Blergh. That Pronman prospect review is pretty crap. Schroeder didn't have much of a problem with losing battles last season — I don't know where he got that idea from. Low ceiling for Lack? Based on what?
Haha the remark that McNally was his team's best forward. Either a typo, or relating to Milton where he was the top scorer although a D. He wasn't the top scorer at Harvard, even among the D corps. Also I haven't heard before that Mcally's defensive game was all that hopeless. In an interview he said he was very aware that it needed to improve, and he was working on it.
Also I wonder about Schroeder's work ethic being criticized after his latest season of play. That was the knock two years ago. I'm wondering if Pronman hasn't really updated his knowledge of our prospects in some cases.
It did say "best defensemen", and even though he didn't lead Harvard in points by D, i've read elsewhere that he was the main reason as to why their PP was so awesome, so best d-man may not be a stretch. I also think his defensive play isn't nearly as bad as they make it sound.
I would recommend segmenting the rows a little bit, either by separating D and forwards or by separating levels of play like:
NHL:
AHL:
CHL:
College:
Europe:
Blergh. That Pronman prospect review is pretty crap. Schroeder didn't have much of a problem with losing battles last season — I don't know where he got that idea from. Low ceiling for Lack? Based on what?
he didn't go .975 for the season like other NHL starter have in the AHL.
But seriously how does someone who is listed as a having starting goalie in the NHL fall behind guys listed as upsides of 3rd and 4th liners and 2nd pairing Dmen?
I would recommend segmenting the rows a little bit, either by separating D and forwards or by separating levels of play like:
NHL:
AHL:
CHL:
College:
Europe:
I'll try to think of something to split it up better. Thanks for the feedback.
Tömmernes scored an overtime goal today (his first of the season) in a 7-6 win for Frölunda over Modo, real nice shot top corner.
Also sweet was his acceleration to join that rush. His assist was good too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis
Blergh. That Pronman prospect review is pretty crap. Schroeder didn't have much of a problem with losing battles last season — I don't know where he got that idea from. Low ceiling for Lack? Based on what?
As with any list, you should take it with a grain of salt. For me at least, i take handfuls of sea salt with Pronman's lists.
I don't know about this list. Grenier should not be making any top 10 (I'm looking at you too HF), and Westerholm should not be making any top 15 list. I will be surprised if either of these players get a contract in the next 2 years.
Also, I don't think Schroeder's work ethic is in question based on this most recent season. If anything, its what helped him transform his overall game so he could win those board battles and gain good position on the backcheck.
It did say "best defensemen", and even though he didn't lead Harvard in points by D, i've read elsewhere that he was the main reason as to why their PP was so awesome, so best d-man may not be a stretch. I also think his defensive play isn't nearly as bad as they make it sound.
You're right about "best defenseman" . . . wonder how I missed that! Thanks for pointing it out.
Whether McNally actually was Harvard's best defenseman last season is highly arguable, since junior Danny Biega had the best plus-minus on the team, played the most minutes, was the leading scorer on the D (second highest ppg D in the NCAA), was named first-team All American, etc. His ECAC Best Defensive Defenseman award, combined with his amazing 1.06 ppg (McNally's was .82), speaks to his supremacy at both ends of the rink.
I am a huge McNally fan, but it's important to see things as they are. In that regard, Biega's ppg as a freshman was .28, and as a sophomore it was .88 . . . so McNally's .82 as a freshman is way ahead of Biega at the same stage.
McNally and Biega will be back this coming season to man the points on one of the best PPs in the NCAA. It will be Biega's final season, and I imagine that he will again have the go-to trigger man job, while McNally again has the main responsibility for not giving up short-handed goals. At least this was the division of labour I read about last year, either in the Crimson or on Go Harvard. Things could change, however, and in any case, after his sophomore season is finished, McNally will almost certainly have the major blueline scoring duties.
I would recommend segmenting the rows a little bit, either by separating D and forwards or by separating levels of play like:
NHL:
AHL:
CHL:
College:
Europe:
I also think this is awesome. And I think it would be a great idea to separate the players by their levels.
As with any list, you should take it with a grain of salt. For me at least, i take handfuls of sea salt with Pronman's lists.
Can you expand on this feebster? To me, Pronman is polarizing. There is a clear emphasis placed on abilities with the puck. Be it puck protection or stickhandling. You can see it when rating guys like Jurco and Collberg.
But these guys dropped in the draft for a reason. It's that beyond their skill with the puck, there's more improvement required compared to other more rounded prospects. So while it's nice to have that high-upside potential, the difficulty in reaching it isn't factored in IMO.
Considering the Canucks have moved away from drafting pure skill first, this list is not that surprising to me. I figured it to be littered with DET, CHI and MIN picks, and it was. These teams have a high skill level among their crop. It will still come down to who will make a better pro though... so we'll see.
Can you expand on this feebster? To me, Pronman is polarizing.
I don't trust them, simply put. What separates him from an avid HF poster? Take a read at his methods. The reports are based seeing "most of the prospects at least once", through video scouting, and the significant portion is based on "talking to scouts and NHL execs". Who are these people he is talking to? How can he have watched each of the prospects for every team in the league when some of the leagues don't even have video (prep, HS)? How can he legitimately judge a prospect, well 100s in this case, on one viewing and hearsay? Then he claims he uses advanced stats to back up his assessments. How does he derive Corsi/Fenwick for junior leagues that don't track that or its derivative stats? These are amongst the several questions i wonder when i read these lists and rankings. At least you know Craig Button has seen guys, been at the rinks and will rank guys he's seen. At least you know Bobby Mac is just going by rankings submitted by NHL scouts, rather than inputting his judgement into it. For this guy, I'm just not sure.
Let's take a look at the Canucks list. You say he emphasizes puck skills and a lot of people have mentioned that on the main boards too. Then how is Gaunce #2? Fair is fair, Gaunce is not a slick stick handler and he even notes that in "The Bad". So then why is Rodin ranked below him? Rodin is sublime with the puck at times, has the puck on a string and could probably stickhandle in a box around Gaunce. Thus, I continue to be befuddled with just how he ranks these players.
Pronman's top 100 prospects. The Canucks have Jensen at 88... And that's it.
Some obvious comparisons between taking Rodin vs. Tatar, and Erixon/Despres/Palmieri over Schroeder will occur. As the Canucks had a chance to take said players. Frankly, I'm surprised Schroeder isn't listed given Pronman's preference for skill... But meh.
I think it's ridiculous the amount of mental gymnastics you're using to try an equate the work Pronman does with the average HFBoarder. C'mon.
He's in the business of splitting hairs. All there is to it. It's nothing to get worked up about.
Mental gymnastics? I am far far removed from the first person to question his rankings and methods. On the prospects board, this has been ongoing for years. I believe threads have even had to be locked because of it.
No one is getting worked up? Since I was being asked to expand on my opinion, I answered. I simply believe these rankings should be taken with a fair amount of caution and from what I can see, I am not the only one who believes so, but to each their own.
I don't trust them, simply put. What separates him from an avid HF poster? Take a read at his methods. The reports are based seeing "most of the prospects at least once", through video scouting, and the significant portion is based on "talking to scouts and NHL execs". Who are these people he is talking to? How can he have watched each of the prospects for every team in the league when some of the leagues don't even have video (prep, HS)? How can he legitimately judge a prospect, well 100s in this case, on one viewing and hearsay?
I think he joins his criteria to those of NHL scouts/execs. And where their are similarities between prospect evaluations, he uses his own methodology to pick one over the other. For instance, CP values puck skills and puck protection. Two things DET is known to draft in their prospects. So if Jensen and say Jurco rank similarly among scouts, CP will obviously weight puck skills/stickhandling to differentiate between the two. Hence, Jurco is much higher on the list.
The point about watching prospects is sound. In this case, I think CP just defers to the scout, more of than not.
Quote:
Then he claims he uses advanced stats to back up his assessments. How does he derive Corsi/Fenwick for junior leagues that don't track that or its derivative stats? These are amongst the several questions i wonder when i read these lists and rankings. At least you know Craig Button has seen guys, been at the rinks and will rank guys he's seen. At least you know Bobby Mac is just going by rankings submitted by NHL scouts, rather than inputting his judgement into it. For this guy, I'm just not sure.
Very fair points all.
Quote:
Let's take a look at the Canucks list. You say he emphasizes puck skills and a lot of people have mentioned that on the main boards too. Then how is Gaunce #2? Fair is fair, Gaunce is not a slick stick handler and he even notes that in "The Bad". So then why is Rodin ranked below him? Rodin is sublime with the puck at times, has the puck on a string and could probably stickhandle in a box around Gaunce. Thus, I continue to be befuddled with just how he ranks these players.
Also my thinking. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm surprised Schroeder doesn't get more love from CP... The two things he is banking on is pure skill and hockey IQ. Without those traits, there's no way he gets taken in the 1st round. What's especially puzzling is that you have a guy like Grimaldi, who is even shorter, who also relies on his skill and smarts, ranked 36...?? It ceases to make sense at that point.
Based on CP's criteria, guys like Schroeder and Rodin should be overvalued. With guys like Gaunce being undervalued. But you are right when you say that this doesn't happen. So you have to wonder...
In the past, I've always liked that I could go to CP's site and at least get a snapshot of perhaps the most skilled prospects around the league. That seems less and less the case these days.
