I went off the board with Clarke. I think he's underrated by us.
I voted Stillman but I can get behind Foote here. I think there is a better case to be made for Foote than Holtz
.8 ppg in his D-1
.95 ppg in his draft year
1.22 ppg in D+1
8 points in his first 11 games with Bighamton then 9 in his next 13 games for 17 in 24 and .71 PPG in his pro debut
Plus a a goal and an assist in 6 games averaging 9:41 of ice with the big club
That's a pretty impressive resume to start a career with.
Thing with Foote and Stillman are that they're power forwards, which we sorely need. They may get more chances earlier because of that. Muk could be great, but is probably pushed down the lineup by Hughes and Smith, so will probably never be more than a 3rd paring with us, even if he deserves better.I considered Foote, Mukhamadullin, and Stillman based on the list. It was somewhat close, but I went with Foote. I see his upside as similar to Mukhamadullin in terms of potential impact, and ahead of Stillman for now. I also considered where they seem to be in their development which to me favored Foote who had a solid season all things considered compared to the other two, even if nobody had a normal season and it's a bit lesser of a consideration for this evaluation. Of course, Foote has the advantage of more playing views from me than the other two since he was with the organization and actually saw time in the NHL. For now, that's how I went. I don't claim to be much of a prospect prognosticator, however.
Yeah, but different leagues, and different ages.
Yeah, Holtz had a disappointing year. I do wonder, however, what the ceiling is with Foote, and if his speed will hold him back in the NHL. He may never make it past the 3rd line, while Holtz seems like top 2 lines or bust. It comes down to what you value more, ceiling or floor.Sure but with Foote there is steady and I would argue impressive progression that is not there with Holtz.
Holtz had meh WJC, did not improve from his draft year to his D+1 in the SEL and did nothing in Binghamton.
Yeah, Holtz had a disappointing year. I do wonder, however, what the ceiling is with Foote, and if his speed will hold him back in the NHL. He may never make it past the 3rd line, while Holtz seems like top 2 lines or bust. It comes down to what you value more, ceiling or floor.
Starting to regret my Holtz vote. Kid has tons of potential, but in a ranking it's hard to ignore how poor a season he had.
True, but it was a weird year. Holtz losing his center didn't help. Plus we've seen players recover from an off year.I think progression more valuable than the concepts of ceiling or floor?
So do you discount the guys that actually did perform well too? Do we say Foote's season shouldn't hold any value because it wasn't a real AHL season and more glorified scrimmages? I mean it has to cut both ways doesn't it?i wouldn't draw too many conclusions one way or the other on last season, for obvious reasons
I voted Stillman but I can get behind Foote here. I think there is a better case to be made for Foote than Holtz
.8 ppg in his D-1
.95 ppg in his draft year
1.22 ppg in D+1
8 points in his first 11 games with Bighamton then 9 in his next 13 games for 17 in 24 and .71 PPG in his pro debut
Plus a a goal and an assist in 6 games averaging 9:41 of ice with the big club
That's a pretty impressive resume to start a career with.
Yeah, 1.22 PPG in your D+ 1 in the WHL isn’t particularly good and with a November birthday Foote is old for his draft class. So he was 19 years old during that season too, but he was hampered by injuries, which is why he only played 27 games.Thing with Foote and Stillman are that they're power forwards, which we sorely need. They may get more chances earlier because of that. Muk could be great, but is probably pushed down the lineup by Hughes and Smith, so will probably never be more than a 3rd paring with us, even if he deserves better.
Yeah, 1.22 PPG in your D+ 1 in the WHL isn’t particularly good and with a November birthday Foote is old for his draft class. So he was 19 years old during that season too, but he was hampered by injuries, which is why he only played 27 games.
With a January birthday Holtz isn’t particularly young but it was his 18th year. Using Elite Prospects, I have Holtz ties with two other players at 22nd w/ his .45 PPG as an 18 or younger player in the SHL since 2000-01. (With 10 or more games played.)
What makes that disappointing of course is he’s also 20th on the list for his 2019-2020 season’s .46 PPG. And for players 17 or younger, he’s 5th since 2000-01 for that season (Fiala is 1st with .65 PPG). People certainly expected, or at least hoped, Holtz would notably build more on his 2019-20 season.
We’ve discussed his strong start before, him getting banged up at WJC and his second half swoon having extenuating circumstances. (You might have missed it but that happened.) I don’t think it matters that much, or more specifically, I personally don’t care. He’s signed and he’s going to playing in NA so his prospect days are largely academic at this point. What matters is the player who shows up in camp in few weeks.
I don’t particularly believe in strict rankings (or passionately care about them), I’m more of a tier gal, but I was only commenting on your comparison of Foote’s and Holtz’s D+1 numbers.ok...But not a single word of that helps ranking our prospects.
This is a real tough one for me between Foote, Clarke, and Mukh. I am going to go with Foote because of his size + shot combo, but I really want to pick Clarke here. He was insanely impressive in the AHL this past season, and I think both Foote and Clarke would have done even better if they had had a better center than Seney on their line.
Add Walsh. How did McCarthy get added before Walsh?
I don’t particularly believe in strict rankings (or passionately care about them), I’m more of a tier gal, but I was only commenting on your comparison of Foote’s and Holtz’s D+1 numbers.
Foote’s D+1 = not that good, but definitely injuries
Holtz D+1 = would have been very good if he was some rando lower pick but he was expected to do better because of draft pedigree and previous season (but maybe injuries)
I would give it to Holtz because I don’t see Foote as further along than him at 20. You compared their 2020-21 U20 WJC production but Holtz played at the U20 as a 17 year old, that was his 2nd tourney. And he ironically scored 5 points, 3G 2A, in 7 games, like Foote did at 19 but Holtz did it at 17.
Holtz had a disappointing season, I’m disappointed. This is my disappointed face. I still think it was a second half swoon with extenuating circumstances and he’s a better prospect than Foote. That said, if people like Foote more they should vote for him. I’m not the prospect police.
Stillman is such an unknown that he’s harder to argue against or for. It’s really a coin flip for me between Stillman and Foote but I went with Stillman.
Honestly yes, both at the prospect and NHL level. There were a few exceptional performances that rocketed a few guys up the list (Sharangovich, Smith) but IMO everyone else was treading water. I'm not sold on Zacha's breakout, for example. He needs to do it again before I buy in.So do you discount the guys that actually did perform well too? Do we say Foote's season shouldn't hold any value because it wasn't a real AHL season and more glorified scrimmages? I mean it has to cut both ways doesn't it?
If it does...Shouldn't everyone keep their spots from last year and we could just fit in the new picks?
So do you discount the guys that actually did perform well too? Do we say Foote's season shouldn't hold any value because it wasn't a real AHL season and more glorified scrimmages? I mean it has to cut both ways doesn't it?
If it does...Shouldn't everyone keep their spots from last year and we could just fit in the new picks?
I don’t particularly believe in strict rankings (or passionately care about them), I’m more of a tier gal, but I was only commenting on your comparison of Foote’s and Holtz’s D+1 numbers.
Foote’s D+1 = not that good, but definitely injuries
Holtz D+1 = would have been very good if he was some rando lower pick but he was expected to do better because of draft pedigree and previous season (but maybe injuries)
I would give it to Holtz because I don’t see Foote as further along than him at 20. You compared their 2020-21 U20 WJC production but Holtz played at the U20 as a 17 year old, that was his 2nd tourney. And he ironically scored 5 points, 3G 2A, in 7 games, like Foote did at 19 but Holtz did it at 17.
Holtz had a disappointing season, I’m disappointed. This is my disappointed face. I still think it was a second half swoon with extenuating circumstances and he’s a better prospect than Foote. That said, if people like Foote more they should vote for him. I’m not the prospect police.
Stillman is such an unknown that he’s harder to argue against or for. It’s really a coin flip for me between Stillman and Foote but I went with Stillman.