HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Article: HF Minnesota Wild prospects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-06-2011, 12:03 AM
  #76
crazy Kassian
The North Remembers
 
crazy Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,576
vCash: 500
can anyone comment on Jason Zucker? the stuff written about him is a good sign (versatile, hardworker) but I looking at his stats of 2010-2011 for Denver

GP: 40 G:23 A:22 PTS:45, 1 point behind Drew Shore with the same amount of goals. Not to mention Shore has a year on him and this was his first season in the WCHA, Shore's second.

More interesting is Beau Bennett who was in the same draft year and same age as Zucker producted 25 points in 37 games with 9 goals. There is a large gap between the two players' production and yet Shore is in some top 50 prospect lists including hockeysfuture and Bennett is in contention for Pittsburgh's best prospect next to Tangradi and Despres. Meanwhile Zucker is never talked about outside here, and is rated #5 on your prospect pool. And yes I realize you guys have a pretty damn good prospect pool at that. But I'm very curious as to why?

crazy Kassian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 02:11 AM
  #77
Randy BoBandy
Cheeseburger Party
 
Randy BoBandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hodgson View Post
can anyone comment on Jason Zucker? the stuff written about him is a good sign (versatile, hardworker) but I looking at his stats of 2010-2011 for Denver

GP: 40 G:23 A:22 PTS:45, 1 point behind Drew Shore with the same amount of goals. Not to mention Shore has a year on him and this was his first season in the WCHA, Shore's second.

More interesting is Beau Bennett who was in the same draft year and same age as Zucker producted 25 points in 37 games with 9 goals. There is a large gap between the two players' production and yet Shore is in some top 50 prospect lists including hockeysfuture and Bennett is in contention for Pittsburgh's best prospect next to Tangradi and Despres. Meanwhile Zucker is never talked about outside here, and is rated #5 on your prospect pool. And yes I realize you guys have a pretty damn good prospect pool at that. But I'm very curious as to why?
I always wonder this myself, but I'm kind of a homer for any good player I get to watch play my Dogs. He really has some potential though. He is a player you want to watch to see what kind of scoring opportunity he will create next. There is pretty tough competition in our prospect pool though with Granlund, Coyle, Brodin, and Scandella. I think we got a steal when we took the WCHA rookie of the year 59th overall.


Last edited by Randy BoBandy: 09-06-2011 at 02:21 AM.
Randy BoBandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:38 AM
  #78
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,551
vCash: 500
I watch a lot of WCHA hockey, much more than I view the NHL. In my personal (and yes, likely biased) opinion I think Zucker is every bit as good, if not better, than Jaden Schwartz. And many on HF see him as a top 20 prospect. I don't see it, I guess...

As for Bennett, how he can be rated as a 8C while Zucker is at a 7C is beyond me.

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 08:42 AM
  #79
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Zucker is great. However, he'd never have a chance to be rated better than Granlund. Coyle is very similar to Zucker (same draft, same league, both rookie of the year for their conference) but Coyle is a bit more NHL ready. Brodin has the potential to be a solid #1 D, and they're hard to come by. Scandella is ready to step into the NHL as a top-4 and possible top pairing guy.

Zucker's ranked 5th not because we're down on him, but because we're so high on the other four guys ahead of him. He looks like his ceiling will be a strong second line guy, who can do spot duties on the first line, but shouldn't be there for extended time. He should be able to play a grinding role, so even if his offense doesn't pan out, he'll still be able to make a third line.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 09:02 AM
  #80
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Zucker is great. However, he'd never have a chance to be rated better than Granlund. Coyle is very similar to Zucker (same draft, same league, both rookie of the year for their conference) but Coyle is a bit more NHL ready. Brodin has the potential to be a solid #1 D, and they're hard to come by. Scandella is ready to step into the NHL as a top-4 and possible top pairing guy.

Zucker's ranked 5th not because we're down on him, but because we're so high on the other four guys ahead of him. He looks like his ceiling will be a strong second line guy, who can do spot duties on the first line, but shouldn't be there for extended time. He should be able to play a grinding role, so even if his offense doesn't pan out, he'll still be able to make a third line.
i don't think people are upset based on where he ranks on our list but based on the general opinion of him from the writers, they overlook what he has done and what he continues to do and thats what is upsetting us who have watched him.

other prospects who have shown less and done less and get more love. i suppose being underrated isn't a bad thing but it grinds my gears when people assume because Wild drafted them they will suck no matter what. I swear if Zucker was drafted by anyone else he would be a 7.5b or something.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 09:52 AM
  #81
Up7Yours
Registered User
 
Up7Yours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,184
vCash: 50
Made a thread of Zucker in the prospects section.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...1#post36468341

Up7Yours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 12:20 PM
  #82
melinko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 3,745
vCash: 2551
Same thing happens at the WJC, hes just automatically pegged as a 3rd liner apparently. I think its a big reason why the US team was so poor last year.

This year I would be surprised if Blais doesn't have him getting atleast 2nd PP unit maybe 1st.

If he was drafted in the 1st round by any contending team there would be so much hype around him, he would probably make the top 50 list.

melinko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 12:23 PM
  #83
Up7Yours
Registered User
 
Up7Yours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,184
vCash: 50
Next stop, seeing him in the overrated prospects -thread. ''Wild fans are delusional''

Up7Yours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 12:27 PM
  #84
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Up7Yours View Post
Next stop, seeing him in the overrated prospects -thread. ''Wild fans are delusional''
You know it.

But when Beau freaking Bennett gets the sort of ranking he did and Zucker stays relatively low, - 'em, I'll say something. Granlund being at a 8.0B looks like an even bigger joke now if Bennett is at a 8.0C.

Our "writer" ranks by "readiness for NHL game" for his rankings. Interesting to see what Pittsburgh's criteria is. Getting a uniform standard would go a long way to making these rankings somewhat respectable.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2011, 01:32 PM
  #85
crazy Kassian
The North Remembers
 
crazy Kassian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,576
vCash: 500
yeah I would never have suspected those stats with the way Zucker has been ranked everywhere. If he was a first rounder he would definitely be hyped. Usually what I notice is that many players that have great stats but expectations are still tempered are because they have a lot of questions to their games. I haven't heard any of Zucker so far

crazy Kassian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 12:50 AM
  #86
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,315
vCash: 500
So I am probably going to get a warning but man, that thread just pissed me off.

It just seems the biggest homers get better grades.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 10:06 AM
  #87
Spawnisen
Believe.
 
Spawnisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
They are pretty much, for some reason, saying that Bennett is a better prospect because he has a small chance of becoming the better player.. umm what

Spawnisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 10:28 AM
  #88
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,617
vCash: 500
doug hamilton rated 8.5c aka higher ceiling then likes of Ganlund

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 11:39 AM
  #89
Generic User
Dynamic as they come
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
doug hamilton rated 8.5c aka higher ceiling then likes of Ganlund
Ugh. How do they figure that? This is my guess: East coast team? Check. Prospect on an annual playoff contender? Check. Ok let's give him a higher grade.

I don't get how they have Dougie projecting to be a great D in the NHL when he was basically a 4th forward for Niagara Falls last year. We don't even know if he can play defense.

Generic User is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2011, 11:49 AM
  #90
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,617
vCash: 500
he can play D, he was +35 team leading last year but yeah to sit here and hand out an 8.5 is stupid, i mean he hasn't proved anything yet while Granlund has done a massive amount to raise his value.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 08:22 AM
  #91
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,551
vCash: 500
Reading all these new rankings for each team is just puzzling. Seems every team is all over the map in terms of absolute homerism to some-what realism. Granted the Wild "writer" falls into the latter, I'm not sure why they even bother putting grades on these players if they're not going to be consistent across the board.

I'm as big of a UND homer as there is but Kristo at a 7.5C? Come on. Not to mention the sheer number of players that check in at a 8.0C makes Granlund's "8.0B" look like a bigger joke by the day.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:34 AM
  #92
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Reading all these new rankings for each team is just puzzling. Seems every team is all over the map in terms of absolute homerism to some-what realism. Granted the Wild "writer" falls into the latter, I'm not sure why they even bother putting grades on these players if they're not going to be consistent across the board.

I'm as big of a UND homer as there is but Kristo at a 7.5C? Come on. Not to mention the sheer number of players that check in at a 8.0C makes Granlund's "8.0B" look like a bigger joke by the day.
The thing that annoys me the most about HF's rating system is that 9s are basically not used. Granlund is pretty much the definition of a 9.0C. He has the potential to become a perennial All Star, but could fall two ranks from that and just be a second liner. Technically it's the same value as a 8.0B, (8.0*0.9=9.0*0.8=7.2) but it more accurately reflects his ceiling. Pretty much every draft generates at least one perennial All Star, but for every player who becomes that, there are 3 that have a chance, but fall short. That means that, on average, there should be 4 players scoring 9.0D or higher each draft.

In the same vein you have a player like Wellman, who could be a second liner in the NHL, but likely can't play bottom 6, getting rated 6.5C. I understand, there's a good chance he doesn't make it in the NHL, but the fact is he's either going to be a top 6 player (and therefore at least a 7) or not in the NHL. Think the ranking is good (6.5*0.8=5.2) and want to show that he's got a good chance of missing the NHL? Then rank him 7.5D (7.5*0.7=5.25). It's the same skill ranking, but actually reflects what he could become.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 09:45 AM
  #93
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,551
vCash: 500
Ya, that's a good point.

Looking at a few team rankings, I get the feeling a few different writers follow that type of logic. However the problem as I see it as the viewpoints of how to gauge the prospects are all over the map. Not to mention these writers don't actually watch the majority of these players enough to form any type of solid opinion. Which is a problem in of itself...

squidz for Wild writer!

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2011, 11:43 AM
  #94
Generic User
Dynamic as they come
 
Generic User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Country: United States
Posts: 6,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Pretty much every draft generates at least one perennial All Star, but for every player who becomes that, there are 3 that have a chance, but fall short. That means that, on average, there should be 4 players scoring 9.0D or higher each draft.

Generic User is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2011, 02:35 AM
  #95
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,315
vCash: 500
Look at San Jose's list and Minnesota's list.

Wha?

thestonedkoala 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 05:34 PM.

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.