2003 Top 6 VS 2005 Top 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

Letang fan 58

No More Fleury
May 12, 2004
5,814
1
Canada
The Macho Man said:
How do you compare the cream of each draft class? Which elite 6 is better?

Fleury
Staal
Horton
Zherdev
Vanek
Michalek

---------
VS
---------

Crosby
Johnson
Pouliot
Ryan
Brule
Kopitar

There are 2 Phaneuf, and Suter that didnt make the top 6 that would pretty easily now that could possibly make the 2003 draft better just not quite as high end as Crosby.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
I'd take the 2003.
It seems to me there were about 5 potential franchise players, possibly more (Fleury, Zherdev, Staal, Horton, Phaneuf) and another group of future allstars (Michalek, Vanek, Suter...).

The 2006 is really a one man draft. Johnson is logically 2nd, but he may not have been a top 5 pick in 2003.
Outside these two, I'm not sold on the possible franchise players this year.
 

turnbuckle*

Guest
Phaneuf was not part of the equation - he was not a top six pick. Obviously 2003 was a better and deeper draft, but that wasn't the question here.

Crosby >> Staal
Johnson > Horton
Pouliot < Fleury
Ryan = Vanek
Brule < Zherdev
Kopitar >> Michalek

Five arrows versus two for the 2005 class if you match them up this way. I think it's fairly close, but Crosby gives 2005 a definite edge in the top six.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,526
France
turnbuckle said:
Phaneuf was not part of the equation - he was not a top six pick. Obviously 2003 was a better and deeper draft, but that wasn't the question here.

Crosby >> Staal
Johnson > Horton
Pouliot < Fleury
Ryan = Vanek
Brule < Zherdev
Kopitar >> Michalek

Five arrows versus two for the 2005 class if you match them up this way. I think it's fairly close, but Crosby gives 2005 a definite edge in the top six.
Or you can turn it this way :
Crosby >> Fleury
Staal>Johnson
Horton>>Pouliot
Zherdev>>Ryan
Vanek>Brule
Michalek>Kopitar
7 arrows to 2 for the 2003 draft.
 

projexns

Matchups Matter
Mar 5, 2002
2,450
1
Forsling, OK
Visit site
If the draft were held today:

1 - Crosby ('05)
2 - Zherdev ('03)
3 - Horton ('03)
4 - Fleury ('03)
5 - Staal ('03)
6 - Johnson ('05)
7 - Ryan ('05)
8 - Kopitar ('05)
9 - Vanek ('03)
10- Brule ('05)
11- Pouliot ('05)
12- Michalek ('03)
 

helicecopter

Registered User
Mar 8, 2003
8,242
0
give me higher shots
Visit site
projexns said:
If the draft were held today:

1 - Crosby ('05)
2 - Zherdev ('03)
3 - Horton ('03)
4 - Fleury ('03)
5 - Staal ('03)
6 - Johnson ('05)
7 - Ryan ('05)
8 - Kopitar ('05)
9 - Vanek ('03)
10- Brule ('05)
11- Pouliot ('05)
12- Michalek ('03)
Uh?? What is Horton doing at #3? (two spots ahead of Staal for example)
 

TeamPlayer

Registered User
Jan 11, 2003
373
0
helicecopter said:
Uh?? What is Horton doing at #3? (two spots ahead of Staal for example)

I Agree with Horton at #3..... Horton was dominating during the stretch before his Injury..... Definately deserves to be there.
 

Jason MacIsaac

Registered User
Jan 13, 2004
22,221
5,936
Halifax, NS
turnbuckle said:
Phaneuf was not part of the equation - he was not a top six pick. Obviously 2003 was a better and deeper draft, but that wasn't the question here.

Crosby >> Staal
Johnson > Horton
Pouliot < Fleury
Ryan = Vanek
Brule < Zherdev
Kopitar >> Michalek

Five arrows versus two for the 2005 class if you match them up this way. I think it's fairly close, but Crosby gives 2005 a definite edge in the top six.
The top 10 for 2003 absolutly kills the top 10 for 2005, it isn't even close. Here is how I would compare it at the moment.

Crosby > Staal
Johnson < Phaneuf
Pouliot < Zherdev
Ryan < Horton
Kopitar < Vanek
Price < Fleury
Staal < Suter
Brule < Carter
O'Marra < Getzlaf
Skille < Michalek (Even with the knee problems)
Bourdon < Colburn

9 to 1 in terms of 2003. The farther I go down, the uglier this list gets.
 

Letang fan 58

No More Fleury
May 12, 2004
5,814
1
Canada
projexns said:
If the draft were held today:

1 - Crosby ('05)
2 - Zherdev ('03)
3 - Horton ('03)
4 - Fleury ('03)
5 - Staal ('03)
6 - Johnson ('05)
7 - Ryan ('05)
8 - Kopitar ('05)
9 - Vanek ('03)
10- Brule ('05)
11- Pouliot ('05)
12- Michalek ('03)

real order looking back at 2003 included
1 crosby
2 phaneuf
3 zherdev
4 fleury
5 johnson
6 stall
7 horton
8 vanek
9 brule
10 ryan
11 suter
12kopitar
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,718
274
North Bay
phaneuf_fan_3 said:
real order looking back at 2003 included
1 crosby
2 phaneuf
3 zherdev
4 fleury
5 johnson
6 stall
7 horton
8 vanek
9 brule
10 ryan
11 suter
12kopitar
I can see your a Phaneuf fan, but Dion 9 spots ahead of Suter? Not a chance.
 

Garp

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
773
82
Here
In that case, give 2 years to 2005 corp and then compare

I see more super star potential in the 2005 top 6
 

Rowley Birkin

Registered User
Oct 31, 2004
10,529
3,739
I would say 2003 wins

1. Crosby
2. Staal
3. Zherdev
4. Fleury
5. Vanek
6. Brule
7. Johnson
8. Pouliot
9. Horton
10. Kopitar
11. Ryan
12. Michalek

2-7 is very close though, as is 8-11. And who knows, Crosby may not even be #1 in two years time. 2003 was just a scary good draft year.
 

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
Not much credit is given to the 2005 class, the way I see it is how was the top players in 2003 compared at the time they were drafted to the 2005 players today? let's see:

Fleury - Was hyped as the next Brodeur.
Staal - Was compared to Joe Nieuwendyk during the draft time.
Horton - He was compared to Shanahan and Guerin I remember.
Vanek - He was a bloom/bust type of prospect and his top potential was Hossa.
Zherdev - He was compared to Kovalchuk by some and to Kovalev by others.
Michalek - Bobby Holik with better skating.

Let's look at the 2005 players mentioned in this thread:

Crosby - Supposed to be the Next 1 (Wayne/Mario).
Johnson - Compared to Chris Chelios.
Pouliot - I've watched him play and he's more like Heatley in my opinion.
Ryan - Rick Nash and John LeClair.
Kopitar - Pretty much same situation as Vanek in 2003.
Brule - Peca with a better shot.

Now that we look at the comparisons, can we honestly say the 2003 top flight players are really better? of course a lot of us say they're better because we've seen what they've done, sadly we hav'nt given the 2005 players a chance to prove themselves, who knows, maybe the 2005 group might be better then the 2003, I think the 2005 group is a lot like the 2003 during their draft year, maybe guys like Zherdev and Staal were a little better then the rest but because Crosby is in the mix I tend to say the 2005 group is very close when you think about it, in my opinion I think this is as good as a tie.
 

turnbuckle*

Guest
Jason MacIsaac said:
The top 10 for 2003 absolutly kills the top 10 for 2005, it isn't even close. Here is how I would compare it at the moment.

Crosby > Staal
Johnson < Phaneuf
Pouliot < Zherdev
Ryan < Horton
Kopitar < Vanek
Price < Fleury
Staal < Suter
Brule < Carter
O'Marra < Getzlaf
Skille < Michalek (Even with the knee problems)
Bourdon < Colburn

9 to 1 in terms of 2003. The farther I go down, the uglier this list gets.

It was not a question of the top ten - and if you did count the top ten, or top 20, I would no doubt favour the 2003 class. As I stated earlier, that was not the question.

However, to be fairer (I hate when I do that):

Crosby>>Staal (sorry but he's at least >> better)
Johnson = Zherdev (I'd rather have JJ on my team, Euro lovers will differ)
Ryan = Horton (Ryan will be the bigger NHL sniper IMO, but not as gritty)
Kopitar = Vanek (talent vs. talent)
Brule < Fleury (close tho)
Pouliot > Michalek

Still 3-1. Could be 2-1. I'll take Sid and co.

I don't see how you could prefer the top six of 2003, unless you just can't help but include Phaneuf, Carter, etc, even tho that was not the comparison asked for.
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
The way I see it, If you match up the players taken in the top 6 of the 2003 draft, with the players who are supposed to be the top 6 in this years draft, I'd probably take 2005.

But as another poster pointed out, obviously the 2003 draft kills this years after that. The depth of that draft is proving to be even more insane then people envisioned.
 

Birko19

Registered User
Aug 13, 2002
11,189
3
Hamilton, Ont
Visit site
Brock said:
The way I see it, If you match up the players taken in the top 6 of the 2003 draft, with the players who are supposed to be the top 6 in this years draft, I'd probably take 2005.

But as another poster pointed out, obviously the 2003 draft kills this years after that. The depth of that draft is proving to be even more insane then people envisioned.

Yes, depth wise the 2003 is one of the deepest drafts I've seen, there was guys being picked in the 2nd round but could be good mid/late first rounders, but I believe the original post only dealt with the following players mentioned, therefore the 2005 might get the nod potential wise since Crosby is on their list.
 

projexns

Matchups Matter
Mar 5, 2002
2,450
1
Forsling, OK
Visit site
Man, this is a tough crowd. The top four picks in the 2003 draft all stepped into the NHL in their draft year, and they didn't just sit on the bench and watch but made meaningful contributions to their teams. But that's yesterday's news, there's a new draft class to get excited about.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->