Draft 2006 vs 2005

[rollon]

Is the vintage 2006 better than the vintage 2005 (based on the 50 best prospects)?

For the 2006, i think that after the 15 first, the talent decreases considerably.

And 2007 will be it better than 2006 ?

Click to read more...

 

[J17 Vs Proclamation]

Is the vintage 2006 better than the vintage 2005 (based on the 50 best prospects)?

For the 2006, i think that after the 15 first, the talent decreases considerably.

And 2007 will be it better than 2006 ?

Excluding Crosby, i think the 2006 has more talent in the top 15 or so but then is considerably weaker.

 

[VanW27]

I think the top 10-15 are quite good in this draft also but last year there was better d-men available (JJ, Staal, Lee, Bourdon, Parent) in that range while this year there are more forwards.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

This years forward crop is pretty damn good.

 

[Buffalo87]

How would you guys rank to top forwards in this draft?

 

[Jaded-Fan]

How would you guys rank to top forwards in this draft?

Been posted before, but worth posting again. Red Line's recent take on this year's draft:

As I have stated before, the 2006 draft class is not a deep one, and if you want to be certain of getting a true blue-chipper, you'll need to be picking in the top half of the first round. That said, we see several distinct tiers emerging among the top 15-17 prospects, and this is how we are handicapping the race as we prepare to head down the homestretch.

The top tier for RLR is a clear-cut grouping of three prospects — not two, as many believe. That group includes U.S. National Team powerhouse defenseman Erik Johnson, dynamic University of Minnesota center Phil Kessel, and North Dakota's Jonathan Toews, the best all-around forward in the whole derby. (Related item: Red Line's top 10 draft prospects)

The cutoff for the second tier is a little less obvious, but for my money it includes rugged Peterborough center Jordan Staal, slick and feisty Swedish forward Nicklas Backstrom, big and talented Everett center Peter Mueller, and sniping winger Jiri Tlusty, who has propelled himself into the mix with a late charge in the Czech ExtraLeague.

The third tier shows very little separation on our value board for the following six players: playmaking Drummondville center Derrick Brassard, dynamic Kladno winger Michael Frolik, super-productive Barrie center Bryan Little, huge and rapidly improving blue-line horse Nigel Williams, Minnesota high schooler Mike Forney (the rawest gem and darkhorse of the bunch), and gritty Des Moines workhorse Kyle Okposo

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/woodlief/2006-03-21-red-line-report_x.htm

 

[Chrisd]

I see about 20 really good players in this draft....

after that it will be a gamble...but the top 20 is not too shabby at all.

1st round should be decent. Not sure the depth will be that great though.

There won't the ovechkins and crosbys but overall it's a good crop in the 1st, good players will come out of here forsure.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Last year's draft had Crosby in a class by himself. After that, IMO, you had J. Johnson and Brule as players who were potential all-stars or even franchise players. From there, you had a handful of guys who could be elite goalies/No. 1 defencemen/first line forwards (Ryan, Pouliot, Kopitar) and then a lot of future decent No. 1 goalies, No. 2/3 defencemen or second line forwards. I'd have a hard time rating Pouliot as a future No. 1 forward as of right now. Others, like Staal and Bourdon, have elevated their play to the point where I could see them developing into No. 1 defencemen. Others, like Setoguchi, are in that no-man's land between first and second line projections.

I don't think there's a defenceman as good as Jack Johnson (although Erik Johnson will be a wonderful player) and I don't think there's a forward who I'd rate ahead of Brule (at least for all-round ability), let alone Crosby. I don't view the defensive depth as particularly strong, although there are a few with top-pairing potential. I think there are more forwards at this point in time who I'd say have the potential to be top line guys than there were last year.

But honestly, the NHL draft is a huge guessing game. Two years ago, everyone was saying Meszaros' potential is a top-pairing defenceman. Now, he's leading the league in plus/minus, quite an impressive feat for a rookie, regardless of what you think of the stat. He seems destined to be a No. 1 blue-liner.

 

[AgentNaslund*]

both years suck. NHL lacks talent comming up from 05 and 06 draft
I joke I joke. I believe the top 15 players in 06 are pretty good to draft but trails off after that?

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

Lots of good players guys... lots, you just have to be a good scout who believes they could develope a certain player well in a certain environment. Perfect example here: Michael Ryder, when drafted he struggled, until Claude Julien his junior coach had him on Hamilton, then coached him again in Montreal. How about Dion Phaneuf? Daryl Sutters brother coached him and most likely recommended him to daryl... i think there was no better way for Dion, it all depends.

There are many things to put into account. Now that being said.... just watch out because there are many good ones.

 

[Boston]

I think that 05 was better than 06. It was deeper and even a better first round.

 

[Gopher_Nut]

I don't think there's a defenceman as good as Jack Johnson (although Erik Johnson will be a wonderful player) and I don't think there's a forward who I'd rate ahead of Brule (at least for all-round ability), let alone Crosby. I don't view the defensive depth as particularly strong, although there are a few with top-pairing potential. I think there are more forwards at this point in time who I'd say have the potential to be top line guys than there were last year.

Maybe this is for a different thread? But I'm wondering what the opinions/differences are between Jack and Eric Johnson?

 

[Form and Substance]

The 2005 pool is much deeper and is the best draft of the last seven, eight years excluding 2003.

 

[MS]

Looking only at the first round 2005 and 2006 are very similar.

Somewhat better Euro group this year (2005 being the worst in recent memory). Better US group as well. WHL is a bit weaker. QMJHL doesn't have anyone on Crosby's level, obviously, but seems to have a bit more depth. OHL looks about the same.

I don't see how you can look at the two drafts and get much of a difference. 2005 dropped off pretty significantly after pick #12. 2006 will probably do the same.

 

[illogic]

Actually it seemed like there were plenty of good players in the second round of 2005.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I believe the top 15 players in 06 are pretty good to draft but trails off after that?

Is there any draft where this isn't true? Later picks are weaker than early ones, in general...

 

[NashisCash]

Looking only at the first round 2005 and 2006 are very similar.

Somewhat better Euro group this year (2005 being the worst in recent memory). Better US group as well. WHL is a bit weaker. QMJHL doesn't have anyone on Crosby's level, obviously, but seems to have a bit more depth. OHL looks about the same.

I don't see how you can look at the two drafts and get much of a difference. 2005 dropped off pretty significantly after pick #12. 2006 will probably do the same.

Not really...Bergfors, Raask, Cogliano, O'marra, Bourret, Lashoff, Oshie. I don't really know what you're talking about...

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

The 2005 pool is much deeper and is the best draft of the last seven, eight years excluding 2003.

Yeah Matt Pelech, Steve Downie, Sasha Pokuluk, and Jakub Kindl are all beauties selected in the first round.

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

MATT PELECH? you serious

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

to be honest though.. this draft seems like late 2nd round picks going in the 1st round... at pick 20 and up it gets pretty ugly.

 

[MS]

Not really...Bergfors, Raask, Cogliano, O'marra, Bourret, Lashoff, Oshie. I don't really know what you're talking about...

The top 12 all look great. Of the last 18 guys, there are about 5-7 guys who took off this year and look like gems, and a lot of pretty average prospects. Very similar 13-30 stretch as in the 'horrible' 2004 draft, which also has 6-7 excellent prospects and a bunch of question marks. And probably the same as will happen this year.

to be honest though.. this draft seems like late 2nd round picks going in the 1st round... at pick 20 and up it gets pretty ugly.

This is how it is every year except for 2003. Every draft has been poor compared to that one, which was a freak.

This draft looks to me to be better (substantially) than 2002 and 2004, and roughly equal to 2001 and 2005.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

The 2005 pool is much deeper and is the best draft of the last seven, eight years excluding 2003.

I'd take the 2001 pool over the 2005 pool anyday of the week. When you can get guys like Huet, Bochenski & Svatos in the 7th round, there's some decent depth there (not to mention Gerber was picked in the 8th). But 2005 is deeper than 2006 and I think its about 12-15 players deep this yr before a drop off then another one around 35ish.

 

[Form and Substance]

Yeah Matt Pelech, Steve Downie, Sasha Pokuluk, and Jakub Kindl are all beauties selected in the first round.

Pokulok and Pelech were surprise picks. Picks in the later rounds (Latendresse, Trukhno, etc...) certainly offset the shock of those picks. And I don't know what your problem with Downie and Kindl is, last I heard, Downie led Canada to a gold medal in the WJC and Kindl was a ppg defenseman. They seem to be doing well.

 

[Seph]

I'd take the 2001 pool over the 2005 pool anyday of the week. When you can get guys like Huet, Bochenski & Svatos in the 7th round, there's some decent depth there (not to mention Gerber was picked in the 8th). But 2005 is deeper than 2006 and I think its about 12-15 players deep this yr before a drop off then another one around 35ish.

Easy to say that in hindsight, but those guys weren't projected to be as good as they are now. It's a little early to say 2005 doesn't have any of those kinds of gems. It might surprise you.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Easy to say that in hindsight, but those guys weren't projected to be as good as they are now. It's a little early to say 2005 doesn't have any of those kinds of gems. It might surprise you.

Maybe but I was responding to someone saying that 2005 was the best draft in 7 or 8 yrs. If its a little too early to say 2005 doesn't have those kinds of gems then its a little too early to say the previous statement as well. Nonetheless, I look at 2005 and don't see the up and down depth of the 2001 draft.