumed, based on your position in this thread, that you are an Edmonton fan? So sue me...You haven't even said, which team you are a fan for yet. Are you an Edmonton fan? If so, then your whole basis here is off, and even if your not, your ignoring the main point of my post. Instead of offering things of substance, you try to attack my personality or judgement? Try again. Offer something of substance, heck...even of reason, and we can talk about Nashvilles prospect base and why it will succeed or fail.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
How many times you have seen those players play? Of those players only Upshall is likely to reach his potential, unfortunately that potential seems to be a marginal 2nd liner/good 3rd liner. The rest are huge question marks all the way.
As for Nashville's prospects, and having seen them play, I'm willing to bet I've seen them play a considerable amount more than you or almost everyone else on these boards save for fellow Nashville fans. I watched the Admrials last year. I watched Shishkanov, etc., and even though I haven't got to see the Russians Glazachev and Radulov in play, does not mean i have to take away all the knowledge of information I have on them. It sure beats coming on to the boards and simply saying - "None of those guys will succeed and the only one that will, will fall into a good 3rd liner/borderline 2nd liner." Give me a break. You have no basis for you reasons, and no substance to back anything up. At the same time, though, I'm the one that has lost my "grip" on reality. Keep them coming!

Enoch is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:12 AM
  #95
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Here's a little head-to-head comparison with Preds vs. Ducks, prospect-wise of course. Note: this is to show that Preds prospects are overrated, I have no problems with Ducks ranking (I expected it to be somewhere between 11 and 14). 1 goalie, 2 d-men and 3 forwards from both teams.

Goalies: Brian Finley vs. Ilya Bryzgalov

Ducks win clearly this one, Bryzgalov has been extremely solid in Cincy Ducks for the last 3 years. Bryzgalov has better potential and is more likely to reach that potential than Finley.

Advantage: Ducks

Defense: Ryan Suter + Shea Weber vs. Ladislav Smid + Mark Popovic

Suter is the best prospect of the bunch quite clearly with Smid second (potential wise). At this point Weber and Popovic look pretty equal.

Advantage: Preds

Forwards: Timofei Shishkanov + Scottie Upshall + Alexander Radulov vs.
Ryan Getzlaf + Corey Perry + Tim Brent

Getzlaf > Shishkanov
Perry => Radulov
Brent <= Upshall

Advantage: Ducks, especially considering that all three Ducks prospects also play physical game which can't be said for the Preds prospects. Note: I used current HF rankings which didn't include players like Glencross who's probably ahead of Brent in the rankings (we'll see). This comparison only includes 6 players from both teams, if you take depth in to the equation Preds have advantage in goal and defense while Ducks are ahead up front.

So I could argue that my team Ducks should be higher than Preds...but I'm not going to do that. I'm ok with the rankings and if someone calls Ducks prospects overrated and that they should be lower on the list, fine, I have absolutely no problem with that. The point is that Nashville fans were up in arms immediately when someone dared to question the ranking of Preds prospects.

Pepper is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:19 AM
  #96
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
You didn't? Go back and read your posts because you indeed DID say those things.
Well put your money where your mouth is and show me the exact quotes where I said those things, otherwise I expect you to admit that you were wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
Whoa, slow down now. I don't have a grasp on reality because I assumed, based on your position in this thread, that you are an Edmonton fan?
You assumed that

1) I'm an Oilers fan

and

2) I'm trying to make the prospects of my team look good.

Both were way off, the little comparison I did above is NOT to puff my team's prospects, it's to show that Preds prospects are overrated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
As for Nashville's prospects, and having seen them play, I'm willing to bet I've seen them play a considerable amount more than you or almost everyone else on these boards save for fellow Nashville fans. I watched the Admrials last year. I watched Shishkanov, etc., and even though I haven't got to see the Russians Glazachev and Radulov in play, does not mean i have to take away all the knowledge of information I have on them. It sure beats coming on to the boards and simply saying - "None of those guys will succeed and the only one that will, will fall into a good 3rd liner/borderline 2nd liner." Give me a break. You have no basis for you reasons, and no substance to back anything up. At the same time, though, I'm the one that has lost my "grip" on reality. Keep them coming!
Again you make wild assumptions out of nowhere! Of those prospects I mentioned in my original post, I can guarantee that I've most certainly seen three of them 10x more than you or any other Nashville writer here and I have read probably just/nearly as much about the rest as you. So please don't humiliate yourself any further by making stupid claims & assumptions.

Edit: missing words


Last edited by Pepper: 10-01-2004 at 11:44 AM.
Pepper is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:22 AM
  #97
Moskau
Registered User
 
Moskau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western New York
Posts: 10,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Perry => Radulov
Really? I don't think it's even close. Radulov for me.

Moskau is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:24 AM
  #98
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Here's a little head-to-head comparison with Preds vs. Ducks, prospect-wise of course. Note: this is to show that Preds prospects are overrated, I have no problems with Ducks ranking (I expected it to be somewhere between 11 and 14). 1 goalie, 2 d-men and 3 forwards from both teams.

Goalies: Brian Finley vs. Ilya Bryzgalov

Ducks win clearly this one, Bryzgalov has been extremely solid in Cincy Ducks for the last 3 years. Bryzgalov has better potential and is more likely to reach that potential than Finley.

Advantage: Ducks

Defense: Ryan Suter + Shea Weber vs. Ladislav Smid + Mark Popovic

Suter is the best prospect of the bunch quite clearly with Smid second (potential wise). At this point Weber and Popovic look pretty equal.

Advantage: Preds

Forwards: Timofei Shishkanov + Scottie Upshall + Alexander Radulov vs.
Ryan Getzlaf + Corey Perry + Tim Brent

Getzlaf > Shishkanov
Perry => Radulov
Brent <= Upshall

Advantage: Ducks, especially considering that all three Ducks prospects also play physical game which can't be said for the Preds prospects. Note: I used current HF rankings which didn't include players like Glencross who's probably ahead of Brent in the rankings (we'll see). This comparison only includes 6 players from both teams, if you take depth in to the equation Preds have advantage in goal and defense while Ducks are ahead up front.

So I could argue that my team Ducks should be higher than Preds...but I'm not going to do that. I'm ok with the rankings and if someone calls Ducks prospects overrated and that they should be lower on the list, fine, I have absolutely no problem with that. The point is that Nashville fans were up in arms immediately when someone dared to question the ranking of Preds prospects.
Using your view of the Preds, there aren't many teams that couldn't beat them in a head to head matchup. You shrink the prospect cores at the various positions so that it benefits the ducks. Expand the goalie's list a little more because without including Lassila, you are shafting Nashville. Expand the D list more too because you are leaving out Klein, Sulzer, Stehlik, Mukhachev, Niskala, Hutchinson. And do the same with the forwards while you are at it. Add Setzinger, Segal, Soin, Pivko, Shafigulin, Meidl. Do the same with Anaheim and we come out on top.

You are narrowing it down to the point at which Anaheim becomes competitive. If you remove Nashville's depth AND subjectively lean towards Anaheim, then sure Anaheim wins. How about we narrow it down even more than you did. Suter>Getzlaf. Oh, that seals it. Nashville in a landslide.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:24 AM
  #99
HellsBells
Registered User
 
HellsBells's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: PEI
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hunter1909
cudos to the oilers for grabbing the steal of the draft
Way too early for that IMO.

HellsBells is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 11:30 AM
  #100
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper
Again you make wild assumptions out of nowhere! Of those prospects I mentioned in my original post, I can guarantee that I've most certainly seen 10x more than you or any other Nashville writer here and I have read probably just/nearly as much about the rest as you. So please don't humiliate yourself any further by making stupid claims & assumptions.
Until you lay proof on the table, he has every right to make assumptions. For someone who has seen these players, you've offered little analysis as to why they won't succeed. This isn't the behavior of a man who has "seen 10x more than any Nashville writer"

Lay it on me, how have you seen these guys so much more than Eriks, NMK, GB, or myself? Do you simultaneously live in Kelowna, Quebec City, Milwaukee, and Moscow? You may have seen equal, though I will assume that you haven't given that I've seen no evidence of any eye witness sitings of these players, but you certainly haven't seen 10x as much.

SmokeyClause 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 01:58 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.